log in or register to remove this ad

 

Star Trek Picard SPOILERS thread

cbwjm

I can add a custom title.
I agree, but that doesn't mean they all have to look like Michael Dorn! I think they were trying to solve the whole question of why they've looked so different over the years by explaining "there's a lot of different looking Klingons." (Same with Romulans in Picard). Problem is solved going forward, IMO.

Of course, Truth Seeker might say that it's because they didn't want to pay for the license to use the definitive Klingon-look. Maybe that's true!
I recall in ST enterprise that they gave a reason for Klingons who didn't have any brow ridges was due to a based on an enhanced human genetics plague that had ravaged the empire and the cure made the ridges disappear.

In a DS9 episode where they went back in time they asked Worf what was up and he said it was a difficult time in Klingon history which they don't like to talk about.

They've (the writers of the various shows) have definitely thought about the differences fairly early on.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They've (the writers of the various shows) have definitely thought about the differences fairly early on.
Yeah, I know, but "Different Klingons look different" works better for me. It's simpler, too. (And it works for other alien races, like the Romulans in Picard, just as well.) It also frees them up to have a wider variety of humans play them, too.
 

FaerieGodfather

Aberrant Druid
Supporter
Realistically, Toxic (in this case) = Anyone who attacks a fan or creator personally because they don't like the direction or content of a work of fiction.
It's worth remembering that if a creator invents a new property you don't like, it doesn't have any effect on the properties you like and it's easy to say that it exists for the people who like it and go on with your life.

If a new creator takes over for a property you like, and consistently changes it in ways you don't like, they're personally responsible for the property you like being erased from the public memory and there's not a goddamned thing you can do about it.

The source of that problem is beyond the scope of this forum... but fans of a property that has changed hands, to its detriment, do perhaps deserve a little more sympathy than they get in these kinds of discussions.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
Which one of these many variations is the "correct" KIingon, and why?













#6 definitely! He's Worf-tastic!

Not a fan of the latest iteration, as I've said previously. I think that was change for change's sake.
Ugh. The phrase "change for change's sake" is the toxic fan's mantra. Not to pick on you, but NOBODY simply changes things "just because", not in Star Trek, not in D&D (I heard this soooo much during the height of the edition wars). The changes are made to improve the look and story, and whether they are good changes or not is obviously subjective.

Sure about that? The change from TOS to TNG was the most extreme Klingon change there has been in all of Trek history, and yet you say that you think the latter are "the best Klingons". Does that not show that extreme changes frequently do go over extremely well?
While our awareness of toxic fandom is more acute now that we are blessed/cursed by the internet, toxic fans were bitching back in the day about all the changes Next Gen made to the canon, both visually (bumpy Klingon heads) and story. In various interviews, I've heard multiple Next Gen actors comment on the hate they got during the first season or so, and how disheartening it was. It was particularly rough on our favorite teenager in space, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton).
 


Zardnaar

Legend
Heh, I remember the issues that people had when Tim Russ played Tuvok on Voyager. A BLACK Vulcan?!!?!!?!!?!! Vulcan's aren't black. :erm:

People get things engraved in their brains far too deeply.
I'm no expert but Vulcans are very close to humans so one could expect human skin tones lol.

When I was a kid the races thing didn't really matter and half the time you couldn't tell anyway due to makeup.

I didn't really get why having a Russian on the crew of TOS was a big deal.

I suppose growing up in NZ we avoid a lot if Americanisms.
 

Rabulias

Adventurer
Treks a bit inconsistent. I remember liking First Contact and parts if TNG but mein gott season 1 is a slog. I've had trekkues suggest skipping to season 3 of TNG pick it up from there.
Yeah, TNG season 1 is awful, season 2 gets a little better, but by season 3 they have found their footing and it is pretty solid on through season 7, IMO. If you can grit your teeth and get through them, seasons 1 and 2 do introduce some characters and history that play in to later (better) stories.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Yeah, TNG season 1 is awful, season 2 gets a little better, but by season 3 they have found their footing and it is pretty solid on through season 7, IMO. If you can grit your teeth and get through them, seasons 1 and 2 do introduce some characters and history that play in to later (better) stories.
Might have to try again. It's my wife her opinion is "life's to short for bad TV".

My tolerance for pain is a bit higher but she will pull the plug fairly fast esp if we have other stuff to watch.

Best of TNG is better, overall DS9 is better?
 

Ryujin

Adventurer
While our awareness of toxic fandom is more acute now that we are blessed/cursed by the internet, toxic fans were bitching back in the day about all the changes Next Gen made to the canon, both visually (bumpy Klingon heads) and story. In various interviews, I've heard multiple Next Gen actors comment on the hate they got during the first season or so, and how disheartening it was. It was particularly rough on our favorite teenager in space, Wesley Crusher (Wil Wheaton).
You're right, it's not the right expression. It's more that old theatrical practice of "putting my own stamp on it." It's both to show ownership and because critics tend to think that if a property doesn't evolve in some way, even something like a Shakespearean play, it's "tired and old."
 

Mustrum_Ridcully

Adventurer
He had the Worf problem. They told you (but didn't show you) that he was tough. Then showed that bad guys wee tough by having them beat him. All the time.

Also see Jaime Lannister - greatest swordsman in the realm, my arse! Never saw a shred of evidence to prove that! They really needed to show that from time to time rather than just tell us, because he got beaten constantly.
At least Worf had Deep Space Nine going for him, there he got to show off his combat skills. (Less so other Klingons - the DS9 command staff and Cardassians like Dukat and Garak were clearly superior to the average Klingon in melee combat. Cardassian Officer and Federation Officer are clearly OP classes.)
 

Mort

Adventurer
Supporter
There's a lot of folks who do prefer the more traditional episodic storytelling than the longer form serialized storytelling, it is very much why some folks are not digging new-Trek. But this is a shift in TV storytelling at large, it isn't just Star Trek.

While I LOVE ST: Discovery and ST: Picard, I would also love to see a new episodic show with storytelling similar to classic Trek. Perhaps where everything isn't quite reset to base at the end of every single episode and a stronger season arc . . .
What your looking for is The Orville! It may have started as a Trek homage/parody but it has really matured. Sure there's more toilet humor than Trek ever had (It's a Seth McFarlane vehicle after all) but the episodes, particularly the later ones are really solid. I would put up Identity (1 & II, 2nd season) up against any Trek episode for quality.
 




Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
You're right, it's not the right expression. It's more that old theatrical practice of "putting my own stamp on it." It's both to show ownership and because critics tend to think that if a property doesn't evolve in some way, even something like a Shakespearean play, it's "tired and old."
Certainly, when creating a new show, or when new creatives get involved with an existing show, there is an urge to "make it your own" as you mention. But this is rarely the sole reason why changes are made, although it's certainly part of the calculus.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
What your looking for is The Orville! It may have started as a Trek homage/parody but it has really matured. Sure there's more toilet humor than Trek ever had (It's a Seth McFarlane vehicle after all) but the episodes, particularly the later ones are really solid. I would put up Identity (1 & II, 2nd season) up against any Trek episode for quality.
The Orville is . . . . okay, I'm enjoying it for the most part. It's certainly McFarlane's love letter to Star Trek, mixed with his personal brand of humor. I find McFarlane funny in small doses, but episode after episode it gets tiring. When I watch individual episodes of Orville or his earlier animated series (Family Guy, etc), I always laugh . . . but I can't watch more than 2 or 3 in a row before getting tired of the humor style.
 

Mort

Adventurer
Supporter
The Orville is . . . . okay, I'm enjoying it for the most part. It's certainly McFarlane's love letter to Star Trek, mixed with his personal brand of humor. I find McFarlane funny in small doses, but episode after episode it gets tiring. When I watch individual episodes of Orville or his earlier animated series (Family Guy, etc), I always laugh . . . but I can't watch more than 2 or 3 in a row before getting tired of the humor style.
That's totally fair.

I just find I like the Orville's attitude that humanity, while it's still the same basically, has mostly evolved into a more optimistic/benevolent society. And while the show has some seriously dark themes - it really evokes the old Star Trek theme of hope and betterment.

I like the new Star Treks (Discovery and Picard) but they're just SO dark. Nearly EVERY character is deeply flawed and wrestling with past/current demons, it's almost always a "who can you trust" situation and the answer is rarely - Starfleet. Just like you have trouble watching more than 3 or so Orville episodes, I find I have to take a long break between episodes of the 2 new series (Them not being immediately bingeable was actually pretty good for me).
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
That's totally fair.

I just find I like the Orville's attitude that humanity, while it's still the same basically, has mostly evolved into a more optimistic/benevolent society. And while the show has some seriously dark themes - it really evokes the old Star Trek theme of hope and betterment.

I like the new Star Treks (Discovery and Picard) but they're just SO dark. Nearly EVERY character is deeply flawed and wrestling with past/current demons, it's almost always a "who can you trust" situation and the answer is rarely - Starfleet. Just like you have trouble watching more than 3 or so Orville episodes, I find I have to take a long break between episodes of the 2 new series (Them not being immediately bingeable was actually pretty good for me).
The idea that Starfleet itself cannot be trusted . . . it's certainly cast into doubt in ST: Picard, but by the end of the 10-episode series, Starfleet steps up and saves the day. The villain of the piece isn't Starfleet, but a conspiracy within Starfleet (the half-Vulcan, half-Romulan sleeper agent in charge of Starfleet Security). And this sort of problem, officials within Starfleet as corrupt, is a long-standing theme that stared with Next Gen! Heck, in Next Gen, every time somebody showed up in an admiral's uniform I got immediately suspicious!

ST: Discovery is similar. Starfleet isn't the problem, but corrupt officials within. Captain Lorca and Section 31. Again, not themes uncommon to earlier Star Trek series and movies.

I think the difference is that in the older series, the corrupt official or Section 31 baddie would show up for one episode and everything goes back to "normal" by episode's end. With the occasional plot point or villain revisited later in the season. In ST: Picard and ST: Discovery, these themes are the main story arc for an entire season.
 

Fans of a property that has changed hands, to its detriment, do perhaps deserve a little more sympathy than they get in these kinds of discussions.
I don't think anyone isn't sympathetic to the core basics of that complaint. It's IMO, two things that turn the "I don't like the new direction" argument toxic: 1) The idea that it's 100% objective fact that the new direction sucks and anyone who disagrees deserves whatever they get; and 2) That the creator is so loathsome for "ruining" the property that they deserve whatever abuse is thrown at them.

Don't like Last Jedi? That's totally cool with me - it certainly wasn't perfect. Hate me because I liked it? Want (or at least say you want) Rian Johnson to die in a fire? Toxic.
 

Dire Bare

Legend
Supporter
I don't think anyone isn't sympathetic to the core basics of that complaint. It's IMO, two things that turn the "I don't like the new direction" argument toxic: 1) The idea that it's 100% objective fact that the new direction sucks and anyone who disagrees deserves whatever they get; and 2) That the creator is so loathsome for "ruining" the property that they deserve whatever abuse is thrown at them.

Don't like Last Jedi? That's totally cool with me - it certainly wasn't perfect. Hate me because I liked it? Want (or at least say you want) Rian Johnson to die in a fire? Toxic.
I don't know. Certainly, the over-reactions you describe are toxic. But, there are certain elements of fandom that don't necessarily attack other fans or creatives involved with a show, but constantly complain and spew negativity, often based on false impressions. I don't know if I'd label that behavior as toxic, but it certainly is tiresome.

If you don't care for something (ST: Picard forex) that's fine. If you share your reasoning why in fan discussions, that's fine. But when you just go on and on and on about how you dislike something at every opportunity . . . ugh, give it a rest! Go watch something you do like!
 

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top