Put me down as one of those guys who hates JJTrek. I didn't always do so. I watched the first movie and thought it was stupid but fun. I was expecting Into Darkness to be similar and I went into the cinema expecting to like it. I left wondering what the hell happened. It wasn't just a bad Trek film; it was a bad film, period.
I kind of liked the movie at first, but that was because it was a Star Trek movie.
I grew to dislike it because I didn't like where they took the story - even though it was a reboot.
Why did they need to kill the Vulcans? How does that serve the future storyline? Why did they need to make Kirk a completely reckless TRIBBLE with very few attributes that would impress anyone and certainly not recommend him for a command position? Why did they need to take the Spock/Uhura relationship so far, so fast? Why was Chechov made to look like a junior-high punk? Why does Scotty have a pet chimpanzee following him around?
Everything was rushed and/or over the top.
In TOS Kirk could sometimes be a cowboy who sometimes bent rules, but it was acknowledged and demonstrated that he was a highly competent officer. He doesn't come off that way in the new movies. I don't think this is because of Chris Pine, I think its the way it's written.
They have an excellent cast to work with, they just need to make sure the characters seem more professional, rather than a bunch of partying college kids.
Unfortunately that is one of the main problems with a movie vs a TV show. In a TV show you have plenty of time to develop things at a pace that make sense, but in a movie you only have a couple of hours. Of course there are plenty of movies that don't rush through the plot, but when your talking about what is essentially a superhero origin story, you have to go from point A to point B pretty quickly in a movie.
Crazyned, PrimeKirk had the example of his stable family. NuKirk's mother was offplanet a lot, and apparently his stepfather was an abusive TRIBBLE.
PrimeKirk graduated the academy as per usual (after not getting pitched over cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test), then served in a number of positions of increasing responsibility until finally attaining the captaincy of the Enterprise. NuKirk bypassed all that growth of character, jumping straight from the bad-boy cadet right into the center seat. And when he proved too feckless for the job, all they did was demote him to Commander and make him the first officer - temporarily. (This all speaks to certain deficiencies in Starfleet's assessment and promotion process, but that's a whole different rant.) Toward the end of STID, he started to grow up, to realize that he didn't know everything and maybe listening to the occasional bit of advice might be smart (mostly as he endured the consequences of ignoring the advice of Scotty and McCoy).
And the relationship between Spock and Uhura, as I've mentioned before, was hinted at in TOS - given the mores of the Sixties, there was only so far they could go in making those implications, but Nichelle Nichols, at least, believed that the two of them had been having a rather torrid affair that was broken off amicably just before the second pilot.
Really, they were just expanding on the themes present in TOS on those counts.
As for the destruction of Vulcan, it promoted instant character development in Spock, something that took several episodes of TOS (which they just didn't have time for here). It also amply demonstrated the threat Nero posed - the ability to destroy entire planets may be insignificant next to the power of the Force, but it's pretty doggone significant against Starfleet.
Crazyned, PrimeKirk had the example of his stable family. NuKirk's mother was offplanet a lot, and apparently his stepfather was an abusive TRIBBLE.
Exactly right. Based on their vastly different experiences growing up, it would only make sense that they would have vastly different personalities. If they didn't, that would probably be another "plot hole" someone was complaining about :P
Crazyned, PrimeKirk had the example of his stable family. NuKirk's mother was offplanet a lot, and apparently his stepfather was an abusive TRIBBLE.
PrimeKirk graduated the academy as per usual (after not getting pitched over cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test), then served in a number of positions of increasing responsibility until finally attaining the captaincy of the Enterprise. NuKirk bypassed all that growth of character, jumping straight from the bad-boy cadet right into the center seat. And when he proved too feckless for the job, all they did was demote him to Commander and make him the first officer - temporarily. (This all speaks to certain deficiencies in Starfleet's assessment and promotion process, but that's a whole different rant.) Toward the end of STID, he started to grow up, to realize that he didn't know everything and maybe listening to the occasional bit of advice might be smart (mostly as he endured the consequences of ignoring the advice of Scotty and McCoy).
And the relationship between Spock and Uhura, as I've mentioned before, was hinted at in TOS - given the mores of the Sixties, there was only so far they could go in making those implications, but Nichelle Nichols, at least, believed that the two of them had been having a rather torrid affair that was broken off amicably just before the second pilot.
Really, they were just expanding on the themes present in TOS on those counts.
As for the destruction of Vulcan, it promoted instant character development in Spock, something that took several episodes of TOS (which they just didn't have time for here). It also amply demonstrated the threat Nero posed - the ability to destroy entire planets may be insignificant next to the power of the Force, but it's pretty doggone significant against Starfleet.
Spock struggled to keep his emotions at bay in many episodes, Chekov was enough of a wonder boy to have attain a high position on a ship, every TOS episode used violence, the majority of the female guest characters were clothed in very revealing costumes, and the Enterprise was equipped with magical technology in many episodes. As Kirk said in TUC, People fear change.
Fans say Nero was one-dimensional, but he had a lot more depth than TWOK Khan. Nero was a victim of editing while Khan was a victim of a bruised ego. Personally, I loved CDR Kruge, he should have been Kang, Kor, or Koloth. I enjoyed the two newer movies, as I enjoyed the previous installments. Trek fans think that their beloved Trek is a more cerebral show and it is as a TV Show. As a movie series, it is a action series.
Exactly right. Based on their vastly different experiences growing up, it would only make sense that they would have vastly different personalities. If they didn't, that would probably be another "plot hole" someone was complaining about :P
While I think a great part of it was the intensity of Spock's grief, I always thought the differences between Prime Kirk (who, notably, Prime Spock has melded with) and nuKirk were another contributing factor to the disorientation and shock that nuKirk clearly experienced coming out of the mind meld on Vega. I think that Kirk had some contact with the echoes of his Prime self. That may have even been a direct contributor to the questioning and eroding self-confidence Kirk demonstrates in Into Darkness as he directly experienced this stable, "better" version of himself in addition to everything else he was hit with in that mode.
Even in the first movie, the meld is a significant turning point in nuKirk's attitude and the way that he carries himself. Look at how much more serious, commanding, and levelheaded he becomes when he comes back up off of Vega. Now, also in my headcanon theory is that for a time some of that cockiness from the Kobayashi Maru came back because he found himself experiencing "echoes" or "foresight" once in a while of certain events (we know he had a "Mudd incident" in the new universe and seems to have had an encounter with tribbles), mainly away from the core worlds because history had been bent less severely out of shape, and he got too reliant on that.
But of course as things spiraled out of control more, he questioned more and more intensely until we reach the point in the movie where he outright admits he doesn't know what he's doing and Spock belongs in the big chair, not him. So yeah, even though they are not the same kind of movies as the Prime Universe ones, it is quite possible to put some real logic to some parts of it and make it work.
Some might say you shouldn't have to...but the JJverse movies made me at least care enough to try (as similarly the much maligned Nemesis did), but something like Insurrection, TMP, and Final Frontier does not.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Fans say Nero was one-dimensional, but he had a lot more depth than TWOK Khan. Nero was a victim of editing while Khan was a victim of a bruised ego.
I think you are throwing Khan under the bus just to make Nero sound better. Khan's pride/ego was certainly part of it, but that wasn't all that drove him. Khan and Nero *both* lost their wives and family, and Khan and Nero *both* spent decades in harsh conditions slowly losing their minds. While not "canon"(who cares!), there are 2 great stories about each of those characters that give them and their motivations more depth:
"Khan: Ruling in Hell" and the self titled "Nero". You can get a good used copy of each of them for pretty cheap.
I think you are throwing Khan under the bus just to make Nero sound better. His pride was certainly part of it, but like Nero he also lost his wife and many of his "family"(crew) and wanted revenge. And like Nero, he also spent decades in harsh conditions slowing losing his mind. There is a great story about Khan that tells what happened between Kirk leaving them on the planet TWOK. There is also a great story about Nero's time in between the Kelvin incident and finding spock.
TWOK Khan wanted to kill Kirk because Kirk won in Space Seed. All those things that happened since only boosted that ego bruising. TWOK Khan was played by an awesome actor, but I really don't see Khan as Kirk's nemesis. It would be have been awesome if Kang, Kor, or Koloth were used as Kruge and/or Chang.
TWOK Khan wanted to kill Kirk because Kirk won in Space Seed. All those things that happened since only boosted that ego bruising. TWOK Khan was played by an awesome actor, but I really don't see Khan as Kirk's nemesis. It would be have been awesome if Kang, Kor, or Koloth were used as Kruge and/or Chang.
I'm going to be frank: you sound like you *want* Khan to be a shallow character, and don't want to hear anything to the contrary. I gave you several examples of things that add to Khan's motivations, and you dismissed them both because they don't jive with the narrative you want. If you are not open to new ideas, there is really no point discussing it with you.
I'm going to be frank: you sound like you *want* Khan to be a shallow character, and don't want to hear anything to the contrary. I gave you several examples of things that add to Khan's motivations, and you dismissed them both because they don't jive with the narrative you want. If you are not open to new ideas, there is really no point discussing it with you.
I'll also be honest...I have what may be a minority opinion here and I actually agree that while superbly acted, TWOK Khan is portrayed in a very one-dimensional manner. I have seen novels that brought more depth to him--and I highly recommend the Eugenics Wars series--but I feel like we got more of that depth on screen, believe it or not, with STID Khan.
Was there a lot more that should have been done with him, particularly explaining how his appearance wound up so drastically altered? Heck, that should've been grievance material for Cumberkhan, given that having his appearance, voice, his name and even his ethnicity itself taken against his will (by a Brit, who in his cultural and temporal context he would remember as a former conqueror) is a major violation. Admiral Marcus nearly stole Khan's identity except for that which was within him. Instead of being typical, purposeless racebending, I actually think JJ could have scored some serious points by tackling the issue head-on and allowing Khan to show his anger and sense of violation--one that IMO I would expect to be similar to the reaction one sees from sexual assault. I do not use that comparison lightly...I use it in full knowledge of its weight.
But I think we did get to see more from the Cumberkhan version than the original in that there is more cause after what Admiral Marcus did--victimizing Khan--to have to ask some very difficult questions about whether it was actually inevitable that he turned against Kirk (and if Kirk's miscalculations fed by Prime Spock's input based on a different timeline actually led Kirk into a trap that did not have to be sprung), and just how far you or I would go if put in a situation like Khan's. Those are some extremely uncomfortable questions. But it says something that a movie maligned as often as Into Darkness could get me to think (what everyone says JJ movies do NOT ever make one do), but TWOK did not provoke the same questions.
TWOK is a good movie mind you, and I would recommend it to anyone coming into the Trek fandom and perhaps to casual viewers as well, and Ricardo Montalban was an outstanding actor. But that is sincerely how I think, about the comparison between the two versions of the character.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I'm curious if you ever really did see "Space Seed" or "ST II: TWOK".
People say Nero was one dimensional because he was.
Of course, I have seen every episode of Trek, read nearly every Trek book, played nearly every Trek game, read the majority of Trek comics, and so on.
For a super human, Khan was very narrow minded and couldn't see outside his own point of view. He hated Kirk because Kirk won. Everything that happened to Khan was Kirk's fault in Khan's view. Just because my view of Khan differs from your own means that you need to question my intelligence. How very Khan of you.
Was there a lot more that should have been done with him, particularly explaining how his appearance wound up so drastically altered? Heck, that should've been grievance material for Cumberkhan, given that having his appearance, voice, his name and even his ethnicity itself taken against his will (by a Brit, who in his cultural and temporal context he would remember as a former conqueror) is a major violation.
Sorry, but those who decry the actor chosen to play Khan in STID as somehow 'off' because the actor wasn't of Indian descent; please. Ricardo Montalban was of Mexican descent and hbe NEVER even attempted to change his speaking voice in the role when he portrayed Khan in both Space Seed and ST:TWoK.
hell, I don't see ANYONE ******** about how UTTERLY ENGLISH (right down to drinking earl Grey tea) Patrick Stewart ended up playing Picard as - EVEN THOUGH the character WAS French, and was often portrayed as fiercely proud of being French in many early TNG TV episodes - go re-watch Season 1's "The Outpost" and "Where No One Has Gone Before".) Hell, the TNG writers basically admitted Picard had transformed into a real British citizen in Star Trek: Generations where at the 'Christmas' scene when he's in the Nexus has his children ALL with British accents and it looks like Christmas in England.
My point? I find in interesting the nationality of the actor playing Khan is somehow such a massive negative sticking point for some fans given the nationality of the other actor to play him previously. Plus it's interesting Patrick Stewart gets a big pass (and accolades) by TNG fans, given how British hbe portrayed Jean Luc Picard who WAS supposed to be French.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
Sorry, but those who decry the actor chosen to play Khan in STID as somehow 'off' because the actor wasn't of Indian descent; please. Ricardo Montalban was of Mexican descent and hbe NEVER even attempted to change his speaking voice in the role when he portrayed Khan in both Space Seed and ST:TWoK.
I think that these days, we can and should do better than we did in the 60's when it comes to casting...we're not only more aware of it these days, but international communication and travel is something I would have thought would make it easier to locate talented actors from just about anywhere in the US or in the world.
Or alternatively, as I suggested, simply addressing the matter onscreen and allowing Khan to express how he felt about what was done to him. That would be IMO a legitimate story and character moment.
hell, I don't see ANYONE ******** about how UTTERLY ENGLISH (right down to drinking earl Grey tea) Patrick Stewart ended up playing Picard as - EVEN THOUGH the character WAS French, and was often portrayed as fiercely proud of being French in many early TNG TV episodes - go re-watch Season 1's "The Outpost" and "Where No One Has Gone Before".) Hell, the TNG writers basically admitted Picard had transformed into a real British citizen in Star Trek: Generations where at the 'Christmas' scene when he's in the Nexus has his children ALL with British accents and it looks like Christmas in England.
My point? I find in interesting the nationality of the actor playing Khan is somehow such a massive negative sticking point for some fans given the nationality of the other actor to play him previously. Plus it's interesting Patrick Stewart gets a big pass (and accolades) by TNG fans, given how British hbe portrayed Jean Luc Picard who WAS supposed to be French.
It might be wiser not to assume what I think on things. I have found the immense Britishness of Picard to be a puzzler as well, and lacking in sufficient backstory to explain it. Even a remark to the effect of his having spent time in the UK in his youth, or his making a comment about being an Anglophile, would have been sufficient to solve it, because as it is, it either looks like not paying attention, or poor research (were they thinking "British = all European?" ). It's definitely a weird inconsistency and I wonder if it came about because the writers started to see Patrick Stewart in a role as opposed to asking Stewart to embody their character of Picard.
(Oh...and on the Anglophile idea, I have an analogous example in my own writing of an Andorian admiral who, while he does have Andorian tradition and pride in his heritage, is a very clear Cardassiophile, drinks red-leaf tea, is fluent in the language, and has a lot of respect for the postwar Cardassian culture enough where it affects his behavior and manner of speaking. I am up front about that, though, and understand as his writer why that happened and how it came to be.)
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Sorry, but those who decry the actor chosen to play Khan in STID as somehow 'off' because the actor wasn't of Indian descent; please. Ricardo Montalban was of Mexican descent and hbe NEVER even attempted to change his speaking voice in the role when he portrayed Khan in both Space Seed and ST:TWoK.
hell, I don't see ANYONE ******** about how UTTERLY ENGLISH (right down to drinking earl Grey tea) Patrick Stewart ended up playing Picard as - EVEN THOUGH the character WAS French, and was often portrayed as fiercely proud of being French in many early TNG TV episodes - go re-watch Season 1's "The Outpost" and "Where No One Has Gone Before".) Hell, the TNG writers basically admitted Picard had transformed into a real British citizen in Star Trek: Generations where at the 'Christmas' scene when he's in the Nexus has his children ALL with British accents and it looks like Christmas in England.
My point? I find in interesting the nationality of the actor playing Khan is somehow such a massive negative sticking point for some fans given the nationality of the other actor to play him previously. Plus it's interesting Patrick Stewart gets a big pass (and accolades) by TNG fans, given how British hbe portrayed Jean Luc Picard who WAS supposed to be French.
It's funny that people make those criticisms. Let's see the recent history of India, a British Crown Colony for nearly two centuries. There are neighborhoods of British-descent Indians in Indian cities but because Khan didn't look Indian, he wasn't the real Khan. Talk about ignorance.
Edit: There are Portuguese Indians who do not look like they are from India. Especially, when there was a Portuguese colony in India until the 1960s.
Eldarion, are you so sure it's ignorant when you consider that the portrait Marla McGivers (the historian, who would've had reference photos available) painted this image of Khan?
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Eldarion, are you so sure it's ignorant when you consider that the portrait Marla McGivers (the historian, who would've had reference photos available) painted this image of Khan?
Marla McGivers identified Khan as a Sikh. Sikh men have beards, it is one of the 5 K's of Sikhism.
It isn't so much Khan must look Indian so much as he should actually resemble the people he is identified on-screen as.
Benedict Cumberbatch's depiction of Khan actually makes more sense because
1: He spoke in a british accent. 2: He was found by Section 31 and surgically altered to resemble "John Harrison", since it's kind of dumb to let a fairly recognizable warlord from the Eugenics Wars play space spy. Since surgical alteration is actually fairly routine in Star Trek, it does not particularly surprise me it was just a part of John Harrison's undercover identity.
Gene Roddenberry on the other hand was ignorant to what Sikhism really was (and by proxy, the character of Marla McGivers). Like many others, he was a product of his time and chose to go with what sounded good in his imagination rather than what was established fact.
He liked the concept of a warlord from the far east, like the 'dervishes' that the British used to talk about. Which in itself is inaccurate because the British referred to pretty much any islamic enemy as being a 'dervish', and it became a generic pejorative term.
Which is also why people in STO had an issue with the ship class in the game christened the Dervish-class. But hey, just like with Gene Roddenberry... it sounded good to Cryptic, and they even had nice scimitars in its design banner.
The point is, when it comes to Star Trek -- you either have to suspend your disbelief for everything, or you have to suspend your disbelief for nothing.
You either invoke political correctness for everything, or you invoke political correctness for nothing. The people who complain about Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan have probably never even met a Sikh in their life, let alone studied their actual practices. They are complaining just to complain.
The question is, was Marla right about everything she said? Considering how few records exist, it is quite possible she wasn't.
She's either an expert on the time period, or she isn't.
If she's an expert on the time period, then apparently the Eugenics Wars and World War 3 were so devastating that the Federation's knowledge of the times are about as reliable as anything in the Fallout series of games, where people just piece together broken artifacts and try to make sense of it all, even if they're completely wrong.
Marla McGivers was also stereotyped as a weak-willed submissive damsel who was so wooed and charmed by Khan that she was willing to commit outright treason against the Federation by helping him.
So, she isn't exactly a great character to begin with -- also a product of the times (I've gone into length about Gene Roddenberry's misogynistic influences in TOS before).
But taking her at face value, either she's about as dumb and reliable as a sack of bricks, or the Federation has a terribly corrupt history of Earth prior to World War 3.
She's either an expert on the time period, or she isn't.
If she's an expert on the time period, then apparently the Eugenics Wars and World War 3 were so devastating that the Federation's knowledge of the times are about as reliable as anything in the Fallout series of games, where people just piece together broken artifacts and try to make sense of it all, even if they're completely wrong.
Marla McGivers was also stereotyped as a weak-willed submissive damsel who was so wooed and charmed by Khan that she was willing to commit outright treason against the Federation by helping him.
So, she isn't exactly a great character to begin with -- also a product of the times (I've gone into length about Gene Roddenberry's misogynistic influences in TOS before).
But taking her at face value, either she's about as dumb and reliable as a sack of bricks, or the Federation has a terribly corrupt history of Earth prior to World War 3.
Being an expect on a time period several hundred years ago does not mean you get everything right, it just means you know more than most people who haven't studied it. And they specifically said in the episode that there were very limited records from that time period. So while she may have be right, she may just as well have been wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a character on the show said something that wound up being wrong later.
Being an expect on a time period several hundred years ago does not mean you get everything right, it just means you know more than most people who haven't studied it. And they specifically said in the episode that there were very limited records from that time period. So while she may have be right, she may just as well have been wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a character on the show said something that wound up being wrong later.
If she is wrong. That still makes her ignorant. Perhaps through no fault of her own, but ignorance is ignorance.
And if she is wrong (and let's say she is), then all this outrage over Benedict Cumberbatch vs. Ricardo Montalban is based on in-universe information known to be extremely flawed and vague.
This outrage over nationality, white-washing, and cultural insensitivity is based on an untruth to begin with. That people in Starfleet simply do not know what a Sikh looks like, and that they do not know the true origin of Khan. And if they don't know -- then we, the viewer, do not know.
So we're getting internet angry over a history Starfleet does not actually know, and are just making guesses on.
If she is wrong. That still makes her ignorant. Perhaps through no fault of her own, but ignorance is ignorance.
And if she is wrong (and let's say she is), then all this outrage over Benedict Cumberbatch vs. Ricardo Montalban is based on in-universe information known to be extremely flawed and vague.
This outrage over nationality, white-washing, and cultural insensitivity is based on an untruth to begin with.
I think the outrage is more over the fact that the 2 characters *look* nothing alike, any mention of ethnicity aside. Admittedly, not all of the new crew members look very much like their original counterparts, but the mains certainly look close enough.
And while Khan's importance is, honestly, pretty exaggerated, he is seen in pop culture as one of Trek's greatest villians. That being the case, recasting his character with someone who looked *nothing* like the original character is what I think most of the drama came from.
I think the outrage is more over the fact that the 2 characters *look* nothing alike, any mention of ethnicity aside. Admittedly, not all of the new crew members look very much like their original counterparts, but the mains certainly look close enough.
And while Khan's importance is, honestly, pretty exaggerated, he is seen in pop culture as one of Trek's greatest villians. That being the case, recasting his character with someone who looked *nothing* like the original character is what I think most of the drama came from.
I just see it as another symptom of Abrams Derangement Syndrome. People grasp at whatever ammunition they can get their hands on to try to diminish the movie.
If they actually cared about this, then a simple Google search could illustrate just how much Khan's nationality or accent does not matter. It did not matter in Space Seed, it did not matter in WoK, therefore it should not matter for Into Darkness.
If they actually paid attention to the movie's plot as much as they did the color of Benedict Cumberbatch's skin and accent, they'd know that someone who looked like Ricardo Montalban and shared his mexican accent and called himself "John Harrison" would be kind of suspicious, particularly for a Section 31 agent.
If they don't do either of those things, then why are they fabricating outrage? Do they really care that much about Khan, or are they just looking for a cheap shot to JJ Abrams?
Marla McGivers identified Khan as a Sikh. Sikh men have beards, it is one of the 5 K's of Sikhism.
It isn't so much Khan must look Indian so much as he should actually resemble the people he is identified on-screen as.
I'd say there are only three possibilities behind that issue: 1) Khan was too young in that portrait to have grown a beard, which I don't think because the facial features seem more mature than that, 2) He identified as such but was unobservant (degree of religiosity can vary), 3) Yet another '60s culture screwup no one researched.
Benedict Cumberbatch's depiction of Khan actually makes more sense because
1: He spoke in a british accent. 2: He was found by Section 31 and surgically altered to resemble "John Harrison", since it's kind of dumb to let a fairly recognizable warlord from the Eugenics Wars play space spy. Since surgical alteration is actually fairly routine in Star Trek, it does not particularly surprise me it was just a part of John Harrison's undercover identity.
You and I are not in disagreement about the backstory making sense. I just wish we would've seen a direct reference onscreen as opposed to just in the comics, because it would not only completely defang the racebending accusations--I truly think it would've been a great character-development moment.
Gene Roddenberry on the other hand was ignorant to what Sikhism really was (and by proxy, the character of Marla McGivers). Like many others, he was a product of his time and chose to go with what sounded good in his imagination rather than what was established fact.
He liked the concept of a warlord from the far east, like the 'dervishes' that the British used to talk about. Which in itself is inaccurate because the British referred to pretty much any islamic enemy as being a 'dervish', and it became a generic pejorative term.
Which is also why people in STO had an issue with the ship class in the game christened the Dervish-class. But hey, just like with Gene Roddenberry... it sounded good to Cryptic, and they even had nice scimitars in its design banner.
Actually I was not aware of the history of "dervish" as a pejorative term. Is that exclusive to the UK? My only familiarity with the term "dervish" was as a Sufi mendicant and mystic, loosely comparable to someone who has taken holy orders as a monk. It wouldn't have occurred to me to use the term the way you describe. While I was surprised to see the term "Dervish" used on a Starfleet ship class, I'd thought that given Starfleet's professed aim to favor peace over war, there was at least some kind of sense to it even though not something I would have considered were I naming the ship. The corruption of the term that you describe has never been on my radar until right this second.
The point is, when it comes to Star Trek -- you either have to suspend your disbelief for everything, or you have to suspend your disbelief for nothing.
You either invoke political correctness for everything, or you invoke political correctness for nothing. The people who complain about Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan have probably never even met a Sikh in their life, let alone studied their actual practices. They are complaining just to complain.
I don't find this sort of all-or-nothing statement to be sound logic...it seems a bit more like a tactic to stop a conversation. My impression had been that the discussion was proceeding in a civil and respectful manner, so unless I am mistaken and I have upset you or someone else, I don't see the need for that. :-/
While I do not claim expertise, I am aware of basic Sikh practices, to include the 5 K's.
Also, I think you would do better not to ascribe motives to your fellow posters. I know that we have had a rash in recent times of individuals using opinions about historical inaccuracy to berate or look down on other posters, or harping on the same thing ad nauseum, but that's not how I approach it at all. I consider it a mistake that should've been rectified, but that does not mean any intent to patronize those who disagree with me, nor the sort of troublemaking implied in "complaining just to complain."
In fact, when I put on my writer's hat, I actually quite enjoy thinking of ways to reconcile these sorts of contradictions and messups, because there are often ways to do so. I also see them as things to take note of and try to avoid when I do my own research and writing.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-) Proudly F2P.Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I just see it as another symptom of Abrams Derangement Syndrome. People grasp at whatever ammunition they can get ther hands on to try to diminish the movie.
If they actually cared about this, then a simple Google search could illustrate just how much Khan's nationality or accent does not matter. It did not matter in Space Seed, it did not matter in WoK, therefore it should not matter for Into Darkness.
If they actually paid attention to the movie's plot as much as they did the color of Benedict Cumberbatch's skin and accent, they'd know that someone who looked like Ricardo Montalban and shared his mexican accent and called himself "John Harrison" would be kind of suspicious, particularly for a Section 31 agent.
If they don't do either of those things, then why are they fabricating outrage? Do they really care that much about Khan, or are they just looking for a cheap shot to JJ Abrams?
Honestly, even if Abrams hadn't directed Into Darkness, I think most of the same people would have had something to say about Khan looking *completely* different. Like I said before, I don't think the specific ethnicity actually matters, mainly the fact that the 2 versions of the character looked absolutely nothing alike.
Slightly changing subject, I wish they had taken a different spin on the story. They find the Botany Bay, but what if Khan wasn't the person they woke up? What if they woke up this guy, who Cumberbatch actually resembles? And what he if had *claimed* to be Khan to manipulate them, while plotting all along to get control of the rest of the stasis pods and free the true Khan(maybe in a sequel). That would have let them tell almost the exact same story, but avoid the "Khan" drama because it wouldn't have been the "real" Khan.
2: He was found by Section 31 and surgically altered to resemble "John Harrison", since it's kind of dumb to let a fairly recognizable warlord from the Eugenics Wars play space spy.
This actually doesn't make any sense at all. Into Darkness is set in 2259; the Eugenics Wars were in 1992-96. It's been 263 years since they ended. Everyone involved in them is dead, so are their children, their grandchildren, their grandchildren's children, and their grandchildren's children's children.
Even if someone were to see Khan Singh walking around, who's going to recognize him but a historian of the Eugenics Wars? And even if they did recognize him, on doing so are they really immediately assume that a guy who's been missing for two and a half centuries is in front of them, or are they just gonna think that they're looking at someone who happens to resemble Khan? Seriously disguising him would be as simple as a giving him a haircut and letting him grow a beard, and even that is completely unnecessary. I've met half a dozen guys who look like Napoleon but my thoughts never run to "Oh my God he escaped St. Helena after all!"
This is assuming that they even let Khan walk around in the first place, which just seems like a critically stupid idea.
I'd say there are only three possibilities behind that issue: 1) Khan was too young in that portrait to have grown a beard, which I don't think because the facial features seem more mature than that, 2) He identified as such but was unobservant (degree of religiosity can vary), 3) Yet another '60s culture screwup no one researched.
It did not matter if Khan was observant, because by all accounts his faith was mostly stored in himself and the other augments. McGivers is the one who identified him, he never identified himself as a Sikh.
If it was another '60's culture TRIBBLE-up, then nobody needs to get outraged over it to begin with, since clearly the character of Khan Noonien Singh had a nationality that was completely irrelevant to the character and the story itself.
You and I are not in disagreement about the backstory making sense. I just wish we would've seen a direct reference onscreen as opposed to just in the comics, because it would not only completely defang the racebending accusations--I truly think it would've been a great character-development moment.
Sure, it would have been nice. But that was the point of the "big reveal", which admittedly was not all that cleanly executed, but pretty obvious that Bob Orci and JJ Abrams intended it to be a surprise.
Actually I was not aware of the history of "dervish" as a pejorative term. Is that exclusive to the UK? My only familiarity with the term "dervish" was as a Sufi mendicant and mystic, loosely comparable to someone who has taken holy orders as a monk. It wouldn't have occurred to me to use the term the way you describe. While I was surprised to see the term "Dervish" used on a Starfleet ship class, I'd thought that given Starfleet's professed aim to favor peace over war, there was at least some kind of sense to it even though not something I would have considered were I naming the ship. The corruption of the term that you describe has never been on my radar until right this second.
It's something that not a lot of people really read into. Since the colonists of the era did not know or did not care to know all of the various cultures and tribes, they largely just filed any of the militant islamic natives as dervishes, this is particularly notable when it came to the Mahdists of Sudan, who were also erronously labelled as dervishes.
The ship class generated controversy since it was highly unusual to name a ship after religious nomenclature when Gene Roddenberry established that humanity had no need for religion by the time of TOS. To be fair, the Sovereign-class had similar controversy because people felt it was uncharacteristic for Starfleet to name a class of ship after royalty, when it was established humanity had no need for royalty either.
We're talking about something that happened in the 1800's or so, but the term "dervish" has entered gaming circles with that same evocation of mysticism, ties to the middle east, and scimitar-wielding barbarians who need to be tamed or killed by 'civilized' men. I think Cryptic went with it (as a result of a naming contest, I believe) because it sounded cool. I mention this because it's so similar to how Gene Roddenberry was thinking when it came to creating the character of Khan. He liked the way it sounded. He liked the idea. But did not actually care about how close to reality all of this really was.
In truth, what most people think of when they think of "Dervish" is about as historically accurate as the Shriners who like to drive around in parades in tiny cars while wearing fezes.
I don't find this sort of all-or-nothing statement to be sound logic...it seems a bit more like a tactic to stop a conversation. My impression had been that the discussion was proceeding in a civil and respectful manner, so unless I am mistaken and I have upset you or someone else, I don't see the need for that. :-/
It was more of a general observation. People like to pick and choose what parts of Star Trek to get outraged over, but they don't actually care that much as long as they can stick it to JJ Abrams for ruining Star Trek forever and ever.
Also, I think you would do better not to ascribe motives to your fellow posters. I know that we have had a rash in recent times of individuals using opinions about historical inaccuracy to berate or look down on other posters, or harping on the same thing ad nauseum, but that's not how I approach it at all. I consider it a mistake that should've been rectified, but that does not mean any intent to patronize those who disagree with me, nor the sort of troublemaking implied in "complaining just to complain."
In fact, when I put on my writer's hat, I actually quite enjoy thinking of ways to reconcile these sorts of contradictions and messups, because there are often ways to do so. I also see them as things to take note of and try to avoid when I do my own research and writing.
I wasn't singling you out, it was just another observation that people really do just look for reasons to complain. People look for reasons to get outraged. People look for reasons to attack whatever it is they dislike, just because.
Around some people, you drop the name "JJ Abrams" and you'll get a flood of complaints about lens flares and yes, even the choice of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. You aren't one of them, obviously. But that's the kind of person who typically complains about the casting choice of Khan. The kind who actually doesn't care about Sikhism, historical accuracy, or the plot of Into Darkness.
That's why I feel it's important to mention all of these nuances, because either people really shouldn't be as outraged as they allegedley are, or they need to realize the problem isn't the casting decisions -- it's their own dislike for the movie in general, or JJ Abrams in General, or NuTrek in General.
I really shouldn't do this, but I will temporarily so you can get a little more detail. Bear in mind that this conversation takes place just before the beginning of Into Darkness. I recommend reading this to get the full story.
Sure, it would have been nice. But that was the point of the "big reveal", which admittedly was not all that cleanly executed, but pretty obvious that Bob Orci and JJ Abrams intended it to be a surprise.
The explanation should have been after the reveal. That way you don't spoil the reveal, but you also explain why he looks the way he does. The perfect place in the movie was then Kirk confronted Khan in the brig and Khan explained who he was. That whole sequence in the comic pages I linked to above should have been a montage with Khan's narration. It would have taken 5 minutes or less, but answered so many questions. If they had done that and left out the lame reverse death scene at the end, the movie would have been SO much better!
Comments
I kind of liked the movie at first, but that was because it was a Star Trek movie.
I grew to dislike it because I didn't like where they took the story - even though it was a reboot.
Why did they need to kill the Vulcans? How does that serve the future storyline? Why did they need to make Kirk a completely reckless TRIBBLE with very few attributes that would impress anyone and certainly not recommend him for a command position? Why did they need to take the Spock/Uhura relationship so far, so fast? Why was Chechov made to look like a junior-high punk? Why does Scotty have a pet chimpanzee following him around?
Everything was rushed and/or over the top.
In TOS Kirk could sometimes be a cowboy who sometimes bent rules, but it was acknowledged and demonstrated that he was a highly competent officer. He doesn't come off that way in the new movies. I don't think this is because of Chris Pine, I think its the way it's written.
They have an excellent cast to work with, they just need to make sure the characters seem more professional, rather than a bunch of partying college kids.
Unfortunately that is one of the main problems with a movie vs a TV show. In a TV show you have plenty of time to develop things at a pace that make sense, but in a movie you only have a couple of hours. Of course there are plenty of movies that don't rush through the plot, but when your talking about what is essentially a superhero origin story, you have to go from point A to point B pretty quickly in a movie.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
It's like comparing apples to hammers. :P
Especially, too, given how Bad Robot went out of their way to save the "prime universe." Not good enough for some fans, apparently.
PrimeKirk graduated the academy as per usual (after not getting pitched over cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test), then served in a number of positions of increasing responsibility until finally attaining the captaincy of the Enterprise. NuKirk bypassed all that growth of character, jumping straight from the bad-boy cadet right into the center seat. And when he proved too feckless for the job, all they did was demote him to Commander and make him the first officer - temporarily. (This all speaks to certain deficiencies in Starfleet's assessment and promotion process, but that's a whole different rant.) Toward the end of STID, he started to grow up, to realize that he didn't know everything and maybe listening to the occasional bit of advice might be smart (mostly as he endured the consequences of ignoring the advice of Scotty and McCoy).
And the relationship between Spock and Uhura, as I've mentioned before, was hinted at in TOS - given the mores of the Sixties, there was only so far they could go in making those implications, but Nichelle Nichols, at least, believed that the two of them had been having a rather torrid affair that was broken off amicably just before the second pilot.
Really, they were just expanding on the themes present in TOS on those counts.
As for the destruction of Vulcan, it promoted instant character development in Spock, something that took several episodes of TOS (which they just didn't have time for here). It also amply demonstrated the threat Nero posed - the ability to destroy entire planets may be insignificant next to the power of the Force, but it's pretty doggone significant against Starfleet.
Exactly right. Based on their vastly different experiences growing up, it would only make sense that they would have vastly different personalities. If they didn't, that would probably be another "plot hole" someone was complaining about :P
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Spock struggled to keep his emotions at bay in many episodes, Chekov was enough of a wonder boy to have attain a high position on a ship, every TOS episode used violence, the majority of the female guest characters were clothed in very revealing costumes, and the Enterprise was equipped with magical technology in many episodes. As Kirk said in TUC, People fear change.
Fans say Nero was one-dimensional, but he had a lot more depth than TWOK Khan. Nero was a victim of editing while Khan was a victim of a bruised ego. Personally, I loved CDR Kruge, he should have been Kang, Kor, or Koloth. I enjoyed the two newer movies, as I enjoyed the previous installments. Trek fans think that their beloved Trek is a more cerebral show and it is as a TV Show. As a movie series, it is a action series.
While I think a great part of it was the intensity of Spock's grief, I always thought the differences between Prime Kirk (who, notably, Prime Spock has melded with) and nuKirk were another contributing factor to the disorientation and shock that nuKirk clearly experienced coming out of the mind meld on Vega. I think that Kirk had some contact with the echoes of his Prime self. That may have even been a direct contributor to the questioning and eroding self-confidence Kirk demonstrates in Into Darkness as he directly experienced this stable, "better" version of himself in addition to everything else he was hit with in that mode.
Even in the first movie, the meld is a significant turning point in nuKirk's attitude and the way that he carries himself. Look at how much more serious, commanding, and levelheaded he becomes when he comes back up off of Vega. Now, also in my headcanon theory is that for a time some of that cockiness from the Kobayashi Maru came back because he found himself experiencing "echoes" or "foresight" once in a while of certain events (we know he had a "Mudd incident" in the new universe and seems to have had an encounter with tribbles), mainly away from the core worlds because history had been bent less severely out of shape, and he got too reliant on that.
But of course as things spiraled out of control more, he questioned more and more intensely until we reach the point in the movie where he outright admits he doesn't know what he's doing and Spock belongs in the big chair, not him. So yeah, even though they are not the same kind of movies as the Prime Universe ones, it is quite possible to put some real logic to some parts of it and make it work.
Some might say you shouldn't have to...but the JJverse movies made me at least care enough to try (as similarly the much maligned Nemesis did), but something like Insurrection, TMP, and Final Frontier does not.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
I think you are throwing Khan under the bus just to make Nero sound better. Khan's pride/ego was certainly part of it, but that wasn't all that drove him. Khan and Nero *both* lost their wives and family, and Khan and Nero *both* spent decades in harsh conditions slowly losing their minds. While not "canon"(who cares!), there are 2 great stories about each of those characters that give them and their motivations more depth:
"Khan: Ruling in Hell" and the self titled "Nero". You can get a good used copy of each of them for pretty cheap.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
TWOK Khan wanted to kill Kirk because Kirk won in Space Seed. All those things that happened since only boosted that ego bruising. TWOK Khan was played by an awesome actor, but I really don't see Khan as Kirk's nemesis. It would be have been awesome if Kang, Kor, or Koloth were used as Kruge and/or Chang.
I'm going to be frank: you sound like you *want* Khan to be a shallow character, and don't want to hear anything to the contrary. I gave you several examples of things that add to Khan's motivations, and you dismissed them both because they don't jive with the narrative you want. If you are not open to new ideas, there is really no point discussing it with you.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I'll also be honest...I have what may be a minority opinion here and I actually agree that while superbly acted, TWOK Khan is portrayed in a very one-dimensional manner. I have seen novels that brought more depth to him--and I highly recommend the Eugenics Wars series--but I feel like we got more of that depth on screen, believe it or not, with STID Khan.
Was there a lot more that should have been done with him, particularly explaining how his appearance wound up so drastically altered? Heck, that should've been grievance material for Cumberkhan, given that having his appearance, voice, his name and even his ethnicity itself taken against his will (by a Brit, who in his cultural and temporal context he would remember as a former conqueror) is a major violation. Admiral Marcus nearly stole Khan's identity except for that which was within him. Instead of being typical, purposeless racebending, I actually think JJ could have scored some serious points by tackling the issue head-on and allowing Khan to show his anger and sense of violation--one that IMO I would expect to be similar to the reaction one sees from sexual assault. I do not use that comparison lightly...I use it in full knowledge of its weight.
But I think we did get to see more from the Cumberkhan version than the original in that there is more cause after what Admiral Marcus did--victimizing Khan--to have to ask some very difficult questions about whether it was actually inevitable that he turned against Kirk (and if Kirk's miscalculations fed by Prime Spock's input based on a different timeline actually led Kirk into a trap that did not have to be sprung), and just how far you or I would go if put in a situation like Khan's. Those are some extremely uncomfortable questions. But it says something that a movie maligned as often as Into Darkness could get me to think (what everyone says JJ movies do NOT ever make one do), but TWOK did not provoke the same questions.
TWOK is a good movie mind you, and I would recommend it to anyone coming into the Trek fandom and perhaps to casual viewers as well, and Ricardo Montalban was an outstanding actor. But that is sincerely how I think, about the comparison between the two versions of the character.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Of course, I have seen every episode of Trek, read nearly every Trek book, played nearly every Trek game, read the majority of Trek comics, and so on.
For a super human, Khan was very narrow minded and couldn't see outside his own point of view. He hated Kirk because Kirk won. Everything that happened to Khan was Kirk's fault in Khan's view. Just because my view of Khan differs from your own means that you need to question my intelligence. How very Khan of you.
Sorry, but those who decry the actor chosen to play Khan in STID as somehow 'off' because the actor wasn't of Indian descent; please. Ricardo Montalban was of Mexican descent and hbe NEVER even attempted to change his speaking voice in the role when he portrayed Khan in both Space Seed and ST:TWoK.
hell, I don't see ANYONE ******** about how UTTERLY ENGLISH (right down to drinking earl Grey tea) Patrick Stewart ended up playing Picard as - EVEN THOUGH the character WAS French, and was often portrayed as fiercely proud of being French in many early TNG TV episodes - go re-watch Season 1's "The Outpost" and "Where No One Has Gone Before".) Hell, the TNG writers basically admitted Picard had transformed into a real British citizen in Star Trek: Generations where at the 'Christmas' scene when he's in the Nexus has his children ALL with British accents and it looks like Christmas in England.
My point? I find in interesting the nationality of the actor playing Khan is somehow such a massive negative sticking point for some fans given the nationality of the other actor to play him previously. Plus it's interesting Patrick Stewart gets a big pass (and accolades) by TNG fans, given how British hbe portrayed Jean Luc Picard who WAS supposed to be French.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
I think that these days, we can and should do better than we did in the 60's when it comes to casting...we're not only more aware of it these days, but international communication and travel is something I would have thought would make it easier to locate talented actors from just about anywhere in the US or in the world.
Or alternatively, as I suggested, simply addressing the matter onscreen and allowing Khan to express how he felt about what was done to him. That would be IMO a legitimate story and character moment.
It might be wiser not to assume what I think on things. I have found the immense Britishness of Picard to be a puzzler as well, and lacking in sufficient backstory to explain it. Even a remark to the effect of his having spent time in the UK in his youth, or his making a comment about being an Anglophile, would have been sufficient to solve it, because as it is, it either looks like not paying attention, or poor research (were they thinking "British = all European?"
(Oh...and on the Anglophile idea, I have an analogous example in my own writing of an Andorian admiral who, while he does have Andorian tradition and pride in his heritage, is a very clear Cardassiophile, drinks red-leaf tea, is fluent in the language, and has a lot of respect for the postwar Cardassian culture enough where it affects his behavior and manner of speaking. I am up front about that, though, and understand as his writer why that happened and how it came to be.)
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
It's funny that people make those criticisms. Let's see the recent history of India, a British Crown Colony for nearly two centuries. There are neighborhoods of British-descent Indians in Indian cities but because Khan didn't look Indian, he wasn't the real Khan. Talk about ignorance.
Edit: There are Portuguese Indians who do not look like they are from India. Especially, when there was a Portuguese colony in India until the 1960s.
India is a diverse nation--but in this instance, I'd say this prop is a fair indication of the TOS writers' intent with the character: http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/images/2/24/Khan_art.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20080324235731&path-prefix=en
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Marla McGivers identified Khan as a Sikh. Sikh men have beards, it is one of the 5 K's of Sikhism.
It isn't so much Khan must look Indian so much as he should actually resemble the people he is identified on-screen as.
Benedict Cumberbatch's depiction of Khan actually makes more sense because
1: He spoke in a british accent. 2: He was found by Section 31 and surgically altered to resemble "John Harrison", since it's kind of dumb to let a fairly recognizable warlord from the Eugenics Wars play space spy. Since surgical alteration is actually fairly routine in Star Trek, it does not particularly surprise me it was just a part of John Harrison's undercover identity.
Gene Roddenberry on the other hand was ignorant to what Sikhism really was (and by proxy, the character of Marla McGivers). Like many others, he was a product of his time and chose to go with what sounded good in his imagination rather than what was established fact.
He liked the concept of a warlord from the far east, like the 'dervishes' that the British used to talk about. Which in itself is inaccurate because the British referred to pretty much any islamic enemy as being a 'dervish', and it became a generic pejorative term.
Which is also why people in STO had an issue with the ship class in the game christened the Dervish-class. But hey, just like with Gene Roddenberry... it sounded good to Cryptic, and they even had nice scimitars in its design banner.
The point is, when it comes to Star Trek -- you either have to suspend your disbelief for everything, or you have to suspend your disbelief for nothing.
You either invoke political correctness for everything, or you invoke political correctness for nothing. The people who complain about Benedict Cumberbatch playing Khan have probably never even met a Sikh in their life, let alone studied their actual practices. They are complaining just to complain.
The question is, was Marla right about everything she said? Considering how few records exist, it is quite possible she wasn't.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
She's either an expert on the time period, or she isn't.
If she's an expert on the time period, then apparently the Eugenics Wars and World War 3 were so devastating that the Federation's knowledge of the times are about as reliable as anything in the Fallout series of games, where people just piece together broken artifacts and try to make sense of it all, even if they're completely wrong.
Marla McGivers was also stereotyped as a weak-willed submissive damsel who was so wooed and charmed by Khan that she was willing to commit outright treason against the Federation by helping him.
So, she isn't exactly a great character to begin with -- also a product of the times (I've gone into length about Gene Roddenberry's misogynistic influences in TOS before).
But taking her at face value, either she's about as dumb and reliable as a sack of bricks, or the Federation has a terribly corrupt history of Earth prior to World War 3.
Being an expect on a time period several hundred years ago does not mean you get everything right, it just means you know more than most people who haven't studied it. And they specifically said in the episode that there were very limited records from that time period. So while she may have be right, she may just as well have been wrong. It wouldn't be the first time a character on the show said something that wound up being wrong later.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
If she is wrong. That still makes her ignorant. Perhaps through no fault of her own, but ignorance is ignorance.
And if she is wrong (and let's say she is), then all this outrage over Benedict Cumberbatch vs. Ricardo Montalban is based on in-universe information known to be extremely flawed and vague.
This outrage over nationality, white-washing, and cultural insensitivity is based on an untruth to begin with. That people in Starfleet simply do not know what a Sikh looks like, and that they do not know the true origin of Khan. And if they don't know -- then we, the viewer, do not know.
So we're getting internet angry over a history Starfleet does not actually know, and are just making guesses on.
I think the outrage is more over the fact that the 2 characters *look* nothing alike, any mention of ethnicity aside. Admittedly, not all of the new crew members look very much like their original counterparts, but the mains certainly look close enough.
And while Khan's importance is, honestly, pretty exaggerated, he is seen in pop culture as one of Trek's greatest villians. That being the case, recasting his character with someone who looked *nothing* like the original character is what I think most of the drama came from.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I just see it as another symptom of Abrams Derangement Syndrome. People grasp at whatever ammunition they can get their hands on to try to diminish the movie.
If they actually cared about this, then a simple Google search could illustrate just how much Khan's nationality or accent does not matter. It did not matter in Space Seed, it did not matter in WoK, therefore it should not matter for Into Darkness.
If they actually paid attention to the movie's plot as much as they did the color of Benedict Cumberbatch's skin and accent, they'd know that someone who looked like Ricardo Montalban and shared his mexican accent and called himself "John Harrison" would be kind of suspicious, particularly for a Section 31 agent.
If they don't do either of those things, then why are they fabricating outrage? Do they really care that much about Khan, or are they just looking for a cheap shot to JJ Abrams?
I'd say there are only three possibilities behind that issue: 1) Khan was too young in that portrait to have grown a beard, which I don't think because the facial features seem more mature than that, 2) He identified as such but was unobservant (degree of religiosity can vary), 3) Yet another '60s culture screwup no one researched.
You and I are not in disagreement about the backstory making sense. I just wish we would've seen a direct reference onscreen as opposed to just in the comics, because it would not only completely defang the racebending accusations--I truly think it would've been a great character-development moment.
Actually I was not aware of the history of "dervish" as a pejorative term. Is that exclusive to the UK? My only familiarity with the term "dervish" was as a Sufi mendicant and mystic, loosely comparable to someone who has taken holy orders as a monk. It wouldn't have occurred to me to use the term the way you describe. While I was surprised to see the term "Dervish" used on a Starfleet ship class, I'd thought that given Starfleet's professed aim to favor peace over war, there was at least some kind of sense to it even though not something I would have considered were I naming the ship. The corruption of the term that you describe has never been on my radar until right this second.
I don't find this sort of all-or-nothing statement to be sound logic...it seems a bit more like a tactic to stop a conversation. My impression had been that the discussion was proceeding in a civil and respectful manner, so unless I am mistaken and I have upset you or someone else, I don't see the need for that. :-/
While I do not claim expertise, I am aware of basic Sikh practices, to include the 5 K's.
Also, I think you would do better not to ascribe motives to your fellow posters. I know that we have had a rash in recent times of individuals using opinions about historical inaccuracy to berate or look down on other posters, or harping on the same thing ad nauseum, but that's not how I approach it at all. I consider it a mistake that should've been rectified, but that does not mean any intent to patronize those who disagree with me, nor the sort of troublemaking implied in "complaining just to complain."
In fact, when I put on my writer's hat, I actually quite enjoy thinking of ways to reconcile these sorts of contradictions and messups, because there are often ways to do so. I also see them as things to take note of and try to avoid when I do my own research and writing.
Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
Proudly F2P. Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
Honestly, even if Abrams hadn't directed Into Darkness, I think most of the same people would have had something to say about Khan looking *completely* different. Like I said before, I don't think the specific ethnicity actually matters, mainly the fact that the 2 versions of the character looked absolutely nothing alike.
Slightly changing subject, I wish they had taken a different spin on the story. They find the Botany Bay, but what if Khan wasn't the person they woke up? What if they woke up this guy, who Cumberbatch actually resembles? And what he if had *claimed* to be Khan to manipulate them, while plotting all along to get control of the rest of the stasis pods and free the true Khan(maybe in a sequel). That would have let them tell almost the exact same story, but avoid the "Khan" drama because it wouldn't have been the "real" Khan.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
This actually doesn't make any sense at all. Into Darkness is set in 2259; the Eugenics Wars were in 1992-96. It's been 263 years since they ended. Everyone involved in them is dead, so are their children, their grandchildren, their grandchildren's children, and their grandchildren's children's children.
Even if someone were to see Khan Singh walking around, who's going to recognize him but a historian of the Eugenics Wars? And even if they did recognize him, on doing so are they really immediately assume that a guy who's been missing for two and a half centuries is in front of them, or are they just gonna think that they're looking at someone who happens to resemble Khan? Seriously disguising him would be as simple as a giving him a haircut and letting him grow a beard, and even that is completely unnecessary. I've met half a dozen guys who look like Napoleon but my thoughts never run to "Oh my God he escaped St. Helena after all!"
This is assuming that they even let Khan walk around in the first place, which just seems like a critically stupid idea.
It did not matter if Khan was observant, because by all accounts his faith was mostly stored in himself and the other augments. McGivers is the one who identified him, he never identified himself as a Sikh.
If it was another '60's culture TRIBBLE-up, then nobody needs to get outraged over it to begin with, since clearly the character of Khan Noonien Singh had a nationality that was completely irrelevant to the character and the story itself.
Sure, it would have been nice. But that was the point of the "big reveal", which admittedly was not all that cleanly executed, but pretty obvious that Bob Orci and JJ Abrams intended it to be a surprise.
It's something that not a lot of people really read into. Since the colonists of the era did not know or did not care to know all of the various cultures and tribes, they largely just filed any of the militant islamic natives as dervishes, this is particularly notable when it came to the Mahdists of Sudan, who were also erronously labelled as dervishes.
The ship class generated controversy since it was highly unusual to name a ship after religious nomenclature when Gene Roddenberry established that humanity had no need for religion by the time of TOS. To be fair, the Sovereign-class had similar controversy because people felt it was uncharacteristic for Starfleet to name a class of ship after royalty, when it was established humanity had no need for royalty either.
We're talking about something that happened in the 1800's or so, but the term "dervish" has entered gaming circles with that same evocation of mysticism, ties to the middle east, and scimitar-wielding barbarians who need to be tamed or killed by 'civilized' men. I think Cryptic went with it (as a result of a naming contest, I believe) because it sounded cool. I mention this because it's so similar to how Gene Roddenberry was thinking when it came to creating the character of Khan. He liked the way it sounded. He liked the idea. But did not actually care about how close to reality all of this really was.
In truth, what most people think of when they think of "Dervish" is about as historically accurate as the Shriners who like to drive around in parades in tiny cars while wearing fezes.
It was more of a general observation. People like to pick and choose what parts of Star Trek to get outraged over, but they don't actually care that much as long as they can stick it to JJ Abrams for ruining Star Trek forever and ever.
I wasn't singling you out, it was just another observation that people really do just look for reasons to complain. People look for reasons to get outraged. People look for reasons to attack whatever it is they dislike, just because.
Around some people, you drop the name "JJ Abrams" and you'll get a flood of complaints about lens flares and yes, even the choice of Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. You aren't one of them, obviously. But that's the kind of person who typically complains about the casting choice of Khan. The kind who actually doesn't care about Sikhism, historical accuracy, or the plot of Into Darkness.
That's why I feel it's important to mention all of these nuances, because either people really shouldn't be as outraged as they allegedley are, or they need to realize the problem isn't the casting decisions -- it's their own dislike for the movie in general, or JJ Abrams in General, or NuTrek in General.
They should just be honest about it.
I really shouldn't do this, but I will temporarily so you can get a little more detail. Bear in mind that this conversation takes place just before the beginning of Into Darkness. I recommend reading this to get the full story.
The explanation should have been after the reveal. That way you don't spoil the reveal, but you also explain why he looks the way he does. The perfect place in the movie was then Kirk confronted Khan in the brig and Khan explained who he was. That whole sequence in the comic pages I linked to above should have been a montage with Khan's narration. It would have taken 5 minutes or less, but answered so many questions. If they had done that and left out the lame reverse death scene at the end, the movie would have been SO much better!
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008