"And even ignoring what they did to Harry Mudd etc, who could forgive what they did to the Klingons?!?!?!"

Knixon,

Your comment and question above illustrates why you have such a problem with this new show. In a word IMAGINATION!

It's not a question of how close DSC's Harry Mudd and DSC's Klingon are to what YOU think they should be! The show is a refresh, re-interpretation of a world which we have out grown. Mudd is a character. Yes, they brought him back and now they are giving us a new rendering of him. He is still a joker, more or less comedic as he was in TOS now only he also has a serious side and solid motivation for the mischief he causes. Is that what strikes you most about 'MTMTSMGM'? If so you have no idea what is really going on in that episode.

About the Klingons, there is nothing to forgive! Let me ask those who think the Klingon's of DSC are an abomination a question...just because they look QUITE different from ANY other Klingons we have seen, each of whom have been different in EVERY film and series. My question is this:

"If we were to encounter REAL alien in 2018, DO YOU THINK THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE ANYTHING WE HAVE SEEN ON FILM TODAY?" Think about this question please. When you do, if you are honest you will admit that any alien we encounter today is not likely to look like anything like us!! The reasons EVERY alien we have seen on make-believe to this date is human like are obvious. First, they are easier to create IF they are humanoid . Secondly, human actors have to play them. Thirdly, they are make-believe and we don't want to imagine anything that would get too far outside our comfort zone. (e.g. we DON'T want to imagine giant aliens who could easily kick our butts...this is OUR fantasy remember) The likelihood that the first alien we do encounter will look like us is very remote however. If you have to ask why, then I don't know what to say.

Back to DSC's Klingons. I see them as an attempt to update the concept of alien, particularly 'Klingon". Its now 50 years since TOS we now know enough about our universe to understand that while its more likely that there are other beings out there, their proximity to us, is clearly so far that the chances that they will look ANYTHING like us is quite remote. Truly, the aliens in the show SHOULD look way more alien than Saru....closer to the Glub character in The Orville. Indeed I read that the robotic Discovery bridge character was initially conceived to be some glutenous being who could shape shift; breathed a special mix of 'harmful to human' gases and would need to be in a special force field environment, all the time. Clearly that idea was shelved perhaps because of production costs. Those are the realities that restrict the concept of 'aliens' in film today. The science however points in a different direction. The aliens we are likely to encounter are NOT likely to be bipedal air breathing being...AT ALL!!!

You only need to compare the aliens of TOS with those of the later series to get what I am saying. Kirk mostly dealt with alien whose primary difference form us was that they were perhaps 'green'or had different ears, foreheads and clothing. In the later series we had concepts of aliens like the Founders, the Breen, the Borg; species 8479 etc. Moving forward means re-examining our notions of everything. Yes, for the Klingon's to fit in this new ST series, they simply HAD to look different...very different.

@Thespear said:

About the Klingons, there is nothing to forgive! Let me ask those who think the Klingon's of DSC are an abomination a question...just because they look QUITE different from ANY other Klingons we have seen, each of whom have been different in EVERY film and series.

It's not just looks though. They don't act like any version of the Klingons that have been established, especially when ENT did a pretty good job carrying over the look and feel from TNG/DS9 and explained why some lost their forehead ridges. STD simply didn't want to bother with sticking to canon and wanted to do their own thing.

Imagine if they made a new Harry Potter story and all the teachers at Hogwarts wore spandex jumpsuits and all act like hippies because the writers didn't feel like sticking to the established look and wanted to do something more "imaginative". Do you honestly think Harry Potter fans would go for that?

The reasons EVERY alien we have seen on make-believe to this date is human like are obvious. First, they are easier to create IF they are humanoid . Secondly, human actors have to play them. Thirdly, they are make-believe and we don't want to imagine anything that would get too far outside our comfort zone.... Back to DSC's Klingons. I see them as an attempt to update the concept of alien, particularly 'Klingon".

Come on dude, we can barely understand what these new Klingons are saying because the makeup is so bad. All previous versions, even the crappy TOS versions, you could still understand their dialog and actors could emote. The new Klingon makeup is like trying to act with a deflated basketball glued to your face.

Look, I saw the new season 2 trailer, I will admit it looks kind of promising with a more lighthearted tone and I will most likely give the show given most fans can admit ENT's first two seasons were trash but its last two seasons were some of the best Trek we've ever gotten so I will give it another chance, but they would go a looooong way with me if they stuck to established canon and worked to improve it instead of making up dumb stuff that conflicts with the history.

Also have Michael Burnham fail or need help once in a while would be nice too.

The main thing is, bottom line, they screwed up Star Trek. They could certainly make their "refresh" or "aliens would be WAY different!" etc, and I might even like it, but DON'T SAY IT'S STAR TREK. Problem solved. You say the problem is MY imagination. But I say that Star Trek has already been imagined. It's lack of imagination on THEIR (your?) part to try and change "everything" but still say it's Star Trek. (For the tv/movie producers of course, the reason is obvious: name recognition. But it also shows they don't want to rely on the quality of their own invention. Which might imply that even THEY believe it doesn't really have any!) If you want to imagine something else, by all means do so. But don't say it's Star Trek. That (star)ship has sailed.

In smaller technical areas, I also don't believe there would be poison-gas-breathing aliens etc in special suits let alone force-fields, on a mostly-humanoid-air-breathing ship. Not even a question of production cost of a show or movie, the "real life" obstacles would be too great for such a character to be properly effective. If such creatures became Federation members at all, I expect they would have separate ships. Same thing with Lt. Dolphin from some of the novels.

"It's not just looks though. They don't act like any version of the Klingons that have been established, especially when ENT did a pretty good job carrying over the look and feel from TNG/DS9 and explained why some lost their forehead ridges. STD simply didn't want to bother with sticking to canon and wanted to do their own thing."

cswood,

Why don't you wait and see if DSC explains the different appearance of **these **Klingons then? Instead you are headstrong against them MAINLY based on their looks. They don't "feel" right. Just like you insist on using the most pejorative abbreviation possible for the show. Do you see how you could possibly be denying yourself any true objectivity when it come to judging this show? Btw, these Klingons may look very different from the others we have seen, however the act very much Klingon. Also, this time we are given some insight into why.

A word about canon. In your example about Harry Potter, it would depend. Does the world of Harry Potter allow for such a change? Or is it written in the historical background of Hogwarts that there can NEVER be any change to their location and appearance? I think you chose a poor example to make your point because from my knowledge of the film this is school for practitioners of magic, right? If that is so, a situation **COULD **be written into the show that results in your disastrous conclusion....very easily. Now, would the fans go for it? that depends too on the writing. Whether they do or not, the main point is that **IT WOULD NOT **be against canon, because such a thing would be part of the_ already generally accepted background _in which the characters operate. That is what canon refers to.

Your final knock against the new Klingons is that 'we don't understand them', the 'actors can not emote'. I think Kol and the other main Klingon characters did a good job of emoting in season one. How many of your current earth dwellers do you not understand? ... even when speak the same language you do? Why should you understand aliens any better? Don't you see that your standards of 'alien-ness' is based less on what is likely but more on what would make YOU comfortable. Did you notice the subtitles or are you watching a bootlegged version of the show and the subtitles are in another language?

You don't HAVE to like the new Klingons, but your dislike would be better understood is your arguments against them were more reasonable. Y

Knixon,

I think you have a very restrictive the concept of "canon". ST HAS to be re-imagined or else it would be historical fiction stuck in the past with outdated notions and would be ridiculous.

This is fiction based on some science. Here is the problem. Science has advanced since the 1960's when ST was born. Aliens HAVE to be re-imagined. Based on our new knowledge of science, I submit that a ship or human and non human species such as depicted in DSC is MORE likely to have none oxygen breathing aliens than not. How many planets do you know of when there is oxygen Knixon? Where do you hope to find all these oxygen breathing humanoid aliens? We can not continue to stick our collective heads in the sand and blindly assume that almost every other intelligent life in this universe has to breath air like we do. Perhaps, that was not clear in the 60's . That is why is was never an issue in TOS. Now it is!

It was never an issue in TOS, because of cost and other production issues. Remember, the Talosians were originally written as crab-like creatures. That changed because of cost, not because of lack of imagination.

I'm not really saying that there wouldn't be "strange" non-oxygen-breathing aliens (although scientifically that could be more likely than some people currently think), it was more about having a large mixture of different-atmosphere - and different gravity, etc - beings aboard a single ship. Logistically it would make more sense to have ships crewed by at least mostly compatible beings.

In terms of a TV show though, expressions like "the future will not only be more different than we imagine, it will be more different than we CAN imagine" come into play. And a TV show or movie or book or anything else, about totally incomprehensible beings, would be watched/read by exactly NOBODY. Such things aren't unknown in the larger sci-fi world, though. For just one example I would point you to "Memoirs Of A Spacewoman" by Naomi Mitchison, from 1962. Or "Voyage Of The Space Beagle" by A.E. Van Vogt, from 1950 and composed largely of shorter material dating back as early as 1939. (Based on part of the book/one of the earlier stories, Van Vogt received an undisclosed out-of-court settlement from the producers/etc of Alien, for plagiarism. Alien seems far more likely to have "evolved from" Van Vogt's work, than from Dark Star. No matter what Alien people might have said perhaps in part to minimize legal troubles. For that matter, Dark Star could have been partly copied from Space Beagle too.)

**"the future will not only be more different than we imagine, it will be more different than we CAN imagine"

**Exactly!

**"...a TV show or movie or book or anything else, about totally incomprehensible beings, would be watched/read by exactly NOBODY. "

**Agree again! (although I think you mean fiction based on completely, scientifically, realistic aliens will be almost unwatchable)

So we have to find a happy medium. Something people can watch that gives a nod to what we KNOW is true. My only point is that this knowledge changes. It's much different now from what it was in 1960. Therefore our vision of aliens has to change too. The green skinned ladies with horns that Kirk use to charm into submission have to give way to the globs of The Orville and or the more ethereal species that we saw in the newer Trek series. Our assessment of our role in this universe too must change as surely as our understanding of our role on our planet; the degree to which we nurture our planet; we treat other creatures with dignity; treat ourselves with dignity.... Isn't that the VERY ESSENCE of Star Trek?

Staying in the 1960's mode of humanity, as forward looking and as liberating as it was then, can ONLY be seen as backward now. We simply HAVE to BOLDLY GO!

@Thespear said:

Why don't you wait and see if DSC explains the different appearance of **these **Klingons then? Instead you are headstrong against them MAINLY based on their looks. They don't "feel" right. Just like you insist on using the most pejorative abbreviation possible for the show.

They had their chance in the first episode. One or two lines, or establishing these were offshoots of the traditional Klingons would have been enough. How are they going to explain that they were TNG/DS9 Klingons in ENT, lost their ridges and turned into TOS Klingons, transformed into the STD Klingons, then back to the TOS Klingons in less than 10 years?

The same way they will explain how the Enterprise went from the classic TOS version in The Cage to the STD version and back to the TOS version; they won't. They don't care about continuity. The only way to fix it is through time travel alternate reality nonsense which means nothing in STD would matter anyway.

A word about canon. In your example about Harry Potter, it would depend. Does the world of Harry Potter allow for such a change? Or is it written in the historical background of Hogwarts that there can NEVER be any change to their location and appearance? I think you chose a poor example to make your point because from my knowledge of the film this is school for practitioners of magic, right? If that is so, a situation **COULD **be written into the show that results in your disastrous conclusion....very easily.

My point wasn't that it couldn't happen, it's that the fanbase wouldn't accept it if it did. Another example would be if in the new Game of Thrones prequel the Targaryens all had green hair instead of the established silver/blonde hair and the Starks are all redheads, just because the writers felt like changing those crucial physical traits for no reason.

Your final knock against the new Klingons is that 'we don't understand them', the 'actors can not emote'. I think Kol and the other main Klingon characters did a good job of emoting in season one. How many of your current earth dwellers do you not understand? ... even when speak the same language you do?

I'm curious, have you actually watched TNG/DS9/ENT? The Klingons speak and act in a very particular way that does not line up with the STD Klingons in any way. And as I mentioned the makeup in STD makes the actors sound like they have cotton balls in their mouth.

Imagine one of the STD Klingons trying to deliver this monologue with that awful makeup obstructing their mouth and lower half of their face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFpwGW697-A

cswood,

I get it now. You want DSC to be like TNG, DS9 and ENT...even TOS. Those are the parameters you give them...nothing more. That is what will make it "recognizable" to you and make YOU comfortable. Just as you cheerfully declare what fans of Harry Porter WILL and WILL not revolt about. All according to YOU! I guess in your view, the 'fans' of Star Trek are "revolting" now. Well if you have now dropped the "it ain't canon, it ain't canon" objection I suggest you just find another show that is as stunted as you want. The Orville isn't Star Trek but it might be sufficient "plagiarism" for you. This way NO ONE has to revolt!

Same observation I have as of Knixon. If only you guys could A) Open your MINDS to the possibilities and B) Understand that "Life is Motion""Time does NOT stand still". Nothing stands still. Staying in the same place....even for the most noble, honest, intellectual reasons is ultimately defeating and against NATURE itself and wrong!

Will ST created in 2018 look or feel like ST created in the 1960s? No, and nor should it. Bottom line. Just as 'Lost in Space' can't look or feel the same. Just as the James Bond movies can't; just as music, tv, sports,cars, cities, towns, languages, can stay the same as they were 50 years ago. Now, does this mean that we can not seek a historical review every now and then? Certainly not, we can definitely go back and see what WAS... but we do that in a MUSEUM, not in ANY venue that purports to showcase CREATIVITY.

Here's a thought. Sign up with CBS all access or Hulu and you can re-watch every single episode of TOS, ENT DS9 etc and , guess what, the Klingon's will 'look' and 'feel' EXACTLY as you remember them. No need to revolt. Please don't try to watch ANYTHING that is a remake, you'll be disappointed.

@Thespear said:

cswood,

I get it now. You want DSC to be like TNG, DS9 and ENT...even TOS. Those are the parameters you give them...nothing more. That is what will make it "recognizable" to you and make YOU comfortable.

You're not getting it, and on purpose. You like STD and you're going to defend it no matter what because you either didn't watch the other shows, don't like them, or don't care. I'm an actual fan of Star Trek, and compared to all the other shows, I am saying not only does it not fit with the universe but it sucks. The writing sucks so hard it's indefensible. If you pretend the writing is good you're delusional.

And granted, not all the other shows were great or were without their problems (Voyager, Season 1/2 of Enterprise) and many of those other shows changed drastically from TOS (DS9 most notably), but there was always some sense of trying to maintain consistency, to try and make it all feel like it all fits in the same universe. This is why Marvel Studios is doing so well right now. Guardians of the Galaxy is nothing like Iron Man, but it still feels like they both exist within the greater universe.

Star Trek Discovery does not do this and on purpose. They have (needlessly) changed fundamental aspects of the universe that do not fit with the established story because staying faithful to the past story is hard and making up whatever you want and throwing out prexisting story is easy. Coming up with something new while also maintaining consistency would have made it a better overall show.

But as I said, you either never watch the old shows or you simply don't care, this is all new to you so you don't have a problem with it because you have nothing to compare it to. You're like the kid who thinks Man of Steel is great because he never saw Superman (1978) and won't bother because Man of Steel is newer and has better effects.

So yeah I'm done here. There's a reason why the Rotten Tomato audience score is at 56% because the show is not doing that great with new fan and is doing horribly with old fans. It's trash. It could get better but they've already done so much damage to the continuity only a temporal wipe can save it.

LOL. I am beginning to feel this conversation is between Sheldon, Leonard, Wolfowitz and Raj of Big Bang Theory. And I had to laugh again when someone brought up the negative connotation of STD. The original series did a lot with a beer budget and Discovery is, um, "light years" ahead on production value, SFX. The irony in regards to the essence of Star Trek humankind's future was to show a utopian world where everyone "just got along" -- but you can't have drama without conflict. As a former marketing head, my advice for CBS is to air the first season on basic cable to broaden the audience, teasing the new audience with that cliffhanger forcing them to beam into CBS All Access.

Sometimes it seems like the main problem is that some people just can't admit it when some TV studio or whatever tries to present something very different - and, many would argue, out of place - and only slap a recognized name on it to try and capitalize on name recognition, maybe because THEY (producers, network, etc) already know that it's not very good. No matter how many "light years" ahead the "production values" might be.

No matter how "pretty" STD might be, TOS is still a better show. Especially as Star Trek. (If they hadn't tried to connect STD - which was THEIR CHOICE, nobody forced them! - it might be judged better in comparison.) And for some reason that really irks some people. Probably including those who think "Man Of Steel" is better than "Superman." The poor sots.

CSWood :I fully admit I'm biased, as a fan of Star Trek. I've seen all the other movies and TV shows. You know how everyone agrees Star Trek 5 is the worst? That's because it's badly written.

Well that is not entirely true apart from some bad parts and the not up to standards FX I think at the core ST V is really not that bad as many claim it to be it's got an unusual topic of the search for God and what is God to addressing ,religious extremism,religious cults(like Manson and Jim Jones),false prophets/idols,religious terorism.Plus the scene between Sybok,Spock,Kirk and McCoy when he tries to "brainwash"them has some of the best writing (and acting in particular McCoy) of our main three in the entire franchise. Plus it being done on the cheap actually made it closer to the original series than any of the other TOS movies.I think the really bad movie is Insurrection for reasons I mentioned on the TOS Boards.

Beam me up, Scottie. "Sorry captain. I'm giving her all she's got. "

@Nexus71 said:

CSWood :I fully admit I'm biased, as a fan of Star Trek. I've seen all the other movies and TV shows. You know how everyone agrees Star Trek 5 is the worst? That's because it's badly written.

Well that is not entirely true apart from some bad parts and the not up to standards FX I think at the core ST V is really not that bad as many claim it to be it's got an unusual topic of the search for God and what is God to addressing ,religious extremism,religious cults(like Manson and Jim Jones),false prophets/idols,religious terorism.Plus the scene between Sybok,Spock,Kirk and McCoy when he tries to "brainwash"them has some of the best writing (and acting in particular McCoy) of our main three in the entire franchise. Plus it being done on the cheap actually made it closer to the original series than any of the other TOS movies.I think the really bad movie is Insurrection for reasons I mentioned on the TOS Boards.

You left out how they invented a brother Spock never mentioned before, and how STD mentioned Spock had a sister that's never been mentioned before AS WELL AS not mentioning her the brother both she and Spock have. Star Trek 5 had an interesting concept but it was badly thought out as well as being badly directed.