Therin of Andor wrote:
It's not Shakespearean days. It's not the 1960s. That's the point.
So, suddenly, all actors must restrict
their skills set?
In response to the Shakespeare boys and girls nonsense, yes. With the world being as big as it is and the pool of talent being as wide and diverse as it is, agencies could afford to hire people who specialize.
Locutus of Bored wrote:
It's a no-win situation.
the decision had already been made to go with a terrorism
they could have just chosen not to go with Khan, but then you have the problem of the movie not having a hook to attract audiences in the form of Trek's most famous established villain
Sorry, I just kinda spliced up your post here so as to not make a huge wall of text response here, but these are the points I feel like addressing.
Khan never really struck me as a terrorist anyways. I find this characterization of him somewhat odd. That they put him in such a role and don't think about the consequences of that doesn't really strike me as a no-win situation. The answer is simple: don't use Khan, or don't turn him into a terrorist.
People kept saying before the movie, and somehow keep insisting that Khan is a big deal to reps and hooking audiences, but he's supposed to be a secret! He's not even marketed as Khan. Maybe if they spent the time playing up that this was Khan more instead of playing the whole secrecy angle (which really was nothing more than fan service), then there'd be a point to the whole marketability thing.
As to the "brushed aside" destruction, it's mostly because it just feels like it's done for the cool factor and that it's just all very casual, much like urban destruction in your typical Hollywood fare (Avengers, Transformers, Batman, etc). It's not like it's anything new to fiction where the main characters are invested much more in their personal melodramas when there are thousands of lives in jeopardy, so you're right in that. Still, it just feels odd.