Spoilers Discovery and the Novelverse - TV show discussion thread

[David cgc]

^Fun fact, the story point that the ship was being rushed out of dock unfinished was originally intended to explain away the fact that they thought they'd have to start filming "In Thy Image" for Phase II before the sets were complete, and there might be visible construction in the episode.

 

[Christopher]

But my original point was unlike Roddenberry saying about the Klingons "Let's pretend this is how they always looked" they didn't do that with the Enterprise (however faulty the reasoning). In that case they wanted to acknowledge it indeed was different (partly I'm sure for the story--since Kirk had to be unfamiliar with the design).

Yes, that's basically my point too. It's not an absolute requirement to justify it; it's an option, and whether that option is exercised depends on whether there's a story reason for it. Some changes are part of the story and need to be explained, others are just changes in the telling or presentation and don't have in-story value. The change in the Klingons in TMP fell in the latter category, as did the change of Saavik's appearance in TSFS, the change in the Klingons in DSC, and the change in the Enterprise in DSC.

 

[Damian]

did the change of Saavik's appearance in TSFS

You know, that's one thing that never did bother me, believe it or not (or any character who's appearance changed due to the actor). I just figured it would be unreasonable to expect a character to look the same when the actor/actress changed.

Now if they changed Vulcans/Romulans to look like pink people with tails---that's a different story

 

[Relayer1]

You know, that's one thing that never did bother me, believe it or not (or any character who's appearance changed due to the actor). I just figured it would be unreasonable to expect a character to look the same when the actor/actress changed.

Now if they changed Vulcans/Romulans to look like pink people with tails---that's a different story

i wished they'd gone with someone who looked a bit more like Alley - someone you could kid yourself was the same character if you squinted, from a distance.

 

[Christopher]

You know, that's one thing that never did bother me, believe it or not (or any character who's appearance changed due to the actor). I just figured it would be unreasonable to expect a character to look the same when the actor/actress changed.

Yes, of course. That's what's so strange to me -- why is it that people can accept a character changing appearance when the actor changes, but not a starship changing appearance when the production designer changes or an alien species changing appearance when the makeup artist changes? It's contradictory to recognize that the characters are unreal and changeable yet expect the other aspects of the fiction to be totally real and immune to change.

 

[JD]

I don't know about other people but for me, I'm more willing to accept things like actors changing because it's usually brought about by factors outside of the control of people making the show, so they often have no choice. Things like changing the way the Klingons looks on the other hand, is a purely creative choice. There was absolutely no reason that they couldn't have stuck with the TSFS-Enterprise Klingon design, Bryan Fuller simply choose to have them redesigned.
The main reason I was bothered by the change to the Disco Klingons is that up to that point we had had around 35 years of fairly consistent looking makeup, so the sudden change was pretty jarring. The big difference, at least for me between and a lot of the other changes, is the amount of time or number of appearances. Most of the other changes were small tweaks, fairly early in the aliens' appearances, or after a fairly big gap

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x01/thesearch1_214.jpg
http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/3x01/thesearch1_261.jpg
Smaller, different Captain's Chair, no situation table at the back, dedication plaque located in a different location, side consoles don't look quit the same.

Huh, I never noticed. Still, it's a few minor redresses/changes and not "totally different". Kinda like the classic Enterprise bridge between "Where No Man..." and "The Man Trap"

There were changes, but the basic shape and style was still the same. In my post that started the conversation, I was talking about huge, complete redesigns, like going from the Galaxy class bridge, to the Soverign, or Intrepid, with no explanation or acknowledgement. If you are going to go for that huge of a change, it's really the kind of thing that I think should be at least acknowledged, even if it's just one quick line about the bridge being redesigned.

I think that once they started using hair with the DSC Klingons, they looked more recognizable. Some stuff, like the claws, may never make that much sense and may just have to be overlooked. But, overall, IMHO, the "mistake" was "fixed" enough I'm willing to let it slide.

Same here, the changes made in Season 2 really did a lot to make them most of them more recognizeable as Klingons.
There were a couple of background Klingons that ended up looking really weird, but I can't find any pictures of them. They almost reminded me of the Scarrans from Farscape.

 

[Christopher]

I don't know about other people but for me, I'm more willing to accept things like actors changing because it's usually brought about by factors outside of the control of people making the show, so they often have no choice. Things like changing the way the Klingons looks on the other hand, is a purely creative choice. There was absolutely no reason that they couldn't have stuck with the TSFS-Enterprise Klingon design, Bryan Fuller simply choose to have them redesigned.

Please don't erase the existence of the talented artists who design the makeup, starships, and so forth. The showrunner doesn't just will them into being. This is my point. Changing a makeup artist or a production designer is no different from changing an actor. It's thoughtless to assume the only personnel changes that count are the ones you can see in front of you. The people who aren't on camera are just as important as the actors are. They're creative, talented artists every bit as much as the actors are. When we're talking about Klingon makeups, we're not just talking about ridge patterns and head shapes. We're talking about the creativity and artistic style of Fred Phillips, Tom Burman & family, Michael Westmore, Richard Snell, Neville Page, and Glenn Hetrick.

You wouldn't expect a recast actor to precisely duplicate the original actor's performance; obviously it's better for them to be themselves, to bring their own distinct style and talent to it. You don't want Roger Moore's James Bond to be an imitation of Sean Connery, you want him to make the role his own. By the same token, you wouldn't expect a new artist on a comic book to imitate their predecessor's style; on the contrary, the fact that each artist has a different individual style is part of the attraction of using different artists. There's no reason it should be any different for makeup designers or tech designers. What they do is art, creating something that doesn't exist to begin with and thus has no absolute "right" form. So they're completely entitled to bring their personal style and imagination to the work, and if you can't open your mind enough to appreciate their artistry, that is 100 percent your problem, not theirs.

The main reason I was bothered by the change to the Disco Klingons is that up to that point we had had around 35 years of fairly consistent looking makeup, so the sudden change was pretty jarring.

How many times do I have to restate the obvious that the change from TOS to TMP was even more jarring to my generation? We survived it.

 

[WebLurker]

How many times do I have to restate the obvious that the change from TOS to TMP was even more jarring to my generation? We survived it.

Funny thing that, for as "jarring" as it was, they filmmakers actually went out of their way to rationalize things; the Enterprise didn't magically change, it was upgraded and remodeled since the TV show. Uniforms and props would be a logical change as time went on. Most of the movie was set in places we'd never seen before on the TV show, so there was no contradictions to the depictions of 23rd century Earth and what we knew from the TV show.

(The Klingons I will grant you, but still, that was addressed after the fact.)

Compare all that to something like DSC were we're seeing new spins on stuff we already know what it looks like.

 

[Christopher]

Funny thing that, for as "jarring" as it was, they filmmakers actually went out of their way to rationalize things;

We're going in circles now. You've made that argument a dozen times, and I've countered a dozen times that they did it in that case but not every single case, that it's optional when it serves the story rather than an absolute mandate. There is no point in continuing this.

 

[Tuskin38]

Funny thing that, for as "jarring" as it was, they filmmakers actually went out of their way to rationalize things; the Enterprise didn't magically change, it was upgraded and remodeled since the TV show. Uniforms and props would be a logical change as time went on. Most of the movie was set in places we'd never seen before on the TV show, so there was no contradictions to the depictions of 23rd century Earth and what we knew from the TV show.

(The Klingons I will grant you, but still, that was addressed after the fact.)

Compare all that to something like DSC were we're seeing new spins on stuff we already know what it looks like.

Gene didn't intend the Klingons to be explained, it was a retcon.

 

[WebLurker]

We're going in circles now.

Guess you're right; I recall you saying this kinda stuff before.

Gene didn't intend the Klingons to be explained, it was a retcon.

Funny that, of all the species retcon like that, this was the only one that got a canon explanation.

 

[Tuskin38]

Guess you're right; I recall you saying this kinda stuff before.



Funny that, of all the species retcon like that, this was the only one that got a canon explanation.

Because of DS9 brining it up as a joke probably.

 

[WebLurker]

Because of DS9 brining it up as a joke probably.

Maybe, but you could've left it at the joke and it would've still been "addressed."

 

[Damian]

Yes, of course. That's what's so strange to me -- why is it that people can accept a character changing appearance when the actor changes, but not a starship changing appearance when the production designer changes or an alien species changing appearance when the makeup artist changes? It's contradictory to recognize that the characters are unreal and changeable yet expect the other aspects of the fiction to be totally real and immune to change

I don't know about other people but for me, I'm more willing to accept things like actors changing because it's usually brought about by factors outside of the control of people making the show, so they often have no choice. Things like changing the way the Klingons looks on the other hand, is a purely creative choice.

You're both right. When it came to Saavik, if I recall, Kirstie Alley was not coming back. If they wanted Saavik to be in TSFS it had to be a different actress. There was limited options, well only one, recast.

Production design, that's more a choice. Now Christopher is right. A showrunner has a right to run the show as they see fit. The only control fans have is whether to watch or not. And even that has little or no effect on the show runner (unless the showrunner does something really crazy and no one watches the show as a result).

Now we can, and do complain about it, like I do. But I know that's going nowhere except maybe making me feel a tiny bit better, just getting it off my chest.
But all that being said, I'm not totally inflexible. I always cite Enterprise as an example. I realized Herman Zimmerman and his team had a challenge on their hands, backdating the original series by 100 years. What I liked about the production design on Enterprise is they struck a good balance. They made it look futuristic from today, yet somehow made it apparent this ship, despite how it looked, was less advanced than the NCC-1701. That couldn't have been an easy job--but they did it very well, IMO.

And on Discovery, I didn't expect them to make the production design consistent with "The Cage". That kind of stuff works for "In a Mirror, Darkly" because that's a one off thing--and part of the intent was a visit down nostalgia lane. But I realize that likely is not feasible for a weekly ongoing show. I only wish that this new showrunning team exercised a bit more balance. I still think there's tons of room for a production designer to exercise their creativity. To be honest, the outside of the Discovery was pretty good--I thought well balanced. It felt a little like a ship that could at least be between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701 from the movies (at least). The interior is where they lose me a bit, except maybe sickbay and the mess hall. On the other hand the bridge felt more advanced than the NCC-1701-D. Maybe if they made it a bit smaller, more claustrophobic (and with a viewscreen--I hate the whole window thing, thanks JJ ).

But I know, get over it. What can I say?

 

[JD]

Please don't erase the existence of the talented artists who design the makeup, starships, and so forth. The showrunner doesn't just will them into being. This is my point. Changing a makeup artist or a production designer is no different from changing an actor. It's thoughtless to assume the only personnel changes that count are the ones you can see in front of you. The people who aren't on camera are just as important as the actors are. They're creative, talented artists every bit as much as the actors are. When we're talking about Klingon makeups, we're not just talking about ridge patterns and head shapes. We're talking about the creativity and artistic style of Fred Phillips, Tom Burman & family, Michael Westmore, Richard Snell, Neville Page, and Glenn Hetrick.

I never once said anything bad about the artists. Even though I didn't like the design being for Klingons, I never once said it was a bad design, in fact I think it is a great design and they did an incredible job on the execution, I just would have preferred it be for somebody other than the Klingons.
There are plenty of ways a make up artist could find a way to make something there own without completely redesigning the whole thing. I thought the Kelvinverse Klingons were a great way to make some changes to the design, but still keep them recognizable as Klingons.
You're also ignoring the fact that it wasn't the artists' decision to change the Klingons design, it was Brian Fuller. And once we got past his presence and into Season 2 they changed them to look closer to what they used to look like, so they obviously had no problem going with the original design.

You wouldn't expect a recast actor to precisely duplicate the original actor's performance; obviously it's better for them to be themselves, to bring their own distinct style and talent to it. You don't want Roger Moore's James Bond to be an imitation of Sean Connery, you want him to make the role his own.

No, of course not, but they still usually bring enough familiar elements into their performance to be recognizable as that character, even if they still put their own twist on things.

By the same token, you wouldn't expect a new artist on a comic book to imitate their predecessor's style; on the contrary, the fact that each artist has a different individual style is part of the attraction of using different artists.

Yes, but they usually still stick to the same general design, and when they don't there's usually either a specific story reason, or it's an overall reboot.

There's no reason it should be any different for makeup designers or tech designers. What they do is art, creating something that doesn't exist to begin with and thus has no absolute "right" form. So they're completely entitled to bring their personal style and imagination to the work, and if you can't open your mind enough to appreciate their artistry, that is 100 percent your problem, not theirs.

I don't have problem with artists bring their own style to things, but when your coming into a preexisting franchise, there are certain elements you have to work with. I think it wouldn't quite as shocking to see the Klingons and everything around them so completely redesigned, if everything else had been as drastically changed, but most of the other familiar elements had been changed as drastically, but they weren't. The only thing that really came close was the Tellerites, but even that wasn't quite as jarring since they hadn't appeared anywhere near as many times as the Klingons, and almost every time they appeared they were changed.

How many times do I have to restate the obvious that the change from TOS to TMP was even more jarring to my generation? We survived it.

Of course, and I never meant to imply that those of us complaining about the weren't going to survive this change. Like I've said before, the design actually grew on my over time, and by the end of Season 1, I actually liked them. But I'm not going to deny that it was a massively jarring change, and I still would have preferred to see them stick to something closer to what we got before.

 

[WebLurker]

You're both right. When it came to Saavik, if I recall, Kirstie Alley was not coming back. If they wanted Saavik to be in TSFS it had to be a different actress. There was limited options, well only one, recast.

Production design, that's more a choice. Now Christopher is right. A showrunner has a right to run the show as they see fit. The only control fans have is whether to watch or not. And even that has little or no effect on the show runner (unless the showrunner does something really crazy and no one watches the show as a result).

Now we can, and do complain about it, like I do. But I know that's going nowhere except maybe making me feel a tiny bit better, just getting it off my chest.
But all that being said, I'm not totally inflexible. I always cite Enterprise as an example. I realized Herman Zimmerman and his team had a challenge on their hands, backdating the original series by 100 years. What I liked about the production design on Enterprise is they struck a good balance. They made it look futuristic from today, yet somehow made it apparent this ship, despite how it looked, was less advanced than the NCC-1701. That couldn't have been an easy job--but they did it very well, IMO.

And on Discovery, I didn't expect them to make the production design consistent with "The Cage". That kind of stuff works for "In a Mirror, Darkly" because that's a one off thing--and part of the intent was a visit down nostalgia lane. But I realize that likely is not feasible for a weekly ongoing show. I only wish that this new showrunning team exercised a bit more balance. I still think there's tons of room for a production designer to exercise their creativity. To be honest, the outside of the Discovery was pretty good--I thought well balanced. It felt a little like a ship that could at least be between the NX-01 and the NCC-1701 from the movies (at least). The interior is where they lose me a bit, except maybe sickbay and the mess hall. On the other hand the bridge felt more advanced than the NCC-1701-D. Maybe if they made it a bit smaller, more claustrophobic (and with a viewscreen--I hate the whole window thing, thanks JJ ).

But I know, get over it. What can I say?

Guess it goes to show how much suspension of disbelief people have and what crosses the lines for them for this kind of thing. Personally, I don't have so much a problem with new designs (big fleet, after all), while I know people who can't get past that DSC looks very little like TOS. Conversely, I have a hard time getting behind redesigns of stuff we've already seen -- aliens, specific ships, etc., while other people are perfectly okay with it or can let that go without "in-universe" explanation.

 

[Damian]

Guess it goes to show how much suspension of disbelief people have and what crosses the lines for them for this kind of thing. Personally, I don't have so much a problem with new designs (big fleet, after all), while I know people who can't get past that DSC looks very little like TOS. Conversely, I have a hard time getting behind redesigns of stuff we've already seen -- aliens, specific ships, etc., while other people are perfectly okay with it or can let that go without "in-universe" explanation.

Well, one thing I learned as I've interacted with other Trekkies on various levels is we all have different levels of everything. I've seen some fans that would love if Discovery changed everything and make Klingons blue blob people and starships look like rockets. And then there are those that wanted it to look totally consistent with "The Cage". I sort of favor a more consistent production design, but I'm not inflexible as I noted above.

As JD noted, I sort of feel the current showrunners are coming into a pre-existing universe. I don't have a problem with them adding to it, or even adding some of their own spin. I just wish they used what was already there as a starting point and sort of saying, how can we make Discovery appear 90 years post Enterprise and 10 years pre-original series and make it look futuristic at the same time? But as some will point out, that's just my own personal view point. I can't do anything about it....well except gripe .

 

[WebLurker]

Well, one thing I learned as I've interacted with other Trekkies on various levels is we all have different levels of everything. I've seen some fans that would love if Discovery changed everything and make Klingons blue blob people and starships look like rockets. And then there are those that wanted it to look totally consistent with "The Cage". I sort of favor a more consistent production design, but I'm not inflexible as I noted above.

As JD noted, I sort of feel the current showrunners are coming into a pre-existing universe. I don't have a problem with them adding to it, or even adding some of their own spin. I just wish they used what was already there as a starting point and sort of saying, how can we make Discovery appear 90 years post Enterprise and 10 years pre-original series and make it look futuristic at the same time? But as some will point out, that's just my own personal view point. I can't do anything about it....well except gripe .

Sounds like we have similar tastes on this stuff.

 

[Christopher]

Production design, that's more a choice.

No, it isn't. Again, designs are not something that just magically pop into existence out of thin air. They're the creations of individual artists. If a makeup artist or production designer chooses to leave the show or is unavailable for a new show (or, hypothetically, is fired for some reason), that's the same situation as an actor change, and is just as unavoidable. The only difference is that it happens behind the scenes so it isn't as obvious to the casual viewer.

If one actor replaces another, the producer or director could make the "choice" to instruct them to imitate their predecessor's acting style as slavishly as possible -- but most people would agree that that's the wrong choice, that they'll do better work if they reinvent the character and make it their own. That way they're embracing their full talent instead of hampering or suppressing the things they do best. What I'm saying is that it's no different for other kinds of artist who work on a show -- that it's better to let them be themselves, to express their own individual design style and technical proficiency, than just copy what their predecessors did.

Now, of course that doesn't guarantee you'll like the results as much as their predecessors' work. Personally, I don't like Discovery's production design at all. But that doesn't mean they did anything wrong by doing their own take on it. It just means that art is subjective. And that's why experimenting with different ways of doing a thing is good -- because even if you don't like the current version, you might love the next one.

You're also ignoring the fact that it wasn't the artists' decision to change the Klingons design, it was Brian Fuller.

Every new makeup artist on the Trek franchise has redesigned the Klingons. The only difference is how far they took it. There are clear differences between Phillips's, Burman's, Snell's, and Westmore's Klingon makeups, making each of them readily identifiable as a different artist's work.

And you're forgetting that Neville Page worked on the Kelvin movies and redesigned the Klingons for Into Darkness before he was brought on board Discovery. His and Hetrick's Klingon design for DSC is basically an elaboration on his massive redesign for Kelvin Klingons, sharing multiple elements like hairlessness, full-head prosthetics, bright eyes, and somewhat pointed ears. So it makes no sense at all to say the change started with Fuller. He just let Page take his previous work even further.

If you look at the progression of Klingon designs over the decades, they reflect the advance of prosthetic technique, growing increasingly more elaborate and less humanlike. TOS Klingons were just humans with added face paint and hair; TMP Klingons were just bald guys with the same head-spine piece glued onto each one; TSFS Klingons elaborated the forehead idea by doing individual sculpts for each character; Westmore continued that but added elaborate body makeup on occasions where Klingons were seen shirtless; then Page went to full-head prosthetics in the movies and DSC. Overall, they represent a progressive advance in the ability of prosthetic makeup to convey "This is something alien." (Or at least to do so quickly and economically enough to fit a TV budget and schedule.) As for why they continue that progression with the Klingons and not for other species like Vulcans, maybe it's because Klingons are the iconic "outsiders" in Trek, either as enemies or as allies made distinct by their alien values, language, and exotic culture. So maybe the franchise has embraced their alienness and used advancing makeup technology to keep playing it up and keep them from feeling too familiar and domesticated. The periodic changes keep us off-balance and uncomfortable with the Klingons, and that's how we're supposed to feel.

 

[The Wormhole]

Funny thing that, for as "jarring" as it was, they filmmakers actually went out of their way to rationalize things; the Enterprise didn't magically change, it was upgraded and remodeled since the TV show. Uniforms and props would be a logical change as time went on. Most of the movie was set in places we'd never seen before on the TV show, so there was no contradictions to the depictions of 23rd century Earth and what we knew from the TV show.

What about Vulcan having moons, despite it being stated in TOS that id didn't? And no, the fact the scene was corrected in the Director's Cut doesn't count.