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

An Old Posters thoughts on the New Film

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 14 2013, 10:05 am

thats true too, useing an actor of India decenrs/looks might have gone really wrong in the public eye, more so over seas.


Photobucket

adamking

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1187

Report this May. 14 2013, 11:29 am

Ok so a day has passed since I saw the film and my view is developing more. It was also interesting reading the thoughts of others on here and now I'm ready to share my own ones again.


One thing is clear to me, I no longer have the memory to argue the little details of Trek. Although I have watched every Trek series and film at least once(depending on how much I loved it), I just can't retain it all like I used too. I have brought shame and dishonour to my post count.


Non the less I will give it ago anyway. The whole Khan thing, on reflection this is what I find the most painful. So many other things can be explained away by it being a different timeline but not this. Khan was 'created' before the changes started to occur, their is no reason for him to look any different. I accept there are some technicalities involving Khan but canon is what they show on screen and if nothing else I could see he had a tan and long black hair. Getting this wrong is akin to casting Spock with spiky blond hair. And beyond that I'm sure JJ wasn't aware that he could via loop holes and so on get away with casting him white. At the same time I can't ignore JJ suspected reasoning for casting a white guy. As for the whole brown guy playing terrorist angle, anyone complaining would have been corrected pretty quickly I'm sure it would have been a non issue. I must admit when I first saw Khan I thought he was native american, they could of at the very least cast a hispanic man to play him again. Above all that though is the fact the Star Trek is sposs to be above and beyond our times ignorance. The views and ignorance of today should not affect casting for Star Trek, otherwise we would of had no Pavel Chekov and so on.


As for the argument that ST:3 4 & 6 also left out known species, to be honest I dont have the memory to contest this. I feel like they didn't, but that may just be nostalgia. If nothing else I can say that the fact that this crime has been done before is no excuse for repeating it. And that as Star Trek progressed and introduced more and more species not including some known ones becomes harder and harder to justify.


Now on to the Klingon ridges... I concede. I still feel the smooth head Klingons had the dominant genes so if a ridged and non ridged Klingon had kids, the kids would be ridgeless. But there is no reason not to believe that some of the population kept their ridges. This could even go some way to explain why they were wearing helmets, to hide the fact that some of them did not have any ridges. This was something they wasn't proud of after all.


As for other errors I felt was there, I must admit I have lost some confidence in fighting for them and I am mostly pretty forgiving. Also now looking back on the film I'm remembering some of awesome insider stuff that was there(I certainly liked this one a lot more than the first). For example a moment for me that really separated the casual from the Trek fans was the reference to section 31. I loved that! And you could see every DS9 and ENT fan in the audience sit forward at that moment. But even this makes me feel sour, because if you can get something as insider as that right how can you get the basic stuff wrong* without it feeling malicious?


*Casting Khan as white is wrong, if not via canon then at the very least it is morally wrong. Even casual fans know what Roddenberry was trying to do and how this contradicts it. 

leroybrock

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 213

Report this May. 14 2013, 12:19 pm

Meh. Khan's race simply not the important thing you're making it out to be. It may in fact be a kind of social commentary to make him Caucasian; kind of trying to jostle any viewers that have gotten comfortable thinking that terrorists will mainly come from certain ethnicities.

Don't let me try to make you enjoy something. Keep on being upset and irked to your heart's content.

I Am Ultra Narcissus.

adamking

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1187

Report this May. 14 2013, 12:26 pm

Quote:

Don't let me try to make you enjoy something. Keep on being upset and irked to your heart's content.


I'll wait till more views come in before I'll add some more of my own but just a small note. I hate this^. Superiority complex. Don't look down on the views of others unless you want your own views to be looked down upon.

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 14 2013, 1:17 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 14 2013, 8:09 am

Quote: Treknoir @ May. 14 2013, 7:51 am

>

>Folks are confusing ethnicity with race. Khan Noonien Singh was white/caucasian. Augment or not, what he was not was lightskinned or of European ethnicity. Singh is a Sikh last name. He was meant to portray someone of northern Indian ancestry despite the original Khan being played by a Hispanic.

>Please don't be disingenuous when someone brings up a valid point about the physical portrayal of the Khan character.

>No, it's not really an "error" but it is a departure from canon and most hardcore fans know the background.

>http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/File:Khan_art.jpg

>http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Khan_Noonien_Singh

>

I'm not being disingenuous about this in any way, and as to the validaty about the point...........I made the same argument months ago when it wasnt certin that Comberpath [spelling?] was playing Khan.

But then I realised something.....Khan was created in a lab and likekly brought to term in a host mother.Theres no reason to believe that the name his creators gave him was Khan Noonien Singh..

You point out that Singh is a Sikh last name.....but do we know thats his real last name?Maybe Khan gave himself that name when he decided to take over the world.


Sorry, on this particular issue I'm going by what was shown and said in the prime universe. Everything else is speculation. I posted links to Khan Klassic. It is obvious by the name, limited history, and McGiver's art work from the "90s" what the implied ethnicity of Khan was supposed to be.


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

Treknoir

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1784

Report this May. 14 2013, 2:10 pm

Yeah, please miss me with the brown = terrorist association that's being made. Folks who think all brown/olive/swarthy people are terrorists are truly too stupid to live. Khan Noonien Singh had a complex back story and wasn't just some villain made up for this movie.


Also, stop making excuses for why Cumberbatch was selected. TPTB tried to hire at least two well known Hispanic actors and it didn't work out. The movie's release date was pushed back and a script was supposedly being worked on up to the last minute. The decision to cast Cumberbatch was based on $$$$ and expedience (he was availabe and could be a credible villain). They made him "fit" regardless of the back story.


And they knew hardcore fans were going to have issues which is why the "John Harrison" disinformation campaign was rolled out.


Now, having said all of that, this doesn't mean that fans shouldn't see the movie and decide for themselves if they like it or not. And it's perfectly okay if some people don't like the movie and want to talk about their dislikes on ST.com.


The OP was quite civil in his critique. As opposed to folks holding mock trials on the crimes of ST09.


 


It is curious how often you humans manage to obtain that which you do not want. - Spock

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 14 2013, 3:09 pm

It could be said that this universe's Khan had himself genetically modified in an attempt to exploit the privilege often granted to people in areas dominated by Caucasians.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 14 2013, 4:18 pm

Quote: adamking @ May. 14 2013, 11:29 am

> I just can't retain it all like I used too. I have brought shame and dishonour to my post count.


You, and your family will be dishonoured for 3 Generations


Non the less I will give it ago anyway. The whole Khan thing, on reflection this is what I find the most painful. So many other things can be explained away by it being a different timeline but not this.


I dont feel the other timeline explains this issue.I feel that fact that hes a being that was designed in a lab give the issue of race a bit of leeway.Also, it wouldnt be the first tgime a character was recasted with a new actor/actoress that didnt resemble the original.


they could of at the very least cast a hispanic man to play him again


thats what I was hopiong for , Benicio Del Toro or Antonio Banderas would have been perfect for the part.


As for the argument that ST:3 4 & 6 also left out known species, to be honest I dont have the memory to contest this. I feel like they didn't, but that may just be nostalgia. If nothing else I can say that the fact that this crime has been done before is no excuse for repeating it. And that as Star Trek progressed and introduced more and more species not including some known ones becomes harder and harder to justify.


we saw unknown aliens in the McCoy bar sceen in ST3, a few unknown aliens in the federation councel at the end of ST4, and a few unknown aliens in the klingon prision in ST6, as for it being a crime, I see it as the creators trying to give us something new.


After all, thats how we got Morn in DS9


Now on to the Klingon ridges... I concede. I still feel the smooth head Klingons had the dominant genes so if a ridged and non ridged Klingon had kids, the kids would be ridgeless. But there is no reason not to believe that some of the population kept their ridges. This could even go some way to explain why they were wearing helmets, to hide the fact that some of them did not have any ridges. This was something they wasn't proud of after all.


The episode of Enterprise implied that less then a quater of the empire was effect, they even thought they could contain the virus by destroying a few worlds.


*Casting Khan as white is wrong, if not via canon then at the very least it is morally wrong. Even casual fans know what Roddenberry was trying to do and how this contradicts it. 


with that I really cant disagree


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 14 2013, 4:24 pm

Quote: Treknoir @ May. 14 2013, 1:17 pm

>

>Sorry, on this particular issue I'm going by what was shown and said in the prime universe. Everything else is speculation. I posted links to Khan Klassic. It is obvious by the name, limited history, and McGiver's art work from the "90s" what the implied ethnicity of Khan was supposed to be.

>


the name proves nothing what so ever, he vwas designed in a lab, he could have taken any name he wanted.


the limited history also proves nothing, it said he took over parts of India, not that he was born there.


if anything the art work is the only thing that can be usede in the argument, but even that would could be said to have been her interpertation.


Photobucket

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 14 2013, 4:27 pm

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 14 2013, 3:09 pm

>It could be said that this universe's Khan had himself genetically modified in an attempt to exploit the privilege often granted to people in areas dominated by Caucasians.


such areas dont exsist in the starfleet era


Photobucket

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 14 2013, 4:48 pm

Quote: stovokor2000-A @ May. 14 2013, 4:27 pm

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 14 2013, 3:09 pm

>

>It could be said that this universe's Khan had himself genetically modified in an attempt to exploit the privilege often granted to people in areas dominated by Caucasians.

such areas dont exsist in the starfleet era


 


That we know of. Section 31 doesn't exist either, correct? Also were he an area heavily populated by caucasians it would make it easier for him to blend in.


Ethics are arbitrary.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this May. 14 2013, 5:20 pm

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 14 2013, 4:48 pm

>That we know of. Section 31 doesn't exist either, correct?


incorrect.....we know full well that 31 exsists.


and while not known to the general public of the trek universe, there are those that have knowlidge.


Also were he an area heavily populated by caucasians it would make it easier for him to blend in.


again, on earth of that era I'm not sure such an area exsist, besides, Section 31 had him running around the universe doing black opps.


Photobucket

crellmoset

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 116

Report this May. 14 2013, 5:39 pm

There are of course the possibilities that he did it when he was bored, feeling whimsical, out of some private spite or to look like someone that he liked.

adamking

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1187

Report this May. 14 2013, 9:17 pm

*Spoiler Alert!!!* 


Ok more time has passed for me to digest the latest film and now I just find myself thinking the same thought over and over. Khan being white killed it for me. It may sound petty or ridiculous but it did. The first film I didn't like because of the whole different timeline angle but I believe if the story had been better or the tone had felt more like Star Trek then I could of got past that and this time I so almost did. At first this new film annoyed me straight away because of Spock disobeying the prime directive while telling Kirk off for doing the same thing. But when Pike addressed that I relaxed, it was like the film was telling me 'yes we know we got things wrong in the first one but you can relax now we are on it'. From that point onward I was engrossed in the story which this time around was much better and the tone was much closer to Trek, though not always. Still this was a much better showing this time round and my mind and imagination was thoroughly in Kirk's and Spock's world, as it should be. And then they revealed Harrison as Khan(I kept away from all media sources and trailers in the lead up to the film so while I had guessed he was an augment, I still didn't know it was Khan). And it was like I was violently pushed right back out of the film. I felt annoyed insulted and offended at the same time. From that point onward the film had completely lost me and never recaptured my attention. So while I was watching the emotional scenes between Spock and Kirk and could see they were a very well done idea I just couldn't make myself care about who lived or died and whether or not they captured Khan. The whole thing just felt so discredited. So for those who were able to look past this I can see why this film was liked. And even as I acknowledge how petty it seems to discredit a film based on a single casting, it is non the less the natural reaction I had has a viewer when it was revealed to me. Also keep in mind there was other little issues along the way that was scraping me but the superior plot and almost there tone just about held me in till that point. I think my mind has settled on this point as my lasting thought of the film now.

OtakuJo

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 16362

Report this May. 15 2013, 2:44 am

Quote: crellmoset @ May. 14 2013, 4:48 pm

>

>That we know of. Section 31 doesn't exist either, correct? Also were he an area heavily populated by caucasians it would make it easier for him to blend in.

>


I did love it in the cinema when at the first mention of Section 31, there was a kind of very brief and quite hushed "ooh" from some in the audience. Including, dare I say it, me. I did like the idea of Marcus and "Harrison" being connected with 31.


To answer your question: Section 31 was "part of the original Starfleet charter", according to Sloan in Inquisition (ds9), which means that it has been "around" since the beginning of Starfleet even though it was not dreamed up by the writers (or revealed) until DS9's sixth season. There was some 31 involvement in Enterprise-era, i.e., the 22nd century, so clearly it would have been around in Kirk's time. [which of course was between Enterprise & DS9.]


As far as areas "heavily populated by Caucasians", in the 23rd century at least there is less likely to be such a place, at least to the extent where a non-Caucasian visitor would particularly stand out. In fact, by rights the population of humanity should be a good deal more mixed in the 23rd century than Star Trek portrays it. (Example: Sisko and his family members still habitually fall almost exclusively for people of African descent. In a place where racial lines no longer matter, one would think that mixed marriages would be far more common and racial identities far less definite... although of course there are casting issues involved with portraying such a future!)


May have made some difference in the '90s (when the Eugenics Wars were supposed to be), but even that is doubtful. After all, if Khan was indeed physically and mentally superior, what further advantage would there be in a few cosmetic tweaks? To put it another way, his identity as a Sikh brings no clear disadvantage that he is not equipped to overcome.


(If Khan is a Sikh though he must be non-practising.)


I don't think the film lost me at that point, but I was disappointed about Cumberbatch being Khan. I was one of those who ran a mile from anything resembling a spoiler, until last Thursday when I finally got to see the movie. But before that moment, he was such a brilliant villain. If I could change anything, I would make him a completely original character (in the sense that Nero, while not great, was at least new) and not a rehash of an old villain.


As far as missing familiar aliens, of course you can't include every possible species. There were random new aliens in both films, but that's not a new tactic from Star Trek at all. Remember crazy feral catwoman from Star Trek V, who looked like she was dressed for a production of Cats? Or the four-armed pianist with the screechy voice from Unification? Never saw much of her species either.


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