They were dyed three different colors?
Star Trek Discovery Writing Staff
- Thread starter The Habs Fan
- Start date
They were dyed three different colors?
There was a jet black one, a pasty white one, and a purple one, so I guess so.
I don't understand how you can say that. In terms of the Klingons in particular, watching the TNG/DS9 episodes involving them would have been a good thing, because many of these episodes touch on aspects of Klingon religion, diet, music, history, etc that should still be somewhat recognizable in the 23rd century.
It wasn’t the make up that caused it, as Human Voq sounded the same when he spoke Klingon.
Must have been a choice to make them sound more alien, an accent or something.
Sometimes you have to leave clues to your dry humor.
Why do you say "would have been," as if it hadn't already happened? A ton of Klingon stuff introduced in the 24th-century shows was used in Discovery: the High Council (which originated in "Sins of the Father" a year before it was used in The Undiscovered Country), Great Houses (including ones with names from the 24th-century shows, like D'Ghor and Mo'Kai), the death scream (from "Heart of Glory"), the bat'leth and mek'leth (albeit redesigned), the idea of Kahless as a religious figure, the legend of Molor, the idea of Klingons cannibalizing their victims (seen in the ritual heart-eating in DS9: "Blood Oath"), the idea that Klingon anatomy includes redundant organs and heavy skeletal reinforcements, even the Klingon currency called darseks.
It makes no sense to suggest the makers of DSC were ignorant of the 24th-century series. A lot of ideas, species, planets, terminology, etc. from the TNG-era shows and ENT showed up in DSC, and not just where Klingons were concerned. Naturally any new Trek series draws on ideas from everything that came before it.
Huh? The Klingons of the 23rd century era of Star Trek were VERY different from those depicted in the 24th century. I don't want those retcons brought to my favorite era of Star Trek, thanks.
As long as the different series are treated as part of the same continuous universe, then their writers will draw on elements from every prior series when making a new one. If you want series that are rigidly segregated from each other in the ideas they use, then you want a franchise where each series is set in a different reality. Star Trek is not that franchise.
Speaking of Discovery writers, I find the following article very interesting:
https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek...rs-pick-their-favorite-classic-trek-episodes/
https://www.cbs.com/shows/star-trek...rs-pick-their-favorite-classic-trek-episodes/
To be honest, it seems it is with ST: D. You're really going to try and say the the Enterprise (1701) had a refit after TOS - "The Cage" (top look the way it does on ST: D) then ANOTHER refit so that it looks EXACTLY like it did in TOS - "The Cage" for TOS - "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (circa 2265 in Universe)?
Yeah, no.
I can't help but notice the lack of ENT episodes. "The Pegasus" is there though. That almost counts, right?
I never assumed that the aspects of Klingon culture introduced in the TOS films and 24th century series never existed in the TOS era. We merely never saw them depicted because the show was never interested in Klingons as a culture, only as a stand in for Russia/China. As a culture, they're still practically a blank slate by the end of TOS. Learning what we see of them later only sheds light into what they are aside from being a power rival in TOS. To ignore all that we learned of them from 1979-2005 would be a big step backwards.
No, any more than you would try and say that Saavik got plastic surgery between The Wrath of Khan and The Search for Spock. Just as the same character played by different actors looks different, so the same starship or alien species designed by different artists will look different. New Star Trek productions have routinely redesigned things without in-universe explanation ever since TMP nearly 40 years ago. Klingons, Romulans, Andorians, and Tellarites have been designed differently by every distinct makeup artist. Warp and transporter effects are different every time. ShiKahr and future San Francisco look different every time we see them. Vulcan and Qo'noS and other planets look different from space in different series or movies. These things are artists' designs representing hypothetical, nonexistent entities, and the franchise has always allowed different artists to interpret them in different ways.
Tbh, NONE of my favourite episodes are from ENT.
With regard to TMP - it was 5 - 10 years after the things depicted in the original series - a timeframe not depicted on screen prior to that time; and when TPTB DID do a change to the Klingons without explanation A LOT of fans called them on it to the point we GOT an explanation in Universe 23 years later with fans discussing it ad nauseam over all that time coming up with ways to 'make it fit.
I'm not going to quibble over actor replacements, but the look of the 1701 is WELL KNOWN for that timeframe, so a major change to that look (and it is a major change.) Also it's the FIRST TIME in the 50+ year history of the franchise that particular hero ship look has been so radically changed (it wasn't done for DS9 - "Trials and Tribbleations" nor ENT - "In a Mirror Darkly") so sorry, your claim that "it's always been done when new peopl,e take over" is just plain false/inaccurate to that point.
Minor inconsistencies is one thing and something Star Trek has had from day one; but the look of the Enterprise in the TOS TV series has been well established and this is the first time in 'Prime' TOS continuity that look has been majorly changed.
Truth be told, I like the new design myself and I really wish JJ Abrams had used something more like it for the ST2009 series of feature films. But for me the change made to it in ST: D shows that for all the producers claims that ST: D is in the 'Prime Universe' and that they know and respectful PU TOS era canon - like the JJ-Verse; the ST: D verse is also a different and separate reality at this point from the TOS TV series I've been watching for the past 5 or so decades..
I have no issue wuith that per se - my issue is with the ST: D executive production staff trying to claim differently at this point.
I was't implying that none of this work had been done, although I should have been more careful in my tenses when posting. But a bit more would have helped in places. A DS9 episode like The Sword of Kahless has a lot of backstory about Klingon history and mythology, for example, which would have helped flesh out Discovery a bit more.
While I think ENT is underrated, there are no episodes which would qualify as among the best of the franchise. It has many good episodes, but no great ones.
Of course anything can be explained by fans -- or sometimes a later generation of writers -- after the fact. But most of the design changes in Trek have not been explained. If you think about it, the "It's five years later" excuse for TMP is a really, really flimsy rationalization, because absolutely everything looks different. There's no way such a complete and utter replacement of every single design would take place in such a short span of time. Real-life change is a lot more incremental than that.
Roddenberry's intent, with the Klingons and the tech design, was that TMP was just a closer approximation of what the future "really" looked like, because it had more money and was able to simulate that future with greater detail. And that's what the designers of Enterprise, the Kelvin films, and Discovery have all taken to heart, giving us pre-TMP Starfleet ships with design features characteristic of TMP and after, like hull Aztecing, visible maneuvering thrusters, hangar bay force fields, etc.
There is no "right" way to be creative. Different artists are entitled to do it in different ways. Obviously the makers of "Trials" (and TNG: "Relics") had to replicate the look of the original ship because they built the episode around stock footage that they had to match. That's also why they finally admitted that TOS Klingons looked different after "Blood Oath" had implied they'd actually had ridges all along. The different productions required different approaches.
As for IAMD, that was straight-up nostalgia, which Enterprise season 4 was loaded with. But Star Trek should not be driven by nostalgia alone. The original series was cutting-edge and groundbreaking in every respect, from writing to casting to visual effects and production design. That's what made it exceptional in the first place. It needs to be groundbreaking again if it's to have a future. If Trek becomes nothing more than an exercise in rehashing what it was doing 50 years ago, then there's no point in continuing to make new Trek.
I disagree. I think "Carbon Creek" is easily top ten, and several others would make a top 50 across all series.
That's changing the subject. Your point was "Everyone who's worked on Star Trek has changed the look with no explaination..." my response (with examples) shows that's not been the case. Also, keeping the exterior look of a known ship from a known era (as seen of TV) is NOT 'rehashing' anything story wise, it's called 'being consistent'.
I'm not (and I don't think anyone else) is asking them to redo TOS (and 1960ies era Star Trek) as it was in the 1960ies. Thbe story content of ST: D in nothing like what they did in the 1960ies and is definitely not a rehash, and has been enjoyable. Likewise the set designs and looks of the new Federation ships has been fine too. BUT, what they've done to the 1701 TOS Enterprise seems a change for change sake - and is just not consistent with their claim (and they;v said) "Trust us, the show is in 'Prime' continuity, we know and respect TOS canon, and it will all work out in the end."
Again, to say 'visual continuity' isn't a thing (which is basically what yours and many other people who think keeping the 1701 looking like it did in TOS faithfully - 'too 1960ies') is just ridiculous. No one made the ST: D Producers claim that they "are being faithful to TOScanon and continuity" <-- they stated that themselves many times. To disregard the 'visual continuity' of the hero ship of TOS as it's appeared (even in the TOS Remastered version) for 50+ years just shows how disingenuous tehy are with that statement.
That's the main point I'm making here. Doing a reboot/re-imagining is fine with me. Just don't sit there and try to claim "Oh, it's the same PU you've been watching it TOS for 50+ years. It's not a reboot/re-imagining..."
There was an easy way around this. They could have just had Worf, when he went back in time, not have his ridges, and have no one comment upon it at all. It would have saved the franchise a world of trouble that is still needlessly debated to this day.