Dave Elyea said:
Even tho we haven't gotten to Into Darkness yet, enough of us must have seen it to make me wonder if the comment about the need to cast an Indian actor as Khan today was meant to be ironic.
Yes. Yes, it was.
Philip Portelli said:
Amazingly Kirk and Khan are never face to face, just ship to ship.
Yeah, I gather Montalban was a little bummed about that. I guess he'd been hoping to work with Shatner in person. Supposedly, most of his scenes were filmed months apart from Shatner's to accommodate his schedule.
Very interesting. I've never heard of this before.
Luke Blanchard said:
Which publisher currently has the rights to Star Trek? IDW, right? Until recently, The Wrath of Khan was the only movie that hadn't been adapted into comics form. The adaptation wasn't bad (although they cut a lot from the movie), but better still was the Khan mini series which filled the gap between "Space Seed" and The Wrath of Khan. Read back-to-back, the two series make for a quite enjoyable reading experience.
After I wrote this I remembered that Roddenberry believed that all religion would be gone by the 23rd century. I guess that accounts for the turban-less Khan.
Richard Willis said:
It is odd that a Sikh in both the TV series and both movies does not wear the turban required by his religion. (It is a religion, not a race.)
Although Montalban is a fairly dark-skinned Hispanic fellow, it looked to me that they used make-up to make him look more Indian?
I believe the word Singh means lion or maybe tiger. The big deal with the Sikh religion is that all the men must be warriors and protect their society. According to their religion they all must carry a dagger/sword at all times. I think they gave the British a lot of trouble in the Empire days. (And this is why Moore made Capt Nemo a Sikh in his LoEG books.)
I've come to this thread late, but enjoyed it.
I was 21 when the first Trek movie came out, and I was bitterly disappointed. My main complaints have already been addressed here. (Boring uniforms, plot swipe from "The Changeling," lots of scenes of people staring in wonder at 2001 wannabe effects, all the characters acting like d*cks, the two new characters as boring as oatmeal).
I saw the second movie in a matinee with my brother, and we absolutely loved it. In fact, instead of going wherever it was we were supposed to go that day, we went to a bar and talked about it for a few hours. I predicted that Spock would be back, and that "remember" would be the key. (I had read enough comic-book resurrections to know a Reset Button when I saw one.) Loved the dialogue.* Thought the uniforms were lots better, although as others said, they looked hot and I missed the branch-specific colors. Hated Kirk's son (what a whiner!). Loved Montalban. Loved The Enemy Below riffs. Teared up at the death scene. Really, a very good movie and still my favorite.
* I still tell interns "Learn how things work on a starship!"
And this is why Moore made Capt Nemo a Sikh in his LoEG books.
Jules Verne revealed Nemo to have an Indian background in The Mysterious Island. Reportedly he was going to be Polish but Verne's publisher was afraid of offending the Russians. From what I can tell from that Wikipedia page the connections Verne gave Nemo were Hindu and Muslim rather than Sikh, though.
Just to what was going on, comic-wise, with STAR TREK. When Star Trek the Motion Picture came out, Marvel did an adaption in one of its Super Specials. They later rereleased it as Star Trek #1-3 then produced new stories bu they only had the rights to characters and concepts from the movie which was very limiting. That resulted in some rather bizarre and ill-conceived tales such as the above!
Marvel never treated Star Trek like it did Star Wars and it was cancelled with #18.