• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Do you like the Discovery Klingon look?

Do you like the discovery Klingon look?

  • Hate it

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • Love it

    Votes: 18 32.1%
  • Couldn’t care less

    Votes: 12 21.4%

  • Total voters
    56
Kor may have been, but Kang and Koloth weren't.

Nor were ENT's Marab or Laneth.

Sorry, but the entire "Quch'Ha" look is taken from various racist depictions of Asians from the "Yellow Peril" tropes. The long hair, the pointed eyebrows, the widow's peak, the pointed goatee -- these are all parts of the Yellow Peril stereotype look, and even the absence of a Fu Manchu mustache does not negate these things.

The Quch'Ha are an artifact of the levels of racism that were acceptable to white society in the 1960s, and they should be left in the 60s.
 
Each one represented the conflicts the USA faced at the time. Right now the USA's biggest enemy is itself. Star Trek is a mirror and, like it or not, that's what the mirror's telling us.

That mirror also told us that we'll get through it. So here's hoping.

Ok, fair. There were aspects of the Klingons that were trying to preserve their culture in S1, which mirrors some Trump supporters. But I never felt like it even addresses the idea of those who were not considered “deplorables”, but still backed Trump anyways

If there had been a story where say, a group of Vulcans or Andorians or Tellarites defected to the Klingons, and these Vulcans/Andorians/Tellarites jumped ship because for all the faults of the Klingon Empire, they were willing to tackle certain issues important to Vulcans/Andorians/Tellarites head on. For Vulcans, there are lingering concerned of the potential re-emergence of the Romulan Empire, who tried to annex and exterminate Vulcan in the Romulan War after Vulcan publicly denounced reunification and denied being even related to them. For Andorians, fears of an increasing porous Neutral Zone border might lead to the largest abduction of Aenar not seen since the height of the Romulan War and the Federation won’t devote resources to tackle it. For Tellarites, they are still recovering from how the Romulans crippled economics in the region via a devastating kamikaze attack on Coridan that left millions dead and wiped numerous dilithium stores, and with the unprecedented joint Tellarite-Orion partnership to help Cordian to recover from the war through foreign aid expiring, they are turning to the Klingons for support on the advice of the Orions. From the perspective of Vulcan/Andorian, the Klingons had a much stronger defense of their borders and are much more prepared for a future conflict with them. For Tellarites, they think that Klingons would show greater concern regarding their economic issues much better and already have the dilithium stores needed to help Cordian recover and resume trading with Tellar.

As a counterpoint, the Federation is shocked that the founding members of the Federation would defect to the Klingons, as they have intelligence operatives keeping a very close eye on Romulus (Vulcans), that border security on the Neutral Zone has been adequate in their view (Andorians), and that the Orions have proven over and over that their claims of simply being a merchant species and being on good terms with the Klingon Empire cannot be trusted and that’s why the Federation won’t support renewal of the agreement (Tellarites). And the Klingon are known to have committed war crimes after annexing Krios Prime and massacring the Sovereign Dynasty in the early 23rd century, kill dissidents of the Empire that defect, and to have interfered in the electoral process of the Federation, and for these reasons working with the Klingons is a non-starter for the leaders of the Federation.

Then in true Trek fashion, both sides of the argument find a way to resolve the problem together while further fleshing out early Federation history. Instead of the pew-pew-pew nonstop action.

DIS did not "try to erase" anything. They just had their own version of the Klingons they wanted to portray. Following your own muse does not mean you're shitting on someone else's work.

And yet there’s no issues with the redesign of Tellarite, as they have never been fleshed out before, so these variations in physical appearance make sense.

But the Klingons have been fleshed out for over 50 years. Issues over appearance should have been settled long ago. And they were, until DIS happened.

DIS provided all the explanation we need: This is what the Klingons look like on DIS. There is no need for any other explanation, any more than there is a need to explain why the Enterprise-A had over 80 decks in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier, or why the USS Voyager couldn't cross the galaxy as fast as Kirk's Enterprise in "Where No Man Has Gone Before."

TFF was a production error; in universe, the Ent-A also had a series of malfunctions and probably wasn’t assembled properly to begin with. That includes someone thinking that the Ent-A has 80 decks.

With VOY, that would make for a great sequel episode to “The Voyager Conspiracy”.

Have a different creative aesthetic than you is not a "goof."

No, the goof is not going into great detail into the origins of this side of the Klingons which has never been shown before, and why it was not seen in any other series before. Blindly accepting what’s on screen doesn’t work.

That doesn't make sense to me. Vulcan and Andor are part of the Federation. If the Federation is the stand-in for "us" (whoever "us" might be to the audience), wouldn't that make Vulcan and Andor counterparts to another province/state of one's own country, rather than a counterpart for an allied foreign country?

I’ve always seen the Federation as an allegory for America or NATO/<insert international alliances & partnerships here/>. And the events of ENT showed the history leading up to the alliance.

So, if there was a story about Romulan aggression to Vulcan to mirror China/Taiwan or North Korea/South Korea, or there was a story about a subspace eddy destroying an Andorian moon and Andorian colonists are afraid of returning to the area due to the radiation levels to mirror the Fukushima disaster that would be fine. As would a story of Vulcans feeling they have not yet received an apology from Andoria for various atrocities they did that took place decades prior to ENT, to mirror post-WW2 Japan.

No. T'Kuvma is coded as an allegory for Trump and T'Kuvma-ism as an allegory for Trumpism.

But DIS is also clear that T'Kuvma-ism, with its xenophobia, is not a universal belief held by all Klingons, and even depicts two T'Kuvmaists (L'Rell and the Ash-ified Voq) abandoning T'Kuvma's xenophobia and belief in Klingon supremacy.

Shame DIS killed T’Kuvma off. It would have been interesting to see where they take this character, in light of the past four years in the real world.

Kind of hard for the Klingons to be an allegory for a Soviet Union that has not existed for thirty years. (Also, Klingon culture in TOS had almost nothing in common with the Soviets -- it's not like we ever heard Klingons arguing that class conflict is the driving engine of history, or arguing about what kind of relationship workers should have to the means of production, or arguing that having a vanguard party to lead the people to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat is a good thing.)

TUC very clearly was a mirror to the Chernobyl disaster and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union. It’s a known fact that what the movie was an allegory for. Which opens the door for the Lost Era Klingons to be comparable to ‘90s Russia should there ever be a series on that era.
 
Tuskin and Fireproof,

Does 'everything' need an explanation? No, everything doesn't. But the precedent was set by ENT to explain the drastic changes in the look of the Klingons and with DISCO going even further in changing the look, fashion, and starship design of the Klingons, I do think an in-universe explanation would've smoothed some ruffled feathers. DISCO was already asking a lot of the veteran Trekker audience with including Burnham as Spock's surprise sister and a visual 'reboot' that made the starships, uniforms, and just about everything else look a century or more advanced than TOS, despite being set 10 years before. I think the other series (as well as the Kelvin films) did a pretty good job keeping the aesthetics largely in line-allowing for a sense of verisimilitude, that all these various series were taking place within the same continuity. It's also to some extent a respect thing to pay homage to older creators/artists and build on what came before. I loved seeing the original Enterprise on DS9 or that scene with Picard on the Enterprise bridge in "Relics."

DISCO/Short Treks hasn't had a problem explaining why Spock was more cheerful in align his DISCO version with "The Cage", or seeding their episodes with Easter Eggs, so I don't understand why it seems to be a no-no to wish that they had explained why the Klingons looked so different. In the second season when they sort of went back to a more 'traditional' look and along with giving us the D-7, and explained why they cut their hair in the first season, the show has already opened the book about the Klingons' appearance. Also, fellow series Picard explained the ridges of the Romulans with one line of dialogue-I don't think anyone was really demanding that-but they did it, and it was done, everyone seems to have accepted it and kept it pushing. The same could've been done with DISCO's Klingons, and also added to the lore as well.

I'm not opposed to a visual reboot, or sprucing things up. While it might be verboten, I think the Axanar fan film did a good job of adhering to what came before but sprucing it up so that 21st century viewers could get into it.

I'll be honest here and say it rankles a bit for some people to police-or so it feels like to me-what some fans might want to see or not. Discussion, debate, that's fine. That's what these forums are for, and nothing is wrong with a difference of opinion, but I don't see what the big deal is when it comes to wishing for more explanation with the Klingons. It's already been done before, there's precedent, and especially on a forum dedicated to discussing Trek, I don't see why this is a question that shouldn't be raised, if for no other reason to get some speculation going. New fans or casual fans might not care at all about the change in appearance, and that's fine as well, though I am assuming that casual fans are also not involved in many of these discussions. I also wonder if DISCO is the introduction to Trek for some, if they start going back to the older series will it throw them off to see the Klingons looking so differently? DISCO largely kept their behavior the same, but I wonder if there will be a bit of confusion over why the Klingons look like they do in DISCO especially after they see ENT and TOS?
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but the entire "Quch'Ha" look is taken from various racist depictions of Asians from the "Yellow Peril" tropes. The long hair, the pointed eyebrows, the widow's peak, the pointed goatee -- these are all parts of the Yellow Peril stereotype look, and even the absence of a Fu Manchu mustache does not negate these things.

The Quch'Ha are an artifact of the levels of racism that were acceptable to white society in the 1960s, and they should be left in the 60s.

So if we ever see QuchHa' again, what do you think they should look like? Completely human? That would be kind of weird, wouldn't it?
 
Then in true Trek fashion, both sides of the argument find a way to resolve the problem together while further fleshing out early Federation history. Instead of the pew-pew-pew nonstop action.
DSC is generally not non-stop pew-pew action, contrary to what some people like to say. The last episode of the first season, "Will You Take My Hand?", which is what we're talking about, was as far from non-stop pew-pew action as you can get. They spent fully half the episode hanging out at the Orion Embassy on Qo'noS. And then the episode ended with Burnham talking to L'Rell and giving her what she needed to get the Klingons in-line behind her and then talking down Georgiou.

Re-watch the episode again. Actually, from the way you're talking, it sounds like you either don't remember the episode at all, didn't actually watch it, or were only half-paying attention when it was on while you were doing other things and grabbing a drink or whatever.

The only episodes of DSC that were "non-stop pew pew" were "Into the Forest, I Go" (the mid-season finale of S1), "What's Past Is Prologue" (the final Mirror Universe episode in S1), and the "Such Sweet Sorrow" two-parter at the end of S2, along with the season finale of S3.

I think bashers of DSC secretly love "Such Sweet Sorrow", not because they enjoy it but because they can point to it and say "See?! You see?! Non-stop pew-pew action!" It serves their purposes. It's the worst offender of the episodes I listed above.
 
Last edited:
DSC is generally not non-stop pew-pew action, contrary to what some people like to say. The last episode of the first season, "Will You Take My Hand?", which is what we're talking about, was as far from non-stop pew-pew action as you can get. They spent fully half the episode hanging out at the Orion Embassy on Qo'noS. And then the episode ended with Burnham talking to L'Rell and giving her what she needed to get the Klingons in-line behind her and then talking down Gergiou.

Re-watch the episode again. Actually, from the way you're talking, it sounds like you either don't remember the episode at all, didn't actually watch it, or were only half-paying attention when it was on while you were doing other things and grabbing a drink or whatever.

The only episodes of DSC that were "non-stop pew pew" were "Into the Forest, I Go" (the mid-season finale of S1), "What's Past Is Prologue" (the last episode in the Mirror Universe), and the "Such Sweet Sorrow" two-parter at the end of S2, along with the season finale of S3.

I think bashers of DSC secretly love "Such Sweet Sorrow", not because they enjoy it but because they can point to it and say "See?! You see?! Non-stop pew-pew action!" It serves their purposes. It's the worst offender of the episodes I listed above.

IIRC, there was not a single legitimate ship-to-ship battle in Season 2 until the finale.
 
Does 'everything' need an explanation? No, everything doesn't. But the precedent was set by ENT to explain the drastic changes in the look of the Klingons and with DISCO going even further in changing the look, fashion, and starship design of the Klingons, I do think an in-universe explanation would've smoothed some ruffled feathers.
Perhaps, but that's not a need, as you state. If it's a wish then state it as such. But saying that long spouts of exposition are required to make sense of the Klingon appearance when this has a) been done before and b) there has been a variety of changes without explanation is odd, to say the least.
I'll be honest here and say it rankles a bit for some people to police-or so it feels like to me-what some fans might want to see or not.
I'm not trying to police anything. I just stating my opinion, especially when there is the appearance of a demand that the writers conform to fans desire to have a highly technical expository style dialog to explain all differences within the visuals. To the point that the characters and their motivations are secondary to technical exposition.

But, by and large, the discussion comes down to what do we want in Star Trek. For me, Star Trek is a beautiful place to explore different aspects of humanity while exploring space. I don't necessarily find value in large spouts of exposition on screen. In book form I would have no issue with it.

Finally, with all due respect to Trek fans, the production team is making art, not a documentary. They are creative people taking ideas and expanding upon them, while adding their own creative touch. I was recently watching a BTS of Into Darkness and the designers talking about how Klingons is a part of Star Trek but also giving freedom for their make up artists to take these designs and explore them, rather than recreate what had been done. I think that if fans want respect of the product it would be helpful to be respect of these artistic people.
I wonder if there will be a bit of confusion over why the Klingons look like they do in DISCO especially after they see ENT and TOS?
I think the below post would sum it up:
Roughly? “Oh look, the Klingons look a bit different. Hmm, fair enough”

I know right? No anger, bitterness or resentment. Call myself a Trek fan…..?
Again, TMP demonstrates that we as fans can take difference appearances and accept them, with or without explanation. @DarKush I'm all for discussion with regards to the why but expecting artists and storytellers to slow down their story to exposit all changes strikes me as unreasonable.
 
IIRC, there was not a single legitimate ship-to-ship battle in Season 2 until the finale.

As far as ship-to-ship battles, I don't think DSC has them in any greater proportion than DS9, VOY, or ENT. Each season has a pattern budget and there are key episodes where they go all out, and then the rest of them, they don't. Even with DSC's larger budget, it's all in proportion. The FX budget is bigger, but so is the budget for everything else, including the make-up and sets.

Every season of Star Trek, from the middle of the '90s onward, had least a few episodes that are specifically for the Big Battles. And those battles got as big as whatever they could pull off at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Perhaps, but that's not a need, as you state. If it's a wish then state it as such. But saying that long spouts of exposition are required to make sense of the Klingon appearance when this has a) been done before and b) there has been a variety of changes without explanation is odd, to say the least.

I'm not trying to police anything. I just stating my opinion, especially when there is the appearance of a demand that the writers conform to fans desire to have a highly technical expository style dialog to explain all differences within the visuals. To the point that the characters and their motivations are secondary to technical exposition.

But, by and large, the discussion comes down to what do we want in Star Trek. For me, Star Trek is a beautiful place to explore different aspects of humanity while exploring space. I don't necessarily find value in large spouts of exposition on screen. In book form I would have no issue with it.

Finally, with all due respect to Trek fans, the production team is making art, not a documentary. They are creative people taking ideas and expanding upon them, while adding their own creative touch. I was recently watching a BTS of Into Darkness and the designers talking about how Klingons is a part of Star Trek but also giving freedom for their make up artists to take these designs and explore them, rather than recreate what had been done. I think that if fans want respect of the product it would be helpful to be respect of these artistic people.

I think the below post would sum it up:

Again, TMP demonstrates that we as fans can take difference appearances and accept them, with or without explanation. @DarKush I'm all for discussion with regards to the why but expecting artists and storytellers to slow down their story to exposit all changes strikes me as unreasonable.

You're assuming that long spouts of exposition are needed to explain the differences between Kurtzman and Berman Klingons, and that's not the case necessarily. One line of dialogue explained the differences of the Romulans in Picard.

Further, we've had decades of fan speculation along with some non-canon literary theorizing about the differences between TOS and TOS movie/TNG Klingons, and so the talk over the DISCO Klingons isn't nothing new, and very much within tradition as it were.

There's nothing wrong with being creative and having some artistic flair, but it's quite another to do a radical enough break in the visual style of a species that it does prompt these kind of debates. Wanting/wishing for an explanation is not out of bounds here. I haven't been a fan much of the other DISCO visual rebooting when it comes to established species but there's way less to go on with say the Andorians than fifty something years of Klingons on screen, and a good 30 plus of the TOS movie/TNG aesthetic being the most prominent and dare say, 'definitive' look of the Klingons, until DISCO.

Star Trek is art, but it's also business, and to make such drastic changes can mess with the visual trigger of who the Klingons are supposed to be, and confuse the audience, therefore lowering enthusiasm, or causing needless griping that can get in the way of the story they want to tell or sell. Even the change from TOS to the Motion Picture look still had the Klingons in a familiar/familiar enough looking D7 so the audience-in-the-know knew right off that those were Klingons of some kind.

While Trek is not a documentary, the franchise has set out to attempt to make all of their series fit within the same continuity, which should be a brake on creative license as it were; guide might be a better term here. CBS didn't have to insist that DISCO, or any of their Trek, was in the Prime Universe. But once they did so, to make it fit and sell the illusion that this fictional future, then a documentarians approach wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. I assume that's why Kirsten Beyer was working with the DISCO folks in part to bring her knowledge of the franchise to help make DISCO exist more easily alongside the other series.
 
Last edited:
You're assuming that long spouts of exposition are needed to explain the differences between Kurtzman and Berman Klingons, and that's not the case necessarily. One line of dialogue explained the differences of the Romulans in Picard.
I'm working with what has been presented by fans here. Exposition has been stated repeatedly as a preference.
Further, we've had decades of fan speculation along with some non-canon literary theorizing about the differences between TOS and TOS movie/TNG Klingons, and so the talk over the DISCO Klingons isn't nothing new, and very much within traditional as it were.
I didn't say otherwise. But demanding or telling production teams what should be done creates a different tone.

Even the change from TOS to the Motion Picture look still had the Klingons in a familiar/familiar enough looking D7 so the audience-in-the-know knew right off that those were Klingons of some kind.
Was any one who watched Discovery confused as to who the aliens were? Or, was it able to be known right off they were Klingons of some kind, especially by those in the know?
 
I loved STD's original Klingon designs. Felt the ST universe was exactly 11 Berman Trek television seasons past due for a total top-to-bottom overhaul by that point. Grudgingly acknowledged the excessive makeup seemed problematic for the actors, after everyone else had complained about it.

STD-2 of course rolled them back, because they were listening to the fans and had no strong creative convictions of their own.

Everything on ST is retroactive, until the next retroactive comes along to replace it. The TOS movies (reboots included) understood this. Even TNG understood this, though Berman Trek did not. STD likewise understood this (past tense), though Kurtzman Trek does not.

You do not mix-and-match design concepts from across multiple periods (what STP already did with the Romulans) based on some misguided notion that this restores credibility (on the contrary, it does exactly the opposite by stretching it). You commit to exactly one of the styles in front of you -- or you come up with something new.

Would you continue a long-running comic book, which had already passed through the hands of multiple artists, in generic fashion by trying to marry all their previous styles together? As if to cover up that there ever had been a change of style in the first place? You don't have creative license to do that. That's somebody else' work you're trying to gloss over and recontextualize. There has been a change in style, damn it, and it was done deliberately. If you want something different, you disregard everything else. Trying to reconcile it in some way defeats the purpose of it having been intended as retroactive.

I'm not a fan of Affliction~Divergence (or most of ENT-4 for that matter). To me the whole Augments~Ruffles Have Ridges storyline belongs to the same disregarded obscurity reserved for eps such as Threshold, Imaginary Friend, Omega Glory, Spock's Brain and Plato's Stepchildren. Mostly because it's just really kind of stupid. It's not a deal-breaker that Manny Coto and Rick Berman saw the disparate prosthetics as something to be explained away rather than appreciated as being incompatibly different interpretations of a thing. But not surprisingly, such misguided efforts resulted in a rather stupid batch of episodes that exist in the service of nothing other than the shallow fan-service they provide. Worf's non-answer on DS9 really should have been the end of it.

Fuller made the whole argument moot when he had his Klingons redesigned, and Kurtzman Trek should have just owned what Fuller set up -- NO explanations, no apologies. It's not a deal-breaker that they listen to the fans and back-peddle over how something as seemingly trivial as how something looks, but it exemplifies the storytelling issues they are having.
 
I like the design of the DSC Klingons second only to the way they appeared in TMP. They were something more alien and threatening in those designs. My third favorite iteration was in Star Trek Into Darkness for those same reasons.

I'm not sure why anyone would care at this point. They've been through so many redesigns, it's just part of how things work.
 
I'm working with what has been presented by fans here. Exposition has been stated repeatedly as a preference.

I didn't say otherwise. But demanding or telling production teams what should be done creates a different tone.


Was any one who watched Discovery confused as to who the aliens were? Or, was it able to be known right off they were Klingons of some kind, especially by those in the know?

I am assuming that no one who saw DISCO's pilot didn't know these were Klingons because they started off the pilot speaking Klingon, and the pilot used dreaded exposition to set them up as Klingons. Despite the change in style, there were also other dialogue or behavior-like the Klingon death howl-which would inform older fans that these were in fact Klingons. But I recall seeing set photos of them before the pilot came out and they didn't strike me as Klingons. So if I hadn't gotten that dialogue and went on the look alone (plus already knew about aspects of the series before the premiere), I don't think I personally would've known they were Klingons right off the back.

As you said before you have an opinion, but so do I as well as other fans. If I don't like, or have quibbles, about something someone is trying to sell me, are we not supposed to voice them? And a lot of fun for me on these threads is talking about what could be done differently, and often 'better'. I doubt that CBS is waiting on what people say in this thread, though as others have pointed out, CBS has responded to fan outcry and are attempting to mollify fans so they can stay in business. The Season 2 DISCO Klingons are more traditional looking, we got a D7; arguably it was the positive fan reaction to Pike, Spock, and Number One in DISCO S2 that got us Strange New Worlds. The non-canon DISCO comic that took place after S2 went even further bringing back TOS's Kor, so someone at CBS is listening to fans and doing what they can to make this fit better, even if it's just in the non-canon ancillary works.

I don't think creatives and fans are mutually exclusive and must be opposed. It's great when they are in tune. I'm not the biggest fan of Lower Decks, but I think so far Lower Decks creatives have their finger on the pulse of the older fans the best, and it's not hurt their ability to tell stories or create compelling characters (Lower Decks has the best developed ensemble in all CBS Trek so far, IMO).
 
I am assuming that no one who saw DISCO's pilot didn't know these were Klingons because they started off the pilot speaking Klingon, and the pilot used dreaded exposition to set them up as Klingons. Despite the change in style, there were also other dialogue or behavior-like the Klingon death howl-which would inform older fans that these were in fact Klingons. But I recall seeing set photos of them before the pilot came out and they didn't strike me as Klingons. So if I hadn't gotten that dialogue and went on the look alone (plus already knew about aspects of the series before the premiere), I don't think I personally would've known they were Klingons right off the back.

As you said before you have an opinion, but so do I as well as other fans. If I don't like, or have quibbles, about something someone is trying to sell me, are we not supposed to voice them? And a lot of fun for me on these threads is talking about what could be done differently, and often 'better'. I doubt that CBS is waiting on what people say in this thread, though as others have pointed out, CBS has responded to fan outcry and are attempting to mollify fans so they can stay in business. The Season 2 DISCO Klingons are more traditional looking, we got a D7; arguably it was the positive fan reaction to Pike, Spock, and Number One in DISCO S2 that got us Strange New Worlds. I don't think creatives and fans are mutually exclusive and must be opposed. It's great when they are in tune. I'm not the biggest fan of Lower Decks, but I think so far Lower Decks creatives have their finger on the pulse of the older fans the best, and it's not hurt their ability to tell stories or create compelling characters (Lower Decks has the best developed ensemble in all CBS Trek so far, IMO).
Sounds like you have it all figured out then.
 
Unfortunately, the issue isn't the fans crying about things, because that will happen ad nauseum until the end of time.

The issue is that the creative teams need to have a vision and stick to their guns.

Change is hard, but it's also a necessary component to any artistic or organic process. I'd rather Trek change, and take the lumps associated with it, than stay the same. The only thing worse than staying the same is attempting change, loosing your stomach for it mid-stream, and then having a do-over.

Anyone who understands change management knows this is a very bad approach.

I love DSC and probably always will.......but this is a mistake the producers have made with the series, in my humble opinion.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top