Klingons are easily bested regularly by humans in all of Star Trek. Worf seemed to be the only really good warrior we see on screen. Duras, Gowron, Clone-Kahless, Martok, random Klingon, Worf takes them all down. But Dax can hold her own against Worf, and Sisko, Jadzia, Dukat or Picard have bested Klingons in fights (some of them multiple.)
The Klingon fighting prowess is more a myth than reality. At least in Discovery, we actually see a Klingon take down a human hero Captain.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
> @markhawkman said: > angrytarg wrote: » > > Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns > > > > Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Klingons are easily bested regularly by humans in all of Star Trek. Worf seemed to be the only really good warrior we see on screen. Duras, Gowron, Clone-Kahless, Martok, random Klingon, Worf takes them all down. But Dax can hold her own against Worf, and Sisko, Jadzia, Dukat or Picard have bested Klingons in fights (some of them multiple.)
The Klingon fighting prowess is more a myth than reality. At least in Discovery, we actually see a Klingon take down a human hero Captain.
Yeah, and she had to practically jump on the knife to do it, and it was only so she could be Burnham's girlfriend-in-the-fridge.
The people making the show (Not CBS, which backpedaled hard in November of last year over it) stated the Klingons were a substitute for Trumptards. which kind of explains the complete lack of personality, composited collection of negative traits, and general range of "ridiculous' to 'Pathetic' in how they're constructed and written.
IOW they're literally intended solely as a stand-in to be beaten upon, with no real thought as to creating or generating an adversary that's actually worth seven episodes in a single season, as they've been made intentionally weak and foolish from the get-go, and as a reflection of the writers' own biases and stereotypes.
which is the OTHER reason they're not likely to be anything but these pathetic, slow moving and impractical lizardmen, devoid of any redeeming features, intelligence, or engaging personality elements.
and also why anything that made Klingons engaging, interesting, or exciting was removed.
I'm waiting to see what the final two episodes brings us, and how this story is wrapping up... but, I got to be honest, this hits on my biggest fear for this season.
It's a twofold fear: the PTBs bit off WAY more than they should have for one season, and their anti-Trump stance seems to have taken precedence over anything else, including story and character development.
TrekMovie brought up an interesting question this week: is Trek actually good at social commentary? I would suspect the answer is a bit nuanced, but I would personally say the answer SOMETIMES is no. I fear this first season of Discovery is a victim of this. The producers all-but-said that the Klingons were supposed to be Trump-stand-ins... yet, we also have Mirror Lorca from the get-go, who winds up being one orange wig and red baseball cap short of a SNL parody of Trump. The two storylines don't mesh AT ALL, and I fear both have suffered as a result.
To be clear, I don't care if Discovery chooses to do a Trump-like allegory to serve up social commentary... it certainly didn't surprise me. I do care, however, to see that commentary to be well-written.
I know some hate the Klingon visual revamp (I personally still think it's not make-or-break, but I get some would disagree). I'm growing more upset, though, at the missed opportunities that have occurred. They COULD have accomplished their social commentary goal with a bit more nuance and creativity, but because they crammed so much into one season? Whether it's Kol, or Tyler/Voq, or Mirror Lorca... they cut corners, IMO.
It's very disappointing, and it sorta chokes off the good of this show (and, yes, I think there is still a lot of good in this show).
Klingons are easily bested regularly by humans in all of Star Trek. Worf seemed to be the only really good warrior we see on screen. Duras, Gowron, Clone-Kahless, Martok, random Klingon, Worf takes them all down. But Dax can hold her own against Worf, and Sisko, Jadzia, Dukat or Picard have bested Klingons in fights (some of them multiple.)
The Klingon fighting prowess is more a myth than reality. At least in Discovery, we actually see a Klingon take down a human hero Captain.
Yeah, and she had to practically jump on the knife to do it, and it was only so she could be Burnham's girlfriend-in-the-fridge.
The people making the show (Not CBS, which backpedaled hard in November of last year over it) stated the Klingons were a substitute for Trumptards. which kind of explains the complete lack of personality, composited collection of negative traits, and general range of "ridiculous' to 'Pathetic' in how they're constructed and written.
IOW they're literally intended solely as a stand-in to be beaten upon, with no real thought as to creating or generating an adversary that's actually worth seven episodes in a single season, as they've been made intentionally weak and foolish from the get-go, and as a reflection of the writers' own biases and stereotypes.
which is the OTHER reason they're not likely to be anything but these pathetic, slow moving and impractical lizardmen, devoid of any redeeming features, intelligence, or engaging personality elements.
and also why anything that made Klingons engaging, interesting, or exciting was removed.
I'm waiting to see what the final two episodes brings us, and how this story is wrapping up... but, I got to be honest, this hits on my biggest fear for this season.
It's a twofold fear: the PTBs bit off WAY more than they should have for one season, and their anti-Trump stance seems to have taken precedence over anything else, including story and character development.
TrekMovie brought up an interesting question this week: is Trek actually good at social commentary? I would suspect the answer is a bit nuanced, but I would personally say the answer SOMETIMES is no. I fear this first season of Discovery is a victim of this. The producers all-but-said that the Klingons were supposed to be Trump-stand-ins... yet, we also have Mirror Lorca from the get-go, who winds up being one orange wig and red baseball cap short of a SNL parody of Trump. The two storylines don't mesh AT ALL, and I fear both have suffered as a result.
To be clear, I don't care if Discovery chooses to do a Trump-like allegory to serve up social commentary... it certainly didn't surprise me. I do care, however, to see that commentary to be well-written.
I know some hate the Klingon visual revamp (I personally still think it's not make-or-break, but I get some would disagree). I'm growing more upset, though, at the missed opportunities that have occurred. They COULD have accomplished their social commentary goal with a bit more nuance and creativity, but because they crammed so much into one season? Whether it's Kol, or Tyler/Voq, or Mirror Lorca... they cut corners, IMO.
It's very disappointing, and it sorta chokes off the good of this show (and, yes, I think there is still a lot of good in this show).
The problem here, is that I agree with your evaluation of the final product, (Mostly) but disagree on a certain point. that is, I don't believe the show-runners COULD have taken on those missed opportunities. The reason is because there is no voice outside their tumblr-like echo-chamber that they are willing to hear. They don't understand alternative points of view, therefore they are unable to handle writing them, at best, they can manage a caricature that is a pastiche of everything they oppose with no redeeming qualities. a generic, b-movie or grindhouse sort of villain, but done in the style of a thirteen year old girl's slashfic blog.
which in turn, is extremely appealing to a certain audience, but it's not good writing, and doesn't make for a particularly good show.
Indeed. I hope it's not to Prequel-era-George-Lucas level of echo chamber, LOL...
We'll see how the final two episodes shake out, so I'll refrain from making further comment right now.
> @markhawkman said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
From an in-universe POV, "remain Klingon" is supposed to be hollow rhetoric. It's not meant to have any substance other than a rallying cry for the faction who want war. The motives of the Klingons using it are reasonably well explained though. What they want most is for the Klingons(or at least their subfaction) to be prosperous, and they want to do it by subjugating the Federation.
> @markhawkman said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
From an in-universe POV, "remain Klingon" is supposed to be hollow rhetoric. It's not meant to have any substance other than a rallying cry for the faction who want war. The motives of the Klingons using it are reasonably well explained though. What they want most is for the Klingons(or at least their subfaction) to be prosperous, and they want to do it by subjugating the Federation.
The whole "remain Klingon" rant is about the globalists vs. the nationalists. T'Kuvma is afraid that the Federation will remove the Klingon's identity and be replaced by a Federation identity. It is all about the concept that the Federation is more insidious with their form of assimilation compared to the Borg. Federation assimilation results in Federation Klingons becoming pale versions of themselves. So instead of finding honor on the battlefield, they find honor on the court.
We are the Federation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
> @markhawkman said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
From an in-universe POV, "remain Klingon" is supposed to be hollow rhetoric. It's not meant to have any substance other than a rallying cry for the faction who want war. The motives of the Klingons using it are reasonably well explained though. What they want most is for the Klingons(or at least their subfaction) to be prosperous, and they want to do it by subjugating the Federation.
The whole "remain Klingon" rant is about the globalists vs. the nationalists. T'Kuvma is afraid that the Federation will remove the Klingon's identity and be replaced by a Federation identity. It is all about the concept that the Federation is more insidious with their form of assimilation compared to the Borg. Federation assimilation results in Federation Klingons becoming pale versions of themselves. So instead of finding honor on the battlefield, they find honor on the court.
We are the Federation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
But is that what T'kuvma actually believes or is it an excuse used to justify war?
To be honest though, this kinda gets into a grey area that is a real world problem. How much value does cultural identity have? Does it even have a definable value? Not an easy question to answer, but one that must be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something worth protecting.
...The first sin, imho, was making the primary antagonists boring and one dimensional...
As much as I disagree with @patrickngo about Discovery as a whole, I completely agree with the comment(s) in regard to changes made to the Klingons. I don't care for their updated look to them or their ships, nor the changes to their characterization. Worst part of the series IMO.
I think there is much more to them than is obvious.
Yes, T'Kuvma used the story of the promise as a bootleg to unify the houses against an enemy of the empire. Doing something to unify the houses for a war though, is perfectly klingon. T'Kuvma was more methodical than it seems. He used a federation relay to lure a federation starship that would call-in a fleet just in case. He used klingon mysticism and xenophobic attitudes to make his point against the federation to the leaders of the houses, who of course would not resist an opportunity to earn some honor in battle.
He had his own take on treatment of the dead, but this shows *nuance*. It means that one klingon is not necessarily like the other, whereas before, klingons, with few exceptions were very uniform and stereotypical.
Voq, at least the prime-universe version, is frankly an idiot. He's a less smart klingon that had earned no honor and was an outcast at that. With T'Kuvma accepting his wish to be the new torchbearer, he finally had something to be proud of and was then stripped of all that again by Kol. He even lost his own body, so "you have to sacrifice everything" was literal.
Mirror-Voq however portrayed the potential in him. That he himself could have been reasonable and a good leader if things were different. That he COULD co-operate with others. Prime-AshVoq just didn't want to learn and would rather killed his own mirror-image.
Kol from the House of Kor. He PERFECTLY portrays the elitist attitude Kor himself had. Like how is Kol actually different from Kor? Kor was a di** on TOS, and later on DS9 was revealed to have denied Martok the honor of serving the KDF because of his birth-status.
L'rell is a whole lot of a different caliber, but also a very interesting character. She cares for the klingon empire, but also for her personal feelings. She's smart and perfectly able to deceive and manipulate, but she's still ruthless and brutal when it comes to torture and "information-gathering". It's yet to be seen what she actually did to AshVoq in sick-bay.
And the looks of klingons, the lack of hair and the clawy monster-hands aside, is still perfectly klingon. It's just that they're more diverse now.
> @markhawkman said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
From an in-universe POV, "remain Klingon" is supposed to be hollow rhetoric. It's not meant to have any substance other than a rallying cry for the faction who want war. The motives of the Klingons using it are reasonably well explained though. What they want most is for the Klingons(or at least their subfaction) to be prosperous, and they want to do it by subjugating the Federation.
The whole "remain Klingon" rant is about the globalists vs. the nationalists. T'Kuvma is afraid that the Federation will remove the Klingon's identity and be replaced by a Federation identity. It is all about the concept that the Federation is more insidious with their form of assimilation compared to the Borg. Federation assimilation results in Federation Klingons becoming pale versions of themselves. So instead of finding honor on the battlefield, they find honor on the court.
We are the Federation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
But is that what T'kuvma actually believes or is it an excuse used to justify war?
To be honest though, this kinda gets into a grey area that is a real world problem. How much value does cultural identity have? Does it even have a definable value? Not an easy question to answer, but one that must be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something worth protecting.
Isn't that the case for every single politician that starts a war? There is no way to know the difference between their beliefs and their excuse.
Cultural Identity is the only thing that binds complete strangers together and binds us to our ancestors. Either we end up with a National Cultural Identity or a Global Cultural Identity. If you want to see a group of people that lost their cultural identity and its effect, then look at Native Americans. People without a cultural identity are lost. Also, it has to be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something to be destroyed.
It is extremely understandable why T'Kuvma fears the Federation destroying the Klingon's way of life. Some cultures lose less than others due to Federation ideals. After all, the Ferengi way of life goes against the Federation's 'cashless' society. So being a bunch of money grubbing capitalists that don't allow their women to wear clothes goes against everything the Federation stands for and would have to be removed for Ferengi to become part of the Federation.
...The first sin, imho, was making the primary antagonists boring and one dimensional...
As much as I disagree with @patrickngo about Discovery as a whole, I completely agree with the comment(s) in regard to changes made to the Klingons. I don't care for their updated look to them or their ships, nor the changes to their characterization. Worst part of the series IMO.
I think there is much more to them than is obvious.
Yes, T'Kuvma used the story of the promise as a bootleg to unify the houses against an enemy of the empire. Doing something to unify the houses for a war though, is perfectly klingon. T'Kuvma was more methodical than it seems. He used a federation relay to lure a federation starship that would call-in a fleet just in case. He used klingon mysticism and xenophobic attitudes to make his point against the federation to the leaders of the houses, who of course would not resist an opportunity to earn some honor in battle.
He had his own take on treatment of the dead, but this shows *nuance*. It means that one klingon is not necessarily like the other, whereas before, klingons, with few exceptions were very uniform and stereotypical.
Voq, at least the prime-universe version, is frankly an idiot. He's a less smart klingon that had earned no honor and was an outcast at that. With T'Kuvma accepting his wish to be the new torchbearer, he finally had something to be proud of and was then stripped of all that again by Kol. He even lost his own body, so "you have to sacrifice everything" was literal.
Mirror-Voq however portrayed the potential in him. That he himself could have been reasonable and a good leader if things were different. That he COULD co-operate with others. Prime-AshVoq just didn't want to learn and would rather killed his own mirror-image.
Kol from the House of Kor. He PERFECTLY portrays the elitist attitude Kor himself had. Like how is Kol actually different from Kor? Kor was a di** on TOS, and later on DS9 was revealed to have denied Martok the honor of serving the KDF because of his birth-status.
L'rell is a whole lot of a different caliber, but also a very interesting character. She cares for the klingon empire, but also for her personal feelings. She's smart and perfectly able to deceive and manipulate, but she's still ruthless and brutal when it comes to torture and "information-gathering". It's yet to be seen what she actually did to AshVoq in sick-bay.
And the looks of klingons, the lack of hair and the clawy monster-hands aside, is still perfectly klingon. It's just that they're more diverse now.
now, see, you're reading in more than I think is actually there, particularly with regards to Kol, L'Rell, and Mirror-Voq/Voq. To me, from what I've seen, they're simply distillations of negative traits loosely slugged together and given lines in Klingon to read while wearing ridiculous amounts of latex, foam-rubber and Pleather.
Voq: has no personality.
Kol" has ONE personality trait
L'Rell gets two personality traits.
that's it. That's all they get. There's nothing complex about any of their motivations, they're wind-up toys. T'Kuvma didn't even get a personality, he's just an empty suit with some ritual strung to it.
and all of them are less exciting to watch in action, than their still photos suggest-because all t hey are, are a collection of traits the writers feel are 'disagreeable' and therefore useful to use as stand-ins for a real life political situation that the writers at their base, don't fundamentally understand (and can't understand, because to achieve understanding you have to first question your own beliefs enough to listen to a different point of view.)
the only "Depth" there, is what a fan brings with them, or self-inserts to resolve the logical contradiction on the screen.
The only depth to Discovery villains is when they introduced the Terrans. The only thing I was slightly interested in the Klingons was their ships. The Sarcophagus is an interesting alien ship, but not an interesting Klingon ship. The Klingons would be a much better villain race if they weren't Klingons. There has not been a single instance where the Discovery Klingons screamed Klingon to me.
The Heart of Glory episode states that deceased Klingons are merely empty shells when their souls go to Sto-vo-kor while Discovery Klingons surround their ship with corpses. It is possible that we are dealing with separate Klingon religions, but there is no evidence of that considering that we have only seen the one Klingon ship in detail. Having an alien race that focuses on Death would be interesting and it would explain why an alien race would surround their ship with corpses.
PICARD: Do you wish the bodies returned?
K'NERA [on viewscreen]: They are now only empty shells. Dispose of them as you see fit. Worf, when your tour of duty on the Enterprise is complete. consider serving with us. Your training and experience would be of benefit to us, and perhaps there are some things we could teach you.
> @markhawkman said:
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
From an in-universe POV, "remain Klingon" is supposed to be hollow rhetoric. It's not meant to have any substance other than a rallying cry for the faction who want war. The motives of the Klingons using it are reasonably well explained though. What they want most is for the Klingons(or at least their subfaction) to be prosperous, and they want to do it by subjugating the Federation.
The whole "remain Klingon" rant is about the globalists vs. the nationalists. T'Kuvma is afraid that the Federation will remove the Klingon's identity and be replaced by a Federation identity. It is all about the concept that the Federation is more insidious with their form of assimilation compared to the Borg. Federation assimilation results in Federation Klingons becoming pale versions of themselves. So instead of finding honor on the battlefield, they find honor on the court.
We are the Federation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
But is that what T'kuvma actually believes or is it an excuse used to justify war?
To be honest though, this kinda gets into a grey area that is a real world problem. How much value does cultural identity have? Does it even have a definable value? Not an easy question to answer, but one that must be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something worth protecting.
Isn't that the case for every single politician that starts a war? There is no way to know the difference between their beliefs and their excuse.
Cultural Identity is the only thing that binds complete strangers together and binds us to our ancestors. Either we end up with a National Cultural Identity or a Global Cultural Identity. If you want to see a group of people that lost their cultural identity and its effect, then look at Native Americans. People without a cultural identity are lost. .
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any specific given cultural identity is important and needs to be retained.
What might matter more is that you have a cultural identity that helps you connect with others and find a way to live with them effectively. if a specific cultural identity is getting in the way of that (say, because it requires marginalizing a minority group which thus cannot effectively connect with others and live with others), then the cultural identity has to change.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Isn't that the case for every single politician that starts a war? There is no way to know the difference between their beliefs and their excuse.
Cultural Identity is the only thing that binds complete strangers together and binds us to our ancestors. Either we end up with a National Cultural Identity or a Global Cultural Identity. If you want to see a group of people that lost their cultural identity and its effect, then look at Native Americans. People without a cultural identity are lost. .
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any specific given cultural identity is important and needs to be retained.
What might matter more is that you have a cultural identity that helps you connect with others and find a way to live with them effectively. if a specific cultural identity is getting in the way of that (say, because it requires marginalizing a minority group which thus cannot effectively connect with others and live with others), then the cultural identity has to change.
You both realize you have put more time and thought into this than the actual writers of TRIBBLE?
Isn't that the case for every single politician that starts a war? There is no way to know the difference between their beliefs and their excuse.
Cultural Identity is the only thing that binds complete strangers together and binds us to our ancestors. Either we end up with a National Cultural Identity or a Global Cultural Identity. If you want to see a group of people that lost their cultural identity and its effect, then look at Native Americans. People without a cultural identity are lost. .
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any specific given cultural identity is important and needs to be retained.
What might matter more is that you have a cultural identity that helps you connect with others and find a way to live with them effectively. if a specific cultural identity is getting in the way of that (say, because it requires marginalizing a minority group which thus cannot effectively connect with others and live with others), then the cultural identity has to change.
You both realize you have put more time and thought into this than the actual writers of TRIBBLE?
That is one of the requirements for being a Star Trek nerd.
Trek has always introduced ugly aliens to portray destructive ideologies. Why not this time, why the change? Why the setting? It makes no sense and that's my biggest problem with it. Klingons and Romulans always were flawed but in their core there always were at least individuals seeing reason, yet simply caught up or overburdened by circumstances. TUC did very well to portray that as did TOS with Romulans. Klingorcs have no redeeming qualities as all of them are mindless fanatics and the one uggo turned "pretty" who could have learned anything is a complete idiot who learned nothing but gets reduced to a sleeping cylon kind of looming threat over the rest of the show, because as a Klingorc it's only a matter of time once his rabid "fighting dog" mentality breaks through again. Voq wouldn't even use his position to advance the evul plot, he'd simply start biting people.
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
Trek has always introduced ugly aliens to portray destructive ideologies. Why not this time, why the change? Why the setting? It makes no sense and that's my biggest problem with it. Klingons and Romulans always were flawed but in their core there always were at least individuals seeing reason, yet simply caught up or overburdened by circumstances. TUC did very well to portray that as did TOS with Romulans. Klingorcs have no redeeming qualities as all of them are mindless fanatics and the one uggo turned "pretty" who could have learned anything is a complete idiot who learned nothing but gets reduced to a sleeping cylon kind of looming threat over the rest of the show, because as a Klingorc it's only a matter of time once his rabid "fighting dog" mentality breaks through again. Voq wouldn't even use his position to advance the evul plot, he'd simply start biting people.
It all depends on whether cunning is something learnt or something born with. I suspect it is a bit of both. Romulans, in general, seem to be cunning while only a few Klingons are known to have any cunning. Voq is considered as part of the dregs of society so he never experienced the political intrigues of Klingon society as a youth. So it is likely that Voq or even most Klingons are not qualified to be a decent spy. Tyler would have been a better spy until he realized he was Voq. L'Rell would have been the better candidate to be a spy since she has the experience. Although, it might take until Season 2 or 3 before Discovery's crew realizes she is a Klingon. Discovery could have always added another character to perform the surgery which is the only justification that they used Voq instead of L'Rell.
Trek has always introduced ugly aliens to portray destructive ideologies. Why not this time, why the change? Why the setting? It makes no sense and that's my biggest problem with it. Klingons and Romulans always were flawed but in their core there always were at least individuals seeing reason, yet simply caught up or overburdened by circumstances. TUC did very well to portray that as did TOS with Romulans. Klingorcs have no redeeming qualities as all of them are mindless fanatics and the one uggo turned "pretty" who could have learned anything is a complete idiot who learned nothing but gets reduced to a sleeping cylon kind of looming threat over the rest of the show, because as a Klingorc it's only a matter of time once his rabid "fighting dog" mentality breaks through again. Voq wouldn't even use his position to advance the evul plot, he'd simply start biting people.
It all depends on whether cunning is something learnt or something born with. I suspect it is a bit of both. Romulans, in general, seem to be cunning while only a few Klingons are known to have any cunning. Voq is considered as part of the dregs of society so he never experienced the political intrigues of Klingon society as a youth. So it is likely that Voq or even most Klingons are not qualified to be a decent spy. Tyler would have been a better spy until he realized he was Voq. L'Rell would have been the better candidate to be a spy since she has the experience. Although, it might take until Season 2 or 3 before Discovery's crew realizes she is a Klingon. Discovery could have always added another character to perform the surgery which is the only justification that they used Voq instead of L'Rell.
Given how Klingons openly scorn subterfuge, it's possible many simply don't want to learn.
Trek has always introduced ugly aliens to portray destructive ideologies. Why not this time, why the change? Why the setting? It makes no sense and that's my biggest problem with it. Klingons and Romulans always were flawed but in their core there always were at least individuals seeing reason, yet simply caught up or overburdened by circumstances. TUC did very well to portray that as did TOS with Romulans. Klingorcs have no redeeming qualities as all of them are mindless fanatics and the one uggo turned "pretty" who could have learned anything is a complete idiot who learned nothing but gets reduced to a sleeping cylon kind of looming threat over the rest of the show, because as a Klingorc it's only a matter of time once his rabid "fighting dog" mentality breaks through again. Voq wouldn't even use his position to advance the evul plot, he'd simply start biting people.
It all depends on whether cunning is something learnt or something born with. I suspect it is a bit of both. Romulans, in general, seem to be cunning while only a few Klingons are known to have any cunning. Voq is considered as part of the dregs of society so he never experienced the political intrigues of Klingon society as a youth. So it is likely that Voq or even most Klingons are not qualified to be a decent spy. Tyler would have been a better spy until he realized he was Voq. L'Rell would have been the better candidate to be a spy since she has the experience. Although, it might take until Season 2 or 3 before Discovery's crew realizes she is a Klingon. Discovery could have always added another character to perform the surgery which is the only justification that they used Voq instead of L'Rell.
Given how Klingons openly scorn subterfuge, it's possible many simply don't want to learn.
Which is why using Voq as a spy was such a poor choice. L'Rell would have been a far better choice, but Discovery had to use the lame excuse that L'Rell was the only one that could do the procedure.
guess, they will solve it with a diplomatic ploy. no time travel ...
If they use a diplomatic ploy, then it is not the Prime Universe. The Federation in TOS is not a civilization that survived being almost annihilated by the Klingons. The Federation before TOS could have battles with the Klingons, but nowhere near the brutality shown in Discovery.
The Federation in TOS is not a civilization that survived being almost annihilated by the Klingons.
How do you know that?
In my opinion, we get a fairly clear depiction of the Federation/Klingon relationship in “Errand Of Mercy.” While, yes, it does not explicitly state this, it is heavily implied that the ALL-OUT-WAR-CAPS-LOCK moment is ground that was never tread before Kirk gets the message.
For me, I’m willing to be very forgiving with this show... but, to a point. And “Errand of Mercy” illustrates a line that CANNOT be crossed. And this show desperately WANTS to violate that line, it seems. The war depicted here sure seems like the level that the Organians forbid them to reach in TOS.
Now, I could be wrong about that, but if it is, then it’s a symptom of a bigger problem with this show: they’re telling more than they are showing. Maybe there is more nuance there between DSC and the forbidden canonical line set in TOS... but if so? DSC is not doing a great job of illustrating it.
(Spoiler alert for my final thoughts on the season: I’m very afraid that this whole Klingon War storyline will be the biggest failure of the first season...)
Comments
The Klingon fighting prowess is more a myth than reality. At least in Discovery, we actually see a Klingon take down a human hero Captain.
> angrytarg wrote: »
>
> Regular Klingons weren't wrinkly faced enough. Today shows and movies can.only work when the heroes fight ugly unrelatable Orcs whose motivations remain obscure instead of being actually considerable. We need clear good and evil patterns
>
>
>
> Um, the motives of the Klingons in Discovery aren't particularly obscure.
So then please elaborate
In TNG and onwards, beginning with TUC, we learn that the Empire is a very broken society and all the schemes the characters pull actually make sense in their own way and some villians even have some sort of actually "good" intentions.
DSC portrays a cult following a leader on empty phrases. What is "remain Klingon" even supposed to mean? Nothing, as it is a parable on RL populist movements and fanatics. They are now wrinkly faced evul goons, bent on "revenge" for things that never happened. They are default Star Trek movie villians (10/13 Trek movies have the exact same plot). In a series though that's not enough.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm waiting to see what the final two episodes brings us, and how this story is wrapping up... but, I got to be honest, this hits on my biggest fear for this season.
It's a twofold fear: the PTBs bit off WAY more than they should have for one season, and their anti-Trump stance seems to have taken precedence over anything else, including story and character development.
TrekMovie brought up an interesting question this week: is Trek actually good at social commentary? I would suspect the answer is a bit nuanced, but I would personally say the answer SOMETIMES is no. I fear this first season of Discovery is a victim of this. The producers all-but-said that the Klingons were supposed to be Trump-stand-ins... yet, we also have Mirror Lorca from the get-go, who winds up being one orange wig and red baseball cap short of a SNL parody of Trump. The two storylines don't mesh AT ALL, and I fear both have suffered as a result.
To be clear, I don't care if Discovery chooses to do a Trump-like allegory to serve up social commentary... it certainly didn't surprise me. I do care, however, to see that commentary to be well-written.
I know some hate the Klingon visual revamp (I personally still think it's not make-or-break, but I get some would disagree). I'm growing more upset, though, at the missed opportunities that have occurred. They COULD have accomplished their social commentary goal with a bit more nuance and creativity, but because they crammed so much into one season? Whether it's Kol, or Tyler/Voq, or Mirror Lorca... they cut corners, IMO.
It's very disappointing, and it sorta chokes off the good of this show (and, yes, I think there is still a lot of good in this show).
Indeed. I hope it's not to Prequel-era-George-Lucas level of echo chamber, LOL...
We'll see how the final two episodes shake out, so I'll refrain from making further comment right now.
My character Tsin'xing
The whole "remain Klingon" rant is about the globalists vs. the nationalists. T'Kuvma is afraid that the Federation will remove the Klingon's identity and be replaced by a Federation identity. It is all about the concept that the Federation is more insidious with their form of assimilation compared to the Borg. Federation assimilation results in Federation Klingons becoming pale versions of themselves. So instead of finding honor on the battlefield, they find honor on the court.
We are the Federation. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.
To be honest though, this kinda gets into a grey area that is a real world problem. How much value does cultural identity have? Does it even have a definable value? Not an easy question to answer, but one that must be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something worth protecting.
My character Tsin'xing
I think there is much more to them than is obvious.
Yes, T'Kuvma used the story of the promise as a bootleg to unify the houses against an enemy of the empire. Doing something to unify the houses for a war though, is perfectly klingon. T'Kuvma was more methodical than it seems. He used a federation relay to lure a federation starship that would call-in a fleet just in case. He used klingon mysticism and xenophobic attitudes to make his point against the federation to the leaders of the houses, who of course would not resist an opportunity to earn some honor in battle.
He had his own take on treatment of the dead, but this shows *nuance*. It means that one klingon is not necessarily like the other, whereas before, klingons, with few exceptions were very uniform and stereotypical.
Voq, at least the prime-universe version, is frankly an idiot. He's a less smart klingon that had earned no honor and was an outcast at that. With T'Kuvma accepting his wish to be the new torchbearer, he finally had something to be proud of and was then stripped of all that again by Kol. He even lost his own body, so "you have to sacrifice everything" was literal.
Mirror-Voq however portrayed the potential in him. That he himself could have been reasonable and a good leader if things were different. That he COULD co-operate with others. Prime-AshVoq just didn't want to learn and would rather killed his own mirror-image.
Kol from the House of Kor. He PERFECTLY portrays the elitist attitude Kor himself had. Like how is Kol actually different from Kor? Kor was a di** on TOS, and later on DS9 was revealed to have denied Martok the honor of serving the KDF because of his birth-status.
L'rell is a whole lot of a different caliber, but also a very interesting character. She cares for the klingon empire, but also for her personal feelings. She's smart and perfectly able to deceive and manipulate, but she's still ruthless and brutal when it comes to torture and "information-gathering". It's yet to be seen what she actually did to AshVoq in sick-bay.
And the looks of klingons, the lack of hair and the clawy monster-hands aside, is still perfectly klingon. It's just that they're more diverse now.
Isn't that the case for every single politician that starts a war? There is no way to know the difference between their beliefs and their excuse.
Cultural Identity is the only thing that binds complete strangers together and binds us to our ancestors. Either we end up with a National Cultural Identity or a Global Cultural Identity. If you want to see a group of people that lost their cultural identity and its effect, then look at Native Americans. People without a cultural identity are lost. Also, it has to be answered when people start trying to treat cultural identity as something to be destroyed.
It is extremely understandable why T'Kuvma fears the Federation destroying the Klingon's way of life. Some cultures lose less than others due to Federation ideals. After all, the Ferengi way of life goes against the Federation's 'cashless' society. So being a bunch of money grubbing capitalists that don't allow their women to wear clothes goes against everything the Federation stands for and would have to be removed for Ferengi to become part of the Federation.
The only depth to Discovery villains is when they introduced the Terrans. The only thing I was slightly interested in the Klingons was their ships. The Sarcophagus is an interesting alien ship, but not an interesting Klingon ship. The Klingons would be a much better villain race if they weren't Klingons. There has not been a single instance where the Discovery Klingons screamed Klingon to me.
The Heart of Glory episode states that deceased Klingons are merely empty shells when their souls go to Sto-vo-kor while Discovery Klingons surround their ship with corpses. It is possible that we are dealing with separate Klingon religions, but there is no evidence of that considering that we have only seen the one Klingon ship in detail. Having an alien race that focuses on Death would be interesting and it would explain why an alien race would surround their ship with corpses.
PICARD: Do you wish the bodies returned?
K'NERA [on viewscreen]: They are now only empty shells. Dispose of them as you see fit. Worf, when your tour of duty on the Enterprise is complete. consider serving with us. Your training and experience would be of benefit to us, and perhaps there are some things we could teach you.
What might matter more is that you have a cultural identity that helps you connect with others and find a way to live with them effectively. if a specific cultural identity is getting in the way of that (say, because it requires marginalizing a minority group which thus cannot effectively connect with others and live with others), then the cultural identity has to change.
That is one of the requirements for being a Star Trek nerd.
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
It all depends on whether cunning is something learnt or something born with. I suspect it is a bit of both. Romulans, in general, seem to be cunning while only a few Klingons are known to have any cunning. Voq is considered as part of the dregs of society so he never experienced the political intrigues of Klingon society as a youth. So it is likely that Voq or even most Klingons are not qualified to be a decent spy. Tyler would have been a better spy until he realized he was Voq. L'Rell would have been the better candidate to be a spy since she has the experience. Although, it might take until Season 2 or 3 before Discovery's crew realizes she is a Klingon. Discovery could have always added another character to perform the surgery which is the only justification that they used Voq instead of L'Rell.
My character Tsin'xing
Which is why using Voq as a spy was such a poor choice. L'Rell would have been a far better choice, but Discovery had to use the lame excuse that L'Rell was the only one that could do the procedure.
My character Tsin'xing
not soon but possible ..
guess, they will solve it with a diplomatic ploy. no time travel ...
If they use a diplomatic ploy, then it is not the Prime Universe. The Federation in TOS is not a civilization that survived being almost annihilated by the Klingons. The Federation before TOS could have battles with the Klingons, but nowhere near the brutality shown in Discovery.
In my opinion, we get a fairly clear depiction of the Federation/Klingon relationship in “Errand Of Mercy.” While, yes, it does not explicitly state this, it is heavily implied that the ALL-OUT-WAR-CAPS-LOCK moment is ground that was never tread before Kirk gets the message.
For me, I’m willing to be very forgiving with this show... but, to a point. And “Errand of Mercy” illustrates a line that CANNOT be crossed. And this show desperately WANTS to violate that line, it seems. The war depicted here sure seems like the level that the Organians forbid them to reach in TOS.
Now, I could be wrong about that, but if it is, then it’s a symptom of a bigger problem with this show: they’re telling more than they are showing. Maybe there is more nuance there between DSC and the forbidden canonical line set in TOS... but if so? DSC is not doing a great job of illustrating it.
(Spoiler alert for my final thoughts on the season: I’m very afraid that this whole Klingon War storyline will be the biggest failure of the first season...)