Nick Fury was black in the Ultimate universe though so having him played by Sammy L in the movies wasn't that jarring of a changeJhooud said:Well, it's not Trek but in the comics Nick Fury was white. And now he's Samuel Jackson.
Nick Fury was black in the Ultimate universe though so having him played by Sammy L in the movies wasn't that jarring of a changeJhooud said:Well, it's not Trek but in the comics Nick Fury was white. And now he's Samuel Jackson.
Of course, don't you know how this works? It's racist if you use the same rules for everyone, regardless of race!Tr3yk1ng said:So black man can play the human torch but its wrong for a whiteman to play khan.
I"m not sure I follow you. The point I was intending to make is that it would not be unheard of for a man bearing an Indian name to look or sound a way that's British. Assuming that he should have a certain skin or hair color I think is a terrible assumption to make, especially given India's amazing ethnic diversity.DVS BSTrD said:It's isn't a terrible assumption to think his appearance should be X when his name sounds like X, especially given the nature of the historical link of India and Britain.
Why not? I know Caucasian Brits with Persian names, why not Indian names>DVS BSTrD said:Except he doesn't just "look or sound" a way that's British, he IS british and Caucasian British at that. And Caucasian brits don't really have Indian/Mongolian names.Gorrath said:I"m not sure I follow you. The point I was intending to make is that it would not be unheard of for a man bearing an Indian name to look or sound a way that's British. Assuming that he should have a certain skin or hair color I think is a terrible assumption to make, especially given India's amazing ethnic diversity.DVS BSTrD said:It's isn't a terrible assumption to think his appearance should be X when his name sounds like X, especially given the nature of the historical link of India and Britain.
To be fair, the original actor they had lined up for the role, Benicio del Toro, is brown skinned. I think that Cumberbatch was just their next choice.thaluikhain said:Well, yes.
However, this doesn't mean that anyone had to have been twirling their moustaches and wanting to be racist, they just decided that a formerly dark-skinned character would be better played by a white person. In of itself that's not a big thing, except that it's part of a general trend that way.
To put it another way, I seriously doubt anyone considered having Kirk being played by an Asian, or Spock being played by a black guy (that is, obviously so). That just wouldn't happen. Taking a brown skinned guy and making him white, OTOH, isn't unusual.
Actually, Marvel used Samuel L. Jackson's likeness for Ultimate Nick Fury. The catch was that he was allowed to play Nick Fury in the movies. Easy deal to make, no?MetalDooley said:Nick Fury was black in the Ultimate universe though so having him played by Sammy L in the movies wasn't that jarring of a changeJhooud said:Well, it's not Trek but in the comics Nick Fury was white. And now he's Samuel Jackson.
Yeah, that was going to be my point too.Desert Punk said:Well the original Kahn was played by a mexican actor who was...quite white in his older age which the movie is based on...
That boy is pretty damn white..
So anyone who complains about white washing is really just looking to be a sensationalist and liekly just looking for any reason to be outraged that they can get their hands on..
But the character isn't a Brit, so even if it were true that caucasian brits don't really have Indian/Mongolian names (which is itself not a statement I can agree with) it wouldn't matter because it's not relevent to the character. The character, in this incarnation, is a genetically modified man of Indian descent who looks and sounds British. The only way this would not make sense is if you could show that there aren't any people of Indian descent who have a caucasian appearance and a British accent.DVS BSTrD said:Except he doesn't just "look or sound" a way that's British, he IS british and Caucasian British at that. And Caucasian brits don't really have Indian/Mongolian names.Gorrath said:I"m not sure I follow you. The point I was intending to make is that it would not be unheard of for a man bearing an Indian name to look or sound a way that's British. Assuming that he should have a certain skin or hair color I think is a terrible assumption to make, especially given India's amazing ethnic diversity.DVS BSTrD said:It's isn't a terrible assumption to think his appearance should be X when his name sounds like X, especially given the nature of the historical link of India and Britain.
FoolKiller said:Oh the irony. So its incorrect to cast a white guy as Khan, but a black Johnny Storm (in Marvel) is okay?
Personally I would want authenticity to what I'm used to, but I don't have a problem with it either way.
Who are you guys talking to? There are people with differing opinions on this thing.Tr3yk1ng said:So black man can play the human torch but its wrong for a whiteman to play khan.
I would say that his nationality is important because it is an established part of his backstory. His physical appearance I think is far less important. I think for a good Kahn you need his anger, his self obsession with his own superiority, his machismo, and his fatal two-dimensional thinking. This latest version of him has everything but the machismo, and was superbly acted.Lovely Mixture said:I never thought Khan was really defined by his nationality, just his immense anger.
Except they do, if their mother took her husband's last name. For all you know, he could be half, one-quarter, or even one-sixteenth Indian, and still have an Indian name.DVS BSTrD said:Except he doesn't just "look or sound" a way that's British, he IS british and Caucasian British at that. And Caucasian brits don't really have Indian/Mongolian names.Gorrath said:I"m not sure I follow you. The point I was intending to make is that it would not be unheard of for a man bearing an Indian name to look or sound a way that's British. Assuming that he should have a certain skin or hair color I think is a terrible assumption to make, especially given India's amazing ethnic diversity.DVS BSTrD said:It's isn't a terrible assumption to think his appearance should be X when his name sounds like X, especially given the nature of the historical link of India and Britain.
That's a pretty dangerous explanation. By saying that you could insinuate that his parents modified him to be white because his heritage, and skin color wasn't good enough for him. Which is an even more extreme version of "Whitewashing"OneCatch said:Also worth pointing out that in-universe Khan and his ilk are specifically described as being genetically modified. Both his parents were genetic engineers from what I remember.DavidBowieNoReally said:0.oerttheking said:It was either that or have a person with brown skin blow things up, and fly an aircraft into buildings in a major populated city...yeah I can see why they'd be hesitant to do that.
Interesting, I didn't see it that ways.
>>
There's therefore no reason that he'd have specific physiological traits linked to his heritage.
So there you go, on-stage and off-stage explanations!