@TimELiebe: That is an interesting question, one that I pondered over only slightly before I watched the film. Yes, considering Khan Noonien Singh's supposed ethnicity, an honest-to-god choice of cast would certainly not be Caucasian. However, expecting the powers that be behind a film like Star Trek Into Darkness, with its nearly $200 mil budget, to cast someone who isn't a worldwide star as the main antagonist would really be stretching it. I personally would have loved to see the actors you mentioned - Saif or Hrithik - play Khan. Either of them, in my view, could have done at least as much justice to the role as the terrific Cumberbatch did. Having said that, the character's back story doesn't really have any significant impact. And Cumberbatch was about the only thing about the movie that I liked. So, yeah. It didn't bother me too much. In fact, I've always felt that even the original choice of ethnicity for Khan wasn't particularly thought much over. They probably just thought an exotic sounding name would add some mystique to him. Just a theory of mine, of course. Besides, no one with the 'correct' ethnicity has ever played Khan anyway.
Ha! We do a enjoy a grand robot vs monster battle, don't we? I loved them too! The human bits may work for some people, but it could also possibly have something to do with the fact that they play the role of providing relief from all the slambang-ery. I personally felt that the manner in which they were placed as well are directed gave the impression that they were just there for the relief. They seemed to lack conviction. Almost as if the scene was designed first, with the hope of evoking any emotion at all, as opposed to working bottom up - putting deep thought into the emotion, and designing the scene accordingly.
I'll tell why I think short films are usually 'serious' and not too many shorts are comedies. No one makes short films because their goal in life is to make short films. Almost always, it is because they want to make features. When you make short films, you want to impress, so you are always looking at your comfort zone, what you know. And that usually means life. In some way or the other. And the only real 'comedy' we see in life is when friends get together or in situations that don't offer you a real 'story' or 'emotion' worthy of a film. Otherwise, there is very little that is funny in life. I mean, a serious issue can be dealt with in a funny manner, yes. But that usually can't happen in the time constraints of a short film. Features, almost always, are an escape. It is sheer poetic justice that short films almost always deal with issues that you want to escape from.
@TimELiebe: That is an interesting question, one that I pondered over only slightly before I watched the film. Yes, considering Khan Noonien Singh's supposed ethnicity, an honest-to-god choice of cast would certainly not be Caucasian. However, expecting the powers that be behind a film like Star Trek Into Darkness, with its nearly $200 mil budget, to cast someone who isn't a worldwide star as the main antagonist would really be stretching it. I personally would have loved to see the actors you mentioned - Saif or Hrithik - play Khan. Either of them, in my view, could have done at least as much justice to the role as the terrific Cumberbatch did. Having said that, the character's back story doesn't really have any significant impact. And Cumberbatch was about the only thing about the movie that I liked. So, yeah. It didn't bother me too much. In fact, I've always felt that even the original choice of ethnicity for Khan wasn't particularly thought much over. They probably just thought an exotic sounding name would add some mystique to him. Just a theory of mine, of course. Besides, no one with the 'correct' ethnicity has ever played Khan anyway.
Ha! We do a enjoy a grand robot vs monster battle, don't we? I loved them too! The human bits may work for some people, but it could also possibly have something to do with the fact that they play the role of providing relief from all the slambang-ery. I personally felt that the manner in which they were placed as well are directed gave the impression that they were just there for the relief. They seemed to lack conviction. Almost as if the scene was designed first, with the hope of evoking any emotion at all, as opposed to working bottom up - putting deep thought into the emotion, and designing the scene accordingly.
I'll tell why I think short films are usually 'serious' and not too many shorts are comedies. No one makes short films because their goal in life is to make short films. Almost always, it is because they want to make features. When you make short films, you want to impress, so you are always looking at your comfort zone, what you know. And that usually means life. In some way or the other. And the only real 'comedy' we see in life is when friends get together or in situations that don't offer you a real 'story' or 'emotion' worthy of a film. Otherwise, there is very little that is funny in life. I mean, a serious issue can be dealt with in a funny manner, yes. But that usually can't happen in the time constraints of a short film. Features, almost always, are an escape. It is sheer poetic justice that short films almost always deal with issues that you want to escape from.