Star Trek: All of Em

[Cyke]

I never got the hate the new Klingon design got, I mean I liked the look they got in latter seasons of TNG and then DS9 but before that they weren't consistently portrayed. In the original series they sometimes Asiatic skin tones...and other times they were just white guys with funny eyebrows. And then they got ridges in the motion picture and in subsequent films the ridges would grow and shrink in prominence. And even in the early seasons of TNG Worf's ridges changed often as they worked on their makeup techniques...so why not change again?

Yep, good ol' Worf. It's funny if you pay attention to Worf's design when jumping around chronologically through TNG and DS9. His eyebrows and ridges change throughout both shows, but by the end of of DS9 they even dyed his hair into more brown (closer to his skin tone), and in Nemesis they even modulated his voice lower to "sound more alien."

[WebLurker]

Speaking of the comics, I've been reading some of the Gold Key ones. While they ocassionally get the main three actor's likeness and the Enterprise design right, the bridge is all over the place, Kirk's shirt is green all the time and it's not the alternate one he wears in some episodes (Seems like the colorist or artist got them confused), and Spock literally destroys an entire planet.

It did kind of anticipate the Abrams stuff having the ship in the atmosphere though....

Kinda funny, but Kirk's shirt was supposed to be green originally; the "gold" uniforms were made from green fabric, but the lighting made the regular uniforms look yellow. That's why Kirk's second uniform and dress uniform are green, not yellow; the lights didn't affect those fabrics. Since the uniforms looked gold, it was subsequently established going forward in later projects that the command uniforms were actually gold (the wrap uniform and dress uniform not matching being apparently an exception to how the other ones matched) and here we are today.

I never got the hate the new Klingon design got, I mean I liked the look they got in latter seasons of TNG and then DS9 but before that they weren't consistently portrayed. In the original series they sometimes Asiatic skin tones...and other times they were just white guys with funny eyebrows. And then they got ridges in the motion picture and in subsequent films the ridges would grow and shrink in prominence. And even in the early seasons of TNG Worf's ridges changed often as they worked on their makeup techniques...so why not change again?

I think the difference is that the TOS ones were explained onscreen (in ENT) and the other ridged ones looked enough like variations within the theme to be seen as being the same species (like how humans have different skin tones, eye shapes, etc.). Worf's ridges did change, but used the same pattern that I think we just dismissed it as a refining of the makeup, not him morphing from season to season (like how Seven's eyebrow implant is different in PIC then it is in VOY, but looks close enough that we ignore the design differences, or how comic book artists render characters slightly differently, but we still assume they're the same person).

In the case of the DSC Klingons, it was such a different look and applied across the board, like it was a retcon that this was the way all Klingons were supposed to look and we had to assume that the earlier looks were "incorrect" (much like how current projects seem to be trying to erase the original TOS Enterprise from continuity and claim that the Disover-prise was the only true pre-movie design for the ship). IMHO, Season Two makes it easier to believe that the DSC Klingons are just the standard ridged Klingons, but I will concede that it's kind of tricky fit. (Actually, I'm starting to think that Star Trek canon and continuity is starting to become pretty loosey-goosey and we may have to let go of the franchise being self-consistent.)

[thwhtGuardian]

Kinda funny, but Kirk's shirt was supposed to be green originally; the "gold" uniforms were made from green fabric, but the lighting made the regular uniforms look yellow. That's why Kirk's second uniform and dress uniform are green, not yellow; the lights didn't affect those fabrics. Since the uniforms looked gold, it was subsequently established going forward in later projects that the command uniforms were actually gold (the wrap uniform and dress uniform not matching being apparently an exception to how the other ones matched) and here we are today.



I think the difference is that the TOS ones were explained onscreen (in ENT) and the other ridged ones looked enough like variations within the theme to be seen as being the same species (like how humans have different skin tones, eye shapes, etc.). Worf's ridges did change, but used the same pattern that I think we just dismissed it as a refining of the makeup, not him morphing from season to season (like how Seven's eyebrow implant is different in PIC then it is in VOY, but looks close enough that we ignore the design differences, or how comic book artists render characters slightly differently, but we still assume they're the same person).

In the case of the DSC Klingons, it was such a different look and applied across the board, like it was a retcon that this was the way all Klingons were supposed to look and we had to assume that the earlier looks were "incorrect" (much like how current projects seem to be trying to erase the original TOS Enterprise from continuity and claim that the Disover-prise was the only true pre-movie design for the ship). IMHO, Season Two makes it easier to believe that the DSC Klingons are just the standard ridged Klingons, but I will concede that it's kind of tricky fit. (Actually, I'm starting to think that Star Trek canon and continuity is starting to become pretty loosey-goosey and we may have to let go of the franchise being self-consistent.)

But the drastic change from the original series to the films was accepted before Enterprise hand waved it away. People then simply understood that the change was there simply because the budget was higher and make up techniques had improved so that the Klingons could look more alien. The same thing caused the change with the Kelvin Universe Klingons and the Discovery; bigger budgets and advances in prosthetics made them want to do a more alien design...only this time fans didn't rationally accept it for what it was and move on as hey did in the past and tried to pretend the change was some radical alteration to how the Klingons always were.

I can get not liking the look, everyone has different tastes, but claiming that it's breaking continuity is a bridge too far. It would be one thing if say the Jim Henson Company decided to make Miss Piggy and Kermit look like photorealistic animal puppets, they've clearly looked the same since nearly their inception so big changes would be against the norm but looks change in Sta Trek all the time from costumes, to phasers, computers right on down to the ships themselves at times.

[WebLurker]

But the drastic change from the original series to the films was accepted before Enterprise hand waved it away. People then simply understood that the change was there simply because the budget was higher and make up techniques had improved so that the Klingons could look more alien. The same thing caused the change with the Kelvin Universe Klingons and the Discovery; bigger budgets and advances in prosthetics made them want to do a more alien design...only this time fans didn't rationally accept it for what it was and move on as hey did in the past and tried to pretend the change was some radical alteration to how the Klingons always were.

Well, thing is with the Kelvin Klingon, while the pointed ears are an oddity and I think it looks more like an Orc, it still looks enough like a Klingon to rationalize it away as a bald ridged one. Also, even before ENT, the DS9 tribbles episode had already addressed the difference between the TOS Klingons and the rest (even if it was a non-answer, it did note that the two designs co-existed in some fashion and wasn't supposed to be a retcon). So, I think the thing kinda is that for years, the Klingons had a unifying answer that explained everything and then DSC came up with a reimagining that seemed to contradict everything with no logical explanation.

I can get not liking the look, everyone has different tastes, but claiming that it's breaking continuity is a bridge too far. It would be one thing if say the Jim Henson Company decided to make Miss Piggy and Kermit look like photorealistic animal puppets, they've clearly looked the same since nearly their inception so big changes would be against the norm but looks change in Sta Trek all the time from costumes, to phasers, computers right on down to the ships themselves at times.

Well, with a few exceptions, a lot of the changes are explained "in-universe" (ship redesigns being the result of upgrades and refits, the passage of time resulting in new tech designs and uniforms, etc.). While the Klingon change was a noticeable one without any real explanation until DS/ENT, it was a rather isolated exception in comparison to the rest of the franchise.

[Elmo]

I can get not liking the look, everyone has different tastes, but claiming that it's breaking continuity is a bridge too far. It would be one thing if say the Jim Henson Company decided to make Miss Piggy and Kermit look like photorealistic animal puppets, they've clearly looked the same since nearly their inception so big changes would be against the norm but looks change in Sta Trek all the time from costumes, to phasers, computers right on down to the ships themselves at times.

why do they have holographic HUDs in discovery, which takes place in the 22nd century, but no holographic HUDs whatsoever in Star Trek until the end of the 24th century?
I don't know if it was explained but this is the point. you're giving the writers too much credit if you think they care about Trek. or the lore. They want to make a check and have things look cool, and if it gets too convoluted they'll try to quickly explain it away or just leave it, because at the end of the day we're such a vocal minority that it doesn't even make much difference. continuity was out the window the very second that first trailer for Discovery came out.

[TriggerWarning]

Have to say that Lorca, mirror universe or not, is my favorite Starship captain. No moral grandstanding, just doing what needs to be done and kicking ass while doing it. I think my favorite moment of his run was the space whale bit from the bottle episode. If this was Picard or Janeway or even Sisko we would have gotten some sort of moral speech about how saving the whale was the noble thing to do blah blah blah. Lorca instead knows it has to be done but is clearly annoyed by the whole thing yet still does it.

[ChrisIII]

But the drastic change from the original series to the films was accepted before Enterprise hand waved it away. People then simply understood that the change was there simply because the budget was higher and make up techniques had improved so that the Klingons could look more alien. The same thing caused the change with the Kelvin Universe Klingons and the Discovery; bigger budgets and advances in prosthetics made them want to do a more alien design...only this time fans didn't rationally accept it for what it was and move on as hey did in the past and tried to pretend the change was some radical alteration to how the Klingons always were.

I can get not liking the look, everyone has different tastes, but claiming that it's breaking continuity is a bridge too far. It would be one thing if say the Jim Henson Company decided to make Miss Piggy and Kermit look like photorealistic animal puppets, they've clearly looked the same since nearly their inception so big changes would be against the norm but looks change in Sta Trek all the time from costumes, to phasers, computers right on down to the ships themselves at times.

While Kermit has mostly remained the same basic design since the Muppet Show there have been a few changes to Miss Piggy's look over the years, most notably the eyes (She was originally more of a background character)

[thwhtGuardian]

why do they have holographic HUDs in discovery, which takes place in the 22nd century, but no holographic HUDs whatsoever in Star Trek until the end of the 24th century?
I don't know if it was explained but this is the point. you're giving the writers too much credit if you think they care about Trek. or the lore. They want to make a check and have things look cool, and if it gets too convoluted they'll try to quickly explain it away or just leave it, because at the end of the day we're such a vocal minority that it doesn't even make much difference. continuity was out the window the very second that first trailer for Discovery came out.

They don't need to explain it. I mean, computers with reel to reel memory, analog switches, buttons, dials, levers and nearly zero visual interface aren't how we envision computers to look in the future anymore so trying to make it match up to that isn't a realistic expectation.

[ChrisIII]

why do they have holographic HUDs in discovery, which takes place in the 22nd century, but no holographic HUDs whatsoever in Star Trek until the end of the 24th century?
I don't know if it was explained but this is the point. you're giving the writers too much credit if you think they care about Trek. or the lore. They want to make a check and have things look cool, and if it gets too convoluted they'll try to quickly explain it away or just leave it, because at the end of the day we're such a vocal minority that it doesn't even make much difference. continuity was out the window the very second that first trailer for Discovery came out.

I think there's a line that the hologram stuff was giving the Enterprise technical problems, so they ditched that (and maybe the rest of starfleet followed?)

[thwhtGuardian]

I think there's a line that the hologram stuff was giving the Enterprise technical problems, so they ditched that (and maybe the rest of starfleet followed?)

I think it's far easier just to accept the reality of the situation; that the Enterprise we saw in the TOS was a reflection of how they saw the future in the late 60's and because technology has advanced since then new shows need to reflect the current vision of the future. Why create some silly, convoluted plot to hand wave it away?

[Jokerz79]

I think it's far easier just to accept the reality of the situation; that the Enterprise we saw in the TOS was a reflection of how they saw the future in the late 60's and because technology has advanced since then new shows need to reflect the current vision of the future. Why create some silly, convoluted plot to hand wave it away?

Or you don't do Prequels and this stuff won't happen.

[thwhtGuardian]

Or you don't do Prequels and this stuff won't happen.

I don't see an issue with it. Don't get me wrong, the original series is still some of my favorite Trek to this day but when I rewatch those episodes I don't think to myself, "Yeah, that's what computers will look like in the future."

I understand that its look is just a fictional representation made with a limited tv budget of what they thought the future might look like based on what technology looked like in the 60's.
We now know that's not what the future looks like because our own technology has advanced faster than their imaginations did and what we can do with a tv budget today is greater than what was possible then so when we depict the future now it's going to look vastly different than it did then.
If you cannot accept that then it's not a flaw with the show or its creators...it's just you being overly pedantic.

[Jokerz79]

I don't see an issue with it. Don't get me wrong, the original series is still some of my favorite Trek to this day but when I rewatch those episodes I don't think to myself, "Yeah, that's what computers will look like in the future."

I understand that its look is just a fictional representation made with a limited tv budget of what they thought the future might look like based on what technology looked like in the 60's.
We now know that's not what the future looks like because our own technology has advanced faster than their imaginations did and what we can do with a tv budget today is greater than what was possible then so when we depict the future now it's going to look vastly different than it did then.
If you cannot accept that then it's not a flaw with the show or its creators...it's just you being overly pedantic.

Its not our world Dr. Who never upgraded Hartnell's Tardis and in Rogue One the X-Wings and Imperial Technology wasn't upgraded for modern advancements in our real world.

How do I explain that computer? The Earth of Star Trek went thru a Nuclear WWIII and was rebuilt with alien (Vulcan) influence who knows what the computers should look like in that world.

Either respect what came before or don't touch it and go forward in the timeline.

[thwhtGuardian]

Its not our world Dr. Who never upgraded Hartnell's Tardis and in Rogue One the X-Wings and Imperial Technology wasn't upgraded for modern advancements in our real world.

How do I explain that computer? The Earth of Star Trek went thru a Nuclear WWIII and was rebuilt with alien (Vulcan) influence who knows what the computers should look like in that world.

Either respect what came before or don't touch it and go forward in the timeline.

That's just an over wrought rationalization, why even come up with it when the real reason(that it's simply a product of its time) is far easier to understand?

And they never updated the Tardis? That's patently false. The technology of the Tardis has changed dramatically over the years to fit not only the changing tones of the show but also the expectations of the audience.

As for Star Wars its technology was never the focus, the lived in look was but that isn't the case with Trek. Trek was supposed to be a look into our future and as a TV show it needs to adapt to changes in reality. As I said earlier, fans of the past accepted this as no one batted an eye when the Klingons dramatically changed their look, or the way costumes, weapons and bridge all looked different when Trek made the leap from canceled tv show to successful film franchise.

But hey, if at the end of the day creating convoluted explanations for an antiquated look enhances your personal enjoyment of Star Trek, be my guest...just don't try and pretend it's an objective criticism of the way new shows look.

[Jokerz79]

That's just an over wrought rationalization, why even come up with it when the real reason(that it's simply a product of its time) is far easier to understand?

And they never updated the Tardis? That's patently false. The technology of the Tardis has changed dramatically over the years to fit not only the changing tones of the show but also the expectations of the audience.

As for Star Wars its technology was never the focus, the lived in look was but that isn't the case with Trek. Trek was supposed to be a look into our future and as a TV show it needs to adapt to changes in reality. As I said earlier, fans of the past accepted this as no one batted an eye when the Klingons dramatically changed their look, or the way costumes, weapons and bridge all looked different when Trek made the leap from canceled tv show to successful film franchise.

But hey, if at the end of the day creating convoluted explanations for an antiquated look enhances your personal enjoyment of Star Trek, be my guest...just don't try and pretend it's an objective criticism of the way new shows look.

I didn't say Tardis I said Hartnell's Tardis which was in Twice Upon a Doctor.

And the TOS Enterprise/Constitution Class was a product of its time which can be rationalized and was respected by TNG (Relics), DS9 (Tribbles and Tribulations), and ENT ( Into the Mirror Darkly Parts I & II).

So I give Discovery no leniency Discovery said we want to use that era of Trek but change it because it's not cool enough for us which I find insulting.