Comment

Comment on Anyone else out there who actually really loved Discovery's S1 style of Klingons?

Trekman10@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

All that needed to be maintained was that the Klingons we see Kirk face in TOS were all afflicted by the virus - while it’s still reasonable to assume that, the presence of these hitherto unseen 3rd variant of Klingon complicates instead of simplifies, which is what ENT’s arc did. Now what, it’s ANOTHER coincidence that THESE klingons are even ridgier than we’ve seen before, but the other ones are still out there? To borrow your parlance, the Discovery redesign was intended to overwrite and replace what came before, because apparently Star Trek, unlike every other fantasy and science fiction thing I like, is Forbidden from being treated like a secondary world that should have its only internal consistency.

I was completely content to accept it was a coincidence that Kirk only saw augment virus-impacted Klingons in TOS, just like how ST Picard ended up establishing for Romulans (northern vs southern to explain the v shape bone ridge they had through TNG-ENT).

source

Sort:hotnew top

williams_482@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

because apparently Star Trek, unlike every other fantasy and science fiction thing I like, is Forbidden from being treated like a secondary world that should have its own internal consistency.

How many other Science Fiction properties out there sprung out of a low budget TV show from the 60s but are still producing content without some kind of explicit reboot?

Star Wars is the classic comparison in all sorts of ways, and for better or worse Star Wars avoids this problem entirely by 1) having a much higher budget relative to the number of sets and costumes required for it’s initial installment, 2) having picked an aesthetic that is crude, gritty, and seemingly practical which escapes looking dated many years after the fact, and 3) not being set in our future where the advances of modern tech make obviously retro elements look ridiculous.

source
- Vittelius@feddit.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  There is Doctor Who, and that’s it.
  
  Actually, DW is a good example, because the continuity of that show is a mess, and very intentionally so. That show thrives in its inconsistencies. There are three different explanations for why the Doctor can change faces when he dies, for example. And each one contradicts the others. There is also no beta canon, every tie in is considered canon. So the doctor has officially met Batman, Gandalf and Picard. That’s canon.
  
  In the end IP is a playground and continuity should enhance story. Nobody gains anything from lore for the sense of lore. What does the Klingons always looking a certain way say? Not all that much. It’s a nice to have, because it allows you to recognise them quickly and make connections. But if the look is constricting for the creative team, then they should be able to change it.
  
  source
  - NuPNuA@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    Dr Who’s visual continuity on the other hand is pretty strong when bringing back old creatures. Daleks still look like they did in 1965, the Sontarians as they did in 1973, the Zygons as they did in 1975, etc. The only race that got a major change was the Cybermen which was explained by being an alternative universe version. Even they eventually cycled round to their original 1966 look by the end of Capaldis era.
    
    source
    LibraryLass@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    I mean… not that much. Daleks have gone through three redesigns just since the show went back. Sontarans went from the world’s most unconvincing rubber masks to makeup. And how many eyes do Silurians have-- two, or three?
    
    source
- Trekman10@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  Doctor Who has faithfully recreated sets, props, and costumes from as far back as the 60s as recently as 2017. Continuity is a different story - there’s literally no doctor who canon - as the constant time traveling impacts things. Even the smaller TARDIS exterior from the Classic series is referenced as an actual, visual difference by the revival series. The current powers that run Star Trek would just pretend it was always that big.
  
  I’ll never accept the idea that it’s okay to update a design but not properly reboot it and set it in a completely different and seperate continuity just because what you’re making a spin-off of is old enough that it doesn’t deserve to be treated legitimately. How many more years before the crude, gritty aesthetic of Star Wars suffers the same fate as the crude and campy aesthetic of Star Trek?
  
  Whole series of television shouldn’t be ignored by their own spinoffs just because their set designer and marketing teams decided something was lame or uncool.
  
  source
  - LibraryLass@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    How many more years before the crude, gritty aesthetic of Star Wars suffers the same fate as the crude and campy aesthetic of Star Trek?
    
    People complained about exactly that during the Prequel Trilogy.
    
    source
    sambeastie@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    To give credit where it’s due, RotS and many of the Disney-era Star Wars products have gone a long way to fitting the glamorous, shiny prequel aesthetic into the gritty, used, “lived in” aesthetic of the OT. I’m not the biggest fan of The Last Jedi, but I actually think the implicication of the shiny galaxy just being a property of the rich inner rim planets was a great move in unifying everything.
    
    source