Klingon change for season 2?

[Rahul]

You can make commentary on our humanity without it being strictly our timeline. Alternate, for this purpose, being the "What if?" of speculative fiction (Sci-fi and fantasy).

"strict" is the wrong lense to watch Star Trek through anyway - no matter if it comes to science, internal logic or canon. You will always find contradictions. As such, a few predictions retroactively shown to be wrong really should have no larger impact on what the show is supposed to be about.

 

[Tuskin38]

How about those Klingons eh?

 

[fireproof78]

"strict" is the wrong lense to watch Star Trek through anyway - no matter if it comes to science, internal logic or canon. You will always find contradictions. As such, a few predictions retroactively shown to be wrong really should have no larger impact on what the show is supposed to be about.

As I explained my approach is to "Hollywood reality" rather than in our timeline. I'm not sure why this is up for debate since everyone will approach it a different way. If Star Trek is an extrapolation of "our" future then shouldn't it be evaluated as such for why it isn't fitting yet?

This is all very confusing and I think far more head work than anyone expected.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

How about those Klingons eh?

Those real ones from our reality right?

 

[WebLurker]

This is really getting out of hand, with people like @WebLurker applying standards to Trek that NO possible fiction can ever satisfy: There has never been an "X-File" devision. Hawaii doesn't have a state police task force like Hawaii Five-O. None of the characters in Magnum or M.A.S.H. were ever born or served at the specified times, and the apartment from "friends" doesn't exist in New York.

You're not understanding (or listening) to what I've said; my "standard" is that the franchise operates on the rule of "like reality unless otherwise noted." That's exactly how X-Files and Hawaii Five-0, Magnum, PI, M.A.S.H., etc. operate. Thing is, stuff like the Eugenics Wars is the exact same thing as stuff like the X-Files department; an instance where the Star Trek universe is not like reality. (You seem to take a different approach where the franchise should be like reality and anything that strays too far should be ignored.)

Yet all of these fictional tales are supposed to take place in "our" universe. To the exact same level as Star Trek does. It's not a documentary. It has to have fictional elements. It's a fictional story.

Hence why they can have an Eugenics Wars in the '90s while we did not.

An interesting conceit is the MARVEL cinematic universe: Because that one clearly started out as "our" world in Iron Man, but slowly has crawled to the point where it clearly is an alternate history, with Superheroes and aliens running around and shaping the world in major ways in the last ten years.

Yeah.

'Star Trek' hasn't crossed that line (yet).

Star Trek crossed that line long before the MCU was a thing when they reaffirmed the Eugenics Wars happened in the '90s in a post-1996 TV show. (Even earlier with a '60s where orbiting nuclear weapon platforms was a common sight.)

Though I understand why some may feel like it.

Because it does?

Trek currently operates under a "having the cake and eat it too"-mentality: Whenever they have to represent "present day" (TVH, VOY, ENT, JJTrek) it is clearly "our" reality, and Star Trek "our" possible future. Whenever it comes to it's internal history (Augments, WWIII), they also aknowledge the canonical timestamps. But they clearly avoid having both at the same time. Like X-files dealt either with aliens or magic, but never both at the same time.

But that still means, at the end of the day, that the events that contradict real life are still part of the canonical Star Trek universe.

And most viewers don't even know the exact dates Trek takes place in the first place, so "200 years prior" can mean really anything (that's the whole reason why they invented "Stardates" in the first place!).

"Space Seed" was originally intended to take place 200 years from the 1990s (one of several different timeframes suggested during the first season). When that was retconned to 300 years, most people understood that it was just "early installment weirdness" and not worry about it.

But this is assumption is true for ALL fictional storytellings, from modern Urban myths to campfire stories to every movie ever told - Titanic never had Jack & Rose on board, nor did that historical blue neclace ever existed. And yet it's clearly a story set in our world. Despite all the discrepancies. Because it always toes the line that it might have happened or will happen in our world. Exactly like Star Trek.

/rant

All I can say is that when it comes down to it, the franchise has ultimately chosen to embrace it's own fictionalized historical events over modifying and decanonizing parts of itself to conform with the history books. Does that mean that it's still no longer "our" universe, "our" future?

 

[fireproof78]

Those real ones from our reality right?

I haven't met a real Klingon yet. They seem nice though.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I haven't met a real Klingon yet. They seem nice though.

Well is Star trek is "our" world, Klingons must be real.

 

[Tuskin38]

Well is Star trek is "our" world, Klingons must be real.

I don’t think you understood the conversation

 

[fireproof78]

Well is Star trek is "our" world, Klingons must be real.

True enough.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I don’t think you understood the conversation

Yeah, I understood it and my comment gave it the weight it deserved.

 

[Noname Given]

As I explained my approach is to "Hollywood reality" rather than in our timeline. I'm not sure why this is up for debate since everyone will approach it a different way. If Star Trek is an extrapolation of "our" future then shouldn't it be evaluated as such for why it isn't fitting yet?

This is all very confusing and I think far more head work than anyone expected.

Because the Star Trek future was only extrapolated from the time TOS hit the airwaves. In the Star Trek reality there was a Global 'Eugenics War' that produced Khan Noonian Singh and other augmented Humans like him, and that conflict ran from 1992-1996 and has been referenced in later Star Trek series from TNG onwards.

In our reality, no such conflict took place, son 'Star Trek' is no longer and never has been a true extrapolation of our future. It has it's own alternate 'future history' that borrows themes from the real world; but at this point, that's about it.

 

[Jerikka Dawn]

I hadn't thought about "hollywood reality" as a concept, but it makes total sense and I think that's a good way of looking at things.

For myself, I've generally always considered the Star Trek universe to be a separate universe from ours because that's how I look at all of fiction. At the same time, though, I really don't have a problem still seeing either Star Trek or even The Orville as our possible future -- the latter more likely. Either way, the Star Trek universe is clearly not ours, because it's fiction, but at the same time, I can't see why it can't also, simultaneously, be seen as a possible future. That's how stories work, I thought.

 

[fireproof78]

Because the Star Trek future was only extrapolated from the time TOS hit the airwaves. In the Star Trek reality there was a Global 'Eugenics War' that produced Khan Noonian Singh and other augmented Humans like him, and that conflict ran from 1992-1996 and has been referenced in later Star Trek series from TNG onwards.

In our reality, no such conflict took place, son 'Star Trek' is no longer and never has been a true extrapolation of our future. It has it's own alternate 'future history' that borrows themes from the real world; but at this point, that's about it.

That is more less my view. The way Star Trek was created at the time it was a possible extrapolation at the time with understandings of technology and politics of the day. As such, as you noted, events have past that are not consistent with Star Trek and our future. So, Star Trek takes on a life of its own, with a base in our world, but no longer our future. It simply cannot be.

If Star Trek were to continue on as an extrapolation then it has to be willing to infer from current technological discoveries, contemporary pop culture (including Beastie Boys), and future speculation. Thus far, Star Trek has shown very little willingness to embrace such changes, and, as such, continues on as its own alternate history. Which, is fine.

 

[GaiusBaltarBand]

https://imgur.com/a/b7CZh1U

I made comparisons of the season 1 finale L'Rell with Season 2 L'Rell. The changes are pretty significant. Softening of the ridges, the ears pronounced, the coloring of the skin made less purple. Early Season 1 L'Rell looks even more different.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

https://imgur.com/a/b7CZh1U

I made comparisons of the season 1 finale L'Rell with Season 2 L'Rell. The changes are pretty significant. Softening of the ridges, the ears pronounced, the coloring of the skin made less purple. Early Season 1 L'Rell looks even more different.

Yeah, I like it personally, although I would have like to have kept the non brown skin tone. Its still clearly DSC season one style make up, but with hair and softened. I think the skin color for me it the biggest change.

 

[Tuskin38]

She looks more like Mary now

The texture of the ridges on the refined make up feels off, they look even more fake than Season 1. There is no detail in them, they look like plastic.

 

[Tuskin38]

https://imgur.com/a/b7CZh1U

I made comparisons of the season 1 finale L'Rell with Season 2 L'Rell. The changes are pretty significant. Softening of the ridges, the ears pronounced, the coloring of the skin made less purple. Early Season 1 L'Rell looks even more different.

The other Klingons, at least the couple we've seen in the trailers, seem to be mostly the same, I'm guessing L'Rell was touched up the most since she's a main character

 

[Mirror Mirror]

The other Klingons, at least the couple we've seen in the trailers, seem to be mostly the same, I'm guessing L'Rell was touched up the most since she's a main character

You recall how radical and often worf got altered ?

 

[DaveyNY]

You recall how radical and often Worf got altered ?

I just head-canon/chalked that up to Klingon aging changes due to some weird leftover gene malfunction from the mutagenic virus.
I imagine that the process is probably as annoyingly painful as human leg bone growth spurts in human children.
(something I experienced as a kid. Not constant, but occasionally it brought tears to my eyes, usually at bedtime)

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I just head-canon/chalked that up to Klingon aging changes due to some weird leftover gene malfunction from the mutagenic virus.
I imagine that the process is probably as annoyingly painful as human leg bone growth spurts in human children.
(something I experienced as a kid. Not constant, but occasionally it brought tears to my eyes, usually at bedtime)

If ya need to explain a real world change of make up sure, I just ignored it as it got better and better as it went on.