Klingons in STID--why do they look like [SPOILERS]?

[sttngfan1701d]

So it's okay for Star Trek TMP to change the look of the Klingons to what they would eventually become, and very different from what they were in TOS, but not okay for STID to make some design tweaks to what we saw in the 90's?

The super-nitpicky portion of Trek fandom is a curious creature indeed.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

You know, I sort of like the look of the Klingons in the new film, but I also think canon should be respected and there should be consistency. If the Klingons are prominent in the next film, a two minute explanation about their appearance would be swell.

 

[cooleddie74]

J.J. and his writers are no fools groping in the dark with little or no clue. They've made Enterprise references in both of their films thus far and I'm sure they all know about the ENT explanation for why Klingons had smooth, more humanlike appearances in the era of the original series. I'm sure if he and they had wanted to mention something about the Klingons' appearance in STID they would have, but the Klingon scenes were all related to intense combat and the capture of Harrison/Khan, so it's not as if there was any plausible reason nor even the time to have Uhura or Spock or Kirk mention something about some Klingons not having cranial ridges when the focus of that whole sequence was the running battle on Qo'noS and Khan kicking some major ass.

If it happens at all, there'll be a more appropriate time and place for the forehead issue to be spoken about.

 

[Amaris]

You know, I sort of like the look of the Klingons in the new film, but I also think canon should be respected and there should be consistency. If the Klingons are prominent in the next film, a two minute explanation about their appearance would be swell.

What canon? The only canon that exists in this timeline has already explained why the Klingons look more smooth ridged as they do, and why they seem to take some eerily human aesthetics.

 

[malchya]

I hope that my daughter never reads this as I would never, ever be able to live it down: Canon, Shmanon. My first response was "Holy @$%&!" and that is the response you want from a Klingon. In retrospect, I groused about "JJ Klingons" and how I am conservative etc, etc. But that first reaction is what matters.

The D-4 left me cold. Too "Matrix" for me. But I could accept them. I mean, after all, I don't really like Spanish cruiser designs from the 20's and 30's either, but I accept they are real ships....

 

[SalvorHardin]

 

[BillJ]

You know, I sort of like the look of the Klingons in the new film, but I also think canon should be respected and there should be consistency. If the Klingons are prominent in the next film, a two minute explanation about their appearance would be swell.

Ugh.

We're Star Trek fans, we're suppose to be smart and imaginative. Isn't the explanation that all Klingons don't look alike good enough? It is for me.

 

[Dick Whitman]

My only complaint about the Klingons is we did not see enough of them.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

You know, I sort of like the look of the Klingons in the new film, but I also think canon should be respected and there should be consistency. If the Klingons are prominent in the next film, a two minute explanation about their appearance would be swell.

Ugh.

We're Star Trek fans, we're suppose to be smart and imaginative. Isn't the explanation that all Klingons don't look alike good enough?

No.

Heck, even an official explanation in a press release as to why the Klingons look as they do would be nice. It wouldn't have to be explained on screen. A documentary on the evolution of the appearance of Klingons would be sweet.

 

[Commishsleer]

Its good to see Klingons be almost as badass as they were in TOS until STVI. After STVI and in ENT they seemed to me to be acting like a bunch of drunken jocks travelling around the galaxy. However Uhura was wrong because in TOS, Klingons didn't crap on about honour and I'm disappointed that they didn't just try to destroy Mudd's ship without warning.

Forget the augment virus guys. It was all a Nexus dream. The Klingons always had head ridges and they always looked as they look in the current movie.

The Romulans always had ridges or never had ridges. No explanation. None needed

 

[Bengoshi2000]

My only complaint about the Klingons is we did not see enough of them.

+1!

I found these Klingons to be much more menacing than the "blood and honor pontificating race" they became in TNG and later series. Uhura tried to "connect" with them on that level, and, well... we know how that worked out.

I also liked the use of piercings/jewelry. I can imagine that those would be used to signify rank or enemy kills.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I also liked the use of piercings/jewelry. I can imagine that those would be used to signify rank or enemy kills.

I don't think they'd do that. Klingons have never worn rank insignia of any kind, since they can be trusted to be exactly the rank they say they are - it would be grossly dishonorable to lie about your rank or how many enemies you killed.

A Klingon might wear things like this as pure decoration, but not to signify anything specific. Their word is good enough.

 

[F. King Daniel]

You know, I sort of like the look of the Klingons in the new film, but I also think canon should be respected and there should be consistency. If the Klingons are prominent in the next film, a two minute explanation about their appearance would be swell.

Ugh.

We're Star Trek fans, we're suppose to be smart and imaginative. Isn't the explanation that all Klingons don't look alike good enough?

No.

Heck, even an official explanation in a press release as to why the Klingons look as they do would be nice. It wouldn't have to be explained on screen. A documentary on the evolution of the appearance of Klingons would be sweet.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Actually the computers ARE different, because of the advanced tech gleaned from scans of the Narada.

 

[GMDreia]

The Klingons look much better on the movie screen than they do in the screen caps. The ridges look very subtle and the piercings look like they are meant to make the subtler ridges look more fierce. The costumes are a nod to the TOS costumes. I can buy the ridges in STID as a midway point between the Klingons suffering from the augment virus, and TNG - we have seen other Klingons before who were nearly ridgeless (like General Chang) and still bought them as Klingons.

There is more to a successful portrayal of something, than just how it looks; that's only one part. Most importantly they FELT Klingon.

 

[DavidLeeRoth]

Ugh.

We're Star Trek fans, we're suppose to be smart and imaginative. Isn't the explanation that all Klingons don't look alike good enough?

No.

Heck, even an official explanation in a press release as to why the Klingons look as they do would be nice. It wouldn't have to be explained on screen. A documentary on the evolution of the appearance of Klingons would be sweet.

The first three are different actors but are understood to be the same person, the 4th is because of a bigger budget and perhaps Starfleet spent more on ships in the alt. timeline because of Nero's attack, the 5th one makes no sense at all and the last one is because the Kahless that Kirk etc. saw was his idea of what he would have looked like, not what Kahless actually did look like.

 

[marksound]

Ugh.

We're Star Trek fans, we're suppose to be smart and imaginative. Isn't the explanation that all Klingons don't look alike good enough?

No.

Heck, even an official explanation in a press release as to why the Klingons look as they do would be nice. It wouldn't have to be explained on screen. A documentary on the evolution of the appearance of Klingons would be sweet.

These side-by-sides look exactly the same to me.

And all Klingons look exactly like my avatar.

 

[Nerys Myk]

No.

Heck, even an official explanation in a press release as to why the Klingons look as they do would be nice. It wouldn't have to be explained on screen. A documentary on the evolution of the appearance of Klingons would be sweet.

The first three are different actors but are understood to be the same person, the 4th is because of a bigger budget and perhaps Starfleet spent more on ships in the alt. timeline because of Nero's attack, the 5th one makes no sense at all and the last one is because the Kahless that Kirk etc. saw was his idea of what he would have looked like, not what Kahless actually did look like.

It took 40 years to explain why the Movie/TNG+ Klingons looked different than the TOS ones. And there's never been an explanation as to why there are so many variations of Movie/TNG+ Klingons. So, why does this variation need an explanation?

 

[Classic Fan]

I had no problems with the new Klingons.

Besides, makeup evolves. For the better in this case. They actually now look as badass as their reputation. I like the new creepy ice blue contact lenses. Doesn't make sense with the dark complexion but is strikingly different and works so well.

Also, why is everyone up in arms about them? Another possible reason, they may even be from a different continent on Qo'nos to what weve seen before, oh sorry, for casual JJ Trekkers, phonetically its Kronos.

 

[cooleddie74]

The "new" Klingon look was cool. Klingons looked creepy and intimidating again. Dislike them if you want, but they didn't have eyestalks, walk on all fours or glow in the dark. J.J. didn't reboot their look at all.

They were Klingons. Pretty traditional Klingons along the lines of we've come to expect since 1979. They weren't as radical a change as some think. In a race of billions there are bound to be some that cosmetically hang decorative rings in their cranial ridges and have lighter-colored eyes.