I completely agree, which is why I don't think that Rios is portrayed as "cool" and his smoking is not regarded that way either.
What's the worst canon decision in the history of Trek?
- Thread starter Unimatrix Q
- Start date
^This is a good one. I would also add first contact with the Klingons in Enterprise, which messed up established canon from TOS, as an honorable mention. My vote is the changes to the Discovery version of Klingons...
You are wrong that ENT had no reason to bring back the TNG style Klingons. TNG established that ancient Klingons looked like the TNG era Klingons with the Kahless episodes. It was good that ENT addressed it.
What canon from TOS?
Their solution was stupid.
And it was stupid because what Hollywood thought was a fix, fans had already compromised in their own community. Some were Wolf-Men and others looked humanoid, but the biggest hurdle came from that horrible episode "Blood Oath" from DS9 where the 3 classic Klingons had those non-creative ridges.
How were they uncreative?
Nah, it was all stupid as presented
Nah, nothing is stupider than Klingons that can't use their facial muscles to make facial expressions.
Um, no.
Obviously, limiting actor range is dumb, but explaining Klingon make up differences by way of a human virus just misses the point. One is stupid and fixable. The other is just plain stupid.
As for the Klingon foreheads, I thought DS9 touched on it in the right way in Trials and Tribble-ations. 'We do not discuss it with outsiders'. They brought it as a joke, but to me it sent the message: 'Because of advances in make-up and face masks, we can do a better job now than 25 years ago. That's all there is to it, really, and we refuse to try to come up with some made-up silly in-universe explanation for it. Just enjoy the show for what it is.'
As for worst canon decision.... well, I'm not sure it's really about canon, but I sometimes regret the feeling of cynicism that seems to have crept into modern Trek. I understand it allows for a broader scope and more realism in story telling, but sometimes, I simply miss the optimism that I felt in classic Trek.
As for worst canon decision.... well, I'm not sure it's really about canon, but I sometimes regret the feeling of cynicism that seems to have crept into modern Trek. I understand it allows for a broader scope and more realism in story telling, but sometimes, I simply miss the optimism that I felt in classic Trek.
Cynicism started with the Borg. Modern Trek is exploring what was already there.
They're like bears. Bears don't have facial expressions, which is why they are so dangerous because you can't tell if they are angry or peaceful...
Don't know much about Solo, but Warsies seem to think he's the coolest character in the franchise. Sparrow is played as a joke for the most part. Mal is very much supposed to be the enigmatic figure with hidden depths. In fact, I think most of the main cast have lines about Mal's true nature at some point.
Then, there's FF, where "cool loner" is basically an archetype: Auron, Squall, Adult Rydia, Lightning, Cloud, Kaze (from FFU), ...
Stupid.
Only when he's played by Harrison Ford.
Yeah. Agree to disagree.
I don't recall prior incarnations of Klingons being "like Bears" in that sense. It is a stark and unwelcome difference.
Last edited:
Personally, the more alien the aliens are the more it looks like real aliens instead of humans with make-up. So I prefer these Klingons to the previous incarnations.
How so? Do you mean the attitude of the Borg themselves? Or how the concept of the Borg was exploited over the years? Or how they were treated by starfleet? (Not just in defense but by destroying their transwarb hub etc) Or something else still?
Similar threads
