White Chicks?
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS - Grading & Discussion [SPOILERS]
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
If harping on Cumberbatch's ethnicity is the best the complainers can do, well bless their anxious little hearts. It's monotonous, but bless 'em.
Put a pic of Cumberbatch and the "Space Seed" Khan side-by-side. Is the skin tone really all that different? (As different as two Saaviks' faces? As different as two Kirks' eye colours? As different as two Cochrans' faces?)
He wasn't blond, his hair had gone grey/white. Stress brought on by the changes to Ceti Alpha V, the loss of his wife, failures of the Eugenics tech. All or some of these.
How do people tan? Melanin. What gives some clines darker skin tones? Presence of more melanin. Remove exposure to sunlight and the skin goes paler. Melanin. In STiD, Harrison's melanin has had different exposure to sunlight to Khan of "Space Seed".
Exactly. What's next? Only gay actors can audition for gay characters? Only blue-eyed actors can audition for blue-eyed characters?
I don't recall too much outrage when Linda Hunt won an Academy Award for playing a male Chinese-Australian photographer, Billy Kwan, in "The Year of Living Dangerously". She was simply the best actor for the job.
Last edited:
Just being facetious. Two of those reviews were written to generate hits, but McCarthy is legit. The Playlist has given it a C+ and Rotten Tomatoes has again chosen to translate that as "rotten". Odd indeed.
Is a plane ticket to England too much too pay to see a movie?
Oh. A credible example in a widely-appreciated film.
Might as well include Richard Pryor as the lead in SOME KIND OF HERO, too. That was casting against type of the kind making Joel Grey's asian in REMO WILLIAMS look politically correct.
It was a joke. I was deliberately posting a ridiculous example from a movie I hated.
I could not care less about Benjamin Cumberbatch's skin tone in the movie. All I care about is his performance, which from everything I've seen so far looks to be outstanding.
YES YES YES
Not to mention that Ricardo was ethnically white being his parents were both white Europeans from Spain not of mixed Meztizo blood
Not that it matters anyway
I am not opposed to change. I was open to each of the series and the films. I am someone who has found something redeeming about the fifth movie - I liked how the trio were depicted as a close knit group of friends. I attempted to be open to Enterprise, but the Temporal Cold War arc left me cold and, I attempted to be open to Voyager, but the lack of interesting stories and character development lessened my interest.
I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.
I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying? Perhaps keep her alive, as Mr. Freeze did with his wife until he could find a cure? And, if Khan always had this blood, then how far back does this timeline diverge from the one that we saw in Classic Trek?
I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.
I watched Iron Man 3 today. I liked how they depicted the character development arc of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. I felt the film had the right balance of action and dialogue. Even minor characters like the kid were given the ability to shine and were given a resolution. And the post-ending credits scene was hilarious. My only complaint is that I wished they mentioned more of what the other Avengers were doing, but I understand why they focused on Stark and this is a minor issue to what I see as a great film. (I have liked the Marvel Universe films. Even the weak ones have something to like.)
I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying? Perhaps keep her alive, as Mr. Freeze did with his wife until he could find a cure? And, if Khan always had this blood, then how far back does this timeline diverge from the one that we saw in Classic Trek?
According to Memory Alpha, Augments, as compared to normal humans:
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan
All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.
Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.
* were five times stronger
* were more agile
* were twice as intelligent
* had greater resistant to sickness
* had greater sensoral acuity
* had heart muscles with twice the strength
* had lung efficiency that was 50% better
* had twice the lifespan
All these could be accomplished through advanced genetics. We are already changing the nature of animals and plants through genetics. Given time, we might be able to do the same with humans.
Khan has suddenly, in this new film, become Jesus. He has this remarkable dunamis that, if tapped, could revive the dead. We have moved past genetic re-sequencing and have moved into the supernatural.
Eh, I kinda like that, though. It may not necessarily be "realistic" (though I don't really demand realism from Star Trek) but it definitely gets across the message that Khan is an enhanced being.
All we really saw before was that the Augments were stronger and more resilient. They didn't seem *all* that superior. They were basically human Klingons.
This guy is Nietzsche's superman, though, and that makes him terrifying.
I think what Abrams has done for the franchise is write Trek *as it would be written now*, rather than try to deal with dated concepts. And I feel it works.
Welcome to Star Trek.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Could say the same for when things stay the same; TFF delivered something very close in many ways to TOS episodes, and yet it is as despised as nearly any other couple hours of trek.
And the last couple of tng movies that seemignly were on autopilot, where you knew after every phaser hit the shields would drop by another 20% ... the more it stayed the same, the more bored we all were.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Not unless your TREK revolves around who has the biggest stem-cells.
And I disagree with them. Heaps of character development permeates this new movie! More than we saw in most previous ST movies!
Have you seen it? No, and you've given away your ticket, if I recall correctly.
What "canon" has been dispensed with, considering this is a new timeline?
Last week you were so opposed to change, you offered up your advanced-sale cinema ticket - for free.
Perhaps Harrison added nanites to his own circulatory system after being revived? He's had years of working for Section 31.
McCoy doesn't use the blood from any of the other 72, he wants to use Khan's.
Or...
Perhaps Khan on Ceti Alpha V had no idea of the qualities of his blood? Marla was sent insane, and then killed, by a Ceti eel boring into her brain. Perhaps not a curable condition.
Last edited:
That's pretty simple. He never met that wife in this timeline. You do remember how he met his wife in TOS, right? He met her through being revived by the Enterprise crew.
In this timeline, he wasn't revived by the Enterprise crew and so he never meets Marla McGivers. I'm not sure whether she's around or not, or whether Khan is married or not in this timeline. I guess we'll have to keep watching if they bring him back in ST3
BINGO.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
