Considering Roddenberry and TNG first season, its a Star Trek tradition.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
I can't believe people are still defending that Augment bullshit
In ENT you saw ice caves and a bit of tundra.
Maybe it wasn't Paris.
Sure, we did see the Eiffel Tower, but that could just be a copy.
Paris 2: Croissant Chaos
I almost thought they might have been showing Tokyo (Tokyo Tower looks quite a bit like Eiffel tower with a different paint scheme) but then the street layout, and the French writing at the Starfleet building showed it was indeed Paris. I cant imagine Parisiennes letting that happen to their city, though, especially after a rebuild.
This is what happened when the county of Yorkshire conquered France...War of the Roses III almost thought they might have been showing Tokyo (Tokyo Tower looks quite a bit like Eiffel tower with a different paint scheme) but then the street layout, and the French writing at the Starfleet building showed it was indeed Paris. I cant imagine Parisiennes letting that happen to their city, though, especially after a rebuild.
It isn't bullshit.
They were asking about Discovery not Enterprise.
Certainly the Discovery aesthetic is depressing and ugly where stuff like Paris is concerned. That said, given that the city has apparently become the capital of a galactic civilization it's not hard to imagine that the attendant demands of that role might overwhelm centuries of history and tradition. 
So France is still 0-for-history.
It sure is. Growing up with Star Trek, we never questioned the Klingon's appearances. It was simple: budget was bigger, so they changed the make-up. If TOS had the same budget and make-up skills, Klingons would have looked similar. We just went it it. No explanation needed. Never, not once did I hear anyone bitching about it. Then the infamous DS9 episode happened and the writers decided to make a joke about it. Suddenly, in universe, someone acknowledged that change. That was completely unnecessary, but at least the explanation given (we don't talk about it) was good enough Fine, something changed, the Klingons don't want to talk about. Let's respect that and move on...
Whoever the braindead ENT writer was who decided we need the Augment virus, he was wrong, offering an explanation were for decades fans, who were totally fine to either live without one or make up their own head canon before, absolutely no explanation was necessary. And the one we got was so goddamn stupid, so outrageously dumb, so unapologetically nonsensical that it angered us more than it satisfied those couple of people who might have been under the impression they needed one.
The less said about the Augments, the faster this dark period of Star Trek writing gets forgotten, the better.
I agree it wasn't needed, but I don't think it's bullshit. It was a good couple episodes.
they still make me angry, decades later
The thing that bugs me about it is how people now say there simply must be an in-universe explanation for why the DSC Klingons look different, and then when it's pointed out they looked different in TMP onwards, we get "ah yes, but augment virus!"
So for the two decades or so between TMP and ENT season 4, we thought we were in a parallel universe, or that those weren't Klingons? No. After some grumbling, they were just accepted as a new makeup and costume design. Just as with the Trill, or the Andorians, or the Tellerites, or the Romulans.
ENT has ended up setting a precedent now that we can expect fanwanky explanations for things that we once just happily accepted. Writing wise, that's not a good precedent to set, in my opinion.
So for the two decades or so between TMP and ENT season 4, we thought we were in a parallel universe, or that those weren't Klingons? No. After some grumbling, they were just accepted as a new makeup and costume design. Just as with the Trill, or the Andorians, or the Tellerites, or the Romulans.
ENT has ended up setting a precedent now that we can expect fanwanky explanations for things that we once just happily accepted. Writing wise, that's not a good precedent to set, in my opinion.
Similar threads
