|
Question was not directed to me, but I've got an answer: He's got in-built geek popularity, makes women swoon and has an accent that make him come off as foreign to to American audiences. Not to get too deep into the whole casting thing, it's a problem with the NuTrek franchise that it's not a full reboot, so being able to actually address a lot of issues that concern modern audiences about the franchise is a little difficult because there's the whole, "Oh, Nero didn't change EVERYTHING!" argument, that anything that happened before the Kelvin is still part of TOS-through-Enterprise continuity and canon. Had this been a total reboot the chances are Chekov would have been cast as a woman, Bones might have been a non-white character, etc. Khan's origins could have likely been changed, too, if they still wanted a white guy to play the character. Example: If you're growing genetic supermen for a secret war between nations, you'd likely engineer a few to be able to pass as inconspicuous for foreign infiltration. India could have produced a slew of non-Indian augments, giving them Indian-sounding names to reinforce loyalty to their home county, and the Botany Bay could have been full of such characters: Asian, Hispanic, Black, White, Arab, etc.: All given Indian names. Explains a white guy named Khan... However, that's not part of the established pre-Kelvin history of the character, so even throwing in that line doesn't work with the fanbase.
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:No, it's exactly as stupid. Not from the perspective of "(one of) the problems with whitewashing is that it deprives actors of color of opportunity." Apollodorus posted:Honestly, in my view it's at least as bad because it's literally lumping everyone who is not white into a "non-white" group, further perpetuating the false and racist "white/nonwhite" dichotomy. Now I realize that such a dichotomy is very real in many places (USA, France) but there is no reason a movie, whose world a good director/writer/producer/cinematographer/casting director/etc. should be able to control completely, needs to reflect the harsh realities of modern society, ESPECIALLY when it is a science fiction film. Brecht said that art is not a mirror to reflect society, but rather a hammer with which to shape it--cross-casting a brown person as another kind of brown person is an instance of beating society further into the ground, not building it up. On the other hand, pan-ethnic solidarity among people of color is pretty much the only way white supremacist structures are going to get challenged. Giving live-action media an "out" for this (and implicitly, as this is what's going to happen, an excuse to cast white as opposed to color). If they don't even let color play color, when the gently caress are we supposed to get opportunity? Short of scalping Paramount.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Not from the perspective of "(one of) the problems with whitewashing is that it deprives actors of color of opportunity." My perspective is "pick your battles".
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:38
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:My perspective is "pick your battles". So if depriving nonwhite actors of the chance to play an iconic nonwhite character is not a battle worth fighting, what exactly is?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:"Strength of performance" is not a valid answer. Why not? A movie is supposed to entertain, and if Cumberbatch delivered an entertaining performance, then the casting was a success.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Oh god not this debate again...
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:So if depriving nonwhite actors of the chance to play an iconic nonwhite character is not a battle worth fighting, what exactly is? His non-whiteness is nonsensical and gratuitous, I'm not saying that a character has to be Bobby Seale to be non-gratuitous but again, like I say, I don't consider Space Rod Stewart to be this landmark character for that particular reason. Doesn't make a lick of difference whether the character is played by some Bollywood hunk or by a floppy haired TV star. Unless you're making an argument that recasting the role as a white makes Starfleet's Osama Bin Laden automatically sympathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 22:53
|
|
jivjov posted:Why not? A movie is supposed to entertain, and if Cumberbatch delivered an entertaining performance, then the casting was a success. It's not acceptable because while Cumberbatch delivered a competent performance, it really wasn't enough of a knock-it-out-of-the-park act to really justify a "holy poo poo I don't care what color he is, GIVE HIM THE ROLE" sort of situation. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:His non-whiteness is nonsensical and gratuitous Explain this one.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
jivjov posted:Why not? A movie is supposed to entertain, and if Cumberbatch delivered an entertaining performance, then the casting was a success. Lots of people enjoyed Birth of a Nation, doesn't mean it's not crazy racist. Art is political. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:His non-whiteness is nonsensical and gratuitous, I'm not saying that a character has to be Bobby Seale to be non-gratuitous but again, like I say, I don't consider Space Rod Stewart to be this landmark character for that particular reason. Doesn't make a lick of difference whether the character is played by some Bollywood hunk or by a floppy haired TV star. Okay well, the thing is that letting the people with institutional control (producers, casting, etc.) decide when marginalized identities are "sensical" and "essential" is going to perpetuate the loving over of actors of color, even leaving aside that the whole concept is based of "white = default" that is itself hosed up and loaded with racist norms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:It's not acceptable because while Cumberbatch delivered a competent performance, it really wasn't enough of a knock-it-out-of-the-park act to really justify a "holy poo poo I don't care what color he is, GIVE HIM THE ROLE" sort of situation. I found his acting far, FAR above "competent". He was genuinely chilling in scenes, and played a genetically engineered superman at least as good as Ricardo ever did, and at times even better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:Explain this one. Okay:  The Warszawa posted:Okay well, the thing is that letting the people with institutional control (producers, casting, etc.) decide when marginalized identities are "sensical" and "essential" is going to perpetuate the loving over of actors of color, even leaving aside that the whole concept is based of "white = default" that is itself hosed up and loaded with racist norms. I addressed that and deemed it inconsequential - Shemar Moore as Khan would change nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Maybe I am missing something, I thought the movie was excellent and Khan was really well played. Why does it matter what race the actor was? Honest question, not trying to troll. The actor put in a really good performance and the movie was highly entertaining. Is that not the entire point of the entrainment industry? I can name plenty of excellent actors from a wide variety of various ethnic and racial backgrounds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
mr. stefan posted:It's not acceptable because while Cumberbatch delivered a competent performance, it really wasn't enough of a knock-it-out-of-the-park act to really justify a "holy poo poo I don't care what color he is, GIVE HIM THE ROLE" sort of situation. This isn't really how casting works... like they don't sit down with Cumberbatch and say "Film this movie and submit a completed cut to us for review. If you really knock it out of the park then we will cast you over a person of color." Khan is hardly an iconic ethnic role and nothing about the role requires or suggests any particular ethnicity. Yeah this is another Hollywood movie about White People fighting White People but there's nothing especially notable about this role that makes it awful a minority wasn't cast in the part. You straightup said on the previous page that a pale person should not have been cast over a brown person (in your words "someone who could look the part") and that acting range or ability is not something to consider here (  ), when there is nothing about the film or franchise that demands such attention to race. It's a really "beep boop" approach to combating racism that completely ignores context or common sense.
Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
Just saw Into Darkness with my girlfriend. She has never seen Star Trek (other than the 2009 movie) and knows nothing about it other than what you pick up from osmosis just by being part of American culture. So she knows the following facts basically: 1) The ship is called Enterprise and the captain is named Kirk 2) The captain is the bald guy from X-Men So at the scene where he gets blasted with radiation she turns to me and says "ahhh so that's why all his hair falls out! Radiation poisoning!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
Never.More posted:Maybe I am missing something, I thought the movie was excellent and Khan was really well played. Why does it matter what race the actor was? Honest question, not trying to troll. The actor put in a really good performance and the movie was highly entertaining. Is that not the entire point of the entrainment industry? I can name plenty of excellent actors from a wide variety of various ethnic and racial backgrounds. Khan as a non-white guy is an inversion of the stereotypical 'aryan superman'. Historically it's important because broadcast to a white 60's American audience the message is 1. Eugenics is bad and 2. there is no reason to think that a superman would end up looking anything like you. Casting a white English guy discards all of the subtlety in that message and he just becomes a future-nazi/British imperialist. They didn't want to make a film about the ethics and outcomes of eugenics and race. That's cool. But it does reduce the character 'Khan' to a hacked-in callback to old-trek when the film would have worked perfectly well if he was just an original character.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
GuyDudeBroMan posted:So at the scene where he gets blasted with radiation she turns to me and says "ahhh so that's why all his hair falls out! Radiation poisoning!" What did she say after he died?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:They didn't want to make a film about the ethics and outcomes of eugenics and race. That's cool. But it does reduce the character 'Khan' to a hacked-in callback to old-trek when the film would have worked perfectly well if he was just an original character. Exactly, except the film has more to say about Old Trek than that specific character. e: actually, why am I even having this discussion? After Earth is brown as all get out and it's in theaters right now. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD fucked around with this message at 01:01 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What purpose is served by naming the character Khan? So JJ Abrams can break the fourth wall and go "Hey guys! I'm a nerd too, just like you guys! Get ready for your cue, and we're all gonna shout KHAAAANNN! right on schedule!" It's really a pointless inclusion. They could have made Cumberbatch anybody else, and hinted at, or introduced Khan in some subtle way, and it would have been a way stronger film for it. That's my major problem with Into Darkness, it's a film that pretty much requires previous knowledge of the franchise in the most superficial level to work. Imagine you'd never seen or heard of Trek, and was left staring at the screen in amazement and wonder at the Khan reveal - it leaves a real sour taste in the mouth. quote:You straightup said on the previous page that a pale person should not have been cast over a brown person (in your words "someone who could look the part") and that acting range or ability is not something to consider here (), when there is nothing about the film or franchise that demands such attention to race. It's a really "beep boop" approach to combating racism that completely ignores context or common sense. So going off the current Hollywood landscape, are you saying that white people make the best actors? Because if it's all about "the best actor for the part," and white actors have consistently dominated Hollywood and cinema for quite some time now, at the expense of whitewashing other roles, you're pretty much saying that white people are somehow, magically, the best actors. Here's a thought - maybe 1) there's plenty of non-white actors just as strong as a lot of leading men and women these days and 2) Perhaps if you took a chance and gave these sort of roles to non-white actors, they'd become, I don't know, better actors through experience? Jefferoo fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Yes, that sure is a person of color. Still not seeing what you mean. (If you're about to argue that Montalbán "looks white," you should probably check yourself and google Morcecai Wyatt Johnson the NAACP's Walter White.) quote:I addressed that and deemed it inconsequential - Shemar Moore as Khan would change nothing. Based on what? It's not just what is said in plot, but what is communicated by visuals and metatext.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
My wife has never seen any non Abrams move Trek and grasped the character of Khan quite well so I think it probably worked well without knowing the references.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
All in all, though, if we get a Trek 2 didn't pull a larger new audience, so it's possible a Trek 3 might see a reduction down to a $120M budget, focus more on people than effects, etc. Maybe we'll see a massive Showtime revival of the series with the same actors. Honestly, I'd actually prefer the latter at this point. I'd rather watch see this crew do stuff in an episodic format where we can catch our breath and don't have to 'hypercharge' everything, build up a new mythology about the universe, take some chances and have some nuances that a 2hr movie won't allow for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
They included Khan because it would be pointless NOT to include Khan. He was a character of the week in one episode half a decade before the movies. Why did they use Khan in TWoK? Why not an original character with a different motivation? Can we argue about how contrived the plot of TWoK is? A planet went supernova? An advanced starship specifically scouting out planetoids missed the fact that one of the planets was missing? They brought him back because Khan is a compelling character. He's TOS's only iconic villain. Star Trek's Magneto to its Professor Xavier. They used Khan here because he carries an implied threat to Kirk and his crew. Many, many people have heard of Khan whether or not they're Trekkies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:
I'm not saying that, though. I was responding to the specific challenge to justify why Benedict Cumberbatch was cast without using his acting ability, which is some kind of weird preemptive strawman that forces the other side to name superficial qualities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
People are getting way too caught up in the big shyamalan plot reveal mystery Lost twist(!!!), when the emphasis Cumberbatch places on his name in that line is an expression of that character's defiance. In one of the few places where the film doesn't over-rely on exposition, Khan is obviously altered to be white (In 'canonical' plot terms, he had to have had future Face/Off plastic surgery. He's also literally been assigned a false, Anglo-Saxon slave name - and you can get meta with the obvious real-life recasting). All of this is fairly clear without additional reams of exposition. Cumberbatch is a white dude playing a latino dude in brownface wearing whiteface. The cumulative effect is, as I've gone over earlier, to complicate notions of race while underlining the importance of class - because the character's class is indisputable. This is less Birth Of A Nation, and way more The Jazz Singer. It's like how King Kong remake opens with an Al Jolson song, and features Andy Serkis under ape makeup in a story of how poverty and destitution can turn anyone into a criminal - including lilly-white Ann Darrow. "But SMG, what if this wasn't intentional?" If it's intentional, then good. If it's unintentional, then I'm appropriating it. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:That's my major problem with Into Darkness, it's a film that pretty much requires previous knowledge of the franchise in the most superficial level to work. Imagine you'd never seen or heard of Trek, and was left staring at the screen in amazement and wonder at the Khan reveal - it leaves a real sour taste in the mouth. According to everyone I've seen it with who has no prior knowledge of Star Trek, no it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:People are getting way too caught up in the big shyamalan plot reveal mystery Lost twist(!!!), when the emphasis Cumberbatch places on his name in that line is an expression of that character's defiance. Goddamn you are the best poster in the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
korusan posted:According to everyone I've seen it with who has no prior knowledge of Star Trek, no it doesn't. I deliberately went into Into Darkness with zero spoilers. I had no idea Khan was coming. I've seen Wrath and TOS. When he revealed his name, it was great for me, a killer moment. Totally worth it to have avoided all Star Trek media for 2 years. I'm going to wager that if more people did NOT have Khan spoiled, they'd have enjoyed the film more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:(If you're about to argue that Montalbán "looks white," you should probably check yourself and google Morcecai Wyatt Johnson the NAACP's Walter White.) I'm about to argue that Montalban "looks stupid".
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Khan as a non-white guy is an inversion of the stereotypical 'aryan superman'. Historically it's important because broadcast to a white 60's American audience the message is 1. Eugenics is bad and 2. there is no reason to think that a superman would end up looking anything like you. Casting a white English guy discards all of the subtlety in that message and he just becomes a future-nazi/British imperialist. Ok, with that backstory it explains some of the posts in regards to this. As a "younger" Trek fan, none of that sub plot was there for me. Perhaps in the sixties things were different and the message you just indicated was much more impacting. I grew up on Star Trek and watched all the movies, shows, etc. Perhaps it was growing up in Texas, but the race of Khan's actor never played a role in the movies for me. Quite frankly, neither myself nor any of my fellow Star Trek fanatics ever remarked upon it once or even seriously considered it. It was about what Khan did, not the race of the individual portraying him. The message was that anyone attempting to consider themselves superior by breading alone was in the wrong and should be fought, etc. Fast forward to modern day, the message I received watching the movies as a kid came through load and clear for me with the movie as it was. I also refused to read up any spoilers so I could enjoy the movie, and it was excellent in that respect. The exact same sort of feelings were evoked (with a suitable modern twist) and the same message delivered in respect to Khan. The entire idea that made Star Trek so appealing (to me at least) was a better future where we put racial (quite literally) lines behind us and tried to look at people as individuals; not based on their race. The magic of Khan was not in who portrayed him (though both actors did a fantastic job); it was in the message those actors managed to portray. I think that is why I am so confused people would want to harp on the race of Khan's actor, when the underlining message was the exact same for me at least. Maybe I just cant appreciate what the sixties audience received, but as a "younger" Trek fanatic I certainly never considered the race of Khan's actor important. Never.More fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 07:40
|
|
|
In the 60s Roddenberry imagined some post racial utopia where of course people of the late 20th century wouldn't care about race for their genetically modified superman. With the benefit of hindsight of course Khan's genes would be tweaked to make him a white guy, regardless of the race of his birth parents. This assumes white political elites are the ones who control the technology behind Khan and his compatriots, not a stretch given the wealth such a project would require. Wouldn't Mitt Romney want to fund a perfect being that looked like him? Imagine the freak-outs on Fox News if our new genetic overlords did not resemble "traditional America." Which is a lot of words to explain away a casting decision that had nothing to do with the above To me, the more interesting question is this: if Khan doesn't have to be a person of color, do Kirk and McCoy need to be white? Does Spock?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:To me, the more interesting question is this: if Khan doesn't have to be a person of color, do Kirk and McCoy need to be white? Does Spock? Of course not, hence Tuvok.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Of course not, hence Tuvok. And yet, when it comes down to casting established characters, "race doesn't matter" seems to run in only one direction. Never.More posted:Ok, with that backstory it explains some of the posts in regards to this. As a "younger" Trek fan, none of that sub plot was there for me. Perhaps in the sixties things were different and the message you just indicated was much more impacting. I grew up on Star Trek and watched all the movies, shows, etc. Perhaps it was growing up in Texas, but the race of Khan's actor never played a role in the movies for me. Quite frankly, neither myself nor any of my fellow Star Trek fanatics ever remarked upon it once or even seriously considered it. It was about what Khan did, not the race of the individual portraying him. The message was that anyone attempting to consider themselves superior by breading alone was in the wrong and should be fought, etc. I'm not particularly old and I can't speak for other people of color (including you, if you're not white), but for me, being interested in sci-fi/genre was always kind of set against the reality that the worlds they were creating seemed to have no room for people who weren't white period, let alone people who were Hispanic. Star Trek was an exception to this, and Montalbán was the first time I'd seen another Latino playing a big, iconic role. The reason people are "harping on" is that the underlying message isn't just what the film is trying to communicate, but what it communicates by omission and revision as well as the politics of casting (and further marginalizing roles and actors of color). The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
I think it's interesting that we're having this debate. Trek 09 and STID have more background and supporting characters of color than I think we've ever seen in the Trek franchise. All working together seamlessly together. Forest for the trees, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I think it's interesting that we're having this debate. Trek 09 and STID have more background and supporting characters of color than I think we've ever seen in the Trek franchise. All working together seamlessly together. It was nice to recognise Kirk's weapons officer from the Kobayashi Maru test on the bridge, but really saying that a film presents a setting of racial cohesion while whitewashing ethnic characters out of the foreground of the production isn't really helpful. This argument's also interesting because it's Doctor Who new actor speculation time again. 11 versions of an alien who can regenerate into any form and yet it's always a white English man. Being a BBC production the English part can probably be forgiven, but it shows you that there's something wrong in television when a role that could go to literally anyone keeps going to white people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:57
|
|
|
Great_Gerbil posted:I think it's interesting that we're having this debate. Trek 09 and STID have more background and supporting characters of color than I think we've ever seen in the Trek franchise. All working together seamlessly together. Yes, you're missing the forest of "actual roles and characters" by focusing on the trees of "background characters with no real development or focus."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Kind of related to this but maybe not really, I really feel like they whiffed on giving Uhura an interesting job. On the TV series she was basically a phone operator, which made more sense in the 1960s but is just dumb now. It's clear they don't quite know how the hell to turn that into anything interesting. So she's a sort-of linguist who still pretty much sits at the radio or gets randomly pulled into some scenes. IT, cryptography, cyber-warfare, even military intelligence would be relatively organic expansions on Uhura's starting point from the TV show and would fill roles none of the other iconic characters directly do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:02
|
|
|
You could consider that that's what she's doing already, it just looks like glorified phone operator work because gently caress getting into the nitty gritty of computer janitoring on a movie. gently caress, I don't want to see it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
api call girl posted:You could consider that that's what she's doing already, it just looks like glorified phone operator work because gently caress getting into the nitty gritty of computer janitoring on a movie. gently caress, I don't want to see it. Well, it's not like I want to watch her run anti-virus software or reformat space hard drives. But it's clear (to me, anyway) that her role is underdeveloped and vague.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
How about a diplomat skilled in known languages and whatnot? Like, starships encounter races and civilizations all the time right? Why wouldn't they have a representative on board at all times? It'd incorporate some of her background and give her some kind of authority too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 00:48 |
|
|
Isn't that exactly what she did with the Klingons? I mean, 100%?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:57
|
|
