The New Klingons

[BillJ]

Maybe the likes of me won't live with a muted Star Trek but I won't be alone.

Sometimes life goes on without us. I was never very interested in DS9 and Voyager, I popped in and out. Eventually watched all of both of them, but was never much satisfied by them. Other people love them. It is what it is, I won't piss on someone for enjoying something I don't.

I have no idea if Discovery will scratch my Trek itch or not. I see pros and cons in the trailer. If it ends up not being my thing, there is more than enough Trek on my shelves to last me the rest of my life.

They wanted to talk about the Sheldon spin off instead.

My wife likes Star Trek, but was more interested in Young Sheldon.

 

[JD]

I was watching a panel on TV.. a morning show. Several previews of upcoming shows were being featured. So when Discovery had its turn, I kind of wondered what the comments were going to be. The panel consisted of all white people. One a lady in her early thirties, one a lady in her mid forties, one a lady in her seventies, and one a gent about forty. They kind of didn't have a reaction. That was disappointing. They wanted to talk about the Sheldon spin off instead. Later in the week George Takei chatted about his Star Trek days and I couldn't help but have a great affection to see this old school guy with his distinct voice and that memory of how Star Trek had.. theatrics. Color and hammy drama. Yes we are not going to get that now and nor should we but to get no reaction or a bland one? The trailer only came to life at the end. Maybe the likes of me won't live with a muted Star Trek but I won't be alone.

TV in general has changed a lot in the last decade or so, and it was pretty clear from the start that DSC was going to done in modern style, and that it would be very different from previous Treks. Anybody who thought this was going to be done in the same style and would look just like the old shows was fooling themselves. As much as I love the ealier series, I think one of their biggest problems with VOY and ENT was that up until the end they were pretty much using the same episodic TNG style even as most of the other stuff on TV was moving away from that. They did try to change things up during the last couple season of ENT, but by that time it was to late.

 

[Burning Hearts of Qo'nos]

TV in general has changed a lot in the last decade or so, and it was pretty clear from the start that DSC was going to done in modern style, and that it would be very different from previous Treks. Anybody who thought this was going to be done in the same style and would look just like the old shows was fooling themselves. As much as I love the ealier series, I think one of their biggest problems with VOY and ENT was that up until the end they were pretty much using the same episodic TNG style even as most of the other stuff on TV was moving away from that. They did try to change things up during the last couple season of ENT, but by that time it was to late.

Agreed. I think a big problem was them basically keeping the same staff across four different shows and only changing people gradually over time. There was never a chance to start off with fresh ideas when you have carry overs from the end of another show. By the end of ENT they were pushing the 18th season of the same show. You had people who were doing the same thing forever basically saying, 'Hey, arcs are hot right now, we should try that!' when they're already a generation behind in writing talent.

 

[Riverside2233]

I agree with the comments related to wishing they had moved away from Klingons a little and brought other species to light. While I don't mind a "new look," I'm not super into this version of Klingon.

 

[Refuge]

How come this Mr Fuller .. cough.. 'genius' didn't reinvent humans? They always look the same. What.. are us humans immune from his reimagining cleverness? Above it all are we? Make ugly Klingons.. easy target. We're supposed to believe a Klingon can be any number of looks, sects and variations, especially for shock value. However the good old human, once a basic model .. always a basic model.

 

[{ Emilia }]

How come this Mr Fuller .. cough.. 'genius' didn't reinvent humans? They always look the same.

Because we are real.
Klingons are the product of creators' imagination.

Mind blown?

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Because we are real.
Klingons are the product of creators' imagination.

Mind blown?

That is a hard concept for some.

 

[Refuge]

Mind not blown.

I actually believe in reality humans will evolve and given they are also just a species and are characters in this fiction why should they be spared a little 'creativity'.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Mind not blown.

I actually believe in reality humans will evolve and given they are also just a species and are characters in this fiction why should they be spared a little 'creativity'.

Ok. And?
This has nothing to do with the creative decisions regarding how to portray alien races. That's not about evolution, it's about design choices.

You keep moving the goalposts by the way.

 

[Refuge]

Don't you find it strange? That on a show where there are humans we get to be portrayed .. accurately? Trek is not a documentary. Humans are going to look differently just as other species do.. and like it or not they become part of the creative or as you put it 'design' choices once you characterize them on a fictional show. I find it safe and lazy that humans always are the same.

 

[{ Emilia }]

Don't you find it strange? That on a show where there are humans we get to be portrayed .. accurately? Trek is not a documentary. Humans are going to look differently just as other species do.. and like it or not they become part of the creative or as you put it 'design' choices once you characterize them on a fictional show. I find it safe and lazy that humans always are the same.

No, I don't find it strange.
Reason: almost every single SciFi movie ever. In worlds full of strange alien stuff, producers tend to at least provide human beings as a familiar element for viewers to relate to and ground everything else.

And it still has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that creators get to have their own interpretation of the alien races because those certainly are not real.

 

[Refuge]

Fair enough. I guess in the 23rd.. 24th.. and even 29th Century we will be as we are now.

Back to the ugly Klingons..

 

[{ Emilia }]

Fair enough. I guess in the 23rd.. 24th.. and even 29th Century we will be as we are now.

No, because as you said SciFi movies aren't documentaries.

Can you decide on one line of reasoning?

 

[Refuge]

Both work. Humans in reality evolve and as a species on a fictional show they can stand a little creativity as well. Simple really.

 

[fireproof78]

I was watching a panel on TV.. a morning show. Several previews of upcoming shows were being featured. So when Discovery had its turn, I kind of wondered what the comments were going to be. The panel consisted of all white people. One a lady in her early thirties, one a lady in her mid forties, one a lady in her seventies, and one a gent about forty. They kind of didn't have a reaction. That was disappointing. They wanted to talk about the Sheldon spin off instead. Later in the week George Takei chatted about his Star Trek days and I couldn't help but have a great affection to see this old school guy with his distinct voice and that memory of how Star Trek had.. theatrics. Color and hammy drama. Yes we are not going to get that now and nor should we but to get no reaction or a bland one? The trailer only came to life at the end. Maybe the likes of me won't live with a muted Star Trek but I won't be alone.

Two questions come to mind. First, who are these four people and why should their point of view on it matter in the slightest?

Secondly, is there an expectation that this new Star Trek should be met with the same action style as 60s era TV? Is that what is necessary for it to be "Star Trek" enough?

These are serious questions, because I am genuinely confused by the standards being applied, mostly because we have 2 whole minutes of footage to judge acting on. How?

Because we are real.
Klingons are the product of creators' imagination.

Mind blown?

Mind is sufficiently blow.

No, I don't find it strange.
Reason: almost every single SciFi movie ever. In worlds full of strange alien stuff, producers tend to at least provide human beings as a familiar element for viewers to relate to and ground everything else.

And it still has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that creators get to have their own interpretation of the alien races because those certainly are not real.

Precisely this. The relatable character is a trope well worn in fiction.

Fair enough. I guess in the 23rd.. 24th.. and even 29th Century we will be as we are now.

Back to the ugly Klingons..

Many science fiction authors have taken a similar view. This is not new.

Also, Klingons have always been ugly to me. Par for the course here.

Both work. Humans in reality evolve and as a species on a fictional show they can stand a little creativity as well. Simple really.

With established characters or universe, yes. Brand new introductions? It's risky gambit that not many production teams would take.

 

[Refuge]

Two questions come to mind. First, who are these four people and why should their point of view on it matter in the slightest?

Secondly, is there an expectation that this new Star Trek should be met with the same action style as 60s era TV? Is that what is necessary for it to be "Star Trek" enough?

These are serious questions, because I am genuinely confused by the standards being applied, mostly because we have 2 whole minutes of footage to judge acting on. How?

Mind is sufficiently blow.

Precisely this. The relatable character is a trope well worn in fiction.


Many science fiction authors have taken a similar view. This is not new.

Also, Klingons have always been ugly to me. Par for the course here.


With established characters or universe, yes. Brand new introductions? It's risky gambit that not many production teams would take.

I keep reading how die hard fans are not to be appealed to but drive-by fans are. How old school is passe and reboots and prequels rule. It was interesting to read Emilia suggest that I had moved the goal posts in something I thought was kind a flow of thoughts. I think there is a lot of that going on. So back to your question. Those four people are just four people, they are not in the 'dismiss them they are old fans' category, or the 'dismiss them because they are trekkies one'.. they were just some potential audience members. Surely some one has to count in that group? Their reaction was that of an non-invested bunch of nobodys. I just thought it was interesting..

Second question and my battery is almost dead. Star Trek Discovery set the rules by going there. By using TOS, don't be surprised if there is an expectation for something familiar. The best part of the trailer was that something familiar.

Oh and just because many science fiction authors share a lack of creativity on the human 'example' or the look of a human depiction says more about their sameness. Lots of unimaginative creators.

 

[Trekkin]

I keep reading how die hard fans are not to be appealed to but drive-by fans are. How old school is passe and reboots and prequels rule. It was interesting to read Emilia suggest that I had moved the goal posts in something I thought was kind a flow of thoughts. I think there is a lot of that going on. So back to your question. Those four people are just four people, they are not in the 'dismiss them they are old fans' category, or the 'dismiss them because they are trekkies one'.. they were just some potential audience members. Surely some one has to count in that group? Their reaction was that of an non-invested bunch of nobodys. I just thought it was interesting..

Second question and my battery is almost dead. Star Trek Discovery set the rules by going there. By using TOS, don't be surprised if there is an expectation for something familiar. The best part of the trailer was that something familiar.

Oh and just because many science fiction authors share a lack of creativity on the human 'example' or the look of a human depiction says more about their sameness. Lots of unimaginative creators.

They are not appealing to 'drive by' fans. They're appealing to future fans.

Who, unlike the current crop of die hards, will be around to celebrate the 100th anniversary. And won't be buried in the ground, being eaten by worms, and not giving CBS their money.

Except me, of course. I'm going to live forever. Luckily, I don't give a shit if they change things, and will eternally suck on that cash-grabby Trek teat.

 

[ichab]

^ I admit I'm biased, because I actively enjoyed the ENT Klingon arc. And, IMHO, it provided a decent explanation for the appearances.

I suspect, however, that they wouldn't have done it in the first place had DS9 not forced the issue by mentioning it.

The point is that DS9 did a funny scene, and there weren't a whole lot of complaints. So if DSC does one or two lines, who the hell cares? If it's like the example that @Burning Hearts of Qo'nOs suggested, where's the harm in that? Wouldn't even slow the story down.

Not to get too geeky, but the Enterprise Arc still doesn't explain DS9 episode Blood Oath. Kang, Kor and Koloth, three Klingons from Kirk's time played by the same actors, show up looking and acting like Klingons from DS9 era. It's really as Ron Moore said, there's no logical explanation other than simply it was a makeup change.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ That's easy enough: Cosmetic surgery.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Not to get too geeky, but the Enterprise Arc still doesn't explain DS9 episode Blood Oath. Kang, Kor and Koloth, three Klingons from Kirk's time played by the same actors, show up looking and acting like Klingons from DS9 era. It's really as Ron Moore said, there's no logical explanation other than simply it was a makeup change.

It's a virus. They got better.