Just wondering how people stand today, a few years after the fact and after a season of prominent absence.
The problem was not the looks. The problem was that the DIS team never explained why the Klingons looked that way, and why their ships looked they way they did, a decade before TOS. And all it would have taken was a few lines of dialogue to elaborate on it. It could have been said in an exchange between L’Rell & Burnham. Here’s an example.
L’Rell:“Klingons on a whole don’t like Archer and everything he stands for, but its thanks to him and that Denobulan doctor of his that the Klingon Empire ended its centuries long stagnation and unleashed creativity and a cultural renaissance not seen since the days of Kahless.”
Burnham: “How?”
L’Rell: “By treating the worst bout of Levodian flu the Empire had ever seen on Qu’Vat colony. Human blood being added to the Klingon gene pool to create this treatment caused the Klingon Empire to withdraw into our borders, and forced us to re-evaluate our priorities beyond cranial reconstruction.”
Burnham: “So that’s why the Federation from its inception did not hear from the Klingons for 60 years.”
L’Rell: “Consequently for the Federation, we were culturally awakened to such an extent that when you sent vessels to re-establish contact in one of your expansionist efforts and we opened fire on them, you interpreted our response as being quite hostile and that we were in a state of war. Even though, in our very first meeting with Archer, opening fire on him and his crew would have been the appropriate Klingon response to a first contact, as a symbol of strength. But the Emperor at the time was a dotard and his behaviour was unKlingon. The Levodian flu and Archer changed the Empire for the better.”
That’s it. That's all they needed to do. Discovery’s reluctance to elaborate on the change of appearances was lazy.
Why bog down the show with unneeded explanations? Did TMP grind to a halt so Crewman Exposition could explain why Klingons looked different?The problem was not the looks. The problem was that the DIS team never explained why the Klingons looked that way, and why their ships looked they way they did, a decade before TOS.
Why bog down the show with unneeded explanations? Did TMP grind to a halt so Crewman Exposition could explain why Klingons looked different?
It's not that radical. It's just building on the bumpy head look that's been with us since TMP. A look that's always evolving. And sometimes devolving. The post TMP TOS movies seemed to pull back a bit on things like crazy bumps and teeth, while on TV they leaned into it.The generally accepted explanation for the TMP Klingons is that ‘they always looked that way,’ and that the TOS Klingons actually looked that way as well; the audience just needs to ignore their human-with-oily-skin appearance as an inaccurate representation of them. And indeed, when we see Klingons in both the future (TOS films, TNG, DS9, VOY and the TNG films) and the past (ENT), the Klingons look pretty much the same as when they appeared in TMP. Even the Abrams films deviated very little from the ‘norm.’ Even the Klingon basic ship design has changed very little from TOS and its sequels and prequel. And like it or not, DSC and PIC (and presumably SNW) has solidified the idea that what we saw in TOS is an inaccurate representation of the actual happenings of 2266-69, rather than the more sensible route of making DSC a reboot.
However, the DSC Klingons and their ships represent such a radical change from the TMP-based Klingons that I think many are correct to question the in-universe reasoning for it. If someone who had watched every Star Trek episode and film was not told beforehand that those aliens in DSC were Klingons and their ships, there’s no way they would have known based solely on their looks. So @FederationHistorian is right to want an explanation. I don’t know if I’d do it in the way he described, but I also wouldn’t have just ignored the obvious extreme changes to the makeup like what DSC did.
Hyperbole. All they did was lose the hair and reinforce the more alien aspects like the ridges.They completely reinvent the visual look of the Klingons,
They also multiplied the nostrils, changed the ears, extended and pointed the skull, and corrugated the neck and throat. Not saying they shouldn't have, just that it was a bit more involved than just alopecia and forehead ridges.All they did was lose the hair and reinforce the more alien aspects like the ridges.
They also multiplied the nostrils, changed the ears, extended and pointed the skull, and corrugated the neck and throat. Not saying they shouldn't have, just that it was a bit more involved than just alopecia and forehead ridges.
Which is fine. Still could tell they were Klingons and this is art. Creativity is an asset not a detriment.
Well, it can't be all for all. The MU should have been saved for Season 2. But, that's a story choice not a design choice. The Klingons demonstrated that a familiar alien race could be expanded upon and made to feel more diverse.Really, I would have preferred more creativity in season one in general, rather than falling back on hoary Trek tropes of Klingons and the Mirror Universe. This was a show trying to be all things to all people, and I don’t think it worked very well.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.