Discovery Size Argument™ thread
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Agreed. It and the make-up are a product of a production that just couldn't figure out what it wanted to do and took off running with its pants down. From the visual diversity on-screen it looks as though they wanted to get more in depth with the species, their houses and culture, variations of design, and lore. However what actually happened and was written was more akin to a short excerpt that revolved around 3-4 Klingon characters literally touching no race background at all and in fact becoming overshadowed by a totally separate more fleshed out secondary plot (The Mirror Universe) which in full made the whole of the Klingon arc meaningless and the visual diversity no longer plot relatable.
When I consider visuals for a production I like to think Recognizable v. Diversity. If I know the core of the story and writing is going to require a lot of visual depth and spread then going down the road of varied visuals makes plenty of sense. The "bad guys" don't need to be recognizable if you're going to take the time to explain why it is and who they are to the audience as the show progresses. I'd buy the Klingon visuals of DSC if the show was 70-80% only about the Klingons and we were going to get more about who they are, what makes them so different, what more is there to the culture and houses that justify such diverse and stark visual changes. However when you know that the core of your show is going to be about other things (in this case the crew of the Discovery and their adventures) you gotta make the "bad guy" not only recognizable but also a repeatable affair that regardless of ship type, clothing item, or make-up element you as the viewer go, "that's the bad guy!", every time they pop up on screen even if that is only between 5-15% of the whole shows run-time.
Obviously DSC's S1 production was marred with whole block issues like the "loss" of the original showrunner, the introduction of two inexperienced low-level showrunners, Akiva Goldsman, writing room inexperience and lack of regulation by the two new showrunners, and of course a mass disconnect within production design and how it functioned in relationship to the varying writing room changes throughout the whole of the shows S1 production. Unfortunately the Klingons were a casualty of these issues which is extremely obvious on screen and even in production interviews that speak on the narrative of it all. All anyone can hope for is that all of this has been "mostly" resolved per S2 and that the smoother machine churns out tastier butter for the audience to digest. As some have pointed out the Klingons will be getting a "new" look come S2 which will for sure not be a radical departure from S1 but will more than likely aim to make them more recognizable on screen as Klingons universally (added hair, more universal costumes, and maybe just maybe slightly lighter prosthetic around the mouth). As for the ships they may also introduce more recognized designs and traits if the idea for S2 is a "unified" Klingon Empire on screen with L'rell as chancellor which could mean a more universal look to their future ships (redesigned TOS D7 prototypes or just more traditional hull shapes). Either way one can only hope with a smoother production that the kinks are slowly being ironed out.
Maybe he should have. We know he has a talent for alien ships and he designed most of the Klingon ships for ENT.
Understandable. They wanted the Klingons to be more alien.
In DSC we saw 6 Houses out of 24, we know they are experimenting with genetics, every house has a unique look and a little diffent genetic (caused to the expanse of the empire and living on other planets etc), i think they can explain everything in an canon-way. Just give them Time, i mean look how many shapes of humans are out there on our planet. So many Cultures, Religions... i think its closer to reality if the klingon race has a little bit more visual spectrum/range.
The first time i saw the DSC Klingons i thought WHAAAAT? But with the backstory of 24 houses with diffrent approaches to spiritualism, genetics etc. i am thrilled to see what they going to do next. I LOVE THAT.
The first time i saw the DSC Klingons i thought WHAAAAT? But with the backstory of 24 houses with diffrent approaches to spiritualism, genetics etc. i am thrilled to see what they going to do next. I LOVE THAT.
Oh I agree.. Klingon ships are a travisty.. A travi sham mockery.. I was hoping that each house has an "Air Force One" type ship where it was more ornate etc, while the "Line" ships were more like the D7.. but in the war, all we saw was the ornate ships, and then its called out as a D7.. I kringed..
So hopefully the S2 upgrade shows some more ships that are closer to the D7 line.. I'm okay with upgrades, the D7 Really needs one, but something that looks like a 25th centery klingon ship? ahh. nope.
So hopefully the S2 upgrade shows some more ships that are closer to the D7 line.. I'm okay with upgrades, the D7 Really needs one, but something that looks like a 25th centery klingon ship? ahh. nope.
The idea was start from scratch and reimagine the Klingons and their ships from the ground-up. My Secret Source™ (who's authenticity I can't guarantee, and it's third-hand anyway) tell me they deliberately hired designers with no prior knowledge of Star Trek to do the Klingon ships.
You know, like a reboot. Except somehow it's not.
Glen Hetrick said that recently, but we were explicitly told in the first or second episode it was 24 ships for 24 houses. I didn't count the holograms that spoke to T'Kuvma but In guessing there were 24 of them, too.
I just love how you put "Akiva Goldsman" in the list of "issues" this show had:
"The show was plagued by gross incompetence, negligence, bad writing, unfinished vfx, Akiva Goldsman, missed deadlines and a whole lot of other nasty troubles"...
I stand corrected.
Nope, only six holograms.
That explains it.
They hired North Korean designers of avant grade theatre who had to be kept in a brown paper bag in case they accidentally be exposed to design work on the way to a studio. They were possibly also colourblind, and May, in fact, have been hedgehogs.
And of course, it was 24 great Houses that were spoken of, those that formed the ruling political order of the day. There are undoubtedly many others which don't currently enjoy that prestige, but may have done in the past, and may yet, should that political order be upended. And then there will always be those that never stand a chance, but nevertheless flourish within their own seldom-explored niches and dusky corners.
Hey, that's the way the game is played these days with legacy franchises, and has been for some time, if it wasn't always. Personally, I used find it quite annoying when I found something (as I would oh so
Of course, nothing will ever please everyone, and no matter what balance may be struck, there will always be those who feel "THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR!" right alongside those who feel "CANON IS A STRAIGHTJACKET!" or what have you. For my part, I will always be eternally grateful that DSC just happened to come along at the right time for me to feel right at home within its take on Trek...and perhaps a bit befuddled and dismayed that so many others seem to feel the opposite. But again, that's just the way it is, and I have to remind myself that I've felt much the same about plenty of things that simply weren't my speed, at least not at the time...but were very much someone else's.
-MMoM
Yes. Thus, it's not entirely illogical to assume that among them were some whose House representatives have not yet been seen, as Hetrick said, no?
-MMoM
And of course, it was 24 great Houses that were spoken of, those that formed the ruling political order of the day. There are undoubtedly many others which don't currently enjoy that prestige, but may have done in the past, and may yet, should that political order be upended. And then there will always be those that never stand a chance, but nevertheless flourish within their own seldom-explored niches and dusky corners.
Hey, that's the way the game is played these days with legacy franchises, and has been for some time, if it wasn't always. Personally, I used find it quite annoying when I found something (as I would oh sopithilyjadedly put it in my owncritiquesscreeds) "fundamentally conflicted as to whether it wanted to be a remake or a continuation"; but in recent times I've come to realize that's a totally valid and (potentially) doubly fulfilling way to go. Something in there for the longtime hardcore fanatics, and something for the totally uninitiated. Something for those who treasure the storied past in all its minutiae, and something for those who are only interested in the latest newfangled model with all the updates, and without the baggage. Something old, something new; something borrowed, something...it was probably taking a deep dive into Doctor Who a few years back that brought me around to all this eating of one's cake whilst having it too, come to think of it. (Still, I have to admit it took Beyond and The Last Jedi before I began to really ease up on J.J. Abrams, by which I mean that I found those to complement and recontextualize his efforts that preceded them in a way that offset my initial misgivings and enabled me to enjoy them significantly more than I had in isolation.)
Of course, nothing will ever please everyone, and no matter what balance may be struck, there will always be those who feel "THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR!" right alongside those who feel "CANON IS A STRAIGHTJACKET!" or what have you. For my part, I will always be eternally grateful that DSC just happened to come along at the right time for me to feel right at home within its take on Trek...and perhaps a bit befuddled and dismayed that so many others seem to feel the opposite. But again, that's just the way it is, and I have to remind myself that I've felt much the same about plenty of things that simply weren't my speed, at least not at the time...but were very much someone else's.
-MMoM
The problem, it seems, is always when the new has to knock down the old to tell it’s new story. That’s where the storms come from. It’s the trap in the KT initially, and it tried so hard to avoid it, it’s very much the problem in the Star Wars films at the moment, X Files fell into it too, though it thought it was doing a good thing simplifying its own past. Jurassic World, surprisingly, didn’t do it so much...though you could argue having a Park be a success at all is sort of destroying the franchises past, and Wu becoming black hat villain instead of the cheeky crappy background character of the first film.
Doctor Who didn’t do it, but sort of did, with its Time War and ambiguity about what happened between 1996 and 2005 installments, but mostly it didn’t..but Who can do that easier than most.
If one doesn't do at least some knocking down and exploding of preconceived expectations and interpretations, then those in-the-know can never be set on equal footing with the know-nothings, which more or less defeats one of the primary purposes of the exercise. I'd say the trick is to knock it down first, and then find some way of putting the pieces back together in a cohesive manner. For me, DSC has been doing pretty well on that score. But YMMV.
What actually drew me into DW seriously—after having only dabbled (though quite enthusiastially) in Tom Baker/Peter Davison as a young child, when they would be sporadically shown here on PBS—was in fact "The Name Of The Doctor" and the 50th anniversary special that followed. The introduction of the War Doctor was a serious knockdown for the longtimers. But it meant that they and I were together experiencing a totally unfamiliar Doctor (and yet somehow still familiar, as always) and unexpected left turn (no pun intended) in the saga. For some it was the final end, or so they huffed. For me, it was a new beginning.
While I'm now looking forward to Whittaker and Chibnall's new take with bated breath, I doubt I ever would have taken the plunge into watching through the entire filmed history (and I do mean all of it, recons of missing episodes, spinoffs and all) if it hadn't been for Moffat's abidingly equal willingness to both reach so deeply into the show's past and irreverently "muck about" with it simultaneously! It was (mostly) great fun, and I came away with a real sense of having "the whole picture" but also one of knowing that any of it could be totally upended with the next revelation. (Sort of like an extension of the cliffhangers in the early years, where they'd build up your expectations for what was about to happen, and then unceremoniously sidestep it entirely with in the following installment!) A sense of knowing that the story doesn't end, especially not if it loops back on and tangles itself up in knots, and the picture is never complete, even if it seems perfectly fine and beautiful as it is, like Bob Ross (thanks again PBS!) you can always slap something else on top of it that totally rearranges it! As he might say, don't be afraid. It won't ruin the picture. (Unless your name is George Lucas...in which case sell it to Disney and leave the Mouse to deal with the mess.)
Myself, I have no complaints about the SW films right now, because I both quite liked the reverent Rogue One (except the CGI Tarkin & especially Leia, NOT good, creepy AF) and absolutely loved the wonderfully deconstructive Last Jedi (though it was bit long and meandering in places, I think it may have needed it and woudn't actually have been better for being trimmed down). I can't help being slightly apprehensive about Abrams coming back to direct IX, but I'll roll with it and try to go in with no foreknowledge or expectations (as I did with TLJ). Jurassic World I didn't really care for, tbh (still haven't seen Fallen Kingdom) but actually Wu being made into an antagonist was one of my favorite parts! Only ever seen a couple episodes of the original X-Files (I remember one where they were trapped on a ship where they couldn't drink the water?) and the first movie, but perhaps someday I'll take that plunge as well. Alas, not enough hours in the day at present! (Barely enough for this!)
Anyway, different strokes for different folks. I'd like to think I've grown past equating "I don't like it" with "it's bad." (I'm not quite sure about the inverse, though; I kind of figure if something manages to get you to like it, even a little, then no matter what its flaws may be, it's at least a partly successful endeavor on that front.) But there's always more growing to do! "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it." Or shall it?
-MMoM
Last edited:
Similar threads
