"Choose Your Pain" Klingon ship (Visual spoilers?)
- Thread starter Cranston
- Start date
They work fine.
The Klingon makeup is better than most of their ships are.
I am confused...which looked like a cheap goofy fan film?
For the record I am not arguing for emulating sixties Trek in TOS on a week by weak basis...the interiors are pretty good and sit between ENT and TMP nicely. The exteriors, in my opinion, should have aimed for the same approach. The DIscovery herself is sort of there...the Klingon ships are really not.
Thing is, I don't mind the interiors of most of the the Klingon ships at all. The prison ship felt Klingon on the inside with just the right amount of orange and yellow lighting and hard metal surfacing. It could have used more Klingon writing on the bulkheads, but, eh. I enjoyed the interior.
Even the cockpit of the raider craft has an almost Okuda-like set of graphics and surface controls. The display icons look like classic Klingon computer readouts.
Even the cockpit of the raider craft has an almost Okuda-like set of graphics and surface controls. The display icons look like classic Klingon computer readouts.
My parents watched Columbo and NYPD blue. Guess what my least favorite two shows in history are?
Yeah... that's mostly just him taking his cues from YOU. Not a bad thing, exactly, but in alot of cases kids will develop opinions about TV shows -- or anything else for that matter -- based largely on what their parents' opinions are. Me, I've been working with kids of various ages going on ten years now, and I have rarely encountered a six year old boy who thought anything was "too violent" unless they were told that by their parents. Most six year olds don't even know what that MEANS. Even the ones who told me that usually didn't.
And keep on TELLING him it isn't his Trek. He'll believe you.
Sure. The kids don't understand what's good for them. That's the parents' job.Me, I've been working with kids of various ages going on ten years now, and I have rarely encountered a six year old boy who thought anything was "too violent" unless they were told that by their parents. Most six year olds don't even know what that MEANS. Even the ones who told me that usually didn't.
If they said the Sarcophagus Ship was a D7 for the purposes of this series, I'd have kept half a thought that it could be, or at least a forerunner of what we would later see as the D7. It has the hallmarks of it.
What was called a D7 in DSC looks more like the speakerphone in the conference room here where I work.
What was called a D7 in DSC looks more like the speakerphone in the conference room here where I work.
I'm not claiming that it does. I'm saying that it's what they're AIMING for. Hence the radical changes in design, tone, and story structure. The reason they're doing it, as I've tried to explain, is that they're trying to build more stamina into a franchise that has had a history of going stale relatively quickly and loosing the attention of general audiences. The ratings history of TNG and Voyager -- and especially Enterprise -- bear this out somewhat: the show format becomes tiresome after two or three seasons, and then all you're left with is a highly committed fanbase that will continue to watch even if it's terrible.
Star Trek cannot survive as a franchise if it depends on the "even if it's terrible" audience. So the goal is to create a new production that structured in such a way that it can continue to deliver much longer.
It's related to the concept in videogame developmnent, what's called "replay value." That is, a game you only play through once and then never really want/need to play again isn't likely to generate a lot of marketshare for its sequels, DLCs or merchandise. So developers build things into their games designed to keep players immersed into the game itself; give them "more to do" and more to come back to time after time. In ANY game series, there are always a few hardcore fans who will love it and replay it no matter how terrible it is, but the goal is to maximize replay value for people who AREN'T hardcore fans and only like it because it's fun. This is the difference between successful games (e.g. Skyrim, World of Warcraft, Elite Dangerous, Dragon Age Inquisition) and unsuccessful ones (Call of Duty: AW, No Man's Sky, Mass Effect Andromeda).
It isn't a question of how many people tune in to watch it, it's a question of how many people KEEP watching it. And bear in mind, while I can plainly see the "keep watching!" impetus behind Discovery, it's still way too early to tell if they have (or will) achieve this.
Existing fans will be alienated no matter what (especially true for Trek fans) but we'll still watch it anyway because we're fans. In television, it is ALWAYS a mistake to avoid a potentially successful innovation purely because some of your fans are afraid of change. If you're going to avoid a choice, it should be because it is a boring or stupid choice, NOT because it might be controversial.
Funny you mention that... as far as I can remember, we never actually SAW the Klingon ship from Errand of Mercy. We just saw its torpedoes blasting the hull and Enterprise shooting back. Maybe TOS-R redoes this... but then, TOS is a 50 year old show with a cast of actors who are mostly dead by now, I really don't think the expectations of a NEW viewer are going to be that closely aligned.
I mean, when I watch classic Mission Impossible I don't expect to see remote controlled drones, holograms, robotic suits, nanotech or implantable microchips. I know I'm watching a show from the 60s, I expect to see something from the 60s. Same when I watch Classic Doctor who. I ramp up my suspension of disbelief to 11 because, well, it was filmed in 1961, it's the best they could do at the time.
More to the point: I don't think CBS actually WANTS people to continue leaning on the old source material to bolster the new. Again, there's the "stale" problem: TOS, TNG and Voyager have a hard time sustaining interest over the long term, so people who never encountered them during their original run are as likely as not to react to them exactly the way casual viewers did. While it is indeed true that FAN interest is what ultimately saved the franchise after TOS was canceled, it's just as true that TOS was eventually canceled due to low ratings, and it is equally true that TMP and Wrath of Khan were primarily to thank for restoring it even though both of them contained elements that infuriated existing fans at the time.
If the new show is structured in such a way that you HAVE to like the old stuff in order to enjoy it, then you're not catering to a new audience, you're catering to an old one, one that was going to tune in and watch no matter what you did. They aren't trying to please the existing fans anymore, they're trying to create new fans who want to be pleased.
As for the Klingon ship specifically: much has already been written on the fact that existing scifi fans have grown up on properties like Halo, Mass Effect and Destiny and are accustomed to aliens BEING very strange and alien-looking. We're used to seeing Krogan, Sanghelli, Reapers and nightmares, and some of us are used to seeing Sontarrans, Daleks, weeping angels and whatever the fuck the Silence are supposed to be. Forehead Klingons risk seeming quaint by comparison; I suspect they judged something similar with their ship designs, realizing that the classic Klingon Battlecruiser is basically an inverted Federation design to begin with and they need something more visibly alien and strange. And it's ALL OVER the production choices here: their uniform/armor, their language, their makeup, ALL of it is carefully calculated to make the Klingons look as alien as possible.
So while you are sitting here bitching about how the Klingon design is TOO DIFFERENT from "What came before" (ever notice this exact combination of words has become a buzzphrase in Trek fandom?) the entire POINT of that choice is flying directly over your heads. And in a sense, that's intentional: the change wasn't meant to please YOU, the change was meant to please everyone who DOESN'T think they already know what a Klingon battlecruiser looks like.
So while you are sitting here bitching about how the Klingon design is TOO DIFFERENT from "What came before" (ever notice this exact combination of words has become a buzzphrase in Trek fandom?) the entire POINT of that choice is flying directly over your heads. And in a sense, that's intentional: the change wasn't meant to please YOU, the change was meant to please everyone who DOESN'T think they already know what a Klingon battlecruiser looks like.
For me, it isn't that the D7 is too different from what came before. It's that is different to the point of not being recognizable, from a group of people making the series who said how close to established things in Trek they would be.
They could have updated the actual and established D7 design and added the current Klingon style of ornamentation and it would have looked beautiful. But instead they modified a triangle.
G
Gonzo
Guest
This could all be a setup for them to unveil a recognisable D7 in a future season, same with the Bird of Prey.
I am not holding my breath though.
I am not holding my breath though.
I'm pretty sure they never made ANY claims that it would be "close to established things" at all. They only said it was "set in the prime universe" and fans injected their own interpretations about what that actually means. From a production standpoint, all that means is "No Nero." And from a LEGAL standpoint, all that means is "We don't have to pay royalties to Paramount. Neener neener!"
It's been clear from the get-go they aren't going for "recognizable" and the design for the Klingon ship(s) have their own internal logic to them that is entirely unique to Discovery and whatever it is they're trying to accomplish with it. I don't actually know what that logic IS, but I know that "something old fans will recognize as familiar" is incredibly far from it.
How would modifying a triangle be any different than modifying a capital T?
Sorry this makes zero sense. Both Voy and Ent were full of new alien and ship designs that tried to be new and modern looking at the time. They still sucked. If your recipe of attracting and maintaining audience is snazzy visual, then you're already lost the game. (Which is not to say good visuals aren't an asset.)
Sure. Except this 'being terrible' has zero connection to not redesgnig Klingons radically enough.
People still watch TOS. It was decades old when I first saw it, it is much older now. I'd say it has pretty damn good 'replay value'.
The idea that hard core fans keep watching no matter what is a fallacy. Some do, many won't. I'm pretty sure I have never seen last couple of seasons of Voyager and I didn't go to the theatre to see the last two reboot Trek films after I hated the first (turns out it was a mistake in the case of Beyond, I saw it recently on Netflix and it was pretty decent.)
Furthermore, this is not either or situation. Sure, there is a tiny subsection of fans that are not satisfied anything less than perfect recreation of TOS sets, down to the wrinkles on the paper viewscreens. But most people are not like that, it is really a question of how many new fans you can attract with your changes versus the existing fans you will alienate with them.
But I want you to answer this. What was gained by calling this radically different ship D7? Do you thing that doing this helped to attract a single new fan in a way that calling it, say D6 wouldn't have? Do you think this choice alienated any existing fans? Was anything gained by doing this?
Your idea that these things are mutually exclusive is a fallacy, and considering how their business plan relies on getting people to subscribe to their pay service specifically to see Star Trek, alienating existing fans is an unwise move.
And I'd say that relying on these new people who had never been interested in Star Trek before keeping your pay service afloat is hell of a risky move.
My parents watched Columbo and NYPD blue. Guess what my least favorite two shows in history are?
Yeah... that's mostly just him taking his cues from YOU. Not a bad thing, exactly, but in alot of cases kids will develop opinions about TV shows -- or anything else for that matter -- based largely on what their parents' opinions are. Me, I've been working with kids of various ages going on ten years now, and I have rarely encountered a six year old boy who thought anything was "too violent" unless they were told that by their parents. Most six year olds don't even know what that MEANS. Even the ones who told me that usually didn't.
And keep on TELLING him it isn't his Trek. He'll believe you.
Sigh.
Nope.
You want slightly longer?
He didn’t like the ship, unprompted, he doesn’t like the badge (I do.)
It’s the parents job to decide what’s not suitable for their kid, in addition to things like film and TV ratings and the watershed. Yes it’s me deciding. But that’s what parenting is. Making decisions for offspring, and doing your best for them to be good ones.
And I haven’t told him it isn’t his Trek, I told him we could watch the first two episodes and skip the ‘scarey’ bits. By the time I got to episode three, I stopped offering, as he wasn’t interested, and he would have to skip too much of it. To be fair, he’s also pretty good about PEGI/Film ratings...even with permission and skipping, he refuses to watch The Force Awakens or Rogue One. I miss the days of edited for TV versions...by his age I had seen a version of TWOK at least.
Anyway, far be it from me to argue with such an expert, though I respectfully point out that I too have had experience of childcare, not least of which has been raising my own kid.
You make choices for your offspring, I make choices for mine. One of which is not letting him watch descent at a young age, as far as my decision goes anyway.
This Trek May turn out really good...it will not turn out really good and suitable for younglings, which in the UK at least, it used to be.
First, the capital T is the basis for the D7. A triangle isn't.
The producers did say that they would be in the original timeline. That, to me, means established things. The D7 has already been visually established, as far as the silhouette.
I do like your take on their statement to Paramount! I would love to see Akiva Goldsman or someone saying that in an interview!
As for a new audience that does not know much about Star Trek: how is it at all advantageous to remake a Klingon D7 into something that looks like it's in more than a few video games and/or other TV series?
I have tried my absolute best to be neutral toward the new Klingon ship aesthetic, and not express any strong opinions one way or another, especially when it comes to trying to reconcile them with what we have seen before.
But I can't stand it anymore!
As a modernist design buff, I have to say that I think these Klingon ships just plain suck. 
Kor
But I can't stand it anymore!
As a modernist design buff, I have to say that I think these Klingon ships just plain suck. Kor
