Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
So having sex with them must be awesome.Deltan Augment virus?
Is this why Tyler keeps getting flashbacks to being in bed with L'Rell?
One can argue they're all variations on a common theme. It's like how in comic books no two artists draw Poison Ivy or Killer Croc the same way, but they're still supposed to be the same characters in the same universe, even if some interpretations are more stylized than others.
And comic books, at least in my lifetime, reboot every five to ten years.
But even in-between reboots, you can get a lot of variation in how the characters are depicted. Sometimes Ivy has green skin, sometimes she has pink skin. Sometime she wears a leotard, sometimes just some strategically-placed leaves and vines. Still supposed to be the same character in the same timeline.
Similarly, some artists draw Croc as more monstrous and inhuman than others.
So, various STAR TREK productions interpret the Klingons slightly differently, but they're all variations on what's come before.
It’s apples and oranges though. Comics are drawn, not filmed.
But is is a form artistic expression.
But they're still artistic creations, subject to reinvention and reinterpretation by different creators, while still building on the work of previous artists and productions. None of which anything to do with "alternate timelines" or whatever. It's just acknowledging that we're talking about artifice, illusions, smoke and mirrors . . . not literal depictions of reality.
So? They're both a visual art form used to convey story.
The point here is, unless two books are directly sequential, there is no objective reason for them to maintain a look or a design, especially when drawn by different artists - who should be allowed to produce their own interpretation of the work.
It's the same with Star Trek. Every iteration is a has been a reboot. Every single one. Every show and almost every film. A case can be made for Treks II-IV as they are a sequential, directly connected story. But nothing else is. And so the idea that they're all interconnected and must visually or stylistically fit together like Lego from the same set is unnecessary pretense.
So when will this throwing hair on them happen?
But they don't look like this, do they?
I'm sorry, but they look very similar to 24th century Klingons to me
Well, yeah it is. This is a species that had hair for fifty years of production, and three centuries in universe. Now they are hairless and we're supposed to buy that it is all the same. I simply can't. There are changes you can get away with, but turning them into Deltans is just a step too far for me to believe it is all the same universe.
No, it's not the point. You are correct. The fact that a simple modification of having hair would increase the visual similarity so much demonstrates that the visual similarity is there.
It's not like humans don't go around modifying their bodies constantly to different standards of beauty or anything...oh wait, yes they do and have for generations. Klingons are no different.
The sex was literally mindblowing.
I'm sorry, but they look very similar to 24th century Klingons to me
The point is that they look ugly without hair. If they had it, they'd look a lot better (and very similar to the familiar Westmore Klingons), but they don't.
The writers have said these Klingons don't have hair. As in, they don't grow hair, they're hairless.
Ok, and? These are also a lot of the upper echelons of leadership, or want to "remain Klingon" in some sense or another. Standards of beauty and physical appearance change.
No they haven't.
It is exactly the point. My main complaint about the Klingons (apart their ships) is that they look completely different and wrong without hair. Yes, they'd look fine with hair. But they don't have hair, FFS!
Similar threads
