JJ Abrams' new Star Trek diverted from the original because Nero came from the future to the past and altered history. But Khan was alive 300 years prior and should be the same as the originals right? The whole thing makes no sense.
sharethey altered his appearance when they gave him the new identity
shareKhan is a pasty Brit so that Trek fans who can't let go of canon and have to endlessly squabble over such silly details learn a lesson about how to move on.
____
Everything the state says is a lie. — Nietzsche
Absolutely. I really want to see Benedict Cumberbatch play Gandhi, now!
shareYES, I second that! He's clearly perfect for it! ;P
In all seriousness, I guess they did "give him a new identity" because the reboot trilogy (I hope it's a trilogy; anything more would be extreme overkill) is a view into an alternate universe, so some things are going to be different from the TOS crew's past actually was...including Khan, clearly. Truthfully, I don't know what they were thinking, and it doesn't seem right, but whatever. The way I see it, these movies can go a little crazy and have some fun, because they don't change canon at all. Canon's not something you "let go" of; it's the "reality" of the fictional world. It changes only by necessity or the decision of the creator(s.) (Otherwise nothing would be worth creating, because some random person could come along and alter it for no good reason.) And Khan's race is...well, not exactly what I'd call a "minor detail" for fans to quibble over. But yeah, whatever. I'm not gonna have a cow over him being white this time. I don't HATE the movies like so many do. This one was no better or worse than I expected; it was, in fact, exactly what I expected. I give it a generous 5.5-6. The '09 movie was more of a 6.5-7...maaaaaybe even an 8 or 9 when you consider ONLY what IT was trying to be, which it achieved quite well.
I still doubt that these movies are getting all that many non-Trek-interested people to watch and suddenly decide to go back and see the series. The series themselves *are* Star Trek and thus have infinitely more power to get people into it and convert them to "Trekkieism." Although, I'm sure some people will take a liking to one or more characters, even if only at first because they find them attractive, and say, "Y'know, I never thought Star Trek looked worthwhile, but now I'm curious and I want to see what everyone's so obsessed with..." I guess just one or two cases like that would make the movies worthwhile, too, so... (And I won't knock anyone for initially becoming interested in something cool due to a physical attraction to a character/actor. Happened to me with Harry Potter! And hey, neither version of Khan, Spock, Kirk, McCoy, Chekhov, Scotty, etc., is unsexy. ;)
Also, I watched it on Blu-Ray and got very, very annoyed at how it would go from whisper-talking you could barely hear, TO HUGE FREAKING EXPLOSIONS THAT WANT TO BUST YOUR SPEAKERS AND HAVE YOU CONSTANTLY RAISING AND LOWERING THE VOLUME. Obviously a lot of movies do that, and it's getting old.
I think mostly people who already like Star Trek are the ones seeing the Abrams movies. They're either accepting it as AU fun, like me, or they're picking them apart and finding fault and criticizing. Imo, the reboot cast feels for the most part like a pretty authentic "younger version" of the TOS crew...it's not really them, of couse, but it's sufficiently "them" to enjoy seeing what COULD have happened. It's different, and it might attract some new fans. All in all, I don't know that I quite LOVE these movies, but I don't hate them, either.
I also don't think that Trek needs the "help" of all the additional explosions, pointless lens flares, or Kirk and Spock beating the absolute ever-lovin' sh!t out of people in order to look more "appealing." There was always plenty of action, adventure, exploding crap, and violence that suited the characters and served the story. I don't mean that this film was bad and filled with totally senseless, needless violence, but it pretty obviously does spotlight the big special effects and whatnot--whereas the Original Series relied more on actual plot and character development. I didn't find this particularly exciting, unpredictable, or original. It was merely "all right."
Plus, everyone is at least familiar with the basics of Trek...jokes about Kirk's speech patterns and mannerisms or Picard's quirky crew are one of those culturally pervasive things you know something about even if you've never watched a full ST episode. It's not as if there's no exposure to it anymore otherwise, and it was desperately in need of an AU "reboot." As I've been saying, though, I'm okay with it--and glad if it does some good by drawing in non-Trekkers.
---
I'll admit, I'm not such a purist that I dislike these Abrams movies. They've been very funny, exciting, and moving, with everyone fully in-character at least 90% of the time. The Spock/Uhura romance that unfolds in this universe (which obviously did not in the actual prime universe, and is therefore a clear sign that we're dealing with parallel versions of the character) is being handled quite well. Each character got to have his/her moments of comedy and heroic bravery, which is great for creating the ensemble-cast feel that the other Star Trek series have--TOS really focused mainly on Kirk and Spock, and sometimes McCoy. Of course, Kirk & Spock are still the biggest stars. Reversing the death scene from the original film provided a perfect mirror and was extremely touching. They even worked in a believable way to revive Kirk without needing the third movie to start out with his resurrection. I'm pleased that the movies retain the feeling and spirit of Trek so strongly, without becoming hyper-macho-action-packed gorefests that are violent only for violence's sake. The storyline is realistic within the context of Star Trek. If they could have accomplished this in a movie about the ACTUAL crew rather than these extraordinarily similar AU counterparts, that might have been even greater...but as it is, we've seen AUs on the shows, so why not enjoy another?
Absolutely. I really want to see Benedict Cumberbatch play Gandhi, now!
Absolutely. I really want to see Benedict Cumberbatch play Gandhi, now!
Khan is a pasty Brit so that Trek fans who can't let go of canon and have to endlessly squabble over such silly details learn a lesson about how to move on.
[deleted]
Was this ever explained in the move or did you pull it out of your arse?
shareLazy writing.
All it required was ONE line suggesting plastic surgery (or whatever it takes in the 23rd century to alter one's appereance) and none of the this ugly controversy would have happened.
I didn't mind the British accent -just like I didn't mind Montalban's Hispanic accent when he was playing someone from Asia. If anything I imagine someone like Khan with his "superior intellect" could pick up languages and accents easily.
I think it was a combination of Del Toro dropping out of the movie at the last minute and the producers scrambling about to find a suitable replacement. Cumberbatch agreed to join the film but didn't know who he'd be playing -I imagine his surprise was as big as ours!
All it required was ONE line suggesting plastic surgery (or whatever it takes in the 23rd century to alter one's appereance) and none of the this ugly controversy would have happened.
The explanation is revealed in the comic series that was released last October. The fifth issue explains why Khan has white skin and a British accent. It was never even mentioned in the film but it wouldn't have hurt for them to maybe give a passing suggestion about what happened.
Real is good. Interesting is better.
The explanation is revealed in the comic series that was released last October. The fifth issue explains why Khan has white skin and a British accent. It was never even mentioned in the film but it wouldn't have hurt for them to maybe give a passing suggestion about what happened. share
they altered his appearance when they gave him the new identity
I'm amused that you assume those comics explained anything. While the first countdown comic established Nero's background and motives, Countdown to Darkness didn't do much other than stirring the ongoing mystery of the film's villain and leaving us all frustrated with anticipation.
shareI'm amused that you assume those comics explained anything. While the first countdown comic established Nero's background and motives, Countdown to Darkness didn't do much other than stirring the ongoing mystery of the film's villain and leaving us all frustrated with anticipation.
I'm amused that you assume those comics explained anything. While the first countdown comic established Nero's background and motives, Countdown to Darkness didn't do much other than stirring the ongoing mystery of the film's villain and leaving us all frustrated with anticipation.
I'm amused that you assume those comics explained anything. While the first countdown comic established Nero's background and motives, Countdown to Darkness didn't do much other than stirring the ongoing mystery of the film's villain and leaving us all frustrated with anticipation.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Especially when Spock Jr. talks to Spock Sr. Old Spock fought against a completely different Khan, so it makes no sense.
"We can add 'onius,' 'ainous,' or anous,' to just about anything and it becomes magical."
Especially when Spock Jr. talks to Spock Sr. Old Spock fought against a completely different Khan, so it makes no sense.
[deleted]
[deleted]
He said he was Khan, I don't believe he said "Noonien Singh."
But how many Khans could there have been on the Botany Bay?
Come to think of it, I don't think they mentioned the Botany Bay, either.
"The future cheats us from afar" -- Lord Byron
He said he was Khan, I don't believe he said "Noonien Singh."
But how many Khans could there have been on the Botany Bay?
Come to think of it, I don't think they mentioned the Botany Bay, either.
[deleted]
I don't remember whether or not they mentioned the S.S. Botany Bay. But I refuse to believe that there is another ship of frozen augments floating around in space whose leader also happens to be named Khan. There's no way they intended him to be anyone other than Khan Noonien Singh.
They didn't mention the Botony Bay, but they did mention a crew of Khan + 72, which was the same number established in the original series episode.
share[deleted]
But Benedict Cumberbatch is Kahn Noonien Singh... doesn't he say so himself?
Trying to argue he was meant to be a different augment named Khan is incredibly reaching.
There's no way you can seriously believe Abrams didn't mean for Cumberbatch to be Khan Noonien Singh.
my movie review website: http://www.angelfire.com/blog/jester_1/
Trying to argue he was meant to be a different augment named Khan is incredibly reaching.
There's no way you can seriously believe Abrams didn't mean for Cumberbatch to be Khan Noonien Singh.
Because it's a new movie. How did Spock Prime know it was Kirk in the cave in the first movie? It's clearly NOT Shatner. This is a stupid argument on this board. Who cares if he is white, black, hispanic? I'm sure you are the same people complaining the Perry White in Man of Steel is now black.
I think Cumberbatch did a fine job, he had the confidence in his speech Khan had, I really don't think race should matter.
Because it's a new movie. How did Spock Prime know it was Kirk in the cave in the first movie? It's clearly NOT Shatner. This is a stupid argument on this board. Who cares if he is white, black, hispanic? I'm sure you are the same people complaining the Perry White in Man of Steel is now black.
I think Cumberbatch did a fine job, he had the confidence in his speech Khan had, I really don't think race should matter.
True that his ethnicity doesn't matter, but the thing is that Khan's ethnicity and more specifically his latino accent added so much flair and character to the original Khan. While this Khan was ok, he pales in comparision to the original. I should point out that the original Khan was of North Indian ancestry, but in his original draft, before the original Khan's story was revised, he was Nordic.
I think Abrams purposely left the question of his identity up in the air. Maybe to distance this character from the original in case the character wasn't received well by the public. It would give him the ability to just say this Khan wasn't the "real" Khan.
True that his ethnicity doesn't matter, but the thing is that Khan's ethnicity and more specifically his latino accent added so much flair and character to the original Khan. While this Khan was ok, he pales in comparision to the original. I should point out that the original Khan was of North Indian ancestry, but in his original draft, before the original Khan's story was revised, he was Nordic.
I never could get into the original ST. However I thought that by using a white actor and especially (apologies to the English on here!) one from Britain who spoke with such an air of condescension. Abrams was playing with the Nazi/White supremicist angle of them being superior. I think that would have echoed with the viewing audience (most of whom are unfamiliar with the character)tnan had they chosen someone who was latino or arabic.
In the original series having a brown Khan was a big *beep* *** to the white supremacists. The superman of the future was brown! In the 1960's just about 20 years after WWII this is a big deal. Going back to the superman of the future is white just doesn't have the same impact.
shareIt's not that race matters. I don't care if Perry White is black in the new Superman movie. But that's its own thing. It's just odd when it's supposed to be the same timeline of the original series (well, up until Kirk's birth) and a character completely changes race and accent. It'd be like if Spock was suddenly black in the next movie. It's more of a continuity issue. And the fact that Khan doesn't really have a white European name and his whole history pretty much states he's not a white guy.
That said, I still think he did a great job and the idea of him having a new identity created for him at least implies that maybe his appearance was altered as well. In my mind, they just altered his appearance when they made him John Harrison.
And to the other posters....it is obviously supposed to be the same Khan.
"He is not Judge Judy and executioner!"
The thing for me is that, regarding the "changes", there is no "canon" here to be had. The moment the reboot started, a new "canon" was being created. A new story for people who have not already fallen in love with Star Trek to enjoy. And thus, while they are sticking pretty close to the original story, there are changes that must be accepted.
For example, when Spock of the future sees Kirk in the 2009 movie - by your reasoning, Spock should have been like, "Kirk? You look... different." While the two actors are similar in appearance, the differences would be easy for them to see. Scotty is far too young, too!
In this storyline, if this happens to be the same Khan (and I believe it is) then the assumption is that the Khan in future-Spock's original timeline looked just like this - white and European.
This is not a sequel to the other movies, but a reboot and re-imagining of the series.
This is not a sequel to the other movies, but a reboot and re-imagining of the series.
Read this interview:
http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/25/leonard-nimoy-defends-new-star-trek-movie-universe-doesnt-expect-sequel-return-more/
The things that were "changed" are simple things. Nimoy mentions it - JJ has spoken on it. There were necessary "changes" to give them freedom to have their own story. No Shatner Kirk. Khan looked different.
They, whether original fans like it or not, are free the change whatever they want in the series, as it is a reboot. Appearances of certain characters and some of there storyline? Yep, they can change it however they want.
Read this interview:
http://trekmovie.com/2011/03/25/leonard-nimoy-defends-new-star-trek-movie-universe-doesnt-expect-sequel-return-more/
The things that were "changed" are simple things. Nimoy mentions it - JJ has spoken on it. There were necessary "changes" to give them freedom to have their own story. No Shatner Kirk. Khan looked different.
They, whether original fans like it or not, are free the change whatever they want in the series, as it is a reboot. Appearances of certain characters and some of there storyline? Yep, they can change it however they want.
But it does matter because of character continuation. You mentioned Kirk in the cave.. so are you saying if JJ had cast a black actor to play the role of Kirk you would be totally ok with it?
Or how about a black actor playing Superman? I'm no racist but I don't think I would want to see a black Superman. However I also do not want to see a 'brown' character in in original movies to be played by white actors either.
But it does matter because of character continuation. You mentioned Kirk in the cave.. so are you saying if JJ had cast a black actor to play the role of Kirk you would be totally ok with it?
Or how about a black actor playing Superman? I'm no racist but I don't think I would want to see a black Superman. However I also do not want to see a 'brown' character in in original movies to be played by white actors either.
This Trek is in an alternate universe, that is correct, but this universe was created in 2233 when Nero arrived from the future and attacked the Kelvin. Everything that took place *prior* to 2233 should be the same as it is in the original or "prime" universe; the writers themselves have stated that events prior to 2233 are the same in both universes. Therefore, Khan *should* look, act and sound just as he did in "Space Seed" and Wrath of Khan, unless, as others have pointed out, he had everything altered to match his new identity.
Since this is a continuity issue, you can't really compare it to, say, Nick Fury in the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Perry White in Man of Steel. Both are the start of new cinematic universes; we have not seen the characters of this particular universe before. (Man of Steel is a clean-cut reboot in no way connecting to the prior movies.) Khan, however, is part of an already-established universe. He was Indian prior to the 2233 of *both* universes and therefore should have been Indian when awoken in 2258 of the alternate universe.
I don't take issue with the color of his skin; that can easily be explained as having been altered to match his new identity. I can even forgive the accent, though one would think he would go back to his Indian (or Latino) accent once he escaped from Section 31 (unless it was somehow permanently altered). What I do take issue with, however, is Khan's demeanor in Star Trek Into Darkness. He lacks the character's charisma and self-satisfaction; Khan relished his superiority and took joy in dominating his opponents. There is none (or very little) of that in Cumberbatch's Khan; he is ice cold and manipulative. There is little to connect this Khan to Montalban's; he is Khan in name only.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Cumberbatch's villainous performance, but... he just isn't Khan. Yes, the filmmakers clearly intended him to be the same Khan, but he's not. And it's not because he's white or because he sounds British; it's because he acts nothing like him.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.share
It is a movie. It is an alternate universe. If they what a different looking Khan, they can have him. What he looks like doesn't matter - that it fits in with what some (few) fan want doesn't matter. What matters is making a great movie, and that they did.
If I remember correctly, Kirk was born on Earth, not in space. While his parents did serve on the ship together, it would seem that he she was far enough along to go into labor, they would have already had her back on Earth. That is one difference that was made before the "time-line split".
Honestly, I love this movie. I love this Khan. I love what Abrams has done with this: Brought it to a new, modern audience in an entertaining and awesome way. It is, in my opinion, the second best Star Trek film to date (Wrath of Khan being the best, still, though barely).
I understand your desire for this movie series to continue your memories of your beloved Star Trek of the past - but take it for what it is: The best Trek film in 20+ years. Beyond that, this Khan was wonderful. I don't care that he isn't "like" the other Khan. They are two different actors, and the characters are /made/ differently. They back story is slightly different, and that is /fine/. They are allowed to do that, you know. The new Batman films would have sucked if they had needed to hold to the canon of the old films - any of them.
Ignore the old Khan the next time you see this movie. Forget about him and ask yourself this: Was he a great character who serves this movie well?
My answer is yes.
I think a concern people have about this isn't so much as to how it ties into the continuity of the universe (although that is part of it), but about white actors (however talented) taking up roles that could or should be filled by actors of colour.
shareEh... that isn't the sense I've gotten from this thread. Even so, this is not the movie to be mad about.
When does Lone Ranger come out?
It is a movie. It is an alternate universe. If they what a different looking Khan, they can have him. What he looks like doesn't matter - that it fits in with what some (few) fan want doesn't matter. What matters is making a great movie, and that they did.
If I remember correctly, Kirk was born on Earth, not in space. While his parents did serve on the ship together, it would seem that he she was far enough along to go into labor, they would have already had her back on Earth. That is one difference that was made before the "time-line split".
Honestly, I love this movie. I love this Khan. I love what Abrams has done with this: Brought it to a new, modern audience in an entertaining and awesome way. It is, in my opinion, the second best Star Trek film to date (Wrath of Khan being the best, still, though barely).
Ignore the old Khan the next time you see this movie. Forget about him and ask yourself this: Was he a great character who serves this movie well?
I understand your desire for this movie series to continue your memories of your beloved Star Trek of the past - but take it for what it is: The best Trek film in 20+ years. Beyond that, this Khan was wonderful. I don't care that he isn't "like" the other Khan. They are two different actors, and the characters are /made/ differently. They back story is slightly different, and that is /fine/. They are allowed to do that, you know. The new Batman films would have sucked if they had needed to hold to the canon of the old films - any of them.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.share
As to why he looks different and why he is much more powerful in this universe, the most likely reason is that Marcus had his Section 31 scientists conduct tests and experiments on him to increase his usefulness. His DNA was genetically modified during these experiments, improving his strength and stamina and greatly enhancing the healing properties of his blood. It also resulted in the alteration of his appearance. These experiments likely caused Khan a great deal of torture, which gives added meaning to the rage he displays when he crushes Marcus' skull. Since Khan's changes can be explained as such, I'm perfectly content with the way he is portrayed in the film.
I'm sure the Khan miniseries will have an explanation. The first issue of that doesn't come out until next month, though.
You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.share
I'm sure the Khan miniseries will have an explanation. The first issue of that doesn't come out until next month, though.
Thank you TrekFan1 for making a point which nobody seems to get!
Everything up to 2233 is the same. The alternate timeline/reality is created by the arrival of Nero's ship!
The producers/writers chose to make it matter when they claimed that this universe diverged when the Narada fought the Kelvin. Of their own free will, they chose to keep continuity with ENT and everything else about the Star Trek world we were ever told/shown happened before the Narada encounter. Characters changing race in Man of Steel didn't bother me one little bit, because that's a reboot. That gives you the right to change characters' races and not be wrong. They could have called ST2009 a reboot too and saved themselves a lot of trouble; instead, they set themselves a harder test, which they promptly flunked.
shareWhat someone else said on page 10.
Khan is and always was 'white'.
Khan is a genetic creation. He could have been anything.
I don't know if I'll make it, but watch how good I'll fake it
That's absurd. Khan is a Sikh. Perry White is an editor.
shareThe cryosleep chamber sucked all of the pigment out of his skin
Don't shoot me I'm part Italian
they altered his appearance when they gave him the new identity
Then, how did they change his accent? LLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLL. Figure that one out, junior.
same reason kirk doesnt take long pauses between words, its a diiferent actor. do you expect them to revive ricardo montalban to redub him? but as far as an in-universe reason the john harrison cover is meant to be british so he sounds british, whats to figure out?
share[deleted]
I thought the whole point of this reboot was to take place on a different timeline so the writers didn't have to play by the Trek rules or do any homework. This would have been much more fun had it been a by the book prequel showing us how the characters we know and love came to meet. I agree, these new films are pure laziness on the writers part and having classic Spock talking with new Spock like it's no big deal is even more stupid! Reworking one of the greatest Trek villians ever wasn't smart. What next? The Borg ship will be a pyramid? for the record, I have no problem with any of the Time travel stories in any of the series. Most are well done. Not this. It's one thing to read short fan fiction having Spock/ Uhura together or having an enterprise that looks technically superior to anything that will eventually follow it in the regular trek time line but to pay big bucks to see it in almost non existant 3D on a SuperScreen (and spending 185 MILLION to make it) is ridiculous!
Craig
www.blogtalkradio.com/retromoviechat
I thought the whole point of this reboot was to take place on a different timeline so the writers didn't have to play by the Trek rules or do any homework.The problem with a split in time is that everything before the split remains unchanged. If they really wanted to avoid any and all Trek rules, they would have had Nero and Spock I wind up just before NX-01 went off into space, and they still would have had to deal with any history before that (which, incidentally, includes things this film would have still had to deal with). share
The problem with a split in time is that everything before the split remains unchanged. If they really wanted to avoid any and all Trek rules, they would have had Nero and Spock I wind up just before NX-01 went off into space, and they still would have had to deal with any history before that (which, incidentally, includes things this film would have still had to deal with).
[deleted]
[deleted]
No, but I do expect them to maintain continuity. So much of this movie was pure laziness.
same reason kirk doesnt take long pauses between words, its a diiferent actor. do you expect them to revive ricardo montalban to redub him? but as far as an in-universe reason the john harrison cover is meant to be british so he sounds british, whats to figure out?
Montalban was white. His parents were Spanish. Really what is the malfunction here? You're trying awfully hard to make yourselves look pretty stupid.
Illusions Micheal..illusions...tricks are something that a whore does for money.....or Cocaine
[deleted]
If he is white, why is it that Montalban identifies himself as a Latino actor?
shareLatino (or Hispanic) is an ethnicity.
White is a race.
Latino's (at least most) are white.
i know it chaps some Caucasians to hear that, but it's FACT.
No it's not. Being Costa Rican, German, Japanese or Croatian is an ethnicity.
Ethnicity refers to one's nationality, the nation you're from. There is no nation of Latino or Hispanic.
whomod wrote:
"Latino (or Hispanic) is an ethnicity."
Costa Rican is a RACE? LOL
"Italian" is not a race. Nor is French. Or Australian....
Nationality and citizenship are where you are from. Ethnicity is in your genes.
Cacri wrote:
"Costa Rican is a RACE? LOL"
No it's not a race.
It's an ethnicity and/or a nationality. A race is a race. Asian, Caucasian, Negroid, etc. People who fall into a specific biological range.
Ethnicity is a cultural identity based on language, religion or shared cultural experience.
"Italian" is not a race. Nor is French. Or Australian...."
No they're not. They're ethnicities and/or nationalities.
"Nationality and citizenship are where you are from."
Nationality and citizenship are artificial constructs.
Nations and therefore nationalities, can be made up of a single ethnic or racial group or they can be made up of multiple ethnic and racial groups.
Citizenship is a legal definition. It has no bearing on where you're from. People can and do have multiple citizenship.
"Ethnicity is in your genes."
Ethnicity is a group of people that have a shared cultural experience.
What school did you flunk history, sociology, civics, biological science and geography at?
"Costa Rican is a RACE? LOL"
No it's not a race.
It's an ethnicity and/or a nationality. A race is a race. Asian, Caucasian, Negroid, etc. People who fall into a specific biological range.
"Nationality and citizenship are where you are from."It's be really interesting to use that argument when trying to enter any country without the proper visa/documents in hand! In any case nationality and citizenships are a legal reality. Yes, you can have multiple citizenships (hey, I do), but these may be and again may not be tied to your "race".
Nationality and citizenship are artificial constructs.
What school did you flunk history, sociology, civics, biological science and geography at?Now, now. I'm way too old to engage in playground fights. Plus schools are degrees are also artificial constructs and therefore anyone with a degree can be as clever or dumb as the next fellow who never went beyond primary.
Race is not phenotype. A nationality can be a race as can be ethnicity. Race literally means class and refers to how groups of humans are classed together as having something essential in common. In the US Latino is a race.
shareMontalban was white. His parents were Spanish. Really what is the malfunction here? You're trying awfully hard to make yourselves look pretty stupid.
share
Born:
Ricardo Gonzalo Pedro Montalbán y Merino
November 25, 1920 in Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico
Mexican is a nationality, not a race. His parents were from Spain. This is like a couple from China moving to the US and having a child, his race is Asian even if he was not born in Asia.
"Four serial suicides and now a note. Oh, it's Christmas!"
Asia is a geogrpahic location as is Mexico. Asian is as much a race as Mexican.
shareKhan was white in TWOK as well. But if his appearance bothers you then consider that he in all likelyhood had his appearance altered since he was masquerading as a British Starfleet officer named John Harrison. This is even more likely considering the fact that Khan was quite famous after the Eugenics Wars and is in this film simply waltzing around on Earth without being recognised.
share[deleted]
How is that "lazy filmmaking?" Benedict Cumberbatch is perfect in the role as Khan which is why he was cast. There's nothing stopping him from being Khan - he looks about as different from Ricardo Montalban's Khan as Chris Pine's Kirk looks from William Shatner's Kirk.
This argument is even more ridiculous in this case when any change in appearance (or accent) can be easily explained if necessary given how he was living as John Harrison. This is the same ridiculousness you got when Idris Elba was cast as Heimdall in Thor. Some people complained that he wasn't black in the comics - which is true. He's also an ASGARDIAN. Who comes from a realm where magic and shapeshifting is a reality. He could look like whatever and it would make no difference.
Seriously, you guys need to find new things to complain about. It feels like you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
"Ricardo Montalban's Khan as Chris Pine's Kirk looks from William Shatner's Kirk"
Are you kidding?
That would be like if I saw a guy today who looks like Hitler and started sounding the warning bells because Hitler's back!
"But if his appearance bothers you then consider that he in all likelyhood had his appearance altered since he was masquerading as a British Starfleet officer named John Harrison. This is even more likely considering the fact that Khan was quite famous after the Eugenics Wars and is in this film simply waltzing around on Earth without being recognised."
I can go with that explanation....
"consider that he in all likelyhood had his appearance altered since he was masquerading as a British Starfleet officer named John Harrison."
Looking white won't be the way to fit in in Britain in 2259.
The original Khan was white too.
"The future cheats us from afar" -- Lord Byron
I read somewhere that the character was originally conceived to be a Nordic dude, it was only when they put it on the show did they change it at the last minute to Indian. It's more befitting to be the former considering that eugenics was pretty in with white supremacist movements/The Third Reich. I also thought it was a bit odd when I saw the movie as a kid that Khan was surrounded by blonde-haired-blue eyed guys.
Indian, Anglo, it works both ways because they're both part of the Aryan thing.
I wasn't born yesterday, you know - I've seen movies.
" I also thought it was a bit odd when I saw the movie as a kid that Khan was surrounded by blonde-haired-blue eyed guys."
I agree, especially since the same group in Space Seed was not all blonde. By TWOK they all were, even Khan's son, whose mother was white but had red hair.
"No one ever thinks cannibalism will happen, until it does."
Yes, another good point.
I wasn't born yesterday, you know - I've seen movies.