A TV show, in most instances, isn’t art, it is product. They are there to make money by selling subscriptions to people that want to watch Star Trek. They are going to go where the money is.
Why the hate for Alex Kurtzman?
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
A TV show, in most instances, isn’t art, it is product. They are there to make money by selling subscriptions to people that want to watch Star Trek. They are going to go where the money is.
The Klingons appearance has always been in flux. Maybe they were trying to reach a middle ground.
1979 called, and there are the Best of Trek articles and Insterstat letters to prove it.
In truth, the DiscoKlingons upset a few fans for whom Trek is about connecting dots more than the story directly in front of them. You won't find a single complaint outside of the hard-core fanbase.
Last edited:
Of course. Because no one outside the hard core fanbase cares enough about Trek to comment on it.
We're certainly a very consistent fandom.
"Change for changes sake is not progress by any stretch of the imagination."
Could have been written on this board about any number of topics.
It hits different when you've had Klingons as a lead characters in 450 episodes of three different shows.
I know I'm getting dragged into repeating old arguments again, but the TOS -> TMP change with the Klingons isn't exactly comparable because a: OG Klingons were uncomfortably close to being white folks with makeup to look like darker skinned humans, and Star Trek was still in its infancy.
That said... I fully sympathise with everyone who took issue with the change back in the day. I wasn't born yet, I can't say what I would've thought, but I imagine I would've agreed with them.
I know I'm getting dragged into repeating old arguments again, but the TOS -> TMP change with the Klingons isn't exactly comparable because a: OG Klingons were uncomfortably close to being white folks with makeup to look like darker skinned humans, and Star Trek was still in its infancy.
That said... I fully sympathise with everyone who took issue with the change back in the day. I wasn't born yet, I can't say what I would've thought, but I imagine I would've agreed with them.
I think they understand that things get re-imagined in TV and film all the time. If they liked or disliked Discovery, the Klingon makeup wasn't the decider.Of course. Because no one outside the hard core fanbase cares enough about Trek to comment on it.
To each their own.
Change is change to me. I treat changes as mostly equal, from Klingons to Trills to Gorn.
I'm not inclined to slam new Trek for something old Trek did.
We had seven appearances of Klingons in TOS, very little of it actually touched on them in any real way beyond being bad guys. Much like the SNW pro-Gorn makeover arguments, there wasn't a lot of there there, when it came to Klingons. Now, when we've seen them as much as we have, it is much harder to paper over the differences.
Yeah. That would largely be the difference between someone who is simply watching to burn an hour of their time versus someone who is a hardcore fan.
I never took issue with the change, I just shrugged and said to myself "so this is what Klingons look like now". Same thing I did when Discovery premiered.
Nope, sorry.Yeah. That would largely be the difference between someone who is simply watching to burn an hour of their time versus someone who is a hardcore fan.
I'd consider myself a hardcore-fan. I have merchandise, I write fanfics about it, I'm in a frakking internet-board to write and comment about trek... but the thing with the Klingon-make-up is such a non-issue for me. I honestly don't care. They could have them wear feathers next time, and I'd say: "Well, if that is supposed to be a Klingon, Klingons are wearing feathers now. " And I'd shrug.
Then what is the point of any of it? I’m fairly loose where continuity is concerned, but a franchise does have to respect its history and get the broad strokes right.
Fandom is too diverse and rightly so for an entertainment franchise to be trying to get the broad strokes right for them. Who decides where the line is drawn, the producer in charge of the content or the watcher of the content?
I prefer it be the producers, even when they do something I consider stupid.
As this board shows we all do not like the same thing, it would be boring if we did.
Last edited:
He was obviously also highly involved with Abrams movies and at least in broad terms it seems like they did have pretty similar visions and styles so he has been very involved if not in charge, or one in charge, for really long time. So of course people disliking the products will really dislike them, that there have been so many for so long and in at least some sense preventing better ones from being made.
Personally I was very offput by both of them deciding with second movie of reboot timeline to Let's Do Khan Again just because That Would Be Cool and Now We Can (BTW I think that was literally the same mindset for let's have second Superman movie have Batman).
You're right, but at least, as I am concerned: they did get the history and the broad strokes right. At least in broader terms.
Similar threads
