This thread is 35 pages of repetition.
My Gripes with STID!
- Thread starter DeMilburn
- Start date
This thread is 35 pages of repetition.
As opposed to a Hispanic with Spanish accent??????
Tons of Southeast Asians speak with British Accents.Some even live in Britain! I hear a British woman was the Empress of India for a while.
They clearly went in the wrong direction. Cumberbatch is clearly not a Southeast Asian with a British accent.
Neither was Montalban. While I would have preferred a Southwest Asian actor, I can not fault Cumberbatch's performance and find your claims about "playing himself" or be a "snobby Brit" to be groundless. Stick to credible claims.
Last edited:
Slow down, fonz. Two things:
1. bbailey wasn't calling you stupid and foolish. What he did say was that Cumberbatch's character was neither stupid nor foolish, those qualities presumably belonging to the "snotty, British twit" you insisted Cumberbatch plays "in everything he does".
2. If, however, you honestly believe that someone has called you stupid and foolish (or anything else of an uncomplimentary nature, for that matter) then calling them out in-thread is not the thing to do. What you should do instead is click on the Notify Moderator button (
One other thing:
India (the Northern portion of which was speculated by Lt. McGiver to have been Khan's place of origin) is not synonymous with Southeast Asia. India is Southern Asia, while Southeast Asia is synonymous with the region known as Indochina (i.e., Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and so forth.)
Hope this clears a few things up for you.
There was no code here, fonzob1. The definition of "twit", as laid out in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is
twit
noun \ˈtwit\
: a stupid or foolish person
That's where I got it from...to describe what Cumberbatch wasn't. While he is British, he is by no means a twit. It had nothing to do with you at all. Period.
**I just read further down the thread. Thanks, M'Sharak. And, noted, fonzob1.**
Byron
Last edited:
No more or less correct than casting Montalban.
I disagree. It was almost like casting a Korean to play a Japanese character (Sulu). Not as big a stretch. That said, why not right the ship regardless and cast someone who fits the backround?
Not even a little.
Also. George isn't Korean and Cho (I believe) is Chinese and Korean. And Sulu isn't Japanese.
I'm pretty sure that by the 23rd century racial lines will be so blurred by intermarriage over decades and centuries that it will be hard to tell anyone's lineage by surname or appearance. Isn't that a good thing? Unless, of course, they come from an isolated environment, insulated from outside influence. But that's not what we're led to believe about Earth in this time period.
As for Khan, a genetically engineered person could literally look like any ethnicity. Accent would be influenced by where they grew up or where they were educated.
(Going forward to the 24th century, it's not that difficult to imagine a Frenchman having an English accent. "It's easy if you try.")
As for Khan, a genetically engineered person could literally look like any ethnicity. Accent would be influenced by where they grew up or where they were educated.
(Going forward to the 24th century, it's not that difficult to imagine a Frenchman having an English accent. "It's easy if you try.")
Spain and India aren't even on the same continent or the same hemisphere. Muchless Mexico and India.
George Takei is Japanese. John Cho is South Korean (and not Japanese).
How many guys named Sulu live in Japan?
Chris Pine isn't Canadian. Teh failyurz!
How many guys named Sulu live in all of Asia?
We're talking about a character you claimed was Japanese. So the question stands.
Not very many, chances are. Most people with the surname "Sulu" seem to be Estonian.
The "Sulu" from which the Star Trek character's name comes is either an archipelago located between Borneo and the Philippines or the part of the ocean lying to the north. The only thing Japanese about either is that they were within the Japanese sphere of influence during the earlier years of WWII.
Last edited:
Personally, I don't care if they got a white actor to portray a northern Indian. This is Hollywood we are talking about.
The issue I have is the historical ignorance shown by the writers who wrote the latest movie. The "supermen"
are compared to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte by Spock. I have read the history about these men. They were men who conquered vast swathes of land and founded short-lived empires. In Alexander's case, he adopted to the customs of the lands he conquered and he and his men had relations with non-Macedonians. It is explictly said in the episode that under Khan's rule, there were no massacres and no wars for the four years he ruled. Wars began when he was attacked.
The Augments weren't described as being like Hitler. Yet, Khan is described as being like this man in the latest film, that he initiated genocide against non-Augments.
The only rationale I can use to explain this major shift in character is that the timeline diverged not in 2233; it happen in the 20th century.
The issue I have is the historical ignorance shown by the writers who wrote the latest movie. The "supermen"
are compared to Alexander the Great and Napoleon Bonaparte by Spock. I have read the history about these men. They were men who conquered vast swathes of land and founded short-lived empires. In Alexander's case, he adopted to the customs of the lands he conquered and he and his men had relations with non-Macedonians. It is explictly said in the episode that under Khan's rule, there were no massacres and no wars for the four years he ruled. Wars began when he was attacked.
The Augments weren't described as being like Hitler. Yet, Khan is described as being like this man in the latest film, that he initiated genocide against non-Augments.
The only rationale I can use to explain this major shift in character is that the timeline diverged not in 2233; it happen in the 20th century.
Similar threads
