The klingons were never shown needing to eat live food, they just ate some things alive but so do humans. Whenever we saw klingons eat Gagh was alive, everything else was as dead as the octopus arms it was made from.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
It was all still quite a bit fresher than a corpse left around on the floor for months? I'm sure that would give even a Klingon serious food poisoning.
I think when you're starving on a stranded ship with no supplies food poisoning isn't really a concern, you take the starfleet captain and tell the cook you want her well done.
They had supplies, they said they did it out of malice. I'm sure vomiting for days was well worth the few moments where it was kind of funny to eat an enemy.
They didn't have supplies, it says right in the episode they were running out of food.
The reason Voq's 'crew' betrayed him was because Kol brought food and supplies.
I'm thinking that the 'Klingon Digestive System' can probably handle pretty rank food that would just about kill a human.
So they changed the Klingons and it may or may not be for stylistic reasons or for augment reasons and now they’re cannibals.
And Lorca may or may not be more evil than we thought depending on when he met Mirror Michael.
And Harry Mudd is also more evil than he was ever depicted in TOS.
Things certainly have changed in the Star Trek universe.
Even the Enterprise.
Which, although we all know for a fact that it’s 25% different from the original ship, compared to the Eaves fleet in DSC, the Enterprise should perhaps have been more altered than the regulation 25% it was already changed. For example:
The window is debatable, but compared to the Eaves fleet it should have one.
Nothing is in a separate bit - like the Europa’s bridge that’s actually on a lil bridge between the engines.
Nothing of importance is underneath - like the shenzhou’s bridge.
The engines are round - the trend since way before the DSC era is for square nacelles.
Why was the Enterprise such a departure from the established design language of the DSC period?
And Lorca may or may not be more evil than we thought depending on when he met Mirror Michael.
And Harry Mudd is also more evil than he was ever depicted in TOS.
Things certainly have changed in the Star Trek universe.
Even the Enterprise.
Which, although we all know for a fact that it’s 25% different from the original ship, compared to the Eaves fleet in DSC, the Enterprise should perhaps have been more altered than the regulation 25% it was already changed. For example:
The window is debatable, but compared to the Eaves fleet it should have one.
Nothing is in a separate bit - like the Europa’s bridge that’s actually on a lil bridge between the engines.
Nothing of importance is underneath - like the shenzhou’s bridge.
The engines are round - the trend since way before the DSC era is for square nacelles.
Why was the Enterprise such a departure from the established design language of the DSC period?
Unless they are eating other Klingons, they technically aren't cannibals. But, we've never had an instance of them eating an enemy before now.
Harry was a human smuggler according to the computer in TOS. So I'm not sure what he was doing here was too far out of line.
Dang you’re right. Calling them cannibals is like when data said piggy back to the Klingons that one time sorta. But I suppose they do go on about killing their enemies and don’t they mention drinking their blood and stuff? It seems like the sort of thing Worf would have gone on about in his DS9 years when he became extra rude and Klingony but not necessarily in a good way.
Is that what the display said? I’ve never gone back to look at his “police record” haha! But “smuggler” has different connotations to “trafficker” - but in terms of how the character was depicted he was never that psychotic in TOS but ten years and all that.
Anyhoo that was all in service of my point that things have changed - even the Enterprise... (segue...)
Haha
true enough. But I honestly feel that the Enterprise (even with the legally mandated 25% alterations) isn’t different enough relative to the DSC universe. She stands out next to the DSC ships - and don’t get me wrong I’m not bashing the prime Enterprise design - I’ve vociferously defended it as not being dated or whatever on here - but I don’t think they’ve changed her enough for her to fit in with the rest of the DSC aesthetic.
The disco is newer than the Enterprise, fair enough. She (disco) has the gold hull, the spinny bit, and the square nacelles, fine. But the shenzhou predates both ships by a long time - even using tech used on the nx-01 (lateral transporters and phase cannons) - basically she ancient - but shenzhou has square nacelles and a window and what looks like battle armour or ablative armour and all kinds of cutouts on the hull and whatnot.
The Enterprise should be more than 25% different in order to fit in I think. She’s the wrong colour for a start. She should be more bronze than she is (although that might be the blueness of space making her look more blue). Her primary hull looks too smooth relative to discovery and shenzhou (plus Europa et al). And the nacelles really shouldn’t be round. It doesn’t look like there have been round nacelles in a good few years judging by the shenzhou - and the Enterprise engines look like they date back a hundred years to the nx class design.
I think Eaves was restricted by the 25% rule and since the producers went full “visual reboot” on us, the relative lack of changes to the prime Enterprise design makes her stand out in the DSC universe.
I read “human smuggler” - I.e. smuggler who is human - as a smuggler *of* humans.
Which makes no sense.
I wonder what his record said by the time of the android planet?
Also, if we see those monitors on DSC they best have multi layered displays with rolling news updates along the bottom of them and they should project holograms.
Did some additional digging....this is from the Enterprise Officer's Manual, published in 1980. Not sure if every bit of it is considered canon:
This is great, thanks!Did some additional digging....this is from the Enterprise Officer's Manual, published in 1980. Not sure if every bit of it is considered canon:
Interestingly the only mention of the “mudd’s women” incident relates to the drugs - there’s no mention of the women themselves. For me this strengthens the idea that Harry Mudd was not originally interpreted as such an evil character as his rebooted persona. I just don’t think human trafficking was a concept when he was originally conceived - at least not in the modern sense that we understand today.
Given that the Enterprise has had a modern reimagining, if we do see Spock, I think he will be a completely different character as we might expect Spock through a modern lens to be.
This is great, thanks!
Interestingly the only mention of the “mudd’s women” incident relates to the drugs - there’s no mention of the women themselves. For me this strengthens the idea that Harry Mudd was not originally interpreted as such an evil character as his rebooted persona. I just don’t think human trafficking was a concept when he was originally conceived - at least not in the modern sense that we understand today.
Given that the Enterprise has had a modern reimagining, if we do see Spock, I think he will be a completely different character as we might expect Spock through a modern lens to be.
That file on Mudd is hilarious at times....got the whole sell-'em-the-Brooklyn-Bridge thing going there.
I'm very curious what's behind the Enterprise's distress call....do they need someone to get Spock to Vulcan, because it's pon farr time and he's starting to run amok?
TBH, nothing about the show makes me think they would have the guts to reimagine Spock or the ability to pull it off. What they have given us has been highly derivative, and even the biggest changes haven’t been reimaginings so much as obvious attempts to up the kewl factor. (See also: adding gratuitous sex and nudity.)
Their take on Sarek was about as rote and dull as I can imagine, and even the last-second attempt to make him into a genocidal maniac seemed more like cheap plot shorthand than a deliberate character choice.
And you know of these reasons how?
I see no reason to believe that changing the design would sell more stuff than using a more familiar one, regardless of the success of the show.
He could say that about every composer, in fact. It's not much of a criticism, unless one is desperately looking for one.
In fact, the show goes out of its way to uphold Federation ideals in the face of an existential threat. How is that not in the best tradition of Star Trek? Again, some people are deliberately looking for reasons to complain. And this is coming from me, who hated the show in the first few episodes.
I think you're overstating things, here.
Similar threads
