ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Court is in SESSION- To convict JJ Abrams of Trek Treason

Report this
Created by: He'sDeadJim6400

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 17 2013, 8:29 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 16 2013, 8:28 pm

>I feel like there's a lot of reaching in regard defending the casting choice of Khan, looking for minor technicalities to exonerate Abrams from whitewashing accusations.  

>For years, Khan was generally acknowledged as being a Sikh.  He was identified as one in Space Seed, depicted as one, and it was generally accepted as one.  Even some noncanon material goes into his Sikh background.  Yes Montalban was Latino, but it was 1967. It was the best they could do and they tried.  In 2013, I would expect that they would cast a Desi character for the role.    Nitpicks such as "we don't know where he was from" are weak arguments. I think a  lot of Trek fans don't want to admit that Star Trek, known to be progressive, took such an incredibly backward step.

>"Whitewashing" is an ugly word, but I feel in this case it applies.  It's a natural reaction to want to explain away the casting and validate it, especially when it hits this close to home, but it's an uncomfortable truth.  Star Trek whitewashed Khan.


Believe me, I'm not defending the casting choice of Khan in trhe new film, I personally hate they way they went....and I can see how some may think I'm streching things, but in this case, canon alowes for it.Khan was a product of selected breeding and genetic engeernering, we dont have a clue to his real ethinic back ground?


As for how he identified in "Space Seed" maybe you need to re-watch the episode because no defintive answer was given, the dialog from the historian was vague at best.


From the script:MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.


"I'd guess", "Probably"................hardely a solid indenification.


 


 


Photobucket

rocketscientist

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10054

Report this May. 17 2013, 9:08 am

Quote: Vger23 @ May. 13 2013, 5:22 am

>

>I'm amazed that people are responding to this silliness.

>Of course, most of you who are responding weren't here back in 2009 when, for months leading up to the May 8th release of that film, this same guy slammed, bashed, shot at, and $hit on everything about the new production. Every spoiler, every trailer, every snippit of data that was available was pooped on and ripped apart as "JJ Abrams idiot-fest with pretty actors, spitting in the face of Roddenberry's vision blah blah blah Picard is better and I am a true loyalist blah blah."

>Then, the best part is that right after the movie came out, this same guy actually wrote a very good post (God, I'd love to find it) that basically said, "You know...I actually enjoyed the movie. It wasn't half as bad as I thought, and I admit that. I can see what Abrams was trying to do blah blah blah." Everyone answered him back, including me, and praised him for having the courage to eat his words and admit that he enjoyed it. 

>About 3 days later, he was right back to his old bashing and bombastic foolishness, once he realized that it was no fun to admit what he did and it that is more fun to be irritating and over-the-top obnoxious like this post, playing the loyal "true" Star Trek fan.

>So...it's fairly funny to see this again 4 years later.

>

>Court adjourned?

>


I remember DJ's rants well.  He is still acting true-to-form.  Nice to know some things are constant in this universe.  I'm with you, V'Ger.  Been there, done that.  It's no longer interesting "debating" him.  It's old hat and we all have better things to do than feed someone's ego.  Speaking for myself, I'm excited to see the new movie.  It's got an 87% rating on rottentomatoes.com so far!


 


KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!

fireproof78

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this May. 17 2013, 9:37 am

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 17 2013, 8:29 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 16 2013, 8:28 pm

>

>I feel like there's a lot of reaching in regard defending the casting choice of Khan, looking for minor technicalities to exonerate Abrams from whitewashing accusations.  

>For years, Khan was generally acknowledged as being a Sikh.  He was identified as one in Space Seed, depicted as one, and it was generally accepted as one.  Even some noncanon material goes into his Sikh background.  Yes Montalban was Latino, but it was 1967. It was the best they could do and they tried.  In 2013, I would expect that they would cast a Desi character for the role.    Nitpicks such as "we don't know where he was from" are weak arguments. I think a  lot of Trek fans don't want to admit that Star Trek, known to be progressive, took such an incredibly backward step.

>"Whitewashing" is an ugly word, but I feel in this case it applies.  It's a natural reaction to want to explain away the casting and validate it, especially when it hits this close to home, but it's an uncomfortable truth.  Star Trek whitewashed Khan.

Believe me, I'm not defending the casting choice of Khan in trhe new film, I personally hate they way they went....and I can see how some may think I'm streching things, but in this case, canon alowes for it.Khan was a product of selected breeding and genetic engeernering, we dont have a clue to his real ethinic back ground?

As for how he identified in "Space Seed" maybe you need to re-watch the episode because no defintive answer was given, the dialog from the historian was vague at best.

From the script:MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.

"I'd guess", "Probably"................hardely a solid indenification.

 

 


Thanks for bringing that up Sto-Vo-Kor. I always thought it odd that they would use a Latin actor as an Indian. A bit of a misstep is an otherwise fantastic episode.


As for "whitewashing Khan" being a step backwards, I find it difficult to swallow that it is a step backwards for Trek, when Trek has struggled with more racist ideas throughout its inception. TOS, TNG, VOY they all have suffered from it, from one degree to another. It is an unfortunate part of the human experience that certainly has not healed itself with the invention of TV.


So, while Abrams casting choice is certainly a misstep I do not see it as any worse than some of the racist portrayals or concepts in Trek's history. It certainly is not such a grievous sin to call it a back-step, in my opinion.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 10:53 am

I watched Space Seed last week, thanks.  I am aware of all the dialouge.  Again, Marla's statement is depending on a technicality to exonerate the producers of the film.  Prior to STID, I would guarantee of you asked any longtime fan what ethnicity Khan was, they would say "Indian" without argument.  It was widely accepted as canon, so much so that  they included a great deal of his background in the book series, "The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh".  There was never a debate as to his ethicity.


Now, suddenly everyone is streching for the most minute detail to justify the casting of a white man in a MOC role.  Honestly, if this was a court, it would compare to the scenario where the accused was obviously guilty gets off because the search warrant wasn't signed in the right spot.


Benicio Del Toro is Latino, so casting him would have still been a disservice to the character, although slightly less than a white actor.  


Just because Montalban was Latino and cast in a role in 1967 doesn’t mean they should cast a Latino as Khan, an Indian, in 2013.  The choice of Del Toro makes it seem like JJ Abrams did no research into the actual character and just thought that he should get a Latino because the original actor was Latino. I wonder if he even watched Space Seed before casting Del Toro or if he just went by The Wrath Of Khan, where Khan’s origin is not discussed.  


They should have sought out Indian actors from the beginning. There are hundreds of handsome, hungry young Desi actors who would relish a starring role.  It was, at best, an ignorant and financially driven choice. At best.


At worst it was it was an active choice to forgo consideration of Indian actors for the role of an Indian character in order to adhere to the unspoken guidelines of textbook, instutionalized racism.


The secrecy that was involved in the main character also warrants suspicion. The whole "spoilers" reason sounds like a bunch of BS. Had they announced the character from the beginning, advocacy groups would have had time to organize, get involved and open dialogues with Abrams, rather that scrambling to voice not only their opinion, but be a voice for many fans.  


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:08 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 17 2013, 10:53 am

>I watched Space Seed last week, thanks.  I am aware of all the dialouge.  Again, Marla's statement is depending on a technicality to exonerate the producers of the film.  Prior to STID, I would guarantee of you asked any longtime fan what ethnicity Khan was, they would say "Indian" without argument.  It was widely accepted as canon, so much so that  they included a great deal of his background in the book series, "The Rise and Fall of Khan Noonien Singh".  There was never a debate as to his ethicity.


If you asked a fan about Oriion slave women, before the Enterprise series, they would have told you that the women were slaves and not slave masters.What 1 fan, or a million fans accept or believe is irrelevent.Fan preception or acceptence does not equal canon.


Likewise the books you mentioned are also not canon sourses.


Now, suddenly everyone is streching for the most minute detail to justify the casting of a white man in a MOC role.  Honestly, if this was a court, it would compare to the scenario where the accused was obviously guilty gets off because the search warrant wasn't signed in the right spot.


poor anaology


fact is plain and simple, no canon sourse defintivly states his ethinic orgins.


Benicio Del Toro is Latino, so casting him would have still been a disservice to the character, although slightly less than a white actor.  


hes one of my choices for the part


I kind of agree with the rest of your post


Photobucket

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:17 am

We also know that the British once occupied India. Can anyone prove that they didn't intermingle with the population or just decide to stay after the British left? Not all people in India are actually ethnically Indian just as not all British or German people are white.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:29 am

 


If you asked a fan about Oriion slave women, before the Enterprise series, they would have told you that the women were slaves and not slave masters.What 1 fan, or a million fans accept or believe is irrelevent.Fan preception or acceptence does not equal canon.


Likewise the books you mentioned are also not canon sourses.


Changing our percieved notion of a alien society =|= real world discrimination.


 


I never said the books were canon, but they were inspired by canon. Books aren't considered canon, but consider the influence of the acceptance of Khan's true origin.  


Again, there's no canon source that says he's from India, but it's accepted because of the evidence and because of Space Seed. The same way it's accepted that Uhura is from Africa, (as noted in a writer's guide).


 


In Space Seed he's also seen wearing a version of a kurta. I mean how much more do you need ?



crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:37 am

"No Canon source".

Thanks, that's all I really need. A version of a cost doesn't really mean anything. If done white guy wears clothing that's stereotypically from Africa that doesn't mean he's African. A man engineered for superiority choosing to name himself after one of history's most famous warlords doesn't mean he's from Mongolia.

*No Canon source*

Ethics are arbitrary.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:40 am

Quote: bunkey @ May. 17 2013, 11:29 am

>Changing our percieved notion of a alien society =|= real world discrimination.


I havent been debating this issue from a "real world" point of view, only from a instoiry canon point of view


 I never said the books were canon, but they were inspired by canon.


irrelevent., since no canon sourse defintivly states his ethinc orgins.


Again, there's no canon source that says he's from India, but it's accepted because of the evidence and because of Space Seed.


There is no solid evidence from a csanon sourse that states his ethinc origins.


The same way it's accepted that Uhura is from Africa, (as noted in a writer's guide).


equally irrelevent.Fans my accept it, but if its not from a csanon sourse they are accepting nothing of value to canon.


 In Space Seed he's also seen wearing a version of a kurta. I mean how much more do you need ?


I have at least 2 peaces of similasr apparal, and my origins are not from India.


Photobucket

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 11:52 am

J.J. Abrams whitewashed the role.  All the little bits they presented on Space Seed sow that he's from India.  Again, the fact that you own similar clothing is a technicality that you're using to and it's really a stretch.


He's shown wearing a kurta, is painted with a dastar, has a Sikh first name, is mentioned to be from India and was the ruled the Middle East and Asia. I wonder how much more solid evidence you need?


If you need to explain away the obvious to make yourself feel better then I can't stop you.  It means you’re just trying to convince yourself that  a blatant act of racism didn't occur. Racism makes peopel uncomfortable and if you want to bury your head in the sand, I can't make you listen because you're obviously uncomfortable with admitting that these types of practices exist in the 21st Century and have hit close to home.


Tiny bits of irrelevant in universe nitpicking won't change that.  The message that Gene Roddenberry was sending us was loud and clear "This man is genetically superior, a superman, and he is not white. He is from India. Superior humans can come from anywhere."


You'd rather insist that they're huge coincidences and that the factors I mentioned were accidentally included in Space Seed.  Okay then...


 


Sarcasm is my native language.
JJ Abrams is not of the body.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 12:01 pm

I need nothing to make myself feel better at all. As Spock said, "I feel fine". You're apparently very hung up inn this and are experiencing fantasies of "blatant racism" to satisfy and reinforce what you wish to be true. At this point you're just doing what people have already said that you would do. You're just parroting the same old circumstantial and frankly arbitrary ideas.

You have no Canon source. You don't have majority support for your Quixotic, pointless campaign against Abrams.

You're simply not going to keep us real Star Trek fans from enjoying Star Trek.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 12:10 pm

Damn right I'm hung up on it. I'm not the only one who is experiencing "fantasies of blatant racism". There are quite a few blogs I've read and articles written by POC who have been bitterly disappointed by the act of whitewashing one of the most iconic villains in cinema history.  Khan was iconic not because he was a MOC, but because he was groundbreaking, intelligent and broke away from every ethnic stereotype of the day.


And rather than honor that legacy and what it meant to fans, JJ Abrams chose to make him white.  That is very simply, whitewashing. 


If denial helps you enjoy that kind of Star Trek, then so be it.

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 12:21 pm

I hate to have to correct you, but you are the one in denial. You've blatantly ignored all the various reasons that Khan could be Caucasian in favor of your view point. You're claiming knowledge of what Roddenberry would think and want while he's not here to correct you. You're not accepting that your bitter rants are pointless, mean nothing, and will never change anything.

You're essentially that black knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail hopping around screaming that you're winning while clearly mutilated and powerless.

Your desperate need to cling to a bizarre and entirely inconsequential hatred harms only yourself.

Ethics are arbitrary.

bunkey

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 686

Report this May. 17 2013, 12:46 pm

What evidence was presented that Khan was white?  Convince me that he was white. Don't say "nothing exists to prove he was Indian",  present me with instances in Space Seed that support your claim, as I did with his clothing, name, ect.  And what message do you think Roddenberry was trying to send with the specific charaters in Space Seed? 


And anyway, that aside,  think this is about "power"?  Do you think this is about "winning"? Then you're entirely missing the point.  Talking about a practice on Hollywood that is common and widely ignored because it's been done for decades and people let it happen is not about winning.  It's about raising awareness to social inequality in Hollywood entertainment.  Or maybe I'm imagining that too?  It's about pointing out an action and saying "this is wrong, people need to discuss it."  It's about opening dialogues that touch uncomfortable topics.  That's not "inconsequential hatred".  Being aware of practices that are discriminatory, be they intentional or consequential is not harmful at all, to anyone, except those who are complicit in those practices.  

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 17 2013, 12:58 pm

Your attempt to twist my words will not matter. I did not say that Khan was white, I said that he could have been. As I've already stated the various reasons that's possible only to have you blatantly ignore them I'm not listing them again for you.

This is clearly about winning for you. Since your arrival here, if you were not someone else before, you've relentlessly been at this subject.

And as for Roddenberry, the man is now dead. Don't put your words into his mouth. I'm sure that Khan's appearance and everything had more to do with the fame and appearance of the actor and a desire for money than it had to do with making people think that the people of India could conquer the world.

Interestingly none of us need a superficial reminder that color does not control intellect or strength or capabilities. Why is it that *you* need a superficial reminder so desperately?

Ethics are arbitrary.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: darmokattanagra

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum