They only did that so TV viewers wouldn't confuse them with Vulcans.
In-universe, it's not a big deal, as Spock - who has no ridges - is able to pass for a Romulan and nobody questions it.
Klingon augment virus/Into Darkness Klingons
- Thread starter DavidLeeRoth
- Start date
They only did that so TV viewers wouldn't confuse them with Vulcans.
In-universe, it's not a big deal, as Spock - who has no ridges - is able to pass for a Romulan and nobody questions it.
Yep.
Even in Trek, where continuity is important in varying degrees to fans, some changes just gotta be accepted as we-did-it-because-we-could-finally-improve-production-values. I don't think we're actually owed detailed in-universe explanations for those things short of "it's a long story." Certainly not entire story arcs like in ENT. That's one step away from a series of stories proving how the TMP Enterprise is a refit of the TOS Enterprise, rather than just accepting that it's a completely different ship with the simple in-story explanation, "A refit. Oh. OK, I'll go along with that."
I've always liked two very simple in-universe explanations for the ridges.
-- The first doesn't explain the ridges, but says they were always there. However, some Klingons carry genes that are somehow triggered to occasionally produce a generation of smooth-headed Klingons among certain couples. It is a natural mutation, and occurs infrequently. The time of TOS was one of those times. The gene is dormant in most offspring, and they have ridged children.
-- The second says there were historically two races of Klingons, smooth-headed and ridged, but the smooth-headed Klingons were so small in number that interbreeding with ridged Klingons finally led to there being few if any totally smooth-headed Klingons left. By the 24th century, all Klingons have ridges of some sort.
Edited to add: These explanations don't explain the ridges on Koloth, Kang, and Kor in DS9, but those could be explained by cosmetic surgery (Klingon versions of tattoos) or a gene kicked in late in their lives because they came from smooth-headed stock. Or, they genetically enhanced themselves. Whatever. I guess I'm just saying the simplest explanations may work the best. They are the only three Klingons on screen whose contradictory appearances needed explaining, anyway.
Last edited:
Did you miss the TOS movie that had Klingons with Ridges in them? Those movies are Canon and TOS and had Klingons with Ridges. <Suddenly finding myself craving Ruffles Potato Chips>
It's all about the 80s metal hair for me. No 80s metal hair under those helmets, no ticket.
TMP takes place in 2273, at least six years after the events of "Errand of Mercy" (2267) and other TOS episodes with Klingons.
I guess the best explanation is is that both kinds of Klingons existed in the late 23rd century.
Best way to look at it is this. Different creators have different visions of the future. Roddenberry said that the way Klingons look in TMP is the way they are suppose to look "in universe" just that the budget and technology for the look didn't exist in the sixties.
It's worth pointing out that co-writer/producer Roberto Orci is a huge Trekkie. He's such a big fan he has shelves of the novels. Any changes made by in the Trekverse by this lot are, at the very least, informed ones.
If you personally require an in-universe reason, then the idea of two different co-existing races is as good as any.
However, I personally don't feel an in-universe reason is required (or even helpful), and I'm just as happy telling myself that TOS Klingons were supposed to look exactly like TMP/TNG Klingons...
(i.e., the idea that TOS Klingons were supposed to have ridged foreheads was retconned by TMP).
While I didn't think the Klingon heads needed explaining in-universe, I did get a huge nerdgasm from seeing TOS-style Klingons boarding the Enterprise in "Affliction", and enjoyed their explanation for it.
I personally preferred The Final Reflection's idea of the Imperial Race, the Human-fusions and Romulan-fusions - although of course that wouldn't have meshed with what we learned of Klingon cuture in TNG and DS9.
I personally preferred The Final Reflection's idea of the Imperial Race, the Human-fusions and Romulan-fusions - although of course that wouldn't have meshed with what we learned of Klingon cuture in TNG and DS9.
I'm not 100 percent sure, but I thought that the novels are not canon. I know how silly it seems to get worked up over Klingon foreheads, so thanks to everyone for indulging me.
They aren't canon, but if a writer decides to take something from them and stick it in a movie then that piece in the film will become canon.
It's a Trek BBS board. Nothing is silly here.
I read the first couple posts and then skipped to the end so I apologize if this has been addressed.
Am I wrong for just seeing the ridges as something as simple as 'plussing' the characters? Way back when, prosthetics weren't as easily rendered as they are today. Hence brown paint, green paint, blue paint, etc on all the aliens. When I first saw the ridged Klingons in STTMP I didn't once think "How the hell did that happen!!!?" I thought 'COOL!'
Does that make me wrong?
Am I wrong for just seeing the ridges as something as simple as 'plussing' the characters? Way back when, prosthetics weren't as easily rendered as they are today. Hence brown paint, green paint, blue paint, etc on all the aliens. When I first saw the ridged Klingons in STTMP I didn't once think "How the hell did that happen!!!?" I thought 'COOL!'
Does that make me wrong?
Canon or not, they're still part of Trek lore. Think of it like a writer of a new Batman movie not just watching prior Batman movies, but reading lots of old Batman comics too. To see the different ways the character and setting have been interpreted over the years. It's the same thing with Trek.
Then again, the more stories told, the more contradictions. And Trek is a visual fantasy first and foremost: it would be a shame to see an onscreen event derided for failing to comply with offscreen material.
It was said upthread that Romulans in STXI were different from Romulans in TOS. How so? The movie ones had tattoos, but that was about it. Yet here we have a nice example of why novels don't really warrant the attention they get...
...Namely, the graphical novels that are supposed to give us a backstory for the movie (the Countdown thing) make the claim that the tattoos are signs of mourning, something Nero's folks did to their crania after losing their homeworld. But that is utterly inconsistent with the movie, where Nero appears on Spock Prime's viewer mere moments after the loss of Romulus, complete with a tattoo! Sure, the graphical storyline offers interesting drama and whatnot, but it cannot take place in the same universe as the movie. Should we dismiss the movie because it fails to comply with the comic? Or should we accept that this fictional universe is inconsistent, that is, poorly put together? Neither sounds like an appealing path to take. OTOH, dismissing the comic is pretty straightforward.
Timo Saloniemi
It was said upthread that Romulans in STXI were different from Romulans in TOS. How so? The movie ones had tattoos, but that was about it. Yet here we have a nice example of why novels don't really warrant the attention they get...
...Namely, the graphical novels that are supposed to give us a backstory for the movie (the Countdown thing) make the claim that the tattoos are signs of mourning, something Nero's folks did to their crania after losing their homeworld. But that is utterly inconsistent with the movie, where Nero appears on Spock Prime's viewer mere moments after the loss of Romulus, complete with a tattoo! Sure, the graphical storyline offers interesting drama and whatnot, but it cannot take place in the same universe as the movie. Should we dismiss the movie because it fails to comply with the comic? Or should we accept that this fictional universe is inconsistent, that is, poorly put together? Neither sounds like an appealing path to take. OTOH, dismissing the comic is pretty straightforward.
Timo Saloniemi
I read the first couple posts and then skipped to the end so I apologize if this has been addressed.
Am I wrong for just seeing the ridges as something as simple as 'plussing' the characters? Way back when, prosthetics weren't as easily rendered as they are today. Hence brown paint, green paint, blue paint, etc on all the aliens. When I first saw the ridged Klingons in STTMP I didn't once think "How the hell did that happen!!!?" I thought 'COOL!'
Does that make me wrong?
I'm with you.
Having said that, I have no problem with fans who want to find an in-universe reason for the change from TOS to TMP. It can fun to try rationalize those changes with in-universe explanations. However, it also wouldn't be a "mistake" if Abrams decided to go with ridge-headed Klingons.
That would simply mean that the fans' in-universe explanation for smooth-headed versus ridge-headed Klingons would have to be modified to fit this new film -- or those fans could simply do what you and I did and consider the TMP Klingons to have been "plussed" with ridges, and TOS Klingons were retconned to have had ridges (albeit the TOS makeup didn't show it that way, but I have a good imagination).
Who's deriding anything? Or saying they should adhere to offscreen material? I merely pointed out my appreciation for those in charge doing their research and looking deeply into the Trek mythos when making their movies. Unlike, say, Rick Berman and Branon Braga, who were on record as having not even seen all of The Original Series before beginning their prequel series Enterprise...
What have the novels got to do with Romulan ridges or how the Romulans were depicted in the last movie?
Mere moments in a truncated flashback sequence. That's like saying Spock went from Romulus to Vulcan to Romulus again in mere seconds because thats what we saw in the same meld. Or like saying the first part of "Best of Both Worlds" lasted 20 seconds because that's what the recap at the start of part 2 depicted.
You miss the obvious: Simply accepting that the novels, comics, episodes and films all have their own subtly different ideas about the Trekverse. Trying to lump everything into "right" and "wrong" is an exercise in futility. These are after all, stories intended for entertainment and not historical documents.
Last edited:
You're right about more contradictions coming in as time goes by. However, you picked a poor example IMO. For one thing, what was seen in the movie of those events were in a mind meld and therefore Spock seeing Nero with the tatoos didn't necessarily happen minutes after the destruction of Romulus. In other words, Spock skipped ahead in time from the destruction of Romulus to him seeing the tatooed Nero. Also, considering the fact that Spock manipulated or at least misled Kirk by implying that bad things would happen if the two Spocks met, it's possible that he left things out of the mind meld and misrepresented others and therefore there are no real contradictions between the movie and Countdown.
As for the topic at hand, there are several canonical explanations. One is, as pointed out by others in this thread, that not all Klingons were infected. The second explanation is suggested by the scientist who helped Phlox cure the disease when he mentioned possibly seeking a career in cranial reconstruction which would suggest the possibility that the ridges we see in the new movie are artificial. The third explanation is that a way to bring back the ridges was found sooner in the alternate reality.
Spock flat out stated that he was intercepted "as [he] began [his] return trip". It would take major effort to invent a reason for him to linger long enough that the events of Countdown, or even the act of tattooing a few foreheads, could take place. Or then we would have to assume that Spock made a deliberate and possibly malicious lie to hide whatever happened at that putative "lost hour" - not a mere simplification of the events.
Sure, Spock can be deceiving the audience. But if we assume he is not, the number of contradictions is actually reduced, in a nice cascade event that eliminates complications: Nero meets Spock right at the shallow tomb of Romulus, which then is also the spot where the supernova blew and was stopped by Spock's red matter, no FTL wave of destruction need be postulated, etc.
On the other hand,
Sure. But Trek in itself doesn't really amount to much. It's the self-consistent fictional reality that it erects that gives it the necessary extra dose of pixie dust. And the episodes and films make for a fairly good fictional reality on their own; the novels do it on their own; but put together, the results are quite abysmal...
The reasons are pretty obvious, too. Aired material is cross-checked to at least some degree when made, partly because it's an expensive endeavor that not only needs the good rep, but can also afford it. Written material is cross-checked on its own. Yet written vs. aired material is only checked in one direction: nobody in the aired side bothers with keeping tabs on everything that happens in the written realm.
Timo Saloniemi
Similar threads
- Locked
