When did canon become such a hot-button issue?

[JoeZhang]

Your headcanon is rather small, isn't it?

It's the sign of the faithful - I also accept the concept of love instructors, hypersexed three breasted aliens and Spock crying on the grassy knoll as he assassinated JFK as laid down in the scripture of the Great Bird. We will live to see such wonders filmed.

 

[Jayson1]

James R Kirk is easy to explain. Years ago when on a landing party a young Kirk and Mitchell were captured by native aliens and had their phasers destroyed. The aliens had what Kirk joked as "ray guns" R soon become a nickname between them and Mitchell would often call him James R Kirk just to tease. So when he made the tombstone, the humanity still in him wanted to say how sorry he was by reminding of him of good times when they were younger and serving together on the Farugant.

Jason

 

[Paul Weaver]

We saw how crazy things got in "Futurama", to the point that a "reformation" against a Trek based religion resulted in a "Big Brother policy" watching for anybody daring to use the words "star" and "trek" in a single sentence.

Except in season 1 when Hermes explained that DOOP was like 'the Federation from your Star Trek show'

Futurama continuty violation, it's shocking.

in real life, people don't spontaneously break into song and dance

Speak for yourself

 

[Damian]

Trust me, you're wrong about this. I was there at the time, and the arguments were exactly the same as the anti-Discovery arguments now and the anti-Kelvin arguments a decade ago. And they were every bit as vitriolic and vicious too.

Yeah, I can see 10 years from now some new show coming on redesigning things from Discovery and some fans saying "it's violating canon because on Discovery......."

I was always flexible enough with Enterprise to give it some leeway in some of the, um, liberties it took because I saw an effort to strike a balance between making it futuristic from the present while trying to backdate it 100 years from the original series, not an easy thing to do. My issues with Discovery is mainly I didn't see that same effort being made---but that's a consistency/continuity issue for me....not a canon issue. From a canon perspective the writers are going to have to reconcile all that at some point to the original series---well at least the major plot points like my favorite, the spore drive. At some point we know that will have to be abandoned for all time.

As far as the Kelvin universe, it was easier for me to reconcile that because it was an alternate universe. It still had some continuity issues, the Kelvin having such a large ship's complement for instance doesn't seem to be in line with the ships of the era (though that's sort of minor for me--maybe they were transporting refugees or something). Though I kind of thought the ship's bridge for instance looked like something that could fall between Enterprise and the original series. The window on the bridge though---what is it with that anyway? I don't know who's brainchild that was but I digress.

Yes, and a large segment of fandom had come to detest Braga during his showrunnership of Voyager and came to hate him even more during ENT. It was disturbing how vicious and personal the attacks against him became.

Yeah, when I use to frequent trekmovie (which at least several years ago had a lot of Abram disciples--to continue the religious analogies here) Braga was trashed a lot, I would say more than Berman even. A lot of posters over there really disliked those two, saying they almost killed Star Trek. Nemesis, Enterprise, Voyager were frequently trashed over there. One of the reasons I faded away is I sometimes felt like a lonely Berman Trek fan over there and sometimes it would almost get personal. I'd try to remind people that Berman also presided over one of the great periods of Star Trek history (much like Abrams after Star Trek (2009)), the 90's---with DS9 and First Contact both being immensely popular but it fell on deaf's ears. I find it more balanced here on trekbbs at least.

But it doesn't need to get personal. I'm not a fan of the Geiger Klingons on Discovery. And it's ok to critique decisions and story lines, but I'm not going to personally trash the designers, or Bryan Fuller, or anyone else responsible for the Alien-Klingon hybrids on Discovery. That's just stupid.

Your headcanon is rather small, isn't it?

Perhaps I'm misreading, but I think he's just being sarcastic.

 

[Damian]

James R Kirk is easy to explain. Years ago when on a landing party a young Kirk and Mitchell were captured by native aliens and had their phasers destroyed. The aliens had what Kirk joked as "ray guns" R soon become a nickname between them and Mitchell would often call him James R Kirk just to tease. So when he made the tombstone, the humanity still in him wanted to say how sorry he was by reminding of him of good times when they were younger and serving together on the Farugant.

Jason

I actually believe one of the novels explained that---maybe one of the "My Brother's Keeper" novels. I can't recall exactly but I believe it arose out of a joke between then---and I actually think Mitchell had included R on the tombstone for a reason you mentioned, almost a subconscious apology or something like that.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, I can see 10 years from now some new show coming on redesigning things from Discovery and some fans saying "it's violating canon because on Discovery......."

It will surely happen. It happens every time.

It's just an artifact of the way human memory works. As we revisit our memories, we edit them in our minds to better fit the narrative we construct of our lives. We gloss over the parts that don't fit or feel wrong. This is the basis for the illusion of nostalgia, that the present is worse than the past. It isn't; it's just that we haven't had time to gloss over the annoyances and unpleasant bits in our memories, and so the present feels worse than our smoothed-out memory of the past. The same illusion happens with fiction -- over time, we gloss over the inconsistencies and errors and contradictions, so we come to see the messy, inconsistent canon of the past as a unified whole, but brand-new inconsistencies stand out more because we haven't had time to assimilate them yet.

I was always flexible enough with Enterprise to give it some leeway in some of the, um, liberties it took because I saw an effort to strike a balance between making it futuristic from the present while trying to backdate it 100 years from the original series, not an easy thing to do. My issues with Discovery is mainly I didn't see that same effort being made---but that's a consistency/continuity issue for me....not a canon issue.

I think the difference is mainly that ENT was from basically the same continuous group of people who'd been making Trek since TNG. So the fundamental aesthetic and creative approach wasn't that different. When Trek started over again with an almost totally separate group of writers and artists, it was natural that they'd bring a more distinct creative and visual interpretation to it.

I see what DSC's producers did as the same thing Roddenberry chose to do in ST:TMP: To treat what we saw in TOS as just a rough approximation of the future and to update it with an increased budget and technology to be a more convincing approximation of the future. The difference is that TMP was a few years in the future of TOS, so we could handwave the changes as the result of upgrades... except that never really made sense, because that wouldn't explain literally everything changing so drastically at the same time, from ship design to console design to equipment to uniforms to spacesuits to everything else, along with updates to the look of aliens like Klingons and Andorians, and a suddenly more multispecies portrayal of Starfleet. That kind of wholesale change would realistically be more incremental, with different elements of the tech and designs and so forth changing at different times and paces. So it was a ground-up reinterpretation of the whole universe, no matter how hard we tried to rationalize it as internally consistent.

DSC is doing the exact same thing as TMP; it's just harder to pretend that it isn't, because we don't have the flimsy excuse of it being set later. And it's harder for many fans to accept because it's the first time in 40 years that fandom has had to contend with such a wholesale reinterpretation (since the later movies and the TNG-era shows continued the basic aesthetics of TMP for budgetary reasons). But just because they haven't seen it done in a while, that doesn't make it wrong. I can't say I agree with all of the specific changes they've made, but it's their prerogative to make them.

 

[Nyotarules]

Somewhat different circumstances. It was set after TOS and had feature film budget for makeup and effects and until the reboot movies retained the same appearance in multiple films and TV series.

And if it is perfectly justifiable to radically change how Klingons are depicted after 3 or 4 decades, why not Vulcans? Why not depict Vulcans as having blue skin for instance?

Some fans freaked out at the sight of Tuvok with brown skin, - a brown Vulcan, Nooooo!
IMO blue skinned Vulcans are as valid in universe as beige skinned humans are. When the Aenar came on the scene did folks clutch the pearls since Andorians are blue dammit!
The in universe portrayal that most aliens are white looking humans with bumpy foreheads or pointed ears is a reflection of society's unconscious bias that default humans are Caucasians.

They sure did, I vaguely recall someone calling the TMP Klingons "lobster-headed midgets" - and people still hate the TMP "pajamas".

Yeah I'm one of them, not a fan of the TOS uniforms either

I think it's perfectly reasonable to be upset over such things, and unrealistic to try to shame/insult people into not caring about it.

However its not perfectly reasonable for such people to insult and (try to) shame the creators of the story for making production changes that they are entitled to make. Ever watched a Shakespeare play, did every production of Hamlet look exactly the same?

I actually believe one of the novels explained that---maybe one of the "My Brother's Keeper" novels. I can't recall exactly but I believe it arose out of a joke between then---and I actually think Mitchell had included R on the tombstone for a reason you mentioned, almost a subconscious apology or something like that.

I have a read a few Star Trek novels that try to explain the continuity issues with the TV franchise, I prefer they ignored them. The Titan series came up with a reason why the Enterprise D and E under Picard was so human dominated, considering its the flagship of Starfleet, the reason does not wash. I think there is a novel that tries to explain why Kirk's Enterprises only had one alien in the TOS and then another 2 in the TAS and that the diverse Enterprise in TMP was a Will Decker experiment. I did not know whether to cringe or roll my eyes.

 

[CommanderRaytas]

I doubt it's ever really "reasonable" to get upset about a TV show.

That reeeeally depends on what's going on in that tv show. Social cognitive theory postulates that people very often learn by observing. Therefore, if entities perceived as role models (don't even have to go that far) display certain kinds of mentalities and behaviours as acceptable, people will start aping that. The way things, ideas, concepts are portrayed in media affects real-life behaviour. So if a popular show displays, let's say, micro-aggressions as funny and quirky and cool by having the POV characters engage in them, then I think it's fair enough to be upset if you're among the demographic who is a target of those micro-aggressions.

I know that's not what you were going for - just thought I'd add a caveat.

But I agree that flailing over continuity details will just cause you grief for no good reason (and to no effect).

 

[Christopher]

Some fans freaked out at the sight of Tuvok with brown skin, - a brown Vulcan, Nooooo!

Let's be honest, though -- that objection came from a very different place than canon purism, no matter what excuses they made.

Not to mention that Tuvok was not the first brown-skinned Vulcanoid we'd seen. That was probably the high priestess who assisted in Spock's birth in the flashback in ST V, followed by the Romulan Commander Sirol in TNG: "The Pegasus."

The in universe portrayal that most aliens are white looking humans with bumpy foreheads or pointed ears is a reflection of society's unconscious bias that default humans are Caucasians.

Except that many TOS aliens were based on standard '60s ethnic stereotypes as generally portrayed by white actors in "exotic" makeup. Klingons were "space Mongols" with browner skin. Vulcans were presumed to have a somewhat "Oriental" appearance (recall Kirk in "City on the Edge" trying to pass Spock off as Chinese). Orion women were belly-dancing Middle Eastern harem girls with green skin. Argelius was one big Orientalist stereotype blending Middle Eastern and East Asian exoticism. The Capellans were a mix of Native American and Arab tribal stereotypes, albeit played by mostly blond, pale actors. It's hard to recognize in isolation, but if you're aware of other '60s shows and their stock tropes for portraying foreign cultures (The Man from UNCLE is a particularly egregious example that seemed to go out of its way to insult as many foreign cultures as it could), you can recognize how often TOS aliens were just thinly disguised variations on those ethnic cliches. (Or sometimes just blatant reuses of those cliches, as in "The Omega Glory" or "The Paradise Syndrome.") So even though the aliens are usually played by white actors, they're often playing the equivalent of brownface/yellowface roles, aliens as exotic others with backward "tribal" customs or inscrutable Orientalist honor codes.

You see a lot of this in the prose SF of the '40s-'60s that influenced TOS, the age when editor John W. Campbell shaped and influenced a generation of authors. Campbell brought a lot of great things to the genre, but he was unfortunately racist and favored stories that portrayed humans as an intrinsically superior race of interstellar colonizers outsmarting, conquering, or benevolently ruling over aliens who were stand-ins for nonwhite human cultures on Earth. There is a strong element of Campbellian thinking in TOS, for all that it tried to portray human cultural expansionism as inclusive and benevolent.

I think there is a novel that tries to explain why Kirk's Enterprises only had one alien in the TOS and then another 2 in the TAS and that the diverse Enterprise in TMP was a Will Decker experiment. I did not know whether to cringe or roll my eyes.

Gee, thanks a lot. (I wrote that novel.)

In retrospect, seeing how Kelvin and DSC have shown a more multispecies Starfleet in the 23rd century, I would've written that differently. But it made sense at the time, and it served a deeper purpose -- not just a continuity fix, but a social commentary on how easy it is for unconscious prejudices to reassert themselves if we don't remain alert to them and work to overcome them.

 

[Damian]

It will surely happen. It happens every time

I'll probably be one of those. 10 years from now I'll make some comment "What they did is totally inconsistent with the spore drive in Discovery, and those Klingons look nothing like anything we saw in the original series, Enterprise or Discovery"

The difference is that TMP was a few years in the future of TOS, so we could handwave the changes as the result of upgrades... except that never really made sense, because that wouldn't explain literally everything changing so drastically at the same time, from ship design to console design to equipment to uniforms to spacesuits to everything else, along with updates to the look of aliens like Klingons and Andorians, and a suddenly more multispecies portrayal of Starfleet.

As far as the technological upgrades to the Enterprise it was easier to buy because they put the in-universe plot point that this was an almost totally 'new Enterprise', an upgrade. It didn't happen in a vacuum. As far as the aliens, well I guess it was easier to ignore some of that since they weren't really a major plot point (even the Klingons was just a few minutes of the movie). Something like the spore drive is obviously a much more major plot point, making it impossible to ignore or hand wave away.

And it's harder for many fans to accept because it's the first time in 40 years that fandom has had to contend with such a wholesale reinterpretation

Yeah, you can count me in on that obviously.

Some fans freaked out at the sight of Tuvok with brown skin, - a brown Vulcan, Nooooo!

That never bothered me I must say. Some of the other alien looks didn't bother me too much. Bumpy headed Romulans, Andorians with ears. They are generally pretty recognizable. Tellarites are maybe a bit more of a change, but even there they're pretty recognizable. I don't care for the Klingons in Discovery though because I didn't find them very recognizable. If I wasn't told they were Klingons I probably would have thought they were some never before seen aliens.

I have a read a few Star Trek novels that try to explain the continuity issues with the TV franchise, I prefer they ignored them. The Titan series came up with a reason why the Enterprise D and E under Picard was so human dominated, considering its the flagship of Starfleet, the reason does not wash. I think there is a novel that tries to explain why Kirk's Enterprises only had one alien in the TOS and then another 2 in the TAS and that the diverse Enterprise in TMP was a Will Decker experiment. I did not know whether to cringe or roll my eyes.

I come from the other end. I always loved when novels explained those little inconsistencies. Some of the novels help tie the continuity together in a way that makes it seem more plausible. I know Christopher and Greg Cox have both said they don't do it out of some righteous mandate to right the inconsistencies in Star Trek, but almost more as a mental exercise. Like you have these two things that don't really fit as presented in the show, how can we make them fit in a way that makes sense. As a reader I enjoy reading that. It's certainly not the only reason I read the novels, they still have to be good stories, but it's something that catches my attention. I always mention "To Reign in Hell" because it's a perfect example of a book that plausibly ties two things that don't necessarily tie together all that well, "Space Seed" to TWOK, explaining away the various inconsistencies in a way that makes you go "Ahh, ok, that makes sense now". But there are plenty of other examples, sometimes just a few minor things that are tweaked.

 

[Christopher]

As far as the technological upgrades to the Enterprise it was easier to buy because they put the in-universe plot point that this was an almost totally 'new Enterprise', an upgrade. It didn't happen in a vacuum.

Yes, as I already said, there was enough of a handwave built in that we could pretend it made sense, but it was a flimsy excuse that didn't really hold up to critical analysis. I mean, if you replace your old car with a brand-new car that has all the best new tech upgrades, the dashboard is probably going to look very different and have lots of flashy new gadgets and displays, and there'll be a lot of improvements under the hood and all, but there probably won't be any major change in the appearance of the tires or the rear-view mirrors or the seats or the jack in the trunk. And you'll still probably wear the same clothes when you go driving, and your neighbors' faces won't change. Some things will stay the same while others change. That's how progress realistically happens.

I don't care for the Klingons in Discovery though because I didn't find them very recognizable. If I wasn't told they were Klingons I probably would have thought they were some never before seen aliens.

I'm surprised when people say that, because they had the one trait that's shared by all post-TMP Klingon makeups, the ridged foreheads. Plus of course they were recognizably speaking Klingon and acting Klingon and talking about Kahless and so on; they were very, very Klingon in every respect except elements of their makeup design. Hell, DSC even remembered the Klingon death-howl custom that "Heart of Glory" established and that later Berman-era Trek kind of forgot about.

 

[Damian]

Yes, as I already said, there was enough of a handwave built in that we could pretend it made sense, but it was a flimsy excuse that didn't really hold up to critical analysis.

Yeah, probably true. I think the novelization (or one of the novels) mentioned the only thing retained was the computer core and the basic skeletal framework. Hence Decker's statement to Kirk that "This is an almost totally new Enterprise". Not sure why Starfleet wouldn't just build a new ship from scratch---though I suppose there are advantages to using the same 'form' of the ship so the foundation is still there and you just build around it. I guess in 'real world' terms they wanted fans to think this was still, at it's core, the same ship as the TV series.

I'm surprised when people say that, because they had the one trait that's shared by all post-TMP Klingon makeups, the ridged foreheads. Plus of course they were recognizably speaking Klingon and acting Klingon and talking about Kahless and so on; they were very, very Klingon in every respect except elements of their makeup design. Hell, DSC even remembered the Klingon death-howl custom that "Heart of Glory" established and that later Berman-era Trek kind of forgot about.

Ridges really aren't enough to me. There are a number of aliens with forehead ridges seen throughout Star Trek, that alone wouldn't be enough. The speech neither really. I don't speak Klingon so that alone doesn't help either. They could be speaking French for all I know . It did help that at least on the Blu Ray they said on the subtitles "In Klingon:". The death howl, ok, that would help. It did appear several times in Berman Trek though, the last time I recall was probably on DS9 after Gowron was killed, I don't remember it on Enterprise, but I don't remember how many times we saw Klingon individuals die on screen on Enterprise that would warrant it.

But the Klingons in Discovery look almost nothing like previous Klingons. Even in the Klingon designs from TMP through Enterprise had a certain basic consistency. Sure they were adapted over the years, but the basics were there. That's were some of my flexibility might come in. I don't expect all Klingons to look alike throughout all the shows. Just a basic framework. It's why I didn't have a major issue with the update to Tellarites in Enterprise. The basics were intact. Even the Andorians and Tellarites in Discovery were recognizably Andorians and Tellarites. But the nu-Klingons in Discovery was pretty radical, IMO. Enough that just seeing one without no other information I would not know it was a Klingon. Show me a Tellarite on Enterprise with nothing else and I'll figure out it's a Tellarite. A Romulan on TNG, same thing. Klingon on Discovery and I would have said "What species is that?"

 

[valkyrie013]

Most people fall in to a few categories:
1. Average people that just watch and enjoy with a very small to non existent regard to continuity.
2. Average trekkie, they have a small to medium regard for continuity, maybe speak up for blatant violations, but in all, just enjoy the show for what it is, and how its presented.
3. Your Anal Trekkie that counts rivits, and posts online of any violaiton of "Sacred Cannon"

so on average, I'd guess that 90% fall into the first 2 categories, they either don't really care, or care enough if something they care about seems screwed up. The unfortuate thing is, cat 3 is the most vocal ( as in almost any topic.. the rivit counters, offended is the most vocal, where most are like, meh..)

Me personaly, am in cat 2, just a reasonable trekkie that has 1 or 2 bugaboos about some things ( enterprise size is one, based off of me building model kits of them, and wanting to display them in some sort of continuity) But on average, I accept what the show is telling me, idiom of " going in with my eyes open, no pre concieved notions, and enjoy the darn show" I might nit pick things afterward, maybe do some sugestions, but in all I enjoy whatever they give me

 

[Damian]

Most people fall in to a few categories:
1. Average people that just watch and enjoy with a very small to non existent regard to continuity.
2. Average trekkie, they have a small to medium regard for continuity, maybe speak up for blatant violations, but in all, just enjoy the show for what it is, and how its presented.
3. Your Anal Trekkie that counts rivits, and posts online of any violaiton of "Sacred Cannon"

so on average, I'd guess that 90% fall into the first 2 categories, they either don't really care, or care enough if something they care about seems screwed up. The unfortuate thing is, cat 3 is the most vocal ( as in almost any topic.. the rivit counters, offended is the most vocal, where most are like, meh..)

Me personaly, am in cat 2, just a reasonable trekkie that has 1 or 2 bugaboos about some things ( enterprise size is one, based off of me building model kits of them, and wanting to display them in some sort of continuity) But on average, I accept what the show is telling me, idiom of " going in with my eyes open, no pre concieved notions, and enjoy the darn show" I might nit pick things afterward, maybe do some sugestions, but in all I enjoy whatever they give me

I'll admit, I'm probably between 2 and 3. I can be a bit anal about continuity things. But not to the point of counting rivits. I'm flexible enough to allow some variations. And I don't expect everything to fit cleanly. I do like to see an overall continuity though. Discovery was such a shock to the system for me because it was so different in it's stories and designs. I'm already preparing myself for drastic changes when the nu-TNG show comes out (though it might be easier to handwave away since it's in the future of all currently existing Star Trek canon).

But at the same time, I still enjoyed the show from a story perspective, taken on it's own independent of prior Trek. I've found I enjoy it best if I view it as a sort of a reboot. That may not be possible forever, but it works for now.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, probably true. I think the novelization (or one of the novels) mentioned the only thing retained was the computer core and the basic skeletal framework. Hence Decker's statement to Kirk that "This is an almost totally new Enterprise".

My point is, it's not just the ship -- it's the uniforms, phasers, communicators, tricorders, every last bit of technology and design. Even the insignias were redesigned. Everything changed at once, even things totally unconnected to each other. That's not the way change happens in real life. My cell phone and my computer monitor today look completely different from the ones I had back in the '90s or '00s or whenever, but my glasses, my watch, my clothes, etc. still look pretty much the same as the ones I had decades before.

I guess in 'real world' terms they wanted fans to think this was still, at it's core, the same ship as the TV series.

Yes -- as I've been saying, that was the superficial handwave, but if you look at what was really going on, beneath the pretense, what they were doing was a complete redesign of the entire universe to look more advanced. The in-story upgrades were just an excuse for that. They would've still done it even without that excuse. And that's what Discovery has done.

Ridges really aren't enough to me. There are a number of aliens with forehead ridges seen throughout Star Trek, that alone wouldn't be enough.

*sigh* I was afraid you'd say something like that. I hoped you'd understand my point that it wasn't about ridges generically, but about the specific kind of forehead ridges we associate with Klingons. The DSC Klingons do clearly have that specific kind of ridging despite the changes to their eyes, noses, ears, skull shape, etc.

The speech neither really. I don't speak Klingon so that alone doesn't help either. They could be speaking French for all I know .

Are you kidding? You don't have to speak a language to recognize what it sounds like.

But the Klingons in Discovery look almost nothing like previous Klingons.

Okay, whatever. I'm not going to rehash this same argument all over again. That's so 2017.

The point is not about nitpicking individual changes and whether they went too far for you. The point is that this is a creative undertaking and different creators have the right to make different artistic choices. Honestly, I don't like the new Klingon redesign either. It's more drastic than I'm comfortable with. But it's still obvious to me that they're an interpretation of Klingons. And it was still their absolute right to make that aesthetic choice, whether I agree with it or not. Differences in taste and style are not moral judgments.

 

[Jayson1]

I don't think anyone is arguing they don't have the right to make changes for artistic reasons. That sounds more like Midnight Edge argument. I think the main argument has always been about whether or not it looks good and whether or not the changes are to much to really suspend ones disbelief that the show is still in the same shared continuity though we do tend to use the word canon more than continuity because people see them as the same.

Were people really making moral judgments because of these things? I mean you got the it's to SJW stuff, or the sexiest arguments and I have even seen the it's not diverse enough arguments but I have never seen people connect those canon arguments as the reason they believe these other arguments. Other than maybe petty insults but never as the root cause.

Jason

 

[JirinPanthosa]

Was it ever not?

I think it’s a good thing to have a logically consistent universe because having one is a prerequisite for escapism.

But moreover, why would you write in a big established universe if you’re just going to ignore what’s established? Start a new IP if all you want from Star Trek is the name. If you want to write Star Trek, write a Star Trek story consistent with the Star Trek universe.

There’s plenty of room for modernized aesthetics and different perspectives on the universe. But that’s different from ignoring canon completely and openly contradicting it. Or just slapping the name Star Trek on the current generic TV or action movie flavor and sprinkling in recognized names instead of really trying to make something new that’s uniquely Star Trek.

 

[Damian]

Are you kidding? You don't have to speak a language to recognize what it sounds like

I was just trying to be pithy. In all seriousness, without the hint given by the subtitles I might have guessed Klingon like-but I still wouldn't have ruled out that it could have been something else. "Hmm, sounds sort of like Klingon but I'm not sure" sort of thing.

The DSC Klingons do clearly have that specific kind of ridging despite the changes to their eyes, noses, ears, skull shape, etc.

I'm sort of coming from it from the other end, that so many of the other things have changed that cancel out the otherwise familiar cranial ridges. So a different perspective in my case I guess.

Yes -- as I've been saying, that was the superficial handwave, but if you look at what was really going on, beneath the pretense, what they were doing was a complete redesign of the entire universe to look more advanced. The in-story upgrades were just an excuse for that. They would've still done it even without that excuse. And that's what Discovery has done.

I want my superficial handwave for Discovery. WHERE IS IT?

Okay, whatever. I'm not going to rehash this same argument all over again. That's so 2017.

Ok, coming from the same person that just said they haven't changed their clothes since 1990

I'm just kidding I couldn't resist that one. Anyway, isn't it every Trekkies right to argue things repeatedly until they become accepted in the continuity. Like I said, 10 years from now I'll complain about some new show disregarding the Klingon look from the original series to Discovery. I like consistency in my shows, not in my arguments

 

[Jayson1]

Was it ever not?

I think it’s a good thing to have a logically consistent universe because having one is a prerequisite for escapism.

But moreover, why would you write in a big established universe if you’re just going to ignore what’s established? Start a new IP if all you want from Star Trek is the name. If you want to write Star Trek, write a Star Trek story consistent with the Star Trek universe.

That's what I always felt. You change everything in terms of looks but then through in lots of pointless canon obstacles that you feel you need to hold yourself back because of them. I mean if your going to make changes for the new fans were it doesn't look like something in the "TOS" time period why stop their? Out of the stuff they have said about this show being in the Prime Universe I don't think they have ever gave a reason why they wanted to set it in the Prime universe. Was it just because they wanted to lure in new fans or where they afraid the casual fans might not understand thing like alternate timelines? Which I can sort of by but I do think most people at least understand what a remake is or even a reboot.

Jason

 

[Damian]

Speaking of the Klingon redesign I have noted here a couple of times that the movies were my introduction to Star Trek. The first time I saw Klingons from the original series was the episode "Friday's Child" (which I just watched again last night). I still remember my reaction to seeing a Klingon there. When the security officer that was killed yelled out a "Klingon" I was like "Where? I don't see any.....that balding guy in the dark shirt.....THAT'S A KLINGON? He doesn't look anything like a Klingon"---though I guess I had it backwards.