Why didn't they just keep their characters?

Discussion in 'General Trek Discussion' started by bbjeg, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. tafkats

    tafkats Vice Admiral Admiral

    May 17, 2003
    That'll put marzipan in your pie plate, bingo!
    However, making him have just recently become the prefect would have deprived them of a lot of good story possibilities, and for no particularly good reason.
  2. FormerLurker

    FormerLurker Commodore Commodore

    May 17, 2009
    Someone would have to check the images to make sure, but didn't he have different forehead appliance designs for each appearance? That's enough to say they're different characters, at least where Klingons are concerned. After all, Charles Cooper played both General Korrd and Supreme Commander K'mPec. No one ever said they were the same character, and the different forehead appliances make it obvious they're not, even discounting that one was in a TOS movie and the other on TNG.

    And I know Memory Alpha calls K'mPec the Klingon Chancellor. TNG/DS9 only started using that because that's what Gorkon was called in TUC. In Sins of the Father and Reunion, which were made first, K'mPec was called Supreme Commander. Almost like the Supreme Commander position absorbed the Chancellor position at some point, and swiped the title.
  3. bbjeg

    bbjeg Admiral Admiral

    May 24, 2013
    Right here buddy.
    ^After checking, there are slight differences, and Lursa and Bator have the same forheads that they had in Redemption. It might not be him after all.

    I never said anything was wrong with it, it just would have connected the series a bit more in my opinion.
  4. The Wormhole

    The Wormhole Admiral Admiral

    Jul 23, 2001
    Actually, Chancellor is first used in Redemption Part 1, which predates TUC by six months.

    Or it could have created Small Universe Syndrome.