Nerys Myk wrote:
He was given a false identity, and as a major historical figure he had a recognizable face. It stands to reason his Caucasian appearance is the result of cosmetic surgery.
Since he's from India (and played by a Spanish-Mexican) didn't Khan always have a Caucasian appearance?
Cute, but I still would have preferred a person of color or at least a person with darker skin. I thought Cumberbatch did solid in the acting department, but he wasn't Khan to me, in appearance or attitude.
All that being said, this debate about Khan is just one example of how I feel Into Darkness falls short as a film. It's relies too much on fans to fill in the blanks. Granted it's something many of us love to do, but it's a sign that the film has problems standing on its own without that assist.
There are debates raging about Khan's blood or why they couldn't use another person in one of the canisters to save Kirk, why was Admiral Marcus so open about Section 31, was it or was it not Praxis, Carol Marcus's British accent, etc. I wish some of this stuff had been explained or explained more thoroughly in the film and not left up for people to speculate. Believe me even if it had been explained I'm sure we would've come up with something to nitpick. But the things I listed above I don't think are nitpicks, I think they are things that distract from the film and the story they are trying to tell. And many of them could've been solved with a bit of dialogue.