|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It also changes the conversation from "the film is racist and you're probably racist for liking the film" to "here's how the film can be better understood, and appropriated towards the cause of antiracism if you so choose." "(according to you) the film is racist and I, who enjoyed it, must be racist for liking the film" is in fact the rallying cry of those who clap their hands against their ears and screw their eyes up tight upon hearing anyone criticize Cumberbatch's casting at all, though. That's the whole problem - instead of "yeah, that's a shame" we get "What? So you're saying that I, JJ Abrams, and Gene Roddenberry are all racist? How rude of you!" when of course what's being discussed are ongoing societal trends, not the film director's postcount at Stormfront.org. It's a derailing tactic. That's not to say I don't agree with you as to the meaning of Khan's being white within the film, but, like, it's not as though the STID we got was that produced in the best of all possible worlds or something. It could've used a different arrangement of characters to make equally cogent criticisms of western liberalism while simultaneously dodging the totally separate issue of people of color missing out on acting jobs.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
The movie was great, except for the generic 'british bad guy' taking the role of Khan. You know who would have made for a much better Khan? Khal Drogo i.e. Jason Momoa. Hawaiian. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I'm curious about this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year? If you're not sold on seeing it already, go on a Tuesday afternoon or something when you can get in for $5. If nothing else, its a very pretty film and deserves a big screen viewing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
edit: actually, that was a worthless post
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year? I went in to see it knowing all the things you listed, and I enjoyed it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year? Watch After Earth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Should I bother to go see the film in theaters? Movie tickets are kind of expensive. For reference, I probably would have payed to see Trek 2009 once, but only just. Now I hear this is a kind of breathless, brainless, half-baked remake of Wrath of Khan that tries to jam in Klingons and races from setpiece to setpiece and then Kirk dies and comes back to life... I used to be a huge Trek fan but based on that description I'm not even sold on the price of one ticket. Should I go check it out or just make a note to rewatch Star Trek II sometime this year? Go see it in the theater just for the spectacle and cool scenes, not the story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Watch After Earth. Why? have you done a reading on that? I'd read the hell out of that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Can we have a Star Trek with exploration of new worlds, life and civilizations?  Anyone? No? Okay I'll just move along then. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
I finally got to see this and have to say I really enjoyed it, I've seen all of TOS, DS9, TNG, and have even went to cons so I consider myself a fan but not supercrazy fan or whatever. It was super great. I really enjoyed it. I love the fact that they addressed that Kirk is kind of a idiot and the time shift from the first movie to him being Captain even sooner than originally he was shows that he is growing as a character. So that was cool , and I like this take on a Spock that's not as in control as he was. I think that's why people have problems with the depictions is that they forget that all of this got jumped forward a massive amount of time and all the characters got ramped up to the Enterprise way sooner than they originally did. So I didn't have any problem with the way people acted because I knew that had happened. I think Kirk is the youngest captain because he's been in service 10 years here it's like KABLAM. Also, I don't get why people don't understand that ( spoilering this just in case) this isn't a reboot of Star Trek 2, it's a reboot of the TOS episode where he encounters Khan the first time. I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Its a mishmash of both together I actually like the time line thing their doing with it and it was awesome to see Peter Wellers cause I didn't know he was in the movie at all. So that was fantastic I love him so much. Didn't have any complaints felt it was great and all around a good movie. Also the racism debate is kind of silly because if they had cast a middle eastern or a Indian actor it would have been " LOL loving ALL BROWN PEOPLE ARE TERRORIST!" complaints. So it was really hosed if you don't hosed harder if you do. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Why? have you done a reading on that? I'd read the hell out of that. nelson posted:Can we have a Star Trek with exploration of new worlds, life and civilizations?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:I'm working on it. It's the best film of the year. SMG, given that you tend to appreciate and highly praise films that have been generally written off or derided by what seems like the majority of critics and commenters, how do you actually decide what movies to watch (especially in theaters)?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:22
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:SMG, given that you tend to appreciate and highly praise films that have been generally written off or derided by what seems like the majority of critics and commenters, how do you actually decide what movies to watch (especially in theaters)? I don't think he actually watches all of them. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:31
|
|
|
After Earth has been suggested to be a coded message about Scientology teachings - Xenu, engrams, thetans, dianetics, volcanoes, and more are in there. It's nearly verbatim from Hubbard's books at points. The Smith family has been linked to Scientology, and Scientologists apparently believe that sci-fi movies are just repressed memories of real events. I haven't seen the movie but thought that the following analysis of it was interesting. It was posted on a private forum but plagiarized onto Reddit, which led to the original author reposting it. It's very, very long but worth your while, and is not the only analysis to see Scientology parallels.quote:Let's stop and take note of everything we've learned so far, because this was my thought process when this scene occurs: http://pastebin.com/LcZMWei4
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
I'm holding out for a scientology interpretation of the lyrics to American Pie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:36
|
|
|
nelson posted:Can we have a Star Trek with exploration of new worlds, life and civilizations? So, Insurrection was your favorite Trek film?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Hopefully the next Trek (is JJ doing it?) will be in "foreign" space most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
I'm gonna pop in here apropos of nothing and say that there are some really subtle hints in these movies that I like. For instance, we get explicit acknowledgement that the destruction of the Kelvin altered the history of every power in the quadrant. We see a lot of that in the advancement of technology itself. But we also get lots of subtle hints that maybe those advancements came at the expense of other technologies. The sensors seem much more limited in the NuVerse than in other incarnations of Star Trek. The transporters, also, seem more limited. They work over shorter distances and have to be manually tracked. The change in philosophy regarding the size of the ships. Even what was (possibly) Praxis having suffered its accident much earlier than before. Just tickles me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Yea all the time line stuff has inadvertently gotten messed up. I don't care I love that they went alternate universe instead of reboot and still kept to all of the old stuff happening I thought that was a great way to reboot and still keep the old series people. It was just nice. I like that we got to see Klingons which had excellent make up and looked more ferocious. I mean yea we only got one but it was still super great and the Klingon Homeworld which was amazing visually that was so cool. I think what was great though was Scotty just quiting i was like of course he is going to come back!! But still sticking to his guns and being like NO was pretty great I'll probably watch it again and soon I enjoyed it more than the first one. Also can anyone confirm the following When scotty calls for Spock to get down to where kirk is , man it sounds so much like Doohan that'd I'd say they use some audio altering Hollismason fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
gohmak posted:Why? have you done a reading on that? I'd read the hell out of that. I don't even think After Earth needs a super-esoteric SMG reading of it (as in the kind of out-there subtextual reading I think you're expecting from him); it's actually a decent enough 'father vs. son vs. elements vs. maturity' film on its surface as well. Without the reputation of Shyamalan and maybe the over-the-top cries of nepotism people whinge about with the Smiths, I think the movie wouldn't have been hyped up as a shitcake as much, and it's possible people wouldn't have such confirmation bias about it. As for the Scientology parallels, I'm certain those work, but I don't think you have to necessarily translate 'a father and son learn to trust and respect one another in the face of a dangerous situation that forces the child to come into his own as a man' 1:1 into Scientologist propaganda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:I'm curious about this. Basically, what's been said. "Doctor from the American South" could as easily be "black person" as "white person." SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well, that brings things back to the earlier point that racism is just a mask for class conflict. So what I'm talking about is simply a more focussed and effective approach. That first line is where we're differing. "Just a mask for class conflict" is way too reductionist and ignores how racism affects people of color across classes, and that economic justice will not inherently create racial justice. Again, I think you're misinterpreting what anyone is saying (no one's saying "you're probably racist for liking the film") and I think you're unreasonably dismissive of the legitimate reluctance to line up behind white critiques instead of agitating for a seat at the table to influence those critiques. I think your approach is indicative of a willingness to settle for "good on one" while ignoring that it's actively pushing racial justice out of the conversation by monochromatizing the critique both in development and presentation. Lord Krangdar posted:You don't seem to understand how creative decisions are made. It's not a rational process, and it often can come down to split second gut decisions made while multitasking. Your expectations are totally alien to the way creative decisions are actually made, as described in this short interview with the casting directors on this film: How does that quote actually go to my point, which is that systemic biases affect people's decisions and thought-processes unconsciously? Please, explain to me how this creative process works, because what I'm seeing there is "JJ Abrams gravitates towards actors that he thinks he would be friends with," which is I mean, I get that expecting people to be aware that yes, racism is a thing that affects people even now, in 2013, is probably a step too far for most of white Hollywood, but that doesn't mean its actually unreasonable to expect that. quote:I'd like to point out that these two, as part of Bad Robot, have had a relatively good track record when it comes to diverse casting. Well, not anymore, really. Plus, fighting structural racism isn't like a frequent flyer program - you don't get to accumulate "good casting points" and then cash them in for lovely whitewashing. quote:I'm not trying to argue that Hollywood, collectively, has anything approaching a good attitude or good track record towards race. That said, your solutions are still useless and counter-productive since you want to approach the issue as a divisive zero-sum game. I'm trying to engage this as something other than a tone argument, but good God, it's almost like we're discussing the film. How is "Jesus Christ, can people of color at least play people of color" "divisive" other than "it might possibly tell someone with structural power that what they're doing isn't cool"? This, of course, is leaving aside that if we agitated for roles of color to be played by people of color before casting, you'd be right out here telling us that assuming they were going to whitewash is "divisive" and "counter-productive." quote:These comparisons are silly and I think you should know why. I didn't argue that race never matters to a character at all, and obviously if the entire story revolves around the character's color nobody is going to cast a white dude in the role. The difference is that Django has to be played by someone black to serve the story, but this new Khan doesn't have to be played by a Mexican Sikh for any in-story reason. Why are they silly? Because your contention was "I do not believe that immutable roles of color exist." Why does Django have to be played by someone black (I mean, can't they put Brad Pitt in makeup? Surely that's never gone wrong before.) and why is "to serve the story" the only consideration worth having? What is an "in-story reason"? If there's a scene of Khan praying, does that make it? What "in-story reason" was there for Khan to be white? What "in-story reason" is there for Uhura to be black? For Sulu to be Asian? The only difference between these roles and Khan is that it's okay to erase the nonwhiteness of the latter (because it's been done?) and not okay to do the former (because it hasn't been done yet>). I think you recognize that erasing identity like this is a troublesome thing to do, but you're still willing to go to bat for it. quote:I don't give even the tiniest poo poo about that kind of continuity between this reboot of Star Trek and the old . Like I said, they could have cast a black man or whatever as Kirk or Spock and should have considered doing so. As far as I'm concerned this Star Trek series is clearly a reboot/remake and all the stuff with old Spock in ST09 was just a fun nod to the old continuity, no matter how many fans seem to misunderstand that. So yes, it is a different Khan. And the new Khan can be written or cast or costumed or acted however they want, just like when they rebooted Battlestar Galactica they made the new Starbuck a woman (a decision not without its own share of controversy). Obviously that's different in important ways, but the point is that reboots have no obligation to stick to the source material, even if the use the same character names. Nor do they have the right to be free from criticism for the decisions that they make. My issue is not and has never been "this violates canon," it has been "this is a step backward for people of color in this franchise and that is loving bad." quote:I know that those options probably were not ever on the table, which is why I brought it up. That automatic exclusion and the unfortunate Spider-Man thing are real problems, whereas your precious immutable "roles of color" exist only in your mind. You can be upset about both simultaneously if you want, but you're going to have a hard time convincing many others to give a poo poo about your pet cause that really doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things. Oh, do tell me what constitutes a "real problem" for people of color in Hollywood.  I get that this is just my "pet cause that doesn't really matter," but patronizing and dismissive bullshit aside, there are roles of color and you've as much as said so. We only differ on where that line is drawn (mine is "when the character on the page is indicated as being a person of color" and yours appears to be "when it hasn't yet been whitewashed"). But you're viewing this unnecessarily rigidly - these aren't "immutable" roles of color (though those roles certainly exist) but rather that roles of color shouldn't be whitewashed. BSG is a great example for this: Saul Tigh - originally played by a black dude. Casting white for Tigh isn't good on its own! But the efforts the show went to to cast people of color in front-and-center roles - Adama and Boomer, for example - illustrates a willingness to shake poo poo up. That's at least debatable, if not outright justifiable. But here, we're dealing with a franchise that sticks assiduously to past racial depictions except when it comes to a character of color, and that's sketchy as poo poo.Should the fact that "all roles for all races!" is going to overwhelmingly result in all roles for white people because, you know, structural racism and all that poo poo be considered before jumping ahead to your ideal? Because if you can't get people of color playing roles that on the page are not white (because of course, no one gives a poo poo about it because it's a dumb pet cause that totally only exists in my head, right) you're probably not going to get them playing roles that on the page are non-specific, let alone marked out white. quote:I didn't use the term "colorblind". I said creative people should realize their creative options can only be expanded when they consider "people of color" for any and all roles. Sure, that's a pipe dream but no more than you expecting Bad Robot's gut decisions to have taken your pet social justice cause into account when making their films. Yes, yes, we get it, systemic racism in Hollywood is only a "real problem" when it's not your pet sci-fi franchise doing it. (See how productive that isn't?) I think expecting Bad Robot, Paramount & Co., and JJ Abrams etc. to think before they act is probably optimistic in terms of actual outcomes, but I don't think it's an inherently unreasonable expectation just because it wasn't met. quote:JJ Abrams' gut hasn't read any of your links to essays about systemic racism in Hollywood. Guts can't read, and they don't make intellectual decisions. So in that sense, yes. Yes, white directors may be blisteringly unaware of the barriers that nonwhite actors/producers/directors face, and this ... is a reason they don't exist? I don't follow. JJ Abrams's gut instinct [/i]is influenced by a society riddled with systemic racism[/i]. This is what I am trying to communicate to you - that JJ Abrams's gut may lead him to think "man, that black guy would play a really convincing drug dealer" and "man, that Hispanic guy, he has the perfect look for the gardener in this scene" because of how systemic societal racism conditions people to perceive nonwhite people, and you're sitting here saying "WELL GUTS ARE GUTS" and so we should just accept that? That's hosed. quote:Imagine JJ Abrams is sitting at home watching television, and in the back of his mind he's wondering who they can cast as Khan now that Benicio Del Toro isn't taking the role. The show Sherlock comes on, and he has a eureka moment where he can imagine how Cumberbatch would play the role. He get's excited imagining the film with Cumberbatch, so he calls his casting directors to get in touch with Cumberbatch's agent. Does he stop and second guess that moment of inspiration because somebody on the internet might later see his decision as setting back social progress for people of color in some abstract way? I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. No, he should stop and second guess that "moment of inspiration" because Khan is an iconic role of color in sci-fi and he works in a society and system plagued by institutional racism, just like he would've done if he'd wanted Brad Pitt for Django or Colm Meaney for Mookie. But this is leaving aside that getting roles of color played by people of color (and not white people) is how you get people of color into roles that aren't roles of color, because they're visible in shows and JJ Abrams creative gut can rumble and say "cast that young man of color in your sci-fi franchise, BLACK HAN SOLO!" Tangential question: would you defend Ryan Gosling playing Lando Calrissian? Assuming they kept every other role to past depictions. quote:Of course, I don't have any way of knowing how it actually happened. Because again, neither of us were privy to the decision. And that's why I've never based my problem on bad process, but on bad outcomes. You, on the other hand, have relied on unknowable information about what JJ Abrams was truly feeling in his creative gut - which is accurate, I suppose, because casting Cumberbatch was the rank product of a creative colon. quote:I saw that same quote yesterday, but it has another half to it. In context I think it means the opposite of what you're thinking, but of course its hard to interpret the shades of meaning in text. I took it from the HuffPost recap linked by the Racialicious article I linked, but please point me to the other half. quote:Ok, that's why I was getting confused. I also don't remember that line. Kirk getting reprimanded on Earth. quote:Except that technological issue is not part of the fictional scenario in question as far as I know, and if it was that would be a reason to expand the scope of the Prime Directive. That would have made a good episode, though. Okay, would it help to imagine that the Nibiru developed explosive tumors after getting scanned by whatever sensor beam the Enterprise used? quote:I see the warp technology requirement as analogous to the specific age of consent- it is somewhat arbitrary but still necessary to draw a clear line. Well, what's "done right" here? To protect the Federation and its interests? Sure, that's valid, but certainly not the altruism with which it's been portrayed. quote:Not really, that knowledge, along with my presence or whatever methods I might choose to spread what I know, still may not be wanted or needed by others at any given moment. Sure it can, it just hasn't really shook out that way. "We won't make first contact with prewarp civilizations because who the gently caress even knows what weird goddamn diseases we could give them just by taking a poo poo in the same biosphere, warp travel demonstrates an assumption of the risks of exploration and an ex ante determination that exploration is what that civilization wants to do, therefore we can make contact." It's just never how it's been justified across the various mediums. It's always about readiness, not desire. This actually got deconstructed in the TOS episode discussed above (about the super-advanced, appearing-primitive non-interventionists). It'd probably require making the decision to contact outside of the planet's home system, which has its own risks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Hewlett posted:I don't even think After Earth needs a super-esoteric SMG reading of it (as in the kind of out-there subtextual reading I think you're expecting from him); it's actually a decent enough 'father vs. son vs. elements vs. maturity' film on its surface as well. Without the reputation of Shyamalan and maybe the over-the-top cries of nepotism people whinge about with the Smiths, I think the movie wouldn't have been hyped up as a shitcake as much, and it's possible people wouldn't have such confirmation bias about it. You can graft Scientology onto nearly anything because it was made up by a science fiction writer and its teachings are a science fiction story, so there's going to be parallels. Most blockbuster actioners follow the Hero's Journey, so the trappings of any initiation ritual can be applied to them. They all describe the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
The Riddle of Feel posted:You can graft Scientology onto nearly anything because it was made up by a science fiction writer and its teachings are a science fiction story, so there's going to be parallels. Most blockbuster actioners follow the Hero's Journey, so the trappings of any initiation ritual can be applied to them. They all describe the same thing. Pretty much, also "science fiction stories are repressed memories of real events?" What, you mean like metaphors? I think I'm going to need to sit down here, someone get this man a guest article at Cracked!
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
I have bones to pick with this film
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Corek posted:After Earth has been suggested to be a coded message about Scientology teachings - Xenu, engrams, thetans, dianetics, volcanoes, and more are in there. It's nearly verbatim from Hubbard's books at points. The Smith family has been linked to Scientology, and Scientologists apparently believe that sci-fi movies are just repressed memories of real events. I haven't seen the movie but thought that the following analysis of it was interesting. It was posted on a private forum but plagiarized onto Reddit, which led to the original author reposting it. It's very, very long but worth your while, and is not the only analysis to see Scientology parallels. Here's what I said about this stupid poo poo the last time it came up: quote:This is interesting because I felt that unlike many movies where the unwitting aspirational goal of the primary protagonist is to become this dispassionate meter of justice and slaughter (and indeed, this is how Legendary General Cypher Raige earned his reputation) in the end Jaden rejects this emphatically because he has nothing left to prove. Not only has he proven himself, he does his father one better by insisting that he wants to remain with his family as dirt farmer and has no real interest in the ruthless (and by implication necessary) ambition of his father/father's generation. The Legendary General's heart grew ten sizes and he not only accepts his son's wishes but agrees because he wants the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
DFu4ever posted:So, Insurrection was your favorite Trek film? It's not Solaris*, it's The Terminator. What some people have in this thread said they'd wish to see is something like TMP, but with people and culture, not a super robot. Make that, and make it beautiful like Prometheus, and no lasers, that'd be cool I think. * not the Clooney film. The book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
The Warszawa, serious question: did you notice that the first new captain we see of the JJTrek universe was a brown guy? His ethnicity isn't 100% clear but his name was Captain Robau. He didn't have a huge role but he was a badass, went out like a hero AND he was smart enough to get his crew (and thus James Kirk) to safety before marching to his death. His actions were one of the first to have major consequences in this new timeline. They could've had any random actor there, but the first real hero of the JJTrek series was him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:The Warszawa, serious question: did you notice that the first new captain we see of the JJTrek universe was a brown guy? His ethnicity isn't 100% clear but his name was Captain Robau.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Why are they silly? Because your contention was "I do not believe that immutable roles of color exist." Why does Django have to be played by someone black (I mean, can't they put Brad Pitt in makeup? Surely that's never gone wrong before.) You misunderstand what I meant about "immutable roles of color". Immutable is the key word. I didn't mean that there are no roles where race matters (such as Django). What I meant is that you seem to have convinced yourself that once a role has been played by someone "of color" any future take on that character must always be played by someone of color otherwise a grave injustice has been done. I haven't been convinced to accept this idiosyncratic rule of yours, and I don't see how you can expect Bad Robot to have come up with the same rule. Would you say that any future takes on Kingpin must always be black from now on, because of 2003's Daredevil? What about Nick Fury (Avengers)? quote:What "in-story reason" was there for Khan to be white? Khan's race is not a part of the story, so the actor playing the role could have been any race without affecting the story. Unlike Django. Clearly nobody thought he had to be white, since they considered Benicio Del Toro for the role. quote:But here, we're dealing with a franchise that sticks assiduously to past racial depictions except when it comes to a character of color, and that's sketchy as poo poo. Not really. The main characters are the same colors as in TOS, for lack of a better term, but the actors are not really all the same ethnicities as before. quote:My issue is not and has never been "this violates canon," it has been "this is a step backward for people of color in this franchise and that is loving bad." You took issue with me calling the Khan in this film a new Khan, meaning a new take on the character free from previous canon. quote:Oh, do tell me what constitutes a "real problem" for people of color in Hollywood. I get that this is just my "pet cause that doesn't really matter," but patronizing and dismissive bullshit aside, there are roles of color and you've as much as said so. We only differ on where that line is drawn (mine is "when the character on the page is indicated as being a person of color" and yours appears to be "when it hasn't yet been whitewashed"). What makes you think that the Star Trek Into Darkness script indicated Khan as being a person of color? This is why I've said the issue is only in your head, because you seem to have decided that without any evidence (that I've seen, at least). Also you just said the issue is not about canon, but canon is the only thing I know of that would make you conclude that. quote:Tangential question: would you defend Ryan Gosling playing Lando Calrissian? Assuming they kept every other role to past depictions. That decision wouldn't make sense because the new Star Wars movie is supposed to be a sequel to the others. If that happened I would understand the controversy. If Bad Robot was rebooting Star Wars they could do new takes on any character in any way they wanted as far as I'm concerned. They could make Lando a black woman, white, or a droid. quote:Well, not anymore, really. Plus, fighting structural racism isn't like a frequent flyer program - you don't get to accumulate "good casting points" and then cash them in for lovely whitewashing. Ok, but it shows that they're not necessarily biased in general against people of color or roles of color. quote:This, of course, is leaving aside that if we agitated for roles of color to be played by people of color before casting, you'd be right out here telling us that assuming they were going to whitewash is "divisive" and "counter-productive." How could you possibly know that? quote:Well, what's "done right" here? To protect the Federation and its interests? Sure, that's valid, but certainly not the altruism with which it's been portrayed. What I mean is that it seems preferable for a species' first contact with the rest of the galaxy to be with the Federation rather than, for example, a situation like the occupation of Bajor as seen in DS9. Anyway, I'm not interested in defending the Prime Directive concept as perfect. Most of the episodes that deal with it are about how its not perfect, after all. I just think your earlier characterization was way off-base. quote:I took it from the HuffPost recap linked by the Racialicious article I linked, but please point me to the other half. quote:C.K. conceded that his TV daughters are "extremely white," but said that race didn't really factor into his decision to cast Watson in the role of their mom. Considering that he just finished saying that her race didn't factor into the casting decision I think we can take that last part as a joke poking fun at that whole idea ("he explained with a laugh"). Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Pretty much, also "science fiction stories are repressed memories of real events?" What, you mean like metaphors? I think I'm going to need to sit down here, someone get this man a guest article at Cracked! No, literally accounts of true stories that happened. I don't really believe in the Scientology thing, I just thought it was interesting and the guy has obviously done his homework.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:You misunderstand what I meant about "immutable roles of color". Immutable is the key word. I didn't mean that there are no roles where race matters (such as Django). What I meant is that you seem to have convinced yourself that once a role has been played by someone "of color" any future take on that character must always be played by someone of color otherwise a grave injustice has been done. I haven't been convinced to accept this idiosyncratic rule of yours, and I don't see how you can expect Bad Robot to have come up with the same rule. You have a weird interpretation of what "on the page" means. I don't expect to convince you of a rule I don't actually ascribe to, but if you're developing a character by bringing in past franchise material where he is textually a person of color and you choose then to make him white, either textually or by whitewashing the casting, that is hosed up. And it's not like I'm alone here, this is being and has been discussed by lots of writers - including writers of colors - so passing it off as something "idiosyncratic" that's "in my head" is really funny. quote:Would you say that any future takes on Kingpin must always be black from now on, because of 2003's Daredevil? What about Nick Fury (Avengers)? Again, you're misunderstanding what "on the page" means (and I've brought up Fury in this very thread, I think). Both Fury and Wilson Fisk were white on the page, as were Johnny Storm and Peter Parker and Susan Storm, which makes casting color a progressive and good thing for a film to do. Not doing that isn't whitewashing, and it isn't actively harmful in the way that whitewashing is. quote:Khan's race is not a part of the story, so he could be any race without affecting the story. Unlike Django. Clearly nobody thought he had to be white, since they considered Benicio Del Toro for the role. Django textually has to be black, like Khan textually is Indian (see below - incorporation by reference is a thing). Why does that mean the actor has to be black, in your framework, which holds that no role is immutably a role of color, so long as the film is done so as to make that actor convey the appropriate identity of the character to the audience? I'm really curious where this line is drawn as to when identity becomes integral to a character, and I think emphasizing the effect of identity on the plot (as oppose to the significance, the message, etc.) is foolish. quote:Not really. The main characters are the same colors as in TOS, for lack of a better term, but the actors are not really all the same ethnicities. And we pretty much accept a certain degree of cross-casting for people of color because overnarrowing it is a way for white institutions to narrow us right out of contention. What I do mean though is that no white character has been Nick Fury'd in this reboot. quote:You took issue with me calling the Khan in this film a new Khan, meaning a new take on the character free from previous canon. I took issue with trying to weasel out of casting color because of "new Khan," when the film leans so hard on the crutch of past depictions of Khan that it's practically falling over. Why is it this aspect that's different? That decision itself is a political one, whatever the "justification." Here's the thing: even if STID's Khan is textually white, we view this in context because obviously this film did not come to being in a vacuum. Why was Khan made white, when before he wasn't? Even if you do have "new Khan" here, why is he white now? quote:What makes you think that the Star Trek Into Darkness script indicated Khan as being a person of color? This is why I've said the issue is only in your head, because you seem to have decided that without any evidence (that I've seen, at least). Also you just said the issue is not about canon, but canon is the only thing I know of that would make you conclude that. If something clearly and explicitly (through Old Spock, the constant callbacks, etc.) relies upon past-established things, it's fair to say those things have been incorporated by reference. How do we know that Jim Kirk's dad died on the Kelvin in STID? Where is that indicated in this film? This is part of a franchise. quote:That decision wouldn't make sense because the new Star Wars movie is supposed to be a sequel to the others. If that happened I would understand the controversy. If Bad Robot was rebooting Star Wars they could do new takes on any character in any way they wanted as far as I'm concerned. They could make Lando a black woman, white, or a droid. Of those three options, which do you think is most likely to happen in a Star Wars reboot? quote:Ok, but it shows that they're not necessarily biased in general against people of color or roles of color. So? Their deep personal feelings about people of color or roles of color don't matter if they're going to whitewash. quote:How could you possibly know that? Because tone arguments are neither new nor particularly innovative. quote:Considering that he just finished saying that her race didn't factor into the casting decision I think we can take that last part as a joke poking fun at that whole idea ("he explained with a laugh"). Oh, see, I thought you meant there was a half after what I quoted. Yeah, saying "race had nothing to do with it" and then making a "heh, black women telling me to get a job!" joke ... yeah that's still hosed up. "Just a joke, like on Top Gear" isn't a sterling defense. Mister Roboto posted:The Warszawa, serious question: did you notice that the first new captain we see of the JJTrek universe was a brown guy? His ethnicity isn't 100% clear but his name was Captain Robau. Nessus has the right of it here, but yes, there have been great characters of color in these movies. They just seem to be confined to secondary and tertiary parts, even when the character is on-the-page nonwhite, and I think that's a problem. Like, what's your point? That JJ Abrams isn't a firebreathing racist? Great! I agree that he probably isn't! That's almost completely divorced from my point. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Corek posted:No, literally accounts of true stories that happened. I know what he means but you'd have to be stupid not to recognize figurative language when you see it. He's "literally" describing metaphors. A good example of this is that famous essay about Ender's Game and Hitler, about how certain events in his life match up exactly to Hitler's. This is entirely a red herring, amusing when you see it and probably equally amusing to the author who devised it. However, it means nothing except further criticism from that author details in depth how morally repugnant Card's ideal hero really is without reference to Hitler save for the overarching theme of justifying genocide. The psychiatrists = Xenu thing is just apophenia mixed with that Scientologist drum internet folks like to beat as if anyone cares, unless you want to then argue that science fiction storytelling on the whole is morally or ethically suspect (which it often can be).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
quote:Here's the thing: even if STID's Khan is textually white, we view this in context because obviously this film did not come to being in a vacuum. Why was Khan made white, when before he wasn't? Even if you do have "new Khan" here, why is he white now? Because the people making the movie decided they wanted Benedict Cumberbatch to play the role. quote:If something clearly and explicitly (through Old Spock, the constant callbacks, etc.) relies upon past-established things, it's fair to say those things have been incorporated by reference. How do we know that Jim Kirk's dad died on the Kelvin in STID? Where is that indicated in this film? This is part of a franchise. Don't say its not an issue of violating canon and then bring canon into it. This film is part of a franchise, but the two Abrams films are a reboot in many ways irregardless of their nods to past continuity. That's why there are more changes to the setting and continuity than can be explained by Nero's time-travel in ST09, yet the same main crew-members from TOS just happen to get together anyway. It's a reboot. quote:Django textually has to be black, like Khan textually is Indian (see below - incorporation by reference is a thing). Why does that mean the actor has to be black, in your framework, which holds that no role is immutably a role of color, so long as the film is done so as to make that actor convey the appropriate identity of the character to the audience? I'm really curious where this line is drawn as to when identity becomes integral to a character, and I think emphasizing the effect of identity on the plot (as oppose to the significance, the message, etc.) is foolish. The distinction is that when the character's specific race is important to the film its important to the casting, when its not its not. Casting a white person as Django would have been needlessly confusing and would have weakened the film, but so would casting Jason Momoa. I doubt Tarantino cast Jamie Foxx as Django as part of a fight against systemic racism in Hollywood. EDIT - And who said it matters to plot only? SMG has a reading, which I don't necessarily agree with, where Khan being white is significant to the film's themes. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Casting a white person as Django would have been needlessly confusing and would have weakened the film, but so would casting Jason Momoa. I doubt Tarantino cast Jamie Foxx as Django as part of a fight against systemic racism in Hollywood.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:I know what he means but you'd have to be stupid not to recognize figurative language when you see it. He's "literally" describing metaphors. Yeah, the more I think about it the less likely it seems. That ship doesn't actually look like a DC-8, and he glosses over the ending which went against the message.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
The ending is adamantly against the entire messaging of Scientology, which is, again, a bunch of bullshit that valorizes being a "self actualized" psychopath, whereas After Earth explicitly reintroduces proportion back into Jaden's life and teaches him that a defining experience should not be the only thing that defines you. That's such a neat idea, it's simple but it's not simplistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
I think people aren't looking at the flip side of the argument which is say if he had been cast as a well known Sikh actor or Muslim actor then it would have just been loving horrible. Like the movie would fall apart. It would be awful and bring more criticism than if they had a white character. The actor potrayig this "sikh" Ricardo Montalban a very prominent Spanish actor. Like even the ethnicity is different. He's a spanish actor playing a Indian which just harkens to Hollywoods view at the time that all "brown" people are interchangeable. It's just kind of a dumb argument to say their white washing when in effect the original character was written as a Nordic Superman who was white the changed to Indian then played by a spanish actor. It's even truer to the original idea of Khan was just that he was a eugenically created Warlord. It's not any more racist than the original Star Trek Wrath of Khan and Space Seed and in Wrath of Khan they literally white washed Khan, like literally applied make up for him to be whiter. Seriously what the gently caress. Hollismason fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jun 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 20:38 |
|
|
Cingulate posted:I do agree that Insurrection is the one single ST movie that came the closest to being focused on exploring another culture (something quite common in the series), but it's not ABOUT this exploration. Most of the movie, especially most of the "money" scenes, are motivated by what we've learned in the exploration - that these are good people; but fundamentally, it's about space ships and space guns shooting at stuff. Something people continually miss about Star Trek is that it's not about exploring other worlds and cultures, it's about exploring our own culture and using imaginary space people as a personification of aspects of ouselves. It veers back and forth between exploring fundamental aspects of human nature and current social issues, but it has never been a National Geographic In Space in anything but a superficial way. The films dress this up with more action scenes but they still cover the same ground (See Wrath of Khan for the former, Undiscovered Country for the latter).
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2013 23:16
|
|
