First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?
- Thread starter JacksonArcher
- Start date
So that's all Mass Effect aka Spirits Within style, coming from roughly the late nineties to early 2ks...almost entirely video game concept art also I believe...and all human or nominally human in origin.
Which you wish to compare to relatively finished costume from a TV series franchise dating back to the sixties....alien in origin.
Do you not see how those are different things?
A couple of those designs are also clearly Environmental Suits of some kind. Not Armour except in the broadest definition. If you want designs in Trek that resemble those (and were likely influences) then take a peek at the various Starfleet EVA suits over the years. You will probably like them, and don't seem to be familiar with older Trek stuff. You might also like the various Cardassian Armour/Uniforms used over the years, and the Breen.
They seem to be going a bit bio-organic with the designs on whatever these aliens are in general, and there are signs of what might be called a Klingon style in them.
A tall thin guy with pointed ears and no sense of humor? Sounds like an elf.
#Spockisfantasystyle
#Spockisfantasystyle
Leaving aside the factuality of the statement for a moment, I've never seen an argument pushing quiet so hard for creative conformity and lack of innovation. This isn't the usual bickering of 'It's different from prior Star Trek! The horror!' here. This is 'this thing is automatically bad, because it's different from random examples of totally unrelated media.'
I mean, bloody hell. By that reasoning, why don't the creative just give up and use the Starship Troopers costumes for the...978th genre property in recent history? At least it will all be uniform!
I mean, bloody hell. By that reasoning, why don't the creative just give up and use the Starship Troopers costumes for the...978th genre property in recent history? At least it will all be uniform!
Oh, I forgot to add: that last Sci-Fi image, I didn't mean to suggest that they should look like robots; it was just for curves and textures. And the second to last Sci-Fi "suit" image: the helmet doesn't have to be elongated; it was basically for textures.
Additionally, if something like that is too expensive and bulky for actors to wear for prolonged periods of time, then they could have dropped the idea of combat armor and gone with modest uniforms or futuristic tactical suits instead.
On the topic of Star Trek's "originality", see TV Tropes: Spikes of Villainy:
LOL! Sounds exactly like it. Must make sure the audience isn't confused. Star Trek just oozes "originality".
Additionally, if something like that is too expensive and bulky for actors to wear for prolonged periods of time, then they could have dropped the idea of combat armor and gone with modest uniforms or futuristic tactical suits instead.
On the topic of Star Trek's "originality", see TV Tropes: Spikes of Villainy:
"Look at the spikes he's wearing! He's gotta be evil!"
— One very smart little boy, Shadow Hearts: Covenant
An evil character, particularly his armor, will be covered in a mass of spikes, blades, horns, and spines that would make a porcupine jealous. Also, expect black or blood-red armor. The idea is to make sure the audience knows that this person or group is dangerous. . . .
— One very smart little boy, Shadow Hearts: Covenant
An evil character, particularly his armor, will be covered in a mass of spikes, blades, horns, and spines that would make a porcupine jealous. Also, expect black or blood-red armor. The idea is to make sure the audience knows that this person or group is dangerous. . . .
LOL! Sounds exactly like it. Must make sure the audience isn't confused. Star Trek just oozes "originality".
Scifi style from the last, maybe 5 years or so. In comparison, Star Trek has been developed for the last 50 years, with influences and styles from multiple sources. Most notably, in regards to the new look for the Klingons in the TOS films would be Star Wars, which you may or may not have heard of.
So, this argument is in error because it is not factoring how long this concept has been around, or the influences that drove it from conception to present day.
But, perhaps this is considered more practical?
Finally, Star Trek never claimed to be original, and if it had not succeeded, Gene Roddenberry would have moved on to bigger and better things. It has influences from Forbidden Planet, Tom Corbett Space Cadet, and on and on. It was not designed with "practicality" but with readily identifiable visuals.
I dunno. Giger innovated this sort of stuff almost 40 years ago with the Space Jockey. It's intricate and nice as an objet d'art and it's a change of pace from previous designs, but groundbreaking it aint.
In general the problem I have with modern design is this "more is more" mentality. Adding busier and busier detail does not necessarily make a design better. It's kind of like how the new Transformers are built from so many tiny pieces you can't even make them out compared to the 80s cartoon.
You also see this in today's sneaker designs.
Modern kitchen-sink excess:
vs. a classic:
It just seems like art schools are churning out a generation of artists who mistakenly believe that the way to impress people is through gratuitous detail for the sake of detail.
You can all get off my lawn now.
In general the problem I have with modern design is this "more is more" mentality. Adding busier and busier detail does not necessarily make a design better. It's kind of like how the new Transformers are built from so many tiny pieces you can't even make them out compared to the 80s cartoon.
You also see this in today's sneaker designs.
Modern kitchen-sink excess:
vs. a classic:
It just seems like art schools are churning out a generation of artists who mistakenly believe that the way to impress people is through gratuitous detail for the sake of detail.
You can all get off my lawn now.
One other Klingon armor concept that might be more "practical."
Or another uniform.
By the way, I decided to do a little research on Star Trek as realistic. I found this quote highly amusing from a NASA blog:
If we are going with practicality, then most of Star Trek should be shoved out the airlock.
Or another uniform.
By the way, I decided to do a little research on Star Trek as realistic. I found this quote highly amusing from a NASA blog:
(source)
If we are going with practicality, then most of Star Trek should be shoved out the airlock.
Arguing for Star Trek to take its visual cues from Mass Effect and Halo, does not 'original' make. Especially when the crux of said argument is: 'Everyone else does.'
Like the designs, or don't. But trying to justify said opinion by appealing to the 'authority' of sci-fi 'rules,' is ridiculous. It's a matter of personal taste, and nothing more.
Last edited:
Arguing for Star Trek to take its visual cues from Mass Effect and Halo is almost just as bad as arguing that Star Trek should take its visual cues from Lord Of The Rings or Galaxy Quest or Doctor Who or Predator or The Chronicles of Riddick.
Star Trek has a 50-year (plus) history of rich design and it's more than enough for any new artist to get inspired and draw visual cues from. Fifty year history which it got not from imitating others but for doing it's own distinctive thing. Which is why it inspired others (like Mass Effect and Galaxy Quest) to homage it or imitate it.
Edit: Sorry for the rant. That's just my two cents.
Last edited:
This + 1 million....
In general the problem I have with modern design is this "more is more" mentality. Adding busier and busier detail does not necessarily make a design better. It's kind of like how the new Transformers are built from so many tiny pieces you can't even make them out compared to the 80s cartoon.
You also see this in today's sneaker designs.
Modern kitchen-sink excess:
vs. a classic:
It just seems like art schools are churning out a generation of artists who mistakenly believe that the way to impress people is through gratuitous detail for the sake of detail.
You can all get off my lawn now.
I long for the days of clean, sleek, minimalist design. This also applies to starship exteriors and interiors.
And I love those Onitsuka Tiger sneakers. I'm going to get me a pair soon.
Kor
Last edited:
Well, nobody is arguing that.
The Transformers makes sense (well, movie sense) in that it's a piece of tech morphing into another piece of tech, so there is unsurprisingly techy bits all over the place. It might not be practical logic, but it looks a shed load better on a giant HD screen than a cartoon box did.
The Mass Effect-ish design mentioned is quite intriguing. Games like that go all out as, compared to real world design, they can. But now TV and Film can too..... so why hold back on what was made on a tight budget when you can do whatever you want?
The uncanny valley still is problematic. Despite advances in technology, there are still limits to making it "real enough" for the human eye when it comes sets. Video games have an advantage because we expect it to look kind of fake, regardless of how good the graphics are, how good the sims are, etc, etc. But, TV and films still have to work inside of the idea that it was built in the real world and conform to real world physics.
Yes, you can do whatever you want, but should you? Does it enhance the world? Does it contribute to the story?
Perhaps we simply have never seen this 'species' of Klingons before. Looking at them and their ships, shouldn't that be the first logical leap to make?
If it pans out these are the same Klingons we've seen before stuck in updated suits then getting our shorts in a bunch could be forgiven.
Till then I am going to WAIT and see.
If it pans out these are the same Klingons we've seen before stuck in updated suits then getting our shorts in a bunch could be forgiven.
Till then I am going to WAIT and see.
Has anyone noticed yet that Klingons are extremely diverse ethnically--far more than human beings? Almost as much as Andorians?
I don't really care about visual cues. My problem is more that Mass Effect had more memorable characters, more interesting races and cultures and better dialog than Star Trek had in its last 3 series combined.
well, that's a given, to paraphrase Douglas Adams
"In the beginning, Star Trek was created. [...]"
In my view - yes. A creative vision is a whole package - not just the story and the dialogue, but every element of it. I've taken over creative jobs before and completely turned it all on it's head - not to confuse audiences....but to make it authentically mine; not just a weak copy of what came before.
With advances in what can be done compared to the penny pinching that needed to be, and the freedom to realise creative visions more vividly - I'm very keen on seeing how things will change. Not for the better (or worse!), but an unchained original vision intrigues me more than having to stick to someone elses outdated work.
It's not for everyone, but with decades of difference between era's, influences and other factors - I'm happy they're going in this way; creating instead of conforming.
Yes, but so did Desperate Housewives.
Comparing anything to Trek's dying TV years.... Trek will lose every time
Last edited:
I am all for changes as well, but I always struggle with the concept of changing something for the sake of change. That's why CG is a dual edged sword-you can do anything and things that could never be done before and expand upon the vision, but you can also ignore the vision for the sake of "because we can."
I am always curious to see unchained visions as well, but there is also a question of what needs to be honored from before. This isn't a clean reboot, or even a re-imagining so there are still design elements that form the basis of this period of Star Trek, for good, bad, or indifferent.
It's a balancing act. I don't want them to conform either, but, on the other hand, if you change it so much then why call it "Star Trek" at all?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
