The other thing I've just thought of is that we saw a shot of these costumes, however briefly, in the official video and they were clearly on a mannequin with no 'sewn on mask'.
First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
Just seems like another day on the Trek BBS to me. Seriously, there could be a picture of these guys wielding bat'leths, posed in front of a banner with the Klingon trefoil, with a caption written in the Klingon language, which translates to "Klingons as seen on Star Trek Discovery" with an English translation beneath it, and someone around here will still ask "but are we sure these are Klingons?"
Last edited:
Unfortunately, you are quite correct.
For the same reason they say that they are only empty costumes with masks when we can see their hands and feet?
Because…
A) they look nothing like Klingons.
B) they are the worst version of Klingons we've ever seen.
C) they can't admit they hate the new designs.
D) all of the above?
And the TMP Klingons looked nothing like the TOS Klingons. And yet they're the same guys.
That is, of course, your own opinion, and an opinion based on incomplete information.
Another judgment on your part, as I'm pretty sure you're not a mind-reader.
Cool. I wasn't a huge fan of the Into Darkness Klingons, and these Klingons look identical (minus the dumb forehead piercings), but on the other hand, they're evolving the look, not restricting themselves to what looked futuristic back in the '70s. I like that.
This show seems to be more of a TOS for the modern era than a true prequel of sorts, and that's cool with me. The TOS look is iconic so there's no better look and era to modernize than that one (even if we've just had three movies doing the exact same thing).
This show seems to be more of a TOS for the modern era than a true prequel of sorts, and that's cool with me. The TOS look is iconic so there's no better look and era to modernize than that one (even if we've just had three movies doing the exact same thing).
And had they chosen to set the series in it's own timeline, or far in the future - changing the looks of these recognisable and iconic species so radically would be more forgivable. Choosing a decade before TOS and including characters like Sarek - just makes these changes for change's sake, a little difficult to swallow.
I still hold out hope these "Klingons" are a different sect or previously unknown sub-species or secluded group, and their inclusion is important for the story.
I've personally never mentioned in this thread whether I like the design or not - I'll just wait and see how the show plays out - it's odd, but not necessarily unlikable. The political character of the Empire and the individual character of the Klingon crews is more important than superficial appearance. I like the design of the USS Discovery, I like some of what we have heard about the show - gives me the impression of classic TOS exploration mixed with classic TUC statesmanship - and what matters at the end of the day is writing and world-building more than production design.
But say that they were Klingons - other franchises these days sometimes go quite far to respect the artistic legacy of their material - Star Wars being a good example - I wonder why it is felt that Star Trek's aliens need changing? In Marvel, they are incredibly faithful to what is in the comics, except where it was genuinely uncool, then they change it - it's not like the existing Klingon makeup looked exceptionally bad - but Skrulls, lets say, do look quite awful, being a 60s Silver Age caricature.
But say that they were Klingons - other franchises these days sometimes go quite far to respect the artistic legacy of their material - Star Wars being a good example - I wonder why it is felt that Star Trek's aliens need changing? In Marvel, they are incredibly faithful to what is in the comics, except where it was genuinely uncool, then they change it - it's not like the existing Klingon makeup looked exceptionally bad - but Skrulls, lets say, do look quite awful, being a 60s Silver Age caricature.
You're the insufferable type. What makes less sense than anything is to criticize someone that wants some sense of consistency and continuity within a fictional universe.
I love creativity and new things. But if something isn't going to look or be anything like what it is labeled as, then label it as something new instead of something it isn't.
Reimagining it would have made a lot more sense and not necessarily even have been seen as such if it was set in the 'future' not before something that already has a distinctive look. That's what's mostly happened with changes to the look of things in previous Trek.
Even worse is someone that whines about people whining.
Oh, sure, sure. But why not show true creativity and not try to reboot and use another franchise and make something actually new? I thought most people were sick of reboots and the lack of creativity in Hollywood in general? If someone wants to make Star Trek why not make actual Star Trek? What's the point of something different if it's not called something else? It craps over what has come before. It's happened before with Trek, but not quite the way it seems like it's being done here (see reply to Mage above).
Other franchises seem to respect their legacies. I wish Star Trek, my favorite franchise, seemed interested in the same.
Why do you want people be unhappy?
Geez what a toxic place this is. Sometimes it seems like one has to hate everything but change for the sake of change or the "you much like what we like" police come out.
I'm perfectly fine with this being TOS for the modern era. I'd also be fine with it being a soft/hard reboot.
Frankly I have zero problem with the updated makeup, that is after all all what they did with the Klingons in TMP. If you need the make up differences explained, just handwave it as being due to time travel shenanigans.
The makeup itself makes the Klingons look far more alien. Which is a good thing, considering the shows makeup in the past was "humans with different forehead and nose bumps."
When the franchise shifted from 1960's TV show to 1970's movie, pretty much everything got updated to match expectations (with the story as an excuse). We're getting that update again, shifting both the 60's and late 80's* TV show into the 21st century.
*For most of the TNG era TV shows, the franchise was really stuck in that period around the late 80's/early 90's.
Frankly I have zero problem with the updated makeup, that is after all all what they did with the Klingons in TMP. If you need the make up differences explained, just handwave it as being due to time travel shenanigans.
The makeup itself makes the Klingons look far more alien. Which is a good thing, considering the shows makeup in the past was "humans with different forehead and nose bumps."
When the franchise shifted from 1960's TV show to 1970's movie, pretty much everything got updated to match expectations (with the story as an excuse). We're getting that update again, shifting both the 60's and late 80's* TV show into the 21st century.
*For most of the TNG era TV shows, the franchise was really stuck in that period around the late 80's/early 90's.
Last edited:
Maybe this is how the empire got its ridges back by TNG era. Ignoring movie continuity, maybe all alpha Klingons are human looking at this point, but a faction returns that has a more extreme appearance (maybe the Sarc is a generation ship from a thousand years ago with millions of descendant refugees) and they eventually intermingle and produce the TNG Klingon (after decades of bloody conflict of course).
There is no such thing as actual Star Trek. When TNG was first released, there was the same kind of outcry we have right now because of God knows how many things. And now, people adore it. They cried out in outrage when a show was made with an actual ship. Look how that turned out. There has been so many forms of Star Trek sofar, we can do with another form.
Not sure how a change of make up stops it being Star Trek.
I mean The Motion Picture had issues, but none of it was down to the change in Klingon make up.
OK. Let me rephrase it then. They look nothing like the Klingons seen in TOS, TAS, TMP, SFS, TVH, TUC, TFF, TUC, TNG, DS9, GEN, VOY, FCT, ST, ID.
Of course it is my opinion! I am expressing my opinion just as everyone else.
Neither are you but you assumed that people are in denial.
No reason that they should.
All the discussion about the look of the Klingons changing, and no discussion of the fact that they had a complete culture transplant in TNG. How anyone can be okay with every change from TOS through the movies, TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise, and suddenly proclaim "The line must be drawn HERE!" Get real.
The artistic legacy the new Star Wars movies have to live up to is six movies. Star Trek's artistic legacy is something like 750 TV episodes and thirteen movies. There's a significant difference there.
You mean, other than that they always do? They changed during TOS, for crying out loud. The amount of makeup painted on, the eyebrows. The Klingons in ST V didn't look much like the Klingons in ST III, who didn't look much like the Klingons in ST TMP. Like the saying goes, change is the only constant.
If I never again have to see another hearty longhaired, leather-armoured guy laugh boisterously over his bloodwine and rokeg blood pie while loudly relating tales of great battles and the importance of honour, you know what? I'll be fine. Honestly.
The artistic legacy the new Star Wars movies have to live up to is six movies. Star Trek's artistic legacy is something like 750 TV episodes and thirteen movies. There's a significant difference there.
You mean, other than that they always do? They changed during TOS, for crying out loud. The amount of makeup painted on, the eyebrows. The Klingons in ST V didn't look much like the Klingons in ST III, who didn't look much like the Klingons in ST TMP. Like the saying goes, change is the only constant.
If I never again have to see another hearty longhaired, leather-armoured guy laugh boisterously over his bloodwine and rokeg blood pie while loudly relating tales of great battles and the importance of honour, you know what? I'll be fine. Honestly.
The laundry list is irrelevant. The point is that Klingons don't need to look at all alike to still be Klingons.
Then you'll forgive my assumption that you sounded like you were trying to state some kind of fact there.
I assumed nothing. People here have been outright saying that they don't think that picture shows Klingons when the guy who took the photo clearly says so. *EDIT* Now he's backpedaling and says that he only thought they were Klingons. Which I find odd since their outfits look just like that "Klingon sarcophagus ship" concept art shown earlier...
Excellent point.
Which is non-sense. They shouldn't hire good actors because the story calls for a character to use makeup?
I dearly love TOS. But just from a straight make-up and design perspective, the original Klingons are the worst. I'd still love to see them again, but I'd just be lying to myself about them being anything but the bottom of the pile.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
