[Deleted my comment because I'd seen Syobk already brought up in reference to that comment, but we can still talk about him!]
Have to agree on both points. They could have just made Sybok a notorious emotional Vulcan rebel that all Vulcans are aware of.
I hope somebody has done an artistic representation of these Klingons.
That's no moon...
Keep in mind that this was the same best friend and commanding officer who didn't know that Spock's father was the legendary Sarek of Vulcan (or at least that he was the Federation ambassador from Vulcan, legendary may be subjective).
Having many Trek "moons" be substantially larger than Luna and orbiting a gas giant would explain how a moon would hold an atmosphere, their 1 G or thereabouts gravity, and other things, but they are still called moons. And having multiple habitable moons around the same gas giant might sometimes explain why some cultures that are barely space-capable are visiting their "next door" neighbors. In the remastered TOS episodes, Starbase 11 appears to be on such a moon orbiting a gas giant (The Menagerie, Part 1 and Court Martial).
However, the planet Vulcan is always called a planet and never a moon, and that's a fairly important distinction to astronomers and astrophysicists. In TMP, they showed two orbs in the sky, IIRC, but they took those out in the director's version, though they claim it was not to comply with the "no moon" dialogue from The Man Trap but for other reasons.
Some now say Vulcan has a sister planet (but from TMP, if it has any validity, it would have to have two or more sister planets, and the stability of such a system is in doubt when they are that close together (unlike earth's sister, Venus, which is so far away it looks like a bright star, or Mars, not a sister but also looks like a star). But a binary planet (two planets orbiting one another and close enough to see each other as discs in the sky) may be possible and stable (so the theatrical release of TMP is still a problem, but the director's cut is fine). But hardly anyone official wants to give definitive answers to these sorts of things.
Then you will be pleased to hear that you have already seen them on screen as the (Human fusion) Klingons of TOS and TAS and the (original race) Klingons of the movies.
I wouldn't say it's the most important thing, by any means, but then nor would I discount it as completely and utterly unimportant or even optional if the writer cares about the work and the fictional setting. For a fictional universe, internal consistency is important, just as some semblance of reality is always important for most any fictional work in order for the characters to be able to negotiate the fictional landscape with reason and logic and for the characters' choices to make sense. To totally blow it off as unimportant is to say the fictional world doesn't need to make sense so anything goes and inconsistencies are unimportant and should always be overlooked, which in turn would lessen its overall appeal, and would likely lead to a diminished ability to reach a larger audience with its core messages, which is not which planet has a moon or not, even if a writer need only take a few minutes to get that fact right.
I suppose it's always possible some individuals care more about, or only about minor details while being virtually oblivious to the greater themes and social commentary, but I discount any suggestion caring about the fictional details necessarily makes one ignorant of or indifferent to the greater message. In general, though, I dislike painting any group with a single brush.
Like those who insist fiction doesn't have to make sense because it's fiction, I couldn't disagree with you more. Don't sacrifice one for the other, certainly, but to ignore one as unimportant when it's really not that hard to reconcile both just suggests a writer's degree of laziness or disinterest for the particular fictional universe, and I have to believe if a writer didn't care at all or thought it didn't matter, they could write for another show or setting that would be more appropriate and better suited for their needs.
None of that potential story telling would be diminished by getting the fictional universe's facts right or remaining consistent with established canon. You almost make it sound like if writers are expected to know the distance to Qo'nos (if they wish to use that in their story), that they would somehow be unable to thoroughly demonstrate the dangers of ignorance and racism or sexism, etc. in their stories, too. You do both, or your story suffers, IMO.
I have never seen 3 year olds through tantrums like that
I am amazed that it took that long. Well done.
Well since your query started from my post about "The Final Reflection", which is a book, then a visual representation in it is a little difficult............!I have never seen 3 year olds through tantrums like that
I was hoping for more expansion on their culture visually than just "they look like TOS" Klingons. While interesting, I certainly feel their appearance could enjoy some more variety.
If one wanted more degrees of freedom, they could have that by just using another timeline, but then they'd know it would have less appeal to certain fans. In an Age of the Internet and searchable databases, you needn't be an obsessive to find canon lore, or even a life-long fan with eidetic memory (Google or Memory Alpha will tell a writer some fact they might need for their story in short order). But having a Trek fan on staff is probably pretty important, but only if you're willing to listen to them when they tell you you're running afoul of a pretty important piece of Trek lore, and willing to accept their suggestions how to correct it while maintaining your story. The rest will often take care of itself.
