STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]

I think that yenny put up Hrithik's page because he might be the only Indian actor right now who can conceivably pull off a good "Khan". That's just my opinion.

 

Abrams made his pick. I think we should all wait until we actually see the film before second-guessing the choice.

 

India is pretty close to Iran, that's all I'm saying.

Anyways, the point that I was referring to was that before someone mentioned that if he was darker skinned that the average viewer would not make the delineation that you refer to. So I wasn't alluding to that particular geography myself.

 

I'm not second-guessing.

 

Not you. Just everyone who is.

 

Canon is pointless. I like continuity too, but I won't let it get in the way of something good (and Trek has taken that approach with its own canon when they felt like it).

That being said, if Star Trek has taught us anything it is that looks are important, that it matters more than character, and the emotions they evoke. If your name is Khan you BETTER be from India and a brown man because in the future all races will be segregated by skin color, names, and birth place.

.....................wait....do I have that backwards?

 

Picard is French so IN THE TNG REBOOT you god damn well better cast a French man who eats cheese and snails and orders wine from the replicator not some English man who drinks tea!

 

Good thing no one said anything like that. Here's something worth noting:

MARLA: From the northern India area, I'd guess. Probably a Sikh. They were the most fantastic warriors.

This was something McGivers said based on looks, not a name. I know it's not important anymore and the character is rebooted (and even so probably since TWOK), but that's what I was going off of, not anything more than that. I know it's easy to set up a straw man and pretend this has to do with racism or something like that, but that's cheap.

 

You only need to look at Ryan8bit's avatar to see that Ricardo Montalban is pretty white and certainly not Indian. There is nothing wrong with Cumberbatch being Khan. For all we know Khan could have been raised in England to mixed parents or even had the genes responsible for looking like an indian removed as part of his genetic engineering. Maybe he was adopted into a family that had a surname of Khan? Just use your imagination. We know very very little about Khans background except he was a superhuman who once ruled a small empire on Earth.

 

Re: how good are star trek into darkness reviews

Just read the first one I've seen in a major paper here.

It says the characters are bad - Kirk a reckless and unlikeable captain, Spock coming off as a simpleton for admiring him, Chekov and Scotty caracatures, Marcus randomly stripping for eye-candy and Uhura pining after Spock. it also finds the relentless action becomes tiresome and the plot lacks logic. However, it says Cumberbatch does well.

Overall, it compares the film unfavourably to XI, but still gives it 3/5, mostly as a spectacle.

 

As for the McGivers line.... she just got it wrong. Northern India? Sheesh.

 

Actually, you might want to see the original image that is photoshopped from:
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly5v5sAwJQ1qeenqto1_500.jpg

My avatar is just sort of a nod toward the later non-bronzed TWOK Khan and the now pale white, green eyed Khan played by Cumberbatch. Sort of a retcon.

Of course, there are images of him from "Space Seed" where he's lighter looking than that link, although not quite as light as the avatar.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with racism.

It is just an argument I've seen alot or a complaint. His name is Khan, he is suppose to be a Sihk warrior and blah blah blah he cant be a white British guy.

I just think the whole thing is a beyond pointless argument. It's a ret-con. Hell the TOS movies ret-conned the TOS series whenever it felt like it.

I just think it is a silly argument that the role should go to an Indian actor or something like that.

My absurd comment was just there to say that Trek, if it taught me anything was that what you are called, where you come from, and what you look like are meaningless next to what kind of person you are.

 

Because all the cool guys joined Section 69.

Don't worry about it. As the truefans have yelled for four years, reviews mean nothing. Box office means nothing. Come to think of it, everything means nothing. They weren't idiots after all. They were simply dispensing the wisdom of Zen.

 

I shouldn't imagine Benedict Cumberbatch is a guaranteed boxoffice draw. I doubt many people in the States know who he is!

 

I think they're talking about his performance in past works.

 

Well, hell. There goes my faith in forum avatars as undeniable truth!

 

With all the other nonsense we accept in Trek, if people dislike this movie, don't go see it, or otherwise gripe just because of whether or not who is playing Khan is the "right" color or right "ethnicity," then Trek fandom has jumped the shark.

Besides, as has been said a dozen times, Khan is a Muslim title taken by a Sikh whose actual name is Noonien Singh. If one is comfortable with that contradiction, or can explain that away, then anyone should be able to explain away who plays the character just as well.

Also, a Dastar is a mandatory item of headwear for a Sikh male. Where's Singh's? If there's an explanation rationalizing why he doesn't wear it any more, then there's an explanation suitable for who's playing the character.

Further, to be most correct, Singh should be wearing a Kirpan. He didn't in "Space Seed", and he doesn't in STID. Maybe it was under his clothes. Maybe he doesn't wear it because Khan Noonien Singh doesn't seem to stand for what it symbolizes: peace, non-violence, defense of the weak, and truth.

There seem to be a lot of inaccuracies in the character to chew on and explain. So, why stop at the actor portraying him?

 

How will they know if they dislike it?