*

Zasha

  • Flexy Lady
  • 2486
    • www.bearchive.com/~Zasha
Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« on: April 09, 2003, 10:02:40 PM »
I'm watching Enterprise right now...Apparently, it's Archer and crew's first run in with the Klingons.

I read in another thread about an accident (the whole going back in time thing with the NextGen crew meeting Kirk and the "original" Klingons) that changed how the Klingons looked.  Or at least someone alluded to that.

Soo...This show is set befor Kirk's time period, yet the Klingons are of the "NextGen"  variety.  Should't they have been the "original flavor?"

Just wondering if I'm the only one that noticed...They actually almost snuck it by me, except that thread came to mind.
 
Choosing doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

Morphermor did me!...Er...Mine!

*

Adama

  • G Cup
  • 1724
  • Addventure Master
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2003, 11:02:41 PM »
-- Actually, Archer's crew ran into the Klingons back in the first episode, and have a couple of times since.

-- I agree that it would have been really nice continuity-wise if the "Enterprise" Klingons had looked like the original series Klingons, but I guess they didn't want to go for it.  One of the many opportunities they've missed out on to show the genesis of some classic Trek elements.

-- The time-travel episode: though many speculations have been made about the differences in Klingon appearance, that was the only occasion where any explanation was even _hinted_ at onscreen.  

The episode didn't involve a change in history -- what happened was that the DS9 crew traveled back in time into the "Trouble With Tribbles" episode, using camera tricks to splice the DS9 crew into the original 1967 footage.  The human characters are amazed to see what Klingons used to look like back then, and ask Worf for an explanation.  All he says is "They _are_ Klingons.  It is not something we discuss with outsiders." (if I remember correctly).  And that's all that was said.

Maybe it was a temporary abberation that started after the 2150s (Archer's time) and ended before the 2280s (the time of the first movie, I think).  
Adama, Addventure mega-geek

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8577
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2003, 11:08:41 PM »
Perhaps socio-political differences in each caste determined appearance, or, or crap. My BS meter ran out. I've got to go get more change....
[Rent this space]

*

rtpoe

  • Old Fart
  • 12420
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2003, 11:08:47 PM »
I watched it too, while setting up my new hard drive (60 GB!!  Wooo Hooo!!! - Storage space, the final frontier...). Anyway.....

The whole shift from TOS Klingons to the weird forheads in all the other Trek's can be summarized in three words; bigger makeup budget.

However, to bring it more in line with what the Trekkies will say - and incidentally point out a little flaw in a lot of SF - call them different *races* of Klingon.

For example, humans exist in five races (Caucasian, Negroid, Mongolian, Amerind, and Melanesian (I hope I got those names right)), each with its own clearly identifiable characteristics. Why shouldn't the same apply to Klingons? Or any other alien species, for that matter?

Heck, there are "negroid" Vulcans....

So, for whatever reasons, TOS Kilngons were the race without the funky foreheads.

How's that?

rtpoe  
rtpoe

Well, it's a marvelous night for a Moondance
With the stars up above in your eyes
A fantabulous night to make romance
'Neath the cover of October skies
And all the leaves on the trees are falling
To the sound of the breezes that blow...

Van Morrison, Moondance

*

Adama

  • G Cup
  • 1724
  • Addventure Master
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #4 on: April 10, 2003, 12:11:00 AM »
Yes, that was one of a few speculative explanations -- my point was that nothing was ever *confirmed* by anything canonical (i.e., onscreen).
Adama, Addventure mega-geek

*

Zasha

  • Flexy Lady
  • 2486
    • www.bearchive.com/~Zasha
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #5 on: April 10, 2003, 12:24:54 AM »
I don't really follow the show closely (I can't stand Scott Bakula, but Trip is a cutie), so I'm not surprised about the Klingon incidences.  It just seemed like it was a first experience, except for the Vulcan character.

I remember the DS9 episode, and I remember Worf's non-explanation "We don't discuss it."

I thought that someone had mentioned something about "the change" being alluded to in a book...

I suppose that this generation of viewers has gotten used to the last few years of alien makeup schemes, and so to change up what the Klingons look like might alienate some of the younger generations of viewers.

The race issue isn't something that I had thought of - nor have I seen it played out (on screen), though there has been mention of different castes.

It was just one of those things that made me go "Hmm..." (Oops...I just gave away what I've been listening to tonight)
 
Choosing doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

Morphermor did me!...Er...Mine!

*

sheber

  • Shasta'man
  • 8577
    • http://www.bearchive.com/~shasta/
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #6 on: April 10, 2003, 12:44:26 AM »
You were'nt by chance out walking the dinosaur, were you?
[Rent this space]

*

debra872

  • G Cup
  • 767
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #7 on: April 10, 2003, 10:10:42 AM »
I asked one of those Klingon geeks about it once, and the prevailing theory is that TOS Klingons were human-Klingon hybrids, mass-bred as troops.  Since they weren't "true" Klingons (but represented themselves as such in TOS times), Klingons such as Worf would be quite embarrassed about it.

That DS9 episode was extremely cool though.  I didn't watch much DS9, but that one was very well done.

 

*

DruulEmpire

  • Freakin' Huge!
  • 12880
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #8 on: April 10, 2003, 10:27:10 AM »
Star Trek The Motion Picture (or The Motion Sickness, as I've heard it called) isn't much as an entertainment (all right, so you get to catch Persis Khambatta's breasts wobbling) but it's an excellent metaphor for a basic problem that the Trek cosmos is always trying to get around.  The Sixties Trek was an obviously cheap show.  Then, years later, after Star Wars and Close Encounters, it started coming back.  the comeback began with Star Trek the Motion Picture, about a vast alien entity called V'ger heading for Earth.  Turns out that at the core of this vast complex entity, however, is a stunningly aniclimactic machine, an old Voyager probe that superadvanced aliens decided to enhance for the hell of it.  As the Voyager probe is distinctly overshadowed by all the additions, so Star Trek The Original Series stands overshadowed by the procuction values of all that has come after it.  It's an extremely uneasy fit, just like the probe within the grand "V'ger" clous -- but fit it must.  It's an unenviable task.  Bottom line: if Klingons could have had as much makeup in the Sixties as they did later, they would have.

Personally, I miss the ST:TOS Klingons -- not just in appearance, but attitude.  They were basically Stalinists of the Stars.  Then they got reinvented into professional wrestlers.  Entertaining, sure, but something to build a whole civilization on?  After a while of getting to know Klingons and Vulcans and Ferengi, I begin to miss the good old days of Jonathan Swift, when he could set metaphorical parallel humanities on a single island.    

*

D_U_S_K

  • Faye Faye
  • 1161
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #9 on: April 10, 2003, 03:59:31 PM »
 

STAR WARS IN 'DA HOUSE MOFO'S.

Im done.  
----
The End. No More. Goodbye.

-Jessica

*

DruulEmpire

  • Freakin' Huge!
  • 12880
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #10 on: April 10, 2003, 05:46:31 PM »
Okay, duly noted, oh everjaded one -- although the objectives of the two are completely different, I mean, you might as well compare Star Trek to Tolkien while you're at it ...

*

DruulEmpire

  • Freakin' Huge!
  • 12880
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #11 on: April 10, 2003, 05:48:03 PM »
... and I would happily throw Babylon 5 into this mix while I'm at it ...

*

Adama

  • G Cup
  • 1724
  • Addventure Master
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2003, 06:23:09 PM »
I forgot, there was one other canonical (on-screen) reference, which argues *against* them being separate races:

In another DS9 episode, three Klingons from the original series -- Kor (Errand of Mercy), Kang (Day of the Dove), and Koloth (Trouble of Tribbles) -- showed up at DS9, still alive after over a hundred years.  They were played by the original actors, too.

However, they were all wearing the "modern" version of the makeup!

No explanation offered, of course.  So either they were pretending that the original makeup never existed ... or they all had plastic surgery for some reason.  

Note that this episode appeared _before_ the time-travel episode discussed above.  
Adama, Addventure mega-geek

*

BillN

  • ZZZ Cup
  • 4039
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2003, 07:04:45 PM »
In an episode of DS9 Sisco, Worf, Dax and I think Odo went back in time to "The Trouble with Tribbles" episode to stop another time traveler from killing Kirk.  All of the other characters execpt Worf were gawking at the "original" Klingons and thewn staring at Worf.  Finally, (I don't remember which one) asks Worf what the difference was and he replied "We do not speak about it!"  

Kind of lame assed answer, but thats how they left it.  

*

MunchWolf

  • What Tagline?
  • 11463
Re: Ok...Star Trek inconsistency question
« Reply #14 on: April 10, 2003, 09:41:14 PM »
Firefly !!!!!!

-Munch "Or Battlestar Galactica" Wolf