Star Trek IV question about makeup?

[Garak007]

If we look back to the Klingons back in TMP their makeup was more or less the same in Star Trek III what I mean is that the forehead the ridges are very visible. Same could be said for ST: TNG and onwards.

How comes in Star Trek IV the whole makeup of the Klingons is more or less different with the main cast. Their ridges are not so visible. You can not point it towards a budget as we seen makeup of Klingons in the movies before and we all know the big jump from TOS.

Would these Klingons could be the remains of Augments perhaps? How else can you explain the Shakespeare talking Klingon called Chang

Some mod edit the topic to Star Trek VI please. Dam Roman numbers

 

[Christopher]

The Klingon makeup in ST:TMP was done by Fred Phillips. In TSFS it was done by The Burman Studio. From TVH through TUC it was done by Richard Snell Designs. Each different makeup designer chose to redesign the Klingon makeup in a different way, just as Michael Westmore did in TNG. Phillips' TMP Klingon design had a smooth cranium with a single vertebral ridge in the middle. Burman's redesign replaced the single ridge with a wide, full-forehead plate that was individualized for each Klingon. Snell went with something in between the two, individualized skull plates that were generally rounder and less pronounced than Burman's. Westmore's design used heavy, individualized forehead plates like Burman's but with Snell-like ridges above the temples and Phillips-like nose ridges. It's just a case of different artists bringing their own artistic judgment to the design process, no doubt with some influence from the respective directors and producers.

Chang's ridges were unusually light because Christopher Plummer requested it; he didn't want to be hidden under a lot of weird makeup. Azetbur's ridges were unusually light because the filmmakers wanted Rosana DeSoto to look attractive, i.e. humanlike. But Gorkon had heavy, almost Burman/Westmore-style ridges, and most of the Klingons in TUC were somewhere in between those extremes.

 

[JarodRussell]

I liked what they did in Star Trek 6, because it would have perfectly implied there could be Klingons with no forehead ridges at all, too. We have Asians, Europeans, Africans, with different skin tones and skull shapes (or however you describe it properly in English) etc..., and the Klingons could have huge ridges, small ridges and no ridges. All as a the result of natural evolution.

 

[Christopher]

^I'm not sure that really works from an evolutionary standpoint, though. The only evolutionary reason for elaborate headgear like that is mating display or competition, most likely head-butting competition like that practiced by rams (and we have seen Klingons display such behavior in "Redemption," though not in an overt courtship context). So small ridges would be an evolutionary disadvantage and would tend to get weeded out.

 

[JarodRussell]

^I'm not sure that really works from an evolutionary standpoint, though. The only evolutionary reason for elaborate headgear like that is mating display or competition, most likely head-butting competition like that practiced by rams (and we have seen Klingons display such behavior in "Redemption," though not in an overt courtship context). So small ridges would be an evolutionary disadvantage and would tend to get weeded out.

Well, who knows for sure?

Characteristic for every advanced intelligent species (hm, well, okay, evidence for that is only us humans at the moment, lol) is that they have overcome evolution/natural selection with tools, medicine and advanced social behavior. Hot women (with great genetic material) hooking up with ugly loosers (who either have bad genetic material or are simply no physical match for their competitors) is possible today, in other words.
And we still have genetic deficiencies like Dwarfism (i hope nobody takes that as offensive, it's surely not meant that way).




I just wish they had never explained it. First I don't like the explanation given in ENT, and then I believe there must be some stuff in fiction that needs to be left open to the imagination.

 

[Christopher]

Characteristic for every advanced intelligent species (hm, well, okay, evidence for that is only us humans at the moment, lol) is that they have overcome evolution/natural selection with tools, medicine and advanced social behavior.

Which is just my point. It's more likely that the variation is the result of technological intervention such as that seen in ENT than of natural selection. The Klingons don't seem to have been a technological civilization for tens of thousands of years or more, and their medical science is primitive compared to humans', so it's doubtful that the factors you cite would've had sufficient time to bring about the observed degree of genetic variation.

These things do take time, after all. Humans have been herding animals and using their milk for at least 9000 years, and yet the mutation for lactose tolerance (or rather, lactase persistence) in adulthood still hasn't spread through the majority of the species.

 

[JarodRussell]

The Klingons don't seem to have been a technological civilization for tens of thousands of years or more, and their medical science is primitive compared to humans', so it's doubtful that the factors you cite would've had sufficient time to bring about the observed degree of genetic variation.

Hm... well, in my opinion cranial ridges that suddenly dissolve because of a virus, and reappear some day because of a gene therapy (which is implied by Phlox) is not a much better explanation. I'm not saying mine would be good, but I don't like how they explained it in ENT.

 

[Hober Mallow]

If we look back to the Klingons back in TMP their makeup was more or less the same in Star Trek III what I mean is that the forehead the ridges are very visible. Same could be said for ST: TNG and onwards.

Not exactly. TMP makeup is pretty different from the rest of the series. All the klingons we see in TMP have not ridges, but a clear spine extension coming down their foreheads ending at the bridge of the nose. The nose is hooked and teeth are pointy and jagged. The hair is short and points up.

TSFS Klingons -- Forehead less pronounced. Huge spine on forehead replaced by ridges and valleys. Longer "Prince Valiant"-type hair. Hooked nose and crooked teeth taken away. Hooked nose and crooked teeth not seen again until TNG.

TVH -- Even less pronounced ridges, normal nose and teeth.

TFF -- Almost totally uniform ridges. Very little variety. Designed to match TVH look.

TUC -- Infinite variety of ridges, some pronounced, some barely visible. Infinite variety of hughs and hair lengths. Still normal teeth and nose.

TNG and TNG movies -- More pronounced forhead, center ridge with more creases and veins visible on either side. Hooked nose and funny teeth return. Hair initially very short on Worf, TSFS-length on other Klingons. Later on in TNG, all Klingons have long flowing Fabio hair. Female look is very similar to male look. In TOS movies, females have very slight ridges, much less severe look.

 

[DestinyCaptain]

The thing about the various looks over the years is that atleast in the Modern Trek era, TNG to ENT, they atleast try to incorporate several previous styles. The Maltz head is seen several times as is the Kruge head. While I am not a huge fan of the "virus" idea, I really don't mind the Klingon-Terran fusion concept. It just shouldn't happen onscreen in the course of an episode. It should take decades to work out.

I just wish we'd have seen a clean TMP Klingon atleast once more during the Berman era. I like them the most.

 

[FormerLurker]

I heard a theory that the ridges are scales, reflecting the idea that Klingons are reptilian, rather than mammalian, so I always thought the smaller, less defined ridges were an affectation of the wearer, using sandpaper to smooth them down.

In continuity, that is.

 

[Hober Mallow]

I just wish we'd have seen a clean TMP Klingon atleast once more during the Berman era. I like them the most.

So did I. They seemed the most alien. And Mark Leonard rocked that makeup.

 

[Christopher]

I heard a theory that the ridges are scales, reflecting the idea that Klingons are reptilian, rather than mammalian, so I always thought the smaller, less defined ridges were an affectation of the wearer, using sandpaper to smooth them down.

One, they're very clearly not scales, but bone structures beneath the skin.

Two, Klingons have breasts and body hair, give live birth, are warm-blooded, and are interfertile with humans and Romulans. They're unquestionably mammalian.

So whoever posited this theory needs to study up on basic biology.

 

[JarodRussell]

Well, whatever the Klingons evolved from, it looked like this:

 

[Oceanborn_angel]

Well, whatever the Klingons evolved from, it looked like this:

That looks kind of Reptilian to me, almost sauropod-like. But it still can't explain why humans, descended from ape-like creatures, have a genetic compatibility with Klingons unless the Klingon reptilian DNA is also sequenced in with human DNA.

 

[JarodRussell]

Why on Earth (or Kronos) would an alien creature looking like a reptile also share all of its features?

 

[Christopher]

Also, the mutations in "Genesis" didn't necessarily represent direct ancestors, but went back much farther -- some humans took on the characteristics of reptiles, fish, spiders, you name it. Heck, by modern taxonomic definitions, mammals would be counted as a variety of reptiles if not for tradition, because mammals arose as an offshoot of reptiles.

So we don't know that that's the direct evolutionary ancestor of Klingons, merely that it has aspects of something from their planet's evolutionary history.

And Jarod's right -- expecting alien life forms to conform exactly to terrestrial categories such as mammal, reptile, bird, etc. is like expecting alien planets to have the exact same continent shapes that Earth has. Alien taxonomic categories could easily mix and match traits of Earth categories, or have distinct traits all their own.

 

[Hober Mallow]

Also, the mutations in "Genesis" didn't necessarily represent direct ancestors, but went back much farther -- some humans took on the characteristics of reptiles, fish, spiders, you name it. Heck, by modern taxonomic definitions, mammals would be counted as a variety of reptiles if not for tradition, because mammals arose as an offshoot of reptiles.

But spiders? Spiders are not in our ancestry. By any chance did Brannon Braga write "Genesis?"

And Jarod's right -- expecting alien life forms to conform exactly to terrestrial categories such as mammal, reptile, bird, etc. is like expecting alien planets to have the exact same continent shapes that Earth has.

Which is my argument against there being any other intelligent humanoids in the universe.

 

[Christopher]

But spiders? Spiders are not in our ancestry. By any chance did Brannon Braga write "Genesis?"

As a matter of fact, he did, but he's hardly the only Trek writer to base an episode on screwy science.

But my point is, by the internal logic (if you can call it that) of the episode, the mutations we saw didn't necessarily represent direct ancestors, so Worf's mutated form wasn't necessarily what the Klingons had evolved from.

And Jarod's right -- expecting alien life forms to conform exactly to terrestrial categories such as mammal, reptile, bird, etc. is like expecting alien planets to have the exact same continent shapes that Earth has.

Which is my argument against there being any other intelligent humanoids in the universe.

Oh, that's a given -- there's no reason to expect alien sophonts to have a humanlike form. It's a storytelling conceit.

But for the purposes of this discussion, the key point to take away is that just having scales doesn't make an alien humanoid "reptilian." Particularly not if its females have breasts (mammaries), which make it a mammal by the literal definition of the word. So Klingons aren't reptiles, and neither are Cardassians.

 

[Maurice]

Re the TMP Klingons, there's a sort of antecedent for them in Roddenberry's 1974's "Planet Earth" telemovie/pilot.

Behold the proto-Klingon...

 

[FormerLurker]

But spiders? Spiders are not in our ancestry. By any chance did Brannon Braga write "Genesis?"

As a matter of fact, he did, but he's hardly the only Trek writer to base an episode on screwy science.

But my point is, by the internal logic (if you can call it that) of the episode, the mutations we saw didn't necessarily represent direct ancestors, so Worf's mutated form wasn't necessarily what the Klingons had evolved from.

And Jarod's right -- expecting alien life forms to conform exactly to terrestrial categories such as mammal, reptile, bird, etc. is like expecting alien planets to have the exact same continent shapes that Earth has.

Which is my argument against there being any other intelligent humanoids in the universe.

Oh, that's a given -- there's no reason to expect alien sophonts to have a humanlike form. It's a storytelling conceit.

But for the purposes of this discussion, the key point to take away is that just having scales doesn't make an alien humanoid "reptilian." Particularly not if its females have breasts (mammaries), which make it a mammal by the literal definition of the word. So Klingons aren't reptiles, and neither are Cardassians.

I'll concede that breasts a mammal makes. This doesn't change the argument that the foreheads are scales, though. You will have to show me an occurrence in nature where skin is so thin that it follows the contours of the underlying bone structure so completely it descends into grooves as well as rising up onto the ridges in perfect detail. As this doesn't happen, something must be going on on the surface of the skin in some way similar to scale patterns normally seen on reptilians that the underlying bone structures simply support with simple ridges and knobs.