|
Geekboy posted:Isn't that exactly what she did with the Klingons? I mean, 100%? Pretty much and that's why I suggest it. Instead of her being a communications type officer, give her some official government backing and raise her profile and whatnot. Instead of her being a cog in the machine reporting to Kirk, have some conflict there where her interests and regulations are at odds with what Kirk wants to do.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
I loved the "You brought me because I could speak Klingon....let me speak Klingon" exchange. She actually got to go out and do something. (Its effectiveness was questionable, but I think she could have talked her way out of it had
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
If they ever decided to do a ballsy thing and end a summer blockbuster on some diplomatic standoff, it would probably end up being the biggest thing they could do with Uhura. They touched on that potential in Into Darkness, but it got shoved away pretty quickly and was never ever brought up again. But maybe they'll call back in a later movie where they try to make peace with the Klingons and Uhura is the one who has to weave through these alien customs and intricacies of language and syntax to make them understand that they want the same things. This would require them to write a nuanced scene and be very particular in the shooting and editing to create enough tension to pay off an entire movie, though, which could be done, but I don't really see Kurtman and Orci being the guys to write that sort of thing, or JJ being the type to really keep on refining the scene to the point where the simple exchange of words is brimming with danger. I'm not insulting JJ or anything here, let me be clear; I'm just saying his is a more shaggy, seat-of-your-pants style. But I'm pretty sure he's not directing another one of these, so I suppose that last part doesn't really matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Uhura has already bumped Bones from the traditional big three main characters of the series. Isn't that significant enough for now? Especially considering it's an ensemble cast and she's never going to be placed above Kirk and Spock, who are always going to be the two prominent characters in the series. Uhura, as a character, is in a pretty good spot right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted: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." I really feel like the whitewashing conversation has been done to death here. No one is changing anyone's mind. I'm completely neutral on the issue in this instance despite racism being one of my big bleeding-heart liberal causes. I can't fault them for picking the actor they wanted in the same way I can fault the producers of The Last Airbender for using an essentially all-white cast. Khan's character had been driven by menace and sheer force of being. Khan as a character is amorphous. He's a representation of perfection tainted by human flaws and arrogance. He mirrors imperfect humans striving to achieve perfection. What's important to Khan is his character, not his race. I find the whitewashing criticisms valid and I understand that people are justifiably upset about it. But, I also find it ironic that the most diverse depictions of the universe Star Trek has ever seen is being singled out here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted: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. Of course not, why would they need to be. It's important to further distinguish Roddenberry's 'post-racial utopia' as a decidedly acultural and assimilated one. It's "progress" lies not in an authentic acceptance of the other, but a purge of otherness from the Federation's liberal democracy. Danger fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Uhura has already bumped Bones from the traditional big three main characters of the series. Isn't that significant enough for now? Especially considering it's an ensemble cast and she's never going to be placed above Kirk and Spock, who are always going to be the two prominent characters in the series. Nope. Because if you liked the movie, you are such a goddamn racist you should probably move to Idaho and join the Ayrian Nation. Might as well get that swastika tattooed on your neck while you're at it, and rename your kid Goering. According to warsawza.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Uhura has already bumped Bones from the traditional big three main characters of the series. Isn't that significant enough for now? Especially considering it's an ensemble cast and she's never going to be placed above Kirk and Spock, who are always going to be the two prominent characters in the series. What do you mean by "significant enough for now"? How is Uhura bumping up to third/fourth lead supposed to wash away the shittiness of other conduct? 7thBatallion posted:Nope. Because if you liked the movie, you are such a goddamn racist you should probably move to Idaho and join the Ayrian Nation. Might as well get that swastika tattooed on your neck while you're at it, and rename your kid Goering. According to warsawza. Clearly, that's exactly what I'm saying. Jesus, I can appreciate that not everyone is going to agree with me, but at least pretend to read my posts. I liked the movie, but there's a difference between "liked" and "are willing to go to bat for the lovely aspects of it."
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:What do you mean by "significant enough for now"? How is Uhura bumping up to third/fourth lead supposed to wash away the shittiness of other conduct? I have zero issue with the Khan stuff for numerous reasons I've already stated in this thread multiple times. So in my personal opinion there is no 'shittiness' to wash away. What I was talking about were the ways being given to drastically change a character who is already in a superior and more prominent spot when compared to where she was in the original version of the series. Kirk and Spock are already the concrete duo that feature in classic Trek. Uhura is right behind them as the most prominent of the secondary characters. Drastically changing the character would provide very little return because there isn't anywhere further for her (or any of the rest of the cast) to go. Rounding out the character more would be great, though. This really applies to all the characters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I have zero issue with the Khan stuff for numerous reasons I've already stated in this thread multiple times. So in my personal opinion there is no 'shittiness' to wash away. Okay, then I guess I'm unclear what Uhura's bump up would be "significant enough" for or to whom it would be "significant enough," because the complaint about her role seems to be that her actual position is ill-defined, not that she's not prominent enough. I personally think that complaint is kind of nonsensical, because her role is centered on her being able to understand Romulan/Klingon/Bynar/whatever, which seems pretty clear and useful (especially in STID).
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
I want a race that can only communicate via dance and song. Therefore the crew have to learn all manner of dance, including alien. We could have a dance off and song off, a party dance and song, a peace dance and song, etc. Like, they beam down to the planet unaware, suddenly we get aliens out nowhere that sing like Jim Carrey in Cable Guy when he's in Medevil Times dancing like out of Step Up 3D. Kirk and Spock are totally outmatched until they observe and learn their ways and dance off and sing off back at them. We find out it is a misunderstanding. And then one alien falls in love with McCoy and expresses it via song and dance and McCoy responds back in a similar manner like a duet. Uhura teaches the crew as she is the linguists expert. Etc. Gatts fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Gatts posted:I want a race that can only communicate via dance and song. Therefore the crew have to learn all manner of dance, including alien. We could have a dance off and song off, a party dance and song, a peace dance and song, etc. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Hahaha gently caress yeah! *pulls out lighter, accidentally incites Holy War
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
Let's hope not-Abrams remakes Darmok for the third.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:11
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Okay, then I guess I'm unclear what Uhura's bump up would be "significant enough" for or to whom it would be "significant enough," because the complaint about her role seems to be that her actual position is ill-defined, not that she's not prominent enough. I personally think that complaint is kind of nonsensical, because her role is centered on her being able to understand Romulan/Klingon/Bynar/whatever, which seems pretty clear and useful (especially in STID). Some people seem to think the JJTrek Uhura still isn't quite important enough for their taste even though she's more developed now than she ever was prior to these films. I'm just saying that since Kirk/Spock is a permanent 1/2 in importance, making more and more changes to her character when her character already makes sense in the Star Trek context just doesn't hit me as being worthwhile. Cingulate posted:Let's hope not-Abrams remakes Darmok for the third. That would be the best thing ever. Not to mention the budget could be like a quarter of what it is now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:Some people seem to think the JJTrek Uhura still isn't quite important enough for their taste even though she's more developed now than she ever was prior to these films. I'm just saying that since Kirk/Spock is a permanent 1/2 in importance, making more and more changes to her character when her character already makes sense in the Star Trek context just doesn't hit me as being worthwhile. She's more in the forefront but the degree to which her character is more important is entirely due to her relationship with Spock, rather than her as a person in herself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:She's more in the forefront but the degree to which her character is more important is entirely due to her relationship with Spock, rather than her as a person in herself. What was McCoy's character? He never really had any episodes to himself back in TOS. The appeal of TOS's acting was always the interplay between the characters, and that means Spock-Kirk-McCoy. Sure, Kirk was the main and got solo acts, and sometimes Spock got a few, but that's it. Scotty, Chekov, Uhuru and Sulu never got their own episodes. TNG started the trend of single-character focused episodes. Since these are movies, we HAVE to have the multiple-character interactions, there's no time for one to have all the spotlight. Besides Kirk and Spock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:What was McCoy's character? He never really had any episodes to himself back in TOS. The appeal of TOS's acting was always the interplay between the characters, and that means Spock-Kirk-McCoy. McCoy's role on the show was to balance out Spock, since McCoy almost always made decisions that were more blatantly emotional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
They've understandably shifted much of that to Kirk in the films; in the show Kirk would seek the advice of both and McCoy would be the one bristling at Spock's logic and calling him a pointy eared calculator or whatever. In the film Kirk does that, presumably because it's an easier dynamic and they don't have 3 seasons of television to use as character-building. Establishing and then exploring the full Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic in a two hour film would be tough to do if you wanted to spend a significant portion of the runtime on anything else. You could argue that the Abrams characters are on the way to reaching that point, as Kirk has now learned the value of the logical, by-the-book way of doing things.
Tender Bender fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:They've understandably shifted much of that to Kirk in the films; in the show Kirk would seek the advice of both and McCoy would be the one bristling at Spock's logic and calling him a pointy eared calculator or whatever. In the film Kirk does that, presumably because it's an easier dynamic and they don't have 3 seasons of television to use as character-building. Establishing and then exploring the full Kirk-Spock-McCoy dynamic in a two hour film would be tough to do if you wanted to spend a significant portion of the runtime on anything else. You could argue that the Abrams characters are on the way to reaching that point, as Kirk has now learned the value of the logical, by-the-book way of doing things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:That would be the best thing ever. Not to mention the budget could be like a quarter of what it is now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I'd like to see EVERY director's take on this. ST13: A movie of vignettes, everyone with a famous or not so famous director (including of course Michael Bay) reimaging Darmok in their own style. Bay's version would probably look like Rush Hour in space.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Error 404 posted:Bay's version would probably look like Rush Hour in space. I'm pretty sure this world does not deserve Star Trek: Bad Boys 3. You may take that however you wish.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
Where the hell were all you guys complaining about white-washing when Idris Elba played Heimdall? Seriously, I give no single poo poo what skin color the actor has, as long as he can perform the roll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 05:40
|
|
|
Batham posted:Where the hell were all you guys complaining about white-washing when Idris Elba played Heimdall? Seriously, I give no single poo poo what skin color the actor has, as long as he can perform the roll. The question isn't whether this racially-charged imagery exists, but how you respond to it. By going 'how come there isn't a white history month?', you have chosen... poorly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Batham posted:Where the hell were all you guys complaining about white-washing when Idris Elba played Heimdall? On Stormfront, mostly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:On Stormfront, mostly. I wonder what Stormfront's rating of Into Darkness was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
If the casting of a minority for Khan in TOS was to make a point (superior individuals could be minorities too), then perhaps the casting of Khan in STID also had a point (terrorists can be white dudes too.) That is not a bad point to make. Was this their intention? I do not know. If Abrams' was so into white-washing, I do not think he would have promoted Uhura from being a glorified receptionist to replacing Bones as the third member of the triad. Anyway: I'm not a big fan of BC; I think he's a horrible Sherlock and wasn't good in this either. Benicio Del Toro is a much better actor and would have done a superb job (hell, have Guillermo Del Toro direct the film while you are at it and make it doubly awesome.) That he is a minority isn't relevant to me and I don't get the sense most feel this way; after I've told friends that he was the original choice for the role, they were excited not because he is a minority but because they also think BDT is the better actor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 07:50
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:If the casting of a minority for Khan in TOS was to make a point (superior individuals could be minorities too), then perhaps the casting of Khan in STID also had a point (terrorists can be white dudes too.) That is not a bad point to make. This is an interesting point. Knowing the film involved terrorist strikes, I had something of an internal groaning reaction when the second scene involved a mixed race minority couple who were apparently up to no good. Of course Khan was manipulating them but it still wasn't a strong first impression for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:This is an interesting point. Knowing the film involved terrorist strikes, I had something of an internal groaning reaction when the second scene involved a mixed race minority couple who were apparently up to no good. Of course Khan was manipulating them but it still wasn't a strong first impression for me. And to take that feeling further: If Khan was played by a full-Sikh actor, complete with cultural dress like a turban, the movie would have been SLAUGHTERED by the media and critics. Having a brown guy in a turban slam a gigantic spaceship into an American city? I actually feel a little disturbed just thinking about the complete shitstorm that would create. It could actually kill the Trek franchise again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 08:25
|
|
|
Batham posted:Where the hell were all you guys complaining about white-washing when Idris Elba played Heimdall? Seriously, I give no single poo poo what skin color the actor has, as long as he can perform the roll. Probably cool with it, since providing more opportunity for marginalized groups (such as people of color) is better than providing less opportunity, given the whole "legacy of racism in film and television." Nick Fury being black: good! Khan being white: bad! Tender Bender posted:This is an interesting point. Knowing the film involved terrorist strikes, I had something of an internal groaning reaction when the second scene involved a mixed race minority couple who were apparently up to no good. Of course Khan was manipulating them but it still wasn't a strong first impression for me. See, this is what gets me about "Khan being white had a point/was politically sensisitive:" you still had your goddamn second sequence suicide bomber be nonwhite. All the negative implications are right there! monster on a stick posted:Was this their intention? I do not know. If Abrams' was so into white-washing, I do not think he would have promoted Uhura from being a glorified receptionist to replacing Bones as the third member of the triad. Intent doesn't really matter (and honestly, I don't think that you could get away with whitewashing Uhura while so much of the original cast is still alive). Because of the whole institutional racism and racist structures thing, you can - without holding any personal animosity towards people of color yourself! - participate in and further racist ends (like the marginalization of people of color). The problem with this sort of thing is that there's no neutral position to take - you're either going to be in favor of maintaining or increasing the gains that people of color have made in the field or you're going to be apathetic or even opposed, both of which have the same effect of chipping away at those gains. Mister Roboto posted:And to take that feeling further: Yeah, but whitewashing was the worst possible cure for that, to the point where the cure was worse than the problem. I mean, you're right that it would've been a shitstorm, because film media and critics (predominantly white) are generally not going to raise a stir about anything but the most pervasive and egregious whitewashing because hey, who's complaining about a white person on screen? Er, I mean, "it's about who can perform the role," because clearly that's going to be a white person. If your script involves a Sikh character flying a spaceship into an American city and you realize that's a problem, why is the first and only solution "cast a white guy to play the Sikh" and not "maybe not have that as your set piece?" If you're going to change poo poo, I don't know why one is fungible and the other isn't. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:If your script involves a Sikh character flying a spaceship into an American city and you realize that's a problem, why is the first and only solution "cast a white guy to play the Sikh" and not "maybe not have that as your set piece?" If you're going to change poo poo, I don't know why one is fungible and the other isn't. In a perfect world, filmmakers shouldn't have to rewrite their films to accommodate race. Things should be race neutral, and "I don't give a crap what race they are as long as they can perform the role" should be the default attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 12:01
|
|
|
jivjov posted:In a perfect world, filmmakers shouldn't have to rewrite their films to accommodate race. Things should be race neutral, and "I don't give a crap what race they are as long as they can perform the role" should be the default attitude. Unfortunately, we live in the shadow of reality, where just saying those things doesn't actually erase the recorded history and ongoing marginalization of people of color. What you're proposing is declaring victory for racial equality without actually acknowledging the facts. It's like if you said "nobody should be poor," and refused to provide assistance because hey, didn't they hear you when you said that nobody should be poor? The world isn't race neutral, and pretending it is actually does more to further racism. Look what happened to Donald Glover when there were rumors that they might look at him for Spiderman. Your ideal, however, neglects that "race neutral" is dumb, not just because it will never (and should never) be cool to cast a white guy as Malcolm X but also because imposing "race neutrality" effectively attempts to ignore that race, however socially constructed it is, is real and has impacts on people. Race shouldn't disadvantage, but it shouldn't be erased, either. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:And to take that feeling further: Yup. How thrilled would you be to see "oh nice, a Sikh!" with a full beard and a ceremonial dagger in his boot or whatever and then find out ten minutes later he's fuckin' Space Osama Bin Laden. If they were to do something like the cool, morally ambiguous badass Nemo from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I could get behind but I don't know about insisting that you cast the guy who flies aircraft into buildings as a POC.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:28
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Unfortunately, we live in the shadow of reality, where just saying those things doesn't actually erase the recorded history and ongoing marginalization of people of color. What you're proposing is declaring victory for racial equality without actually acknowledging the facts. It's like if you said "nobody should be poor," and refused to provide assistance because hey, didn't they hear you when you said that nobody should be poor? I don't think that is what jivjov is saying at all. S/he is saying that moving forward we should be race neutral. I agree completely. You say we shouldn't erase the past where racism (and all the other -isms) existed. I agree with that too. The goal should always be a world where it doesn't matter and people no longer discriminate. Saying that people who believe the world should be race-neutral are supporters of "white-washing" is bullshit. Tender Bender posted:This is an interesting point. Knowing the film involved terrorist strikes, I had something of an internal groaning reaction when the second scene involved a mixed race minority couple who were apparently up to no good. Of course Khan was manipulating them but it still wasn't a strong first impression for me. I never thought of that until now, and honestly I still don't think that was the intent. The father was shown to be willing to die to save his child; that's a noble goal. It was pretty clear that Khan was pulling the strings and forcing him to do what he wouldn't have ever done otherwise. I thought he was portrayed sympathetically. Maybe because I know and am friends with a crapload of mixed race couples? HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yup. How thrilled would you be to see "oh nice, a Sikh!" with a full beard and a ceremonial dagger in his boot or whatever and then find out ten minutes later he's fuckin' Space Osama Bin Laden. If they were to do something like the cool, morally ambiguous badass Nemo from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I could get behind but I don't know about insisting that you cast the guy who flies aircraft into buildings as a POC. I still think it would have been interesting for this Khan's universe to have grown as a person due to his forced labor for Robocop, and turned out to be a good guy at the end. Or neutral. In that case I would have loved making Khan a badass Sikh. But purely as a terrorist? Hell no. Sikhs have enough problems with Operation Blue Star and poo poo like that. They don't need this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I still think it would have been interesting for this Khan's universe to have grown as a person due to his forced labor for Robocop, and turned out to be a good guy at the end. Or neutral. In that case I would have loved making Khan a badass Sikh. But purely as a terrorist? Hell no. Sikhs have enough problems with Operation Blue Star and poo poo like that. They don't need this. I agree, and I'm not actually a fan of the tack they took with the character anyway. However, I'm also not that interested in rewriting the script of STID.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I don't think that is what jivjov is saying at all. S/he is saying that moving forward we should be race neutral. I agree completely. You say we shouldn't erase the past where racism (and all the other -isms) existed. I agree with that too. The goal should always be a world where it doesn't matter and people no longer discriminate. This is exactly what I am saying jivjov is saying. The problem is that race-neutrality now just locks in the structural biases that already exist. It's letting one runner have a fifty yard head start and then deciding that we should judge the race by who crosses the finish line first, ignoring that there are landmines on the twenty-five yard line. I'm saying we shouldn't erase that race/identity has meaning today - being Latino or Sikh or anything else has significance to people, as do having characters that represent that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:06
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yup. How thrilled would you be to see "oh nice, a Sikh!" with a full beard and a ceremonial dagger in his boot or whatever and then find out ten minutes later he's fuckin' Space Osama Bin Laden. If they were to do something like the cool, morally ambiguous badass Nemo from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen I could get behind but I don't know about insisting that you cast the guy who flies aircraft into buildings as a POC. Making him a stereotypical idea of a terrorist would be terrible, but that still leaves a lot of room to make a full-on villain, not just a morally ambiguous/neutral character. A Khan who was a real Sikh and gloriously, awesomely full-on evil could be great so long as it didn't play into lovely stereotypes in the process.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:Making him a stereotypical idea of a terrorist would be terrible, but that still leaves a lot of room to make a full-on villain, not just a morally ambiguous/neutral character. Basically, if the Khan we got was "identifiably" Sikh I don't think we would've had many problems, because he was relatively sympathetic right up there to the end. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
I can only imagine how much more gravitas Kahn's lines would have had with an actual Indian actor delivering them. http://m.youtube.com/results?q=russell%20indian%20accent#/watch?v=setLfUYi8cc
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:46
|
|
