|
MikeJF posted:BSG was a full-on reboot. I know that the new Treks are basically reboots, but there's still the premise that they're a divergent universe. All we need is a universe divergence farther back in time and Kirk's mom could have hooked up with Charlie Murphy.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
penismightier posted:Because they didn't do a good job in 1966 doesn't mean casting Cumberbatch in the year 2014 wasn't simply disgusting. mr. stefan posted:Benicio Del Toro is not the only nonwhite actor in Hollywood and I'm not sure why people bring one failed casting up as if it's an excuse. Khan is also literally a genocidal racist monster, so casting him as, say, a black man would invite different unfortunate implications. "Why Are Black People Always The Villains?!" You'd be asking me. Clearly, they should have cast Aziz Ansari in mexicanface. It's the only way to remain true to the original series' nonracism...OH WAIT!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
The Treks are full-on reboots. The technicality that they share continuity is bullshit for nerds and doesn't make any goddamn sense anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Snak posted:The Treks are full-on reboots. The technicality that they share continuity is bullshit for nerds and doesn't make any goddamn sense anyway. A 'technicality' that is a core part of the plot of both movies is more than a minor aside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
^^^: The whole reboot thing is a mess, since we see crap from before the timeline split being different (the Kelvin has pew pew phasers instead of beams even before the Narada arrives).Hbomberguy posted:Because, shockingly, people don't approach casting as a racial quota and turn down anyone not mexican/brown enough for a part? Racism certainly isn't over but the solution isn't to insist on there being Nonwhite Roles that can't be touched by actors who happen to be white - that would tacitly endorse the opposite. I don't understand this sentence. If the character is explicitly not white, then you should be looking for the best actor of the appropriate ethnicity for it. You don't cast him white just because 'the white guy is a better actor' (which in all likelyhood isn't even a thing, it's just that the white actor is more recognized because he's white).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:A 'technicality' that is a core part of the plot of both movies is more than a minor aside. But it's really not. That technicality could be completely removed without changing the plot of either movie. WarLocke posted:^^^: The whole reboot thing is a mess, since we see crap from before the timeline split being different (the Kelvin has pew pew phasers instead of beams even before the Narada arrives). So what ethnicity is Khan, and why is it important?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Snak posted:So what ethnicity is Khan, and why is it important? IIRC he was a Sikh. The why of it being important isn't an in-universe thing, but an issue of whitewashing. e: Personally I think STID could have avoided these pitfalls by making Cumberbatch's character Joachim instead of Khan. The entire rest of the movie still works and the guy looks just like the other dude anyway 
WarLocke fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
Snak posted:But it's really not. That technicality could be completely removed without changing the plot of either movie. You could remove it from Into Darkness, but they didn't. And bullshit that you could take it out of the first movie and end up with remotely the same thing; it would be utterly hollow. The connection to old Trek is what Trek '09 is entirely built upon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:IIRC he was a Sikh. It was never explicitly stated, people have just always inferred that from a picture of him in a turban in TOS.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:IIRC he was a Sikh. Sikhism is a religion, and not an ethnicity. I will assume that you meant to say Indo-Aryan. So then would you only be satisfied if the role were filled by an Indo-Aryan actor? edit: MikeJF posted:You could remove it from Into Darkness, but they didn't. And bullshit that you could take it out of the first movie and end up with remotely the same thing; it would be utterly hollow. The connection to old Trek is what Trek '09 is entirely built upon. Not really. The concept of time-travel and an alternate, future Spock is important, but it actually sharing continuity is not. Which is good, because it functionally doesn't. It's basically Back to the Future, and everything need to know is set up in the film. Back to the Future didn't need to share some continuity with a show about what McFly's life was like before all the events of the film. MOST PEOPLE who saw the movie know jack poo poo about the TOS-TNG continuity that is hypothetically relevant. The movies are functionally reboots in every way. Snak fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Snak posted:Sikhism is a religion, and not an ethnicity. I will assume that you meant to say Indo-Aryan. So then would you only be satisfied if the role were filled by an Indo-Aryan actor? I feel like if I say yes to this you'll attack Montalban's casting for not being Indo-Aryan, but it's not the same argument. Not getting the ethnicity exactly right is not the same as throwing your arms up in the air and going 'gently caress it, let's make him white'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Snak posted:Sikhism is a religion, and not an ethnicity. I will assume that you meant to say Indo-Aryan. So then would you only be satisfied if the role were filled by an Indo-Aryan actor? I don't know maybe a white guy from Mexico might work?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
It was a bad movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
Drunkboxer posted:I don't know maybe a white guy from Mexico might work? i vote edward james olmos
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
Snak posted:So what ethnicity is Khan, and why is it important? In my opinion, a good way of broadcasting the subtler racism inherent to the Federation would be to cast the 'advanced super soldier' as a white aryan-ideal male, the point being that the ideals are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:In my opinion, a good way of broadcasting the subtler racism inherent to the Federation would be to cast the 'advanced super soldier' as a white aryan-ideal male, the point being that the ideals are wrong. This would have been an interesting take on the movie. Too bad they didn't use one of the 72 other super-soldiers that may have been a white dude for it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:Not getting the ethnicity exactly right is not the same as throwing your arms up in the air and going 'gently caress it, let's make him white'. Is that what happened, though? Maybe they just said "let's make him Benedict Cumberbatch". WarLocke posted:The why of it being important isn't an in-universe thing, but an issue of whitewashing. You say its not an "in-universe thing", but then you seem to contradict yourself. If the primary issue here is a lack of opportunities for non-white actors in Hollywood, and not consistency with the established ethnicity of Khan as a character, then casting the same white guy as a canonically white character instead of as Khan doesn't really solve anything. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I feel like if I say yes to this you'll attack Montalban's casting for not being Indo-Aryan, but it's not the same argument. Not getting the ethnicity exactly right is not the same as throwing your arms up in the air and going 'gently caress it, let's make him white'. I'm not trying to attack anyone. The point I'm trying to make is that [X] is racist, [Y] is not, is an over simplification. There's a lot of different factors here, and different people are focusing on different things. Here are some of the factors that I am aware of, but there are certainly ones that I haven't considered: Lack of minority/non-white representation in films (e.g. there are not enough non-white mainstream actors and actresses) Lack of ethnically appropriate casting (e.g. casting Hispanic actors as non-Hispanic, non-white characters ) Relationship between characters and their ethnicity (e.g. does Khan need to be Asian because of his name, or Indo-Aryan because of his supposed backstory? is it important for his character?) In a reboot, how does changing a character's ethnicity impact things? (e.g. does it matter that Khan was once non-white and now is? does this go both ways?) In a reboot, how does not changing character's ethnicities impact things? (e.g. is there a responsibility to address issue #1, above?) I'm sure there are more, but the biggest problem that we are having in this discussion is that most people feel more strongly about one of these points than others, and not everyone cares about the same things. Problems like these aren't solved by establishing strict guidelines and following them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
Snak posted:Not really. The concept of time-travel and an alternate, future Spock is important, but it actually sharing continuity is not. Which is good, because it functionally doesn't. It's basically Back to the Future, and everything need to know is set up in the film. Back to the Future didn't need to share some continuity with a show about what McFly's life was like before all the events of the film. I think most people who saw Old Spock knew or at least figured out who he was and that it was tying back to Old Trek through him. Without that tie-in, if the movies existed without old Star Trek existing, it would've been just another lame-rear end sci-fi time travel story.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:I think most people who saw Old Spock knew or at least figured out who he was and that it was tying back to Old Trek through him. Without that tie-in, if the movies existed without old Star Trek existing, it would've been just another lame-rear end sci-fi time travel story. Of course it's tying back to the old trek or the concept of old trek, but a literally canon continuity is not required, and is also not maintained. It was in fact just another 'lame-rear end" sci-fi time travel story and gained nothing from supposedly being in continuity. There is lots of evidence that the movies are functionally full reboots, and zero evidence that there is meaningful continuity back to the TOS-TNG continuity. Old Spock exists, and does tie them together, but he could exist as his exact same character with no changes without any continuity. There's no canon story that actually connects the two. The idea of continuity as something that exists purely and independently is silly. You can say that "This continuity exists because this movie says it does" But I will say "The continuity exists in name only. This movie is a reboot and is described as such by its creators, and there is no evidence to the contrary."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Snak posted:You can say that "This continuity exists because this movie says it does" WarLocke posted:This would have been an interesting take on the movie. Too bad they didn't use one of the 72 other super-soldiers that may have been a white dude for it. What I don't like is this 'justification' of a character's race based entirely on plot. You are arguing the exact points people made against Black Heimdall. Heimdall was white in all his other appearances in the DC Universe! Get your agenda out of my movies, et cetera! I disagree with this logic entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:If the super soldier was more superior (white) than Khan, why wouldn't he be in charge of them instead The entire premise was based on Cumberbatch resembling Joachim, one of Khan's subordinates. The white=superior thing is your own conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:All we need is a universe divergence farther back in time and Kirk's mom could have hooked up with Charlie Murphy. Into darkness....
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:35
|
|
|
Is your central problem that the main character is called Khan and not Joachim? Also thanks for implying that all white guys look the same, you racist.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Is your central problem that the main character is called Khan and not Joachim? I don't have a problem, I just pointed out that (as has been discussed in the thread a few dozen pages ago) making Cumberbatch's character Joachim instead of Khan fixes the 'problem' of casting a white guy in a non-white role. I didn't respond to your earlier comment on that because it's not as simple as saying 'well if they use a different character than Khan isn't that whitewashing by a different means' because then we're in the morass of asking why any original character is X instead of Y.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I don't have a problem, I just pointed out that (as has been discussed in the thread a few dozen pages ago) making Cumberbatch's character Joachim instead of Khan fixes the 'problem' of casting a white guy in a non-white role. Again that doesn't really solve or touch on the central problem of roles for non-white actors being less available.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Again that doesn't really solve or touch on the central problem of roles for non-white actors being less available. Agreed, but it solves the problem of this specific non-white character being played by a white dude. Two different issues. Or one specific and one systemic, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Well this specific character, the one in ST:ID, is not a non-white character. The only reason that is controversial in the first place is because there was an opportunity to have a role for a non-white actor there, but it wasn't taken.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:Again that doesn't really solve or touch on the central problem of roles for non-white actors being less available. WarLocke posted:Agreed, but it solves the problem of this specific non-white character being played by a white dude. Two different issues. Or one specific and one systemic, I guess. Lord Krangdar posted:Well this specific character, the one in ST:ID, is not a non-white character. The only reason that is controversial in the first place is because there was an opportunity to have a role for a non-white actor there, but it wasn't taken. Who decides which roles are opportunities for non-white actors? Like, which roles is it okay for white actors to play and which roles is it racist for white actors to play?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Well to be clear I don't see any problem with casting Benedict Cumberbatch at all. Its my understanding that other people care because they've taken that as emblematic of a larger systemic issue in Hollywood, otherwise I have no idea what anyone's issue is with that particular decision. To me casting Khan could have been an opportunity to go against the tide of that systemic pattern, but so could casting any other role. Lord Krangdar fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
WarLocke posted:I don't have a problem, I just pointed out that (as has been discussed in the thread a few dozen pages ago) making Cumberbatch's character Joachim instead of Khan fixes the 'problem' of casting a white guy in a non-white role. In fact, having him be not-Khan perhaps opens up something new to the story. To steal a bit from the Roddenberry-based Andromeda, there's an alternate universe episode where I think the Captain makes a comment about how "every man is the hero of his own story" in regards to the superhuman that betrayed him. Cumberbatch could have allowed something different with a character who is similar, but still able to offer up something new. Going into fanficky territory using that, we've seen Khan as a King/Leader figure. But how far does his hold over his followers go? What sort of approach can be used with the Joachim character in that regard by keeping Khan out of the picture? He's possibly a knight hunting for a grail, a zealot obsessed with honoring his idol, a 'mere mortal' devoted to the divinity of Khan, or he's a 'Starscream' trying to spin the absence of Khan to his advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Would the film had been better if John Harrison was another super human and Khan was on ice, with Harrison wanting to wake him up with all the others? Then, the final act could've easily been less of a replay of the original.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 08:03
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:Would the film had been better if John Harrison was another super human and Khan was on ice, with Harrison wanting to wake him up with all the others? Then, the final act could've easily been less of a replay of the original. The end being a replay of the original is the point of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 12:39
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The end being a replay of the original is the point of the film. It's a lovely point.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:20
|
|
|
penismightier posted:It's a lovely point. Ah but have you considered that the medium is the message?? I thought not 
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
What is lovely about it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:The idea of society as something fragile and difficult to build or protect is completely at odds with Star Trek's bizarre happy spacefuture where everything is fine except for those Reptilian Jews. The latter is quite clearly an ideological fantasy. Are you joking they did episodes about the fragility of future-paradise all the drat time. I'm not going to bother with all the italic and bold and sub and superscript tags to a transliteration of a Sisko voice but let's just say that ground has been explored pretty thoroughly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are you joking they did episodes about the fragility of future-paradise all the drat time. I'm not going to bother with all the italic and bold and sub and superscript tags to a transliteration of a Sisko voice but let's just say that ground has been explored pretty thoroughly. DS9 is better than the rest because of this reason though. I'm referring more to the TNG/Voyager/some of ToS attitude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:'Unintentionally', this utopia was actually several shades of hosed up - something that became increasingly clear as the universe was expanded upon with sequels and spin-offs. You would never see anything in the original series like the episode of Voyager where the feds enslave AI workers and force them to perform dangerous tasks. What McLuhan described above as a borderline-communist Christian ideal to be fought for has been coopted into that fantasy of 'the singularity', AKA 'the rapture for nerds' - and the series has changed to keep pace. Counterpoit, Voyager's writer room was a horrible travesty and that episode directly conflicts with a whole bunch of established canon. gently caress Voyager basically. Really, gently caress Voyager. I don't remember the name of that episode (I became a critical viewer in real life around the end of DS9/middle of Voyager in their original runs and realized that Voyager was actually bad television and stopped watching) but it seems to completely negate Measure of a Man, one of the better episodes of early TNG. And it's seriously like a throwaway shot in the last 30 seconds of the episode that declares FEDERATION DOES SLAVERY NOW. When apparently the Federation legal establishment weighed in on that like 14 in-universe years earlier on the side of "no loving slavery, guys, seriously." Voyager was SO BAD. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 16:28
|
|