I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.
Gonna have to go into spoilers here, but I really don't think this is much of an issue.
In this film, Khan (And he has no other name, he never calls himself anything but "Khan", it's only Original!Spock that refers to him as Khan Noonien Singh) is found and reanimated by Section 31 to spearhead a militarization effort, he's given a cover identity and all that.
Let us not forget that in the ST timeline, Khan is a "Worse than Hitler"-type of war criminal, a product of a transhuimanist genetic engineering effort that went so far off the rails that genetic enhancements are a big nono in ST. Why would even Section 31 let someone this recognizable run around?
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.
I concur that it would have been better to cast an actor actually from India... but there are degrees of wrongness, and you have to admit that "Caucasian" and "Mexican" are two very different degrees of wrongness here.I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.
Because casting him with a Mexican actor was so much better?
E: a Mexican actor whose parents were both first-generation Spanish, too. Seems to me he was already pretty Europeanwashed, at least.
I can't give this movie money due to the simple fact that re-casting Khan as a white guy is incredibly racist.
Because casting him with a Mexican actor was so much better?
E: a Mexican actor whose parents were both first-generation Spanish, too. Seems to me he was already pretty Europeanwashed, at least.
But here's the thing for me: Benedict Cumberbatch is pretty good in the role. I enjoyed watching him be evil and superhuman. As far as this film is concerned, he was a good choice to play the main antagonist. I do not doubt that there are actors of other, more appropriate skin tones who could do the same job, but none of them were cast for the role. Whether that is an expression of JJ Abrams' or the Hollywood casting system's basic racism is not really relevant to me enjoying Cumberbatch's performance here, and I quite simply do not care enough about these issues, or Trek continuity, in order to do things like buying tickets to one movie and watching this one instead (Not that that would be possible in the cinemas around here anyway).I'm not saying that Benedict Cumberbatch didn't put in a fantastic performance (knowing Cumberbatch, it was probably amazing), but it would have been ridiculously easy to have Benedict Cumberbatch play a genetically-enhanced villain without making it racist, and that would to have simply had him not be Khan. The thing about Khan is that he's supposed to be somebody's idea of a perfect human... and he's not white. That is kind of important.
The thing about Khan is that he's supposed to be somebody's idea of a perfect human... and he's not white.
so can we accept that, in this case, boycotting the film is probably a disproportionate response given that their first choice was a hispanic actor?I never called for a boycott; I just said that I, personally, can't give this movie money. If that's not a dealbreaker for you, then by all means enjoy it.
**The Watch TestTM
**The Watch TestTM is a nice alternative to the usual star-based scale for rating movies. It just assumes you're wearing a watch. The score starts at zero. While watching the movie, you add 1 point for every time you look at your watch and 1/2 point for every time you really want to look at your watch but don't. The score is just the sum. Zero is a perfect score, and there's no upper bound on the score for a bad movie.
Just got back from an IMAX showing.
It was pretty spectacular. Some "argh" moments, to be sure, but overall I enjoyed it even better than the first.
Had to divert power away from the part of my brain that knows orbital mechanics, though. :S FULL POWER TO EYE-CANDY, WHEEEE
The Room
**The Watch TestTM is a nice alternative to the usual star-based scale for rating movies. It just assumes you're wearing a watch. The score starts at zero. While watching the movie, you add 1 point for every time you look at your watch and 1/2 point for every time you really want to look at your watch but don't. The score is just the sum. Zero is a perfect score, and there's no upper bound on the score for a bad movie.
That test seems to grade how boring a film is rather than providing a metric for how good it is. Plenty of bad movies will slip through the cracks of that test. The Room for example is a tour de force in awful, but could potentially score really well in your test because it's like watching a train wreck unfold. Granted it provides no lower bound on the other hand its upper bound is capped at "It kept my ADD at bay."
This was a decent movie that really squandered two excellent antagonists.
Though I do hope the next installment pits the Enterprise against something that doesn't totally outclass her, the latest two outings she's gotten her ass handed to her.
You wanna stick with Montalban, Javier Bardem!
No of course not, it's much better to have a rollercoaster hollywood laz0r ****fest of nothingness on screen. At least brains do not run the risk from usage overheating.
No of course not, it's much better to have a rollercoaster hollywood laz0r ****fest of nothingness on screen. At least brains do not run the risk from usage overheating.
Yeah, I kinda feel the same way, though I've had a hard time putting my finger on it. It's like the film constantly sets up potentially smart interesting scenes and then does the dumbest possible things with them.
*gasp!* Plinkett did STiD!
Wife and I went to it today.
I hear what the more critical among you are saying, but I can't say I agree with most of it - frankly, Abrams' ST movies have been the most entertaining (and yet sufficiently nostalgic) of the entire run of ST movies to date. I say this as someone who has watched damn close to every episode of Trek shows ever made. Frankly, I think this was actually better than the original Trek II in terms of overall plot. And the most notorious problem with Trek movies - abysmal pacing and technobabble - is entirely absent in these latest films.
Cumberbatch was brilliant in the role; and while perhaps they could have changed the name, there were some convenient tie-ins with alt-universe Spock (which set up the Spock-Kirk reversal that was brilliantly executed) which would have been missed were the character name changed. As for the fact that he's white - I don't think it really matters in the larger scale of the movie.
The reproduction/reversal of the Kirk-Spock dialog after the warp core repair was excellent. Bonus points to whomever wrote that in. Ditto for including the core characters of the episode 2-4 arc from the originals (except Saavik, wtf). For a non-Trek fan (like my wife) these films are both accessible and enjoyable - she's liked both immensely. For a Trek fan like me, there are constant parallels with the original films that make this believable as an alternate universe, and those parallels are tied in in a logical way, rather than hacked together. I think Abrams managed to strike a pretty good balance between those elements.
There were a few things here and there that irked me slightly, but the general feeling I had coming out of the theatre (and the 3D was totally worth it for this movie) was one of satisfaction. I'm happy to say I consider that one of the best Trek films ever made, arguably better than "Wrath of Khan" in several ways.
Best of all: no remake of "Search for Spock" will now ever be made, and that is frickin' fantastic news.
I'm not your son, NG, and your sarcasm about "best defense" coupled with a mistake of mine was unnecessary from you.
Having said that, all the rest is terribad. I'll start with the easiest bit. No, this star trek has not a better plot than Khan, I dare you to summarize the plot in a representative fashion, without convoluting yourself up. You can't.
The plot is basically a set-piece after set-piece with emotional and adrenaline connections between them (I can't get out of my head the innumerous "runs" characters do just to make ST "not a bore", Scotty is the worst offender here), without any hint of a overall thematic more sophisticated than "Hey zis is boom boom ships laz00rs and KHAAAN" joyride. I have the temerity to think that movies should aspire more than being a rollercoaster filled with one-liners and emotional quickies. This is the movie equivalent to the current "soundbyte" and marketing politics, the equivalent of current autotune's musical industry.
There is no character arc anywhere. There is no logic in Khan's actions, nor motive. There is no sense in general Marcus' actions anywhere, Spock is now an angst teenager who conceals emotions and Uhura gets mad at him for not wanting to jeopardize an entire ship for it. Kronos is a wasteland. There is *no story at all*.
Star Trek II at least *had* a story. And it was a good story with good concepts all interwoven and linked together. The concept of a "no-win scenario", the growing up of middle-aged Kirk into the acceptance that there *are* "no-win scenarios", through the sacrifice of a friend. The death of a world and its rebirth, paralleling the death of Spock and the appearance of a son. The Moby-Dick-like obsession of a deranged intelligent man against Kirk. And it all fits together.
The reversal of Spock and Kirk's last scene is the ultimate sign of how the movies have grown so much in flair and degenerated so much in courage and content. If they were genuinely interested in making the reversal, then yes, you should have Kirk killed in the movie. But at no moment I was really "afraid" of having this character killed. "Yeah, they're gonna revive them..." and so they did. ST II's final sacrificial moment was a amazing moment and this one is just sad in how empty it is. It's like decaffeinated coffee all over the movie, disguised with lots of CGI, camera-shake and Scotty's runs.
On the contrary. After the movie was over, I was telling my wife about "Wrath of Khan" and managed to summarize that movie and the motivations of its characters in about 3 sentences. No way I could manage that with Into Darkness.
Really? You don't think there's a connecting theme to this movie? I think you need to watch it again. Like NGTM-1R said, you apparently missed the majority of the content.
Star Trek II is among the most over-rated movies ever made. Allow me to summarize the plot for you:
1. Genetically-advanced madman wants revenge on Kirk for actions which occurred ENTIRELY off-screen during the original series.
2. Said madman takes over Federation starship.
3. Kirk, full of bravado, walks straight into a trap and learns some humility.
4. Technobabble hand-waving about Genesis device goes here.
5. Kirk learns his lesson when his friend Spock dies...
6. ...oh wait, Spock didn't really die anyway.
Wrath of Khan's plot really wasn't that good. It gets a lot of nostalgia and rose-coloured glasses treatment by Trek fans, but on its own its a medicore movie at best filled with a lot of technobabble, a lot of egotistical focus on Kirk that is ultimately wasted, and a lot of boredom in between. It is by far the best of the ST movies made before Abrams' reboot, but that isn't saying much... in general, the ST films have been poor substitutes for what made the actual series' so great.
That reversal was perhaps the best moment in any remake film I've seen, not just Trek. It did so many things - it pulled in Trek fans who've seen Wrath of Khan because the dialogue was entirely replicated; it connected these alternate universes in an interesting way that shows, despite history being entirely altered, there are some events that are so important that they will still occur, albeit with slight differences; it allowed both Kirk and Spock's characters to finish their developmental arc (Spock's character did not experience a change in Wrath of Khan).
in general I still stand by my previous assertion that the Abrams' movies are actually the best of the Trek movies yet made (mostly because all the others are genuinely medicore to bad films that are not accessible to newcomers).
People find that irritating atrocity entertaining? I had to shut Plinkett off after about 30 seconds, it's that bad. I realize it's a character, but as voices go that's one that make me reach for the off-switch or a shotgun, whichever's closest :P
I hope they get out of reboot mode and try to do something more original with the next movie. Trek's setting can be used for such variety. I just really felt like I was being played down to throughout with all the rehashing.