My name is...Khan?

[Dales]

I think there are bigger flaws with the movie than a flawed attempt of using an iconic Star Trek character. Like, for instance, how they changed San Francisco from a beautiful city into a fugly nightmare of towering skyscrapers and a sky that turns the buildings into a gnarly shade of brown. Or, how Khan's starship missed the mark so badly. SF Headquarters is in west SF (there is a shot which shows Golden Gate Bridge from the south, with the tower being seen directly headon - it's on the morning after the attack - carefully watch the video as the shot pans to Kirk), and Khan's starship manages to take out a good portion of east SF. I know the starship was damaged, but, jeez, the way it missed the mark,

I never really found san Francisco all that beautiful, san Diego was the beautiful city for and to me. So I enjoyed how san Francisco was shown in the 23rd century in the new trek films. come to think of it, it reminds of the guardian of the galaxy. the scene were gamora fights star lord. guardians of the galaxy looked liked the new star trek film setting.

 

[JWPlatt]

It is a touchy subject that I'm not sure the filmmakers handled well, but casting someone with the same ethnic background, regardless of physical look, would avoid more criticism.

Why is it racist to cast a different race than the race of the original actor or character? Why isn't it racist to cast a person of the same race - a situation where a decision is based solely upon race? Isn't a race-blind situation, where race has no issue whatsoever, the one society prefers?

If we were completely race-blind, shouldn't a black actor be able to play George Washington, and shouldn't a white actor be able to portray a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson where the message is simply slavery is wrong and all people are created equal?

 

[fireproof78]

It is a touchy subject that I'm not sure the filmmakers handled well, but casting someone with the same ethnic background, regardless of physical look, would avoid more criticism.

Why is it racist to cast a different race than the race of the original actor or character? Why isn't it racist to cast a person of the same race - a situation where a decision is based solely upon race? Isn't a race-blind situation, where race has no issue whatsoever, the one society prefers?

If we were completely race-blind, shouldn't a black actor be able to play George Washington, and shouldn't a white actor be able to portray a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson where the message is simply slavery is wrong and all people are created equal?

An excellent question to which I have no answer. All I know is that I have heard Abrams called a racist for casting Cumberbatch. Take that for what it is worth.

 

[Oso Blanco]

If we were completely race-blind, shouldn't a black actor be able to play George Washington, and shouldn't a white actor be able to portray a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson where the message is simply slavery is wrong and all people are created equal?

An excellent question to which I have no answer.

But I do. The answer is no! A black actor should not play George Washington. And a white actor should not play Martin Luther King! You could as well ask if a woman should play George Washington, the answer is also no. Are we really becoming this delusional that we ignore differences in sex or color, just so that we can proudly consider ourselves politically correct?

Let's face it, there ARE males and females and there ARE black and white and asian people in this world ... and to notice that is not racist or sexist or whatever, as long as no one is being considered a better or lesser person because of his or her color. It's just acknowledging the fact that we are living in world full of different people, and no one should be offended by that.

Pretending that we are all the same and making people forget about their individuality and uniqueness ... THAT is racist!

 

[fireproof78]

If we were completely race-blind, shouldn't a black actor be able to play George Washington, and shouldn't a white actor be able to portray a slave owned by Thomas Jefferson where the message is simply slavery is wrong and all people are created equal?

An excellent question to which I have no answer.

But I do. The answer is no! A black actor should not play George Washington. And a white actor should not play Martin Luther King! You could as well ask if a woman should play George Washington, the answer is also no. Are we really becoming this delusional that we ignore differences in sex or color, just so that we can proudly consider ourselves politically correct?

Let's face it, there ARE males and females and there ARE black and white and asian people in this world ... and to notice that is not racist or sexist or whatever, as long as no one is being considered a better or lesser person because of his or her color. It's just acknowledging the fact that we are living in world full of different people, and no one should be offended by that.

Pretending that we are all the same and making people forget about their individuality and uniqueness ... THAT is racist!

An interesting point. But, and more to my point, why does Cumberbatch's casting get framed as "racist" when that was not essential to the character?

The point I'm making is not with regards to a color blind society-I think that is outside the scope of this discussion. My point is, why is Abrams a racist for his casting choice?

That is a question to which I have no answer. Maybe someone else will

 

[JWPlatt]

I think it comes from casting a white European (Abrams is white, as are, by external appearance, casting directors April Webster and Alyssa Weisberg) instead of an Arabian for the role of a Sikh, which misses the point that Ricardo Montalbán was Mexican - not Arabian. So now there's the problem of whether to be true to the role or to the original lead.

All of that ignores the reality of what you have to do when the preferred star, Benicio Del Toro, drops out of negotiations and leaves the production scrambling for another A-list actor before the film’s scheduled production start-date.

 

[Oso Blanco]

An interesting point. But, and more to my point, why does Cumberbatch's casting get framed as "racist" when that was not essential to the character?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it WAS essential to the character. Khan was supposed to be from India, and back in the sixties or seventies people had no idea that Ricardo Montalban was actually from Spain or Mexico. He looked indian enough for the tv audience. And I never even noticed that he looked whiter in TWOK until I read about it in the discussions here on this board.

Cumberbatch on the other hand looks nothing like someone even remotely connected to India. The change of his physical appearance was explained later in the comics, but it was a real WTF moment in the movie itself.

In other words: I could buy that Montalban was supposed to be from India, but Cumberbatch? As much as I like him as an actor ... no way!

 

[fireproof78]

An interesting point. But, and more to my point, why does Cumberbatch's casting get framed as "racist" when that was not essential to the character?

I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it WAS essential to the character. Khan was supposed to be from India, and back in the sixties or seventies people had no idea that Ricardo Montalban was actually from Spain or Mexico. He looked indian enough for the tv audience. And I never even noticed that he looked whiter in TWOK until I read about it in the discussions here on this board.

Cumberbatch on the other hand looks nothing like someone even remotely connected to India. The change of his physical appearance was explained later in the comics, but it was a real WTF moment in the movie itself.

In other words: I could buy that Montalban was supposed to be from India, but Cumberbatch? As much as I like him as an actor ... no way!

But, Khan was supposed to be genetically engineered too, so I don't feel that his race or ethnic origin was as critical to his character as the superman part was.

Also, as JWPlatt pointed out, the outrage over Cumberbatch's casting ignore the real world difficulties that the production team faced. I rather enjoyed Cumberbatch's charisma and menace despite not matching up to Montalban.

 

[Hartzilla2007]

I don't have an answer to that question, but I think it WAS essential to the character. Khan was supposed to be from India,

Which you wouldn't know if you hadn't seen Space Seed as Wrath of Khan never mentions it at all.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I think it comes from casting a white European (Abrams is white, as are, by external appearance, casting directors April Webster and Alyssa Weisberg) instead of an Arabian for the role of a Sikh, which misses the point that Ricardo Montalbán was Mexican - not Arabian. So now there's the problem of whether to be true to the role or to the original lead.

All of that ignores the reality of what you have to do when the preferred star, Benicio Del Toro, drops out of negotiations and leaves the production scrambling for another A-list actor before the film’s scheduled production start-date.

Why would an "Arabian" be cast as a Sikh from India? How is that "true to the role"? You do realize that Arabs and Indians aren't the same, right?

While Montalban was born in Mexico, his parents were from Spain. He's as much a "White European" as Cumberbatch.

 

[BigJake]

Why would an "Arabian" be cast as a Sikh from India?

Presumably an Arab actor has a better shot at looking like a brown person than a person who is not brown. I could see the point that this would be a step in the right direction from full-on whitewashing even if it did not involve an actual Sikh.

While Montalban was born in Mexico, his parents were from Spain. He's as much a "White European" as Cumberbatch.

This is actually bullshit and falsifies Montalban's career and legacy in a really unacceptable way. Please don't.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Why would an "Arabian" be cast as a Sikh from India?

Presumably an Arab actor has a better shot at looking like a brown person than a person who is not brown. I could see the point that this would be a step in the right direction from full-on whitewashing even if it did not involve an actual Sikh.

While Montalban was born in Mexico, his parents were from Spain. He's as much a "White European" as Cumberbatch.

This is actually bullshit and falsifies Montalban's career and legacy in a really unacceptable way. Please don't.

As I've said before. I wished they had cast an Indian actor as Khan. There is no reason why they couldn't have. It's not like India doesn't have a actors. Or that places like America and Britain don't have fine actors of Indian descent.

What's bullshit? That Montalban's parents came from Spain? That Spain is in Europe?

Being Hispanic in Hollywood wasn't/isn't easy, even if your ancestry is European rather than "American".I sure haven't said otherwise. Montalban had a great career and one that should be admired. He faced hardships that nonHispanic actors didn't and served as a trailblazer. Not sure why you seem to think I propagating falsehoods and denigrating Montalban's career and achievements.

 

[BigJake]

What's bullshit?

The claim that Montalban is a "white European" in the same way as Cumberbatch is bullshit. It's a false claim that papers over his challenges and achievements as something decidedly other than a straightforwardly "white European" in Hollywood. He was a trail-blazer, indeed, precisely because of the racial politics he was forced to face and overcome. Ergo it is not okay to make him out to be (or to have been) the racial / ethnic equivalent of Cumberbatch.

 

[Nerys Myk]

What's bullshit?

The claim that Montalban is a "white European" in the same way as Cumberbatch is bullshit. It's a false claim that papers over his challenges and achievements as something decidedly other than a straightforwardly "white European" in Hollywood. He was a trail-blazer, indeed, precisely because of the racial politics he was forced to face and overcome. Ergo it is not okay to make him out to be (or to have been) the racial / ethnic equivalent of Cumberbatch.

Sorry, but when it comes to casting the part of a Sikh from India, casting Spanish European is just as wrong as casting a British European. That's my point. And once again, saying so does not cast aspersions on Montalban's career and achievements.

 

[BigJake]

Sorry, but when it comes to cast the part of Sikh from India, casting Spanish European is just as wrong as casting a British European. That's my point.

Yes, I know, but it's a point based on a false equivalency, and that false equivalency does actually do a disservice to Montalban's career and achievements. Obviously casting a Hispanic as a Sikh isn't exactly the height of progressive casting (it was just as far as the Sixties were willing to go), but they weren't the same thing and it's folly to pretend otherwise. (They wouldn't really be equivalents now, either, though casting an Indian actor would obviously be preferable to both.)

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sorry, but when it comes to cast the part of Sikh from India, casting Spanish European is just as wrong as casting a British European. That's my point.

Yes, I know, but it's a point based on a false equivalency, and that false equivalency does actually do a disservice to Montalban's career and achievements. Obviously casting a Hispanic as a Sikh isn't exactly the height of progressive casting (it was just as far as the Sixties were willing to go), but they weren't the same thing and it's folly to pretend otherwise. They wouldn't really be equivalents now, either, though ]casting an Indian actor would obviously be preferable to both.)

My point exactly.

Still not seeing how pointing out Montalban was "miscast" as Khan is doing a disservice to his career. I'm not saying that Hispanic actors and "White" actors have the same struggle, but that its wrong to cast either one as Khan. I also refuse to give props to one size fits all casting for brown people, now or in the Sixties. Star Trek managed to find Indian actors for Captain Chandra and Lt Singh. They also could have made Khan Hispanic. The character was "Harold Erricsen" at one time and in later drafts "John Ericssen/Ragnar Thorwald " , so why not make him Hispanic when Montalban was cast?

 

[eyeresist]

While Montalban was born in Mexico, his parents were from Spain. He's as much a "White European" as Cumberbatch.

Most Mexicans are of Spanish descent.

 

[Nerys Myk]

While Montalban was born in Mexico, his parents were from Spain. He's as much a "White European" as Cumberbatch.

Most Mexicans are of Spanish descent.

This is not in dispute, though unlike Montalban, the connection to Spain is much further back than their parents. Also many Mexicans ( and other Hispanics) have Native American ancestry as well. Wiki gives the percentage in Mexico at 60%. 9% are classified as White, which would have included Montalban.

Wiki has a several articles on White Hispanics. Some of them are as pale as Cumberbatch!

 

[BigJake]

Wiki has ... several articles on White Hispanics. Some of them are as pale as Cumberbatch!

Dude, I know for sure now that you know this is not the point. So why are you saying it?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Wiki has ... several articles on White Hispanics. Some of them are as pale as Cumberbatch!

Dude, I know for sure now that you know this is not the point. So why are you saying it?

It may not be the point you're making (Hispanics in Hollywood) but its very much the point I was making. (Hispanics of European ancestry).