So, stop spreading "NOT STAR TREK" (phrased on way or the other) without the will to back it up in an honest debate as then you're only serving the purpose of a virulent meme, preying on those worried losing social power over a franchise for propagation (at their expense.)
I totally LOL-ed at the way you managed to pack so many ad hominems into one small paragraph. But, against my better judgment, is it possible for you grasp the idea -- without imputing all sorts of sinister motives -- that some people actually ARE worried losing social power over a beloved franchise?! Guess not. See, you can whine, kick, and scream, but you don't get to decide whether people's feelings about ST:D are valid or not. Especially not when you're being rather disingenuous yourself in your so-called refutation. Your whole notion, for instance, that ST:D Klingons are pretty much the same as elsewhere, only 'bald, or nearly bald,' clearly demonstrates you being in severe denial about how they altered the very concept of a Klingon -- and thus in denial about one of the main reasons ppl are having such strong reactions to ST:D.
Feel free to like ST:D. I myself didn't even hate it (although I felt there was quite a bit wrong with it, but I eagerly watched every Episode). But ever since JJ Trek, people, all over the globe, have been feeling a stark departure from the original Trek concept, with the radical alteration of the ST:D Klingons being a new low. It's like if they suddenly retconned Romulans to be a completely different species: that sort of change touches upon the very foundation of Trek. Or Andorians now being yellow-skins. You can't make drastic changes like that, and not expect strong opposition.
the line in DS9 was figurative and did not necessarily reflect an actual action, som, Klingons have poetry and opera, they're not literalist. (or weren't. Discovery's Klingons are too dimwitted to have imaginations, music, or culture so....)
This is 100% headcanon, and the way Kor states it in DS9 was as a literal event that actually happened, and something he actually did.
Feel free to like ST:D. I myself didn't even hate it (although I felt there was quite a bit wrong with it, but I eagerly watched every Episode). But ever since JJ Trek, people, all over the globe, have been feeling a stark departure from the original Trek concept, with the radical alteration of the ST:D Klingons being a new low. It's like if they suddenly retconned Romulans to be a completely different species: that sort of change touches upon the very foundation of Trek. Or Andorians now being yellow-skins. You can't make drastic changes like that, and not expect strong opposition.
Or like how they retconned a Soviet allegory to be space samurai? The precedence for creative changes in trek and across all sci-fi (see. the changes made for even to the good version of Dune [sci-fi channel's]) is very well set. The rage against it is arbitrary. At its core, the complaint is that the Klingons were changed from something they weren't in the first place and that change now is bad because its disrespect to the source material (ie. TNG). And yet not using TOS uniforms in season 1 of DSC was also a problem? If changing the Klingons was bad (because it moved them away from their non-TOS state) then what the hell is wrong with departing from TOS in other ways if that is applauded in other circumstances? Can change only occur within the limited window of (quite possibly) your childhood? There is no consistent baseline to these complaints apart from the fact that Discovery is not a slavishly copying every existing asset it can and making no new additions to lore the franchise (ie. not existing, which is an untenable discussion point.) It's a dead-end in critical review (because it fails to appreciate the creative needs of a new show. If all that's needed is more re-runs...there's an easier solution to that.)
There's many things that Discovery didn't get right with its first season (ex. overcomplicated character arcs [to involve the Mirror Universe] that simplified complex interpersonal issues as binary hero/villain machinations which undermined whatever parallels the writers wanted to draw with contemporary events and presented an untenable solution to those problems. Ie. just kill the bad guy and threaten everyone with a WMD) but the use of lore was, at the very least, competent to a sci-fi revival. Any standard, any franchise, they did an okay job at least (very good, IMO but here's the standard we're working from in an evidence-based discussion.)
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
"we ate his heart" fits better as a shorthand for "we utterly and totally destroyed that ****, annihilated him"
than "we sat down for a nice lunch of raw meat in the middle of the aftermath of a major fight."
Eating the heart of your enemies, to gain their strength, was not an uncommon practice among humans too; so I could see that, as a sort of victory ritual. Eating your enemies because you're hungry, though, that doesn't sound very Klingon to me.
Or like how they retconned a Soviet allegory to be space samurai?
They what now?! (TOS) Klingons were meant to represent the old Cold War Russians; when did that get changed to Samurai? (If anything, I always thought ere the Romulans were an allegory to Asians).
The precedence for creative changes in trek and across all sci-fi (see. the changes made for even to the good version of Dune [sci-fi channel's]) is very well set. The rage against it is arbitrary. At its core, the complaint is that the Klingons were changed from something they weren't in the first place and that change now is bad because its disrespect to the source material. And yet not using TOS uniforms in season 1 of DSC was also a problem?
As we say in my line of field, 'Perception is 90% of the Law.' Aka, there's no good, objective criterium to determine what feels like a major departure. To me, the radical change to the Klingons denoted a radical, material shift from Trek. Other things, like uniforms, I couldn't care less about, and don't impact my 'Trek' feel at all (even though I respect that there are folks out there to whom these things matter greatly).
If changing the Klingons was bad (because it moved them away from their non-TOS state) then what the hell is wrong with departing from TOS in other ways? Can change only occur within the limited window of (quite possibly) your childhood?
I'm not THAT old. In fact, I still haven't seen every TOS Episode. But there's actually very little change I truly object to. I accept that Feds were less lofty in ST:D then, say, ST:TNG. I don't even mind ship changes all that much. But yeah, to me, the TOS Klingons (and the more fleshed-out, honorable TNG Klingons) are so much a core part of Trek, that I really bulked at seeing them reduced to what they had become in ST:D.
ST:D started off bad, I think (especially the Burnham stuff); came better towards the end; but then they screwed that up again. And it's not impossible for the Klingons to become more truly Klingon-like (the way we're used to, and which would make for a more palatable transitional state between ST:D Klingons and TOS) in Season 2. So, there's still hope.
They what now?! (TOS) Klingons were meant to represent the old Cold War Russians; when did that get changed to Samurai? (If anything, I always thought ere the Romulans were an allegory to Asians).
He was speaking about how in TOS they were the Russians, but TNG/DS9/VOY changed them into being space samurai.
I must have missed that memo. I can see Samurai, btw, from a perspective of honor; but Klingons are not exactly known for their refinement, to put it mildly. But okay, Samurai it is then.
but, you tried to tie it to a scene where Kang, Koloth, and Kor were boasting to each other (for Dax's benefit as audience) and half-drunk.
I suggest you go back and rewatch the episode, because neither Kang or Koloth are in the episode I am talking about
You are confusing the Season 2 episode "Blood Oath", where they go to hunt down the Albino, with the season 4 episode "Sword of Kahless" I am talking about.
Wait.. was he talking about eating the Albino's heart? 'cause there was that blood oath thing where they swore they'd hunt down the Albino and eat his heart after killing him or something.
BMR wiped my last post in this thread so no guarantees this'll survive long either. The distinction between criticism of TRIBBLE and troll territory isn't all that clear obviously.
DO people actually think in terms of losing social power? The debate over Trek\Not Trek is simply over whether a story\series conforms with the universe as they understand it. Where a series pushes radically different values, and a universe radically different to that depicted as existing prior to, and after the series in question, it's hard to accept that a series is part of the universe it claims to be. Take Star Wars as a alternative example. (Is it heresy to reference that here? ) You have the original trilogy that sets the standard, the prequel including Phantom Menace which received a modicum of hate, and now the Disney trilogy and spinoffs many of which have been poorly received, and of course totally void pretty much all the accepted post-Endor fiction written to date.
I fall into the loath TRIBBLE category. It's one series I have absolutely no intention of ever wasting my money, bandwidth, or time on. As an aside, changing the Remans (as distinct from the Romulans) would be less of an issue given there are at least 2 versions around. As for Andorians being yellow, why would that be a problem? Sure making them all yellow would be, but humanity comes in many shades so why insist aliens must be monotone?
So, stop spreading "NOT STAR TREK" (phrased on way or the other) without the will to back it up in an honest debate as then you're only serving the purpose of a virulent meme, preying on those worried losing social power over a franchise for propagation (at their expense.)
I totally LOL-ed at the way you managed to pack so many ad hominems into one small paragraph. But, against my better judgment, is it possible for you grasp the idea -- without imputing all sorts of sinister motives -- that some people actually ARE worried losing social power over a beloved franchise?! Guess not. See, you can whine, kick, and scream, but you don't get to decide whether people's feelings about ST:D are valid or not. Especially not when you're being rather disingenuous yourself in your so-called refutation. Your whole notion, for instance, that ST:D Klingons are pretty much the same as elsewhere, only 'bald, or nearly bald,' clearly demonstrates you being in severe denial about how they altered the very concept of a Klingon -- and thus in denial about one of the main reasons ppl are having such strong reactions to ST:D.
Feel free to like ST:D. I myself didn't even hate it (although I felt there was quite a bit wrong with it, but I eagerly watched every Episode). But ever since JJ Trek, people, all over the globe, have been feeling a stark departure from the original Trek concept, with the radical alteration of the ST:D Klingons being a new low. It's like if they suddenly retconned Romulans to be a completely different species: that sort of change touches upon the very foundation of Trek. Or Andorians now being yellow-skins. You can't make drastic changes like that, and not expect strong opposition.
I don't know why people are so worked up about this. I mean, what's so wrong about another half a dozen or so missions in which we kill 2-3 groups of space enemies while pressing F on 1-3 glowy things, beam down and kill 3-5 groups of ground enemies interspersed with more glowy things to press F on, and then beam back up and kill another 2-3 groups of space enemies?
So no one is talking about the mechanics of the DLC system here in STO, what we are talking about is the tendency for CBS to attempt to keep the show in the minds of the people who love Star Trek not because it's a normal marketing practice, but because they know that fans of Star Trek will not remember or get excited about this show because of it's content. Instead of allowing the show to fail on it's own merit, it's being shoved in our faces here on our beloved game, a game which has so far been awesome about keeping alive REAL Star Trek Values.
TRIBBLE has no place in the 25th century, which is post ST Nemesis and post STV when Voyager arrived home. We returned to the Delta and Gamma Quadrants, we've had temporal dealings with an attempt to kill off the federation and destroy time itself. Why would a non-canon program that has demonstrated no respect or support for TOS much less any of the most recent lore suddenly appear in the 25th century trek game? The answer is quite simple and has nothing to do with lore or enjoyment.
Or like how they retconned a Soviet allegory to be space samurai?
They what now?! (TOS) Klingons were meant to represent the old Cold War Russians; when did that get changed to Samurai?
TNG. It's unwise to comment on inconsistencies in Klingon lore if you can't at least recognize the changes that took place between TOS and TNG (beyond the visuals).
They are not the same people. They are called Klingons and are very militaristic but a ritualistic ethos (historically [and apocryphally] compared as "like Samurai." Chang is an inch away from making this comparison in dialog in ST6 through describing all warriors as "code warriors." That is his viewpoint, as its made to represent the hardline Klingon resistance to peace with the Federation [and is not a characterization of the collective Russian POV on the Cold War. That's the TNG influence]) was simply not part of their initial characterization because it's counter to their Soviet allegory.
That functionally ceases in mid-late TNG with the development of a Klingon cultural perspective, and place in the Star Trek universe, which departs from commentary on Russia and its socioeconomic development in the post-Soviet era (even as appreciated by a western audience). Undiscovered Country is where that ends, totally (though from the start of TNG the allegory is severely broken.) The Klingon species took on a life of its own in original fiction and never again tracked with, for example, the rise of their modern government (which took place through DS9/ENT. Neither Gowron's death and the earlier ROM-backed civil war were topical ) or the petrochemical state (never referenced in Klingon affairs, even though it is central to modern Russia and its foreign relations.) Other species were brought in to play on audience perception of US foreign relations while the Klingons contributed to original fiction. Even in STO, the Klingon War was never intended to reflect growing international conflict (as its development predates the major crystallization of that conflict [they were in the "Russian reset" period], the resolution premature to accurate commentary, and each plot point dictated by original development plans, how those changed, and the flow of an internal narrative.)
Thus, fundamental changes took place between series (a core change in what a species is made to represent) and those NEED to be held in view if you're to comment on the creative validity of expanding on Klingon culture in Discovery. Nothing they've done so far comes close to how far the species changed from TOS.
TAs we say in my line of field, 'Perception is 90% of the Law.' Aka, there's no good, objective criterium to determine what feels like a major departure. To me, the radical change to the Klingons denoted a radical, material shift from Trek. Other things, like uniforms, I couldn't care less about, and don't impact my 'Trek' feel at all (even though I respect that there are folks out there to whom these things matter greatly).
And as they say in my field: subjective observation is a poor standard to maintain, without compensation, in a factual debate. You're providing reasons for how you feel which is contributing to a constructed argument. Feelings are a data point in this. They explain a point of view and a reaction, based on input from a shared universe but they are not (even in this conversation) the be-all-end-all of that discussion.
They may still be the major thing you take away from this, but in having a conversation perception is not law. It's something we work around by exchanging ideas.
Post edited by duncanidaho11 on
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
Bipedal mammal and senior Foundry author.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
I heard it was mixed inspiration with Huns, Vikings and Samurai.
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
I heard it was mixed inspiration with Huns, Vikings and Samurai.
DO people actually think in terms of losing social power?
A bit, I guess, yes. Like feeling a 'collectively owned' franchise is slipping away from them, and they're powerless to stop it. Like George Lucas adding a "Noooo!" voice-over Darth Vader, when he threw the Emperor over the balcony: ppl called it heresy, and begged him not to do it, but it happened anyway.
The debate over Trek\Not Trek is simply over whether a story\series conforms with the universe as they understand it. Where a series pushes radically different values, and a universe radically different to that depicted as existing prior to, and after the series in question, it's hard to accept that a series is part of the universe it claims to be.
Zactly.
Take Star Wars as a alternative example. (Is it heresy to reference that here? ) You have the original trilogy that sets the standard, the prequel including Phantom Menace which received a modicum of hate, and now the Disney trilogy and spinoffs many of which have been poorly received, and of course totally void pretty much all the accepted post-Endor fiction written to date.
Zactly.
I fall into the loath TRIBBLE category. It's one series I have absolutely no intention of ever wasting my money, bandwidth, or time on. As an aside, changing the Remans (as distinct from the Romulans) would be less of an issue given there are at least 2 versions around. As for Andorians being yellow, why would that be a problem? Sure making them all yellow would be, but humanity comes in many shades so why insist aliens must be monotone?
Andorians being yellow would only be a problem when the change from blue was gratuitous, and served no real purpose. If a story line demanded there be yellow Andorians too, then fine, but it would be wrong to just change all Andorians to yellow, just because JJ and his cronies -- or whatever jerk-du-jour -- felt the color was prettier, as it's spitting in the face of lore. Continuation and internal consistency are simply paramount (pun intended) to a well-established franchise.
I fall into the loath TRIBBLE category. It's one series I have absolutely no intention of ever wasting my money, bandwidth, or time on. As an aside, changing the Remans (as distinct from the Romulans) would be less of an issue given there are at least 2 versions around. As for Andorians being yellow, why would that be a problem? Sure making them all yellow would be, but humanity comes in many shades so why insist aliens must be monotone?
Andorians being yellow would only be a problem when the change from blue was gratuitous, and served no real purpose. If a story line demanded there be yellow Andorians too, then fine, but it would be wrong to just change all Andorians to yellow, just because JJ and his cronies -- or whatever jerk-du-jour -- felt the color was prettier, as it's spitting in the face of lore. Continuation and internal consistency are simply paramount (pun intended) to a well-established franchise.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Yeah, it's apocryphal. There's a quote out there codifying the comparison but I wasn't able to find it through a quick scan of memory alpha's background info. It's probably more fair to say that they're like Samurai as appreciated by a mainstream TV audience from the 80's and 90's. See. honor, duels, deceit as a character failing (see. Duras), and a fixation on a very particular kind of weapon.
Apocryphal, at the very best. Headcanon, more like. And even if someone associated with Trek literally said so, it matters very little, as it's just a retconned, post-facto rationale anyway, to no longer think of Klingons as the old Russian enemy (after we allegedly won the war with the Russians -- at least the economical one -- as signified in The Undiscovered Country).
Trying to retcon a new inspirational background story for the Klingons does not imply (as you seem to suggest), that Klingons were truly changed in the series as well.
Comments
I totally LOL-ed at the way you managed to pack so many ad hominems into one small paragraph.
Feel free to like ST:D. I myself didn't even hate it (although I felt there was quite a bit wrong with it, but I eagerly watched every Episode). But ever since JJ Trek, people, all over the globe, have been feeling a stark departure from the original Trek concept, with the radical alteration of the ST:D Klingons being a new low. It's like if they suddenly retconned Romulans to be a completely different species: that sort of change touches upon the very foundation of Trek. Or Andorians now being yellow-skins. You can't make drastic changes like that, and not expect strong opposition.
duncanidaho11, I guess; my bad.
Or like how they retconned a Soviet allegory to be space samurai? The precedence for creative changes in trek and across all sci-fi (see. the changes made for even to the good version of Dune [sci-fi channel's]) is very well set. The rage against it is arbitrary. At its core, the complaint is that the Klingons were changed from something they weren't in the first place and that change now is bad because its disrespect to the source material (ie. TNG). And yet not using TOS uniforms in season 1 of DSC was also a problem? If changing the Klingons was bad (because it moved them away from their non-TOS state) then what the hell is wrong with departing from TOS in other ways if that is applauded in other circumstances? Can change only occur within the limited window of (quite possibly) your childhood? There is no consistent baseline to these complaints apart from the fact that Discovery is not a slavishly copying every existing asset it can and making no new additions to lore the franchise (ie. not existing, which is an untenable discussion point.) It's a dead-end in critical review (because it fails to appreciate the creative needs of a new show. If all that's needed is more re-runs...there's an easier solution to that.)
There's many things that Discovery didn't get right with its first season (ex. overcomplicated character arcs [to involve the Mirror Universe] that simplified complex interpersonal issues as binary hero/villain machinations which undermined whatever parallels the writers wanted to draw with contemporary events and presented an untenable solution to those problems. Ie. just kill the bad guy and threaten everyone with a WMD) but the use of lore was, at the very least, competent to a sci-fi revival. Any standard, any franchise, they did an okay job at least (very good, IMO but here's the standard we're working from in an evidence-based discussion.)
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Eating the heart of your enemies, to gain their strength, was not an uncommon practice among humans too; so I could see that, as a sort of victory ritual. Eating your enemies because you're hungry, though, that doesn't sound very Klingon to me.
They what now?! (TOS) Klingons were meant to represent the old Cold War Russians; when did that get changed to Samurai? (If anything, I always thought ere the Romulans were an allegory to Asians).
As we say in my line of field, 'Perception is 90% of the Law.' Aka, there's no good, objective criterium to determine what feels like a major departure. To me, the radical change to the Klingons denoted a radical, material shift from Trek. Other things, like uniforms, I couldn't care less about, and don't impact my 'Trek' feel at all (even though I respect that there are folks out there to whom these things matter greatly).
I'm not THAT old.
ST:D started off bad, I think (especially the Burnham stuff); came better towards the end; but then they screwed that up again. And it's not impossible for the Klingons to become more truly Klingon-like (the way we're used to, and which would make for a more palatable transitional state between ST:D Klingons and TOS) in Season 2. So, there's still hope.
I must have missed that memo.
My character Tsin'xing
DO people actually think in terms of losing social power? The debate over Trek\Not Trek is simply over whether a story\series conforms with the universe as they understand it. Where a series pushes radically different values, and a universe radically different to that depicted as existing prior to, and after the series in question, it's hard to accept that a series is part of the universe it claims to be. Take Star Wars as a alternative example. (Is it heresy to reference that here?
I fall into the loath TRIBBLE category. It's one series I have absolutely no intention of ever wasting my money, bandwidth, or time on. As an aside, changing the Remans (as distinct from the Romulans) would be less of an issue given there are at least 2 versions around. As for Andorians being yellow, why would that be a problem? Sure making them all yellow would be, but humanity comes in many shades so why insist aliens must be monotone?
So no one is talking about the mechanics of the DLC system here in STO, what we are talking about is the tendency for CBS to attempt to keep the show in the minds of the people who love Star Trek not because it's a normal marketing practice, but because they know that fans of Star Trek will not remember or get excited about this show because of it's content. Instead of allowing the show to fail on it's own merit, it's being shoved in our faces here on our beloved game, a game which has so far been awesome about keeping alive REAL Star Trek Values.
TRIBBLE has no place in the 25th century, which is post ST Nemesis and post STV when Voyager arrived home. We returned to the Delta and Gamma Quadrants, we've had temporal dealings with an attempt to kill off the federation and destroy time itself. Why would a non-canon program that has demonstrated no respect or support for TOS much less any of the most recent lore suddenly appear in the 25th century trek game? The answer is quite simple and has nothing to do with lore or enjoyment.
TNG. It's unwise to comment on inconsistencies in Klingon lore if you can't at least recognize the changes that took place between TOS and TNG (beyond the visuals).
They are not the same people. They are called Klingons and are very militaristic but a ritualistic ethos (historically [and apocryphally] compared as "like Samurai." Chang is an inch away from making this comparison in dialog in ST6 through describing all warriors as "code warriors." That is his viewpoint, as its made to represent the hardline Klingon resistance to peace with the Federation [and is not a characterization of the collective Russian POV on the Cold War. That's the TNG influence]) was simply not part of their initial characterization because it's counter to their Soviet allegory.
That functionally ceases in mid-late TNG with the development of a Klingon cultural perspective, and place in the Star Trek universe, which departs from commentary on Russia and its socioeconomic development in the post-Soviet era (even as appreciated by a western audience). Undiscovered Country is where that ends, totally (though from the start of TNG the allegory is severely broken.) The Klingon species took on a life of its own in original fiction and never again tracked with, for example, the rise of their modern government (which took place through DS9/ENT. Neither Gowron's death and the earlier ROM-backed civil war were topical ) or the petrochemical state (never referenced in Klingon affairs, even though it is central to modern Russia and its foreign relations.) Other species were brought in to play on audience perception of US foreign relations while the Klingons contributed to original fiction. Even in STO, the Klingon War was never intended to reflect growing international conflict (as its development predates the major crystallization of that conflict [they were in the "Russian reset" period], the resolution premature to accurate commentary, and each plot point dictated by original development plans, how those changed, and the flow of an internal narrative.)
Thus, fundamental changes took place between series (a core change in what a species is made to represent) and those NEED to be held in view if you're to comment on the creative validity of expanding on Klingon culture in Discovery. Nothing they've done so far comes close to how far the species changed from TOS.
And as they say in my field: subjective observation is a poor standard to maintain, without compensation, in a factual debate. You're providing reasons for how you feel which is contributing to a constructed argument. Feelings are a data point in this. They explain a point of view and a reaction, based on input from a shared universe but they are not (even in this conversation) the be-all-end-all of that discussion.
They may still be the major thing you take away from this, but in having a conversation perception is not law. It's something we work around by exchanging ideas.
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
Notable missions: Apex [AEI], Gemini [SSF], Trident [AEI], Evolution's Smile [SSF], Transcendence
Looking for something new to play? I've started building Foundry missions again in visual novel form!
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
A bit, I guess, yes. Like feeling a 'collectively owned' franchise is slipping away from them, and they're powerless to stop it. Like George Lucas adding a "Noooo!" voice-over Darth Vader, when he threw the Emperor over the balcony: ppl called it heresy, and begged him not to do it, but it happened anyway.
Zactly.
Zactly.
Andorians being yellow would only be a problem when the change from blue was gratuitous, and served no real purpose. If a story line demanded there be yellow Andorians too, then fine, but it would be wrong to just change all Andorians to yellow, just because JJ and his cronies -- or whatever jerk-du-jour -- felt the color was prettier, as it's spitting in the face of lore. Continuation and internal consistency are simply paramount (pun intended) to a well-established franchise.
My character Tsin'xing
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Apocryphal, at the very best. Headcanon, more like. And even if someone associated with Trek literally said so, it matters very little, as it's just a retconned, post-facto rationale anyway, to no longer think of Klingons as the old Russian enemy (after we allegedly won the war with the Russians -- at least the economical one -- as signified in The Undiscovered Country).
Trying to retcon a new inspirational background story for the Klingons does not imply (as you seem to suggest), that Klingons were truly changed in the series as well.