"Star Wars stereotypes: Not a force for good" — Page 2

The first JJTREK is essentially a remake of Nemesis with a bit of Enterprise thrown in.

I've never understood why the people who dissed the latter raved about the former (beyond it being fashionable to like Trek again).

Into Darkness is a weird spoof film.

I doubt if character of Khan is a religious Sikh but like Judaism there is an ethnic component to the group.

It might have been difficult to source an Indian actor to play him in the 1960s and  there may been some resistance to recast Ricardo in the 80s but if the character was going to be recast in the 21st century with an Indian movie industry bigger than Hollywood and cheap flights available why fly in a Caucasian Englishman?

The treatment of Uhura and Carol Marcus in the film was astonishingly poor form.

So yeah TPM was badly judged but the new hands aren't necessarily safe ones.

Benedicio del Toro was supposed to be Khan at first but than something went wrong, they were trying at first. 

Trying to cast an Indian actor or an actor of Indian origin?

I must ask Wilf where Puerto Rica is on your Earth.

The worst thing about JJ's involvement in Star Wars is that every thread here now eventually becomes a Star Trek thread.

Bingowings said:

Trying to cast an Indian actor or an actor of Indian origin?

I must ask Wilf where Puerto Rica is on your Earth.

 There was nothing about Khan that tied him to India on the screen in the old continuity.

TV's Frink said:

The worst thing about JJ's involvement in Star Wars is that every thread here now eventually becomes a Star Trek thread.

 There is a Star Trek thread in off-topic...

StarThoughts said:

There was nothing about Khan that tied him to India on the screen in the old continuity.

…you mean aside from the fact that he was a Sikh named “Khan Noonien Singh?”

 There is a line of dialogue saying he came from India and a portrait of him is painted wearing a turban. The character was based on a war acquaintance of Roddenberry who was a religious Sikh as well of that ethnicity.

This thread is about racial stereotypes and Star Wars. The film in question was directed by the director of the current movie in the series.

It's not a movie yet. :p

StarThoughts said:

There was nothing about Khan that tied him to India on the screen in the old continuity.

…you mean aside from the fact that he was a Sikh named “Khan Noonien Singh?”

 I don't recal Khan sharing any indian culture with anyone. 

StarThoughts said:

There was nothing about Khan that tied him to India on the screen in the old continuity.

…you mean aside from the fact that he was a Sikh named “Khan Noonien Singh?”

He's wearing a turban. A turban!

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

There is a difference (though sometimes a subtle one) between reviving character tropes and evoking racial stereotypes. Fat sultan types are arguably more a character trope than a racial one but Stepin Fetchit?

George clearly stepped beyond that with the PT, JJ didn't have to, casting decisions  by the production team and plot elements introduced by the writers did the racism and sexism for him. He didn't however distance himself from those decisions.

Star Trek already had a past association with the objectification of women. Star Wars has more a history of marginalisation of the female gender.

Leia is a prominent and strong female character but she is the only one in the whole saga so far and only really in her first two films.

I would be very disappointed if there wasn't either a female protagonist or antagonist in the sequels, arguably there is a case to be made for both.

Bingowings said:

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

 Some of us come into this thread expecting a discussion on Star Wars stereotypes and instead find a discussion about Kahn.

chyron8472 said:

Now look, Star Trek fans have no idea what they want.

Oh, no? I have a pretty good idea what I want from Star Trek: strong characters, exploration of alien worlds, philosophical discussions, and no conceited Roddenberry-styled utopianism or stupid technobabble.

The TOS films, TOS itself, and -- to a somewhat lesser extent -- DS9 did the job for me in most regards, TNG ... not so much, the TNG films not at all, and I've never seen Voyager or Enterprise as I became sick and tired of Berman & Braga's take on Trek while watching TNG and have absolutely no wish to ever see them.

Anyway, I can say with certainty that what I want from Trek doesn't include Kirk being promoted from cadet to captain, Kirk acting like a douchebag, swollen hands, black holes made out of red paint, the Enterprise nacelles looking like giant hair dryers, Khan becoming a white Brit, Sylar fucking Uhura, and all the other shit I've read about Abramstrek.

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

 Some of us come into this thread expecting a discussion on Star Wars stereotypes and instead find a discussion about Kahn.

Seeing as the film was directed by the director of the current film it is pertinent.

Drawing attention to the Trekness of that situation over the JJness of it only pads the thread.

If have something to say about stereotypes in Star Wars films I would be very keen to read it. 

As I have already posted, from my perspective George overstepped the line he had been skirting near in the 1980s (possibly out of a desire to make an analogue of the travelogue serials of his childhood).

JJ had directed a film were the issue was less in the characters but more in the presentation and writing. Here one hopes a better class of writer will help but he did agree to direct the other thing.

Bingowings said:

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

 Some of us come into this thread expecting a discussion on Star Wars stereotypes and instead find a discussion about Kahn.

Seeing as the film was directed by the director of the current film it is pertinent.

Drawing attention to the Trekness of that situation over the JJness of it only pads the thread.

 Just reference DE's post to see how quickly it becomes a Trekness over JJness situation.

And anyway, if there's any padding of threads to be done, as the GDoOT I'm the one to be doing it. :p

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

 Some of us come into this thread expecting a discussion on Star Wars stereotypes and instead find a discussion about Kahn.

Seeing as the film was directed by the director of the current film it is pertinent.

Drawing attention to the Trekness of that situation over the JJness of it only pads the thread.

 Just reference DE's post to see how quickly it becomes a Trekness over JJness situation.

Ah, well, I felt obligated to respond to a post I found acutely disingenuous. It is out of my system, now, and I am fully willing to drop the subject and return to the original discussion. 

That's only because contextually there has been some misconceptions about the character in question which needed to be answered. Calling attention to the fact that the character belongs to a Star Trek film rather than a similarly budgeted, similarly hyped movie from the same director causes more derailment than correcting a misremembering of that character's origin story.

So far there have been four Star Wars directors.

I must confess that I've only seen three of Kersh's films and two of Marquand's and quite a lot of Lucas and JJ related material.

I can't remember Robocop 2 being more racist and sexist than Robocop and The Pies of Laura Mars was nowhere near as troubling as your average Brian DePalma movie of the time. Pie of the Needle didn't make much of an impression on me at all.

Lucas hasn't just been clumsy with race in a Star Wars context, he may not have directed any Indiana Jones film but he did play a large role in their creation. Temple of Doom in it's attempt to pastiche became as racist as the material it was inspired by. Similarly Sallah and Brody went from being well rounded figures in Raiders to being cultural stereotypes in The Last Crustade.

Other than the second Trek movie I can't see how Colonel Abrams has overstepped the mark beyond the OS with it's Nuclear Wessels and the like but the second one was a bit more naughty than we have come to expect these days.

Contextually mentioning it in this thread makes sense as these are the directors of the the Star Wars films.

It paints a picture beyond the films in situ.

George clearly wanted to merge the Bedouin with the Native American as depicted in Westerns for the Tuskens. It's disguised enough to work in the seventies but Watto really doesn't sit well with me.

I think there has to careful consideration when it comes to how these motifs are presented.

chyron8472 said:

TV's Frink said:

Bingowings said:

The discussion is pertinent to the topic and there are other threads if you don't have anything to contribute or don't find reading what is being contributed to your interest.

 Some of us come into this thread expecting a discussion on Star Wars stereotypes and instead find a discussion about Kahn.

 

And some of us are actually furthering conversation in general instead of filling the thread with complaints. This is what real conversation does. It weaves in and out of a topic as other similarly relevant topics are brought to mind and subsequently mentioned.

 I think TV's Frink just hates Trek.