Amph JJ Abrams' Star Trek Into Darkness

Man, sci-fi is really inconsistent with their universal translators.

 

Now I want James Caan in Trek.

 

Well, to be fair, Cumberbatch isn't all that well-known outside the UK (if he even is well-known there) and nerd circles and is certainly not a bankable movie star. So I suppose that adds to your argument that they could've cast a relatively unknown Indian or Indian-looking person. Although IIRC even foreign non-white audiences tend to respond more to a white man in a lead role in a Hollywood film.

 

I kind of found his performance shallow and one dimensional in this film regardless.

 

Except for that Chekov thing....

He's also sporting a bad 80s hair band wig and Max Max getup. That and the fact that the other survivors of Ceti Alpha 5 were all lily-white, you could just blame 20 years of space radiation or some crap.

 

No reason why he can't have been a white Sikh, it's not like you have to look a certain way to follow a specific religion.

Obviously he seemed to have no indication of following any kind of religion which is an issue if he was meant to be Sikh, although the only guy to use his full name is Old Spock who was referring to the Khan of his time.

 

Exactly. I only know Cumberbatch because all my nerd friends can't shut up about him and so I watched the Sherlock Holmes series. I love him as Sherlock Holmes. But I honestly think they could have found a guy better for the part. Kahn was not a tightly controlled, cold-blooded super-man. He was a a barely sane killer, drunk with his own power and his superior intellect. Cumberbatch did a superb job playing the role he played. But the role was not Kahn. It was some reinterpretation of Kahn where Kahn was super-Sherlock Holmes without the aspergers symptoms. Idk. I guess that's what really bothers me. They shoehorned Cumberbatch into the role without any overt attempt to get the role right.

I often wonder about that. If it's not like racial profiling statistics. If audiences are primarily shown white male leads and then you only throw in a brown or female face once in a while, it's not surprising that they might respond less well. Also, there are tons of flops with white leads but no one makes much of that. The sample sizes for comparison are so disproportionate that I'd have a hard time accepting that conclusion without some normalized data. I do think that producers/casting directors probably accept it as a given, though. So when they cast a woman or brown person in the lead of a movie, they see it as a risk as opposed to just putting the right actor in the part. Then again, I don't sit in on those meetings so I could be wrong.

 

Something to lighten the conversation while staying obliquely on topic. This made me laugh so damned hard!

 

The guy is from the 20th century, 24th,23rd,22nd century yeah I could honestly buy that. But how many white Sikhs do you see today in the 21'st I don't see a lot of converts in the US, i doubt the Sikh's have much luck among the limeys. But A uberman from the 20th century? An era dominated by the cold war by such an extent every show that took place in the future mentions an apocalyptic fight between the US and he USSR?

Hell isn't the US "allies" with Pakistan because India was a Left leaning neutral as possible country?

Talk about stretching credibility in a movie that already stretches it to the max.

 

The silly thing is, in the first draft of Space Seed, Khan was not the bad guy's name. His name is first given as John Ericssen (I know, it even sounds like John Harrison), but he is later revealed to be Ragnar Thorwald, Nordic superman and tyrant. Why didn't they just go with that? It's not like they came out with Khan front and centre of the add campaign - they kept his identity a secret for as long as they could. Twists do not make a movie, good storytelling does. I think it would have made more sense and been just as good if Cumberbatch was Thorwald.

 

Lolz at denying a brown man a starring roll for another white guy with a limy accent.

 

The movie dropped down to 38 million its second week and got clobbered by Fast and Furious 6 which made 98 million. Yeah, they messed up with releasing it in Australia and the UK first, so even though it's doing great overseas, it is basically done here in the U.S.

 

The exact same number as the number of genetically altered superhumans as I know?

Yes, because clearly they were thinking solely of the box office boost when they cast someone almost no one in America has heard of ...

You know, they cast Cumberbatch because he's a phenomenal actor. Full stop. I hear what you and Souderwan are saying about casting largely white men as leads in general. Hey, no one gets this better than a woman. There are far more black men, for instance, who get lead roles in films than there are women of any race. How many major villains in a summer blockbuster have been women? I'll let you think about that for as long as you like, but I legitimately couldn't think of a single one. Women never, ever get to play these roles. Minority men at least sometimes do. I absolutely agree that there need to be more lead roles for minorities and women. But I'm also a filmmaker who thinks that the ultimate best thing for a film is to cast the best actors possible.

You also have no idea if they had open ethnicity casting, you don't know who all they spoke with or screen tested for the part (aside from Del Toro, who is a white hispanic, but then so was Montalban, I'd argue). At the end of the day, do you know who a director will choose for a role if given the opportunity? A guy who is one of the best actors of his generation. I know, this sounds like it's probably fangirl nonsense, but trust me, no one dislikes Cumberbatch's fangirls more than I do. I say this as someone who has studied acting at the grad level and who seriously can't think of any other actors in their 30s who are as good as Cumberbatch.

Unlike most people in this discussion, I've seen him in more than just Sherlock. I find it interesting that you think this was just typecasting based on that show, Brian. For one thing, Sherlock's practically overflowing with energy and childlike enthusiasm. There are flashes of icy intensity along the way, and I'm sure that kind of powerful stillness is what made Abrams think he was capable of this. But there were enormous differences in how the characters seemed and felt. Actually, the previous character of Cumberbatch's that Khan felt most akin to to me was the Creature from Danny Boyle's Frankenstein play. Which I then later read was the role Cumberbatch thought Khan was most similar to as well. And, really, it makes sense given that they are similar characters in terms of their histories as well.

The truth is that the only 'type' he has is playing a lot of smart characters, which is one of the few qualities I'd say it's hard for actors to fake. So being actually decently smart and well-educated himself makes him uniquely suited to a role like Khan. In actuality, most actors don't have much beyond a high school education (or their country's equivalent). I'd say the number who have gone to some of the best schools in the world and hold Masters degrees as Cumberbatch does is infinitesimally small. Moreover, every director who's worked with him seems to point out his rabid intellectual curiosity as one of his most defining personality traits. That really is unique for actors, and something a director would kill for in any actor. I'm not saying you have to have that to be a good actor, obviously. I'm just saying it's important if you're going to play a superior intellect. So I think Cumberbatch is one of the few actors who could have pulled off this portrayal of this character the way Abrams wanted. Frankly, he's much better suited to it than Del Toro, who I honestly can't picture in this role at all.

If you're writing a sci fi film and not, say, an introspective drama where you're going to have tons of time and many scenes in which to develop characters, one of the hardest things to do is finding an actor who can grip people in what few scenes they have. Especially for a villain. I think Cumberbatch easily succeeded in that. He leaves a very strong impression even though he probably should have been in the film more. Compare that to their experience with Eric Bana in 2009 Trek. It's night and day. Nero is much more intrinsically threatening because he time traveled with a giant ship that can blow planets up, but Khan was far more scary while just standing in a white room than Nero ever was while shouting and blowing things up. It might not look like it, but what Cumberbatch did with that role is not at all easy. I know people think he did what any good actor would have done, but it's just not true. There were so many subtle little things that set him apart. You don't get the looks in your eyes, the subtle shifts, the nuances of voice and expression that Cumberbatch achieved from even good actors. You need a great one. It's a director's dream to find an actor capable of doing that.

That is seriously probably the only reason they cast him. I don't think they really cared that much about anything else. And it certainly wasn't to boost box office as I'm sure that (outside of the UK where he's currently probably the most sought after actor in the country) Cumberbatch isn't really a draw. People were going to see the film because they like sci-fi, adventure movies, Star Trek, or 2009's Trek, not because of who's playing the villain. You can shout all you want about whitewashing things, and maybe that would be a more valid argument if they'd cast some horrible famous white actor over a bunch of more qualified minority candidates. Then it would seem suspiciously like they were just trying to whitewash for the sake of being mainstream and to sell more tickets. But not when you cast someone who is so clearly a choice of a great actor over a known actor. Honestly, every actor who worked on this film seemed to bring up, unprompted and way before there were any promo materials for the film or press junkets, how incredible it was to be in a scene with Cumberbatch. And these are people like Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Simon Pegg who are all themselves very good actors. Trust me, you don't get actors spontaneously calling their fellow castmates phenomenal very often. I'm pretty sure everyone who worked on this film saw the wisdom in his casting pretty easily.

But please, feel free to suggest what minority actors you guys think would have been better. Naveen Andrews? Seriously? He's not even one of the best actors in Lost. He's not even in the same league as Cumberbatch. Eric Bana's league, probably, but who would aim for that as their goal? The only person who comes to mind is Idris Elba, who again is no more Indian or Sikh than Cumberbatch. But if you're just talking in terms of casting someone who is a minority and would be suitably capable of conveying the sharp intelligence and intensity a character like this needed. Elba definitely has that capability. But then, I think he was a bit busy fighting giant sea monsters, and on that account I don't think we can really complain about the lack of his being cast in big summer blockbusters

 

WHY IS EVERY POST OF YOURS IN THIS THREAD A WALL OF TEXT

 

Good thing my point has nothing to do with being a superhuman.

What about all the people who watched Sherlock or The Hobbit, not to mention Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?

Khan is from before the timelines diverged, so it's supposed to be the same Khan. It really serves no purpose to call up Spock Prime and ask him about the qualities of a totally different person also named Khan.

 

Rachel.

You're a Cumberbatch fangirl.

That was Qui-Dawn worthy.

 

Edit: NM

 

As I've said, I think they did botch the release, but that's Paramount's fault, not the film's. That makes me suspect someone might get fired or at least heavily reamed at the executive level, but not that they won't make the next one. Abrams' clout and box office sway honestly will probably only get bigger with Star Wars. So if he's still directing a third Trek film after SW, honestly, they can draft off of that somewhat. And just the fact that when there's been a Star Wars movie recently, all sci-fi films become more popular.

But ultimately, the really important thing to note in terms of the future of the Abrams Trek movies is that while the film's made $155 million or so domestically, it's already made $100 million overseas, and again, hasn't opened in most of 2009 Trek's biggest foreign markets yet. It's almost certainly going to make more money overseas than in the US. And, frankly in the current economic and business climate in the US and Hollywood specifically, foreign markets are perhaps even more important to studios than domestic ones. I should note that, while Fast and Furious 6 is going to make a crapload at the box office, STID is on pace to make about the same that Fast Five did. Hardly a failure.

Yes, STID cost more, but there's a really easy way to cut down the next film's budget vs. this one: don't shoot IMAX. And look, I say this as a massive supporter of IMAX and film in general. But shooting in 65mm becomes a lot less impressive or effective when the studio just compresses it all down to 4K digital projection only anyway. It wound up looking good, but pretty much like any "IMAX" film shot entirely on 35mm and just converted to "digital IMAX" with a higher res scan. They didn't make any film prints of this for the USA at all. So they probably could have saved a lot of money by shooting just 35mm, because they shot a lot of IMAX and that's extremely expensive.

Oh yes, because I talked so much about his physical qualities and attractiveness I get that if I were a guy, people would take my opinions on a whole host of things more seriously. But come off it, Nick. I offered solely the sort of commentary on his acting qualities that every straight male with knowledge of acting (his directors, fellow actors, numerous theatre and film critics) has ever given. Don't be so obtuse and sexist.

 

And I get that if you didn't think I was a Trekkie or a Trekker or something, I could offer my opinion on why this was not a good Star Trek film without receiving your holier-than-thou "This is NuTrek" spiel, but we all know that's going to be a pointless endeavor. But, hey, enjoy spending the remainder of your gap year arguing Star Trek on a messageboard.

 

Which foreign markets are you including? It apparently HAS opened everywhere that ST'09 did reasonably well with the sole exception of China?

I believe the top markets were UK, China and Australia in that order -- with China being a few million ahead of Australia's tally last time and, spoiler alert, about what it's done in the UK this time around.

Also, "profitable" -- since the total investment is estimated at $325mm USD, no? Also, wouldn't someone go back and say "hey, we can spend less money on this and have a higher return on investment if we don't do something stupid like Nemesis" versus "let's spend another 300 million dollars and hope we get back 150 million in profit?"

 

*sigh* Oy, I had included more in that bit of the post but thought this was clear an incisive enough. Let me spell it out for you, then: this is a made up world. A made up character. Who is a genetically altered super human. In a world with a bunch of aliens with strange names. This is clearly not our universe. It's a fantasy one and always has been. So do I care if a genetically enhanced super human in a future with warp travel and aliens that can interbreed with humans has a name that doesn't seem to conform to real-world expectations, even though there are a number of easy explanations for this? No. No, I do not.

WHOA, wait a second. How is it that so many people have been to the future and seen him in The Hobbit and not told me about this technology?!

Almost no one saw Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Obviously I expect that a few people here did. Although it's one of his more minor roles in his career, all things considered. But is still different.

BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ACTING, WHICH I LOVE; AND I AM A WRITER, WE LIKE TO WRITE THINGS!