Discussion in 'Star Trek Movies XI+' started by Agent Richard07, Apr 18, 2013.
Then you're probably gonna love STID, because it doesn't do that.
I thought STID is a lot more character-centric than IM3. I love RDJ, and this series is a tour de force for him, but sometimes the quirky comedy overpowers the drama.
As for Q1, the most accurate answer is because this isn't RL, it's a movie. But an intra-universe answer may be that he didn't have the right equipment or medical knowledge.
Q2. Timeline only diverges at the point Nero's ship appeared. Everything else is explained in those terms.
I stand corrected re the gray hair. Could be. Could be.
But, seriously, do you really believe what you wrote above?! You're saying that a few decades spent in the ceti system could have turned Khan's skin as pale as it was in TWOK?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. I truly don't get all the handwringing over this stupid topic.
He's asking why Khan Prime didn't save his wife on Ceti α V, since he would presumably have the same magic blood as NuKhan. Considering the circumstances, allowing her to die may have been an act of mercy.
Cool! So you saw it? Would you perhaps be interested in doing a brief review with spoiler tags?
I don't recall the Khan of "Space Seed" being all that swarthy?
Perhaps his sleeper unit in the Botany Bay doubled as a tanning bed? Perhaps he was always pale, but had a tan before climbing in for the long sleep?
Harrison or Khan? by Therin of Andor, on Flickr
Okay, but it's also possible that in THIS timeline, something may have been done to Khan's blood to make it "magic". Do we have an answer to that yet? Or is that one of those unspoken givens?
There is a definite difference in the two skin tones.
I'd go for the tanning bed idea
There's no answer for why he's white now, and no such answer will make sense anyways. This is just one of many things that illustrates that this is a reboot. Khan is a white guy now despite whatever was said in the past or whatever seemed to make sense.
And I mean, it's obvious that they at least started to go for someone who had a darker skin tone at first in the casting process. They even went strangely far enough to mostly look exclusively at Latinos, for whatever sense that makes. At some point in the process they just said, "Fuck it, the skin color isn't important to us." All they wanted was a good actor.
They wanted to make sure that they got that, and in doing so they fulfilled the pale, deep-voiced, British white male villain cliche. They whitewashed him clean and now don't have to bother with the whole Middle Eastern guy is a terrorist thing.
I can buy it, except for the blue eyes.
I took Therin's point the other way around.
Presumably just before Khan was incarcerated for The Long Sleep, he was roaming around the sub-continent, gaining a healthy tan. After years on Ceti Alpha, that tan disappeared.
But the whole "whitewashing" debate. How did Star Trek fans come to this?
Realistically I think part of it comes from something similar to what I once heard Robert Zemeckis say (and this is paraphrased): It's difficult to create sequels to things because many fans have already created their own adventures and expectations in their own minds. It's hard to top that.
Make of that what you will.
In many forums, it seems more like a racism debate. It's not PC to complain about a "black" actor taking a role that may traditionally have been filled by "white" actors, but there is a fierce anger about casting a "white" actor (man, I hate this discussion) in a role that was traditionally held by someone of colour (and I don't include Spanish RM here). Perhaps the intention of the posters is noble, they presume they are defending the rights of black actors. But it's all just racism to me.
I just assumed this was colour-blind casting (a practice perhaps more common in Britain than the US) and that the job went to the most impressive candidate. There may even have been some sensitivity around pushing the idea of sub-continental terrorists at this time in our history. But after that, I didn't think any more about it. The vehemence of the debate has shocked me. Maybe I'm missing something.
Well, there's definitely a bit of that sprinkled in as well. To me, that's not as important, because of my own personal background (and I don't really like that particular discussion either). On that particular point it's that I'd rather see the embracing of diversity, not more white males, especially straight British ones. Someone had pointed out that every movie villain since Khan had indeed been portrayed by a white person (although we did at least have a couple women, even if they were secondary). It just seems odd.
And like, it's only nitpicking. It's akin to people wondering where the black people were in Star Wars. You can still love it and be entertained by it and still wonder why it ends up being that way. Some people here just seem to paint it with a very broad brush where it's all or nothing, as if a white Khan is like a make-or-break thing for the movie or that people lose sleep over it or something. While that's possibly the case for some, that's definitely not the case for me. I'll be there opening night, and I still remain excited to see it.
How you know you're in an alternate timeline: everyone's eyes are blue. Just ask Data.
I have given up this fight, but I agree with what you are saying, if I don't necessarily agree with the tone (ranting). The fact is that Star Trek has 5 series and 10 movies that do the things you wish. Not every episode was a sit-down-and-talk-out-a-problem story arc. JJ Trek has helped me to romanticize the Trek that came before it. The bar is low and I am amazed that what I learned in my sociology, philosophy, logic, theater, psychology, literature, anthropology, chemistry, and biology classes ended up in a television show. It's college level, an introduction to college-level material for the novice. Star Trek has improved with my education as well.
I wasn't always in agreement with you. I think of DS9 as the show about oppression, a 177-hour arc about an issue that has faced every civilization, the othering of different people. When I was 15 and not paying attention in school, I liked the war. I liked the perseverance. I never thought about a theme or had any semblance of how to write a story (although I did want to be a writer). That as a writer, you start with trying to communicate an idea.
Now, this version of Trek seems to have defenders, calling old Trek heavy-handed, self-aware of its importance, and other excuses for the dumbing down of America. Everyone has critics.
I agree with you--part of being an artist is taking risks. That means you offend sometimes. That means sometimes the people in the audience don't get what you are trying to say. This isn't stupid Star Trek, it's safe Star Trek. And people pointing out that we need to bend to the will of what is marketable and financially viable, are saying "keep it safe. We don't want Star Trek to die."
I would rather have one really good series with one really good movie, one that is timeless, than 35 movies and 10 television series. Less is not more, but more is not more, either. Why should I spend my hard-earned money and my time and energy on something that isn't worthy of my education and time? It keeps me away from the movie theater and Trek is about to go the way of the that cynicism as well.
This isn't Trek for me. It's for the 15-year-old fan I once was. When Star Trek, or anything, stops making me think, that's when it is no longer viable in my mind. Sacrifices will be made...friendships will be tested..., these things already let me know that it was an appeal to emotion, not to my intellect.
So I will see it because I am curious. I will see it because of sentimentality. But I will not see it again and again or talk about it ad nauseum on this board or in any other venue. It simply isn't interesting enough.
Feel free to rip away. It won't change how I feel.
Exactly. I mentioned before that George Takei would get jibes in the 70s and 80s that he should only ever audition for "Asian roles", and that few Hollywood films and Broadway plays were written with Asian actors in mind.
Heaven help him now that he's come out, because now he needs to only audition for mature-age gay Asian roles?
They had STiD written and wanted a strong charismatic antagonist. The best actor auditioned - and won it, even though he didn't physically resemble two previous actors who'd been sought for the role.
I do recall some bitching about Idris Elba in Thor.
The most common response to the complainers was not to denounce the complaint as politically incorrect, but rather as idiotic given the universe in which these movies take place. You can accept a magic hammer, but not a Norse god who looks African?
The same observation applies here. Khan has [HIGHLIGHT]MAGIC BLOOD[/HIGHLIGHT] and we're nitpicking skin color?
In this ST universe where:
- thick red nailpolish can seemingly create blackholes
- anti-matter bombs can reverse the gravity of blackholes
- people can be beamed light years away to a starship moving faster than light
- time travel
-..we're gonna nitpick magic blood?
Honestly? The (and I'm not going to call it "magic" blood because it makes us seem like apes banging away at the monolith) healing blood didn't bother me that much.
With respect, Star Trek has alway incorporated futuristic devices and solutions, introduced primarily to move the plot along (warp speed, transporter etc.). They don't spend a lot of time explaining them in any real detail, and most fans didn't belabour the issue. It was science fiction. We moved on (or we produced technical manuals.
Those who didn't accept this stuff at face value went out into the world to examine whether these things could really be possible. Anecdotally, many of them became scientists or doctors or aerospace engineers. That's the beauty of Trek. It introduces something because it is cool and convenient and that places a flag in the ground for others to reach for.
We already use blood and blood products to improve health and performance. We already know that hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) from adult hosts can be released into the circulatory system to regenerate organs. We understand that cell death is suspended until long after the blood has stopped pumping. We have many examples of people who have died in cold conditions yet been revived. Canon established that Khan's genetic engineering gave him regenerative and healing abilities well beyond even that of normal men. How far fetched is it, really, that 300 years in the future we could know much more about harvesting HSCs and injecting them into a deceased, irradiated host that had been cooled after death, to effect cell repair?
Is any of this explained in the movie? Well, no. It does land as a bit of a WTF moment. But the more you think about it, the more you realise that it's just another in a long line of fantastic conveniences that Star Trek imagines and later generations make a reality.
Separate names with a comma.