The guy who took the photo is just an extra (that has been fired) and has since denied that they're Klingons, just that they looked like Klingons at the time to him.
EDIT: See above.
Not that I would trust him one way or another.
First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
The guy who took the photo is just an extra (that has been fired) and has since denied that they're Klingons, just that they looked like Klingons at the time to him.
EDIT: See above.
Not that I would trust him one way or another.
Seriously, who else would they be? We already know the show revolves around the Klingons.
I remember people complaining about Nemesis wasting Ron Perlman's talents as the Viceroy because of all the makeup. Except it wasn't the makeup that was the problem. It was the script.
Heck, even Gene Roddenberry hated the TOS Klingons and thought they were just cardboard villains (which they were.)
I like the way they were portrayed in TOS over later incarnations. But the makeup was very limited because of time and budget.
Maybe that's DSC's ultimate goal? To replace the blackface Mongols as the worst of the worst?
And that's why, when given the chance, GR improved them in TNG. Oh, wait…
Well, it was actually TMP where the look was changed, everything afterwards is a variation of that redesign.
Roddenberry didn't even want Klingons in TNG. Worf was even a last-minute addition to the cast.
I dunno why people are getting so emotive over this - like I'm yet to see this horrible backlash from rabid traditionalists that people are predicting. Actually the thread has been civil - the expressed opinions have been mild - and people are entitled to be pro or against something, according to their personal tastes. The preference toward a more subtle evolution compared to a drastic change is hardly a sign of excessive closed mindedness or conservativism; actually thats a legitimate facet of graphical design - producers increasingly attempt to incorporate the art history of a design into film, games and TV these days, as Hollywood has matured from it's long lack of respect for settings, into an industry that realizes the value of the depth and history of it's properties. Sometimes you might want to ignore prior history anyway (to plot a new direction), but to suggest that any traditionalism is a sign of dogma is a pretty extreme interpretation. Let's just wait and see how the show is anyway.
In defense of those who have been arguing that, of which I am not one by the way, let me point out that Klingon design has been unaltered for something like 85% of those 900 hours of material - across the entirety of 9 feature films, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT - so you can represent this any way you want by being selective.
And by the way, that cultural transplant you mentioned has been discussed extensively in other threads, and I agree completely - I don't want to see a return of biker gang viking Klingons.
An actor known for wearing prosthetics, not unlike Doug Jones, which brings me to…
…Saru's people. They could be Saru's people. We don't know what he looks like.
Yes, TNG ruined the Klingons completely. They were fine in TOS. The old movies portrayed them a bit worse, but still okayish. But since TNG they were a caricature in every way. Not just their looks, but also their behaviour was ridiculous. A total joke. DIS can really only improve with their Klingons in comparison.
Let's use an example to illustrate why I'm bothered by this.
Assume, for a moment, that it's announced tomorrow that Firefly is being resurrected with a sequel series set between the events of Objects in Space and the events of Serenity run by Ben Edlund and Jose Molina, with Tim Minear and Joss Whedon EPing the project but otherwise not involved.
Flash forward 7 or 8 months, and assume that designs have started leaking showing a Serenity that looks nothing whatsoever like the ship we saw in the series or the movie.
Do people really not see where the problem would lie?
Assume, for a moment, that it's announced tomorrow that Firefly is being resurrected with a sequel series set between the events of Objects in Space and the events of Serenity run by Ben Edlund and Jose Molina, with Tim Minear and Joss Whedon EPing the project but otherwise not involved.
Flash forward 7 or 8 months, and assume that designs have started leaking showing a Serenity that looks nothing whatsoever like the ship we saw in the series or the movie.
Do people really not see where the problem would lie?
I don't know that TNG destroyed them, exactly -- at the time, I found the earlier Klingon episodes fascinating. We were finally getting some proper worldbuilding for them. But it didn't take long before the writers stopped developing them and just fixated on a few of the simpler things about them, and ran them into the ground.
Yes, the problem is with your example. Discovery is not the return of a very specific TV series about a very specific ship and very specific characters at a very specifc time. We know what Firefly should be like. We don't know what Discovery should be like.
Yes, the problem is with your example. Discovery is not the return of a very specific TV series about a very specific ship and very specific characters at a very specifc time. We know what Firefly should be like. We don't know what Discovery should be like.
The TOS Klingons were just one-dimensional cardboard Snively Whiplash villains with no development whatsoever. They certainly weren't honorable or portrayed as some venerable warrior culture. Their next major appearance, in STIII, treated them little better. Kruge and his crew were portrayed as space thugs and cold-blooded murderers. It wasn't until TNG that they began to develop their culture better, thanks to Worf being part of the crew. But then they began to be overused through DS9, VOY, and ENT to the point where they devolved back into an intergalactic biker gang. I liked their portrayal in STID and hope that they do something even better in DSC.
The question becomes what exactly do you like about Firefly: the characters and story, or the "look"? The actors are all going to be playing much younger than the actors who have aged fifteen years.
Time moves forward, tastes, social values and technology all move forward.
Culture can usually not be seen in leaked photos and concept art.
About two weeks of watching a screen.
But in Into Darkness, they play as little more than thugs. The look is awesome, but there simply isn't enough there to evaluate them as characters.
But is it fair to try and compare them to what came later? Klingons were featured in roughly 450 of 600+ hours of the spinoffs, while they were in seven of seventy nine episodes of TOS and never were the main characters.
I was basing that on the cut scenes on Qo'nos with Nero in ST'09. But I suppose deleted scenes don't count.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
