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

A very thoughtful article about the casting choices in Star Trek Into Darkness


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 342

Report this Jun. 11 2013, 9:20 pm

Quote: bunkey @ Jun. 10 2013, 10:58 am


>I have to say that I'm happy with the discussion going on.  The topic has even been addressed on this site. So it's not falling on deaf ears. People are listening to the bloggers and the internet is being utilized for good.

>The canon grasping by apologists is beng used less, which is a good thing. Khan was Sikh. Space Seed connected all the dots for you. Because he never specifically said "I am Indian" doesn't mean that all the facts weren't there.

> All in all, getting people talking is important.  It's the kind of discussion that would have been going on for months if Khan's identity wasn't kept under wraps.


Eh, I'm still of the opinion that ALL the dots were not presented and it was left a little more opened ended, but that's a quibble.

Real world issues are more towards the writers/producers decision to shoe horn in Khan as the villain, rather than allowing their villain to stand on his own. That, to me, is the misstep. The writers basically didn't trust themselves or the audience to accept this "superhuman terrorist" without bringing back Khan.

Opinions may vary, but Cumberbatch is fine, IMO, as this interpretation of Khan. I don't compare him to Montleban because they are not playing, 1 to 1, the same character. Now, before the fans go off on me, let me explain.

The Khan we met in "Space Seed" was concerned about concealing his identity, of playing people until his time came that he could free the rest and overtake the Enterprise.

That's not the Khan of Into Darkness. Marcus may well have dealt with that Khan, but he subdued him, manipulated him, and basicially leveraged Khan to the point that Khan could do nothing but wait, and use others to do his bidding. He plays Noel Clark's character, just like Marcus plays Kirk. The two are literally pitting people against each other, rather than fully engaging, until the end.

So, Khan isn't Khan in the sense that he is the same we see in "Space Seed" or "TWOK." He just isn't. He has been manipulated, played, threated and engineered to work for Section 31. I find the cold, remorseless, killer Khan that Cumberbatch played far more chilling than the wrathful Khan of TWOK.

But, like I said, they should have left him as John Harrison and the theme would have carried just as strongly, perhaps even more so. That is the misstep. It could have been so much more.


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jun. 12 2013, 2:48 am

Quote: Treknoir @ Jun. 11 2013, 4:03 pm


>If folks can post endless rants on Spuhura, Budgineering, lens flares, rapid promotion and canon violations/plot holes (transwarp ohmygerd!!!!!!, Archer's beagle, oh the humanity!!!), then this complaint is equally reasonable.


It is a very reasonable point of view.


As with the different sides of debate on all those other topics, (lenseflares -- which I dislike strongly for physical, not aesthetic, reasons; Spock & Uhura -- I refuse to use the compound word!; the "brewery"; Archer's beagle, &c.) it is equally valid just to go along with it. No-one can really impune people for (themselves) acknowledging ok this change is a bit weird, moving past that, and simply electing to enjoy the movie.

I think I have mentioned, I would absolutely 100% have preferred to have had an original villain in this film. Harrison was such a great villain, until he was revealed as Khan. Then he continued to be an awesome villain... but he was Khan, and I absolutely didn't want that!!

It is a valid complaint, but does not invalidate the viewpoint of those of us who (for ourselves) elect to set that complaint aside and elect not to see it as a deal-breaker as far as the movie goes.

-- Anton Yelchin bears bugger all resemblance to Walter Koenig too! Sorrys, but he really doesn't look the same. And sorrys, but that's not a deal-breaker either. --

Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?


GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this Jun. 12 2013, 2:52 am

Quote: Somniac @ Jun. 05 2013, 1:03 am


>Also there is a difference between being racist and denying it in others.

>Isn't there?


Yes. There is.

It depends greatly on whether the assessment is justified.

Do I think that Abrams et al. were absolutely racist in their casting choices?




Would I say so if I believed they were?

Honestly? Yes -- I think I would.

Have you ever danced with a Tribble in the pale moonlight?

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