I think we just need to accept the fact that this is a full reboot.

[Kor]

Yes, despite Roddenberry trying to hand-wave away the difference by saying something like "just pretend they always looked like this," the significant change in Klingon appearance in the TOS movies led to all kinds of fan theories, not to mention a whole convoluted explanation actually being offered in officially approved and licensed materials such as novels and RPGs.

Kor

 

[Romulan_spy]

That's fine, but your mileage may vary.
For me, changing the visuals does not necessarily = reboot.

For me, it is more than just the visuals. The state of tech (holograms, spore drive, spinning saucer is too advanced. The ships, both Klingon and Federation, are brand new. There are no D7 cruisers or Constitution class ships! Also, the Federation seems very different too, more amoral than in TOS/TNG. I get the impression that Discovery is the producers' vision of how they would have done TOS if TOS were being made today. That is why I call it a reboot. Yes, it still takes place in the Prime Timeline but the producers are giving us a different vision of Prime Star Trek. not just in visuals but also in substance.

 

[Spider]

I remember a time when myself and a few of us older treksters just accepted the Klingons as ordinary Hollywood hijinks, but it was still Star Trek. I miss those days.

 

[Saul]

As I watched episode 4 I thought this could easily be set after Voyager with the look of the Tech on this show. They could still do the retro Phaser and tricorder look in a 25th century series.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

As I watched episode 4 I thought this could easily be set after Voyager with the look of the Tech on this show. They could still do the retro Phaser and tricorder look in a 25th century series.

But not the story. The very base does not fit with a larger, much more powerful post VOY starfleet. Nor does it fit with a post TOS empire.

 

[BeatleJWOL]

I want to know when it's safe to come back, because I can't watch a prequel that looks so different than the source material with an explanation.

That sounds like a personal problem. The producers haven't punched your parents or run off with your dog, they've just made a new Star Trek show.

Watch it or don't, but until an event indicates otherwise, the look you're getting is the look you're getting.

Worry not; if they do further explain the Klingons in Discovery, there will be at least 10 threads in this section alone about it.

By trying to tell me this is what Klingons have always looked like, you insult my intelligence and the intelligence of every fan that saw and respects those stories that came before.

Nobody on the Discovery team has said that, as far as I know. This argument is based on Roddenberry's own idea that the Klingons as they appear in The Motion Picture were like they always had been. He of course elaborated on it as well, since nothing with Gene is ever simple.

Gene Roddenberry tried to explain the differences between The Motion Picture's Klingons and the original ones by saying that the original show had simply never had the budget and makeup technology to envision the species as it should have been seen, so the apparently new Klingons were just Klingons as they were always intended to have been. (Cinefantastique, Vol. 37, No. 2, p. 40) He additionally contemplated, "Just as there are different races of humans, there are different races of Klingons, and the Klingons seen in Star Trek: The Motion Picture are not the same race as the ones we saw on the original series." Since Fred Phillips expected that the fans would wonder about how the Klingons could possibly have head ridges newly added to their faces, he and Roddenberry came up with the explanation of there being a variety of Klingon races, even before the release of The Motion Picture. Despite this, the transformation continued to be regarded as a mystery for decades to come. (Star Trek: Communicator issue 145, pp. 71-72)

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Depicting_Klingons

Yes, despite Roddenberry trying to hand-wave away the difference by saying something like "just pretend they always looked like this," the significant change in Klingon appearance in the TOS movies led to all kinds of fan theories, not to mention a whole convoluted explanation actually being offered in officially approved and licensed materials such as novels and RPGs.

And of course, finally in the two-parter from Enterprise. Just in case anybody doesn't know.

I wonder how all the people who are defending the "visual reboot" are going to feel if by the end of the season the writers have actually provided in-canon explanations for things like the Klingon makeup - effectively making the season a long-form version of the Enterprise Season-4 two parter about the Klingon "augments."

Then they'll be wrong and everybody'll be happy. Except @Ed Mercer

 

[Kor]

I just consider STD to be a different "version" of Star Trek. There's no need for all the headaches from trying to dissect every little detail.

If TPTB want to offer explanations for the differences, then that's their prerogative. But IMO that just makes for some fanboyish storytelling, a la ENT S4.

Kor

 

[Mirror Mirror]

If TPTB want to offer explanations for the differences, then that's their prerogative. But IMO that just makes for some fanboyish storytelling, a la ENT S4.

Kor

I agree, IMO S4 was the worse because it was like a bunch of fanwank fanfic

 

[eschaton]

I agree, IMO S4 was the worse because it was like a bunch of fanwank fanfic

Please elaborate, because I don't understand. Why is it a bad thing to have stories which help flesh out established Trek history?

 

[BeatleJWOL]

that just makes for some fanboyish storytelling, a la ENT S4.

S4 was the worse because it was like a bunch of fanwank fanfic

y'all both know that the rest of the Trekkies who can't get into Discovery now would go right back to wetting their pants over it the more fanwankery there is.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Please elaborate, because I don't understand. Why is it a bad thing to have stories which help flesh out established Trek history?

It did not flesh out, in some cases it rewrote and was nothing but weak stories designed to appeal to a subset of fans who hated the show anyhow. It came off as badly written, poor thought out and desperate fanwank. And likely killed the show.

If you like it cool, to me it was the worse thing they did.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

y'all both know that the rest of the Trekkies who can't get into Discovery now would go right back to wetting their pants over it the more fanwankery there is.

Yes, and like ENT they would lose the majority to appease a tiny subset who will hate the show anyhow.

 

[Spider]

Fanwank or not, season 4 of ENT was more entertaining that DSC has been so far.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Yes, despite Roddenberry trying to hand-wave away the difference by saying something like "just pretend they always looked like this," the significant change in Klingon appearance in the TOS movies led to all kinds of fan theories, not to mention a whole convoluted explanation actually being offered in officially approved and licensed materials such as novels and RPGs

Well, the Klingons in Discovery look very different from the Klingons in TMP/TNG. So I guess we should use Gene's logic again and just assume that Discovery's Klingons are what they always looked like and TMP/TNG just lacked the budget to represent them correctly?

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Fanwank or not, season 4 of ENT was more entertaining that DSC has been so far.

I disagree, but if you like it cool.

 

[DigificWriter]

So I guess we should use Gene's logic again and just assume that Discovery's Klingons are what they always looked like?

For now, yes.

 

[Spider]

I disagree, but if you like it cool.

I thought it was ENT's best season.

 

[DigificWriter]

The problem with what ENT did in Season 4 is that it was done in Season 4.

It really should've happened a lot sooner.

 

[Jarvisimo]

Hey guys, don't knock fan fiction as a writerly methodology - all adaptation is fan fiction, ultimately. And its one which, due to Fuller's involvement in the show, fits it more overtly. So be it

 

[eschaton]

It did not flesh out, in some cases it rewrote and was nothing but weak stories designed to appeal to a subset of fans who hated the show anyhow. It came off as badly written, poor thought out and desperate fanwank. And likely killed the show.

If you like it cool, to me it was the worse thing they did.

I'm not arguing that all of it was good by any means. But it got the vibe of a pre-TOS show better than the first three seasons (where the episodes felt like Voyager rejects), and some of the arcs (particularly the Vulcan one) worked pretty well. I got the idea watching the show that it was slowly and haltingly finally moving toward something important that it should have been covering from the first episode - the birth of the Federation.