|
Not the best example but imagine if the actor that played Mola Ram in Temple of Doom was Khan. gently caress, imagine if it was played the same way.
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Sergi Lopez would have been the best Khan. (He played the step-father in Pan's Labyrinth.) He does romance/comedy roles too so obviously has a hell of a lot of range, so he could have done a charming/charismatic Khan in the beginning and then shown his true self as soon as he had the opportunity to kill Admiral Robocop.
monster on a stick fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
So are you saying that Khan, a textually Sikh character, should be played by only people of hispanic descent because the original actor was hispanic? Or is it "Well he's a minority so any minority will do, but it must be a minority"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted: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 not arguing to lock everything as it is now and say "welp, now we're race neutral!" I'm advocating actively working to place everyone on analogous levels, celebrate cultural heritage and differences (but not judge based on those differences), and then cast people in our entertainment properties as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:So are you saying that Khan, a textually Sikh character, should be played by only people of hispanic descent because the original actor was hispanic? Or is it "Well he's a minority so any minority will do, but it must be a minority"? No, I'm saying that an ethnically North Indian actor is best, a person of color who isn't a North Indian is better than nothing, and there's no excuse for casting white. I thought that was pretty obvious. jivjov posted:I'm not arguing to lock everything as it is now and say "welp, now we're race neutral!" I'm advocating actively working to place everyone on analogous levels, celebrate cultural heritage and differences (but not judge based on those differences), and then cast people in our entertainment properties as such. So we're in agreement that casting Cumberbatch was bad?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
This is so thoroughly abstracted from the film's actual and specific treatment of race that it's
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
Tender Bender posted:So are you saying that Khan, a textually Sikh character, should be played by only people of hispanic descent because the original actor was hispanic? Or is it "Well he's a minority so any minority will do, but it must be a minority"? No, because Lopez is an incredible actor. I think he would have brought more range to Khan other than a monotone "hello I am evil" performance like BC did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is so thoroughly abstracted from the film's actual and specific treatment of race that it's Only not really, because trying to abstract away the film's real world treatment of race (by participating in and arguably furthering the marginalization of people of color) in favor of exclusively considering its "textual" treatment of race is silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
I think it's fair to say the argument is trapped in a loop at this point,
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:This is so thoroughly abstracted from the film's actual and specific treatment of race that it's khhhhhhhhaaaAAAAANNNNNNNN!!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
I got this: maybe the answer is in the middle? Okay, now that that's out of the way, we can get back to talking about space ships shooting lasers. I never thought about it until someone brought it up, but why park the Enterprise underwater on Nibiru? What's wrong with sitting in orbit and beaming up Kirk & McCoy when they're out of site of the natives? I know, the real answer is "because special effects and tension." But what are the practical reasons for it? This is Star Trek.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:25
|
|
|
They mentioned some magnetic field making the transporters not work. Also: The Enterprise coming up out of the water looked really loving cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I must have missed/forgotten that line. It did look pretty awesome. You don't really get a good sense of scale of the ships when they're in space. They did a nice job of showing the size of the Enterprise in relation to the natives. It also helps put the size of the Vengeance into perspective when it dwarfs Enterprise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I must have missed/forgotten that line. We've been conditioned to ignore that poo poo at this point. Or at least I have. The techno-babble is necessary but wholly uninteresting to me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Geekboy posted:They mentioned some magnetic field making the transporters not work. Yeah, but nothing beats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdkCpnGMyGw That's "loving cool" with all capital letters and a bunch of exclamation points afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I got this: maybe the answer is in the middle? Wait, they call the planet with the aliens that see the Enterprise (in effect making humans "ancient aliens") Nibiru? That's brilliant. I was on the fence, but I have to see this movie now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I got this: maybe the answer is in the middle? There's a line about the transporters not working on that planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:I think it's fair to say the argument is trapped in a loop at this point, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QER_yqTcmjM
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:I got this: maybe the answer is in the middle? Also ignoring that a spaceship is built to hold air inside, not keep water out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Rudager posted:Also ignoring that a spaceship is built to hold air inside, not keep water out. It kept coming to mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RLOo6bchU (Sorry, this has probably popped up at least twice by now.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:30
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:There's a line about the transporters not working on that planet. I thought the transporters did work. Dont they use it to transport someone aboard as the ship moves out of the water (trying to avoid any spoilers)? Or I am not remembering correctly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:41
|
|
|
Never.More posted:I thought the transporters did work. Dont they use it to transport someone aboard as the ship moves out of the water (trying to avoid any spoilers)? Or I am not remembering correctly? They had to get right up on top of him with direct line of sight to get the transporter to lock on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:There's a line about the transporters not working on that planet. But with shuttles available, there's still no reason not to have the Enterprise in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:10
|
|
|
Looks like the bald bridge guy had cybernetic implants, so he wasn't a beginner Data. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Only not really, because trying to abstract away the film's real world treatment of race (by participating in and arguably furthering the marginalization of people of color) in favor of exclusively considering its "textual" treatment of race is silly. That would be silly, which is why I've taken broader contexts into account - like how the film opens with an Indiana Jones homage featuring a bunch of white-skinned aboriginal people. An alien dude in whiteface is practically the first thing you see! Is it paint, or is it his skin? And does it matter? Note how the plants are red, and you can see the indirect homage to Let This Be Your Last Battlefield. Color is arbitrary - but there is an obvious power dynamic in how this group and the Enterprise crew interact. You are attacking systemic racism when the filmmakers are obviously not trying and failing to be 'race-neutral.' This imagery is overt and confrontational. In same the same way that Ridley Scott insists Deckard is a replicant while Harrison Ford insists he's not, Into Darkness goes meta with creator and creation. Abrams publicly asserted that John Harrison is an all-new character whose race doesn't matter, but the character then defiantly announces, almost directly to the audience: "that's not my name. My name is Khan." Remember that this is a self-conscious reboot that is not only critical of Star Trek before 2009, but of the 2009 film as well. The superficial multiculturalism of previous entires is directly under fire, showing the liberal Star Trek crew eager to nuke a civilian population in the Space Mideast. "Huh, that's weird. This area is supposed to uninhibited. It must be a random patrol." As a sign of the film's respect for its audience, it's never spelt out that the Space CIA gave them bad intel out of incompetence or malice. It's never outright admitted that Kirk, gullibly, almost killed untold thousands of innocents. The audience is fooled too. Several fans earlier in the thread noted that the area was populated in the TV show, so the canon must have been changed. Folks totally missed that they were being lied to, because decades of technobabble have primed them to accept this exposition uncritically. The film also trusts you to understand that, while Pike is the better father figure for Kirk, he is not himself a great guy. Pike's admonishment that Kirk is 'playing God' contains the implicit message that the higher-ranked officers are not playing God - that they are God. This is directly tied to Pike's open and troubling disdain for 'primitives who have barely even invented the wheel.' And Pike's the good guy, representing the Federation at its best! Star Trek 2009 was a very Old-Testament film, in which the space-Jew vulcans suffer hardship and then dispense godly wrath. Into Darkness moves beyond that, into the New Testament. If Into Darkness doesn't have the same passionate authorial voice, it may be because Abrams is a Jewish director making a christological film. The creation conflicts with the creator, and both Pike and Marcus are killed. It's a pretty good movie. What your criticism misses is the point of Khan being a part of the Federation in this one. He's not just part of it but beneath it, deep inside it. So of course he's a placid white face with some uncanny and 'inhuman' otherness repressed within.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
To go on a little bit of a tangent - they're not just space-Jews that suffer hardship, but space-Jews that suffer hardship from a space Roman Imperialist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Remember that this is a self-conscious reboot that is not only critical of Star Trek before 2009, but of the 2009 film as well. The superficial multiculturalism of previous entires is directly under fire, showing the liberal Star Trek crew eager to nuke a civilian population in the Space Mideast. "Huh, that's weird. This area is supposed to uninhibited. It must be a random patrol." As a sign of the film's respect for its audience, it's never spelt out that the Space CIA gave them bad intel out of incompetence or malice. It's never outright admitted that Kirk, gullibly, almost killed untold thousands of innocents. Kirk obviously joins in the fight with gusto after Sherlock opens fire, but there were repeated efforts - efforts that could well have gotten Kirk back in the academy or in Starfleet Jail - to avoid dropping those missiles on Klingons. It is in turn these acts of conscience which derail the entire plan and (however indirectly) appear to prevent war. e: In other words, with the exception of Kirk - who accepts the judgment of his officers instead of whipping them into line - I don't think you could describe the 'liberal Star Trek crew' as being eager to nuke Klingons. Pretty much literally the opposite, although you COULD make this argument about Starfleet-in-general under Adm. Banzai. Nessus fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
I don't entirely agree with SMG's breakdown of the casting, but I like it better than most defenses by virtue of not sweeping the matter under the rug or asserting that Indian actors need to go back to Bollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I don't think you could describe the 'liberal Star Trek crew' as being eager to nuke Klingons. That's all accurate, but I'm talking about their willingness to rely on this questionable/shoddy/false intel in the first place. I'm also referring to how, despite eventually going for a diplomatic solution, the characters never realize that it wasn't 'just a random patrol'. They do their best to resolve the conflict, but (due to their trust in Starfleet) they're never fully aware of what is at stake. What makes this story interesting is that the characters all have the best intentions at heart, and still fall into these traps because of flaws in their ideology. Kirk aspires to be like Pike, but Pike himself is an inadequate role model.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Kirk aspires to be like Pike, but Pike himself is an inadequate role model. Star Trek: Like Pike DS9 had a lighthearted baseball episode. NuTrek will have a lighthearted basketball movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 03:05
|
|
|
Good analysis from SMG and Loch Nessus there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 04:48
|
|
|
Space Seed Khan was a pushover. McCoy had to teach him how to slit a throat properly. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Pope Mobile posted:Okay, now that that's out of the way, we can get back to talking about space ships shooting lasers. I never thought about it until someone brought it up, but why park the Enterprise underwater on Nibiru? What's wrong with sitting in orbit and beaming up Kirk & McCoy when they're out of site of the natives? I know, the real answer is "because special effects and tension." But what are the practical reasons for it? This is Star Trek. Since 2009 there's an implicit invitation for the old guard of Trek fans to make up their own technobabble explanations for this kind of thing. E: Actually, thinking about it, maybe there's a novelisation you can refer to qntm fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jun 7, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 09:43
|
|
|
Danger posted: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. Actually did anyone notice in TNG and DS9 that while there were interracial couples, they still seemed to be the exception? I wondered if they were trying to say something there or it was just casting choices as a sign of the times that we lived in (and still do).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 12:35
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Actually did anyone notice in TNG and DS9 that while there were interracial couples, they still seemed to be the exception? I wondered if they were trying to say something there or it was just casting choices as a sign of the times that we lived in (and still do). Maybe a bit of both, but probably mostly the latter judging by how that Cheerios commercial went down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Maybe a bit of both, but probably mostly the latter judging by how that Cheerios commercial went down. Interracial marriage crossed over 50% support in the United States around 1995, and that's just what people say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Actually did anyone notice in TNG and DS9 that while there were interracial couples, they still seemed to be the exception? I wondered if they were trying to say something there or it was just casting choices as a sign of the times that we lived in (and still do). I doubt they were trying to say anything. In TNG, Worf/Troi was literally the only prominent on-screen bridge crew couple in the entire series and they could be considered an interracial couple.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:I doubt they were trying to say anything. In TNG, Worf/Troi was literally the only prominent on-screen bridge crew couple in the entire series and they could be considered an interracial couple. You can put a black guy with a white woman so long as the black guy is in alien makeup. It's Mass Effect all over again (or rather, Mass Effect is TNG all over again).
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 14:58
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:You can put a black guy with a white woman so long as the black guy is in alien makeup. It's Mass Effect all over again (or rather, Mass Effect is TNG all over again). Michael Dorn, now not black enough because of lobster head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
It's also technically inter species. Troi is Betazoid and Worf is Klingon. There were a couple of other interesting episodes, I think one with Riker who fell for an androgynous person of a species with 3 sexes and Picard and a woman trapped on a planet where it turns out the woman was a dude who was projecting an image. Then DS9 had Jadzia and her lover from a former life who was a wife of a host I think. Avery Brooks directed that episode so I'd like to think he got into character and went "KISS with MORE PASSION!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2013 15:08
|
|