Star Trek Into Darkness (Post-release)

[jlee562]

All canon sources have been exhausted. I'm simply saying that we don't know what Khan's upbringing was. We don't know if he was born to human parents or grown in a vat. Without a canon source of information on the matter, all we have is speculation and non canon sources.

Now you're changing your tune. You asserted both that "he's not "from" any specific country, other than a test tube or petri dish," and "his "human parents" were really just a group of genetecists..."

So fine, his origin is ambiguous.

Incorrect. Go back and reread what I wrote. I was making a statement that ethnicity and religion are NOT the same thing.

I did read what you wrote: "is like complaining about a Frenchman playing a Scot pretending to be American or a Scot playing an Egyptian pretending to be Spanish, "

French: Nationality
Scot: Nationality
American: Nationality
Egyptian: Nationality
Spanish: Nationality

No, because that would make it historically inaccurate. Khan is a fictional character. Abraham Lincoln is not. Apples vs Oranges.

Again, no. The character of Shaft was from a blaxploitation film, featuring an African American hero portrayed by an African American actor. Recasting the role with an actor of a different ethnicity would do a disservice to the character and to the point behind the movie to begin with.

Right, and Khan is an Indian character. Singh is an Indian surname, and he ruled over Asia and the Middle east.

Incorrect. You're making a case based on faulty information. Lieutenant McGivers' assumption that Khan was a Sikh was made based on a look at him while he was still unconscious. General facial characteristics could indicate heritage, but to call him a Sikh was a poor judgement on her part (not to mention a telling statement on her abilities as a historian) given that Khan wore no signs of religious affiliation AND he was clean shaven, something that is implicitly against Sikh beliefs.

I'm making a case based on the available information in Trek cannon. Unlike you, I am not speculating. Regardless, as I said, Singh is an Indian surname, derived from Sansrkit. It's pretty much folly to argue that Khan was not Indian, and it's even more foolish to assert that he lacks an ethnicity.

That's like saying that Islam is basically an Arab religion or Buddhism is basically an Oriental religion. While their ORIGINS may be there, there origins do not define it.

No, it's not. For one, the most populous Muslim nation in the world is Indonesia. For another, the Islamic faith has a known and established history of spreading throughout the world.

The same is NOT TRUE of Sikhism. A much better analogy to Sikhism here would be Judaism. While Judaism is a religion, Jewish is also a distinct ethnic identity. While it is true that you can convert to Judaism (in reform schools of thought, of course), by far, most practitioners of Judaism are ethnically Jewish. The same is true for Sikhism.

Okay, we're on the same page here, so long as you have an issue with BOTH versions of Khan.

I have less of an issue with Montalban because at least they made some attempt to make him look ethnically distinct. It also would have been far more difficult to find an Indian/South Asian actor in the 1960s, and they were working within the constraints of writing a weekly television show to boot. With this iteration, since it was a reboot, and they knew they were doing Khan, they literally could have picked anybody else but Cumberbatch. And again, this is not a knock against Cumberbatch. Ignoring my own complaints about ethnicity, I think he did a good job with the character, and I love him in Sherlock. He's a talented actor who worked in this movie. But they very easily could have pursued an Indian or South Asian actor.

 

[The Mad Professor]

You asserted both that "he's not "from" any specific country, other than a test tube or petri dish," and "his "human parents" were really just a group of genetecists..."

An assertion of my belief on the matter.

Right, and Khan is an Indian character. Singh is an Indian surname, and he ruled over Asia and the Middle east.

Indian by ethnicity, not necessarily by heritage. Let's look at it another way... if it were me lying on that table and someone made a wild assumption that I am "Nordic, probably from the Scandinavia region", they would be correct in assuming my ethnic background, but not my heritage. I'm certain that once I woke up, I'd surprise the hell out of them by speaking with a Texas drawl.

I'm making a case based on the available information in Trek cannon. Unlike you, I am not speculating.

Trek canon that I already pointed out came from an in-universe source that is unreliable at best. If that episode is any indication, McGivers was more into the romanticized notion of history, and prone to ignoring or missing facts that were elementary.

Regardless, as I said, Singh is an Indian surname, derived from Sansrkit. It's pretty much folly to argue that Khan was not Indian, and it's even more foolish to assert that he lacks an ethnicity.

I never said he lacked an ethnicity. I said that I believed he lacked a regional heritage. Two completely different things.

The same is NOT TRUE of Sikhism. A much better analogy to Sikhism here would be Judaism. While Judaism is a religion, Jewish is also a distinct ethnic identity. While it is true that you can convert to Judaism (in reform schools of thought, of course), by far, most practitioners of Judaism are ethnically Jewish. The same is true for Sikhism.

Somewhat distinct. We could argue this side of the topic all day, but it's both pointless and against forum rules.

 

[jlee562]

....but the problem then becomes you're not really arguing anything.

Where he was born is inconsequential to the question of ethnicity. Saying that he has an ethnicity but not a "regional heritage" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean), is not an argument that it shouldn't matter if a white actor plays an ethnically Indian character. Indian people don't stop having brown skin when they leave India.

 

[Proper]

Unbelievable. :rolleyes

 

[TheRealMcFly]

What is the future of this franchise? Is the intent to make a third to complete a trilogy or continue with these versions in a continuing series?

Star Trek XIII The Search for Pike?

 

[Photoss]

Not sure if anyone else commented on it earlier in the thread, but it seemed like there was (in addition to all the action) a lot of shot / reverse-shot dialogue moments.
Other than that, found it really enjoyable! I need to think about it for a few days before I make a real conjecture.

 

[CessnaDriver]

What is the future of this franchise? Is the intent to make a third to complete a trilogy or continue with these versions in a continuing series?

Star Trek XIII The Search for Pike?

The five year mission thingy.

Whatever the hell that means in NU Trek, whatever it is it's a safe bet it won't challenge the mind too much.

 

[Proper]

Whatever the hell that means in NU Trek, whatever it is it's a safe bet it won't challenge the mind too much.

So, if one really likes the movie--as an old Trekkie like myself did--and very much likes what JJ Abrams and the studio have done and are doing regarding the franchise--as an old Trekkie like myself does--you are of the opinion that one is, perhaps...

a) Less of a true Star Trek fan.
b) Less Trek-intelligent and doesn't know it.
c) Less Trek-intelligent and knows it but doesn't care.
d) Just plain desperate for a good date-movie.

Would you like to use a lifeline and phone-a-friend?

 

[kialna]

I have seen "Wrath of Khan" and I wonder how I will view "Into Darkness". Am I going to be bothered by all the things listed above, or will I see it as a different movie? Probably the latter since I've always done that when there was source material, anyway, I'm very curious. Will see it in the midnight screening on my birthday.

Spoiler

I wasn't impressed with Montalban's Khan. For a genius I felt he did quite some bloody stupid things, and looked very surprised and beaten at times. I wonder if Cumberbatch's version is written the same, because then I'd probably just laugh a lot

 

[nickytea]

Probably the latter since I've always done that when there was source material, anyway, I'm very curious.

I think it would be an inaccurate description to refer to Wrath of Khan the "source material" for Into Darkness. This implies a level of adaptation that is not reflected in this instance. Dramatically it is referential of the knowledge of events in Wrath of Khan without adapting them. With the popularity of that film among more than just Trek fans, it would have been folly to approach it otherwise. (IE, straight adaptation.)

This doesn't stop the knee-jerk reactionaries from seeing the immediate reference and crying, "RIPOFF!" before looking at what their actual story functions are.

 

[CessnaDriver]

So, if one really likes the movie--as an old Trekkie like myself did--and very much likes what JJ Abrams and the studio have done and are doing regarding the franchise--as an old Trekkie like myself does--you are of the opinion that one is, perhaps...

a) Less of a true Star Trek fan.
b) Less Trek-intelligent and doesn't know it.
c) Less Trek-intelligent and knows it but doesn't care.
d) Just plain desperate for a good date-movie.

Would you like to use a lifeline and phone-a-friend?

E. A Star Trek fan I cannot understand.

Not the first time. I never got the appeal of Whale Trek on any level really.

 

[ghostryder]

The Easter Eggs Of Star Trek Into Darkness | TrekMovie.com

 

[kialna]

I think it would be an inaccurate description to refer to Wrath of Khan the "source material" for Into Darkness. This implies a level of adaptation that is not reflected in this instance. Dramatically it is referential of the knowledge of events in Wrath of Khan without adapting them. With the popularity of that film among more than just Trek fans, it would have been folly to approach it otherwise. (IE, straight adaptation.)

This doesn't stop the knee-jerk reactionaries from seeing the immediate reference and crying, "RIPOFF!" before looking at what their actual story functions are.

True and agreed.

 

[ghostryder]

EXCLUSIVE: Harald Belker's STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS & OBLIVION Concept Art

http://filmsketchr.blogspot.com/2013/05/exclusive-unseen-star-trek-into.html#.UaDWKxxKusZ

 

[greatwazoo42]

I saw it. I loved it. I have not read all the posts in this thread yet. I'll give it a go when I can. Some of my thoughts:

Enterprise underwater and plan to save the primitives: loaded with flaws not on the writer's part but to show the Kirk was flawed. Reckless, not caring about risks, doing things because he felt he can. He was spoiled by his first success against Nero and, as the dialog went later, felt he could do no wrong and therefore gave into adventurous but sloppy thinking.

Primitives worshiping the image of the Enterprise instead of their sacred document: Anyone else feel that was a fun poke by JJ and the crew at the fan base?

So many moments obviously taken from other elements of previous Star Trek: the Negative Nancy's can all it derivative and unoriginal all they want. I feel a lot of it was the writers in the pool who are Trek fans reinforcing their own favorite moments from past stories. Sort of the same thing as Nemesis was but this time they did it very much the right way in that they folded them into the story instead of built the story around them. Barring the death behind the safety door scene and a few other moments much of the rest fit into the story instead of had story built around it.

KAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!!!: I loved the new treatment of him and felt much of the core concept of the character was there. Considering the different details of the situation he found himself in I think it worked well and felt the soul of the character remained the same in both incarnations.

U.S.S. Vengeance: having seen that monstrosity in action I now feel that it was perfectly designed for what it was meant to be.

Formula: the film does seem to follow a similar story telling pattern to the first. Noble Sacrifice (bravo Noel Clarke for perfectly portraying what a father would do to save his child), setting up a set of lessons that need to be learned in order to evolve the characters, etc. It struck me as following much of how the first film played out but that didn't hamper my enjoyment of the film at all. The film struck me as about 65% Star Trek + 10% 2001 + 25% Blade Runner in appearance and story telling. Works for me!

The new dialog in the death of a friend scene: WOW!!! That was fantastic! I could hear half the audience or more sniffling or see them wiping at their eyes during that scene. Excellent stuff.


So much about this film was done beautifully. I'm looking forward to the next one.

Now one little thing I may be disappointed in the RPF for (or, at least, the search function) why is there no thread discussing the differences in the props between the previous film and this? Seeing the new phasers being assembled from parts, the tiny refinements of the commuicators, finally seeing the tricorder in action...well?

 

[SSgt Burton]

Enterprise underwater and plan to save the primitives: loaded with flaws not on the writer's part but to show the Kirk was flawed. Reckless, not caring about risks, doing things because he felt he can. He was spoiled by his first success against Nero and, as the dialog went later, felt he could do no wrong and therefore gave into adventurous but sloppy thinking.

Absolutely brilliant! Never thought of it that way, and now makes complete sense! Ties in with why they had Scotty mentioning how ridiculous it was to submerge the Enterprise. :thumbsup


Kevin

 

[greatwazoo42]

Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here for eternity!

BTW - Sulu has always been my favorite character and this moment just...freakin...RULED:

Sulu: Attention: John Harrison. This is Captain Hikaru Sulu of he USS Enterprise. A shuttle of highly trained officers is on its way to your location. If you do not surrender to them immediately, I will unleash the entire payload of advanced long-range torpedoes currently locked on to your location. You have two minutes to confirm your compliance. Refusal to do so will result in your obliteration. And If you test me, you will fail.

Bones: Mr Sulu, remind me never to **** you off.


The dialog between Kirk and Sulu at the end when Sulu exits the chair reluctantly for Kirk to take it was brilliant too. I find myself looking forward, in a few films, to seeing this universe's Captain Sulu and how they will make their version of Excelsior look. I still have my issues with the new 'Prise (those damned warp nacelles need to be wider apart and she needs a hint more junk her her trunk, she's all bewbs and no butt!) but I like where things seem to be going.

 

[mynameschris]

Now one little thing I may be disappointed in the RPF for (or, at least, the search function) why is there no thread discussing the differences in the props between the previous film and this? Seeing the new phasers being assembled from parts, the tiny refinements of the commuicators, finally seeing the tricorder in action...well?

Start one

BTW - Sulu has always been my favorite character and this moment just...freakin...RULED:

Sulu: Attention: John Harrison. This is Captain Hikaru Sulu of he USS Enterprise. A shuttle of highly trained officers is on its way to your location. If you do not surrender to them immediately, I will unleash the entire payload of advanced long-range torpedoes currently locked on to your location. You have two minutes to confirm your compliance. Refusal to do so will result in your obliteration. And If you test me, you will fail.

Bones: Mr Sulu, remind me never to **** you off.

That was a great scene, Sulu was also one of my favourite characters in TOS, my own top 3 were in fact a combination of Kirk, Scotty and Sulu (in contrast to mosts preference of the Kirk, Spock, McCoy trio) and I am glad hes had much better writing than he was afforded through most of the TOS movies.

Even though I liked Captain Sulu in ST6 I would rather the hold off on taking him away from the Enterprise... Afterall the next movie and any possible sequels should take place within the 5 year mission.

 

[greatwazoo42]

Anyone else laugh at the meta-humor in the moment where Kirk starts trying to explain to Kahn and fails about the similarity between the HALO jump in the first film and the Zero G Momentum Dive between ships in the second? It was like the writing team heading off people complaining about it having been done before. Still works but I hope they're done with that bit of action. Time to make room for new stuff in the next film.

That and something I failed to catch in the film but read this morning on IMDb was about the origin of the trader ship they used to head for Kronos: they got it in the MUDD Incident. HARRY MUDD LIVES!!!!

 

[greatwazoo42]

Start one

Done: http://www.therpf.com/f45/prop-differences-between-star-trek-into-darkness-186079/#post2913240