Usually the first person to take on an alien role and make it iconic is that way. They cement what we really know about the alien, their race, and how they behave.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I see people like that on Youtube all the time. I don't get it, either. I mean, I despise Voyager, but you won't see me roaming the VOY sections on this forum or hunting VOY-related videos on Youtube just to bug people with comments about how I dislike it. Why would I do that, unless it gives me meaning to do something like that? And if doing that gives you meaning, well, that's pretty sad. Focus on the things you like, I say.
Right, so why mention it? You know what I meant.
That question was answered by the part of my post that you curiously elided from what you quoted. Point was to illustrate examples that could work to move the needle towards "more alien" in contrast to what DISCO has done for the Klingons that hasn't moved it.
No, but it sounds like you're accusing me of discussing things with you in bad faith.
Well, I think Armin Shimmerman as Quark, Marc Alamo as Gul Dukat, Jeffrey Combs as Shran all managed to pretty much define their respective races (Ferengi, Cardassian, Andorian) despite not being the first to portray them and all of those races being at least well known before.
Especially for the klingons this seems to be the case: Michael Dorn wasn't the first klingon, and the race was already pretty iconic. And even then, once you thought Worf was the end-all klingon, we were introduced to others, like Martok and to a lesser degree Gowron and B'Elanna Torres, that each managaed to add new facettes to their respective species. Same for the Vulcans: I think Soval and James Frain are both very convincing (despite having unfitting dialogue at times), and Tim Russ and Jolene Blalock were also reasonably good and added to the pictures of the species. (Ben Cross... not so much).
But yeah, I don't see that being the case with Kelpians. Everything about Saru is so distinctively made specifically for Doug Jones, everyone else will have a hard time matching that. That being said, I am of course rooting for another actor managing to create a different but equally iconic character portraying that race! (Maybe a Kelpian bad guy? That would make thing sinteresting)
Last edited:
Shimmerman was, in fact, one of the first Ferengi on TNG (whether his character was the first to speak or not, I cannot recall. Probably not).
There's nothing curious about it. I guess I can add you to the long list of people on the internet who think that if I don't include the entire post in my response, somehow I've not read it, or have cleared it from my memory. It was irrelevant. The relevant part, which I quoted, was not related to what you were responding to. So whether DSC was doing that or not was irrelevant.
Except that this is a broader issue than what I was discussing, as you well know, since you commented on it.
Of course you did. You're a smart person. You know I was not talking about puppets and moving rugs but an actual actor in makeup playing an alien who is a person.
Well, the things you want to limit the discussion to aren't going to appear more alien than people in makeup.
Which is fine. Especially when it comes to the aliens, Star Trek has always hewed much closer to stage theater than hard sci-fi. The primary alien of the original were Vulcans: in appearance people, but with pointed ears, raised eyebrows, some skin color, and a Moe haircut. They were anything but alien-looking aliens. But that wasn't important, because Spock was a compelling character.
Trying to pass off people in makeup as bona fide extraterrestrials just isn't going to work. Ergo, there's a point at which applying more makeup and prosthetics while keeping humanoid characteristics like body and face is going to be counterproductive. IMO, and I assume in the opinion of some others, the DISCO Klingons are past that point. Nothing is gained by going that far. It's far better to accept the kinship with stage theater, and in other words accept that the aliens are going to look like people in makeup, then choose a makeup that lets you distinguish what species they are, and give the actors enough freedom of movement so that they the actors can actually act.
If it's actually important that the aliens look alien, then you need to go one of those routes that you don't want to discuss: puppets, "moving rugs," CGI, encounter suit props, etc.
Last edited:
Well, again, I disagree fundamentally. The TOS Klingons look more human -- that is, less alien -- than the ones in TMP which, in turn, look more human than those in DSC. They simply have more humanlike features: things you expect to find on humans, down to the ears and eyes and stuff, then the succeeding versions.
That's very true. If given the choice, I prefer good characters than accurate alien appearance. But is it too much to ask for both?
I'm not answering this part, but I'm leaving it here so you know I read it.
By the way, to clarify and extend my remark here, I didn't mean to imply that distinguishing species is the only function of alien makeup. Over the decades, Dr. Who has been particularly imaginative with its makeup, suits, and prosthetics. The Zygons and Chantho come to mind as two examples. Going for the alien, otherworldly, and non-human vibe is great, it can be entertaining and educational, it can evoke an emotional reaction itself, it can tell its own story, and many other things. But when the actor inside is perceptible, the character cannot be seriously believed as itself extraterrestrial, suspension of disbelief notwithstanding.
If we're going to talk about other franchises, I particularily enjoy the design of the Minbari in B5.
G
Gonzo
Guest
The Minbari, Narn and Centauri were all very well done and didn't interfere with the actors ability to display emotion or talk.
Though they didn't come out fully-formed that way. It wasn't until around the third season that all the makeup designs were "locked," as it were. Looking at G'Kar, especially, in the pilot and early episodes, you can see his face gradually become less puffy as the makeup becomes thinner and less mask-like.
And I haven't been shy about saying that I'll be unpleasantly surprised and disappointed if the makeup, VFX, and cinematography of DSC in season three or four looks exactly like it did now. I'd be delighted to start seeing some Klingons with hair, for instance, or even just more of the one guy in the finale who was wearing an updated version of the generic 1979-1999 Klingon armor.
If I recall correctly, the Cardassians were created specifically for Marc Alaimo.
I'm not part of the target audience for a product marketed as "Star Trek," even though I'm a longtime fan of "Star Trek," just because I prefer it to look like "Star Trek"? That's ridiculous.
I like quite a variety of other SF, on TV and otherwise. But this show isn't B5 or Firefly or BSG or Stargate or Star Wars or Dark Matter or The Expanse or any other space-based show, each with its own distinctive visual aesthetic. It's Star Trek. As other posters have mentioned, the producers are actually banking heavily on that fact, and bending over backwards to incorporate familiar story elements from past incarnations of Star Trek in order to appeal to audience familiarity. Given all that, it's really not unreasonable to think that it might also look like Star Trek.
"Virulent"? What are we now, a disease vector?
Seriously, I don't have any particular preconceived story expectations for what DSC or any other Trek show should do. I just want it to tell good stories that build upon (rather than undermining) Trek's established fictional universe, and to be recognizable as part of Trek's established fictional universe. So far DSC has been very hit-or-miss on both those fronts, unfortunately.
But, y'know, it won't ever be as good as the original. Every Trek spin-off so far has been an increasingly pale imitation of the ones that went before (with the possible exception of DS9, which had the creative chutzpah to chart some new directions). As much as I love Trek, I have no problem saying that pretty much all of it produced since the final season of DS9 (except for some of ENT S4) — and that's nearly 20 years now — is completely forgettable and adds nothing of lasting interest to Trek's fictional universe.
So it's not as if I'm judging Trek by some impossibly high bar. There's lots of really good TV being produced these days, SF and otherwise. DSC doesn't have to be the best of contemporary TV; all it has to do is be as good as the mid-range of it to outdo the last 20 years' worth of Trek and justify its existence on its own merits. Sadly, while I did enjoy several episodes of S1 (particularly around the midpoint of the season), on average it hasn't lived up to even that standard.
You say that you, yourself, are a fan of TOS and DS9. Given that, why the heck would you care if the franchise continues to "tick as time goes on," if the way it's ticking is no more than incidentally related to the kind of stuff you actually like?
And, seriously, even if you and I are not the target audience and the goal is to attract those hypothetical "new viewers," the producers really aren't going to achieve that with ship designs and FX that look like they come from a video game, Klingons that look and sound like Orcs, and story beats that are (A) clichéd, (B) predictable, and (C) derived from past Trek. I don't think the PTB actually have any coherent sense of who their target audience is.
Last edited:
Oh man I forgot he was in that TNG episode as the first Cardassian we have ever seen
Gul Dukat was always jealous of his cousin's Gul Macet facial hair
It's not ridiculous. Some "Star Trek" fans, for instance, are way too narrow (or "pure") in their vision of what that franchise should be like and can't possibly be satisfied. They'd only appreciate chapters that general audiences would not click with, losing the studio money. Shouldn't the studio focus on those who can make their product successful? Sounds rational to em.
This will always be a point of contention. The desire for strict adherence visuals of the past, with or without updating, is not going to fly right now. If Star Trek is proven viable with Discovery then perhaps there will be more that "feel" like Star Trek to the fan base. Right now, I'm mystified as to what that even feels like, as even TNG does not feel like Star Trek to me.
Last edited:
I don't disagree. Just with a lot modern productions executives, showrunners ,& producers don't care about folks like you or me, and they really really don't care for the extremes. They want quick cash, easy marketing, something that grabs, and hopefully brings in enough people who are willing to watch whatever they cobble together to justify their spending. Everything beyond that in their eyes is either gravy or just fancy lore words that hopefully convince fans to tag along. As for virulent I mean hostile. For a solid vocal minority of Trek fans they will defend aspects of "lore" quite hostility. Unfortunately it makes Star Trek a less accessible franchise for newcomers especially since newcomers are usually attracted to the franchise by the current iteration of the show which is the primary point of contention. Between production not having any heart and fans being so aggressive Star Trek has devolved into a factional franchise that continues to form more branches that don't get along. All while CBS/Viacom/Paramount executives continue to just put out mediocre content fanning the flames that bring them in good money. Star Trek really just needs a restart under new heads and a new banner. Hopefully under the reins of a more responsible owner and with that the understanding that a new fan base and lore will need to be made. Get back to square one and grow it right this time.
Similar threads
