Would you say Picard is prime timeline or part of the Discoverse?
- Thread starter Yes Man the Great
- Start date
I only know of three types of Klingons: TOS, Disco, Everywhere Else.
That makes the most sense, yes. The transition to TOS and back was explained and fits with what we've seen.
I only know of one type: Klingons. How they are visually depicted is irrelevant, as long as the cultural basics are there. And I can suspend my disbelief enough that the TOS Klingons fit in even though they are clearly going through a phase.
And...I know I have said it before, (but since that topic won't die, why should my opinon in that matter?) but I absolutely adore the DSC Klingons and what they accomplished in their redesign. They kept all the basic visula indicators of what a Klingon looked before but enhanced it to give them a truly alien look. And for all the heat Star Trek got in the past for "Star Trek aliens are just actors with head bump prosthetics", it was the right thing to do: advance what you've got, make it more alien, more out of this world and think it through. The first episode, with their great outlandish costumes and dialogue spoken in Klingon, now THAT is exactly what I wanted from a modern reimagination of the Klingons.
I just wish they would have extended that redisgn philosophy to the other aliens as well, but apparently the producers chickend out because of some reactionary, conservative push back, which is a shame, honestly.
I just wish they would have extended that redisgn philosophy to the other aliens as well, but apparently the producers chickend out because of some reactionary, conservative push back, which is a shame, honestly.
Sci said:NCC-73515 said:Cause there's a difference between minor changes in detail and a major redesign
The Klingons already had at least two major redesigns before DIS: From racist Fu Manchu/Yellow Peril stereotypes in TOS, to having a single boney ridge down the center of their foreheads (combined with some blackface skin tone for the white actors playing them), to having bumps all across their foreheads (with varying degrees of semi-blackface skin tones applied to the white actors playing them).
again, sequels
That is a meaningless non sequitur of a reply.
Sci said:
again, minor changes vs. major redesign[/quote]
Bullshit. The Trill, Andorians, and Tellarites all underwent major redesigns, but I don't see anyone (today) claiming that DS9 or ENT aren't "real" Trek or are in an alternate timeline.
(I do remember people saying ENT wasn't real Trek and was in a different timeline back in 2001. A certain segment of Star Trek fans always reject things that are new and different.)
The sheer magnitude of thoughtlessness to this reply is astonishing.
Let's address things one by one:
1. I have seen it. I was a Trek fan long before that two-parter aired. I was watching them the nights they came out. I remember them just fine. They're a silly in-universe explanation for something that needed no real explanation (and also they're completely nonsensical in terms of actual science).
2. Star Trek did not need an explanation for why the Klingons changed appearances for 26 tears between TMP and "Divergence." Somehow Trek fans could accept that TMP was in continuity with TOS, and that TMP was in continuity with TSFS through TUC and TNG through ENT, without needing the differences in Klingon makeup designs explained.
3. Star Trek has still never explained (in-universe) why Klingons in TMP look totally different from every other Trek production.
4. My complaint above -- "Also: Do you really want 2010s/2020s Star Trek using makeup designs that are borderline blackface like they did intermittently in the TOS movies and TNG?" -- is not an in-universe complaint. I'm not nitpicking a continuity error or asking for in-universe explanations.
I am making a metatextual argument about what kinds of creative decisions are appropriate in terms of whether or not such creative decisions intentionally or unintentionally support white supremacy in their real-life impact.
In other words, I am saying, given that people have a better understanding today of how offensive it is when white actors darken their skin to play characters who are depicted as a violent "Other," and given that today people have a better understanding of the history of blackface as an artistic practice and of its role in supporting white supremacy, don't you think it is a better idea to change Klingon makeup design to minimize or eliminate practices like darkening actors' skin tones?
The technobabble excuse for why Klingons don't have bumpy foreheads in TOS from "Afflication/Divergence" is completely besides the point.
The entire Klingon design in "Errand of Mercy" was designed to evoke Fu Manchu and Yellow Peril stereotypes, yet in other episodes we get Klingons that just look like a white guy from New York getting off his shift at the bar. It's a significant redesign by TOS's standards.
There are certainly some continuity hiccups, but that's been try of every major ST show. I mean, ENT features first contact with the Klingons coming decades before the TNG episode "First Contact" and movie TUC had established it had happened, and features the transporter decades before "Realm of Fear" had established the transporter to have been invented. It also features "phase cannons" and "photonic torpedoes" at an era when "The Cage" and "Balance of Terror" had established Earth should have been using lasers and atomic weapons.
Except you can, because they did.
And yet somehow fans were able to reconcile TOS Klingons with TNG Klingons for decades without an in-universe explanation and without claiming the TOS movies and TNG et al to be set in a different timeline.
And they still don't claim DS9 is a different timeline than TNG because of the Trill redesign, for instance.
It's hypocrisy.
I mean, that was just inevitable. No multi-million-dollar television production in the 2010s/2020s was going to preserve the TOS aesthetic, because the TOS aesthetic is based on outdated ideas about what "the future" means.
I do agree that the design aesthetic of DIS doesn't flow with the aesthetic evolution of Starfleet ships we've seen in previous productions, but that's not actually a continuity error. There's no continuity reason different aesthetic trends couldn't have happened even if they don't look like they flow naturally from one-another. (I mean, hell, I don't think brutalism looks like it flows naturally from Art Deco, but that is what happened in real life.)
If someone really wants an explanation, "Augment virus variants" is a fine enough handwave.
1. No, they weren't. Going from "a single boney ridge down the center of the forehead" to "bumps all over" is a big redesign.
2. It is still hypocrisy to react to one big redesign with "It's a totally different continuity! Breaks canon!" and to another with "*shrugs*". It's a totally inconsistent standard.
Indeed, feudalistic societies are often very disuified and prone to far more civil wars and violent coups d'etat than democracies. Because feudal societies aren't based upon widespread popular consent, and therefore the competing factions have no reason to regard the ruling faction as having a legitimate right to rule.
Agreed. And I suspect that if Michael Dorn comes back -- which would be awesome -- his makeup would probably be some sort of synthesis between the DIS style and the TNG/DS9 style.
Nope. CBS owns Star Trek; CBS determines what is or is not ST canon. CBS says PIC is canon. Everything else is just fans whining.
You just know that somewhere there is a trekkie who actually feels like this.
They time-traveled to get to Talos IV. They want back to 1964! "Our time warp: Factor 7!"
Using Star Trek logic from "All Our Yesterdays" (TOS) when going back in time made Spock act like a Vulcan from thousands of years ago... the Enterprise must've gone back in time to 1964 on the way to Talos IV during time warp. Then that made Pike start to act like he was from 1964!
Now it all makes sense. That's some brilliant writing. You know what they did, don't you? "All Our Yesterdays" is the second to last episode, but it's really the episode with the highest stardate in TOS. So, in stardate order, "All Our Yesterdays" is really the one that was the last episode. And so many parallels. In the first episode, Pike goes back in time and reverts and in the last episode Spock goes back in time and reverts. That's how you connect the whole series together.
And now we know why Spock smiled too. Vulcans use to smile in 1964. BUT APPARENTLY THEY STILL SHOUT IN THE 23RD CENTURY BECAUSE SPOCK WAS SHOUTING AT THE BEGINNING OF THE EPISODE.
Last edited:
ok i'll explain why sequels matter here: your point of cumulative small changes over time are no argument to support major changes within one part of the established continuity that is then reversed again within a few years. see the difference?
which of these aliens gained things like nostrils, head extensions, body-wide ridges and lost things like eyebrows and earlobes before DIS came along? how are they different from previous designs? meaning: what is so major about these redesigns?
remember marab and laneth? that's what i was referring to.
what is non-sensical scientifically?
ah, you're one of these "random posters" mentioned earlier who ignore episodes that they personally find irrelevant or don't like? why would that have any impact on visual canon itself, or how relevant other people find such episodes?
remember what antaak said at the end?
remember antaak, marab and laneth? were they "offensive" or did they "support white supremacy"?
skin tone should be irrelevant. see above.
In all universes.
I think the whole Klingon/Augments storyline in ENT did more harm than good trying to explain what is, as we all know, merely advances in makeup and increased budgets over time.
DS9's humouous 'wink to the audience' in Trials snd Tribbleations was note perfect and as as self-referential as it needed to get.
DS9's humouous 'wink to the audience' in Trials snd Tribbleations was note perfect and as as self-referential as it needed to get.
Except, the Klingons from TOS to TMP to TSFS and to TNG were radical differences for the time. TMP was a stark difference to what Klingons had been. Treating it as minor now ignores the context of then.
The rational is the same in DSC as for TMP-make them look more alien. Mileage will vary as to the success.
And, indeed, there was fan outrage at the time. Witness this piece written for Trek magazine in 1980 about the changes in the Klingons made for Star Trek The Motion Picture. Replace the name Roddenberry with Kurtzman in it and it could have been written yesterday by some angry fanboy. Fandom got over it then and fandom will get over it now.
https://amp.reddit.com/r/StarTrekDi...k_superfan_leslie_thompson_writing_about_the/
I never considered the design tweaks from TMP to STIII to TNG to be anything on par with the change from TOS to TMP or from the TNG era to DIS. The Klingons in TMP, STIII, and TNG were all obviously supposed to be the same alien race, whatever modifications they'd made. I was only a casual viewer when I saw STIII, and I knew that the Klingons were supposed to be Klingons. To this day, you'd have to point out the differences to me, they're not that major.
It personally always bothered me. I was happy with Enterprises explanation. I still argue that the changes between TMP and TNG are minor compared to Discovery. Also the Andorians, Tellerites etc. Changes are not on par with the Klingon changes and those species presence are small compared to the Klingons In all the shows. We didnt need yet another update of the makeup. What we had was good enough and well established. Perhaps they should make Vulcan ears three times as long and even with the top of the head. I bet if that happened you all would have a hissy fit.
Not me.
"Bad Ass Wannabe" -- YOU TAKE THAT BACK, RIGHT NOW!
Similar threads
