Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7339075" data-attributes="member: 37579">Unless you're counting Into Darkness, Klingons only changed once before, for the first movie. And STID has the same continuity allergy as Discovery and was another reality, so it doesn't *really* count. And while they changed Klingons once for budget, that reason doesn't apply now. Because the old movies did have a budget. There was a lot of more alien aliens in those films, and Klingons were deliberately kept more human. The design could have been tweaked to match modern standards, but a complete redesign wasn't necassary. There was no excuse or justification beyond “because the could”. Which is a pretty crappy reason to make a change to the second or third most well known alien race in science fiction. But, of course, the budget reasons are irrelevant because the Klingon changes DID but the crap out of people. For decades. So much so they eventually devoted two episodes of Enterprise to explaining it in-World. And the Klingon changes in Into Darkness was also a complaint, albeit a lesser one because of, well, everything else that movie did.This change now is making the same mistake they did in the 1970s and 2011 and expecting a different reaction from the fans. It's not like the theoretical “new fans” will care any more about the less human Klingons. It's a change that is neutral for newcomers, and pisses of lots of old fans. What's the benefit?Okay. You don't care about canon. You don't care if Star Trek follows it's legacy of thirty years of stories and acknowledges the stronger canon of the 1990s and 2000s. I get that. May I suggest you instead watch the reboot movies, as that's their deal. Or perhaps any other television show ever made. For those of us who like continuity and love the idea of a show with 30 years of history... there's not a lot of other options. Even Doctor Who is a bad example, being more loose with continuity than 1960s Trek...Trek continuity was an evolving thing in the ’80s and ‘90s. Yeah, it had hiccups and changes but it tried it’s best to respect the past. To build on what was established. Does canon need to take a step back to good storytelling? No. I don't think so. I think continuity is a tool. You can tell good stories and stick closely to canon as well. They’re not mutuality exclusive. It just requires a little research. Like writing a historical drama. You can bend history a little and fudge some small details when necassary. But if you tell a WWI drama with jet fighters against the zombie armies of the Nazis then you may be drifting from what happened. After all, Discovery is drifting pretty hard from canon and it hasn't automatically made the writing any better. Generally if someone isn't willing to put the work in to research, they're probably not going to put the work it to turn in a polished, solid script.</blockquote>

Verification