The only real Trek is the original pilot, Forbidden Planet, and this one fever dream that Gene Roddenberry had after eating some bad shellfish.
Spoilers There will never be Ferengi in DISCO
- Thread starter Peter Quinn
- Start date
So let's have Picard and all humans have antlers now, and offer no explanation for this change and also NOT have antlered humans in any of the other shows. This is a look to be featured in Picard only.
It's a stylistic choice, after all.
It's a stylistic choice, after all.
Didn't Picard offer an explanation as to the bumpy foreheads depending on which region of Romulus they were from? I could've swore that was in the early episodes of the show. In any case, the bumpy foreheads are kind of a minor change and not something so overwhelming that it distracted from the show. And the changes to the Klingons was explained in canon as well (even if Discovery ignored that explanation entirely).
This is a serious change, just like with Klingons in TOS. You have a point here. However, the Trill were featured in one episode of TNG and a forgettable one at best. It's a huge deviation but it's not very jarring simply because that one episode wasn't impactful to TNG, or to the franchise. That's not an explanation...but the original Trill design, being featured just once in the entire franchise, isn't really that comparable to the Ferengi.
Again, this isn't a major species in the franchise and so it just isn't comparable to the Ferengi redesign.
I just hope they have an in-story explanation. Like that this Disco Ferengi has lineage from another species giving it pointy ears and whatnot.
The Ferengi and (over in PIC) Icheb, you never knew how much people cared until things started happening.
And these are the same people who don't get how anyone can care about Airiam. I think they just like to brow-beat us over what they care about and brow-beat us for caring about things that they don't.
The truth is, this Ferengi change is minor compared to bumps being added to Romulans in TNG and ridges added to Klingons in TMP. As well as the modifications made to the Andorians and Telerites. Not just in DSC, but also in ENT. And the Borg in FC.
But, hey, let's draw the line in the sand at the Ferengi. For no other reason than that's what DSC is introducing right now.
And this stupid Ferengi is going to be in one or two scenes at most. Blink and you'll miss him. It'll be quicker than this entire thread is taking.
And these are the same people who don't get how anyone can care about Airiam. I think they just like to brow-beat us over what they care about and brow-beat us for caring about things that they don't.
The truth is, this Ferengi change is minor compared to bumps being added to Romulans in TNG and ridges added to Klingons in TMP. As well as the modifications made to the Andorians and Telerites. Not just in DSC, but also in ENT. And the Borg in FC.
But, hey, let's draw the line in the sand at the Ferengi. For no other reason than that's what DSC is introducing right now.
And this stupid Ferengi is going to be in one or two scenes at most. Blink and you'll miss him. It'll be quicker than this entire thread is taking.
Last edited:
As they should. ENT doesn't count as canon.
It was better as a joke in DS9. Having to explain every single thing was just giving into a subgroup of the fandom that takes every minor detail as intentional and more important than it actually is.
And that brings us to today. It illustrates perfectly that the great weight of importance placed on elements by the fans will only ever be important by that group. There is no Star Trek lore master at CBS.
I’m glad we don’t have one either, Trek would get boring pretty quick if they had to stick to outdated designs and production methods for the sake of it looking exactly the same for 60 years.
I've said it several times on this forum and will say it again:
Previous Star Trek productions have been consistent in looks and feel because
1.) Star Trek has been more or less continuously in production from 1979 to 2005
2.) Star Trek has been produced by more or less the same production crew in that entire period.
3.) Star Trek was notorious for the degree to which they kept reusing the same few production assets they originally developed for TMP back in 1979.
None of this is true for Star Trek post-2009 or post-2017. It's preposterous to expect that a completely new production crew that's, for two of the three live-action series currently in production, not even based in the same country, to attempt to reacquire, and if not possible, painstakingly recreate and match every single piece of production assets to the littlest detail that don't even belong to the aforementioned 1979-2005 period but to the 1966-1969 period that Gene Roddenberry himself wanted to bury the moment TOS was cancelled. "Klingons always looked like that, we just didn't have the money to depict it" and so on, if you remember.
If they have to rebuild everything from scratch anyway, why can't they put their own spin on it? Star Trek is not a historic documentary, and it has never been. It's a TV show. It's just that some of its fandom has gotten used to it looking and feeling largely the same for the majority of existence without considering the reason for it. It's easy to have something look and feel consistent if it's made by the same people using the same equipment for a whole quarter of a century.
What I find especially hilarious is when TNG-only fans complain about a TOS prequel not looking like a fifty-year-old series they will sooner or later admit to never having watched in the first place. I see a lot of people online who seemingly couldn't care less about TOS and will only ever consider its existence whenever they need a blunt instrument to bludgeon post-2009 Trek with. Then back into the drawer it goes, the moor has done his duty, the moor can go, because when discussing "real" Trek, we really mean TNG, and maybe, but just maybe, Voyager, because that's the closest in tone to the TNG we're used to.
Previous Star Trek productions have been consistent in looks and feel because
1.) Star Trek has been more or less continuously in production from 1979 to 2005
2.) Star Trek has been produced by more or less the same production crew in that entire period.
3.) Star Trek was notorious for the degree to which they kept reusing the same few production assets they originally developed for TMP back in 1979.
None of this is true for Star Trek post-2009 or post-2017. It's preposterous to expect that a completely new production crew that's, for two of the three live-action series currently in production, not even based in the same country, to attempt to reacquire, and if not possible, painstakingly recreate and match every single piece of production assets to the littlest detail that don't even belong to the aforementioned 1979-2005 period but to the 1966-1969 period that Gene Roddenberry himself wanted to bury the moment TOS was cancelled. "Klingons always looked like that, we just didn't have the money to depict it" and so on, if you remember.
If they have to rebuild everything from scratch anyway, why can't they put their own spin on it? Star Trek is not a historic documentary, and it has never been. It's a TV show. It's just that some of its fandom has gotten used to it looking and feeling largely the same for the majority of existence without considering the reason for it. It's easy to have something look and feel consistent if it's made by the same people using the same equipment for a whole quarter of a century.
What I find especially hilarious is when TNG-only fans complain about a TOS prequel not looking like a fifty-year-old series they will sooner or later admit to never having watched in the first place. I see a lot of people online who seemingly couldn't care less about TOS and will only ever consider its existence whenever they need a blunt instrument to bludgeon post-2009 Trek with. Then back into the drawer it goes, the moor has done his duty, the moor can go, because when discussing "real" Trek, we really mean TNG, and maybe, but just maybe, Voyager, because that's the closest in tone to the TNG we're used to.
While I didn't like it, I feel like the Klingon change made some narrative sense at least, because the intent of Season 1 was to show them as alien/hostile, which I think would have been lost with Berman Trek Klingons, which have grown to be somewhat lovable over the years. I interpret it to be that we're seeing the Klingons through the lens of Michael, who sees them as the monsters who brutally killed her father (and - she believes at the time - her mother as well). I think it was a very bad decision though from the POV of actor emoting. If they wanted to go with this design, they should have used CGI and mocap or something.
Some of the other alterations just seem like change for change's sake. I really don't see why every single alien race needs to have super-detailed textured fiddly bits now. Is it just because TVs have higher resolution. The worst was probably the decision to go full mask on the Orions when green paint would have sufficed.
The Ferengi change I can live with, because as I said they already had an immobile face mask in Berman Trek. However, it does really feel like the artists just did it because they wanted to put their own touch on it.
Weirdly Cardassians look 100% the same - though again they changed into full face masks, instead of the smaller pieces used during Berman Trek.
Some of the other alterations just seem like change for change's sake. I really don't see why every single alien race needs to have super-detailed textured fiddly bits now. Is it just because TVs have higher resolution. The worst was probably the decision to go full mask on the Orions when green paint would have sufficed.
The Ferengi change I can live with, because as I said they already had an immobile face mask in Berman Trek. However, it does really feel like the artists just did it because they wanted to put their own touch on it.
Weirdly Cardassians look 100% the same - though again they changed into full face masks, instead of the smaller pieces used during Berman Trek.
Well, it's art not science.
I think the Cardassians were masks because so far they've just been background characters and they didn't feel the need to devote the time for a more expressive performance for an extra. We are getting a character who is part Cardassian next season and I imagine that any full Cardassian would have a more detailed appliance so the actor is able to perform.
Great, then change everything. Give humans antlers without explanation. Bring back Worf but have him look like a Disco era Klingon. Bring back Quark with those pointy ears. Have Vulcans be transparent. Trill with seven arms. Bajorans without the nose ridges but instead put ridges on their chins.
It’s just art so it doesn’t matter.
Since I’m being unreasonable in my dislike of what Discovery has done, then where do we all draw the line exactly?
No one said disliking Discovery was unreasonable. However, the point of recognizability is more the part that I find necessary. Since I can recognize Klingons as such and Ferengi as such then it clearly isn't like the changes you are saying.
It's just a show, relax.
Episode 3, "The End is the Beginning." Laris slapped the assassin's bumpy forehead and indicated that he was a "stubborn northerner." I think it's also of note that these northerners tend to speak English with "plain" American accents. The smooth-headed southerners seemed to mostly speak with British accents, or Irish or Australian in a couple of cases. I think this is a hint that the southerners are supposed to be considered more posh or something, maybe the aristocrats of the planet. But that's just a guess.
There was a little more variety with the accents in the following episode, "Absolute Candor." Bumpy senator Tenqem Adrev spoke with some kind of affected speech that was a little different from the actor Evan Parke's New York (Brooklyn?) way of speaking; Parke was actually born in Jamaica, but I'm not sure how much of that accent is retained in his speech since he grew up in New York. And the smooth-headed nun Zani spoke in a stage-y manner that was a little different from actress Amirah Vann's everyday New York (Queens?) speech.
Kor
Hell, it's not like the makeups weren't constantly being tweaked already during the TNG era when they were done by the same guy from 1987 to 2005. As much as people like to say Worf's forehead getting bigger with each season is just his natural aging process or something, the very fact that he was in his Season 7 makeup during the flashbacks in All Good Things suggests otherwise. It just took them seven seasons to get his makeup right.
But to speak of bigger changes, the Nausicaans featured in Enterprise are barely recognizable as such because Michael Westmore hated the original makeup so much with its dull yellow full facial appliance, the sunken eye sockets and the '80s hair metal wigs that he just threw it out altogether and created a brand new one. And, like others said before, the Klingons going from "entire can of bronzer and fake mustache" aliens to "latex forehead appliance, false teeth and long wig" aliens is a far more significant change than going from one style of latex appliance to the other.
But to speak of bigger changes, the Nausicaans featured in Enterprise are barely recognizable as such because Michael Westmore hated the original makeup so much with its dull yellow full facial appliance, the sunken eye sockets and the '80s hair metal wigs that he just threw it out altogether and created a brand new one. And, like others said before, the Klingons going from "entire can of bronzer and fake mustache" aliens to "latex forehead appliance, false teeth and long wig" aliens is a far more significant change than going from one style of latex appliance to the other.
Why is no one complaining how Trills on TNG had huge foreheads and Dax just had spots?
Well, chronologically speaking, the last time we saw the Klingons prior to The Vulcan Hello was at the end of the Enterprise duology that explained the smooth foreheads.
At the end of that story, it was speculated that reconstructive surgery of foreheads was going to become a big thing in the future of the Klingons. What's to say that by the Discovery era Klingons weren't getting very creative with their entirely cosmetic and voluntary reconstructive surgeries? Maybe the look of the Klingons in the 2250s is nothing more than a fashion statement that ends when the augment virus rears its ugly head again a decade later.
At the end of that story, it was speculated that reconstructive surgery of foreheads was going to become a big thing in the future of the Klingons. What's to say that by the Discovery era Klingons weren't getting very creative with their entirely cosmetic and voluntary reconstructive surgeries? Maybe the look of the Klingons in the 2250s is nothing more than a fashion statement that ends when the augment virus rears its ugly head again a decade later.
Well..... imagine, if you will, a Trek that never developed any aspect of itself at all. Where the new show launched in the late 80s and the 1701 D looks pretty much the same as the 1701, the Klingons are still guys with ropey stuck-on moustaches and somewhat suspect browned skin tones and the medical equipment was still, admittedly, futuristic looking cruet sets.
Sounds bloody awful.
Sounds bloody awful.
