My Gripes with STID!

[Franklin]

Pinochet was a tin-pot dictator who ruled only through ruthlessness and fear of a knock on the door at night. Khan would be insulted to be compared to him.

Okay. Would he be correctly insulted, in your opinion? And if so, why?

You're also reading a lot in between the lines about Khan compared to on screen knowledge of him.

He's not, really. The basic jist of Khan's original appearance was obviously that he was a ruthless, but nevertheless admirable-in -certain-respects, figure from history.

(You may nevertheless have a point about the trains running on time thing. This after all was the same show that had a Federation agent pervert a civilization into Nazism because it was the "most efficient state Earth ever knew." Which... yeah.)

Let's just ask Khan if he'd rather be associated with Pinochet or Caesar. Let's also ask Caesar if he'd consider Pinochet a peer.

To say someone was among the least ruthless of a ruthless bunch of tyrants is damning with faint praise.

No massacres under his rule is no guarantee there wouldn't be any if he deemed it necessary to maintain or increase power. (I'm sure Napoleon never believed he'd ever have to order the mass murdering of Haitians, but there he was.) As far as not attacking unless he was attacked goes, that could be strategic. Let the others bleed themselves dry, and then just mop up.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Well that was an epic fail of a comment all around then wasn't it?

Yeah, it was pretty terrible. I have no idea what happened there. I edited it like six times, and it's still not right. It was a major brain fart all around.

To be fair, though, I was trying to eat and type at the same time.

 

[Mudd]

Montalban being non-white (because we're not going to be trotting out that facile nonsense about his being a "white European," right? right?) is pretty clearly a not-as-bad casting choice for Khan from a racebending standpoint as a Brit who glows in the dark. Neither of them were ideal from the racebending-critique standpoint, but they're very obviously not equivalent.

True; Montalban was worse.

I'm surprised that you don't get this. Montalban got cast a lot to play people of all kinds of backgrounds on TV largely on unexamined racism: the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

It is that simple.

 

[fonzob1]

Montalban being non-white (because we're not going to be trotting out that facile nonsense about his being a "white European," right? right?) is pretty clearly a not-as-bad casting choice for Khan from a racebending standpoint as a Brit who glows in the dark. Neither of them were ideal from the racebending-critique standpoint, but they're very obviously not equivalent.

True; Montalban was worse.

I'm surprised that you don't get this. Montalban got cast a lot to play people of all kinds of backgrounds on TV largely on unexamined racism: the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

It is that simple.

Oversimplified. You can recognize that "people of color" are different from one another (ethnically and culturally) and still know that casting a person of color in a role intended for a person of color is going to be a better fit. Just as you can recognize that "not all Asian cultures are the same." I think there is a sense with some people that it is fashionable to have an opinion like yours that is so absolute. I disagree with it.

 

[kirkfan]

I am against type casting. If someone is a good actor then his appearance doesn't matter much, if he's a bad one, his looks won't make him any better.

 

[Mudd]

Oversimplified

Nope. Accurate. That's the way it was done. Welcome to American network television, 1966.

 

[kirkfan]

Oversimplified

Nope. Accurate. That's the way it was done. Welcome to American network television, 1966.

Hey, that's almost fifty years ago! Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations that applies there?

 

[Mudd]

Oversimplified

Nope. Accurate. That's the way it was done. Welcome to American network television, 1966.

Hey, that's almost fifty years ago! Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations that applies there?

Of course there is. We don't have to pay attention to anything Star trek did 50 years ago. Reboot!

 

[kirkfan]

Nope. Accurate. That's the way it was done. Welcome to American network television, 1966.

Hey, that's almost fifty years ago! Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations that applies there?

Of course there is. We don't have to pay attention to anything Star trek did 50 years ago. Reboot!

I meant that when someone did something wrong fifty years ago you can no longer hold it against them.

 

[Franklin]

Hey, that's almost fifty years ago! Isn't there some kind of statute of limitations that applies there?

Of course there is. We don't have to pay attention to anything Star trek did 50 years ago. Reboot!

I meant that when someone did something wrong fifty years ago you can no longer hold it against them.

Yes, yes you can. The thinking was basically that any swarthy ethnic type could play just about any other swarthy ethnic type. They're all interchangeable. The thing is, they just have to seem "not like us." What's worse is that it stereotyped these actors into those roles, something Montalban and others worked decades to break. The producers of "Space Seed" probably thought it was quite a coup to get Montalban for the role.

And since Montalban was already used to putting on yellow face to play a Japanese person, and red face to be a Native American, it's just all in a days work for him to be made to look "Indian" for a "Star Trek" episode. William Shatner didn't have to do that to get work during that time.

As I said in another thread, here's an idea the producers of "Space Seed" could've considered: if you can't properly cast the role, rewrite it so you can.

 

[Mudd]

Of course there is. We don't have to pay attention to anything Star trek did 50 years ago. Reboot!

I meant that when someone did something wrong fifty years ago you can no longer hold it against them.

Yes, yes you can. The thinking was basically that any swarthy ethnic type could play just about any other swarthy ethnic type. They're all interchangeable. The thing is, they just have to seem "not like us." What's worse is that it stereotyped these actors into those roles, something Montalban and others worked decades to break. The producers of "Space Seed" probably thought it was quite a coup to get Montalban for the role.

And since Montalban was already used to putting on yellow face to play a Japanese person, and red face to be a Native American, it's just all in a days work for him to be made to look "Indian" for a "Star Trek" episode. William Shatner didn't have to do that to get work during that time.

Exactly so. A completely accurate summation.

The Trek producers were as prone to casual insensitivity and ignorance about ethnicity as anyone in Hollywood - look at Zulu and Uhura.

 

[M'Sharak]

[...]

As I said in another thread, here's an idea the producers of "Space Seed" could've considered: if you can't properly cast the role, rewrite it so you can.

In fact, the role as originally written bore little resemblance to the Khan we ended up seeing in "Space Seed," and was substantially rewritten after it was learned that Montalban had been cast for the part.

How Khan became Khan

Gene Coon, the guy who gave us the Klingons, started writing a lot of memos, 6 or 7 pages long, pushing the idea that Erickson could be Kirk's equal, not just a thug. This episode could have someone who actually challenges Kirk in a significant way. And because he comes from the past, he could be allowed to violate the norms of Starfleet. "They seem to recognize that Khan could be Kirk's Joker or Lex Luthor," says Tenuto.

Instead of just a criminal, why not make Harold Erickson a criminal who controlled much of the world in the 1990s? Like a super underworld boss? Coon wrote his own script draft in December — but it's Roddenberry's last-minute midnight script polish that fixes a lot of the problems and creates the "Space Seed" we know and love.

"As very late as early December [1966], you're still having drafts where he's this Viking-like guy," says Tenuto. In Coon's script, the character goes by John Erickson, but then reveals his true name to be Ragnar Thorwald. Coon's rewrites start to introduce the idea that this villain is genetically enhanced, and was the leader of the "first world tyranny."

So how did the character's name change? From his interviews and the paperwork, Tenuto learned that the casting of Ricardo Montalban caused the name change. "Montalban's casting really altered the character in terms of who he became," says Tenuto. Also, "once they knew that Montalban was taking the role, you can see a shift in the dialogue [in the scripts] to become more romantic."

Casting director Joseph D'Agosta cast the best actor for the role, instead of just finding someone who fit the blond Aryan image — and the character improved as a result, says Tenuto.

Once Montalban was lined up, they decided the character would be named Sabahl Khan Noonien, which is the name he still has in James Blish's book adaptation. Why the name Noonien? Gene Roddenberry had a Chinese friend in the 1940s, named Noonien Wang, whom he'd lost touch with. He hoped that one day this episode would air in China, and Wang would see "Noonien" and Roddenberry's name, and get in touch. Roddenberry was still trying to reach his friend in the late 1980s, which is why Data's creator is Noonien Soong.

NBC's research company suggested changing the character name to Govin Bahadur Singh, because the name "Khan" had implications about the character's Sikh ethnicity. But Roddenberry wanted both Khan and Noonien in the name.

The final script draft is covered with scribbles, in Roddenberry's handwriting, as he makes last-minute changes. Here and there, the name "Erickson" is crossed out, and the name "Khan" is written in pencil — because they forgot to change it in some places.

http://io9.com/inside-secrets-of-the-making-of-star-trek-ii-wrath-of-457250013


​

 

[Franklin]

[...]

As I said in another thread, here's an idea the producers of "Space Seed" could've considered: if you can't properly cast the role, rewrite it so you can.

In fact, the role as originally written bore little resemblance to the Khan we ended up seeing in "Space Seed," and was substantially rewritten after it was learned that Montalban had been cast for the part.

How Khan became Khan

Gene Coon, the guy who gave us the Klingons, started writing a lot of memos, 6 or 7 pages long, pushing the idea that Erickson could be Kirk's equal, not just a thug. This episode could have someone who actually challenges Kirk in a significant way. And because he comes from the past, he could be allowed to violate the norms of Starfleet. "They seem to recognize that Khan could be Kirk's Joker or Lex Luthor," says Tenuto.

Instead of just a criminal, why not make Harold Erickson a criminal who controlled much of the world in the 1990s? Like a super underworld boss? Coon wrote his own script draft in December — but it's Roddenberry's last-minute midnight script polish that fixes a lot of the problems and creates the "Space Seed" we know and love.

"As very late as early December [1966], you're still having drafts where he's this Viking-like guy," says Tenuto. In Coon's script, the character goes by John Erickson, but then reveals his true name to be Ragnar Thorwald. Coon's rewrites start to introduce the idea that this villain is genetically enhanced, and was the leader of the "first world tyranny."

So how did the character's name change? From his interviews and the paperwork, Tenuto learned that the casting of Ricardo Montalban caused the name change. "Montalban's casting really altered the character in terms of who he became," says Tenuto. Also, "once they knew that Montalban was taking the role, you can see a shift in the dialogue [in the scripts] to become more romantic."

Casting director Joseph D'Agosta cast the best actor for the role, instead of just finding someone who fit the blond Aryan image — and the character improved as a result, says Tenuto.

Once Montalban was lined up, they decided the character would be named Sabahl Khan Noonien, which is the name he still has in James Blish's book adaptation. Why the name Noonien? Gene Roddenberry had a Chinese friend in the 1940s, named Noonien Wang, whom he'd lost touch with. He hoped that one day this episode would air in China, and Wang would see "Noonien" and Roddenberry's name, and get in touch. Roddenberry was still trying to reach his friend in the late 1980s, which is why Data's creator is Noonien Soong.

NBC's research company suggested changing the character name to Govin Bahadur Singh, because the name "Khan" had implications about the character's Sikh ethnicity. But Roddenberry wanted both Khan and Noonien in the name.

The final script draft is covered with scribbles, in Roddenberry's handwriting, as he makes last-minute changes. Here and there, the name "Erickson" is crossed out, and the name "Khan" is written in pencil — because they forgot to change it in some places.

http://io9.com/inside-secrets-of-the-making-of-star-trek-ii-wrath-of-457250013


​

Neat stuff. Thanks for posting that.

Interesting that they started writing to fit Montalban's more romantic (Latin?) style when he was cast, but that still kind of begs the question of why they then made the character Asian.

 

[kirkfan]

I meant that when someone did something wrong fifty years ago you can no longer hold it against them.

Yes, yes you can. The thinking was basically that any swarthy ethnic type could play just about any other swarthy ethnic type. They're all interchangeable. The thing is, they just have to seem "not like us." What's worse is that it stereotyped these actors into those roles, something Montalban and others worked decades to break. The producers of "Space Seed" probably thought it was quite a coup to get Montalban for the role.

And since Montalban was already used to putting on yellow face to play a Japanese person, and red face to be a Native American, it's just all in a days work for him to be made to look "Indian" for a "Star Trek" episode. William Shatner didn't have to do that to get work during that time.

Exactly so. A completely accurate summation.

The Trek producers were as prone to casual insensitivity and ignorance about ethnicity as anyone in Hollywood - look at Zulu and Uhura.

But can we hold today's writers and producers responsible for that?

 

[BigJake]

the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

Yes, I noticed that. It's just that flat-out casting a white guy in an Asian role is even worse than that. It's not that Option Montalban is some golden chalice of progressive casting.

 

[Franklin]

the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

Yes, I noticed that. It's just that flat-out casting a white guy in an Asian role is even worse than that. It's not that Option Montalban is some golden chalice of progressive casting.

If that's the problem, if it had worked out, would Benicio Del Toro have been any better a choice to play Khan than Cumberbatch was?

The safest and most inefficient way to handle all this is to declare Marla McGivers incompetent. He's not a Sikh. There's no ethnic clarity in the name Khan Noonien Singh, anyway. Khan is a Mongol title and a Pakistani and Afghan surname. Singh is a common Sikh surname and common among other northern Indians. Noonien must be Chinese. Khan could've been from anywhere (and maybe had any other name), then became radicalized and moved to Asia, where he took the name he has a pan-Asian gesture.

 

[BigJake]

the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

Yes, I noticed that. It's just that flat-out casting a white guy in an Asian role is even worse than that. It's not that Option Montalban is some golden chalice of progressive casting.

If that's the problem, if it had worked out, would Benicio Del Toro have been any better a choice to play Khan than Cumberbatch was?

Like I said earlier -- perhaps on another thread -- the truly depressing thing is that casting Benicio Del Toro would have been literally a lateral step from casting Montalban... and that's as wild as they were apparently willing to get. It's Sixties thinking all over again. (As to the question, I have no idea what Del Toro might've done with the role but he's a fine actor.)

The safest and most inefficient way to handle all this is to declare Marla McGivers incompetent.

I don't really buy that, it seems like over-convenient side-stepping for people who don't want to actually think about or engage with the real-life problem within Hollywood that's being raised. (Not that you necessarily have to, but I think the least that can be asked is not trying to derail the topic whenever it comes up.)

 

[kirkfan]

the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

Yes, I noticed that. It's just that flat-out casting a white guy in an Asian role is even worse than that. It's not that Option Montalban is some golden chalice of progressive casting.

I think, typecasting is the main offender. If we didn't resort constantly to it, things would go a lot smoother.

 

[St. Squigolas]

Well that was an epic fail of a comment all around then wasn't it?

Yeah, it was pretty terrible. I have no idea what happened there. I edited it like six times, and it's still not right. It was a major brain fart all around.

To be fair, though, I was trying to eat and type at the same time.

I was talking about his, not yours.

 

[Mudd]

the white guys doing the familiar thing of "he's 'not white' and has an accent so no one will notice the difference because 'they' are all alike."

Yes, I noticed that. It's just that flat-out casting a white guy in an Asian role is even worse than that.

No, it's really not.

Particularly since STID contained absolutely no references to Khan's supposed ethnicity. Someone watching Trek for the first time with the new movies would have no reason to think anything more about this than "odd name."