Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 7340095" data-attributes="member: 3887">It bugged some people. Let's not forget that the redesign that began with ST:TMP and continued through TNG resulted in the "iconic" Klingons that some people are kvetching about Discovery deviating from today. Is it really a mistake to treat Star Trek as what it inarguably is? A work of fiction. Subject to reinterpretation and revision by each successive group of artists responsible for its production. I mean, I think this is clearly a case where arguing against the results is warranted & justified. But arguing against the process borders on ridiculous. Re: the Klingons, the franchise has already seen them move from greasepainted swarthy Space Mongols who are also vaguely Soviet stand-ins to the more alien "honor Klingons" whose roots -- I think -- lie in that great non-canon John M. Ford novel and then got fleshed out further by TNG (with the caveat most of those insights came from Worf, whose Klingon identity was the product of not being raised by them).   Where's the benefit of assuming all fans place the same importance on canon? Or at least "canon" as you're conceiving of it? I mean, I'm a longtime fan whose favorite Trek will always feature styrofoam rocks, Tempra alien skies, and the Trinity of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. But canon will always represent a tangential pleasure of the franchise, something fun to argue about, test my (aging) memory, etc.</blockquote>