Poll Thoughts on Ben Cumcumbers as Khan?

Benicio del Toro would add the menace Cumberbatch lacked; I've seen him as villains in other movies and while it sounds like typecasting (okay, it sorta is), he would have been a better choice. That was my only problem. Benedict's half-choked gnawing of "I am Khhhhaaaannn." almost had me laughing in the theater and, come on, he's a great actor as well - which only made the situation worse. (To compare, Spock aping the infamous "KHAAAAAAAAN!" line certainly had me rolling over how amateurish the flick was at times, as it reminded me of something I wrote for creative writing back in 9th grade a few decades ago...)

Skin color didn't faze me as such (people of mixed skin colors exist so someone with a rich ancestry from the Asian region can still look pasty white and, by DNA, be relevant. Or if a person's lineage is 100% pure-bred Irish, I don't see what the problem necessarily is. As long as one understands the heritage behind the name itself.

What's funny is, "Khan" is usually a title like "President" ore "Prime Minister". Or "Chieftan via heredity", et cetera, et cetera. It stems from the Mongolian region.

"Singh" is Indian in origin.

Right away, there's a mismatch but I'll get back that in a moment.

"Nooinien" has no history of which I could find within a 5 minute span of time. So it is potentially nothing more than fiction that sounds like an authentic name from a region in the "East", and am using quotes because "East" and "West" are surely also supposed to be passe in a globalized world, which brings us full circle:

So given the hodge-podge accorded the name "Khan Noonien Singh", and how many Indian people are technically Caucasoid at a genetic level, not to mention Australoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and other classifications of humans--

Forget the fact there is only the human race, which contains many subtle differences (even within a classification-- I am probably wrong or incomplete in that assessment, certainly for just one paragraph, but I just don't see "____oid" as being a race but a feature of the human race) but they don't make people into wholly different species as a result...

Even Montalban had dark make-up applied. At least in 1966. In 1982, he did not and looked as white as anybody else. Didn't stop people from being affected by his performance... so that's already proof that skin color made no difference.

So is there no reason a white person can't be given the name, apart from "only brown people can have the name"? The question, I'd opine, is the efficacy of writing and acting, for which "Into Darkness" was hit or miss and while the retooling of Khan's origins was not bad, there's no reason for Khan to be there. There's plenty going on without the fanservice and the need for "magic blood" is nothing approaching a valid reason.

 

It's the name of a guy Roddenberry met while serving in the Pacific during WWII.

 

Overall, I agree with your post, but this point, I disagree. Cumberbatch was ice cold in his delivery, his murderous intent was a casual as if he was grocery shopping, until he met the person who had wronged him and then his rage became apparent and more chilling in terms of now what is he capable of.

 

Yeah Khan in Space Seed and STID had that. TWOK, not so much.

 

But it isn't just skin color, but features as well. I have not complained about Benedict's preformance. My issue was he was miscast.

All of these races are constructs socially, but phenotypes are generally observable. When folks say "White" that can included Nordic types with blonde hair and blue eyes, and sometimes even Mediterranean type of olive complexion. As I said before Montalban was olive, Benedict is pastey white (sorry if that offends folks, just being descriptive here). Olive is closer in melanin to brown, so there are a lot more South Asians who are olive than pastey white, although most are brown, black and yellow.

I suppose if they had dropped a line that explicitly said he was physically altered I might have accepted it more, instead of the vague "fiction" line which I took to me the name and identity were fabricated, not that he was altered.

Plus the fact that the casting went from a 'person of color" to a white dude is bad move politically. I recall an interview with John Cho (that's Sulu's actor's name, right) with Benedict and he mentioned that Khan was a great villian and a person of color and it made the other cast (white) very nervous.

It just a bad move. It is a shame because there was an ok movie in there, but they made it clear with all the "look we are reversing and playing with Wrath of Khan" references that are just lazy film-making in my view. Totally unnecessary and it backfired in my view.

And I liked the first JJ movie, even with it's flaws it far outweighed them with it's strengths, but this one jumped the shark, and it didn't really need to.

That is why I have done a private fan edit where John Harrison stays John Harrison instead of being Khan ;-)

 

There were BTS considerations with regards to casting, such as del Toro dropping out, that made them scramble a bit. I don't think casting should be made with a political lens, because that invalidates the whole content of the person and their ability, vs. racial background.

I, personally, don't mind the use of Khan, because of Cumberbatch's performance. The fact is, Star Trek uses TWOK as a gold standard and then fans are shocked that references to that gold standard are made.

Secondly, aside from a 2 minute death scene, this film has nothing in common, storywise or theme, with TWOK. It is closer to Space Seed, where there is this slow realization of Khan's full nature and his savagery. The theme of STID is far more about Marcus, and his dark mirror reflection of what Kirk could become. It also continues a theme from ST 09 about Kirk's maturity and readiness to be a leader, which I find more compelling as a continuation, even though I try to consider ST ID from a stand alone film perspective.

 

There are a few other connections that I remember besides the death scene and the "Khan" yell. The introduction of Carol Marcus is a connection to TWOK, as is the line "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". There are probably a few more, but those immediately come to mind. I disliked the death scene and the Carol Marcus angle. I don't really see the need or purpose to make Ms. Eve into Carol. The inclusion of "the needs of the many" was probably the only reference to TWOK I liked in the movie.

 

To each their own. Carol was nice, in her own right, "needs of the many" is a Trek staple now, and Kirk's death scene is far and away one of my favorite scenes from Star Trek films.

 

Well, McGivers conjectures that he is "from the northern India area" based on his physical appearance.

Her further speculation of "probably a Sikh" isn't ever actually confirmed. As far as we know, it could just be a wild guess on her part, as he doesn't have the identifiable traditional accoutrements such as turban, beard, and bracelet. Further, while all male Sikh initiates have the surname Singh, there are non-Sikhs who also have the name.

Kor

 

She's mentioning what was statistically likely at the time of his life (1990s) for one of his appearance.

The Khan comics go into detail about

Spoiler

his childhood and the scientists that genetically altered him and other orphans into super people

 

It's a staple at this point, but the intentions of the filmmakers made it pretty clear they were gunning more for TWOK than any other iteration. Of course, that's an issue with the film division in general always trying to recapture that film whether with Khan or knockoff villains.

 

Yes, which, if we are to castigate ST ID for something other films have done, then it should be equally applied.

 

Yup, NEMESIS and 09 being the worst knockoffs for me.

 

I can agree with Nemesis, but I actually like 09 and find Nero to be one of the more interesting Trek villains. I also think that First Contact is on that list as well.

 

I'm not a fan of the Borg Queen, but I don't really see her as a Khan knockoff. There's no vengeance factor like there has been with virtually every villain since whoever that guy was in INSURRECTION.

I hear Nero is much more interesting in the prequel comic, whereas in the film he's just a boring idiotic ham of a villain.

"Dude, Romulus is RIGHT THERE."
"I SAW IT HAPPEN DON'T TELL ME IT DIDNT HAPPEN! SPOOOOOCK!!!"

I assume this is the part where nuTrek fans charge in and claim "sure, STID was terrible, but so was TWOK!"

 

You know, you weren't like this before the beard.

 

It's called a psychotic break and emotional break, which is set up as a theme for how deep emotions can run in Vulcans, and, by extension, Romulans.

"Emotions run deep within our race..."

 

Which doesn't make him all that compelling to me (and don't get me started on Spock in ST09/STID). Stuff like that and Khan having his Single Tear Drop™ Scene doesn't make him a more sympathetic character. It all feels like lazy writing insisting these are deeply complex characters grieving for their families rather than simply assholes with emotional issues. At this point it would actually be somewhat refreshing if we did have a gleefully psychotic villain like Janeway in one of these flicks, killing a red shirt for not bringing her coffee on time.

I'm really hoping the next film (if there is one) takes a different route when it comes to antagonists, or even better, not feature one at all. As Trek has taken the action blockbuster route for a good 20 years now, it's easy to fall back on vindictive antagonists, cause that's just part of the trope. But it would be daring to try to avoid that for once. Maybe it's futile.

 

Well, mileage will vary and all that.

I personally enjoy Nero, Spock Khan, and Kirk and their stories in the films. Nero, especially, who doesn't feel like a standard Trek supervillain, but a average guy who witnessed something horrible and went insane. I found that more believable than a lot of other Star Trek bad guy stories.