Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Fri Apr 20, 2018 3:11 am

Darth Spock wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 8:48 pm
"The Enterprise Indecent"


Now *that* sounds like a fun fan-film.

In TNG "Genesis" an "intron virus" turned Worf into a prehistoric, hairless clawed beast in a few days. It's conceivable some Klingon's may have worked to counteract the Klingon augment virus and further separate themselves themselves from the repulsive smooth heads by returning to more "pure" primordial Klingon roots.


That'd work nicely if it weren't for the fact that they view (and have shown) all Klingons to be this way. Indeed, having a sect of anti-human Klingons do that to distance themselves from their weak, human-ified cousins would've been potentially interesting, and could've been used eventually as a path to re-Klingon-ifying the Klingons, enhancing and deepening existing continuity.

Instead, we got Discovery.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Khas » Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:30 am

Actually, from what I've read on Memory Alpha, the producers said that the reasons the Klingons look so different here is because the ones we see are the descendants of Klingons who left Qo'noS centuries ago, and have adapted to conditions on some of the harsher worlds of the Empire.

Still.... the theory Darth Spock proposed is nearly identical to one I had.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5769
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:16 pm

Costumes aside, add hair and there's actually not that much difference between the late movie and TNG Klingons and the Discovery ones:

Image

The outfits are nice because it at least makes the Klingons more interesting and less of a ridiculous monoculture. Plus it was clearly established that T'Kumva's house is a rogue outlier in terms of how they dress and what they believe.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Sat Apr 21, 2018 9:16 pm

Khas wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 3:30 am
Actually, from what I've read on Memory Alpha, the producers said that the reasons the Klingons look so different here is because the ones we see are the descendants of Klingons who left Qo'noS centuries ago, and have adapted to conditions on some of the harsher worlds of the Empire.

Still.... the theory Darth Spock proposed is nearly identical to one I had.
That was a popular fan theory but was never confirmed by producers or stated on screen. Production personnel created a default Klingon for CGI uses with the claws, elongated jagged-ridged skull, et cetera.

As for Memory Alpha, the Klingon article says "At the same time, all Klingons shown on Star Trek: Discovery, set within the same aforementioned timeframe, were bald with ridges. The producers, designers and artists have claimed that they have biologically evolved hairless in order to expose sensory pits (like in a "Python"), which allows them to sense prey."

That corresponds with my previous reading and contradicts the idea these are Q'onosians of recent vintage.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1207
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by Khas » Sat Apr 21, 2018 10:54 pm

The thing I read was actually both Memory Alpha and some other interview, where a producer said about the Klingons that "they don't all live on Qo'noS, so some would have adaptations to the different worlds they live on", IIRC.

So... I was just extrapolating from that comment, and coming up with a hypothesis to make sense of it. That the ancestors of T'Kumva and pals left Qo'noS a hella long time ago, and evolved into a new subspecies of Klingon on whatever planet they landed on.

Given that Klingons were established in TNG to have.... redundant synaptic systems, it's possible that these new Klingons' sensory organs were originally caused by mutations in said back-up synaptic systems.

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Star Trek: "Discovery" inconsistencies with canon

Post by 2046 » Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:51 am

Mike DiCenso wrote:
Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:16 pm
Costumes aside, add hair and there's actually not that much difference between the late movie and TNG Klingons and the Discovery ones:
The hair helps hide things, yes. My usual list of "quadri-nostrilled be-clawed hairless jagged-ridged elongated-skull botox-lipped double-dicked faux-Klingon" gets shortened by up to two entries (hair, obviously, and the elongated skull if we're feeling generous).

Certainly I agree that the costume differences aren't all that relevant. Fashion changes, even among Klingons . . . they could have had a fad of tutus and feather boas in 2258 and it wouldn't represent a continuity challenge*. Having them as preposterously ornate fashionistas for awhile isn't necessarily a bad thing.

(* "You haven't seen _To_Wong_Fu,_Thanks_For_Everything!_Julie_Newmar_ until you've seen it in the original Klingon.")

Post Reply