I mean, I agree that it's silly to think that the writers have to somehow "explain" differences in Klingon makeup designs, but that scene in "Trials and Tribble-ations" was a joke. It as a fourth-wall-leaning joke, a wink to the audience to acknowledge that times and production capabilities had changed, and then let it go. And "Trials and Tribble-ations" is one of the most delightful, beloved episodes in all of ST and a loving tribute to TOS.
DS9 was not as successful as TNG, this is true. But DS9 has achieved enormous success and reached higher levels of popularity in the ten years or so since it was released on Netflix. Which makes sense -- DS9 was in many ways a show ahead of its time with regards to its use of serialization and complex character arcs. It's a show that works better in some ways in the era of binge-watching.
I mean, Bryan Fuller clearly had his problems, since he was fired from both Star Trek: Discovery and American Gods. But his decision to have a different design aesthetic from TOS and to not worry about maintaining strict continuity was not the issue -- the issues with Fuller had more to do with lack of budget discipline and time management.
Your quote here once again indicates that you refuse to accept the premise -- you refuse to judge DIS on how well it executes its creative goals, but instead judge it for not sharing your creative goals.
People whined for a short time after the Klingon makeup design changed for TMP, and then the whining was just not a meaningful thing. The majority of just accepted that the makeup design was different and suspended disbelief. The speculation you refer to was mostly just fun "what-if" speculations, not some sort of outraged refusal to accept that ST had changed Klingon designs without explanation.
That's the issue: The refusal to accept that DIS can have creative goals that differ from yours and that those goals can be just as legitimate as yours.
Dude, none of the creators involved in TMP, the TOS movies, TNG, DS9, VOY, the TNG movies, or ENT "had to wait" to explain why Klingons looked different in TMP than in TOS, or why they looked different in TSFS than in TMP. They chose not to explain the differences between those three versions of Klingons because maintaining strict continuity was not a creative goal of theirs. No one made them "wait."
Hold on now. You're using the rhetoric of political conflict to talk about subjective feelings of aesthetic pleasure from entertainment, as though Viacom has some sort of obligation of democratic accountability in what kind of Klingon makeup design they use in their TV shows. This is not a reasonable use of the rhetoric of political conflict. Creators do not work for us and are not accountable to us when they make a show, and "questioning" them as though there's a compelling public interest in regulating what Klingon makeup designs they use is, frankly, kind of a silly way to frame the issue.
Here's the difference between legitimate and illegitimate critique:
Art is a form of communication, and the ultimate purpose of art is to help you communicate with yourself. Art is always subject to critique. But legitimate critique lies in evaluating how well a work of art executed its own creative goals. Refusing to accept the premise and arguing that work of art shouldn't have had the creative goals that it had is generally not going to be a valid critique, with one broad exception.
The exception is this: About the only time it's legitimate to refuse to accept the premise and instead argue that work of art should not have had the creative goals that it had, is if you're making that argument out of some higher moral purpose. An extreme example would be that it's fine to argue that Triumph of the Will should not have had the creative goal of glorifying Adolf Hitler, and therefore fine to refuse to evaluate Triumph of the Will on the basis of how well it executed its creative goal. A less-extreme example would be to argue that, say, Gone With the Wind had an artistic goal of glorifying the South and whitewashing slavery, and that therefore you refuse to engage with Gone With the Wind.
But Star Trek: Discovery is not a work of fascist propaganda or slavery apologia. It is a work of art created to entertain a mass 2010s/2020s audience. And instead of allowing the premise and evaluating it on its own terms -- that is to say, evaluating it on the basis of how well it executes its creative goals -- you instead constantly critique it on the basis that you don't think it should have the creative goals it has. And you're not citing some higher moral purpose in arguing that DIS should not have the creative goals that it has -- you just don't like instances of discontinuity in alien makeup design or subjective artistic preferences such as production aesthetics. And instead of just acknowledging that there is a level of subjectivity to art and that something can be not to your taste but still valid, you tend to argue that that which is not to your taste (in the context of DIS, at least) is somehow invalid.
So, no, I don't think that that's a valid way to critique DIS.
No. You could just do what most reasonable people do when they encounter a work of art whose creative goals they don't enjoy subjectively: You could just not watch it and let it go.
And yet you frame your subjective preferences as being more valid than other subjective preferences.
And yet instead of saying, "You know, I like some redesigns but not others, and it's just a matter of my subjective aesthetic preferences," you tried to frame one redesign as legitimate and one as not legitimate.
The argument that the Klingon makeup redesign would alienate audiences was presented. The rebuttal to that argument is that this has not happened in reality. That is the extent to which the question of DIS's popularity is relevant: in confirming or rebutting the idea that certain subjective creative decisions would alienate the audience.
No one has questioned anyone's constitutional right to use their freedom of speech to denounce the Klingon makeup designs.
But the right to whine about that again and again and again over four years means others have the right to find it tiresome. Especially when it's not done from the position of allowing the premise.
Have any of the ENT writers cited these episodes as their reason for deciding to explain the differences between the TOS Klingons and later Klingons?
