• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Klingons: Different appearances, artificial cranial deformation/head binding

When I started theorycrafting after seeing the pilot, my personal favourite idea became that the Klingons we see in DSC might be the result of a genetic engineering program attempting to reverse the effects of the Augment virus that backfired as well. Maybe the DNA samples they used for reconstruction were contaminated somehow or might have not been Klingon at all, using genetic material coming from who knows what kind of sources. Members of the Great Houses would have easier access to the procedure, but many of them (like Kor) would deem it too risky or simply wouldn't want to become a 'poor man's Klingon'. In a few decades, gene therapy would eventually reach a level of sophistication that would help restore the appearance of every Klingon once and for all, noble and commoner alike.
 
I don't want an explanation, I just want them to glue some hair on those Klingons! Do that and fix those terrible noses and I'm perfectly willing to pretend that they always looked like that.
Don't forget the eyebrows... the lack of eyebrows looks just as creepy on them as it does on humans.
 
So what are the differences in Discovery Klingons and TOS ones then given a ten year gap? Explain that...
 
So what are the differences in Discovery Klingons and TOS ones then given a year gap? Explain that...
7ZYW0UZ.gif
 
I don't want an explanation, I just want them to glue some hair on those Klingons! Do that and fix those terrible noses and I'm perfectly willing to pretend that they always looked like that.
It makes no sense that they didn't have hair given how soon they are expected to. The Discovery Klingons don't fit in the timeline and are ugly as sin.
 
Why does there need to be an in-universe explanation?
I honestly don't understand why people ask questions like this, because the answer seems really self-evident to me. Anything inside a story that requires you to think about explanations outside the story to make sense of it takes you, well, outside the story. A story is a more satisfying experience when you can remain inside it, without having to think consciously "this is fiction" at any given moment.

There's a place and time for analytical, intellectual, critical analysis of a story qua story, in real world terms. That place and time come later... not when you're trying to immerse yourself in the imaginative experience.
 
I honestly don't understand why people ask questions like this, because the answer seems really self-evident to me. Anything inside a story that requires you to think about explanations outside the story to make sense of it takes you, well, outside the story. A story is a more satisfying experience when you can remain inside it, without having to think consciously "this is fiction" at any given moment.

There's a place and time for analytical, intellectual, critical analysis of a story qua story, in real world terms. That place and time come later... not when you're trying to immerse yourself in the imaginative experience.

What outside thinking is required? The Klingon's look different because the show runners decided to change the make up. Why can that not be a suitable enough explanation? Why do we need convoluted theories and stories involving gene manipulation, diseases and TOS klingons being from the 'north of Qo'nos' and TNG Klingons from the 'south'?
 
What outside thinking is required? The Klingon's look different because the show runners decided to change the make up.
I don't quite get how we have our wires crossed. The existence of showrunners and actors wearing makeup are factors outside of the story. If they were inside it, we'd have some really weird fourth-wall-breaking going on here. If we have to think about them while watching the story, then by definition we're outside the story.

If your best friend showed up tomorrow with cranial ridges and four nostrils, and by way of explanation told you "oh, my makeup artist got a bigger budget and decided to reimagine me," you'd freak out.
 
I don't quite get how we have our wires crossed. The existence of showrunners and actors wearing makeup are factors outside of the story. If they were inside it, we'd have some really weird fourth-wall-breaking going on here. If we have to think about them while watching the story, then by definition we're outside the story.

If your best friend showed up tomorrow with cranial ridges and four nostrils, and by way of explanation told you "oh, my makeup artist got a bigger budget and decided to reimagine me," you'd freak out.

Apologies, I misread what you wrote. My whole point was, why do we need convoluted in-universe explanations when the obvious answer is that the show runners decided to change the make up or make up artistry has evolved since 1992 hence allowing the look of an alien species to become more refined or hypothetically much closer to what their creator intended.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top