Novels that would make great movies

[Damian]

https://trekmovie.com/2017/07/17/showrunner-explains-new-look-for-star-trek-discovery-klingons/

https://trekmovie.com/2017/08/03/st...ar-trek-discovery-klingons-are-bald-and-more/

These were the two articles that I read (it took less time then I thought to find them--the search function actually worked). This is what lead me to believe these nu-Klingons were supposed to fit in the existing universe. Maybe others interpret it differently, but this is why I thought they were trying to play Twister with the existing canon of the original series.

 

[Christopher]

Everything I read seems to indicate they want you to think this is 10 years prior to the original series and that this will tie in neatly to that.

Sorry to burst your bubble, kiddo, but different Trek shows and movies have never tied in "neatly." It's always been a messy, clumsy process of reconciling things that contradict each other. Like every last thing in TMP looking completely different after a gap of just a few years. Or Khan's people in TWOK suddenly being a bunch of 20-something Aryans despite having been multiethnic when they were stranded as adults 15 years earlier. Or Data using contractions on a weekly basis until they suddenly decided mid-episode that he didn't. Or DS9 throwing out virtually everything "The Host" established about Trills and never bothering to explain it. This is the norm, not the exception.

For instance, they try to say the nu-Klingons are just a different sect of the Klingons we know, that we've somehow never seen before. I think they should have just said, they are reimaged Klingons period. They seem to twist themselves into knots trying ways to explain this is prime timeline and should fit very neatly into basically the original series timeline when I don't think that's really the case.

None of that is actually in the show. You're talking about interviews and background reporting as if they were an integral part of the whole, but they aren't. Most people who watch the show will just watch the show. They'll never hear any of the comments you're talking about. The show "says" what it is by simply being what it is. The proof is in the pudding. The episodes themselves make it clear that it's a visual reimagining of the original timeline. Because it just is. You don't need to say it if it's self-evident.

I wonder, though, would a true prequel really have failed.

It is a "true prequel." Storywise, it's the same continuity. Only the designs differ. Was TSFS Saavik not a "true" continuation of Saavik because she looked different? It's nonsensical to treat surface visuals as the critical factor. They're the least important factor, and the ones that most need to be updated over time.

 

[Timewalker]

Was TSFS Saavik not a "true" continuation of Saavik because she looked different?

No, because her entire personality changed. She went from interesting to being more boring than watching paint dry.

 

[Damian]

Sorry to burst your bubble, kiddo, but different Trek shows and movies have never tied in "neatly." It's always been a messy, clumsy process of reconciling things that contradict each other. Like every last thing in TMP looking completely different after a gap of just a few years. Or Khan's people in TWOK suddenly being a bunch of 20-something Aryans despite having been multiethnic when they were stranded as adults 15 years earlier. Or Data using contractions on a weekly basis until they suddenly decided mid-episode that he didn't. Or DS9 throwing out virtually everything "The Host" established about Trills and never bothering to explain it. This is the norm, not the exception.



None of that is actually in the show. You're talking about interviews and background reporting as if they were an integral part of the whole, but they aren't. Most people who watch the show will just watch the show. They'll never hear any of the comments you're talking about. The show "says" what it is by simply being what it is. The proof is in the pudding. The episodes themselves make it clear that it's a visual reimagining of the original timeline. Because it just is. You don't need to say it if it's self-evident.




It is a "true prequel." Storywise, it's the same continuity. Only the designs differ. Was TSFS Saavik not a "true" continuation of Saavik because she looked different? It's nonsensical to treat surface visuals as the critical factor. They're the least important factor, and the ones that most need to be updated over time.

Ok, I'll admit you have a point. Star Trek can be frustrating for me because I'm a bit obsessive about continuity. And Star Trek isn't. Yet I still love Star Trek. So it's a vicious cycle for me.

I think-- dammit, in Enterprise they explained why there are smooth headed Klingons, then in Discovery they look totally different. They should be smooth headed Klingons. The Shenzou (the only ship I've seen in Discovery) should not be more advanced looking then the Enterprise from The Cage. They should only have blue and beige uniform shirts, why doesn't the insignias look different... and so on. I know. I drive myself crazy.

 

[Christopher]

I think-- dammit, in Enterprise they explained why there are smooth headed Klingons

Yeah -- 26 years after bumpy-headed Klingons were introduced. Literally a whole generation's worth of Trek got by without explaining it. They went 17 years without even acknowledging it. Kor, Kang, and Koloth showed up in "Blood Oath" with bumpy heads and not a word was said about the discrepancy. Kahless showed up with prodigious ridges in "Rightful Heir" and it was never mentioned that he'd looked totally different in "The Savage Curtain." The informal policy from TMP onward was always to pretend that all Klingons were bumpy-headed and TOS just hadn't shown them correctly. When that movie came out, Roddenberry explicitly advised fans to think of it that way.

The only reason they changed policy and acknowledged the makeup redesign in "Trials and Tribble-ations" was because the use of stock footage from TOS required them to, otherwise it would probably never have happened. Yes, ENT got a story out of it later, but in a season that was steeped in continuity porn already and was basically an exercise in fannish self-indulgence by producers who knew the show was going to be cancelled so they could do whatever they felt like. We didn't need an explanation. We survived without one for a quarter-century. And we still don't have any canonical explanations for the various redesigns of the Romulans, the Andorians, the Tellarites, the Trill, the Gorn, and so on -- not to mention the constant redesigns of warp and transporter effects, the absurd frequency of uniform redesigns, etc. The only explanation that's required is the obvious one -- that makeup and production designers are artists, and they choose to bring their individual artistic sensibilities to what they design, as well as taking advantage of improvements in FX technology over time.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yeah -- 26 years after bumpy-headed Klingons were introduced. Literally a whole generation's worth of Trek got by without explaining it. They went 17 years without even acknowledging it. Kor, Kang, and Koloth showed up in "Blood Oath" with bumpy heads and not a word was said about the discrepancy. Kahless showed up with prodigious ridges in "Rightful Heir" and it was never mentioned that he'd looked totally different in "The Savage Curtain." The informal policy from TMP onward was always to pretend that all Klingons were bumpy-headed and TOS just hadn't shown them correctly. When that movie came out, Roddenberry explicitly advised fans to think of it that way.

You beat me to the punch.

But, yeah, if us old-school TOS fans managed for more than quarter-century without any explanation as to why the Klingons suddenly had ridges, modern-day fans can survive another makeover.

Or they can just be patient and assume that it will all be explained around 2044, twenty-six years from now.

 

[Damian]

The only reason they changed policy and acknowledged the makeup redesign in "Trials and Tribble-ations" was because the use of stock footage from TOS required them to, otherwise it would probably never have happened.

I think that's what brought it about. They sort of brought the question on themselves and I have to admit I always wanted to see something in canon about the Klingons. The other changes you noted were a bit more subtle (Romulans, Andorian--the Tellarites were a bit more significant, but still the basics were there). But the Klingon change in TMP was pretty significant.

What was funny is I had watched the movies first when I first became a Trekkie. So all I knew at first were ridged Klingons. When I started to watch the original series and got my first look at Klingons in the original series my reaction was like Bashir and O'Briens "Those are Klingons????".

 

[Timewalker]

Yeah -- 26 years after bumpy-headed Klingons were introduced. Literally a whole generation's worth of Trek got by without explaining it. They went 17 years without even acknowledging it. Kor, Kang, and Koloth showed up in "Blood Oath" with bumpy heads and not a word was said about the discrepancy. Kahless showed up with prodigious ridges in "Rightful Heir" and it was never mentioned that he'd looked totally different in "The Savage Curtain."

You personally may not have heard any words about it, but it's incorrect to say that nobody had anything to say about it.

 

[Damian]

Kahless showed up with prodigious ridges in "Rightful Heir" and it was never mentioned that he'd looked totally different in "The Savage Curtain."

Actually on that I just assumed that's what Kirk and Spock thought Kahless appeared to look like, since the Excalbians were using their thoughts to create the images. I figured maybe they had only heard of Kahless but not actually seen pictures of him.

 

[Christopher]

The fact is, there have been eight distinct Klingon designs:

1. Fred Phillips TOS 1: Kor/Kang style, with swarthy makeup and bifurcated eyebrows.
2. Fred Phillips TOS 2: Kras/Koloth style, with facial hair on the featured Klingons (but not extras) and nothing else.
3. Fred Phillips TMP: A single spinelike ridge down the center of a smooth domed forehead to a ridged nose, the same on every individual.
4. Burman Studios TSFS: Individualized bony head plates and smooth noses; far subtler ridging on females.
5. Michael Westmore TNG ff: Individualized bony head plates and ridged noses, same on male and female (discounting the prototype female in "Hide and Q").
6. Richard Snell TVH-TUC: Subtler, more rounded individual head plates, smooth noses, extremely subtle female ridges.
7. Neville Page STID: Massive ridged plates encasing the whole bald head, bright eyes, pointed ears.
8. Neville Page DSC: Individualized ridged forehead plates (fairly Westmore-like), elongated bald crania with ridged sides, bright eyes, doubled nostrils, ears integrated into the skull, purplish skin tones.

I'd say there's been a pretty consistent evolution in Klingon makeups from Phillips to Burman to Westmore to Page, with Snell being sort of a side branch that went backwards a bit. But pretty much every design since TSFS has kept the individualized, intricately ridged forehead plates that have become the single most defining factor of the Klingon design.

Actually on that I just assumed that's what Kirk and Spock thought Kahless appeared to look like, since the Excalbians were using their thoughts to create the images. I figured maybe they had only heard of Kahless but not actually seen pictures of him.

It doesn't matter that we can imagine explanations after the fact. The point is, the makers of the show saw no need to give an explanation themselves, because it's an incidental detail and not part of what's really important to telling a story. Creators simply have the prerogative to refine their ideas over time. Justifying the refinements in-story is optional. If you can actually get a story out of the explanation, then fine, but the explanation is not more important than the stories.

 

[Damian]

You personally may not have heard any words about it, but it's incorrect to say that nobody had anything to say about it.

Yeah, I have to admit during the intervening years it was something I had wondered about. Maybe not as much as what was happening in the Laurentian system, but it did pop in my head from time to time.

I know some novels tried to explain it from time to time back in the day. And yes, I was one of those who was happy to see Enterprise put that question to rest. I think more old school Trekkies had questioned that then sometimes people realized. And just because I questioned it didn't mean I didn't accept it. I accepted it fine, but it was a question that always lingered around, hmm, why did Klingons look different in the original series? I was grateful to Enterprise for satisfying my curiosity

 

[Damian]

It doesn't matter that we can imagine explanations after the fact. The point is, the makers of the show saw no need to give an explanation themselves, because it's an incidental detail and not part of what's really important to telling a story.

I know, and it's not canon. It was just my own personal musing. When I watched "Savage Curtain" after watching "Rightful Heir" I just figured they didn't really know what Kahless looked like. I figured the Federation and the Klingon Empire didn't really have cultural exchanges so all they probably knew was rumor and innuendo. It made sense to me and I didn't think about it much beyond that.

 

[Greg Cox]

Actually on that I just assumed that's what Kirk and Spock thought Kahless appeared to look like, since the Excalbians were using their thoughts to create the images. I figured maybe they had only heard of Kahless but not actually seen pictures of him.

To be honest, that's how I rationalized it, too. Damn Federation propaganda!

Back in 1979, I remember raising an eyebrow when we first saw the "new" Klingons, but, at the time, the "explanation" seemed obvious: a bigger make-up budget and updated makeup techniques. And that was all the explanation I needed.

That a big-budget movie in 1979 had snazzier-looking Klingons than the original 1960s tv series wasn't all that surprising or cause for concern. Certainly, I don't remember anybody in my college SF club insisting that TMP wasn't "canon" or that it was set in a different timeline just because the Klingons had gotten a makeover for the big screen. (This was before the internet, mind you, so it's not like there were no fierce debates on-line.)

Nor was this without precedent. The PLANET OF THE APES tv series in 1974 had played kinda fast and loose with the movie continuity. Ditto the LOGAN'S RUN tv series. I think there was less of an expectation in those days that everything had to fit into one seamless "canon" or continuity.

It was a simpler time.

Make me wonder if there's a generational factor here. I can't get worked up about the new, new Klingons because I've been through this all before. The Klingons of my youth have been gone for 26 years now so who cares if those "new" Klingons get revamped one more time? But if you grew up on the ridge-headed Klingons instead of swarthy guys with Fu Manchu mustaches, I can see where it might feel like more of a shock.

 

[Damian]

To be honest, that's how I rationalized it, too. Damn Federation propaganda!

Back in 1979, I remember raising an eyebrow when we first saw the "new" Klingons, but, at the time, the "explanation" seemed obvious: a bigger make-up budget and updated makeup techniques. And that was all the explanation I needed.

That a big-budget movie in 1979 had snazzier-looking Klingons than the original 1960s tv series wasn't all that surprising or cause for concern. Certainly, I don't remember anybody in my college SF club insisting that TMP wasn't "canon" or that i was set in a different timeline just because the Klingons had gotten a makeover for the big screen. (This was before the internet, mind you, so it's not like there were no fierce debates on-line.)

Nor was this without precedent. The PLANET OF THE APES tv series in 1974 had played kinda fast and loose with the movie continuity. Ditto the LOGAN'S RUN tv series. I think there was less of an expectation in those days that everything had to fit into one seamless "canon" or continuity.

It was a simpler time.

Make me wonder if there's a generational factor here. I can't get worked up about the new, new Klingons because I've been through this all before. The Klingons of my youth have been gone for 26 years now so who cares if those "new" Klingons get revamped one more time? But if you grew up on the ridge-headed Klingons instead of swarthy guys with Fu Manchu mustaches, I can see where it might feel like more of a shock.

I think you're onto something there. Back in the 'glory days' of TV, unless it was a soap opera, continuity didn't really matter. I always liked "I Dream of Jeannie" as an example, and there was no continuity. At one point if she became married then she'd lose her powers, nah, never mind, her parents were humans, no they were genies like her. Roger didn't know her powers til midway through the first season, but by the end of the show he always knew who she was. And who can forget the older missing brother from Happy Days, except the writers of the show.

Even Star Trek. "The Enterprise Incident" presents the cloaking device as something new, when it was originally seen in "Balance of Terror" (though I always attributed Spock's line that 'they appear to have a new cloaking device' to mean a new, improved version, not necessarily something never before seen).

It seemed starting with the later seasons of TNG continuity became more important. DS9 and Voyager were largely build on continuity. So I think we started expecting it. Enterprise went to a lot of trouble in the 4th season to tie things together in as nice a bow as possible. Then Discovery came along and decided they weren't going to play by the old rules and I guess some of us were just jarred by that. Now that's not to say TNG through Enterprise didn't have inconsistencies, but it seemed they tried to work hard to have a seamless storyline and production values, as much as is possible.

The Planet of the Apes TV series is a good example. I usually attributed the differences there due to the time. It took place in the 31st century instead of the 40th century. But still, how did the astronauts not know about previous ships, since they apparently left Earth in 1980, long after Taylor's ship was lost and Kira and Cornelius came to the past.

Funny, I'm more forgiving of other shows for that sort of thing. I guess with Star Trek I came to expect more continuity, and I like Star Trek more so I guess I care what they do with it more then I do other genres.

 

[Christopher]

The PLANET OF THE APES tv series in 1974 had played kinda fast and loose with the movie continuity. Ditto the LOGAN'S RUN tv series. I think there was less of an expectation in those days that everything had to fit into one seamless "canon" or continuity.

Except most things like that -- TV adaptations of movies -- are meant to be in their own separate continuities. The Logan's Run TV pilot was essentially a semi-remake of the movie, a new start of a parallel story rather than a continuation. (After all, they needed the city authorities to be an ongoing threat, which the end of the movie precluded.) POTA was the same way -- it wasn't a sequel to the movies, but a reboot that borrowed bits and pieces from the movies (most notably the ape makeup design, which was iconic and state-of-the-art for the day) and put them together in a different way. The only character they had in common was Dr. Zaius, and he existed centuries earlier in the TV show than in the movies, in a world where humans were verbal and civilized instead of mute "animals." There was a reference to prior astronauts having visited the apes' time many years in the past, but it didn't map onto the specifics of the movies (obviously, since the world blew up within a year of Taylor's arrival).

Even in cases where the TV series is supposed to be a sequel to the movie rather than a reboot, they almost always change things from the movie to fit the needs of the show. Starman retconned the movie's events from the '80s to the '70s so the title character could have a teenage son in the present day. Stargate SG-1 totally reimagined the aliens, modified the workings of the Stargates, tweaked the lead character's name and personality, moved the SGC from Creek Mountain to Cheyenne Mountain, etc. Men in Black: The Series, in animation, totally ignored the ending of the movie and had Agent K still on the team. Plus there are a couple of borderline cases that changed things from the movies, but in ways that could be reconciled if you squint a little, like War of the Worlds: The Series, RoboCop: The Series, and Alien Nation.

Star Trek, though, is something different from those cases. It started as a TV series, then spawned movies with the TV cast, presented as (loose) continuations. That was something that was done occasionally in the '60s (Dragnet, Batman, Munster Go Home, A Man Called Flintstone, etc., plus overseas feature films re-edited and expanded from TV episodes, like the various The Man from UNCLE movies -- not to mention '40s movies based on and starring the casts of radio shows like Fibber McGee and Molly and The Great Gildersleeve), but what happened with Trek was perhaps unique at the time, in that the original-cast movies continued past the first and eventually spawned a TV revival in turn. I guess it was that precedent that led to TNG being a nominal continuation rather than a reboot -- though Roddenberry did approach it as a soft reboot, discarding a lot of the mistakes and disappointments he saw in TOS and the movies. It was his successors, many of them fans of TOS, who brought in stronger ties with TOS continuity and solidified the idea of it all as a unified whole.

Even Star Trek. "The Enterprise Incident" presents the cloaking device as something new, when it was originally seen in "Balance of Terror" (though I always attributed Spock's line that 'they appear to have a new cloaking device' to mean a new, improved version, not necessarily something never before seen).

"Incident" didn't portray the cloak as new, just improved. Spock said "I believe the Romulans have developed a cloaking device which renders our tracking sensors useless." Meaning that it was an improved cloak that couldn't be tracked using motion sensors like the one in "Balance of Terror." Although audiences who didn't remember "Balance" could easily interpret the line to mean that cloaks were new.

It seemed starting with the later seasons of TNG continuity became more important. DS9 and Voyager were largely build on continuity. So I think we started expecting it. Enterprise went to a lot of trouble in the 4th season to tie things together in as nice a bow as possible. Then Discovery came along and decided they weren't going to play by the old rules and I guess some of us were just jarred by that.

Honestly, I think Discovery is even more obsessed with Trek continuity than ENT season 4 was. Sure, it changes superficial appearances and the occasional detail of interpretation (warp drive being far faster, Harry Mudd being a mass murderer), but it was overloaded with stories that drew on prior Trek continuity and revisited old ideas rather than telling new stories. Spock's sister, Sarek, Klingon death screams, tribbles, a Gorn skeleton, Harry Mudd, the Mirror Universe (oy, so much Mirror Universe), the whole season is built around continuity porn. Not that that couldn't produce good results -- "Lethe" is my favorite episode yet, and it's all about revisiting "Journey to Babel" and filling in the blanks in the Spock-Sarek relationship -- but it's way, way overdone compared to most Trek shows.

Indeed, I'd submit that the show's constant reliance on pre-existing Trek elements is why it seems to have so many contradictions. If it had fewer continuity nods and relied more on telling new stories, then the discrepancies wouldn't be as frequent. So DSC is very, very much trying to tie things together, to say new things about old bits of Trek continuity. Far too much so for its own good, if you ask me. It's just not as precise about the surface details.

 

[Greg Cox]

Then Discovery came along and decided they weren't going to play by the old rules and I guess some of us were just jarred by that.

Or, one could argue, they went back to the older rules, circa 1979 or so. "We're going to revamp the makeups and sets because . . . why not? We want to freshen things up a bit and we have the budget and resources to do so. Just go with it."

 

[Christopher]

Or, one could argue, they went back to the older rules, circa 1979 or so. "We're going to revamp the makeups and sets because . . . why not? We want to freshen things up a bit and we have the budget and resources to do so. Just go with it."

Yep. It was natural that the creators of the movies would give a fresh look and style to the universe, because they could. But TNG retained more stylistic continuity with the movies, because it relied heavily on reusing sets, miniatures, and stock footage from the movies to save money (and because it hired movie-veteran designers like Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach). And then Rick Berman and his team stayed in charge of the franchise for 18 years, maintaining that consistency to such a degree that fans got in the habit of expecting it to last forever. But now that era is over and new creators and designers are coming in, and their large budget and CGI mean that they don't need to rely on stock elements and can design everything from the ground up. So there's a cleaner break with the past than Trek fans have been used to seeing since 1979.

 

[Timewalker]

Yeah, I have to admit during the intervening years it was something I had wondered about. Maybe not as much as what was happening in the Laurentian system, but it did pop in my head from time to time.

I know some novels tried to explain it from time to time back in the day. And yes, I was one of those who was happy to see Enterprise put that question to rest. I think more old school Trekkies had questioned that then sometimes people realized. And just because I questioned it didn't mean I didn't accept it. I accepted it fine, but it was a question that always lingered around, hmm, why did Klingons look different in the original series? I was grateful to Enterprise for satisfying my curiosity

I think a lot of people who got into Star Trek after the internet age started tend to forget - or maybe they never really realized - that fandom argued and debated this stuff for years, at convention panel discussions, in newsletters, in letterzines (ie. Interstat), in APAs, and so on. It's unfortunate that a lot of that material hasn't been posted online (or if it has, I have no idea where).

Ditto the LOGAN'S RUN tv series. I think there was less of an expectation in those days that everything had to fit into one seamless "canon" or continuity.

There was already precedent for the TV series, since the movie wasn't consistent with a lot of the details and background established in the first novel (Logan's Run is actually the first of a trilogy; the others are Logan's World and Logan's Search).

Make me wonder if there's a generational factor here. I can't get worked up about the new, new Klingons because I've been through this all before.

I don't think it's generational. I was 12 when I got into Star Trek in 1975, and it was extremely jarring to see the different Klingons in TMP.

I think it's more of a case of "People Who Don't Mind Change" vs. "People Who Hate Change For The Sake Of Change". You're in the former group and I'm in the latter.

That said... I don't care about uniform changes. That happens every time somebody thinks they're a fashion designer and gets some admiral to sign off on it (or, as some folks have suggested, Starfleet's focus turns from exploration to a more military focus).

But to change the entire look of a species is something that to me should have an in-universe reason. Otherwise it's just change for the sake of change.

Spock's sister, Sarek, Klingon death screams, tribbles, a Gorn skeleton, Harry Mudd, the Mirror Universe (oy, so much Mirror Universe), the whole season is built around continuity porn.

Spock never had a sister in either TOS, TAS, the movies, or in TNG. Not even in nuTrek.

So where is the "continuity porn"?

 

[Damian]

"Incident" didn't portray the cloak as new, just improved. Spock said "I believe the Romulans have developed a cloaking device which renders our tracking sensors useless."

Right, sorry I misquoted. Some have interpreted that line to mean it was new, and I admit the wording could lead to that if you weren't familiar with "Balance of Terror." However, I took it to mean and upgrade from before.

Star Trek, though, is something different from those cases. It started as a TV series, then spawned movies with the TV cast, presented as (loose) continuations.

Yeah, true. Star Trek in all its forms is tied together, even Abramsverse Star Trek isn't a clean reboot. One of the things I like about Star Trek (2009) and it's sequels is it still has a link to everything that came before. They found a way to tell new stories without ignoring all of prior Star Trek. They found a way to have their cake AND eat it too.

I agree about the Planet of the Apes TV series. I sort of considered it loosely linked to the movie series. Dr Zaius did mention in the first film that apes once kept humans as 'pets'. In the TV series they weren't pets, but it does keep with the idea that Apes were the masters and humans were more than just animals. And it was almost 1000 years prior. I did think Mark Lenard made a great Urko (he even had an almost Vulcan moment when one of his apes said something about not being logical and Urko says 'if they were logical they wouldn't be human'--I sometimes wonder if that was really just a coincidence ).

Indeed, I'd submit that the show's constant reliance on pre-existing Trek elements is why it seems to have so many contradictions. If it had fewer continuity nods and relied more on telling new stories, then the discrepancies wouldn't be as frequent.

That's interesting. It'll be interesting to see once I do see the show. Wouldn't that be ironic, if they were working so hard to maintain continuity that they basically CAUSED their own inconsistencies.

I think it's more of a case of "People Who Don't Mind Change" vs. "People Who Hate Change For The Sake Of Change".

I'm my own contradiction in some ways. I'm more forgiving of storyline contradictions. I'm more a stickler when it comes to production values and design. It bothered me that Star Trek (2009) ignored much of the look and appearance or prior Star Trek. It drove me nuts that the Kelvin had 800 people when we know even the refit Enterprise had no more than 500. Or windows on the bridge instead of a view screen (first of all, it's not just because it was different--but because it seemed ridiculous--I would think when they were at warp they'd have major issues with vertigo, THINK PEOPLE ), and yes the nu-Klingons do bug me. I'll get over it though. A good story does help.

 

[Greg Cox]

I don't think it's generational. I was 12 when I got into Star Trek in 1975, and it was extremely jarring to see the different Klingons in TMP.

I think it's more of a case of "People Who Don't Mind Change" vs. "People Who Hate Change For The Sake Of Change". You're in the former group and I'm in the latter.

Maybe it's also a case of what people are used to. I grew up on comic books and old monster movies, which often took a fairly laissez-faire approach to continuity, so I tend to apply the same standards to STAR TREK, old and new. See my TARZAN comparison before.

Although who knows? Maybe the Klingon thing in TMP might have bothered me more If I'd been twelve at the time. As a twenty-year-old college student, I was already "sophisticated" enough to chalk up any makeup changes to a bigger budget and changing audience expectations. Post STAR WARS and PLANET OF THE APES, the old TOS makeups weren't going to impress the "modern" audiences of 1979 . . . which seemed obvious enough to me at the time.

And, in my own immediate circle of fan friends, I dimly recall some debate about whether they should have changed the Klingon's look, but I don't remember anyone arguing that the new Klingons proved that it was a different timeline or not "real" STAR TREK or whatever. (Outside of Sherlock Holmes fandom, "canon" was not really part of our fannish vocabulary back then.) The movie was clearly a sequel to the TV show, set a few years later, and that was that . ....

(And, of course, TNG and all the later shows were still years and years away. TOS was not The Original Series back then. It was just STAR TREK.)