So far they have announced some things that could be great, or just add more grind (the sixth tier of reputations especially, and creating another character).
And of course there are still some things that have not yet been announced/fully disclosed (or uncovered, so that we can combine the two). A full list of playable species (Saurians and Discovery Klingons sounds great, but will there be Kelpians for example?), what new ships will we get, will the story get continuous development as the show unfolds, etc.
New expansions are always good as long as the game is free to play - I mean, it can't hurt to have more content if you will have guaranteed access to it with a choice to either play it, or leave it. And while some things sound potentially great, I'm not that enthusiastic yet as there isn't that much practical information/filling in of what has been announced yet.
You ever been to a bar where people tell sea-stories, Som?
or war-stories. either one. Bullsh*tting while drinking practically IS a boasting contest. as much as people claim alcohol is a truth serum, the fact is, it's more or less a bullsh*t serum instead.
Except that the rules of morality don't get tossed in the trash. So if you're drunk in a bar and start boasting of things that your buddies think are morally reprehensible … great way to get the pointy end of a D'k tagh.
sit down and watch sports fans sometime. Most of whom would never concieve of harming another person in real life, they'll use words like "Annihilate" and "Kill" and "Massacre".
some of them get downright salty. doesn't mean they're going to do it, or that the people they're saying it to expect them to really take the umpire/referee/official out and shoot them in the head.
But the'll use language that makes it sound like that's exactly what they aim to do, if you don't understand the context of their sub culture.
maybe it's NOT coming from a nice, white-collar, socially conscious and conscientious culture, but I've heard guys talking like that on real-life subjects my whole life, and know when they're bullshitting and exaggerating for effect, because when they get serious, they get very polite and inoffensive in their speech. (this is kind of a warning sign someone's actually going to go for a knife, gun, or what-have-you. The hyperbole stops and they get REAL quiet.)
You are still arguing that there's a contradiction in canon because maybe a story told by a very literal people wasn't necessarily literal in this case, without specific evidence or a broader statement than the barest glimmer of that technicality. IE. it's a fluff argument to save face. Take the point that Discovery doesn't contradict trek lore in this respect, as it has been established in on-screen dialog, and move on.
actually, I'm not claiming a 'contradiction' in canon at all. In Canon, he said it, no contradiction. that the event in question never showed up on screen, means room for interpretation. my interpretation is that he's using boastful hyperbole in a manner consistent with such bullshitting in his particular cultural subgroup-because it works better for this to be the case, than to assume they're really unreformatted Maori from the 19th century, instead of a culture capable of building and maintaining an interstellar empire that spans hundreds of worlds and (per the prison scene in Star Trek VI) a wide range of fundamentally different races and species.
all of which not only have to be kept in line, but productive for that empire to function.
as in 'at all' (forget functioning well, we have plenty of canon showing it doesn't function well very often or for very long.)
The problem is interpretation of canon. a line that was essentially a throwaway in Deep Space nine was being pushed as canon 'proof' that Klingons like to chow down on sentient beings, and that position was being used to defend a scene in Discovery, when the simpler, more direct, and likely more accurate answer really DOES boil down to "People do extreme **** to survive-because dying of starvation sucks."
Dying of **** you contract from eating raw, sentient, chemical-and-drug-and-parasite laden meat also sucks. Klingons are not stupid, they're really unlikely to be pseudocannibals, even if meat eating is a big part of their diet, because teh **** sentients put into their bodies makes the dangerous **** some folks feed their cattle look positively safe and body-friendly.
Looks to me like you clearly have the upper hand in this discussion, patrickngo. Klingons do not routinely eat people; and I think we both agree that it is a rather un-Klingon thing to do; but sometimes you may need to survive, and do it anyway. It would really be a stretch to try and force (pseudo)cannibalism into canon, as part of who Klingons are.
I don't know about eating whole people, that's probably really someting to do only when you're starving, but eating heats doesn't actually seem just a boast, the way it is talked about in the episode with the Albino. It sounded more like it was part of the oath. And doesn't even someone ask Jadzia if she really would eat the heart of the Albino?
Though against humans, technically it wouldn't be cannibalism, right? Cannibalism usually refers to eating people of your own kind. (We don't consider Lions cannibals for eating humans. We still don't appreciate it, though.)
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
FYI to the several people lacking critical fact checking skills. Kor was far from the first Klingon to talk about eating the enemy's heart, nor was DS9 the first place the practice was mentioned. Oh and meimei, to have the upper hand pat would have to be right, he isn't.
I dunno about that. He and I have disagreed in the past, *g*, but I feel he's making a solid, cogent case here.
As I said myself in this thread, earlier, eating the heart of your enemies, to gain their strength, was not uncommon among the more primitive human tribes either. But such a victory ritual, if you will, I feel is distinct from saying Klingons routinely eat ppl.
FYI to the several people lacking critical fact checking skills. Kor was far from the first Klingon to talk about eating the enemy's heart, nor was DS9 the first place the practice was mentioned. Oh and meimei, to have the upper hand pat would have to be right, he isn't.
I dunno about that. He and I have disagreed in the past, *g*, but I feel he's making a solid, cogent case here.
As I said myself in this thread, earlier, eating the heart of your enemies, to gain their strength, was not uncommon among the more primitive human tribes either. But such a victory ritual, if you will, I feel is distinct from saying Klingons routinely eat ppl.
Given that they already explained in the episode, they were starving. I imagine extreme conditions got extreme reactions. If Kol didn't show up, Klingons eating Klingons would have been on the next menu. We've had many real world examples that happen in our modern times of humans eating other primates and humans eating humans in extreme conditions. Also, we have only really seen one aspect of Klingon culture mainly through the eyes of Worf. If this is a culture that promotes the killing of your commanding officer on your own justifications and how much Klingons look down upon other Klingons if they don't fit their definitions of what it means to be a Klingon, eating other Klingons because in your mind, they are not really Klingons is not a far fetched idea.
The problem is interpretation of canon. a line that was essentially a throwaway in Deep Space nine was being pushed as canon 'proof' that Klingons like to chow down on sentient beings, and that position was being used to defend a scene in Discovery, when the simpler, more direct, and likely more accurate answer really DOES boil down to "People do extreme **** to survive-because dying of starvation sucks."
Issue: defend. The scene is justified in the narrative for two reasons. 1. it's an extreme situation that establishes why Voq's crew turned on him, how little unity there in fact was between Klingon houses (the other houses were in no hurry to come to his aid), and why he had to adopt the Ash persona to pursue his ideological goal of unity, which would not be achieved by simply letting the Klingons win (ie. a solid arc.) and 2. it doesn't contradict any known piece of lore that states that Klingons will not resort to this behavior under any circumstance (it's even celebrated in some documented cases.)
So what's your problem? This isn't contradictory to Klingon culture or the specific circumstances the Klingons in question found themselves in. Those circumstances are, furthermore, central in establishing what the war meant from the Klingon point of view (ie. momentary glory prior to resuming inter-house feuding) and why some characters would deeply object to it, once they discovered that their ideology (a call for Klingon unity) had been co-opted by the likes of Kol. Is it that the scene is a little too extreme for your sensibilities, such that you don't feel it appropriate for Star Trek to depict people in such dire straights that they would repurpose the bodies of other humanoids for their survival? If so, would I find this point of view consistently expressed in your posting history about the Vidiians? (and their perpetual state of murder-for-bodies and cultural self-contradiction (in VOY) that goes well beyond this scene in DSC in tone and content.) If not, then are you just splitting hairs between which of two valid possibilities you'd like to lean more heavily on?
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!
Problem? I thought we were having a nice conversation.
In your own words:
My problem is the homogenized and incompetent portrayal of them as "The federation's long-haired, dumb friend". Specific examples include Kagran, the entirety of House of Pegh, and so on, where the whole species seems to be characterized as that idiot cousin who has poor impulse control.
From the original objection:
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....)
Which casts doubt (via arbitrary technicality and misinterpretation of how Klingons typically interpret their literature) on the use of canon to justify "cannibalism" through examples found in spoken dialog of Klingons ceremoniously eating parts of the defeated (hoping that somehow substantiates your broader objection, by association, without needing to supply compelling evidence.) Since you intended to approach this part of discussion with an objection to Discovery's Klingons (and specific examples of their behavior) in view, it's unwise to try to reframe that later as a neutral conversation. It's appears very disingenuous.
Klingons, even 100 years into backbiting infighting and low level civil war, still manage to retain an Empire by 2256, including most of their territorial integrity.
And yet individual crews can still find themselves in dire situations requiring actions which, under normal circumstances, they would eschew except for known ritual occasions which have been repeatedly referenced. Again "incompetent portrayal" this is not either within the original narrative or in the wider context of the franchise.
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!
Problem? I thought we were having a nice conversation.
In your own words:
My problem is the homogenized and incompetent portrayal of them as "The federation's long-haired, dumb friend". Specific examples include Kagran, the entirety of House of Pegh, and so on, where the whole species seems to be characterized as that idiot cousin who has poor impulse control.
From the original objection:
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....)
Which casts doubt (via arbitrary technicality and misinterpretation of how Klingons typically interpret their literature) on the use of canon to justify "cannibalism" through examples found in spoken dialog of Klingons ceremoniously eating parts of the defeated (hoping that somehow substantiates your broader objection, by association, without needing to supply compelling evidence.) Since you intended to approach this part of discussion with an objection to Discovery's Klingons (and specific examples of their behavior) in view, it's unwise to try to reframe that later as a neutral conversation. It's appears very disingenuous.
Klingons, even 100 years into backbiting infighting and low level civil war, still manage to retain an Empire by 2256, including most of their territorial integrity.
And yet individual crews can still find themselves in dire situations requiring actions which, under normal circumstances, they would eschew except for known ritual occasions which have been repeatedly referenced. Again "incompetent portrayal" this is not either within the original narrative or in the wider context of the franchise.
actually, my issue with Discovery's Klingons began, and continues to be, the alterations to their fundamental biology by the showrunners of the current series, the impractical nature of their in-show weaponry, equipment, armor, and the inability of the actors and characters to move about or speak clearly. (thus, making what is supposed to be an exciting fight scene into somethign of a farcical affair, for example needing Lucy Liu's capt. Georgiou need to practically throw herself on T'kuvma's blade, blatantly, or L'Rell's lack of expressiveness whether boning Voq or talking politics.)
IOW they made them boring to watch, then compounded it with off-the-side claims like "Klingons are bird/reptile hybrids" and "Predator senses" being why they don't have hair...but when you watch 'em, you can tell; these guys couldn't win a bar-fight against seventh graders, much less a war against adults.
or, based on presentations by Discovery staffers, a war against each other (or a fight, for that matter.)
my issues with the Klingons in Discovery are pretty much rooted in what you see once the screen goes into motion, and very little beyond the rank stupidity they collectively display is really a problem when it comes to behaviours, though the 'season finale' showed us Klingons that were unusually passive, giving up when they're winning over a threat they could hardly confirm (the means for confirmation being also the means to halt it.)
The stack of improbable outcomes from start to finish, within the logic of the show is largely what makes the writing bad. From Marysue Burnham accidentally taking out a guy who's got the drop on her while she's unarmed, to everyone surrendering to a bomb threat, everything in between stacks improbable scenario on improbable scenario. Any single element could be explained away, but when you take teh whole (and you have to with a Serial, as opposed to self-contained episodes) It makes mediocre into outright bad, right down to a deus ex machina outcome.
and worse, your villains? are boring. They make terrific still images, but once in motion, they're boring.
that's not forgiveable for me. If your main character is a superhero (and Marysue Burnham is absolutely superhero-esque in her ability to avoid consequences and get away with juvenile behaviours while succeeding constantly and always being 'right in the end'...) then your supervillains need to be up to snuff-and these aren't, whether you're talking the various Klingorks, or Lorca, or The Empress... they're dull, they're stereotype on top of cliche, but not in the fun, hilarious way.
What made the Original Harry Mudd such a good antagonist in TOS, was that he seemed so incompetent, and yet, the damn buffoon managed to run major scale con games. He was a confidence artist par excellance, but he was also comically incapable of understanding that his actions would have consequences-and that made him hilarious-because he was written that way originally, the term is 'Affable Evil' In the TV Tropes. NU Harry Mud, is just evil, and bitter, with more evil on his evil.
which kinda missed the point of the whole 'walking disaster' nature of the original character. The original Harry was a **** who did a lot of damage being a ****. Mudd's Women were victims of a con-game, sure, but he was offering them an edge in the mating game that would make them rich, which is why they fell for it. he conned the robots on that moon into serving him, but that's what most people would do-he made the mistake of reaching past what most would do...but that's because he was a **** who can do a lot of damage being a ****.
THIS mudd was bent to being just another angry victim.
Everything they did was grimgrimgrim, but it was ham-handed grim, grim as written by people who've never read nor seen good horror or good gritty fiction. further goes to their 'science'-the whole thing is 50% less scientific than cracks in the event horizon.
how this extends to Klingons...
look at their sample "Klingon Skull" and listen to the justifications. This is a skull for a creature that can't survive a fist-fight, much less a war. they give them weapons designed to lose a fight, armor that directs blows and impacts toward your vital organs when you wear it (along with hampering your movement to make you easier to hit.)
The kind of weapons and equipment you design when you've only heard third-hand stories about fighting and know nothing about movement, biology, tactics, or the layout of of bones, organs and muscles.
[qactually, my issue with Discovery's Klingons began, and continues to be, the alterations to their fundamental biology by the showrunners of the current series, the impractical nature of their in-show weaponry, equipment, armor, and the inability of the actors and characters to move about or speak clearly. (thus, making what is supposed to be an exciting fight scene into somethign of a farcical affair, for example needing Lucy Liu's capt. Georgiou need to practically throw herself on T'kuvma's blade, blatantly, or L'Rell's lack of expressiveness whether boning Voq or talking politics.)
I totally disagree with you, changed to their "fundamental biology" I think is a completely tone deaf complaint in light of the changes that occurred through TNG (ie. holding one set transition as sacrosanct while another heretical even though they are entirely analogous.) The original transformation of the Klingons was a reaction against their cliché role as classic sci-fi serial villains and space Russians into a fierce warrior culture with an identity beyond the original allegory (though clunky, impractical, and implausibly simplistic in its own right. At its most basic, the bat'leth is not an effective military weapon.) Discovery's aesthetic accentuate that while playing to the modern design language for how an alien warrior in space looks (for authentic impact which isn't relying on franchise context and fan enthusiasm at finding self-affirmation) as an alternative to the cliché that the Klingons have become in pop media. Ie. it is exactly what you expect a new show to do because regurgitating decades old iconography without significant changes to account for the change in viewing context only works if that original iconography was made to be fully separate from the audience's reality, not a commentary on it. Ie. it would be a gross violation of what Star Trek is (and what it's lauded for) to suddenly approach its visuals and characters with the veneration of the Star Wars sequels. Personally, I would have gone for an even more figurative reinterpretation of Klingon "biology" but I think the decisions made by Discovery's creators were adequate and appropriate to the show's needs (as it sought to be something more than tone-deaf fan service and while striking an effective balance between that reinterpretation and the source material.)
And note how this has nothing to do with cannibalism and your failure to uphold your side of discussion but a list of personal grievances which likely bled over into that discussion. In future, try to separate issues when discussing them; as you're likely to jump into an untenable position in trying to maintain a desired point of view (from wider context) in spite of available evidence on a specific topic (for which you've chosen to extricate yourself by tangential rage dumping, seeking to avoid capitulation at all costs via escalation to make it as difficult as possible for that discussion to continue, as it was.)
my issues with the Klingons in Discovery are pretty much rooted in what you see once the screen goes into motion, and very little beyond the rank stupidity they collectively display
And try harder than simply insulting fictional characters on a TV show to arrive at a cogent complaint, it obscures honest analysis with a simplistic game of elevation/denigration which just so happens to align with franchise material that you personally identify with. The Klingons in Discovery make big mistakes throughout the war and that plays into the character arcs of the major players. For example, leaving the Sarcophagus ship adrift is a bad move (for a united empire) but the empire is not united. The objective gains they might have had in basically adopting a FED ethos on R&D (fancy that) are lost to internal one-upmanship with the end goal ultimately being gains against other houses (rather than coalescence around a rediscovered Klingon identity, paralleling conflicts in human history where intra-group conflict precipitates inter-group conflict without ultimate reconciliation.) This motivates every major Klingon character in one way or another, making their actions organic to their personal context, and provides depth you so rarely see in sci-fi conflict with ulterior motives, attributable directly to the structure the factions involved, setting both the conflict (internal and external to the Klingons) and a justification for why this is bad (for all protagonists concerned, uniting them as a single character block despite their faction affiliations.)
In short, this is effective writing. It's impact is diminished with a detour to (most prominently, but not exclusively) the mirror universe, equivalent replacement of Lorca (via the Empress), unfocused crew dynamics (to major arc and themes), and rushed conclusion. However, the Klingons in Discovery, by themselves, represented something they got right.
The stack of improbable outcomes from start to finish, within the logic of the show is largely what makes the writing bad. From Marysue Burnham accidentally taking out a guy who's got the drop on her while she's unarmed, to everyone surrendering to a bomb threat, everything in between stacks improbable scenario on improbable scenario. Any single element could be explained away, but when you take teh whole (and you have to with a Serial, as opposed to self-contained episodes) It makes mediocre into outright bad, right down to a deus ex machina outcome.
Dramatic arcs played over television are, by specification, stacks of importable scenarios designed to entertain the audience while potentially probing deeper issues depending on the scope and tone of the series in question. Both Enterprise season 3 and the Dominion war have adequate moment-to-moment logic but fail to play out as a convincing portrayal of war in the future because the course of a realistic campaign isn't replicated by character drama and plot convenience (at some level) driving key decisions. This is elementary to the production and interpretation of these arcs in media entertainment. The Deus ex Machina outcome was bad (IMO) but I take that as a problem with how the show handled the major arc in the season's latter half (having to rush into the finale without enough established to provide an authentic solution, because it spent screen time elsewhere.) Ie. specific to the tangents they tacked onto an otherwise serviceable war story (on Trek terms.)
that's not forgiveable for me. If your main character is a superhero (and Marysue Burnham is absolutely superhero-esque in her ability to avoid consequences and get away with juvenile behaviours while succeeding constantly and always being 'right in the end'...)
The second episode ends with a court marshal after losing her mentor and any semblance of the life she was going to have. After some time in prison, she moves on to be a pariah (blamed for starting the war) with eventual integration in the crew following a redemption arc in remaining with that crew and helping to end that war.
This is, again, basic to the perception of what's on screen (and violates the conventional definition of a Mary Sue, btw. This is a deeply flawed character who struggles to overcome those hang-ups, weaknesses, and personal demons in the fulfilment of a very conventional dramatic arc.) You came away with "no consequences." I'll let that speak for itself.
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!
With the exception of Kol's costume, the new Klingon "armor" looks impractical and is so restrictive in movement I just can't see how it can be worn seriously as an everyday garment. The makeup and prosthetics are so thick, you cannot see the actor emote underneath.
I really don't think there's a problem with this. The Klingon design is very clearly trying to present them as more alien. Costume design, emoting, and [also] language: complimentary to that. This challenges the audience to find something else to besides implicit social queues to validate Klingon characters and the problems surrounding them. You don't get to make the easy connection that these are people like us, you have to think and approach them on their own terms (finding other points of connection besides those that come most naturally to daily experience. Ie. simply affirming audience pre-conceptions that they can only relate to those that share a cultural and gestural base.) This is very strongly connected to the major arc of the series (or at least, as it was initially presented through Discovery's first half.)
Ie. it's for effect, just as stripping conventional human social queues from the art design and presentation of an alien species has been used for effect to challenge the audience to find degrees of empathy and relation beyond the easiest/laziest (in visual story telling). The difference between the Klingons here and, say, the Horta or Species 8472 is that this is an intermediate take (only removing degrees of familiarity), it plays much more directly into the appreciation of a people as opposed to a solitary monster, and its made much more prominent to the overall arc of the series (for a complimentary effect, IMO.)
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!
That is quite a stretch to justify inhibiting make up. I don't know but I go out on a limb and say they didn't deliberatly rob the actors of the ability to act for effect...
^ 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
Based on these current poll numbers I guess one can infer perhaps that Discovery is similar to Star Trek as Solo has been to Star Wars? Yikes.
I'm also open minded but can't avoid reading all the negative comments in this post. Still I really do hope the new Discovery season makes a turn around and get more positive reviews from those lucky enough to view it.
That is quite a stretch to justify inhibiting make up. I don't know but I go out on a limb and say they didn't deliberatly rob the actors of the ability to act for effect...
Process of education (in creative disciplines)
Step 1: the rule (what Veloreah referenced)
Step 2: subverting the rule for effect
With how many elements are consistently contributing to creating distance between DSC Klingons and the audience, how that directly plays into an arc (supported by explicit dialog in the first episodes) about trying to understand people as they are (rather than as you project them to be) similar to smaller-scope themes presented elsewhere in the franchise (to again, to elevate that story from "coexistence with monsters" [see. Horta, 8472] to "coexistence with different groups in society" [see. allegory in Star Trek]), I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that this is both a realized and intended part of the DSC Klingon presentation (which I would only change by making the Klingons more alien so folks would be less inclined to superficially react at nominal distance.) These were not meant to be immediately relatable characters, with everything that requires.
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!
Based on these current poll numbers I guess one can infer perhaps that Discovery is similar to Star Trek as Solo has been to Star Wars? Yikes.
I'm also open minded but can't avoid reading all the negative comments in this post. Still I really do hope the new Discovery season makes a turn around and get more positive reviews from those lucky enough to view it.
Funny thing is that the slant on the poll is very different now than the first day it was posted. At first it was over 50% positive.
Nope not interested, I only play Klingons and once again KDF is being left out. so nope. I wish once they would do some new KDF stuff and not let feddybears have access and the mission be something that I Klingon might actually do rather than just being a fed puppet.
Trophies for killing FEDS ahh those were the days.
Comments
So far they have announced some things that could be great, or just add more grind (the sixth tier of reputations especially, and creating another character).
And of course there are still some things that have not yet been announced/fully disclosed (or uncovered, so that we can combine the two). A full list of playable species (Saurians and Discovery Klingons sounds great, but will there be Kelpians for example?), what new ships will we get, will the story get continuous development as the show unfolds, etc.
New expansions are always good as long as the game is free to play - I mean, it can't hurt to have more content if you will have guaranteed access to it with a choice to either play it, or leave it. And while some things sound potentially great, I'm not that enthusiastic yet as there isn't that much practical information/filling in of what has been announced yet.
Looks to me like you clearly have the upper hand in this discussion, patrickngo. Klingons do not routinely eat people; and I think we both agree that it is a rather un-Klingon thing to do; but sometimes you may need to survive, and do it anyway. It would really be a stretch to try and force (pseudo)cannibalism into canon, as part of who Klingons are.
Though against humans, technically it wouldn't be cannibalism, right? Cannibalism usually refers to eating people of your own kind. (We don't consider Lions cannibals for eating humans. We still don't appreciate it, though.)
I dunno about that. He and I have disagreed in the past, *g*, but I feel he's making a solid, cogent case here.
As I said myself in this thread, earlier, eating the heart of your enemies, to gain their strength, was not uncommon among the more primitive human tribes either. But such a victory ritual, if you will, I feel is distinct from saying Klingons routinely eat ppl.
Given that they already explained in the episode, they were starving. I imagine extreme conditions got extreme reactions. If Kol didn't show up, Klingons eating Klingons would have been on the next menu. We've had many real world examples that happen in our modern times of humans eating other primates and humans eating humans in extreme conditions. Also, we have only really seen one aspect of Klingon culture mainly through the eyes of Worf. If this is a culture that promotes the killing of your commanding officer on your own justifications and how much Klingons look down upon other Klingons if they don't fit their definitions of what it means to be a Klingon, eating other Klingons because in your mind, they are not really Klingons is not a far fetched idea.
Issue: defend. The scene is justified in the narrative for two reasons. 1. it's an extreme situation that establishes why Voq's crew turned on him, how little unity there in fact was between Klingon houses (the other houses were in no hurry to come to his aid), and why he had to adopt the Ash persona to pursue his ideological goal of unity, which would not be achieved by simply letting the Klingons win (ie. a solid arc.) and 2. it doesn't contradict any known piece of lore that states that Klingons will not resort to this behavior under any circumstance (it's even celebrated in some documented cases.)
So what's your problem? This isn't contradictory to Klingon culture or the specific circumstances the Klingons in question found themselves in. Those circumstances are, furthermore, central in establishing what the war meant from the Klingon point of view (ie. momentary glory prior to resuming inter-house feuding) and why some characters would deeply object to it, once they discovered that their ideology (a call for Klingon unity) had been co-opted by the likes of Kol. Is it that the scene is a little too extreme for your sensibilities, such that you don't feel it appropriate for Star Trek to depict people in such dire straights that they would repurpose the bodies of other humanoids for their survival? If so, would I find this point of view consistently expressed in your posting history about the Vidiians? (and their perpetual state of murder-for-bodies and cultural self-contradiction (in VOY) that goes well beyond this scene in DSC in tone and content.) If not, then are you just splitting hairs between which of two valid possibilities you'd like to lean more heavily on?
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!
In your own words:
From the original objection:
Which casts doubt (via arbitrary technicality and misinterpretation of how Klingons typically interpret their literature) on the use of canon to justify "cannibalism" through examples found in spoken dialog of Klingons ceremoniously eating parts of the defeated (hoping that somehow substantiates your broader objection, by association, without needing to supply compelling evidence.) Since you intended to approach this part of discussion with an objection to Discovery's Klingons (and specific examples of their behavior) in view, it's unwise to try to reframe that later as a neutral conversation. It's appears very disingenuous.
And yet individual crews can still find themselves in dire situations requiring actions which, under normal circumstances, they would eschew except for known ritual occasions which have been repeatedly referenced. Again "incompetent portrayal" this is not either within the original narrative or in the wider context of the franchise.
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!
^^ Best post in the thread!
I totally disagree with you, changed to their "fundamental biology" I think is a completely tone deaf complaint in light of the changes that occurred through TNG (ie. holding one set transition as sacrosanct while another heretical even though they are entirely analogous.) The original transformation of the Klingons was a reaction against their cliché role as classic sci-fi serial villains and space Russians into a fierce warrior culture with an identity beyond the original allegory (though clunky, impractical, and implausibly simplistic in its own right. At its most basic, the bat'leth is not an effective military weapon.) Discovery's aesthetic accentuate that while playing to the modern design language for how an alien warrior in space looks (for authentic impact which isn't relying on franchise context and fan enthusiasm at finding self-affirmation) as an alternative to the cliché that the Klingons have become in pop media. Ie. it is exactly what you expect a new show to do because regurgitating decades old iconography without significant changes to account for the change in viewing context only works if that original iconography was made to be fully separate from the audience's reality, not a commentary on it. Ie. it would be a gross violation of what Star Trek is (and what it's lauded for) to suddenly approach its visuals and characters with the veneration of the Star Wars sequels. Personally, I would have gone for an even more figurative reinterpretation of Klingon "biology" but I think the decisions made by Discovery's creators were adequate and appropriate to the show's needs (as it sought to be something more than tone-deaf fan service and while striking an effective balance between that reinterpretation and the source material.)
And note how this has nothing to do with cannibalism and your failure to uphold your side of discussion but a list of personal grievances which likely bled over into that discussion. In future, try to separate issues when discussing them; as you're likely to jump into an untenable position in trying to maintain a desired point of view (from wider context) in spite of available evidence on a specific topic (for which you've chosen to extricate yourself by tangential rage dumping, seeking to avoid capitulation at all costs via escalation to make it as difficult as possible for that discussion to continue, as it was.)
And try harder than simply insulting fictional characters on a TV show to arrive at a cogent complaint, it obscures honest analysis with a simplistic game of elevation/denigration which just so happens to align with franchise material that you personally identify with. The Klingons in Discovery make big mistakes throughout the war and that plays into the character arcs of the major players. For example, leaving the Sarcophagus ship adrift is a bad move (for a united empire) but the empire is not united. The objective gains they might have had in basically adopting a FED ethos on R&D (fancy that) are lost to internal one-upmanship with the end goal ultimately being gains against other houses (rather than coalescence around a rediscovered Klingon identity, paralleling conflicts in human history where intra-group conflict precipitates inter-group conflict without ultimate reconciliation.) This motivates every major Klingon character in one way or another, making their actions organic to their personal context, and provides depth you so rarely see in sci-fi conflict with ulterior motives, attributable directly to the structure the factions involved, setting both the conflict (internal and external to the Klingons) and a justification for why this is bad (for all protagonists concerned, uniting them as a single character block despite their faction affiliations.)
In short, this is effective writing. It's impact is diminished with a detour to (most prominently, but not exclusively) the mirror universe, equivalent replacement of Lorca (via the Empress), unfocused crew dynamics (to major arc and themes), and rushed conclusion. However, the Klingons in Discovery, by themselves, represented something they got right.
Dramatic arcs played over television are, by specification, stacks of importable scenarios designed to entertain the audience while potentially probing deeper issues depending on the scope and tone of the series in question. Both Enterprise season 3 and the Dominion war have adequate moment-to-moment logic but fail to play out as a convincing portrayal of war in the future because the course of a realistic campaign isn't replicated by character drama and plot convenience (at some level) driving key decisions. This is elementary to the production and interpretation of these arcs in media entertainment. The Deus ex Machina outcome was bad (IMO) but I take that as a problem with how the show handled the major arc in the season's latter half (having to rush into the finale without enough established to provide an authentic solution, because it spent screen time elsewhere.) Ie. specific to the tangents they tacked onto an otherwise serviceable war story (on Trek terms.)
The second episode ends with a court marshal after losing her mentor and any semblance of the life she was going to have. After some time in prison, she moves on to be a pariah (blamed for starting the war) with eventual integration in the crew following a redemption arc in remaining with that crew and helping to end that war.
This is, again, basic to the perception of what's on screen (and violates the conventional definition of a Mary Sue, btw. This is a deeply flawed character who struggles to overcome those hang-ups, weaknesses, and personal demons in the fulfilment of a very conventional dramatic arc.) You came away with "no consequences." I'll let that speak for itself.
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!
I really don't think there's a problem with this. The Klingon design is very clearly trying to present them as more alien. Costume design, emoting, and [also] language: complimentary to that. This challenges the audience to find something else to besides implicit social queues to validate Klingon characters and the problems surrounding them. You don't get to make the easy connection that these are people like us, you have to think and approach them on their own terms (finding other points of connection besides those that come most naturally to daily experience. Ie. simply affirming audience pre-conceptions that they can only relate to those that share a cultural and gestural base.) This is very strongly connected to the major arc of the series (or at least, as it was initially presented through Discovery's first half.)
Ie. it's for effect, just as stripping conventional human social queues from the art design and presentation of an alien species has been used for effect to challenge the audience to find degrees of empathy and relation beyond the easiest/laziest (in visual story telling). The difference between the Klingons here and, say, the Horta or Species 8472 is that this is an intermediate take (only removing degrees of familiarity), it plays much more directly into the appreciation of a people as opposed to a solitary monster, and its made much more prominent to the overall arc of the series (for a complimentary effect, IMO.)
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!
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I'm also open minded but can't avoid reading all the negative comments in this post. Still I really do hope the new Discovery season makes a turn around and get more positive reviews from those lucky enough to view it.
Process of education (in creative disciplines)
Step 1: the rule (what Veloreah referenced)
Step 2: subverting the rule for effect
With how many elements are consistently contributing to creating distance between DSC Klingons and the audience, how that directly plays into an arc (supported by explicit dialog in the first episodes) about trying to understand people as they are (rather than as you project them to be) similar to smaller-scope themes presented elsewhere in the franchise (to again, to elevate that story from "coexistence with monsters" [see. Horta, 8472] to "coexistence with different groups in society" [see. allegory in Star Trek]), I don't think it's a stretch at all to say that this is both a realized and intended part of the DSC Klingon presentation (which I would only change by making the Klingons more alien so folks would be less inclined to superficially react at nominal distance.) These were not meant to be immediately relatable characters, with everything that requires.
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