Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof should not Return.

[JWPlatt]

Just to address the OP assertion, has there ever been a Star Trek feature writer or writing team that has not been made to endure the wrath of the fans at some point before, during or after? Why do you think that would ever change no matter who replaced Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof? Personally, yes, I think the whole team should be fired for listening to Lindelof. Lindelof himself seems to have quietly been sent to Siberia. But that's a little besides the point. The feature franchise itself appears to be a Kobayashi Maru exercise every aspiring Trek writer is put through. I have seen the simulator and it is us.

 

[BigJake]

Just to address the OP assertion, has there ever been a Star Trek feature writer or writing team that has not been made to endure the wrath of the fans at some point before, during or after?

Ironically, OK&L would probably have continued to get a free ride on the schlock factor of their writing until well after the release of their third film if they hadn't gotten cocky.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

All dictators that don't start out as evil, end up that way. It's inevitable.

It is certainly an occupational hazard. But nothing is this simple. The Roman Emperors -- despite the pomp of monarchy that surrounded them -- were strictly-speaking dictators. Many did go bad or crazy, many others didn't.

Imperial Rome at least had a Senate.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Along the lines of what BigJake is saying:

In "Space Seed", a key is the dinner with Khan where they are talking about the 1996 period. Khan says it was a time of great dreams and aspirations. Spock reminds him that people were living under dozens of petty dictators. To which, Khan responds that a Caesar would've arisen sooner or later (not saying, but naturally believing that would've been him). He foresaw another glory like the height of the Roman Empire. When he got peeved at Kirk for alleging he fled, he blurted out, "We offered the world order!"

It's with that line that the veil drops and I think we see the real Khan.

 

[Belz...]

Generally speaking, does being a totalitarian dictator require being evil?

Logically, yes it does. All dictators that don't start out as evil, end up that way. It's inevitable. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that.

It's a nice soundbite, but you are wrong when you say it does "logically". Logically, it's not required at all.

 

[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.

All dictators that don't start out as evil, end up that way. It's inevitable.

It is certainly an occupational hazard. But nothing is this simple. The Roman Emperors -- despite the pomp of monarchy that surrounded them -- were strictly-speaking dictators. Many did go bad or crazy, many others didn't.

Imperial Rome at least had a Senate.

There were some Emperors who cared what the Senate thought. Then there were others who just did what they wanted anyway, and some of the Senators took matters into their own hands (or got cooperation from the Praetorians or the army).

 

[The Doctor]

I mean, he kills Pike. Orchestrates a terrorist bombing. Sure he's got a "reason" but it's hard to sympathize with that.

Now that you mention it, his teary explanation in the middle of the movie seems empty.

I don't think it was ever the intention of the film to somehow give justification for Khan's actions but, rather, motivation. I believe that the tears were real. Khan did feel some sort of loyalty for his fellow supermen and he acted based on that loyalty.

It was a nice flavor to the character and it felt very much in line with the Khan of 'Space Seed.'

 

[F. King Daniel]

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?

 

[Nerys Myk]

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?

As I recall it was Orci, a Hispanic (Mexican/Cuban), who mentioned the concern over using the brownskinned terrorist stereotype.

 

[Ryan8bit]

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.

 

[Nerys Myk]

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.

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

 

[UFO]

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.

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.

Yes, and as a "person of pale", I'm already starting to feel stereotyped. Oh well, I just hope someone's keeping score so one day dark-skinned actors will be allowed to be considered for these "forbidden" roles again.

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

Not always for the better it seems.

 

[iguana_tonante]

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

 

[BigJake]

Imperial Rome at least had a Senate.

What does that have to do with anything? Imperial Rome's Senate had no meaningful power in itself. That's what made it Imperial Rome as opposed to Republican Rome.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I get worried when crap like this happens in the name of "patriotism".

 

[BillJ]

I get worried when crap like this happens in the name of "patriotism".

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

 

[BigJake]

Uhhh... isn't "casting a South Asian as a South Asian villain would have been dangerously racist" actually pretty Orwellian logic? I mean, South Asian actors would be pretty ideal for bringing some real depth and authenticity to even futuristic villains notably from theirs or related cultural milieux.

And besides, all you would need to keep any such villain from being a horrid stereotype that reinforces racist hostilities would be some decent writers --

-- oh.

 

[BillJ]

And besides, all you would need to keep any such villain from being a horrid stereotype that reinforces racist hostilities would be some decent writers --

Or a generally less judgmental American public.

 

[UFO]

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. I think we just have a difference of opinion on how the world can be best "put to rights", or in this case, whether it even still needs to be. I.e. is stereotypical casting still a problem? Even in TOS there were plenty of white villains so how is Khan being an Indian of some variety racist or evil?

I don't see advocating for the ability to have a "dark-shinned" terrorist in a movie as in any way racist. Not being able to do so however, I do see as racist. Nor do I think it is a matter of FREEDOM. Its a matter of fairness and equal opportunity.

But thanks for not jumping to conclusions.

And besides, all you would need to keep any such villain from being a horrid stereotype that reinforces racist hostilities would be some decent writers --

-- oh.

Decent writing in a action blockbuster? I don't know(?). But having Khan as a dark-skinned person was an opportunity to make a point, if they had wanted to. Instead they avoided the issue and we got that "drone" business etc (they were actually just missiles anyway). OK, a considerable improvement on the previous movie in that department, I will grant you.

 

[BigJake]

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***.