I have the same complaints about Khan suddenly being played by Benedict Cumberbatch. An Indian actor should've gotten the work at a blockbuster movie that was written for an Indian character
Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident
- Thread starter CorporalCaptain
- Start date
why should Paramount willingly and knowingly lose money?
Oh, they shouldn't. But the comments around Star Wars and "In a Mirror Darkly" made me feel like this is an attitude I see oft repeated yet never challenged.
Repeating this doesn’t make it better.
err...reading comprehension fail?It's absurd to say that Paramount would lose money on casting an Indian actor to play Khan in into darkness instead of Benedict Cumberbatch. Not even going to get into the implications of that comment.
What??? Keep in mind there are many ignored posters on my list that break up the thread for me so yeah, maybe enlighten me on what I failed to read rather than jumping straight to personal attacks
I replied to this:
this has nothing to do with Khan, Cumberbatch or ethnicities
Ok I get what happened, yeah ignored posters don't show for me obviously, so I'll delete my comment to you about Khan.
And no, it's not my practice to publicly announce who I ignore but @Hythlodeus publicly insulting my reading comprehension in a personal attack comment gave me no choice
Ideally yes, though originally it was closer to the original casting with Benecio del Toro as Khan.
good, on a side note: Gael Garcia Bernal and Benicio DelToro were both approached by the Into Darkness crew to play Khan, because, you know, continuity.
So, let's just say that continuity for continuity's sake itself is probably not the ultima ratio
So, let's just say that continuity for continuity's sake itself is probably not the ultima ratio
hey, you beat me to it
My bad, my bad. I will try to type slower next time
"When they say that it's not about race, it's about race."
Just rewatched "Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow," and for the thousandth time am delighted that these producers choose to exercise carte blanche to ignore all the nitpicking that has become such a plague on fandom over the last quarter century or so.
The result is a far better, more entertaining and surprising show. They've got a great sense of the broad strokes that make Trek worth watching.
Folks will have to adjust.
Just rewatched "Tomorrow, Tomorrow and Tomorrow," and for the thousandth time am delighted that these producers choose to exercise carte blanche to ignore all the nitpicking that has become such a plague on fandom over the last quarter century or so.
The result is a far better, more entertaining and surprising show. They've got a great sense of the broad strokes that make Trek worth watching.
Folks will have to adjust.
I suppose. If that's what it means then I guess the "THEY JUST ERASED TOS!" crowd do have a leg to stand on. I figured it just moved "stuff from the future" back to being "stuff from the future". (We know that the Eugenics Wars didn't happen in 1996 because that's the year that New York and Los Angeles were destroyed in an alien invasion that was stopped by then-President Thomas Whitmore.)
It is funny that the solution to "the 1996 problem" was TIME TRAVEL when they ended last season with a story that said "If we change the future then the Federation will be plunged into a 20 year war that they will lose!" Time's funny stuff.
It's a great show, to be sure. Possibly the best. But I'm not sure where the lack of surprise was. I suppose Chapel not being boring is surprising.
If we find out that seven years from "now" that Una becomes captain of the Enterprise, I suppose that will be a surprise.
Fuck continuity.
It's a visual retcon and has been since day one. Why is this so god damn difficult to understand or get over.
They've already overrode your beloved visual continuity when they showed clips from "The Cage" in Discovery. It's done. It's over.
This modern show is not going to suddenly look like the 60's because that would be idiotic and make no sense.
You keep constantly pointing out that you're Asian, like it's some kinda "get outta jail free" card for your views.
It's not.
Giving a flying fuck that April is played by a black man, as opposed to some old white guy, just so it can match up with a kids cartoon show in the early 70's, thstvhslf thecfandom doesn't even consider canan, is the definition of making it a race issue.
What about April's character is changed by his skin tone? Nothing. Fuck all.
Anyone making an issue with Adrian Holmes playing the character is....... something I won't say cuz I don't feel like getting a warning over this absolutely asinine topic.
Honestly, maybe people on here should say why Benedict Cumberbatch should've gotten the role even though he doesn't fit. I've said enough so let's hear Cumberbatch's defenders explain why his lackluster performance deserved depriving an Indian actor of a job, on top of violating canon as established in Space Seed. It's not like Cumberbatch was hurting for work in other respects.
We could've fit Khan as he was described in canon, gotten a better performance on it, AND given a shot to an actor of color. Ignoring canon doesn't always lead to better results.
It feels my critics are purposely only focusing on the April situation, ignoring everything I said about Cumberbatch Khan, just so they can make defamatory attacks. And I'm calling it out.
We could've fit Khan as he was described in canon, gotten a better performance on it, AND given a shot to an actor of color. Ignoring canon doesn't always lead to better results.
It feels my critics are purposely only focusing on the April situation, ignoring everything I said about Cumberbatch Khan, just so they can make defamatory attacks. And I'm calling it out.
Last edited:
Because Roberto Orci said he didn't want to cast a person of color in the role of a terrorist in his "9/11 was an inside job" film.
Similar threads
