Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[BillJ]

Or a generally less judgmental American public.

Nah, that's an excuse, now. The bulk of the American movie-going public is just as capable of seeing a South Asian in a villain's role as it was of seeing Michael Clarke Duncan play the Kingpin, or Denzel Washington play Alonzo Harris, without losing its collective s***.

If you say so.

 

[UFO]

Or a generally less judgmental American public.

Nah, that's an excuse, now. The bulk of the American movie-going public is just as capable of seeing a South Asian in a villain's role as it was of seeing Michael Clarke Duncan play the Kingpin, or Denzel Washington play Alonzo Harris, without losing its collective s***.

Indeed. I can't see the colour of someone's skin changing anyone's attitudes towards people of similar skin colour unless the movie goes out of its way to achieve that result.

 

[iguana_tonante]

So you are ok with racism because of 9/11. Probably also because FREEDOM. Good to know.

Actually I made it clear I was against the racism that says a person should be ruled out of playing a role based solely on the colour of their skin.

And yet you are ok with blaming South Asian/Middle Eastern people because of the actions of, what? 15 people from Saudia Arabia?

Case in point:

So Trek should have continued the unpleasant stereotype?

Personally I'm more worried about the people who planned the events of 9/11 continuing the "unpleasant stereotype". Of course I've always had difficulty keeping my priorities straight.

 

[UFO]

... And yet you are ok with blaming South Asian/Middle Eastern people because of the actions of, what? 15 people from Saudia Arabia?

Case in point:

So Trek should have continued the unpleasant stereotype?

Personally I'm more worried about the people who planned the events of 9/11 continuing the "unpleasant stereotype". Of course I've always had difficulty keeping my priorities straight.

What? The 15 or so people you mention are the people I was referring to. Not sure how you could get anything else out of what I wrote, but if you would care to explain what you think I meant and why you think I meant it, I would be most grateful.

I would say too, that I never referred to any particular race. So how can you believe I was blaming South Asian/Middle Eastern races for anything, is also mystifying.


Oh! It finally fell into place. You must have thought I meant "people" as in "race" rather than the specific "people" who planned 9/11. Bloody hell! That almost didn't occur to me. I still don't understand why you would assume such a silly and unlikely interpretation? I mean, why would someone (myself) who you knew was against racism on an individual level, be happy to cast entire sub-continents as responsible for the acts of a handful of individuals? It makes no sense. On top of that, why would I refer to a whole race of people planning 9/11?

I'm surprised you didn't wonder at some point, if you really had the right end of the stick.

 

[Timewalker]

I wanted a good actor playing Khan and Cumberbatch fit the bill. Anyone can come up with ways to address the discrepancy in appearance in their own mind. Which for me, is the absolute best way Abrams and Company could handle it in the film.

As far as casting Cumberbatch vs. a dark skinned actor, I think that there may have been some concerns about casting a dark-skinned person as a terrorist.

Unless there have been zero TV shows/movies casting a dark-skinned person as a terrorist since September 11, 2001, I doubt that should have been a huge problem.

So Trek should have continued the unpleasant stereotype?

Trek should have been consistent with the character that was presented in Space Seed. I've also said that I don't actually care if Original Khan was blue-haired, had plaid skin, and spoke with a Cree accent (or some other unlikely combination). And please don't trot out "the timeline was changed." Please. Because at the time KHAN was born, the timeline had not yet been changed. Therefore the Khan presented in the STiD movie was inconsistent.

As for "unpleasant stereotypes" I ask: Have ALL other TV shows/movies refused to cast dark-skinned actors in terrorist roles (or in any other negatively-perceived roles)? No? Then I don't see why Star Trek should have been afraid to do so.

In RL, terrorists come in all kinds of skin tones and ethnicities, and sometimes the label just depends on a person's politics. There are some members of Canada's parliament who consider people like me (caucasian, with Scandinavian ancestry) terrorists just because we prefer to have a healthy environment instead of the horror that exists in Northern Alberta. I dunno who I'm supposedly terrorizing with the pro-environment letters I've been writing to the politicians, but somebody thinks it's scary enough to hang a label on it...

The weird part is that on JJ's Lost, there most definitely were dark-skinned terrorists, and from Iraq no less. I don't seem to recall any fuss over that, but maybe I wasn't paying attention. It seems moronic to say that a terrorist couldn't feasibly be anything but white because of some sort of PC taboo.

Are you referring to Naveen Andrews' character?

 

[Nerys Myk]

IIRC, Sayid wasn't a terrorist. He was a soldier and later a spy.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Unless there have been zero TV shows/movies casting a dark-skinned person as a terrorist since September 11, 2001, I doubt that should have been a huge problem.

So Trek should have continued the unpleasant stereotype?

Trek should have been consistent with the character that was presented in Space Seed. I've also said that I don't actually care if Original Khan was blue-haired, had plaid skin, and spoke with a Cree accent (or some other unlikely combination). And please don't trot out "the timeline was changed." Please. Because at the time KHAN was born, the timeline had not yet been changed. Therefore the Khan presented in the STiD movie was inconsistent.

I say it's no more inconsistent with Space Seed than the white Khan with Aryan youths as followers in Wrath of Khan was. I can suspend my disbelief for both. You might want to read this, about how long running franchises treat their continuity.

As for "unpleasant stereotypes" I ask: Have ALL other TV shows/movies refused to cast dark-skinned actors in terrorist roles (or in any other negatively-perceived roles)? No? Then I don't see why Star Trek should have been afraid to do so.

Why does it have to be ALL? It's an unpleasant stereotype, and considering the final act's 9/11 x 10,000 re-enactment and the backlash that would cause, I say pissing off a few Trekkies was the better of two evils.

In RL, terrorists come in all kinds of skin tones and ethnicities, and sometimes the label just depends on a person's politics. There are some members of Canada's parliament who consider people like me (caucasian, with Scandinavian ancestry) terrorists just because we prefer to have a healthy environment instead of the horror that exists in Northern Alberta. I dunno who I'm supposedly terrorizing with the pro-environment letters I've been writing to the politicians, but somebody thinks it's scary enough to hang a label on it...

Yes, real-life terrorists come in all kinds, but I don't envy the treatment Muslims, Sikhs and others have received in the US, post-9/11 at the hands of the ignorant.

 

[Belz...]

Lost debuted nearly a decade ago. People and perceptions change.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

 

[SeerSGB]

Lost debuted nearly a decade ago. People and perceptions change.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

But is his ethnic heritage, his skin tone, critical to the story? Does it inform or drive the story we're being given at the time?

Continuity be damned, is it really such a critical story point that we are willing to justify the entertainment equivalent of racial profiling (middle eastern = terrorist) to justify that point? For that matter is continuity so important as to justify it?

 

[JWPlatt]

Lost debuted nearly a decade ago. People and perceptions change.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

And it's every bit as bigoted, prejudiced, and intolerant to avoid using specific races.

 

[SeerSGB]

Lost debuted nearly a decade ago. People and perceptions change.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

And it's every bit as bigoted, prejudiced, and intolerant to avoid using specific races.

Depends: Are you casting a specific race, regardless of the person's talent, cause of the stereotype (All middle eastern = Muslim = terrorist or all blacks = gangbangers) or because that the person you cast is the best actor for the job who just happens to be that race.

 

[CorporalClegg]

But is his ethnic heritage, his skin tone, critical to the story?

No.

/thread

 

[UFO]

Lost debuted nearly a decade ago. People and perceptions change.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

But is his ethnic heritage, his skin tone, critical to the story? Does it inform or drive the story we're being given at the time?

The problem for me is with it being changed for purely racial reasons that have nothing to do with the story.

Continuity be damned, is it really such a critical story point that we are willing to justify the entertainment equivalent of racial profiling (middle eastern = terrorist) to justify that point? For that matter is continuity so important as to justify it?

"Racial profiling"? While I may not like all the decisions the creators of nuTrek have made (), I never for a moment thought they were considering darker skinned actors because they believed such people would be "more acceptable" as terrorists! It seemed to me they were just looking for a better fit with the previous implementations of the character. I see nothing wrong with that.

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

And it's every bit as bigoted, prejudiced, and intolerant to avoid using specific races.

Depends: Are you casting a specific race, regardless of the person's talent, cause of the stereotype (All middle eastern = Muslim = terrorist or all blacks = gangbangers) or because that the person you cast is the best actor for the job who just happens to be that race.

I don't think it does depend. Since JWPlatt placed no conditions on his statement, the inference is that all other things are equal. If you have a legitimate movie related reason to hire, or not hire, a person of a particular race, that's fine with me. What I consider wrong is being prejudiced against someone in the name of doing our bit for a "greater social good". If there's a problem, we should find a better way of fixing it than the knee jerk reaction of kicking someone else in the teeth. In my view that's just a way to "feel good" about not solving the problem.

 

[JWPlatt]

It's just unfortunate that we have to avoid casting some skin tones, even if that would fit the story, because of potential backlash, though.

But is his ethnic heritage, his skin tone, critical to the story? Does it inform or drive the story we're being given at the time?

The problem for me is with it being changed for purely racial reasons that have nothing to do with the story.



"Racial profiling"? While I may not like all the decisions the creators of nuTrek have made (), I never for a moment thought they were considering darker skinned actors because they believed such people would be "more acceptable" as terrorists! It seemed to me they were just looking for a better fit with the previous implementations of the character. I see nothing wrong with that.

And it's every bit as bigoted, prejudiced, and intolerant to avoid using specific races.

Depends: Are you casting a specific race, regardless of the person's talent, cause of the stereotype (All middle eastern = Muslim = terrorist or all blacks = gangbangers) or because that the person you cast is the best actor for the job who just happens to be that race.

I don't think it does depend. Since JWPlatt placed no conditions on his statement, the inference is that all other things are equal. If you have a legitimate movie related reason to hire, or not hire, a person of a particular race, that's fine with me. What I consider wrong is being prejudiced against someone in the name of doing our bit for a "greater social good". If there's a problem, we should find a better way of fixing it than the knee jerk reaction of kicking someone else in the teeth. In my view that's just a way to "feel good" about not solving the problem.

Right. Conditions and qualifiers are a wasteful practice and distraction to me that just cause endless drilling into minutia and keep people from getting to the real point - like long legalese - when most things between rational and intelligent people really go without saying.

 

[Timewalker]

IIRC, Sayid wasn't a terrorist. He was a soldier and later a spy.

I will take your word on that, since I gave up watching after awhile.

 

[Set Harth]

Yet people still wonder why it might have been a good idea to have a white guy play Khan this time around...

Because when people come out of a Star Trek movie they immediately start beating up people of the same race as the villain?

 

[Belz...]

But is his ethnic heritage, his skin tone, critical to the story?

No, absolutely not. If it were, they would've been consistent about it in Space Seed to start with.

 

[Set Harth]

His skin tone's consistent enough in Space Seed.

 

[Belz...]

But he's called a Sikh while he definitely isn't. We've been through this before.

 

[F. King Daniel]

His skin tone's consistent enough in Space Seed.

As it is through WoK and ID. It's when you try to add them all together that there are problems.