And whitewashing? WTF? What is whitewashing gotta do with the movies?
Whitewashing is used to refer to the practice of casting caucasion actors in roles that were of other ethnicities in the source material.
Which in this instance appears to cover casting an anglo-saxon actor to play a character with an asian name who was originally played by a Mexican-born actor of Spanish descent.
And it's a ridiculous thing to be offended by. Who cares if Khan is white instead of Latin? It in no way impacts his character, which is defined by his status as an augment, not his race.
Except that he was supposed to be South Asian... so both castings were off... although I do prefer Montalban’s portrayal better.
Was he actually? Obviously the name is South Asian, but I never heard any references to his ethnic origin (but it's been a long time since I've seen Space Seed or TWOK so I might just not remember). I was figuring it was one of those circumstances the OP liked where everyone is all mishmashed by the 23rd century so they might have names that we associate with one culture today but the character is actually a different ethnicity from what we would assume that name would imply.
Lol in all reality, Khan's name is all over the place in Asian-origin.
Khan is a Mongolian name.
Singh is a Sikh Nepali name.
Noonien is...I have no idea, might be a Cantonese variety of Chinese if you break it down as noo-nien.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
According to Star Trek logic there is no prime timeline anymore, hence Nero's temporal incursion in the first place. Of course since those movies are terrible I'll just ignore them and say they never happened and therefore there is no Kelvin timeline.
That's the mindset I operate from.
Personally I don't mind the Kelvin movies or character portrayals, but I don't think of them as Trek-trek, it's like Trek-lite to me.
Trek itself is like a fully loaded pizza to me with all its lore and characters and timeline, Kelvin Trek is like a rice cracker, little lore, little characters, mostly ignored building of a timeline.
But one thing I hated about Kelvin Trek was the destruction of Romulus, which I know technically happens in real Trek's timeline but since it's only mentioned in the Kelvin Trek movies, I treat it as unreal.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
And it's a ridiculous thing to be offended by. Who cares if Khan is white instead of Latin? It in no way impacts his character, which is defined by his status as an augment, not his race.
People also had an issue with them casting an American-Korean actor in place of and American-Japanese one in Sulu.
For some films whitewashing might be a problem. In the case of Trek it's kind of a daft thing to complain about. Its reasonable to assume by the 23rd century ethnicity and national identity should basically be blurred and family names might not map perfectly to some perceived ethnicity. You may as well be offended that every single human character isn't mixed race (which would be more valid but i think a certain amount of suspension of disbelief should be taken). In my opinion just cast the best actor for the role.
Yeah but Sulu is not a Japanese name in the slightest. Japanese has no L-sound in its language. So clearly Sulu is mixed if we go off that information. Although there is some equal likelihood that Trek just didn't know Japanese well enough to be able to form a native-like Japanese name when Sulu's character was created.
Admiral of the Haus of GaghGagh, Starbase level 94, we are not accepting members at this time.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
what people fail to understand is that we have come to the end of the road for new Star Trek ideas. It already spans 2 centuries and different settings. Therefore you can either make a prequel (like ENT or DIS), and honestly prequels kinda ****. It's like reading the end of the book first... Yeah, it's nice knowing how they got there, but the imagination is kinda shot.
But, fetishist are gonna fetish!
By this logic, any film or tv series set in the past is just a "prequel" to films set in the present.
To paraphrase you, sure it might be interesting to see how things became they way they are, but there just aren't any interesting stories to be told there.
What are you going to do? Follow the lives of some people living in the Roman Empire? We know how it's going to end, so what's the point?
As the Vanguard novels highlight, you don't even have to go to a new era to find places to tell stories in the Star Trek setting, because James Kirk wasn't the only person interesting things were happening to.
And while I have objected elsewhere to the fact that virtually every major character in thos books also appears in. TOS episode or film, I also complimented them on maintaining tension even when the audience knows certain characters can't die because a decade later they'll be in Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek has barely scratched tge surface of what can be done with the franchise. Pitch Black could have been a Star Trek movie. Alien could have been a Star Trek movie.
They could do a series set on a colony where it's all about exploring that one world. They could do shipwrecked explorers. They could do a series about the Maquis.
They could do the story of USS Equinox. Sure, we know how it ends, but doesn't it seem like how they got there is an interesting story? The tale of a Starfleet crew compromising their principles inch-by-inch until they are well across the line into villain territory and they don't even know that's happened?
The shows Star Trek has produced so far cover 5 years in the 2100s, a span of about 15 years in the 2200s, and another 15 years in the 2300s. A similar pass through history would give us something set during the 7-years war, the next begins during the American Civi War and continues doing movies until about 1890, then three overlapping shows covering Vietnam through the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
So it completely missed WWI, WWII and Napoleon just to name a few.
I really don't think Trek is running out of times to set an interesting story. Not by a long shot.
what people fail to understand is that we have come to the end of the road for new Star Trek ideas. It already spans 2 centuries and different settings. Therefore you can either make a prequel (like ENT or DIS), and honestly prequels kinda ****. It's like reading the end of the book first... Yeah, it's nice knowing how they got there, but the imagination is kinda shot.
But, fetishist are gonna fetish!
By this logic, any film or tv series set in the past is just a "prequel" to films set in the present.
To paraphrase you, sure it might be interesting to see how things became they way they are, but there just aren't any interesting stories to be told there.
What are you going to do? Follow the lives of some people living in the Roman Empire? We know how it's going to end, so what's the point?
As the Vanguard novels highlight, you don't even have to go to a new era to find places to tell stories in the Star Trek setting, because James Kirk wasn't the only person interesting things were happening to.
And while I have objected elsewhere to the fact that virtually every major character in thos books also appears in. TOS episode or film, I also complimented them on maintaining tension even when the audience knows certain characters can't die because a decade later they'll be in Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek has barely scratched tge surface of what can be done with the franchise. Pitch Black could have been a Star Trek movie. Alien could have been a Star Trek movie.
They could do a series set on a colony where it's all about exploring that one world. They could do shipwrecked explorers. They could do a series about the Maquis.
They could do the story of USS Equinox. Sure, we know how it ends, but doesn't it seem like how they got there is an interesting story? The tale of a Starfleet crew compromising their principles inch-by-inch until they are well across the line into villain territory and they don't even know that's happened?
The shows Star Trek has produced so far cover 5 years in the 2100s, a span of about 15 years in the 2200s, and another 15 years in the 2300s. A similar pass through history would give us something set during the 7-years war, the next begins during the American Civi War and continues doing movies until about 1890, then three overlapping shows covering Vietnam through the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
So it completely missed WWI, WWII and Napoleon just to name a few.
I really don't think Trek is running out of times to set an interesting story. Not by a long shot.
I very much agree, though the folks who write prequels, tend to really want to pee all over them to make them their own in such a way as to separate them that source material is generally really disregarded. I can point to a number of literary as well as video/TV/Movie cases of it. In the case of Trek where the lore is pretty thick and deep, prequel avoidance would really be advised.. Not everyone can be Axanar..
The problem isn't that there are no ideas, but that some folks fail to have them. That's why we've had two pretty blatant rehashes of Wrath of Khan.
Therefore you can either make a prequel (like ENT or DIS), and honestly prequels kinda ****. It's like reading the end of the book first... Yeah, it's nice knowing how they got there, but the imagination is kinda shot.
I saw somone make a good point about why prequels generally **tsk tsk**.
He said in a movie you start with a main character who isn't very interesting, and he becomes more interesting over the course of the film. (I think his example was Luke in Star Wars).
If you do a prequel, your choices are to have the character start as uninteresting as he is in the first film and not change, which makes the movie boring, or have him start even less interesting than he was and slowly he improves until he is just not very interesting.
Note that this applies ony to true prequels. One of the easiest ways to make the movie better is to change who it's about.
It isn't that there's no room for stories set before Luke met Obi-Wan, it's just that Luke's Life On The Farm will not be an interesting movie.
what people fail to understand is that we have come to the end of the road for new Star Trek ideas. It already spans 2 centuries and different settings. Therefore you can either make a prequel (like ENT or DIS), and honestly prequels kinda ****. It's like reading the end of the book first... Yeah, it's nice knowing how they got there, but the imagination is kinda shot.
But, fetishist are gonna fetish!
By this logic, any film or tv series set in the past is just a "prequel" to films set in the present.
To paraphrase you, sure it might be interesting to see how things became they way they are, but there just aren't any interesting stories to be told there.
What are you going to do? Follow the lives of some people living in the Roman Empire? We know how it's going to end, so what's the point?
As the Vanguard novels highlight, you don't even have to go to a new era to find places to tell stories in the Star Trek setting, because James Kirk wasn't the only person interesting things were happening to.
And while I have objected elsewhere to the fact that virtually every major character in thos books also appears in. TOS episode or film, I also complimented them on maintaining tension even when the audience knows certain characters can't die because a decade later they'll be in Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek has barely scratched tge surface of what can be done with the franchise. Pitch Black could have been a Star Trek movie. Alien could have been a Star Trek movie.
They could do a series set on a colony where it's all about exploring that one world. They could do shipwrecked explorers. They could do a series about the Maquis.
They could do the story of USS Equinox. Sure, we know how it ends, but doesn't it seem like how they got there is an interesting story? The tale of a Starfleet crew compromising their principles inch-by-inch until they are well across the line into villain territory and they don't even know that's happened?
The shows Star Trek has produced so far cover 5 years in the 2100s, a span of about 15 years in the 2200s, and another 15 years in the 2300s. A similar pass through history would give us something set during the 7-years war, the next begins during the American Civi War and continues doing movies until about 1890, then three overlapping shows covering Vietnam through the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
So it completely missed WWI, WWII and Napoleon just to name a few.
I really don't think Trek is running out of times to set an interesting story. Not by a long shot.
sorry, but you are mixing apples with bananas, real history with made-up-future history. Do you know why series like ST need Kelvin-like ideas? The most important reason: TECH!
My mobile kicks the communicator's behind. And I have an issue with watching "future" tech that is obsolete. The DIS tech is better than TNG's or VOY...That needs a damned good reason, cause ST is supposed to be a tech visionary,
Take the spore drive for example, it's a new type of thinking, but they had to throw in a caveat in order to preserve the timeline... it's dangerous to use. And this makes DIS tech stagnant, cause they will either do the same with some other idea or they will simply not implement it.
what people fail to understand is that we have come to the end of the road for new Star Trek ideas. It already spans 2 centuries and different settings. Therefore you can either make a prequel (like ENT or DIS), and honestly prequels kinda ****. It's like reading the end of the book first... Yeah, it's nice knowing how they got there, but the imagination is kinda shot.
But, fetishist are gonna fetish!
By this logic, any film or tv series set in the past is just a "prequel" to films set in the present.
To paraphrase you, sure it might be interesting to see how things became they way they are, but there just aren't any interesting stories to be told there.
What are you going to do? Follow the lives of some people living in the Roman Empire? We know how it's going to end, so what's the point?
As the Vanguard novels highlight, you don't even have to go to a new era to find places to tell stories in the Star Trek setting, because James Kirk wasn't the only person interesting things were happening to.
And while I have objected elsewhere to the fact that virtually every major character in thos books also appears in. TOS episode or film, I also complimented them on maintaining tension even when the audience knows certain characters can't die because a decade later they'll be in Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek has barely scratched tge surface of what can be done with the franchise. Pitch Black could have been a Star Trek movie. Alien could have been a Star Trek movie.
They could do a series set on a colony where it's all about exploring that one world. They could do shipwrecked explorers. They could do a series about the Maquis.
They could do the story of USS Equinox. Sure, we know how it ends, but doesn't it seem like how they got there is an interesting story? The tale of a Starfleet crew compromising their principles inch-by-inch until they are well across the line into villain territory and they don't even know that's happened?
The shows Star Trek has produced so far cover 5 years in the 2100s, a span of about 15 years in the 2200s, and another 15 years in the 2300s. A similar pass through history would give us something set during the 7-years war, the next begins during the American Civi War and continues doing movies until about 1890, then three overlapping shows covering Vietnam through the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
So it completely missed WWI, WWII and Napoleon just to name a few.
I really don't think Trek is running out of times to set an interesting story. Not by a long shot.
sorry, but you are mixing apples with bananas, real history with made-up-future history. Do you know why series like ST need Kelvin-like ideas? The most important reason: TECH!
My mobile kicks the communicator's behind. And I have an issue with watching "future" tech that is obsolete. The DIS tech is better than TNG's or VOY...That needs a damned good reason, cause ST is supposed to be a tech visionary,
Take the spore drive for example, it's a new type of thinking, but they had to throw in a caveat in order to preserve the timeline... it's dangerous to use. And this makes DIS tech stagnant, cause they will either do the same with some other idea or they will simply not implement it.
Or disregard the rest of the timeline and continue as a reboot.
1. People who don't like the Kelvin timeline remind me of the same people who shat their pants over SW, ep. I, II, III.
2. No new ideas? There is so much untapped potential to the ST universe. I honestly wanted a new ST that jumped forward, as far forward of TNG as it went past TOS. And I wanted it to be centered around Starfleet Academy. I still think that's a show that would have serious merit. But there's a million other unused ideas out there.
Drunken Dahar Masters is recruiting active players.
PM for details.
Yeah but Sulu is not a Japanese name in the slightest. Japanese has no L-sound in its language. So clearly Sulu is mixed if we go off that information. Although there is some equal likelihood that Trek just didn't know Japanese well enough to be able to form a native-like Japanese name when Sulu's character was created.
But my main point is that by the 23rd century the names don't matter anymore (or at least dont match a "race") as race shouldnt really exist anymore and the cultural lines become mixed and blurred.
2. No new ideas? There is so much untapped potential to the ST universe. I honestly wanted a new ST that jumped forward, as far forward of TNG as it went past TOS. And I wanted it to be centered around Starfleet Academy. I still think that's a show that would have serious merit. But there's a million other unused ideas out there.
Comments
Lol in all reality, Khan's name is all over the place in Asian-origin.
Khan is a Mongolian name.
Singh is a Sikh Nepali name.
Noonien is...I have no idea, might be a Cantonese variety of Chinese if you break it down as noo-nien.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
That's the mindset I operate from.
Personally I don't mind the Kelvin movies or character portrayals, but I don't think of them as Trek-trek, it's like Trek-lite to me.
Trek itself is like a fully loaded pizza to me with all its lore and characters and timeline, Kelvin Trek is like a rice cracker, little lore, little characters, mostly ignored building of a timeline.
But one thing I hated about Kelvin Trek was the destruction of Romulus, which I know technically happens in real Trek's timeline but since it's only mentioned in the Kelvin Trek movies, I treat it as unreal.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
Yeah but Sulu is not a Japanese name in the slightest. Japanese has no L-sound in its language. So clearly Sulu is mixed if we go off that information. Although there is some equal likelihood that Trek just didn't know Japanese well enough to be able to form a native-like Japanese name when Sulu's character was created.
Captain of the voyage vessels: Queen of Bashir, Landsknecht, and Sunspear, the first luxury starship cruiseliners.
Amenities include wifi, fully-functioning holodecks, a full-service bar, 3 party decks, a Trill spa, and a business centre.
Fun fact: The ships are propelled by bouncy castle technology.
To paraphrase you, sure it might be interesting to see how things became they way they are, but there just aren't any interesting stories to be told there.
What are you going to do? Follow the lives of some people living in the Roman Empire? We know how it's going to end, so what's the point?
As the Vanguard novels highlight, you don't even have to go to a new era to find places to tell stories in the Star Trek setting, because James Kirk wasn't the only person interesting things were happening to.
And while I have objected elsewhere to the fact that virtually every major character in thos books also appears in. TOS episode or film, I also complimented them on maintaining tension even when the audience knows certain characters can't die because a decade later they'll be in Wrath of Khan.
Star Trek has barely scratched tge surface of what can be done with the franchise. Pitch Black could have been a Star Trek movie. Alien could have been a Star Trek movie.
They could do a series set on a colony where it's all about exploring that one world. They could do shipwrecked explorers. They could do a series about the Maquis.
They could do the story of USS Equinox. Sure, we know how it ends, but doesn't it seem like how they got there is an interesting story? The tale of a Starfleet crew compromising their principles inch-by-inch until they are well across the line into villain territory and they don't even know that's happened?
The shows Star Trek has produced so far cover 5 years in the 2100s, a span of about 15 years in the 2200s, and another 15 years in the 2300s. A similar pass through history would give us something set during the 7-years war, the next begins during the American Civi War and continues doing movies until about 1890, then three overlapping shows covering Vietnam through the Iranian Revolution in 1979.
So it completely missed WWI, WWII and Napoleon just to name a few.
I really don't think Trek is running out of times to set an interesting story. Not by a long shot.
I very much agree, though the folks who write prequels, tend to really want to pee all over them to make them their own in such a way as to separate them that source material is generally really disregarded. I can point to a number of literary as well as video/TV/Movie cases of it. In the case of Trek where the lore is pretty thick and deep, prequel avoidance would really be advised.. Not everyone can be Axanar..
The problem isn't that there are no ideas, but that some folks fail to have them. That's why we've had two pretty blatant rehashes of Wrath of Khan.
He said in a movie you start with a main character who isn't very interesting, and he becomes more interesting over the course of the film. (I think his example was Luke in Star Wars).
If you do a prequel, your choices are to have the character start as uninteresting as he is in the first film and not change, which makes the movie boring, or have him start even less interesting than he was and slowly he improves until he is just not very interesting.
Note that this applies ony to true prequels. One of the easiest ways to make the movie better is to change who it's about.
It isn't that there's no room for stories set before Luke met Obi-Wan, it's just that Luke's Life On The Farm will not be an interesting movie.
sorry, but you are mixing apples with bananas, real history with made-up-future history. Do you know why series like ST need Kelvin-like ideas? The most important reason: TECH!
My mobile kicks the communicator's behind. And I have an issue with watching "future" tech that is obsolete. The DIS tech is better than TNG's or VOY...That needs a damned good reason, cause ST is supposed to be a tech visionary,
Take the spore drive for example, it's a new type of thinking, but they had to throw in a caveat in order to preserve the timeline... it's dangerous to use. And this makes DIS tech stagnant, cause they will either do the same with some other idea or they will simply not implement it.
Or disregard the rest of the timeline and continue as a reboot.
Which Is also why a prequel is pretty lame.
2. No new ideas? There is so much untapped potential to the ST universe. I honestly wanted a new ST that jumped forward, as far forward of TNG as it went past TOS. And I wanted it to be centered around Starfleet Academy. I still think that's a show that would have serious merit. But there's a million other unused ideas out there.
PM for details.
So long and thanks for all the fish.
But my main point is that by the 23rd century the names don't matter anymore (or at least dont match a "race") as race shouldnt really exist anymore and the cultural lines become mixed and blurred.
Like "Scrubs: Med School?"