Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed

[Jackson_Roykirk]

The craftsmanship and the visual do matter, but I don't use those things to define a trek universe (e.g., "that looks like the Prime Universe circa 2255", or "that looks like the Kelvin Universe circa 2260").

I understand why TOS looks the way it did -- and that is because it was made in 1966 -- and I also understand that something made in 2017 that will look very much unlike something made in 1966 but can still be part of the same universe and take place during the same general fictional time period.

So while I appreciate nice effects, even effects that would be considered "cutting edge" only when they were made back in 1966, I don't use those effects to define a fictional universe.

If they tell me DSC is 10 years before TOS, I'm fine with that even if the set dressings don't look like its 10 years before TOS.

I'm responding to my own post because I want to clarify something (I was out walking my dog around the block and thinking about this post, and realized I have something to add/clarify )...

I think TOS certainly has a look that the art directors of that show skillfully gave us, but that look is the TOS TV show, not the TOS fictional universe.

What I mean is that the show looked that way because it was made in 1966, so a show made in 2017 could take place in that same universe and in that same time period, but have a totally different look -- and I'd be OK with that. The look of that fictional "mid-23rd century" universe was a product of 1960s art direction, but that doesn't mean that the look of the fictional mid-23rd century universe needs to forever be beholden to 1960s art direction.

That's the reason the Enterprise in TMP looked different -- not because it happened 10+ years later in the fictional universe, but because it was made 10+ years later (and with a bigger budget) in the real world.

The look belongs to the various TV shows and the time period those TV show are made. The look does NOT belong to the fictional universe.

 

[Greg Cox]

I think TOS certainly has a look that the art directors of that show skillfully gave us, but that look is the TOS TV show, not the TOS fictional universe.

That's a nice, succinct way to put it--and a useful distinction.

 

[Columbus019]

Did you forgive the Klingons of TMP?

They were then represented more than the tos Klingons and were a better and more alien design so yes. Also, they retconned in a reason and that was moving forwards.

 

[Greg Cox]

They were then represented more than the tos Klingons and were a better and more alien design so yes. Also, they retconned in a reason and that was moving forwards.

Although they didn't retcon in a reason until twenty-six years later. We got by fine without an in-universe explanation for more than a quarter of a century!

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

They were then represented more than the tos Klingons and were a better and more alien design so yes. Also, they retconned in a reason and that was moving forwards.

I was good with the magically changing look of Klingons until they ret-conned a reason.

Well, what I should say is that I'm still good with the magically-changed look of the Klingons, but I find the decision to ret-con the change to be an unnecessary one that led to a convoluted explanation.

They should have just let it be. "Because makeup effects were different" should be good enough.

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

I was good with the magically changing look of Klingons until they ret-conned a reason.

Well, what I should say is that I'm still good with the magically-changed look of the Klingons, but I find the decision to ret-con the change to be an unnecessary one that led to a convoluted explanation.

They should have just let it be. "Because makeup effects were different" was should be good enough.

Exactly. They never explained the changed look for Romulans, Andorians or Tellarites, after all. The last two aren't prominent, but come on, the Romulan change was just as obvious as the Klingon one and has never even been acknowledged!

 

[Nyotarules]

I was good with the magically changing look of Klingons until they ret-conned a reason.

Well, what I should say is that I'm still good with the magically-changed look of the Klingons, but I find the decision to ret-con the change to be an unnecessary one that led to a convoluted explanation.

They should have just let it be. "Because makeup effects were different" should be good enough.

They should have stuck with 'we do not discuss it with outsiders' reason that Worf gave.

 

[Noname Given]

Honestly, if I cited every guest-star who played multiple roles on Trek, we'd be here all day.

The point being, we accept these sort of reminders that we're actually watching a staged TV drama without fearing for the integrity of the story, so why not also accept that they gave the sets and costumes a makeover, which is really all this amounts to?

Yeah - especially one recurring guest star: Mark Leonard.

I mean hell, to make Star Trek a homogeneous whole - you'd have to posit Sarek was:
- A Romulan spy.
- Somehow escaped the destruction of his Bird of Prey (in BoT)
- Returned to Vulcan with Amanda non the wiser

And further:
- Spock was complicit because he told NO ONE that the Romulan Bird of Prey Commander (in BoT) was the spitting image of his father.

Further:
- Kirk must have amnesia; because he failed to recognize Ambassador Sarek LOOKS EXACTLY like said Romulan Bird of Prey Commander (from BoT).

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

They should have stuck with 'we do not discuss it with outsiders' reason that Worf gave.

I'd have preferred no onscreen acknowledgement at all. Once Worf said that, fans started demanding an answer.

 

[Greg Cox]

I'd have preferred no onscreen acknowledgement at all. Once Worf said that, fans started demanding an answer.

Well, in their defense, sticking Worf into footage from "The Trouble with Tribbles" kinda begs the question. I can see why they felt they had to at least acknowledge having two different looks for the Klingons in the same episode.

But, yes, they should have just dismissed it with a wink and a funny line. Still not convinced we needed some kind of elaborate in-universe "explanation."

Back in 1979, we just accepted the new Klingon makeup as a new-and-improved makeup and rolled with it . ...

 

[JoeP]

The best suggestion I saw someone post here a while ago was that they should've had Dorn in the 60s Klingon makeup during his scenes on K-7 and his regular makeup in the rest of the show, without explanation. Thought that was brilliant.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I mean hell, to make Star Trek a homogeneous whole - you'd have to posit Sarek was:
- A Romulan spy.
- Somehow escaped the destruction of his Bird of Prey (in BoT)
- Returned to Vulcan with Amanda non the wiser

Don't forget that side trip to the Klingon Empire where he meets and somehow escapes V'Gr, while commanding a battlecruiser.

Well, in their defense, sticking Worf into footage from "The Trouble with Tribbles" kinda begs the question. I can see why they felt they had to at least acknowledge having two different looks for the Klingons in the same episode.

I would have had Dorn show up in TOS make up, with out explanation. And then watch heads go all Toht in Raiders.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The best suggestion I saw someone post here a while ago was that they should've had Dorn in the 60s Klingon makeup during his scenes on K-7 and his regular makeup in the rest of the show, without explanation. Thought that was brilliant.

Ninja'd by my own idea!!!!

 

[Kor]

Don't forget that side trip to the Klingon Empire where he meets and somehow escapes V'Gr, while commanding a battlecruiser.
...

That reminds me of an idea I had years ago that every character ever played by David Warner was actually the same character in disguise, as he was secretly in Starfleet Intelligence doing undercover ops. St. John Talbot, intergalactic man of mystery.

Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

That reminds me of an idea I had years ago that every character ever played by David Warner was actually the same character in disguise, as he was secretly in Starfleet Intelligence doing undercover ops. St. John Talbot, intergalactic man of mystery.

Kor

Yeah, Baby!

 

[JoeP]

Ninja'd by my own idea!!!!

Haha. That was you who had posted a while back?! Bloody brilliant.

 

[JD]

Exactly. They never explained the changed look for Romulans, Andorians or Tellarites, after all. The last two aren't prominent, but come on, the Romulan change was just as obvious as the Klingon one and has never even been acknowledged!

Honestly, the Romulan change is the only one that really bothers me. They're supposed to be the same species as the Vulcans, so it always seemed weird to me that Romulans got the ridges, but not the Vulcans. Things get especially weird once we throw in Spock going undercover and not being instantly identified as a Vulcan and sent packing.

As for the Klingon ridges explanation, I actually liked the explanation, and the episodes that feature it are two of my favorite ENT episodes.
No we didn't need an explanation, but I don't think there was anything wrong with giving us one.

 

[Tuskin38]

Things get especially weird once we throw in Spock going undercover and not being instantly identified as a Vulcan and sent packing.

One could assume the ridge-less romulans are a subset of the species.

Or a rare medical condition.

 

[Shamrock Holmes]

One could assume the ridge-less romulans are a subset of the species.

Or a rare medical condition.

I did wonder for a while whether the ridged Romulans might have been Romulan-Reman hybrids, but then I remembered that the Mintakians (identified as proto-Vulcan not proto-Romulan also had the ridges suggesting a different source, possibly the Zami-Rigelians).

 

[Ensign Ogahd Ahmganadai]

One could assume the ridge-less romulans are a subset of the species.

Or a rare medical condition.

Not really good enough. Doesn't explain why the Romulans didn't develop ridges until the 24th Century...but apparently had them in the 22nd as well. Unless you want to tell me that the Romulans also had an augment virus hit them.