"Sins of the Barber"Maybe Kahless brings their hair back in Season 2 in an episode with the title "Rightful Hair"
Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
...don't match the carpets.
The hair thing is weird because as we have seen with the shops, they look, so much better with hair, it's a small change that leads to an unquestionablly better design.
IMO they screwed up by not having TOS style Klingons and Klingons with hair in the House lineup. That would have been a great opportunity to actually add to the diversity of Klingons, but all the Klingons just look like Bald monsters. It's weird.
IMO they screwed up by not having TOS style Klingons and Klingons with hair in the House lineup. That would have been a great opportunity to actually add to the diversity of Klingons, but all the Klingons just look like Bald monsters. It's weird.
If they added more diversity in the Klingon design, with the leaders having the new make up, it would be perfect, in my opinion.
Them carpets have teeth! 
looking at a comment by Fuller I'd say it was his intent to show the original designs, he made a comment that the setting gave them a chance "to play with the iconography of those designs, those uniforms," perhaps those were some of the creative difference which lead to his departure as any effort or even pretense at that departed as well, instead of "Cage" contemporary uniforms, we get Enterprise "evolved" and rectangular cross-section warp nacelles, rather than circular
Speaking of past designs, It's cool they brought back the Star Trek V/TNG shuttlecraft and gave it a nice modern touch without going overboard. That's what I'd like to see when it comes to more classic elements.
Isn't that what they have done?? A painted black STV shuttle was the first thing I thought of when I saw the DSC shuttle.
That’s what they said
Playing catch-up!...
As for "willing suspension of disbelief," I'm a big fan of it, but I think we understand it somewhat differently. To me, that suspension is something that allows you to immerse yourself within a story as if it were real. If you have to consciously think of "real-world explanations" like makeup budgets in order to make sense of the story, that's the sort of thing that undermines suspension of disbelief.
I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised to find that some people are so casually inattentive to the things they spend time and money on for entertainment. I sincerely hope this doesn't actually characterize the "average viewer," as opposed to just an oblivious subset... but even if it does, I'd hope Trek and the people making it aspire to a higher bar than just the expectations of the lowest-common-denominator viewers.
Your second set of remarks here kind of clarifies your perspective, though. Obviously the kind of details one notices and cares about are subjective, and in terms of visuals you're basically classifying yourself here as analogous to the viewers you described above who are oblivious to important story elements. Visuals really do matter, to a lot of people — and not just as a matter of continuity, but as a matter of aesthetics. The version of the Enterprise offered in the Abrams films, for instance, was controversial not because it looked different (that was to be expected, because reboot), but because it really did look hideous. Yes, it had a saucer and two nacelles, but the lines and proportions were garish and unbalanced.
When it comes to DSC, the Klingon makeup and ships fail on both fronts. They don't make sense in terms of continuity, and they look godawful (in the eyes of many, at least) compared to previous versions.
Opinions are subjective, of course, and you're entitled to yours. But can you grasp the concept that the whole reason for doing a prequel at all, for setting DSC just before the TOS era, is that a lot of people really do like that era — on its own merits, whether colored by nostalgia or not? So it doesn't seem unreasonable that if you're going to make the creative choice to use that setting, and hence presumably attract the viewers who are familiar with that setting and actually like it, you should produce something that actually recaptures (or at least evokes) the look and feel of that setting. No?
In a few ways, DSC has done that. But in quite a few other ways (and not just visually), it's dropped the ball. If it hadn't, this thread wouldn't even exist. Saying it shouldn't even try in the first place because all that stuff comes across as old and hokey (to you) really isn't a meaningful response.
Not sure what "we all" you're talking about there, as I recall the change in Klingon looks being a recurring topic of (sometimes passionate) discussion for pretty much the entire 26-year period between 1979 and 2005 when it was finally explained on-screen. There were multiple fan theories, and the topic even made it into one of the best early Trek novels (John M. Ford's Final Reflection) and the high-profile graphic novel Debt of Honor. It's not as if the writers of the Augment Virus story in ENT chose some random obscure bit of forgotten continuity trivia to wrap a story around... they were deliberately resolving a long-standing unanswered question in the Trek community.
As for "willing suspension of disbelief," I'm a big fan of it, but I think we understand it somewhat differently. To me, that suspension is something that allows you to immerse yourself within a story as if it were real. If you have to consciously think of "real-world explanations" like makeup budgets in order to make sense of the story, that's the sort of thing that undermines suspension of disbelief.
Eek.
I'm disappointed but not entirely surprised to find that some people are so casually inattentive to the things they spend time and money on for entertainment. I sincerely hope this doesn't actually characterize the "average viewer," as opposed to just an oblivious subset... but even if it does, I'd hope Trek and the people making it aspire to a higher bar than just the expectations of the lowest-common-denominator viewers.Okay, again, you're clearly talking about a whole different concept of "suspension of disbelief" here. To me, the minute you have to think "that's not a bridge, it's a sound stage," you've been yanked out of the story and your enjoyment is diminished.
Your second set of remarks here kind of clarifies your perspective, though. Obviously the kind of details one notices and cares about are subjective, and in terms of visuals you're basically classifying yourself here as analogous to the viewers you described above who are oblivious to important story elements. Visuals really do matter, to a lot of people — and not just as a matter of continuity, but as a matter of aesthetics. The version of the Enterprise offered in the Abrams films, for instance, was controversial not because it looked different (that was to be expected, because reboot), but because it really did look hideous. Yes, it had a saucer and two nacelles, but the lines and proportions were garish and unbalanced.
When it comes to DSC, the Klingon makeup and ships fail on both fronts. They don't make sense in terms of continuity, and they look godawful (in the eyes of many, at least) compared to previous versions.
But the thing is, it's on screen, in live action. One of the main goals of on-screen, filmed entertainment — not all of it, to be sure, but most — and something that sets it apart from something like comics, or for that matter live theater, is to depict the best achievable illusion of literal reality. If it does something that draws attention to the artistic "smoke and mirrors," rather than concealing them, that spoils the illusion. Viewers, in the moment of experiencing a film or TV show, do not want to be forced to think about the man behind the curtain.
We get it. You really, really don't like original-series Star Trek. You literally don't seem to be able to talk about it without using gratuitous derogatory terms like "cheap" and "campy" and "goofy" and so on. You don't seem to have much respect for its fans, either, and literally can't understand why some people think it looks cool, well-designed, and futuristic.
Opinions are subjective, of course, and you're entitled to yours. But can you grasp the concept that the whole reason for doing a prequel at all, for setting DSC just before the TOS era, is that a lot of people really do like that era — on its own merits, whether colored by nostalgia or not? So it doesn't seem unreasonable that if you're going to make the creative choice to use that setting, and hence presumably attract the viewers who are familiar with that setting and actually like it, you should produce something that actually recaptures (or at least evokes) the look and feel of that setting. No?
In a few ways, DSC has done that. But in quite a few other ways (and not just visually), it's dropped the ball. If it hadn't, this thread wouldn't even exist. Saying it shouldn't even try in the first place because all that stuff comes across as old and hokey (to you) really isn't a meaningful response.
See, this is fascinating to me. A description of uniforms (in prose!) broke the setting for you... but all the vivid differences (on screen!) between DSC and previous depictions of its setting don't have that effect?
You don't think four nostrils instead of two is a significant difference?
Very different philosophical attitude from mine. I love continuity, and I like it to be clear, precise, and consistent. "The basics" are certainly important (and it's possible to screw up even those... e.g., the biggest flaw of Man of Steel was that Superman killed Zod in the end, because Superman does. not. kill), but it's the details, the intricate worldbuilding of a fictional setting that goes beyond a single story, that make things really interesting.
Well, yes, you can, quite reasonably... if they specifically invite you to by explicitly saying "what has gone before" is the setting they've chosen to use. We know a few things about Trek's prime universe in the 2250s. It's fair to expect the show's creators to be "beholden" to what we know about the setting they chose.
So you're literally dismissing the whole concept of Star Trek having (or having ever had) an ongoing shared universe? More power to you if you can enjoy it (or any given part of it) that way, but that's certainly not the way it's actually presented to audiences. If it weren't all interconnected, I personally (and I think a lot of other fans) would find a lot of it much less interesting. It goes to what I said to Nerys Myk above about continuity... some of the most engaging worldbuilding is the kind that can't be done within the constraints of a single story (or, in Trek's case, a single series).
Last edited:
Not when you have a whole episode dedicated to the fact that Klingons have redundant systems.You don't think four nostrils instead of two is a significant difference?
When the show spends a good five mins on each female showing just what they are wearing and at lest 4 sentences each time explaining why they are wearing it, yeah that would pull me out as well.
I don't know why people are so hung up with Klingon humanoid visual update. The only iffy thing with the new design is no hair. That's it. They look fine.
Canon wise we have a much bigger issue, the augment virus has ravaged the Klingon empire at this point. Honestly, I hate ENT did that, but it's canon, the Klingons should look like augmented humans at this point.
The ship designs, are utter fucking garbage and whoever greenlit them should be shot out of the airlock. That's also a larger canon issue.
But the way the Klingons look beyond the hair? Meh, I still think they look Klingon, they just need hair.
Canon wise we have a much bigger issue, the augment virus has ravaged the Klingon empire at this point. Honestly, I hate ENT did that, but it's canon, the Klingons should look like augmented humans at this point.
The ship designs, are utter fucking garbage and whoever greenlit them should be shot out of the airlock. That's also a larger canon issue.
But the way the Klingons look beyond the hair? Meh, I still think they look Klingon, they just need hair.
If they choose to use it at all, I don't think they are just gonna look human.
It's exactly how it's presented to the fans. "Canon" is a construct made by fans for their own benefit. It doesn't not, nor has it ever, have any bearing on how TPTB choose to tell their stories.
And I challenge you to prove otherwise. Give one example - besides the three I listed - where a prior [episode] series or film has any direct influence on a subsequent [episode] series or film. And really think about it.
Let's take The Motion Picture, for example and pretend it was just a movie called Star Trek and the series had never existed. Is there anything about the film that would be different. Anything at all? Nope. Wise, Harvey, and Sowards could have told the exact same story and made the exact same film. There is nothing in the film that is dependent on the events (or the audience having prior knowledge) of the series. Everything is the audience needs to know is shown in the film.
And guess what? The same holds true for WOK. People commonly treat it as a squeal to "Space Seed." But it isn't. The two stories are completely independent. Just like with TMP, all the relevant bits from the episode are given to the audience in that small exchange between Khan and Chekov. And there really isn't much there that needs to be conveyed. And what is, could just as easily be any given arbitrary expo in any given random film - IOW Meyer and Sowards could have just as easily written it in there had "Space Seed" never existed.
The same holds true with the series. There was nothing presented in TNG's seven years that was dependent on any event of TOS. There were a few references - like Naked Now - but, again, all the relevant information is given in the episode and could just as easily be there had Naked Time never been.
The only thing DS9 took from TNG was the baton passing in "Emissary." But Pat's only real purpose was to grab viewers. The little tiff between Sisko and Picard was only there for its own sake and was never mentioned again for the entire rest of the series.
And even the events of W359 aren't dependent on ever having seen BOBW. All the important info is displayed int he crawl. As far as the rest of the series is concerned, the only thing that's important is that Sisko lost his wife in a terrible battle.
And shoehorning Quark into VOY was even more meaningless. Harry could have just as easily been scammed by Rick Blaine.
Continuity is a nice security blanket. And it's great when it all fits together. But the mistake is ever thinking a show or film - unless it is absolutely a direct sequel - should be beholden to it at all times.
Similar threads
