RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,962
Posts: 5,391,839
Members: 24,719
Currently online: 629
Newest member: terkarivish

TrekToday headlines

Forbes Cast In Powers
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Dorn To Voice Firefly Character
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

No ALS Ice Bucket For Saldana
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

Free Star Trek Trexels Game
By: T'Bonz on Aug 22

New Trek-themed Bobble Heads
By: T'Bonz on Aug 21

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Enterprise

Enterprise The final frontier has a new beginning in this forum!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 24 2013, 05:17 AM   #31
teacake
Admiral
 
teacake's Avatar
 
Location: Militant Janeway True Path Devotees Compound. With Sehlats.
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

Lance wrote: View Post
My 'explanation' is that Klingons always had forehead ridges, we just didn't see them in TOS because they didn't have the makeup budget. The TOS Klingons are simply Klingons depicted in short-hand.
That is the boring explanation. We need in universe explanations because they are hot.
__________________

"Damnit Spock. God damnit!" Kirk ST:V
■ ■ ■
Janeway does Melbourne
teacake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 05:29 AM   #32
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

The TOS Klingons vs the Later Klingons. It's like the difference between a hirsuite man, and one who shaves everything from top to bottom. And I mean everything.

The TOS Klingons who pop up in DS9:"Blood Oath" are all wearing elaborate merkins on their heads. Especially camp Koloth.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 24 2013, 06:51 AM   #33
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

Lance wrote: View Post
In my opinion, "Trials and Tribble-ations" did more harm than good in opening the book on this thing. I think before that episode came along most of us simply accepted that Klingons 'really' look the same in all eras, it's just that the makeup was simpler in TOS... that is, until that episode had to go and suggest that, canonically in universe, they do look different between the eras. So everybody then expected it to be explained... and ENT obliged with an explanation.
Or, if the difference in the Klingons' appearance was to be acknowledged in-universe, the final word on the subject should have been Worf's. It's something Klingons never discuss with outsiders. That would have opened the door for all kinds of fanfic explanations.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 26 2013, 09:33 PM   #34
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

No Sanity Clause;9046894Or wrote:
, if the difference in the Klingons' appearance was to be acknowledged in-universe, the final word on the subject should have been Worf's.
Why? To the Ent writers who were, afterall, writing a prequal to TOS and therefore TNG, Worf's statement was but a jumping off point for stories on how the mysterious change occurred and why. That is how we got most of the Ent stories, in particular the excellent Mirror Universe exploration of what happened to the Defiant after it was captured.

We didn't necessarily need these stories, but they were there waiting to be told. I don't have to need a story to be told, but if one is told and told well, then I don't have a problem. For every fan who wondered about the Klingon forehead question or the the Defiant issue, there are others who never gave either a second thought. But how many wondered and how many didn't care about these two issues is irrelevant. The only concern should be whether or not the story is well told.

As disappointed as I was in much of what happened under the Beebs, I can certainly sympathize with them in one respect; they were vilified when they wrote prequal stories and vilified when when they came up with new stuff. There was no winning with this show.
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 27 2013, 04:50 AM   #35
uniderth
Commander
 
uniderth's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

I think there could have been winning with this show.
- Use the ringship
- UESPA not Starfleet
- Lasers or guns not "phase pistols"
- Contact with Klingons/Ferengi/etc didn't happen so early.
- Catsuited Vulcans?
- Soft porn decon
- Scott Bakula, just say no.
- Eliminate TNG story telling techniques
- Shoulder emphasizing uniforms, again just another TNG connection. Why not try something new?
- Temporal cold war, just say no. (any temporal war would have been resolved already)
- Etc.

The show could have been a huge success. But they decided to screw up every thing they possibly could.
__________________
Star Trek (The Complete Voyages)
uniderth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 28 2013, 07:05 PM   #36
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

uniderth wrote: View Post
- Temporal cold war, just say no. (any temporal war would have been resolved already)
Or if the temporal cold war was going to be shove upon the shows producers (as the story goes), then figure out a way of doing the TCW in a interesting, exciting and consistent way.

Instead of "we don't want it and aren't going to even try."

gblews wrote: View Post
As disappointed as I was in much of what happened under the Beebs, I can certainly sympathize with them in one respect; they were vilified when they wrote prequal stories and vilified when when they came up with new stuff. There was no winning with this show.
They weren't simply "vilified" for all their ideas across the board, but they were for their bad ideas.

The way they expanded on the Andorians and the Vulcans (I thought) were quite good. The Sulban outside of the TCW were an interesting people with their own motivations. The boomers were a nice idea, they should have mentioned them a few more times. Hoshi was a great character up until they made her too capable.

But not all their ideas worked.

Having the "Vulcans held us back a century" I thought was the worst idea, instead of Humanity having nearly two centuries to achieve what we saw in TOS (tech development, colonies, expansion) it had to of somehow all happen in one century, which I have a problem with.

Kirk: "We're on a thousand worlds and moving out."

The show should have been set a few decades at most after Cochrane first flight.



Last edited by T'Girl; December 28 2013 at 07:26 PM.
T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 01:41 AM   #37
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

uniderth wrote: View Post
I think there could have been winning with this show.
- Use the ringship
- UESPA not Starfleet
- Lasers or guns not "phase pistols"
- Contact with Klingons/Ferengi/etc didn't happen so early.
- Catsuited Vulcans?
- Soft porn decon
- Scott Bakula, just say no.
- Eliminate TNG story telling techniques
- Shoulder emphasizing uniforms, again just another TNG connection. Why not try something new?
- Temporal cold war, just say no. (any temporal war would have been resolved already)
- Etc.

The show could have been a huge success. But they decided to screw up every thing they possibly could.
Speaking as a viewer who only bothered watching five or six complete episodes of ENT, I can honestly say none of the above mattered to me one bit. I simply found the series dull and the stories unimaginative. I watched "Broken Bough" when the series premiered. That was their chance to hook me. They didn't. Over the next couple seasons I checked out about another four or five episodes, but it was just more of the same. I caught bits and pieces of season three and four, but nothing ever caught my interest. I don't think the above list had anything to do with why ENT wasn't a huge hit. I mean, you really think ENT lost viewers by not mentioning the United Earth Space Probe Agency?
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 02:13 AM   #38
uniderth
Commander
 
uniderth's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

I think my "Eliminate TNG story telling techniques" covers your point. Watching Enterprise was just like watching TNG-VOY only with different uniforms and less skilled actors. There wasn't anything different or unique.

And yes, Enterprise lost me as a viewer because of the above reasons. I only later watched the series after it was cancelled through means that did not contribute to the series. Seriously, there was no Starfleet before 2161. Earth's space operating agency was UESPA. Starfleet was part of the Federation.
__________________
Star Trek (The Complete Voyages)
uniderth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 02:27 AM   #39
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

uniderth wrote: View Post
I think my "Eliminate TNG story telling techniques" covers your point. Watching Enterprise was just like watching TNG-VOY only with different uniforms and less skilled actors. There wasn't anything different or unique.
Well, okay, I'll concede that. That was my feeling, too, although I had no problem with the acting. What failed to hook me were the stories.

Earth's space operating agency was UESPA.
Not according to any canon source.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 03:01 AM   #40
uniderth
Commander
 
uniderth's Avatar
 
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

My biggest acting complaint is Scott Bakula. I just can't take anything he says seriously. Any emotion he tries to convey screams "fake" to me.

Earth's space operating agency was UESPA.
Not according to any canon source.
Yeah, I suppose the series Gene Roddenberry created isn't canon enough.

All kidding aside, what sort of stories would you have prefered to see?
__________________
Star Trek (The Complete Voyages)
uniderth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 03:20 AM   #41
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

uniderth wrote: View Post
My biggest acting complaint is Scott Bakula. I just can't take anything he says seriously. Any emotion he tries to convey screams "fake" to me.

Earth's space operating agency was UESPA.
Not according to any canon source.
Yeah, I suppose the series Gene Roddenberry created isn't canon enough.

All kidding aside, what sort of stories would you have prefered to see?
The "series Gene Roddenberry created" was under constant revision in it's first season, with the characters and concepts evolving. Some ideas, like UESPA and the Enterprise being an Earth ship, were tossed aside in favor of Starfleet and United Federation of Planets. The UESPA was pretty much retconned away till Voyager brought it back.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 05:07 AM   #42
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

North Pole Myk wrote: View Post
uniderth wrote: View Post
My biggest acting complaint is Scott Bakula. I just can't take anything he says seriously. Any emotion he tries to convey screams "fake" to me.

Not according to any canon source.
Yeah, I suppose the series Gene Roddenberry created isn't canon enough.

All kidding aside, what sort of stories would you have prefered to see?
The "series Gene Roddenberry created" was under constant revision in it's first season, with the characters and concepts evolving. Some ideas, like UESPA and the Enterprise being an Earth ship, were tossed aside in favor of Starfleet and United Federation of Planets. The UESPA was pretty much retconned away till Voyager brought it back.
I wasn't a VOY viewer either, and never realized UESPA was ever used outside of those early TOS references.
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 05:11 AM   #43
Nerys Myk
Fleet Admiral
 
Nerys Myk's Avatar
 
Location: House of Kang, now with ridges
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

It also shows up in Enterprise in connection to Earth's Starfleet.
__________________
The boring one, the one with Khan, the one where Spock returns, the one with whales, the dumb one, the last one, the one with Kirk, the one with the Borg, the stupid one, the bad one, the new one, the other one with Khan.
Nerys Myk is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 08:57 AM   #44
Lance
Fleet Captain
 
Lance's Avatar
 
Location: The Enterprise's Restroom
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

The sad thing is, I think many of the things on uniderth 's list above are the very reason they came up with Enterprise in the first place. They wanted to do a Star Trek where none of the usual rules apply. But from what I gather, during development the suits at UPN kept insisting that it be more like Voyager or TNG, ie that it be more instantly recognisable as Star Trek right out of the gate. So ideas like using normal weapons was vetoed in favor of "phase pistols", simply because UPN thought audiences expected Star Trek to have phasers; and ideas that were thrown around like having Archer and co on Earth dealing with the foundation of the Federation were axed because the suits thought there needed to be a Starship and "strange new worlds".

So all the really sensible and interesting new stuff that a prequel to TOS might reasonably be able to do was kind of fudged, in favor of finding a middle ground closer to what the suits thought Star Trek 'is'.
Lance is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 31 2013, 11:16 AM   #45
King Daniel Into Darkness
Admiral
 
King Daniel Into Darkness's Avatar
 
Location: England again
Re: TOS Klingons explained?

North Pole Myk wrote: View Post
uniderth wrote: View Post
My biggest acting complaint is Scott Bakula. I just can't take anything he says seriously. Any emotion he tries to convey screams "fake" to me.

Not according to any canon source.
Yeah, I suppose the series Gene Roddenberry created isn't canon enough.

All kidding aside, what sort of stories would you have prefered to see?
The "series Gene Roddenberry created" was under constant revision in it's first season, with the characters and concepts evolving. Some ideas, like UESPA and the Enterprise being an Earth ship, were tossed aside in favor of Starfleet and United Federation of Planets. The UESPA was pretty much retconned away till Voyager brought it back.
Add to that phasers replacing the lasers of "The Cage", not by technological upgrade but by retcon - lasers being a real-world technology couldn't do the magical things the writers of TOS wanted, so they simply altered the name. It's all in The Making of Star Trek.
__________________
Star Trek Imponderables, fun mashups of Trek's biggest continuity errors! Ep1, Ep2 and Ep3
King Daniel Into Darkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.