• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do you like the Discovery Klingon look?

Do you like the discovery Klingon look?

  • Hate it

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • Love it

    Votes: 18 32.1%
  • Couldn’t care less

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Total voters
    56
I think it's a legitimate extrapolation of what started in TMP in an attempt to make the Klingons more alien. Not necessarily what I would have done, but I was never asked. ;)

I agree to a point. If we hadn’t gotten a Klingon species that acted basically human to the point of having children with humans and quoting Shakespeare over the last thirty years, then these could’ve been a legitimate evolution. But the way the Klingons were written during the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s make this version hard for me to reconcile.

Definitely a YMMV type of discussion.
 
I agree to a point. If we hadn’t gotten a Klingon species that acted basically human to the point of having children with humans and quoting Shakespeare over the last thirty years, then these could’ve been a legitimate evolution. But the way the Klingons were written during the 80’s, 90’s and 00’s make this version hard for me to reconcile.

Definitely a YMMV type of discussion.
Not sure what about the make up stops them from quoting Shakespeare and having hybrid kids. Their "remain Klingon" philosophy seems to track with the Klingo-centric attitudes seen in TOS and a lesser extent the spinoffs. But not every Klingon is a Kling Supremist.
 
Side note: It's funny that a Shakespeare quoting Klingon is more acceptable than a Shakespeare quoting Frenchman. :lol:

Well, a Frenchman quoting Shakespeare may be seen as cultural appropriation, especially if they can't even be bothered to quote it in the original Klingon...
 
Cornwell didn't talk about their heads, right? Archer went there before the augment virus happened :p
I meant no Klingons in the show have smooth heads, when the intent of the ENT 2-parter was to explain why every Klingon in TOS was (and of course should be in Disco as well) smooth headed.
 
Side note: It's funny that a Shakespeare quoting Klingon is more acceptable than a Shakespeare quoting Frenchman. :lol:
Kind of made sense that Klingons would be into Shakespeare, especially his Plantagenet king plays. They probably had a Game of Thrones film fest every now and then too. One thing I did like about the Fuller Klingons was the Elizabethan type costuming chosen for them. It fed into that. But one decade's Elizabethan pomp and decadence can become a nationalist roundhead puritanism with lots of uniformed idealists with their own ideas of identity. Heads will roll, or change shape apparently.
 
Yes, and that's working so well right now for Doctor Who.

I am not convinced Doctor Who has any real ratings problems. I looked up the ratings for Series 1-11, and the average and median ratings are as follows:
  • Series 1 (Christopher Eccleston): Average 7.95 / Median 7.97
  • Series 2 (David Tennant): Average 7.87 / Median 8.05
  • Series 3 (David Tennant): Average 7.68 / Median 7.46
  • Series 4 (David Tennant): Average 8.42 / Median 8.07
  • 2009-2010 Specials (David Tennant): Average 11.45 / Median 12.04
  • Series 5 (Matt Smith): Average 7.73 / Median 7.57
  • Series 6 (Matt Smith): Average 7.84 / Median 7.56
  • Series 7 (Matt Smith): Average 7.83 / Median 7.57
  • 2013 Specials (Matt Smith): Average 11.97 / Median 11.97
  • Series 8 (Peter Capaldi): Average 7.26 / Median 7.06
  • Series 9 (Peter Capaldi): Average 6.31 / Median 6.08
  • Series 10 (Peter Capaldi): Average 6.22 / Median 5.92
  • Series 11 (Jodie Whitaker): Average 8.39 / Median 8.06
  • Series 12 (Jodie Whitaker): Average 5.99 / Median 5.80
So for the first eight seasons, Doctor Who was hanging around in the 7s and 8s. For Series 9, 10, and 12, it's been hanging out in the 5s or 6s, with Series 11 (Jodie Whitaker's premiere season) as a higher outlier, along with the specials years being higher outliers.

To me that doesn't look like it's a show that's in trouble. It looks like it's a long-running show that has found a fairly stable equilibrium even as the television market has changed dramatically. The ratings are lower than they used to be, which is to be expected, but they seem pretty healthy to me.

To whatever extent DW has problems, I would say that they have more to do with it being a long-running show with a primary target audience that has a lot of turnover (the key target audience being kids who are about 8 years old), which lost its primary driving dramatic tension (the Doctor's guilt over their killing the Time Lords) eight years ago in "The Day of the Doctor." I really don't think the Timeless Child thing is what made the difference.

NCC-73515 said:
Nerys Myk said:
dupersuper said:
Please. If you can't tell a good story within an existing universe, write an original spaceship show.
Canon is always expanding. Continuity is mutable. Things change and data points are over written.
And that is good because...?
Art not historical documentaries.

"Neither of our species is what it was a million years ago, nor what it'll become in the future. Life is change." - T'Pol, "Terra Prime"
 
I meant no Klingons in the show have smooth heads, when the intent of the ENT 2-parter was to explain why every Klingon in TOS was (and of course should be in Disco as well) smooth headed.

I strongly disagree with the idea of reusing the TOS-style makeup design in DIS. That design is based on anti-Asian stereotypes that ought not to be revived in a show made by people who believe in the equality of all races.
 
I meant no Klingons in the show have smooth heads, when the intent of the ENT 2-parter was to explain why every Klingon in TOS was (and of course should be in Disco as well) smooth headed.
This assumes that the Klingons were passive and did nothing to address their affliction in 200 years.
 
I strongly disagree with the idea of reusing the TOS-style makeup design in DIS. That design is based on anti-Asian stereotypes that ought not to be revived in a show made by people who believe in the equality of all races.
I'm actually surprised they got away with the TOS Klingons on Enterprise to be honest. A good compromise may be to cast African ethnicity actors as TOS Klingons (so there is no blackface) and then use the new Klingon look in Discovery (gray skin, double noses, etc.) except the ridges to portray Augment virus Klingons (thus we can have Kor, Kang, etc.) Basically Discovery style Augment virus Klingons.
 
I'm actually surprised they got away with the TOS Klingons on Enterprise to be honest. A good compromise may be to cast African ethnicity actors as TOS Klingons (so there is no blackface) and then use the new Klingon look in Discovery (gray skin, double noses, etc.) except the ridges to portray Augment virus Klingons (thus we can have Kor, Kang, etc.) Basically Discovery style Augment virus Klingons.
¿Why cast exclusively black actors to avoid black face when Klingons aren't black?

main-qimg-280df398e38fe14cb9b400e0dcc0e259


The TOS Klingons on Enterprise looked more like vikings (the armor changes and long hair) than do Yellow Peril stereotypes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with the idea of reusing the TOS-style makeup design in DIS. That design is based on anti-Asian stereotypes that ought not to be revived in a show made by people who believe in the equality of all races.
A very fair point.
This assumes that the Klingons were passive and did nothing to address their affliction in 200 years.
TOS establishes they didn't do a thing.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top