Greg Cox wrote:
The way I see it, one line of dialogue from forty-six years ago is no big deal. As the saying goes, sometimes an ounce of inaccuracy saves a ton of explanation.
Why do the audiences today need "a ton of explanation" what a Sikh is, but the audiences in the 60s didn't?
Khan was a genetically engineered tyrant over all eurasia hundreds of years ago, got overthrown and escaped/exiled into space. One line of monologue.
I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that Sikhs were too hard to explain these days. It was addressing the continuity issue and that it probably made more sense just to ignore one old line of dialogue than to try to explain it away--or let it determine the casting of the character. "An ounce of inaccuracy" being better than a finicky adherence to What They Did Before.
In other words: cast whoever you want and don't fret about the Sikh thing--which was only mentioned once to begin with.
It's funny. I remember when people first started talking about recasting Khan, people kept suggesting Hispanic actors like Antonio Banderas, Benecio del Toro, etc. Which suggests that people cared less about staying true to Khan's Indian backstory--and more about finding another Ricardo Montalban!