Klingons in STID--why do they look like [SPOILERS]?

Well, that was kind of my point. You use Trek's most well known villain and yet there is absolutely no advertising built around it. Cumberbatch may as well have been John Harrison as far as general audiences were concerned.

 

Here's my answer to the Khan race thing, spread it around if you like it.

Genetics. What a random chance they are! Every birth, every person, is the result of complete chance. Look at your own family - the same parents, yet you and your siblings look different, act different, have different genders. And it's quite conceivable (no pun intended) that in alternate universes, even with your same parents and your same moment of conception, that other you is different.

Okay. Now, consider people that were setting themselves up to be genetic supermen. They are fiddling with genes and eggs and sperm, to improve the human species far beyond anything it currently is. Now combine the chances of conception with full on human intervention, and keeping the mind they are blending the bext genes of humanity... he could have been anything. In the prime universe he was uh, Mexican of Indian descent. In the JJverse, he's Caucasian of Indian descent. In the next universe over, he's he's Khan Inayat Singh, an Eskimo of Indian descent.

You're welcome.

 

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=16635

When I read that nine-page preview, am I the only one that feels like...

Spoiler: After Darkness

...they forgot that there's a year between capturing Harrison/Khan and the start of the five-year mission?

 

Here's the problem: the Abramsverse was supposed to be the same as the Prime timeline before Nero's arrival in 2233. This would include Khan's genetic makeup.

 

I liked the time gap at the end. Made things a little more believable.

 

Re: Klingons in STID--why do they look like a burned Kryten?

No, doesn't look like Darth Maul at all.

 

I'm still trying to figure out how Darth Maul has a cube-shaped head that looks like it was dunked in barbecue sauce. And where are the pointy yellow Klingon horns and black and red facial tattoos?

 

What race would that be?

 

Hard to say. He was played by a Mexican actor before. Maybe he was supposed to be Mexican?

 

If we had to go based on television from the seventies and eighties I'd say Khan was a Corinthian.

 

Indian.

 

Only one Klingon took off his helmet if I'm not mistaken, and although he looked slightly different, I thought he had ridges...

 

To be fair, the bit about Khan "possibly" being a Sikh was mentioned once in "Space Seed," forty-six years ago. It wasn't mentioned at all in The Wrath of Khan. Granted, I got two books out of that line, but I'm inclined to cut them some slack here. Khan's Sikh roots are not essential to the character; heck, Khan never mentions them onscreen. He identifies as a genetically-engineered superman, not a Sikh.

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.

Or, even more profoundly, why sweat the small stuff?

 

OK, seriously, those who actually care about this shit should just assume that a quick aesthetic surgery was a part of Section 31 fake identity package.

In the 23rd century, changing one's appearance shouldn't be much more difficult than changing a name. Heck, they can probably do it in a matter of minutes.

 

Heck, Kirk had himself surgically disguised as a Romulan in "The Enterprise Incident," an Orion was surgically transformed into an Andorian in "Journey to Babel," and a Klingon was surgically disguised as a human in "The Trouble with Tribbles."

So it's canon!

 

If that's the case, ethnicity doesn't enter into it. Anyone can be Sikh.

I'm thinking that Khan might be Sikh in name only.

 

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 audiences in general couldn't give a rat's ass. It's just the Treknoids that need everything spelled out, with 27 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

And that cracks me up.

 

There's this notion that I will never understand: the audience is stupid. Apparently EVERYTHING that was already mentioned somewhere confuses the people in theaters and needs to be done differently.

 

Audiences aren't stupid. They don't need minor details explained. It's just the fanatical Treknicators that need "two minutes of onscreen explanation."

I like to think that my imagination can fill in any blanks, real or perceived.

The fans that need the slow paced, talk it to death in every scene, blahblahblah, are the reason Trek nearly died.