The primary problem with the way Klingons are portrayed in Discovery is that it is disingenuous. The writers clearly wanted to make something new, but they weren't confident in their ability to make them compelling so they labeled them something familiar in the hopes that nostalgia would blunt audience criticism of their new creation.
This is unfortunately something that Trek has been dealing with since Voyager. They propose these show ideas that sound intriguing on paper, but then they turn around and start cutting corners because they don't want to take the time to make it work.
Read the Draco Tavern by Larry Niven. You'll be surprised, though pleasantly or unfortunately is up to how invested you've become in this idea. You can give the audience something to relate to through sentience, motivation, and basic existence. You don't need to make behavior human like or explain differences through heavy exposition.
The core of all those things are well within human comprehension. We can understand the "why" of most of those (and can probably relate to most of them). There is also expository dialogue to explain the parts that matter. Aliens moving piles of dirt around because the script says so is weirdness for weirdness sake. "Moving dirt around? It's just what we do." It's a character quirk, not character development. It certainly does not move plot or help people become invested in your fiction.
In addition, it has nothing to do with the "alien appearance" of extra terrestrials. Typically, if an alien looks radically different, the author tells us why. Or at the very least, tells us what those alien bits hanging off the creature do, and we can fill in the blanks ourselves. The exceptions are monsters and "set pieces". Monsters are supposed to look scary and frightening, while set pieces (ala Mos Eisley) are supposed to look weird (to beat you over the head that this is a weird and alien place).
Yeah, there's only so much you can explain the back story before the story collapses from the weight of the exposition. It's part of why we're fond of optional side dialogs in Foundry! Introduce aliens and if you really want to read the backstory of the alien of the week look it up in-mission on a computer console!
If you want us to care about your alien, you have to make them relateable. That is not exposition. That is story telling. If you feel story telling is a waste of your time, then I'm certain your Foundry Missions are not to my taste.
Let's compare some examples from the show.
The tartigrade is a terrifying creature. It mauls people, it's dangerous. Yet, when you give it a bowl of Disco Puffs, it won't eat your face. We see the negative effects of the Spore Drive on it; it feels pain and reacts negatively to pain (something most humans can relate to). It is shown to be a creature we can relate to, and can reason with it; even if we cannot fully understand it.
The Klingons cannot be reasoned with. They only understand violence. If a Klingon wants to eat your face, the only way you can stop him is to murder him. The Klingons only understand violence and deception. They are completely unrelateable.
When the story is finished, the tartigrade is shown to be more of a "person" than the Klingons are. The Klingons are monsters. As a result, their appearance is irrelevant. They are obstacles, not "people".
When the story is finished, the tartigrade is shown to be more of a "person" than the Klingons are. The Klingons are monsters. As a result, their appearance is irrelevant. They are obstacles, not "people".
"Monsters" only in the same sense that RW serial killers are monsters though.
You're assuming that the whole purpose for the changes wasn't exactly to turn them into NPC monsters that must be slain.
I'm talking about general story telling technique. There are always exceptions, but STDZ is not one of them. It seems very likely that the Klingons were set up as "fall guys" for the plot. This is not unusual (as you know) but the execution was disappointing.
consider that Voq doesn't actually provide the 'humanizing' role-his alter-ego was human, and his behaviour was to do what??
I wish I knew. He is pointless. The only thing he accomplished to aid the Klingon war effort was to accidentally murder the Discovery's chief medical officer (for cheap drama).
I expect season two will have some exposition about L'rell's plan. I expect it to be as disappointing as Culber's murder.
1.) Klingons are supposed to be a warlike, warrior race. The basis of this, is that they need to be aggressive and good at fighting. Nothing shown on screen suggests they're actually any good at fighting. (Point of fact, the evidence shown on screen is that they aren't good at fighting.)
I like the idea of Klingons being a competent warrior race. They are not always depicted as such, and this goes outside of Star Trek: Discovery. Depending on who was writing the episode, Worf could be a terrible warrior.
2.) Klingons are supposed to be passionate as a race. Again, fail. You can't claim "It's alien passion" or trot out a Edited to retain my sanity - Redvenge. Nothing they do shows this.
Nothing.
What should be a stirring, light the bonfires political speech comes across with all the impact of a bored intern reciting bad quarterly reports on a thursday he'd rather be out partying instead of stuck in the office of a failing retail chain. and this isn't confined to one character, it's an ongoing problem with every Klingork we see, including L'Rell. They aren't convincing as passionate, or driven, or for the most part sentient-the closest they get is eating some dead bodies to avoid starving to death in a broken starship.
Yeah, STDZ dropped the ball here. These Klingons are angry, but that is the only emotion they have.
3.) Their motives and motivations are not alien. "aliens doing alien things for alien reasons" has some good precedents in televised sci-fi, the Vorlons and the Shadows, (particularly the why of that conflict) is a terrific example of this, for that matter, the Centauri were more alien-in-practice than the "Klingons" in Discovery, and that's without fifty pounds of plastich on their faces and a show with a miniscule fraction of the budget.
again, until I'm blue in the face now, "You don't need six million bucks of SFX and makeup to make aliens! you need writers and Directors and actors who are able to deliver it!!!
"Aliens doing alien things but explained in a way humans can understand" is what usually happens. Even then, understanding is not the same as "relating". Usually, the aliens do things that make them "relateable". Otherwise, they are just monsters or set pieces.
I have started rewatching the first season of Discovery in anticipation of Season 2, and one thing I notice that a lot of people seem to not really remember all that much about the show when they discuss Klingons.
In episode 4 for example there is very little about Klingons as "just angry" or being just "Murderers".
The people on T'Kuvma's ship are out of power and out of food, but have used the past months to scavenge enough parts to fix most of the damage their ship has taken. But there were no parts that would allow them to reengage the engines, the ship is stuck.
Voq and L'Rell discuss options, and while L'Rell suggests to scavenge the Shenzou, Voq feels this is a betrayal of T'Kuvma's ideals of purity. L'Rell puts the importance of purity in question, and explains how she was asked to choose between the houses she was part of, but she found a way to serve both.
Kol enters the system and beams aboard - he comes as a petitioner, basically hoping that Voq might share the cloaking technology with him. He even kneels, but Voq won't have any of it - the ship is not just for the house of T'Kuvma, with an united Empire, the House of Kor can also use it.
Voq and L'Rell eventually decide to board the Shenzou and come closer to each other as they get the Dilithium processor they need. L'Rell explains she didn't want leadership, she rather serves him from the back, out of the spotlight.
They beam back to their ship - to find that Kol has used their absence to turn the remaining people against Voq, simply by offering the starved crew food from his own ship. Kol has no belief in a united empire - when the Federation is defeated, things will turn to how they were.
L'Rell pretends to also turn, but actually uses this as a way to save Voq. Back on the Shenzou she's offering Voq a way to help him get the empire back on T'Kuvma's plans.
It's obvious that the Klingons are far more complex here than just "angry people looking for an excuse for murder". Voq shows himself to be a somewhat naive idealist, L'rell is far more pragmatic and devious, and Kol is a power-hungry opportunist. Neither of them show a particularly need to murder anyone beyond what we're used to from Klingons in later episodes, and heck, one could argue the only one angry in the entire exchange is Voq when he feels betrayed by L'Rell.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
It's obvious that the Klingons are far more complex here than just "angry people looking for an excuse for murder". Voq shows himself to be a somewhat naive idealist, L'rell is far more pragmatic and devious, and Kol is a power-hungry opportunist. Neither of them show a particularly need to murder anyone beyond what we're used to from Klingons in later episodes, and heck, one could argue the only one angry in the entire exchange is Voq when he feels betrayed by L'Rell.
Voq was considered an unworthy "degerate" who was tortured and mutilated. It was quite clear that Voq was not a typical Klingon. L'rell is also, atypical. She wanted to flee the Empire and seek asylum in the Federation. That is, until she was handed the keys to the Empire.
The typical Klingon, the Klingons we see most often, are murderers. According to T'Kuvma, the Klingons are currently murdering each other. He then points them at the Federation and they forget their differences and work together to murder their neighbors. In the Vulcan Hello, we learn the Klingons would murder indiscriminately. Anyone the Klingons encountered who would not "fight back", was executed. They only stopped when the Vulcans adopted the policy of shooting every Klingon on sight. The Klingons then sulked and went home... where they started murdering each other... because there was no one else to murder, I guess.
Klingons do have one other trait. They are liars. Time and time again, we see them lie and manipulate each other and various members of the Federation. So, yes. There is more to them than being murderers. They are also deceitful. Not really an admirable or relatable set of traits.
Klingons do have one other trait. They are liars. Time and time again, we see them lie and manipulate each other and various members of the Federation. So, yes. There is more to them than being murderers. They are also deceitful. Not really an admirable or relatable set of traits.
Which is consistent with their TOS interpretation.
As for the first half of your post: the story Burnham relates about her family's death is committed by a 'Klingon Terrorist Group', according to her own dialogue. Everything else is more or less in line with what we know from DS9 'Nor the Battle to the Strong': the Klingons frequently commit massacres against civilians in the heat of battle, and any question of honour is solved by the proverb 'in war there is no greater honour than victory'.
Not exactly a relatable race, but the DSC Klingons are hardly a complete break from canon. The Klingons are, for all intents and purposes, medieval. Guess what medieval armies did when they captured a settlement. As @patrickngo has pointed out long before DSC, the Klingons as a race have never made sense.
I wouldn't know where to start...but for the simple fact it doesn't have the heart and soul of trek while everyone tried to proclaim it was the return to classic trek.
It is the anti-Trek, Star Trek was always about looking towards the future of humanity with hope, even in the grimmest times of DS9 it still had hope...it still had light hearted episodes. What is Discovery? Ep1 Grit, Ep2 Grit, Ep3 Grit, Ep4 Grit....ect ect.
Everyone involved in the project flat out lies through their teeth, they talk about how loyal to canon they are while tossing it out of the airlock. Forgetting the Klingorcs...forgetting the holodeck and fact that everything looks so advanced...there are so many other obvious aspects of canon then...well like I said tossed it out of the airlock like a piece of trash.
It's obvious that the Klingons are far more complex here than just "angry people looking for an excuse for murder". Voq shows himself to be a somewhat naive idealist, L'rell is far more pragmatic and devious, and Kol is a power-hungry opportunist. Neither of them show a particularly need to murder anyone beyond what we're used to from Klingons in later episodes, and heck, one could argue the only one angry in the entire exchange is Voq when he feels betrayed by L'Rell.
Voq was considered an unworthy "degerate" who was tortured and mutilated. It was quite clear that Voq was not a typical Klingon. L'rell is also, atypical. She wanted to flee the Empire and seek asylum in the Federation. That is, until she was handed the keys to the Empire.
The typical Klingon, the Klingons we see most often, are murderers. According to T'Kuvma, the Klingons are currently murdering each other. He then points them at the Federation and they forget their differences and work together to murder their neighbors. In the Vulcan Hello, we learn the Klingons would murder indiscriminately. Anyone the Klingons encountered who would not "fight back", was executed. They only stopped when the Vulcans adopted the policy of shooting every Klingon on sight. The Klingons then sulked and went home... where they started murdering each other... because there was no one else to murder, I guess.
Klingons do have one other trait. They are liars. Time and time again, we see them lie and manipulate each other and various members of the Federation. So, yes. There is more to them than being murderers. They are also deceitful. Not really an admirable or relatable set of traits.
In "Errand of Mercy", the Klingons believe they have seized the planet of Organia, and when the locals refuse to cooperate in finding Kirk and Spock, they "execute" two hundred hostages in a barrage of disruptor fire. Captain Kor blames the Organians, as if they'd just do the sensible thing and capitulate, he wouldn't have had to order the executions. (Fortunately for him, the Organians didn't take it personally...)
In "The Day of the Dove", Commander Kang and his men find themselves aboard the Enterprise (which is becalmed in space), armed with melee weapons, and driven by even more bloodlust than usual (although he does say that "[w]e need no alien influence to hate humans!"). In the end, when Kirk manages to convince Kang that all this is at the behest of an alien energy being that wants them to hate and kill forever so it can feed on their emotions, and that it won't let them die, Kang drops his hostility toward the Feds and instead allies with them against their shared enemy, citing a Klingon proverb - "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
In "The Trouble With Tribbles", Arne Darvin was a deep-cover Klingon agent in the Federation Department of Agricultural Affairs, whose plan to secure Sherman's Planet for the Empire (under the terms of the Organian treaty, which awarded worlds to the side better able to develop them) involved poisoning the grain that was to be grown there. Had his plan worked, the loss of life in the Federation would have been staggering, and likely have included every last person in the Sherman's Planet colony. (I also found the timing of Koloth's visit to the station to be curiously coincidental, and tend to believe that he was in fact delivering the toxin that Darvin was to apply to the seed grain.)
In other words, every attitude you cite is exactly the way we saw them act in TOS.
Yeah, that's nonsense, you're assuming you can't have characterization while being alien and weird.
Except there's nothing really alien or weird about the DSC Klingons except their looks. All of their motivations are entirely comprehensible and human, just mostly negative, the only thing unique about them is that the 30 pounds of rubber on their heads makes them incapable of looking anything but bored and constipated while mumbling angrily about the Federation.
As for the first half of your post: the story Burnham relates about her family's death is committed by a 'Klingon Terrorist Group', according to her own dialogue. Everything else is more or less in line with what we know from DS9 'Nor the Battle to the Strong': the Klingons frequently commit massacres against civilians in the heat of battle, and any question of honour is solved by the proverb 'in war there is no greater honour than victory'.
Not just Burnham. The Vulcans also tell of the murderous Klingons who could only be reasoned with by murdering them. It was the point of the "Vulcan Hello". The Klingons In Star Trek: Discovery are significantly more barbaric then what we have seen in other shows. As the Vulcans and Burnham can attest to, they do not conquer. They murder anyone who cannot fight back. From children to starship captains. When the Vulcans shoot them enough that they leave, they start murdering each other. Previous iterations of Klingons kill civilians for political reasons; to intimidate their enemies or subdue a rebellious populace. Klingons are not nice, but the senseless slaughter (and the innate need to murder) we see in these Klingons has been absent in other iterations.
Not exactly a relatable race, but the DSC Klingons are hardly a complete break from canon. The Klingons are, for all intents and purposes, medieval. Guess what medieval armies did when they captured a settlement. As @patrickngo has pointed out long before DSC, the Klingons as a race have never made sense.
I do not care about "canon". I care about story telling. This story telling sucks. The Klingons in STDZ are boring and flat. Having no depth of character outside of "murder and lie" hampers them. At this point, they must rely on character performances to catch your interest. Their costume design and insistence on speaking only in Klingon make this difficult. The end result is a flaccid antagonist and a shallow story, since the antagonist is only threatening because of the MacGuffin.
In "Errand of Mercy", the Klingons believe they have seized the planet of Organia, and when the locals refuse to cooperate in finding Kirk and Spock, they "execute" two hundred hostages in a barrage of disruptor fire. Captain Kor blames the Organians, as if they'd just do the sensible thing and capitulate, he wouldn't have had to order the executions. (Fortunately for him, the Organians didn't take it personally...)
In "The Day of the Dove", Commander Kang and his men find themselves aboard the Enterprise (which is becalmed in space), armed with melee weapons, and driven by even more bloodlust than usual (although he does say that "[w]e need no alien influence to hate humans!"). In the end, when Kirk manages to convince Kang that all this is at the behest of an alien energy being that wants them to hate and kill forever so it can feed on their emotions, and that it won't let them die, Kang drops his hostility toward the Feds and instead allies with them against their shared enemy, citing a Klingon proverb - "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
In "The Trouble With Tribbles", Arne Darvin was a deep-cover Klingon agent in the Federation Department of Agricultural Affairs, whose plan to secure Sherman's Planet for the Empire (under the terms of the Organian treaty, which awarded worlds to the side better able to develop them) involved poisoning the grain that was to be grown there. Had his plan worked, the loss of life in the Federation would have been staggering, and likely have included every last person in the Sherman's Planet colony. (I also found the timing of Koloth's visit to the station to be curiously coincidental, and tend to believe that he was in fact delivering the toxin that Darvin was to apply to the seed grain.)
So, you cite examples of Klingons who can be reasoned with... who have descernable motives beyond "murder everything" (pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of STDZ Klingons) and you declare:
In other words, every attitude you cite is exactly the way we saw them act in TOS.
Uh, no. The Klingons in Star Trek: Discovery are nothing like what you described.
The only motive we are given for the Klingons' actions is that "the Klingons must murder someone". T'Kuvma creates an unnecessarily complex plan to get the Klingons to murder the Federation, instead of themselves. At no point is there an option for the Klingons to not murder someone. In fact, the Klingon-Federation War is resolved by threatening to murder the Klingon homeworld.
The core theme of Star Trek: Discovery season one is "Violence can only be stopped with more violence".
Bad news for Discovery. After seeing the viewer numbers for S1 Netflix refused to pay the same price for S2 and wouldn't even pay ANY price for the shorts.
Bad news for Discovery. After seeing the viewer numbers for S1 Netflix refused to pay the same price for S2 and wouldn't even pay ANY price for the shorts.
Well, from the information we have now, it seems likely that Netflix paid a large sum of money for a multi-season deal. The original deal did not include the "trek shorts" (which seem to be a cost effective way of keeping interest in Star Trek: Discovery so customers will not cancel their All Access subscription during the year-long wait until the next season of STDZ is released).
Pretty sure this rumor is debunked. The Netflix deal had nothing to do with the shorts...so why would they pay for those?
There is probably some germ of truth to the rumors.
Netflix paid CBS 72 million US dollars (6 million per episode for the original 12 episodes) for probably 2 seasons of Star Trek: Discovery. That equates to 72 million for 11 to 18 hours of programming. If CBS then tried to sell 1 hour of programming for 20 million, Netflix probably said "no". The delay in bringing the "Short Treks" to Netflix is most likely the result of "haggling" over the price.
The rumors that Star Trek:Discovery is in financial trouble is probably accurate. The original price estimate for each episode of STDZ was around 6 million, but ballooned to 8 million each during season one. Season two saw the first 5 episodes go over-budget and, as a result, the other 8 episodes will have their budget reduced. The "Short Treks" were probably created "on the cheap" to keep the costs down, but provide a product that would improve retention of All Access customers.
Financial issues does not mean Star Trek: Discovery is in danger of being cancelled. As long as the show hits the projected numbers in current and new subscribers, it should get a third season.
The rumors that Star Trek Discovery is in financial trouble seem to be highly questionable given the recent announcements about the Picard series and the new animated series.
If the first Star Trek series in over 2 decades is unsuccessful, no company is going to assume. "Oh, yeah, they didn't like this series, bu they might like the next one!" No, if the first series in 2 decades is unsuccessful and in financial trouble, it means the Star Trek brand isn't attractive to customers and using it is a gamble that will probably not pay off. But if they have to gamble, there are plenty of other things they could try - science fiction is very expensive, you only want to gamble on good odds. They'll probably wait another decade or two before they try again, not follow failure by another 2 unproven ideas.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
In two decades the CBS monopoly on Trek begins to evaporate. In 2041 the Original Series begins to become Public Domain, which means anyone can use it without paying licensing fees. Other series have other copyright dates, but once the barn door is open, I'm betting many writers, producers, and artists of all media will begin to show CBS what it should have done.
I think something that has been overlooked by the Hollywood crowd is that sci fi need not be expensive. Look at Dr. Who, for example, which ran forever on fifteen cents an episode. When an actor became too popular and thus able to ask for more money, they replaced him and kept going. Dr. Who probably has a broader and more rabid fanbase than Trek.
It's not the kewl 'splosions and weird-looking people that make for good sci fi, it's the story. Sci fi fans have enough imagination to imagine the 'splosions, we want to be wowed by the story.
The rumors that Star Trek Discovery is in financial trouble seem to be highly questionable given the recent announcements about the Picard series and the new animated series.
If the first Star Trek series in over 2 decades is unsuccessful, no company is going to assume. "Oh, yeah, they didn't like this series, bu they might like the next one!" No, if the first series in 2 decades is unsuccessful and in financial trouble, it means the Star Trek brand isn't attractive to customers and using it is a gamble that will probably not pay off. But if they have to gamble, there are plenty of other things they could try - science fiction is very expensive, you only want to gamble on good odds. They'll probably wait another decade or two before they try again, not follow failure by another 2 unproven ideas.
Discovery is not the new Picard series and new animated series. The animated series has one of the writers for Rick & Morty involved so even if it is half as good as Rick & Morty, then it is a success. Due to the hatred of Discovery on Social Media, CBS knows exactly what the problem with Discovery Season 1 is. Setting the new Picard series 20 years after Nemesis removes a few of the problems that Discovery had. As long as it is entertaining and doesn't make any extremely stupid mistakes like the Klingon redesign, then the Picard series will do much better than Discovery.
In two decades the CBS monopoly on Trek begins to evaporate. In 2041 the Original Series begins to become Public Domain, which means anyone can use it without paying licensing fees.
This is incorrect. Current copyright law in the US calls for the copyright to be maintained for the life of the copyright holder, plus 70 years. The copyright holder in this case is CBS, which isn't exactly defunct.
Blame Disney - they didn't want the Mouse to go public domain a mere 70 years after creator Walt's death.
The rumors that Star Trek Discovery is in financial trouble seem to be highly questionable given the recent announcements about the Picard series and the new animated series.
Why? The show has gone over-budget both seasons. The "Short Treks" were clearly made with shoe-string budgets.
As I pointed out, financial trouble can be overcome as long as the show hit's the numbers it needs to continue. Seems completely plausible to me.
If the first Star Trek series in over 2 decades is unsuccessful, no company is going to assume. "Oh, yeah, they didn't like this series, but they might like the next one!"
The show's creators spending too much money on the show is not the same as "no one likes it". Star Trek: Discovery has an audience, it's possible the audience is not big enough for the production dreams of the cast and crew.
No, if the first series in 2 decades is unsuccessful and in financial trouble, it means the Star Trek brand isn't attractive to customers and using it is a gamble that will probably not pay off. But if they have to gamble, there are plenty of other things they could try - science fiction is very expensive, you only want to gamble on good odds. They'll probably wait another decade or two before they try again, not follow failure by another 2 unproven ideas.
This is far too simplistic a view. CBS and Alex Kurtzman want to make Trek a mini "shared universe", with multiple on-going projects. With a proper scope ad budget, the loss of one show will not negatively impact the overall brand, or income, since CBS All Access is one subscription for multiple shows. Whether you are watching Star Trek: Discovery, or "Picard Rick" (or both), you pay the same.
In two decades the CBS monopoly on Trek begins to evaporate. In 2041 the Original Series begins to become Public Domain, which means anyone can use it without paying licensing fees.
This is incorrect. Current copyright law in the US calls for the copyright to be maintained for the life of the copyright holder, plus 70 years. The copyright holder in this case is CBS, which isn't exactly defunct.
Blame Disney - they didn't want the Mouse to go public domain a mere 70 years after creator Walt's death.
For works prior to 78, it's 70 years from date of publication, or if unpublished, from the date of creation. 1978 gave the 90-120 year range from publication.
CBS has gone to great lengths to prove Trek was created as a work-for-hire property, and so the lifespan of the author is not relevant.
There are, of course, exceptions and conditions, so you'd need a good copyright lawyer to figure out exactly how you want to do it, but in 2041, it's Katey bar the doors. I hope I live to see it. And have the mental faculties to enjoy it when it comes.
in 98 the Bono Act added 20 years so your looking at 2060. Also there’s a difference between Copyright and Trademark. Trademark doesn’t expire. So in 2060 (perhaps if they don’t extend again) “Where no man has gone before” will enter public domain. People will be able to remake it but not using the trademarked items which are probably the uniforms, look of the Enterprise, Starfleet Delta...etc. etc. etc
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.
It was reported by THR and Cinemablend that the two fired showrunners (Harberts and Berg?) went way over budget for the first episode of season 2. From what I read there were no issues with season one at all.
> @darakoss said: > jonsills wrote: » > > redvenge wrote: » > > The show has gone over-budget both seasons. > > > > > [citation needed] > > > > > It was reported by THR and Cinemablend that the two fired showrunners (Harberts and Berg?) went way over budget for the first episode of season 2. From what I read there were no issues with season one at all.
“Sources say the budget for the season two premiere ballooned, with the overages expected to come out of subsequent episodes from Discovery's sophomore run. Insiders also stress that Berg and Harberts became increasingly abusive to the Discovery writing staff, with Harberts said to have leaned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive at a member of the show's staff. Multiple writers are said to have been uncomfortable working on the series and had threatened to file a complaint with human resources or quit the series altogether before informing Kurtzman of the issues surrounding Berg and Harberts.”
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.
Comments
This is unfortunately something that Trek has been dealing with since Voyager. They propose these show ideas that sound intriguing on paper, but then they turn around and start cutting corners because they don't want to take the time to make it work.
In addition, it has nothing to do with the "alien appearance" of extra terrestrials. Typically, if an alien looks radically different, the author tells us why. Or at the very least, tells us what those alien bits hanging off the creature do, and we can fill in the blanks ourselves. The exceptions are monsters and "set pieces". Monsters are supposed to look scary and frightening, while set pieces (ala Mos Eisley) are supposed to look weird (to beat you over the head that this is a weird and alien place).
If you want us to care about your alien, you have to make them relateable. That is not exposition. That is story telling. If you feel story telling is a waste of your time, then I'm certain your Foundry Missions are not to my taste.
Let's compare some examples from the show.
The tartigrade is a terrifying creature. It mauls people, it's dangerous. Yet, when you give it a bowl of Disco Puffs, it won't eat your face. We see the negative effects of the Spore Drive on it; it feels pain and reacts negatively to pain (something most humans can relate to). It is shown to be a creature we can relate to, and can reason with it; even if we cannot fully understand it.
The Klingons cannot be reasoned with. They only understand violence. If a Klingon wants to eat your face, the only way you can stop him is to murder him. The Klingons only understand violence and deception. They are completely unrelateable.
When the story is finished, the tartigrade is shown to be more of a "person" than the Klingons are. The Klingons are monsters. As a result, their appearance is irrelevant. They are obstacles, not "people".
My character Tsin'xing
I expect season two will have some exposition about L'rell's plan. I expect it to be as disappointing as Culber's murder.
I like the idea of Klingons being a competent warrior race. They are not always depicted as such, and this goes outside of Star Trek: Discovery. Depending on who was writing the episode, Worf could be a terrible warrior.
Yeah, STDZ dropped the ball here. These Klingons are angry, but that is the only emotion they have.
"Aliens doing alien things but explained in a way humans can understand" is what usually happens. Even then, understanding is not the same as "relating". Usually, the aliens do things that make them "relateable". Otherwise, they are just monsters or set pieces.
In episode 4 for example there is very little about Klingons as "just angry" or being just "Murderers".
The people on T'Kuvma's ship are out of power and out of food, but have used the past months to scavenge enough parts to fix most of the damage their ship has taken. But there were no parts that would allow them to reengage the engines, the ship is stuck.
Voq and L'Rell discuss options, and while L'Rell suggests to scavenge the Shenzou, Voq feels this is a betrayal of T'Kuvma's ideals of purity. L'Rell puts the importance of purity in question, and explains how she was asked to choose between the houses she was part of, but she found a way to serve both.
Kol enters the system and beams aboard - he comes as a petitioner, basically hoping that Voq might share the cloaking technology with him. He even kneels, but Voq won't have any of it - the ship is not just for the house of T'Kuvma, with an united Empire, the House of Kor can also use it.
Voq and L'Rell eventually decide to board the Shenzou and come closer to each other as they get the Dilithium processor they need. L'Rell explains she didn't want leadership, she rather serves him from the back, out of the spotlight.
They beam back to their ship - to find that Kol has used their absence to turn the remaining people against Voq, simply by offering the starved crew food from his own ship. Kol has no belief in a united empire - when the Federation is defeated, things will turn to how they were.
L'Rell pretends to also turn, but actually uses this as a way to save Voq. Back on the Shenzou she's offering Voq a way to help him get the empire back on T'Kuvma's plans.
It's obvious that the Klingons are far more complex here than just "angry people looking for an excuse for murder". Voq shows himself to be a somewhat naive idealist, L'rell is far more pragmatic and devious, and Kol is a power-hungry opportunist. Neither of them show a particularly need to murder anyone beyond what we're used to from Klingons in later episodes, and heck, one could argue the only one angry in the entire exchange is Voq when he feels betrayed by L'Rell.
The typical Klingon, the Klingons we see most often, are murderers. According to T'Kuvma, the Klingons are currently murdering each other. He then points them at the Federation and they forget their differences and work together to murder their neighbors. In the Vulcan Hello, we learn the Klingons would murder indiscriminately. Anyone the Klingons encountered who would not "fight back", was executed. They only stopped when the Vulcans adopted the policy of shooting every Klingon on sight. The Klingons then sulked and went home... where they started murdering each other... because there was no one else to murder, I guess.
Klingons do have one other trait. They are liars. Time and time again, we see them lie and manipulate each other and various members of the Federation. So, yes. There is more to them than being murderers. They are also deceitful. Not really an admirable or relatable set of traits.
Which is consistent with their TOS interpretation.
As for the first half of your post: the story Burnham relates about her family's death is committed by a 'Klingon Terrorist Group', according to her own dialogue. Everything else is more or less in line with what we know from DS9 'Nor the Battle to the Strong': the Klingons frequently commit massacres against civilians in the heat of battle, and any question of honour is solved by the proverb 'in war there is no greater honour than victory'.
Not exactly a relatable race, but the DSC Klingons are hardly a complete break from canon. The Klingons are, for all intents and purposes, medieval. Guess what medieval armies did when they captured a settlement. As @patrickngo has pointed out long before DSC, the Klingons as a race have never made sense.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
It is the anti-Trek, Star Trek was always about looking towards the future of humanity with hope, even in the grimmest times of DS9 it still had hope...it still had light hearted episodes. What is Discovery? Ep1 Grit, Ep2 Grit, Ep3 Grit, Ep4 Grit....ect ect.
Everyone involved in the project flat out lies through their teeth, they talk about how loyal to canon they are while tossing it out of the airlock. Forgetting the Klingorcs...forgetting the holodeck and fact that everything looks so advanced...there are so many other obvious aspects of canon then...well like I said tossed it out of the airlock like a piece of trash.
In "The Day of the Dove", Commander Kang and his men find themselves aboard the Enterprise (which is becalmed in space), armed with melee weapons, and driven by even more bloodlust than usual (although he does say that "[w]e need no alien influence to hate humans!"). In the end, when Kirk manages to convince Kang that all this is at the behest of an alien energy being that wants them to hate and kill forever so it can feed on their emotions, and that it won't let them die, Kang drops his hostility toward the Feds and instead allies with them against their shared enemy, citing a Klingon proverb - "Only a fool fights in a burning house."
In "The Trouble With Tribbles", Arne Darvin was a deep-cover Klingon agent in the Federation Department of Agricultural Affairs, whose plan to secure Sherman's Planet for the Empire (under the terms of the Organian treaty, which awarded worlds to the side better able to develop them) involved poisoning the grain that was to be grown there. Had his plan worked, the loss of life in the Federation would have been staggering, and likely have included every last person in the Sherman's Planet colony. (I also found the timing of Koloth's visit to the station to be curiously coincidental, and tend to believe that he was in fact delivering the toxin that Darvin was to apply to the seed grain.)
In other words, every attitude you cite is exactly the way we saw them act in TOS.
Except there's nothing really alien or weird about the DSC Klingons except their looks. All of their motivations are entirely comprehensible and human, just mostly negative, the only thing unique about them is that the 30 pounds of rubber on their heads makes them incapable of looking anything but bored and constipated while mumbling angrily about the Federation.
Not just Burnham. The Vulcans also tell of the murderous Klingons who could only be reasoned with by murdering them. It was the point of the "Vulcan Hello". The Klingons In Star Trek: Discovery are significantly more barbaric then what we have seen in other shows. As the Vulcans and Burnham can attest to, they do not conquer. They murder anyone who cannot fight back. From children to starship captains. When the Vulcans shoot them enough that they leave, they start murdering each other. Previous iterations of Klingons kill civilians for political reasons; to intimidate their enemies or subdue a rebellious populace. Klingons are not nice, but the senseless slaughter (and the innate need to murder) we see in these Klingons has been absent in other iterations.
I do not care about "canon". I care about story telling. This story telling sucks. The Klingons in STDZ are boring and flat. Having no depth of character outside of "murder and lie" hampers them. At this point, they must rely on character performances to catch your interest. Their costume design and insistence on speaking only in Klingon make this difficult. The end result is a flaccid antagonist and a shallow story, since the antagonist is only threatening because of the MacGuffin. So, you cite examples of Klingons who can be reasoned with... who have descernable motives beyond "murder everything" (pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of STDZ Klingons) and you declare:
Uh, no. The Klingons in Star Trek: Discovery are nothing like what you described.
The only motive we are given for the Klingons' actions is that "the Klingons must murder someone". T'Kuvma creates an unnecessarily complex plan to get the Klingons to murder the Federation, instead of themselves. At no point is there an option for the Klingons to not murder someone. In fact, the Klingon-Federation War is resolved by threatening to murder the Klingon homeworld.
The core theme of Star Trek: Discovery season one is "Violence can only be stopped with more violence".
Netflix paid CBS 72 million US dollars (6 million per episode for the original 12 episodes) for probably 2 seasons of Star Trek: Discovery. That equates to 72 million for 11 to 18 hours of programming. If CBS then tried to sell 1 hour of programming for 20 million, Netflix probably said "no". The delay in bringing the "Short Treks" to Netflix is most likely the result of "haggling" over the price.
The rumors that Star Trek:Discovery is in financial trouble is probably accurate. The original price estimate for each episode of STDZ was around 6 million, but ballooned to 8 million each during season one. Season two saw the first 5 episodes go over-budget and, as a result, the other 8 episodes will have their budget reduced. The "Short Treks" were probably created "on the cheap" to keep the costs down, but provide a product that would improve retention of All Access customers.
Financial issues does not mean Star Trek: Discovery is in danger of being cancelled. As long as the show hits the projected numbers in current and new subscribers, it should get a third season.
If the first Star Trek series in over 2 decades is unsuccessful, no company is going to assume. "Oh, yeah, they didn't like this series, bu they might like the next one!" No, if the first series in 2 decades is unsuccessful and in financial trouble, it means the Star Trek brand isn't attractive to customers and using it is a gamble that will probably not pay off. But if they have to gamble, there are plenty of other things they could try - science fiction is very expensive, you only want to gamble on good odds. They'll probably wait another decade or two before they try again, not follow failure by another 2 unproven ideas.
I think something that has been overlooked by the Hollywood crowd is that sci fi need not be expensive. Look at Dr. Who, for example, which ran forever on fifteen cents an episode. When an actor became too popular and thus able to ask for more money, they replaced him and kept going. Dr. Who probably has a broader and more rabid fanbase than Trek.
It's not the kewl 'splosions and weird-looking people that make for good sci fi, it's the story. Sci fi fans have enough imagination to imagine the 'splosions, we want to be wowed by the story.
Discovery is not the new Picard series and new animated series. The animated series has one of the writers for Rick & Morty involved so even if it is half as good as Rick & Morty, then it is a success. Due to the hatred of Discovery on Social Media, CBS knows exactly what the problem with Discovery Season 1 is. Setting the new Picard series 20 years after Nemesis removes a few of the problems that Discovery had. As long as it is entertaining and doesn't make any extremely stupid mistakes like the Klingon redesign, then the Picard series will do much better than Discovery.
Blame Disney - they didn't want the Mouse to go public domain a mere 70 years after creator Walt's death.
As I pointed out, financial trouble can be overcome as long as the show hit's the numbers it needs to continue. Seems completely plausible to me.
The show's creators spending too much money on the show is not the same as "no one likes it". Star Trek: Discovery has an audience, it's possible the audience is not big enough for the production dreams of the cast and crew.
This is far too simplistic a view. CBS and Alex Kurtzman want to make Trek a mini "shared universe", with multiple on-going projects. With a proper scope ad budget, the loss of one show will not negatively impact the overall brand, or income, since CBS All Access is one subscription for multiple shows. Whether you are watching Star Trek: Discovery, or "Picard Rick" (or both), you pay the same.
For works prior to 78, it's 70 years from date of publication, or if unpublished, from the date of creation. 1978 gave the 90-120 year range from publication.
CBS has gone to great lengths to prove Trek was created as a work-for-hire property, and so the lifespan of the author is not relevant.
There are, of course, exceptions and conditions, so you'd need a good copyright lawyer to figure out exactly how you want to do it, but in 2041, it's Katey bar the doors. I hope I live to see it. And have the mental faculties to enjoy it when it comes.
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.
[citation needed]
It was reported by THR and Cinemablend that the two fired showrunners (Harberts and Berg?) went way over budget for the first episode of season 2. From what I read there were no issues with season one at all.
original join date 2010
Member: Team Trekyards. Visit Trekyards today!
> jonsills wrote: »
>
> redvenge wrote: »
>
> The show has gone over-budget both seasons.
>
>
>
>
> [citation needed]
>
>
>
>
> It was reported by THR and Cinemablend that the two fired showrunners (Harberts and Berg?) went way over budget for the first episode of season 2. From what I read there were no issues with season one at all.
It’s one of several possible reasons on why they were fired.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/star-trek-discovery-showrunners-alex-kurtzman-take-1120416
“Sources say the budget for the season two premiere ballooned, with the overages expected to come out of subsequent episodes from Discovery's sophomore run. Insiders also stress that Berg and Harberts became increasingly abusive to the Discovery writing staff, with Harberts said to have leaned across the writers room table while shouting an expletive at a member of the show's staff. Multiple writers are said to have been uncomfortable working on the series and had threatened to file a complaint with human resources or quit the series altogether before informing Kurtzman of the issues surrounding Berg and Harberts.”
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.