First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?

[Jackson_Roykirk]

It's not trivia. It's consistent story telling, which is an important aspect in GOOD story telling.

I don't think storytelling ever had anything to do with the way the Klingons looked in TOS. There was no in-story reason for the art design of TOS Klingons.

The only time story ever crept in was when "Enterprise" felt the need (unnecessarily, IMO) to explain the difference in character designs of Klingons between TOS and later versions of Trek. I'd rather just ignore that mistake made by the "Enterprise" production instead of compounding that mistake.

I have no problem with changing the way an established ST alien race looks. That look is simply art design -- it is NOT story.

 

[Mage]

They said Prime to get the TruFans off their damned back. It's rebooting whatever it pleases. If you want to interpret that as lying, go ahead. But this show is not going to do much but pay minimal attention to Star Trek that happened before.

No, it is Prime Universe, they just redesigned stuff. As TNG did with elements from TOS, like the Romulans. Doesn't mean TNG was suddenly a different universe. There's a HUGE difference between redesign and reboot.

And how the hell can you know how much attention it will pay to Trek that came before? Are you writing this? Acting in it? Part of the art department? Because really, unless you are in some way involved with this show, don't pretend your opinion based on the minimal stuff we've seen sofar is fact.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Actually, that would be an interesting nod to "The Cage"-era tech. See the communicator here, made of clear resin or something: http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=20&page=2

Kor

I like the two fuses midway down the device. At least you can easily see when you blew a fuse.

 

[Kemaiku]

Firstly, calm down.

Secondly, everything we've seen is a drastic redesign of an era we're seen before, including one main alien race. Sarek now has a different job and Discovery is using technology more in line with something designed today regardless of previous incarnations.

They'll keep calling it Prime, but I doubt they'll stick to it when they want to do...anything with the new show.

 

[cultcross]

It's not trivia. It's consistent story telling, which is an important aspect in GOOD story telling.

God help me, I'm about to compare Star Trek to Shakespeare.

Does the power of the story of Macbeth depend on what costumes the actors wear, or what era it's set in, or what weapons they use?
Is the impact of Julius Caesar lessened by the director setting it in the British Empire?

Aesthetic choices can be liked or disliked, that's fine, but they don't mean your story is good or not.

 

[Longinus]

And their skulls are so elongated they look like Xenomorphs.

Yeah, that' one thing I really don't like about the design in addition the hairlessness and the cheesy costumes.

 

[Kor]

I am highly offended and outraged that the pink/lavender Klingon uniforms of TAS have never been revisited. I demand to see that look in ST-DIS!

I don't think storytelling ever had anything to do with the way the Klingons looked in TOS. There was no in-story reason for the art design of TOS Klingons.

Indeed, the look was something that Fred Philips and John Colicos came up with on the fly. The only description given in the Errand of Mercy script was that the Klingons appeared "hard-faced, Oriental."

Kor

 

[Longinus]

Out of interest, which franchises were you thinking of? I can't think of any, especially sci-fi ones, which have rebooted or had modern versions or new rounds of sequels where there hasn't been a TruFan nerdrage not dissimilar to this one. Episode 1, nuBSG, nuWho, Casino Royale, the XMen continuity clusterfuck, Force Awakens...

Star Wars has been really good at handling the visual continuity, sure the prequel trilogy was utter shit, but it looked like Star Wars, the more recent iterations were even better at maintaining the visual continuity. Is it so hard to grasp that some people would prefer similar approach to be taken with Star Trek?

 

[jaime]

Trek is unique among all media franchises, in that fans expect everything to fit together into a perfectly coherent universe (even when some stuff already contradicts other stuff).

I've got no problem if this is more of a "broad strokes" depiction which might not fit in all the little nitpicky details. Just give me good stories and characters.

It's like how Gotham is not in continuity with the Arrowverse, and neither are in continuity with the current DC movies, and none of the above are in continuity with the 70s/80s Superman movies or the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies, or the Dark Knight trilogy, or the 60s pop-art Batman show, or any of the various comics continuities for that matter, but you can still enjoy all these interpretations without getting hung up on making everything fit together.

Kor

All adaptations of work from a different media. I don't consider multiple Jane Eyres to be reboots, and wonder why I keep seeing her origin story. Trek is more like the pre reboot Marvel universe, where everything pretty much happened...sort of a drifting retcon, and don't look it too closely, but it all happened. And it is unique in that sense, but then, until literally now, every single Trek explicitly happened in the same universe (in the narrative sense). Trials and tribbleations cements that for a start. Then Prime Spock takes his STV poster off to the KT and all that happens. Assuming TPol or someone turns up in DSC (or a future being sent back cameo...that has never been done before. Sort of Relics in reverse.) then that continues, no matter what other continuity bumps crop up. And continuity bumps are just that, so yeah...we get obsessed about Klingons head continuity bumps, but don't really want a reboot. Something would be lost that is, as you say, unique.

 

[Longinus]

Storytelling is not dependent on the aesthetics in the background. You mean to say one detail of stitching on a uniform will ruin one of the best episodes ever written?

The two have nothing to do with each other, something Trek has had a hard time figuring out during the 90's and early 2000's

So you don't care about how the things look. That's fine. Some people do. So why not maintain the visual continuity then? After all, you don't care about how the things look, so why would it matter to you?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Star Wars has been really good at handling the visual continuity, sure the prequel trilogy was utter shit, but it looked like Star Wars,

I recall a few fans complaining about the design of the prequels. Saying it didn't look like Star Wars.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Design, and world building, is part of the story.

Not really. It's window dressing.

 

[cultcross]

Star Wars has been really good at handling the visual continuity, sure the prequel trilogy was utter shit, but it looked like Star Wars, the more recent iterations were even better at maintaining the visual continuity. Is it so hard to grasp that some people would prefer similar approach to be taken with Star Trek?

One word for you: midichlorians.

 

[Jedman67]

So you don't care about how the things look. That's fine. Some people do. So why not maintain the visual continuity then? After all, you don't care about how the things look, so why would it matter to you?

Because the visual continuity has changed radically in all previous incarnations. Even Star Wars has gone through redesigns, with the prequels and the postquels all retaining callbacks to the OT which was - wait for it - THREE MOVIES.
When you have Four spinoff shows and a highly successful reboot movie franchise, not to mention the 10 previous Trek movies....there's simply too much information to successfully navigate when creating a brand new show for a brand new audience.
So it's off to Reboot Land for Discovery, which will have some aesthetics and visuals reminiscent to fans of the original star trek, while still creating it's own new thing.

 

[jaime]

God help me, I'm about to compare Star Trek to Shakespeare.

Does the power of the story of Macbeth depend on what costumes the actors wear, or what era it's set in, or what weapons they use?
Is the impact of Julius Caesar lessened by the director setting it in the British Empire?

Aesthetic choices can be liked or disliked, that's fine, but they don't mean your story is good or not.

Different media again, and more so, historically speaking.....your point stands for Shakespeare. Except for the Julius Caesar bit, as he's an historical figure and the whole thing hinges on that, and the adaptations of other historical plays that do that don't always work as a result. But different media, designed from their very inception to be told differently every single time. Filmed visual media is trapped in amber, whenever I watch Encounter at Farpoint, it is what it is (HD fiddling with effects aside) anything else would be a remake of that original, but the original would not cease to exist and would therefore always be there for comparison. It was never meant to iterative.
Aesthetic choices are sometimes part of the story.

 

[Jedman67]

One word for you: midichlorians.

 

[jaime]

One word for you: midichlorians.

Meh. Midichlorians were a thing for measuring someone's force aptitude. They aren't like lil force dudes. It's a throwaway line that's far faster than having a scene where Anakin suddenly being adept with a light sabre or using mind tricks with no prior training......and makes a bit more sense from the perspective of travelling Jedi and a Jedi academy. Or you can just do the Rey thing like in TFA and watch fandom explode at naturally occurring Jedi.

 

[cultcross]

watch fandom explode

I wonder what that would be like?

 

[Jedman67]

 

[Kor]

It might have been better for him if he had leaked it anonymously.

Kor