|
Gianthogweed posted:Nice one. All the same I'm surprised the writers didn't catch this and do the math (maybe they did but didn't care). All he could have said was "they've been asleep for over 200 years" or something. This would have made it consistent with the original series without having to actually say that a eugenics war happened in the 20th Century.
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
No Wave posted:In this case, though, it may have worked out for the worse - there were hints that Khan was trusting Kirk. In the end, the characters end up creating the worst case scenario far beyond any predicted worst-case scenario - I mean at least tens of thousands of people must have died. It's amazing that everyone 100% glosses over this possibility. Up until the shot to Khan's back he very well might have been legitimately willing to work with Kirk to completion. Yes, he might be lying. Yes, he might have been falsifying the strength of his commitment to his cadre. We never get to see if that's the case. Khan is shot in the back BEFORE he is shown to act counter to Kirk and crew. It's entirely believable that everything up until this point would born out of a desire to see his cadre and himself safe. Once he's shot in the back, he is pressed to believe that it truly is him and his against everyone else, leading to him taking command of the Vengeance against the Enterprise. For all we know he might have turned to Kirk after the admiral was trounced and turned himself into custody in exchange for him and his people getting a fair hearing in the modern century. Instead, Kirk forces him into a situation where he has no choice but to use the tools at hand to try and grab his freedom. Khan is the Lucifer to Kirk's God, put in a scenario where the only way to win is to fall trying.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
The whole quarter-of-the-Earth thing has been handled fairly well in the EU Trek fiction - there was a three-book series covering his origins, the launch of the Botany Bay, and life on Ceti Alpha V - Khan was depicted as basically the biggest "behind the scenes" mastermind, fighting in a secret was in the shadows of society. Think of all the conspiracy fiction that has become popular, and imagine Khan as the best of the bad guys - acts of terrorism, viral outbreaks, even certain natural disasters, all part of the hidden war behind civilian society. Even their exile on the Botany Bay was covered - Khan and his group basically hijacked a military project and used the ship as their escape from the authorities.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:If the movie takes place in 2259, and Kahn was put into cryo-statis 300 years ago, then the Eugenics War took place in the 1950s? Am I missing something? Didn't the Eugenics War take place in the 1990s in the original series. Obviously this is also way off if you're comparing either timeline to our own, but at least the Original Series had the excuse of being aired before the 1990s so they could at least speculate that it may take place sometime in the near future. What was the line exactly: that he's 300 years old or that he's been in stasis for 300 years? Because the former would simply mean that he was born/created around the 1950's, not that the Eugenics War took place then.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Honestly I don't understand the whole pseudo-philosophical "I can't tell you what happened in my timeline because it would taint yours," BS Old Spock keeps bringing up in these movies. He already irreparably hosed up the timeline. Everything is unfolding differently now. Nothing he "predicts" holds much weight anymore anyway so he might as well tell all. I have major issues with it because Old Spock is dooming them to a lot of poo poo. Sure, nothing he knows politically is correct, and the technology is so bootstrapped because of the Narada that they'll probably be at Old Spock's level in 30 years. But poo poo like V'Ger? The Doomsday Machine? The Whale Probe? To say nothing of dangers like the Borg and Dominion. V'Ger is out there, it's coming in what, 14 years? What if Kirk and the gang are off cataloging gaseous anomalies or Boldly Going out in some other quadrant and Captain B Team and his crew on The Only Ship In The Sector can't figure it out? I do appreciate though that they at least addressed it. Same with there being a logical in universe explanation that Khan was found early because of the timeline changes instead of just letting it hang out in the wind and everyone would be debating it forever.  : "Why don't they just call Old Spock and ask him?" would be heard over and over otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Astroman posted:I have major issues with it because Old Spock is dooming them to a lot of poo poo. Sure, nothing he knows politically is correct, and the technology is so bootstrapped because of the Narada that they'll probably be at Old Spock's level in 30 years. In the comic V'gar is mentioned as being destroyed by Nero.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:In the comic V'gar is mentioned as being destroyed by Nero. Just like that? What the heck this is so awful
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
I just got back from seeing it and while I thought it was okay I feel like the movie would have been much better and more cohesive if they stuck to Robocop and Section 31 being the bad guys and setting up a third movie with Khan. It just feels like the third act is so rushed and Cumberbatch's Khan very wasted I guess like move the reveal toward the end of the movie and then have all the Kirk dying/Spock's revenge in the next one Dick Williams fucked around with this message at 05:41 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
Remember that Khan was supposed to have blonde hair and blue eyes in Space Seed, and the script originally referred to him as an ayrian but the actor dropped out and they went to their backup, Ricardo Montalbán.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Remember that Khan was supposed to have blonde hair and blue eyes in Space Seed, and the script originally referred to him as an ayrian but the actor dropped out and they went to their backup, Ricardo Montalbán. What's your point? Again, outcomes matter - once you've cast a nonwhite person in that role, casting white is retrogression and whitewashing. I know racial politics are rough in America, but I guarantee you they're rougher from the "nonwhite" side.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:31
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What's your point? So because their first choice didn't work and they with with an alternate they are racist? Is battlestar galactica full of man hating women because Starbuck was a woman? Racist because Tigh was white? Is anyone racist for recasting characters in remakes? Who gives a gently caress, jesus christ. Stop yelling racism when it's not blatant racism. Stop yelling whitewashing when it's due to people dropping out of the cast. It's not intentional, stop treating it like it is.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:So because their first choice didn't work and they with with an alternate they are racist? Is battlestar galactica full of man hating women because Starbuck was a woman? Racist because Tigh was white? Is anyone racist for recasting characters in remakes? Intent is not a necessary component of racism. This is textbook whitewashing, and "oh well, we totally didn't mean for it to be" isn't an excuse, and you know it because you keep twisting yourself into knots in order to justify this. If they had cast Alice Eve as Uhura or Chris Pine as Sulu, would you be making the same arguments? Edit: I really want to preserve "Stop yelling racism when it's not blatant racism." for the record, since it's the most stultifyingly gently caress-stupid thing I've ever seen on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 06:57
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What's your point? Good thing there were never any white Englishmen in India, intermarrying with the locals.
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Good thing there were never any white Englishmen in India, intermarrying with the locals. Good thing Khan was never portrayed as nonwhit--oh poo poo, wait a second The ability to contort a canon explanation does not speak to the production-level issues here.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:03
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Good thing Khan was never portrayed as nonwhit--oh poo poo, wait a second Why aren't you pissed that they made Carol Marcus English all of a sudden?
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Intent is not a necessary component of racism. This is textbook whitewashing, and "oh well, we totally didn't mean for it to be" isn't an excuse, and you know it because you keep twisting yourself into knots in order to justify this. It should have been intentional racism used the wrong word. By your rules, ever casting a person of color as a different race is racism, ever casting someone as the different gender is sexism, and there is absolutely no room for artistic license or recasting, everything has to be the same as it ever was.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
Hyperriker posted:Just like that? Oh, it's much worse than "Nero blew up V'ger"
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Why aren't you pissed that they made Carol Marcus English all of a sudden? Because white Americans have never been systemically marginalized by Hollywood, unlike people of color. 7thBatallion posted:It should have been intentional racism used the wrong word. By your rules, ever casting a person of color as a different race is racism, ever casting someone as the different gender is sexism, and there is absolutely no room for artistic license or recasting, everything has to be the same as it ever was. Certainly not, because these things aren't neutral. Changing white men to women of color is a progressive choice, changing women of color (or men of color) to white men is a regressive choice, given reality and history. I hate to quote io9 here, but it seems most emblematic of your view: "I don’t know. I think it’s nice that in this day and age, a white male can still be cast as an Indian played by a Mexican. White men really have come a long way!" Only, you know, they're being sarcastic. It helps that I never insinuated that this was out of an intentional desire to gently caress over people of color, only that in a racist society, defaulting to whiteness is itself a political statement.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:16
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Because white Americans have never been systemically marginalized by Hollywood, unlike people of color. So should they have delayed or canceled the movie because Del Toro dropped out? Should they have rewritten the script or said "gently caress it, we don't have a Latino, movie is over. Go home everybody?" Should they have spent months recasting, tweaking the script and making it so it was the exact same? What if they made Khan black? Or Portuguese? Or Korean? Would that be better than white? Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 07:22 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:19
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:So should they have delayed or canceled the movie because Del Toro dropped out? Should they have rewritten the script or said "gently caress it, we don't have a Latino, movie is over. Go home everybody" As has been stated repeatedly, Benicio del Toro is neither the beginning nor the end of "nonwhite actors," and it's loving disgusting for you to pretend otherwise. If "Khan" had just been John Harrison, this would've passed unremarked upon, because the status quo is so loving awful that STID is actually progressive but for the whitewashing bullshit. Edit: In response to your edit, considering the lovely state of Hollywood, yes. That is not a comment on the acceptability of cross-casting so much as it is a statement on how loving difficult it is to get "other than white" cast. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 07:24 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:22
|
|
The Warszawa posted:As has been stated repeatedly, Benicio del Toro is neither the beginning nor the end of "nonwhite actors," and it's loving disgusting for you to pretend otherwise. Which races are acceptable to play Khan? Would Terrence Howard have been alright? How about Wes Studi?
|
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
Ho Chi Mint posted:Which races are acceptable to play Khan? Would Terrence Howard have been alright? How about Wes Studi? "Good" and "better than just going white" are not synonymous. If you're asking whether they would be better, then yes. If you're asking whether they would be good, then that's a different question entirely.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:"Good" and "better than just going white" are not synonymous. If you're asking whether they would be better, then yes. If you're asking whether they would be good, then that's a different question entirely. So what if Cumberbatch just rocked the audition? Should they have gone with a lesser actor because he's not white?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
What if Chris Pine had rocked the audition for Sulu?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:32
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:So what if Cumberbatch just rocked the audition? Should they have gone with a lesser actor because he's not white? What if Alice Eve had rocked the audition for Uhura? At what point do you think that people of color, being systemically marginalized (insofar as you even acknowledge that this has occurred), should be able to say "wait a loving second here"? Considering how incidental Khan qua Khan was to the movie, even just renaming the character would've worked. The racial politics of STID, aside from this bullshit, are actually sane. Your false dichotomy notwithstanding (and that's a huge if), casting is so subjective that "lesser" and "greater" actors seem to be decided by who "fits the part," which always just so happens to favor white actors (see, e.g., the reaction to Donald Glover wanting to audition for Spider-Man; Michael B. Jordan being up for the Human Torch, Idris Elba playing Heimdall in Thor and how people flipped out about that). In reality, Olmos, Naveen Andrews, Hrithik Roshan, Ajay Devgan, or Aamir Khan would've kicked the poo poo out of Cumberbatch in terms of playing Khan. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 07:39 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:37
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:What if Chris Pine had rocked the audition for Sulu? I'd love to see the cast mixed up. Uhura in the captains seat, Kirk at Con, Spock at Comm, Scotty at Science, Chekov at Nav and so on. Switch the names around, and if they kicked rear end, I'd watch the he'll out of it. It's not at all traditional to Trek, the names make no sense, and it's completely different from what anyone expects. Yeah, I'd love to see that. Now I'm thinking of TOS Uhura in the captains chair and wondering why that never happened. Kilo147 fucked around with this message at 07:41 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
I get that this might be an alien thing for you, but imagine this: You're between eight and ten years old and you're not white. You like spaceships and poo poo, but everyone in charge seems to be white and you're starting to notice that people who are like you are the ones getting put into the back of cop cars, not driving them, and kids are starting to tell you that no, you can't be captain, because duh, captains are white. You see Wrath of Khan, and suddenly there's this guy who is also not white, possessing agency and answering to no gringo captain, but taking charge of his own destiny. Sure, he's the bad guy, but it keeps you glued to your seat because, hey, Khan got to command his own ship. Thirteen years later, some rear end in a top hat decides that what sci-fi really needs is another white guy. 7thBatallion posted:Yeah, I'd love to see that. Now I'm thinking of TOS Uhura in the captains chair and wondering why that never happened. Because Uhura is a black woman. Your desire to see things "mixed up" "different from what anyone expects" reflects the depth to which racial politics have affected media. But the question was "What if Chris Pine had rocked the audition for Sulu" - should a white dude play Uhura? If so, should that be balanced out? How monochromatic should a cast be in 2013? The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 07:46 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Suppose this "Heck yeah, mix everything up, anything goes" attitude (which seems like biting a bullet to dodge the consequences of your previous argument) results in a cast of mostly established Hollywood actors, who are statistically mostly white. White Kirk, white Uhura, white Sulu, white Spock, white Scotty, tan Chekov, white Bones. Let's say this hypothetical cast all knocked their auditions out of the park. Is it okay to go full speed ahead with that? When you don't pay specific attention to including minorities, they tend to be passed over. That's just the reality on the ground right now when it comes to casting and marketing. Indifference doesn't generally produce a representative sample of the population, it produces the status quo.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:52
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Because Uhura is a black woman. Your desire to see things "mixed up" "different from what anyone expects" reflects the depth to which racial politics have affected media. Sulu got his own ship, Uhura had enough experience in diplomacy and combat negotiations, but never got a ship. That bothers me. Diplomatic corps my rear end. And it's more because Roddenberry thought women belonged in the kitchen. He was a chauvinistic pig who thought women in the future belonged in miniskirts.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Suppose this "Heck yeah, mix everything up, anything goes" attitude (which seems like biting a bullet to dodge the consequences of your previous argument) results in a cast of mostly established Hollywood actors, who are statistically mostly white. White Kirk, white Uhura, white Sulu, white Spock, white Scotty, tan Chekov, white Bones. Let's say this hypothetical cast all knocked their auditions out of the park. Is it okay to go full speed ahead with that? Just to add onto this, the reason that defaulting to establishment produces the status quo is, at least in part, because of structural marginalization of anyone who doesn't fit into the status quo. See, e.g., why black and Hispanic actors go through phases of playing "Gang Member #3". Basically, if you thought they were ever going to consider black Kirk or Hispanic Spock, I want you to share the drugs you're on. Racebending, with very few exceptions, runs in one direction.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 07:55
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:Suppose this "Heck yeah, mix everything up, anything goes" attitude (which seems like biting a bullet to dodge the consequences of your previous argument) results in a cast of mostly established Hollywood actors, who are statistically mostly white. White Kirk, white Uhura, white Sulu, white Spock, white Scotty, tan Chekov, white Bones. Let's say this hypothetical cast all knocked their auditions out of the park. Is it okay to go full speed ahead with that? I was going with the original cast. Which was primarily Caucasian. If they wanted to recast say, Bones as Latino with Spanish influence, keep Sulu, Scotty and Chekov and Uhura as is while accenting Scott's heritage. Possibly make Kirk have South American roots down the line, maybe Portuguese, and gently caress if I know with Spock. What could you do with him? Hes not even human. Quinto did fine, IMO, bit maybe Tibetan? It would fit Vulcan philosophy. Actually, that kinda works. I'd still watch it, so long as the cast was strong and the acting on par with this or '09
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:07
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:I was going with the original cast. Which was primarily Caucasian. If they wanted to recast say, Bones as Latino with Spanish influence, keep Sulu, Scotty and Chekov and Uhura as is while accenting Scott's heritage. Possibly make Kirk have South American roots down the line, maybe Portuguese, and gently caress if I know with Spock. What could you do with him? Hes not even human. Quinto did fine, IMO, bit maybe Tibetan? It would fit Vulcan philosophy. Do you understand why this is never going to happen in the present Hollywood system and why that is a bad thing? And why regression (in whitewashing roles of color) is also bad?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:09
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Do you understand why this is never going to happen in the present Hollywood system and why that is a bad thing? And why regression (in whitewashing roles of color) is also bad? Yeah, whitewashing is bad, but changing Khan to white makes him far more terrifying, and IMO works better. I don't consider that whitewashing. I don't consider changing Colonel Tigh to white as whitewashing because his character in Galactica was loving perfect. No one on the planet could top that. I would loving love to see my Portuguese Kirk. Firstly because it would add something new to the character, secondly it would piss off the hardcore Trek fans Now if they hired a Sikh to play Khan, had him wear the traditional headwrap, and made him look like the old painting of Khan from space Seed, that too would be acceptable. It wouldn't bring back the horrors of WWII and the total brutality of Nazi Germany that a white Khan does, but it would be a tribute to the original episode and probably work better assuming that the actor could portray the horrors of the Eugenics War summed up in a single character.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:21
|
|
|
Before this lovefest gets even further I'd like to point out, yet again, that Ricardo Montalban was white. Shatner-Kirk was about as tanned as his Khan was in Wrath. At what point are you just quibbling over etymology of surnames? VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 08:27 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Before this lovefest gets even further I'd like to point out that Ricardo Montalban was white. Shatner-Kirk was about as tan as his Khan was in Wrath. Hispanic counts as white?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Hispanic counts as white? Waspy white as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
api call girl posted:Before this lovefest gets even further I'd like to point out that Ricardo Montalban was white. Shatner-Kirk was about as tan as his Khan was in Wrath. Probably at the point where an American movie operates in American context with regards to race, and Mexicans aren't white in America even when they are in Mexico. It's hosed up, but that's on the white Americans who wanted to keep light-skinned mestizo and European-descended Mexicans out of white schools. Race is a social construct, which means it's highly contingent on the society in which the circumstances arise. The ability to pass does not invalidate one's identity or the imposition of racial context on an individual. 7thBatallion posted:Yeah, whitewashing is bad, but changing Khan to white makes him far more terrifying, and IMO works better. I don't consider that whitewashing. I don't consider changing Colonel Tigh to white as whitewashing because his character in Galactica was loving perfect. No one on the planet could top that. "I don't consider it to be whitewashing because it was too good" isn't really a rebuttal so much as it is a justification for whitewashing, with which I disagree. (I do, however, think that there're ways to mitigate this - for example, making Adama Hispanic and the general diversification of the cast helped). Why does "white Khan" work better? I also don't take your point of "white Khan" being more terrifying than "nonwhite Khan," since the latter is a much more profound statement about genetically engineered superhumans than your usual "oh master race white people" bullshit, especially if the viewer isn't white. Again, "I would love to see Portuguese Kirk" doesn't negate the reality of the situation, which is that that's not even on the table. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:39 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Probably at the point where an American movie operates in American context with regards to race, and Mexicans aren't white in America even when they are in Mexico. It's hosed up, but that's on the white Americans who wanted to keep light-skinned mestizo and European-descended Mexicans out of white schools. Woah, woah, woah. So if Mexicans are white than casting Cumberbatch isn't whitewashing, by your own account! :iamafag: But seriously, that's why Mexicans are considered Hispanic? Holy poo poo that's horrible.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Woah, woah, woah. That's pretty much the root of the whole "Hispanic/Latino" umbrella identity writ large, actually. This is why casting Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts as a Spaniard couple in The Impossible, a Spanish film directed by a Spaniard, is more complicated than it might appear on its face. Welcome to the United States, where class has been replaced with caste. Understanding how hosed up racial politics and marginalization are is a pretty important part of getting why whitewashing is so pernicious. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:50 on May 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:55 |
|
|
I think a lot of these complaints would have just vanished if they had just used half the elements of the plot, gotten rid of the whole human augment stuff, and had Cumberbatch as a surgically altered Klingon. Again, that would have been as much a call back to TOS elements and maybe even done something like given us room to build up the JJTrek universe more. "John Harrison" is a deep-cover operative with complex issues going on. He's a valuable soldier for the Klingons, but he's aware that they view him as beneath them because he's weaker and different and must always redouble his efforts to prove his value. Unlike most other Klingons, he's able to pass as human more easily with extensive genetic and physical alterations. Around humans, he feels superior, almost superhuman compared to most: He finally knows how it feels to be his brothers. It could create a situation where he, while working both the Federation and Klingons against one another, his true loyalties originally lie with the Klingons until he decides they've mocked him long enough and he decides to bring both great powers down out of anger.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 09:28
|
|