She thinks having two penises is monstrous?
Spoilers Could it be that we actually already saw 32nd century Klingons, without realizing it?
- Thread starter Unimatrix Q
- Start date
She thinks having two penises is monstrous?
That's something that's explicitly referenced in dialogue, so I think that's canon, for better or worse.
But things like the Klingons having those talons instead of fingernails, or four nostrils, or fangs - those aren't referenced in dialogue directly, hence it falls more into the visual depiction zone.
When?
Something we can't really elaborate about on TrekBBS.
All I remember was seeing a Klingon taking a pee from behind, with two streams showing. Don't recall anyone talking about it in dialogue.
Is that what he meant?
From the episode:
RUSSELL: Overdesigned. Klingon anatomy. Twenty three ribs, two livers, eight-chambered heart, double-lined neural pia mater. I've never seen so many unnecessary redundancies in one body.
CRUSHER: Unnecessary? The Klingons refer to it as the brak'lul. Almost every vital function in their bodies has a built-in redundancy in case any primary organ or system fails.
RUSSELL: It's a good design in theory, but in practice, all the extra organs means just that much more can go wrong.
Yeah, I'm not interpreting those lines to mean that Worf had two wieners.
You know, I love seeing old Scotty going on the partially reconstructed TOS set, but my God that set an unintended precedent for fans to expect and demand that all Trek be treated like it’s some kind of docudrama that all ties together and is as tangible as actual reality, when it was only just a nice little Easter egg for the fans.
And unfortunately, some of the production crew on those Berman era shows took that strict literalism to heart, which is how we got a two parter dedicated to explaining smooth Klingon foreheads.
If we had to adhere to strict literalism, that means we can never actually have a show like SNW, because new audiences could never get past the dated 1960s sets, and I couldn’t blame them for thinking the show looks hokey.
“But Trials and Tribble-ations and the mirror episode is proof that it can work!”
Yes! As one off tribute episodes for fans to enjoy, not as an actual long running show made in 2024 hoping to attract new audiences! They wouldn’t even get away with it if they tried making a long running show in 1996 or 2005, because TV productions moved past the 1960s long ago.
I love this stuff though! When Encounter at Farpoint first aired the spaceships got me through the door, but it was the TNG production crew's obsession with building a believable fictional reality that made me really care about the franchise. Trials and Tribble-ations removed the last major barrier for a TNG fan like me to take TOS seriously by showing that the Klingons really did look like that, and I don't think there's anything unfortunate about that.
Sure alien makeup might get overhauled after its first appearance, boom mics might stray into the frame, characters might be 2D animated caricatures, lighting might be overdramatic, music might play all the time with no obvious source etc., these are TV shows, you can't take them THAT literally. However, when a series gives up on trying to stay true to its established imaginary reality within the limitations of the actual reality of its production, it makes me feel like giving up too.
I mean I wouldn't want a whole series that looked like TOS fan film, but if the Earth ever decides to explode and they put me in charge of deciding what Star Trek episodes get a place in the escape rocket, I'd probably choose Relics, Trials and Tribble-ations, In a Mirror Darkly, All the World's a Stage and The Bounty over a SNW episode like A Quality of Mercy. They just fit better.
IIRC, Lorca tells Ash he doesn't have the "right number of organs" to please L'Rell.
Given Season 1 established Discovery can jump between universes, I really wanted a throwaway scene where they make a jump, contact a Federation ship, and find that the bridge looks just like the TOS Enterprise, shrug, and then jump again.
Not because I have any tie to the whole "multiple timelines" headcanon - I don't give a crap about that. But because it would be a nice little callback which would let fans of any stripe interpret "visual continuity" in any manner they wish, without tying themselves in knots.
I think that's the difference in my attitude: I don't think they "gave up." I think they took it on from a different perspective in terms of the art. For me, it being a vehicle of entertainment is first and foremost the priority and that means allowing artists a little bit of grace to move within that space.
Indeed. There is definitely an unreasonable expectation set by that and other episodes that creates this demand for literal recreation.
Years ago I often saw ROGUE ONE being used as an example of what Trek should have done set wise with DISCO, as if a 1960s TV production set is somehow equal to a film set that was made a whole decade later and had like ten times the budget. The difference between TV and film was far greater 60 years ago than it is today.
I've seen that multiple times around and I use to ignore because to me Star Wars and Star Trek are two completely different beasts.
But now? Go for it! It seems that is demanded upon ideal.
As the DIS look of Klingons has been retconned out of existence, I will chalk up this one guys' doubled stream as a long-term result of an unfortunate Bath'let encounter on the way to the bathroom.
Honestly the set of the Millennium Falcon hasn't really aged well either, and I say this as someone who's been at the reconstruction Smuggler's Run ride in Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland. The cockpit instruments on the Falcon are just as meaningless as the ones in TOS (I've also visited a TOS recreation set).
Yet you and others are obviously fine with the changes to the Enterprise, despite clashing with continuity, and claim that the Falcon's set is "higher budget" when actually it's also pretty shabby but many would probably complain if a Millennium Falcon tv show got DISCO/SNW'd (full of holograms and turned into an Apple store) while still justifying the change to TOS' bridge design in the same breath.
So I'm just going to say it--the colorful look of TOS' bridge is seen as immature and childish. There's a need to make it more "mature" with holographic iphone style interior design. The sets for the Millennium Falcon and other Rogue One type sets are already dark and gritty (which apparently correlates to audiences' minds as deep and serious and mature) so even though they're just as low budget design wise as TOS relatively speaking (yes ANH's movie budget was higher than TOS being a movie but Lucas/Fox was not exactly pouring all their money into ANH either, it was an experiment that had a budget) people accept them and would complain if they got changed.
It was because of Al Lad Jr. who thought it would be a good kid's film to support their scheduling for the year.
Because, and I know this is really hard for fans to accept, Star Wars and Star Trek are not the same. They are not. They are not presented as being part of "our humanity" or "out future."
Separate Star Trek from our real world, treat it as an imaginary reality or its own timeline and I'll be more onboard with resisting change. But, Star Trek hasn't done that, and in fact, refuses to do so.
Star Wars also aged better because the sets and props were built using a lot of industrial and military surplus. There's a ton of added detail and complexity there that avoids looking cheap even though the budget was "only" $15 million.
Even though it may not hold up to close scrutiny any better than '60s Star Trek, it is tied into a type of realism because it's based on real industrial design. That's automatic more durable, as a style, than mostly from-scratch fantasy.
Even though it may not hold up to close scrutiny any better than '60s Star Trek, it is tied into a type of realism because it's based on real industrial design. That's automatic more durable, as a style, than mostly from-scratch fantasy.
The look, both interior and exterior, of the MF looks the same in all movies made since ROTJ because that's what fans were expecting. And as @Gepard said, it's still realistic-looking enough for that particular universe that the viewers will still take it seriously.
TOS is not realistic-looking. Making a serious prequel or show that takes place in the same time period, and copying the original assets, would not have worked. However, making a prequel or show that takes place in the same time period but making everything look completely different from the original assets, was not the way to go either. Imagine if the producers of the sequel trilogy decided that they were going to change the look of the Falcon to make it just barely resemble what it looked like before, with only superficial similarities to the original, just for the sake of change, or because they didn't think modern audiences would take it seriously.
TOS is not realistic-looking. Making a serious prequel or show that takes place in the same time period, and copying the original assets, would not have worked. However, making a prequel or show that takes place in the same time period but making everything look completely different from the original assets, was not the way to go either. Imagine if the producers of the sequel trilogy decided that they were going to change the look of the Falcon to make it just barely resemble what it looked like before, with only superficial similarities to the original, just for the sake of change, or because they didn't think modern audiences would take it seriously.
I'm not sure the point ever was to make Trek have a look based on military design, at least when Roddenberry was in charge. Star Trek 2-4 took the look to industrial/military design based largely on Meyer/Bennett influence. What did TNG do? With infinitely more budget than TOS now that Trek was a proven brand, they could've turned the Ent-D bridge into a military/industrial design setting following from the new movie look. They didn't, and yet the show was a big hit.
Admittedly once Gene died and TNG ended, the movies (starting after blowing up the D) and subsequent Treks went back to the military look again. But TOS was NEVER meant to have a military look, even budget concerns aside, and I think TNG proved that.
This would really stem more from how Roddenberry saw Trek than any budget constraints I think (although obviously those budget constraints were there). Every time he was around, Trek wasn't looking dark and military. Every time he wasn't involved (later TOS movies) or dead (TNG movies and every show after TNG), they went back to dark and military.