TOS Trek had its own Klingon style, and it evolved for the first movie. I think that had more to do with budget and state of the art than anything else. The retcon of the augment virus to explain it was, in my opinion, unnecessary.
Therefore you may not be shocked to hear that I don't care how Klingons look.
Who knows, they might be a client species used by the 'real' Klingons as shock troops. As members, (or conscripts,) of the Empire they would use Klingon gear and tactics, and possibly operate under a Klingon command staff. Thus they would be Klingons who don't look like Klingons.
Sort of like the Federation practice of crewing ships predominantly from one homeworld, such as the predominantly human Enterprise and the Vulcan crewed Intrepid.
I don't quite understand people's aversion to the badass looking Klingons here or in JJ Trek.
I just hope that CBS doesn't become less generous to STO when Discovery flops as we've got a lot of awesome ships out of them while waiting for Discovery to air.
Then rationalize it as an undisclosed alternate timeline. Or someone's fever dreams after a late night snack of expired gagh and Romulan ale. Do you want to enjoy the show, or be the pedantic uber-nerd who ****s on other people for enjoying things the "wrong" way?
If you are not pedantic, you are not a real fan, and you shouldn't try to make a Star Trek show, either.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I like to think of it as another reminder than no one making money off of Star Trek gives a shriveled targ dropping about 'the fans' and their top-of-the-lungs insistence on their destiny to stand in absolute judgement over the destiny of Trek. The purist fans aren't a market worth courting except in their own minds and the flexible ones will check out whatever you have to offer. These people use Star Trek to tell stories, not build worlds. They've NEVER especially concerned themselves with building some sort of grand continuity.
If anything, this show will be a miraculous leap forward for Trek simply by being serialized instead of episodic. By using the short season model to (hopefully) pack in nothing by main plotline. And by -- horror of horrors! -- continuing to update the look of the Federation and its technology.
Love it, hate it, or find it good for watching pop corn, the JJ reboot MADE MONEY. This will too. Even if some people hate it and would rather have no new Trek at all, ever again.
I don't quite understand people's aversion to the badass looking Klingons here or in JJ Trek.
1. I don't think the lizard-heads look "badass." They look like generic evil space orcs.
2. If they're going to make an entirely different species, they should give it an entirely different name.
And for that matter, if they're going to make an entirely different story in an entirely different setting, they should honestly give the whole show an entirely different name to go with it. Calling it Star Trek is like taking a bottle of Sprite and calling it Coca-Cola, just because it's made by the same company.
All this whinging about the Discovery trailer reminds me of being a little boy in the 80s and listening to all the Trekkies complain about New Trek (TNG).
Everything looks too "pretty"! Star Trek is supposed to be gritty, they said.
The Enterprise looks like a kid's toy. Is this the Fisher Price edition of ST they asked.
This doesn't look like that they moaned, emphatically.
Wesley..... Crusher.... graaaaawrrr..... they growled.
I predict that In 15 years we'll all be enthusiastically watching Discovery reruns on our holographic wrist computers while we adjust our rose-tinted glasses. Discovery could make the Klingons look like the Rippers from Tank Girl and we'd still find a way to love them.
All this whinging about the Discovery trailer reminds me of being a little boy in the 80s and listening to all the Trekkies complain about New Trek (TNG).
Everything looks too "pretty"! Star Trek is supposed to be gritty, they said.
The Enterprise looks like a kid's toy. Is this the Fisher Price edition of ST they asked.
This doesn't look like that they moaned, emphatically.
Wesley..... Crusher.... graaaaawrrr..... they growled.
I predict that In 15 years we'll all be enthusiastically watching Discovery reruns on our holographic wrist computers while we adjust our rose-tinted glasses. Discovery could make the Klingons look like the Rippers from Tank Girl and we'd still find a way to love them.
??? Since when was Star Trek ever "gritty?"
And of course the TNG Enterprise looked like a toy. It was a plastic model. So was the TOS Enterprise.
But most importantly, TNG was set a hundred years after TOS. It's to be expected things would look different. You watch something set in 1917 and see if anything looks like today.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
i on the other apendage, am a trek pure-ist....... TOS/TMP era is pure trek, everything else after that looks better, butt it ain't pure trek , ok the first 2 seasons of TNG maybe, butt after that it was somebody else calling the shots not G. roddenberry...........
And it will never be Roddenberry again, barring time travel or some really alarming advancements in cloning.
So why should they EVER worry about making a show for you?
They shouldn't worry about canon. It has always been a character driven series, with technology, settings, and background a convenience to be altered or discarded when the story of the week required.
I have two issues, both of which occurred in the Brannon-Bragga era, (which by this time encompasses most of Trek.)
1) A single serialized story requires that I view every episode in order. With streaming this is less important, but I missed far too many DS9 and Voyager episodes to keep up with the storylines, partially due to my work and partly due to how the networks couldn't settle on a day or timeslot. I would set aside Wednesday evenings to view Trek only to discover it had been changed to Tuesday. Like any soap opera, once you miss too many episodes, you have a difficult time following the episodes you do catch. I prefer episodic stories because this not only eliminates continuity issues, but allows for broader leeway in the stories you can tell.
2) The dark theme that has swallowed Trek may be a perfect background for a particular kind of currently popular torytelling, (who knew those Goth kids would take over the entertainment industry?) but it is a horrible representation of Trek, which showed humanity overcoming its darker mpulses and growing toward a more enlightened culture. This concept which was at the core of Trek was discarded, and I believe it played a major role in the demise of Trek on TV. The network can say "viewer fatigue" all they want, but I believe people were looking to Trek for hope in a dark time and, not finding it, turned back to the latest vampire-of-the-week saga because if you are going Goth, you may as well go all the way.
Discovery looks to be continuing the trend away from Trek's roots, and while I hope it does well, I won't be in a hurry to find out. Eventually it will be available for free, (legally,) and I'll see it then.
Meanwhile I'll get my Trek fix from reruns and The Orville, and hope, as I did thirty years ago, that eventually Trek returns to TV.
Exact same thing with every extended series. Just like Lucas's company(before he sold it to Disney) had to approve all those Star wars books, and games, and BS, but none of them were ever canon.
I don't want to derail this, but this statement simply isn't true. Star Wars is distinct from Trek in that the EU book series, as well as certain comics and games (though certainly not all), were explicitly labeled as Canon and treated as such up until Disney and JJ got their hands on it and decided to erase it all so they could make that abomination known as episode 7. Even with that, the "new EU" book series that has been developed since Disney took over is also explicitly labeled as Canon for the JJ-Wars universe.
I'm not saying your wrong about the Trek tech manuals and such, just saying Star Wars is an absolutely terrible example to use in comparison, because the two franchises have always had very different attitudes towards EU material.
I strongly disagree on both points. I believe we want the exact opposite, in fact.
Apparently, so does CBS.
I have been wrong before, and I'll be wrong in the future, but for me the Trek'verse should always be a world we would want our grandchildren to inherit, not a world filled with our grandparents' horrors.
Guys, please take your Klingon behavior to a chatroom!
Opinions differ. That is a case of IDIC. Nobody is going to make you change your mind.
By the same token, if Discovery wants to recreate Klingons, it is a decision the creators will have to live with one way or the other. If the creators of Discovery want to rewrite or re-drawTrek canon they have the right to do so, no matter what I think of it.
Change isn't always bad. When I first saw the bumpy-headed Klingons in TMP I was a bit put off. By Enterprise I was so used to it that I really didn't care about the retcon that explained it.
So maybe these Klingons aren't canon to you guys. Heck, I doubt CBS has a single employee who does know what Star Trek canon is, as they seem to have spent much of the last three series rewriting what was once considered canon. If the creators can't figure it out, then it's no wonder we have a hard time with it.
Comments
Therefore you may not be shocked to hear that I don't care how Klingons look.
Who knows, they might be a client species used by the 'real' Klingons as shock troops. As members, (or conscripts,) of the Empire they would use Klingon gear and tactics, and possibly operate under a Klingon command staff. Thus they would be Klingons who don't look like Klingons.
Sort of like the Federation practice of crewing ships predominantly from one homeworld, such as the predominantly human Enterprise and the Vulcan crewed Intrepid.
I just hope that CBS doesn't become less generous to STO when Discovery flops as we've got a lot of awesome ships out of them while waiting for Discovery to air.
Be honest, they're a strange bunch, nea?
They just get less sober.
They just get less sober.
If you are not pedantic, you are not a real fan, and you shouldn't try to make a Star Trek show, either.
If anything, this show will be a miraculous leap forward for Trek simply by being serialized instead of episodic. By using the short season model to (hopefully) pack in nothing by main plotline. And by -- horror of horrors! -- continuing to update the look of the Federation and its technology.
Love it, hate it, or find it good for watching pop corn, the JJ reboot MADE MONEY. This will too. Even if some people hate it and would rather have no new Trek at all, ever again.
2. If they're going to make an entirely different species, they should give it an entirely different name.
And for that matter, if they're going to make an entirely different story in an entirely different setting, they should honestly give the whole show an entirely different name to go with it. Calling it Star Trek is like taking a bottle of Sprite and calling it Coca-Cola, just because it's made by the same company.
Everything looks too "pretty"! Star Trek is supposed to be gritty, they said.
The Enterprise looks like a kid's toy. Is this the Fisher Price edition of ST they asked.
This doesn't look like that they moaned, emphatically.
Wesley..... Crusher.... graaaaawrrr..... they growled.
I predict that In 15 years we'll all be enthusiastically watching Discovery reruns on our holographic wrist computers while we adjust our rose-tinted glasses. Discovery could make the Klingons look like the Rippers from Tank Girl and we'd still find a way to love them.
And of course the TNG Enterprise looked like a toy. It was a plastic model. So was the TOS Enterprise.
But most importantly, TNG was set a hundred years after TOS. It's to be expected things would look different. You watch something set in 1917 and see if anything looks like today.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And it will never be Roddenberry again, barring time travel or some really alarming advancements in cloning.
So why should they EVER worry about making a show for you?
I have two issues, both of which occurred in the Brannon-Bragga era, (which by this time encompasses most of Trek.)
1) A single serialized story requires that I view every episode in order. With streaming this is less important, but I missed far too many DS9 and Voyager episodes to keep up with the storylines, partially due to my work and partly due to how the networks couldn't settle on a day or timeslot. I would set aside Wednesday evenings to view Trek only to discover it had been changed to Tuesday. Like any soap opera, once you miss too many episodes, you have a difficult time following the episodes you do catch. I prefer episodic stories because this not only eliminates continuity issues, but allows for broader leeway in the stories you can tell.
2) The dark theme that has swallowed Trek may be a perfect background for a particular kind of currently popular torytelling, (who knew those Goth kids would take over the entertainment industry?) but it is a horrible representation of Trek, which showed humanity overcoming its darker mpulses and growing toward a more enlightened culture. This concept which was at the core of Trek was discarded, and I believe it played a major role in the demise of Trek on TV. The network can say "viewer fatigue" all they want, but I believe people were looking to Trek for hope in a dark time and, not finding it, turned back to the latest vampire-of-the-week saga because if you are going Goth, you may as well go all the way.
Discovery looks to be continuing the trend away from Trek's roots, and while I hope it does well, I won't be in a hurry to find out. Eventually it will be available for free, (legally,) and I'll see it then.
Meanwhile I'll get my Trek fix from reruns and The Orville, and hope, as I did thirty years ago, that eventually Trek returns to TV.
I don't want to derail this, but this statement simply isn't true. Star Wars is distinct from Trek in that the EU book series, as well as certain comics and games (though certainly not all), were explicitly labeled as Canon and treated as such up until Disney and JJ got their hands on it and decided to erase it all so they could make that abomination known as episode 7. Even with that, the "new EU" book series that has been developed since Disney took over is also explicitly labeled as Canon for the JJ-Wars universe.
I'm not saying your wrong about the Trek tech manuals and such, just saying Star Wars is an absolutely terrible example to use in comparison, because the two franchises have always had very different attitudes towards EU material.
They look too much like Xindi to me,...
"There... are... four... lights!" ~Jean Luc Picard
Apparently, so does CBS.
I have been wrong before, and I'll be wrong in the future, but for me the Trek'verse should always be a world we would want our grandchildren to inherit, not a world filled with our grandparents' horrors.
Opinions differ. That is a case of IDIC. Nobody is going to make you change your mind.
By the same token, if Discovery wants to recreate Klingons, it is a decision the creators will have to live with one way or the other. If the creators of Discovery want to rewrite or re-drawTrek canon they have the right to do so, no matter what I think of it.
Change isn't always bad. When I first saw the bumpy-headed Klingons in TMP I was a bit put off. By Enterprise I was so used to it that I really didn't care about the retcon that explained it.
So maybe these Klingons aren't canon to you guys. Heck, I doubt CBS has a single employee who does know what Star Trek canon is, as they seem to have spent much of the last three series rewriting what was once considered canon. If the creators can't figure it out, then it's no wonder we have a hard time with it.