Since the first leaked images of Star Trek: Discovery‘s new Klingon design hit the web back in February, fans have been asking one thing:

Like it or not, they sure are – and today Discovery executive producer Aaron Harberts weighed in on the controversial new look in comments made to Entertainment Weekly.

“In the different versions of Trek, the Klingons have never been completely consistent,” Harberts said. “We will introduce several different houses with different styles. Hopefully, fans will become more invested in the characters than worried about the redesign.”

Hopefully there might be some more detailed reasoning for the dramatic new look of the species once the show hits public release in September, but for now, that seems to be all the detail we’re going to get on the decisions behind the warrior species’ new look.

We’ve also got a larger look at that new Klingon photo from this past weekend:

L’Rell (Mary Chieffo) and T’Kuvma (Chris Obi): Klingons. (CBS)

We’re sure that Harberts’ statement here may not go over well with some of our readers – and yes, we’re a little underwhelmed by his comments as well – but before in the words of the great Mystery Science Theater 3000“Just repeat to yourself it’s just a show… I should really just relax.”

Remember, commenters below: we reserve the right to remove comments of an abusive nature. Let’s keep our discussion more about Trek than each other.

  • M33


    What?

    • MattR

      From Memory Alpha:
      “Makeup Supervisor Michael Westmore made attempts at making Lursa and B’Etor’s cranial ridges similar, indicating they were from the same house. “Especially in later episodes of The Next Generation, when Worf’s brother Kurn and their rival Duras were stirring up the Empire and Gowron took the throne, I was able to work out family facial styles,” Westmore recalled. “The Duras family and the terrible sisters Lursa and B’Etor had the same general features as Duras. What worked for Duras worked for Toral, Duras’s son.” (Star Trek: Aliens & Artifacts, pp. 66-67)”

      • Snap

        While that doesn’t rationalize the look of the Discovery Klingons (which we have seen) it is actually a logical approach to the makeup process. That is, after all, the very basis of family resemblance as traits are passed down and children will bear physical resemblance to their parents as well as close relatives.

        There is a big, BIG difference between sharp cheekbones, a squared jaw and a high brow and elongated skulls with multiple nostrils. I know Klingons are infamous for redundancies, but that is ridiculous.

        • it’s a parallel universe.

          • Snap

            If the producers would admit that, that’s fine. But they’re maintaining that it is in the classic Trek universe.

          • statements made by producers do not constitute canon. it may be their personal opinion that this is the Prime Universe, but it’s not canon.

          • Zarm

            Heck, that’s exactly what I would have said about Enterprise (still would, actually). But generally, those pesky producer-opinions tend to be the ones folks listen to. 🙂

          • of course it’s up to anyone whom they listen to. but usually, in these conversations among fans, what matters is the canon. and it’s simply a fact that DISCOVERY can never canonically be proven to be set in the Prime Universe. at least i can’t think of any possible way to prove it.

          • Snap

            I didn’t say I considered their statements to be “canon” but at this time all we have to go on are what the producers say and what little actual footage is released. There are also segments of fans who would rather not have yet another timeline to deal with, so I am just going to go with what we know.

          • well, we do know a few canonical things, and one of them are the Klingons. of course we don’t yet know if those are supposed to be “normal” Klingons, but if they are… then it will be canonical that this pretty much has to be a parallel universe. because we know from canon that Klingon “redesigns” actually matter canonically, so they can’t simply “redesign” the Klingons again and say this time it’s just a visual update that doesn’t matter canonically. so, if these are supposed to be “normal” Klingons, then it can’t be the Prime Universe.

          • Snap

            I do agree with that. I certainly haven’t kept my feelings about the Discovery Klingons a secret. I definitely share the opinion that if they are supposed to be the default Klingon appearance that it places Discovery in an alternate universe.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Well it is canon if what they’re showing are Prime Klingons.

          • no-one is disputing that it’s canon. that isn’t even the question here. of course DISCOVERY is canon.

            the question is: which universe in the STAR TREK multiverse is the series set in?

            and if these Klingons in the trailer are “regular” Klingons, then it’s obviously not the Prime Universe from TOS, TNG and so on.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            That makes no sense. If it has the regular Klingons then it would be the Prime Universe since TOS, TNG etc had the original Klingons.

          • you’re misunderstanding or misinterpreting what i’m saying.

            i’m saying if these “re-designed” Klingons on DISCOVERY are supposed to be “normal Klingons”, and they don’t give an in-universe explanation for the new “design change”, then the only logical explanation is that it’s set in a parallel universe.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah as per below I understand you now.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            We wish.

          • no, it really is. if these are “regular” Klingons, then that proves that it’s a parallel universe.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What do you mean?

          • well, these Klingons clearly look very different than the Klingons we know from TNG and so on. and there has been a Klingon “design change” before, from the TOS Klingons to the Klingons we first saw in THE MOTION PICTURE. but that “design change” was later explained on ENTERPRISE. so it’s now canon that Klingons actually visually look like the Klingons we know from TMP forward. and that means, if these new Klingons on DISCOVERY are simply supposed to be the regular Klingons we know, then the only explanation is that it’s set in a parallel universe. because they have established in canon that Klingons look like they do on TNG and so on. so they can’t simply change their appearance without explaining it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Ok I understand what you mean. I have a feeling the people behind the show don’t care though and they’re supposed to be seen as Prime Klingons.

          • i agree. but that’s the nice thing about being a fan: you can also interpret things your own way, especially when the canon allows it 🙂

    • M33
  • atexp80

    I just don’t get the whole “it’s just a T.V. show” argument. I’m not getting worked up like some, having said that what’s the point of establishing continuity and canon to then say “eh, that’s not really important”?

    Starfleet could be called “Spacefleet” because you know, “it’s just a T.V. show.” Klingons could be the Federation’s allies because “it’s just a T.V. show.”

    • mr joyce

      i think that line is directed more towards the extreme among us who go a bit too far with their ‘passion’, of which there are quite a few unfortunately

      • atexp80

        Agreed. My concern is when it’s coupled with lines from the showrunner like “the Klingons have never been completely consistent”. No, they haven’t but DS9 and Enterprise went to great lengths to explain this. It’s not unreasonable to think that should be respected. But then this is said: “Hopefully, fans will become more invested in the characters than worried about the redesign.” So Klingons haven’t been consistent, we’ve been given a reason why, but that doesn’t make a difference any way because we’re not supposed to care about that so long as the characters are good? Just seems like a weird approach to take… It would be easier to say you’re re-writing canon or come up with an ENT-style explanation for the difference.

        • mr joyce

          i get you, and its good to see that you put forward a measured opinion. however, i don’t think its meant for sensible folk like you and i, i think its more of a throw away comment, meant as a reminder to the fandom, but yeh, not put forward entirely perfectly, but a good reminder none the less.

        • Ace Stephens

          I don’t necessarily know what direction they’re going with the “houses” concern. For all we know, there are still “traditional” (TOS-style…updated a bit, of course) Klingons and TNG-types and this is just a particular variant. There are all sorts of features humans and other species have wherein they may vary in color or typical shape or various things. Perhaps this particular house is some sort of inbred/purist/ancient/whatever version.

          I’m not saying this is what they’ll do and it seems more kind of shrugged off as a, “So they look different. What’s the big deal?”-sort of thing…but I naively cling to hope.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They’re essentially saying there are different types of Klingon species as a way to get around having different looking Klingons.

          • Ace Stephens

            While that’s a possibility and perhaps a fitting illustration, do we know (or have a direct indication of) something like that for a fact within the fiction? There are some animals that are roughly the same species but have immensely differing skin/fur colors and sometimes fairly differing features. Dogs are the most obvious example I can think of where some can be two or more times the size of others, some have long snouts and others short ones, big and flat ears and others short and pointed, etc. And they can produce offspring across those variations. So I can see the argument that these are technically still the same species. There is certainly more variance within the Klingon species – if they are a single one – than most human species retain when compared to other relative groupings within their species.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think it’s all absolute rubbish they came up with to be honest but then they’ll be someone to come out with the reasoning that humans have different races which makes no sense since humans by design all look the same.

          • Ace Stephens

            I just don’t know what the exact rationale for the differences would be in the case of Klingons. Although I suppose we don’t go into it much regarding human “races” (very often in research and/or discussion) because – while such research certainly exists – it’s often viewed as distasteful or somehow construed as unscientific if it’s not presented perfectly. Although it’s not like Star Trek hasn’t presented similar matters in the past, with the Romulans and the Vulcans and…I guess I don’t know what that ridge is about (aside from makeup changes). And Andorians with the Aenar and things like that. Then you have the further relative complication in which it seems that, particularly with help, humans can mate with some of these other species.

            But I believe you’re right with your implication. I doubt they came at this from a “What if Klingons lived in this region or under these conditions…” sort of stance and then realized it might change the way they look. Instead, perhaps they described them as having more ridges than we’ve seen before and then designers went all-out and now we’ll have to see if they or somebody else ultimately comes up with something to address this (which will probably feel cheap or contrived once they do, depending…). Or just how half-hearted the rationale is in the immediate episode/storyline.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            They really wanted to put their own imprint on Star Trek but after deciding to do this they needed to come up with some excuse. No doubt we’ll get the excuse but whether it doesn’t sound contrived is another matter.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          It was consistent, they’re just being pedantic.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Some people here are incredibly obsessed with not allowing others to have an opinion it seems.

    • It’s for those who HAVE gotten “worked up” as you put it – just a friendly reminder to all that despite canon this or continuity that (in some cases, making arguments we agree with)… in the end it’s still not worth driving yourself crazy over 🙂

      • Snap

        I think the canon/continuity debate would be much more civil if some of the people involved didn’t demean others for expressing opposing points of view or taking cheap shots to get mild insults in under the radar. It’s not exclusively about the words, but also the tone attached to those words.

        • M33

          Its more than one, on both sides, but I agree.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          You are correct, and I know I have been negative at times in the way you describe, and I am sorry when I degrade into that type of behavior.

          Nevertheless, there are a couple of posters on this site (we all know who they are), who all they ever do, it add little one or two sentence smart-ass negative quips (I am talking like dozens of such posts per day in some instances) on posts that those of use who take time to present are information, with logic, detail and supporting information. It’s a never ending series of constant jibes like they are junior Trumps on Twitter, with no real substance behind what they are saying.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You can’t tell us who you’re talking about can you? All my points have been valid but certain users here have been picking on me.

      • Dan King

        Yes, it is. It’s very irritating to see drastic changes like this to decades of established canon.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          “Dan King • 11 days ago
          I can’t figure out how anybody could dislike what they have been presented so far.”

          • DC Forever

            LOL

            Yea, now Dan’s turned into the Jay Leno of fake sounding canon shock

      • Pedro Ferreira

        It really isn’t because after a while your frustration becomes less and less and then you don’t care one bit about the new series. That’s what’s happening to me. Life is way too short to get upset about some mediocre looking Star Trek series.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      They don’t really care. It’s about letting their egos think they need to make their own imprint on design where it’s unnecessary.

  • Alex Bales

    I imagine the super loyal STD supporters would fall for something like this. Just because it’s “official Star Trek” doesn’t mean we’re supposed to just accept what’s handed to us. I really really wanted to be on board with this, but nothing has excited me in the least and I’m not going to buy in to something that doesn’t spark my interest.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/21eee3a2690f11de9755ee9c149f0f9c352b0c812731e2543138a4e22e710931.jpg

    • Simon

      How about some of us aren’t shallow and are more interested in the content, and don’t dismiss things purely because it doesn’t *look* the way YOU want it to?

      • Snap

        You are free to like or dislike whatever you wish, but throwing in “shallow” to demean those who don’t like the look is pretty much the same as what you are taking offense to. It doesn’t help your argument.

        • Simon

          Shallow describes it perfectly. You don’t care about content. You care about how it looks.

          • Snap

            I do not believe you understand the concept that everybody is entitled to have their own opinions on the matter without being demeaned or belittled by others because they do not share their own personal view.

            It is also arrogant presumption to claim what I (or others) care about based on aesthetic preference. For your information, all we have to go on is a brief trailer and whatever pictures trickle down thus none of us know anything about the “content” other than the visual.

          • Simon

            Stop white knighting childish behavior.

      • Alex Bales

        I’m more interested in quality and consistency. Ever heard of story continuity? Doesn’t look like the show has that at all. People like you just want whatever you can get and that’s incredibly sad.

        • Simon

          What’s incredibly sad is “fans” getting worked up over nothing because they haven’t seen an episode of the series yet, just some brief teaser footage – and then complaining about “story continuity” or makeup for a fictional race that changed with every incarnation of the series & films.
          “Doesn’t look like it”. I’m waiting to actually watch the show before I start complaining about anything so I actually have some solid evidence.

    • iMike

      It’s DSC not STD.

      • M33

        LOL
        I think the incorrectly used acronym was intentional.

        • iMike

          I figured as much when I replied to it lol.

      • Dan King

        It’s called “Star Trek: Discovery” STD is correct.

        • GEEWUN-96

          Absolutely none of the abbreviations have “Star Trek” as a part of them. There is not precedent to call Star Trek Discovery “STD.”

          TOS- The Original Series
          TNG- The Next Generation
          VGR (Not VOY, the Okudas themselves address this in the Star Trek Encyclopedia which was recently updated)- Voyager
          ENT- Enterprise

          Officially, straight from the Okudas and the production team, Discovery is abridged to DSC.

      • Alex Bales

        I will ALWAYS call it STD, lol.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Why is it called DSC?

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Your post has not had the intended response for me — I just really one one of these Star Trek Helmets now, but I have searched Ebay and Amazon, and can’t find it. Any suggestions on where I might locate one of these? I am completely serious!

  • mr joyce

    a good enough explanation for me, although i do still feel they look a little weird. i guess i may get used to them if the show goes on long enough

  • archer923

    Yeah sure. Just ignore what Enterprise did to try to fix the errors. By causing another oddity to deal with. Another 20 years probably to explain how these Klingons avoided Enterprise’s fix.

    • Thomas Elkins

      Klingon colonies were infected with the augment virus, but it didn’t infect the entire Empire. Klingons with ridges still exist in TOS, we just didn’t see them for obvious reasons. If DSC wants to do right by some fans, they will eventually reintroduce the other TOS/TNG Houses side by side their new design.

      • archer923

        Where does it state this. In what episode.

        • M33

          The end of the ENT two parter about the augmented Klingons.
          Thomas Elkins is correct.

          • archer923

            They said this will be past down for generations.

          • Thomas Elkins

            They also feared they would be considered outcasts by other Klingons because they were disfigured.

          • only a few million Klingons were infected. and obviously that is just a fraction of the billions of Klingons that existed.

        • Lee O.

          Star Trek: Enterprise – Season 4. Episodes “Affliction” and “Divergence”. It’s a two-parter. When it aired, it was actually quite fun.

          What is also funny, is how the same fans that would have bashed Enterprise in its day (at least some of whom probably did) are now using it to bash another show that hasn’t even aired, yet.

      • TIG1701

        Hopefully they will show the other Klingons. And if they do then that will put all of this to bed.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      One thing I’ve learned through Discovery is that it’s best just to invent your own canon. Then you can never be wrong!

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    Remember, in TMP, Gene Rodenberry and Robert Fletcher completely revamped the Klingons to make them more alien, which was always Gene Rodenberry’s intention. Rodenberry said, “They always looked like that, the budget just didn’t allow it. — don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.”

    And then The Great Bird himself decided to change the Klingons in a major way again for TNG. Under Rodenberry’s direction, Michael Westmore wanted to differ the TNG Klingons not only from those shown in the previous films but also from the Klingons of the original television series: “I felt that for such a fierce warrior race, copying old designs just wasn’t enough for The Next Generation–I wanted to lend a little more ferocity to their overall appearance; and Gene Roddenberry also wanted to redesign the look of the Klingons — that’s the real reason for the change in appearance.”

    So Gene Rodenberry himself viewed that continually changing the Klingons to make them more Alien was acceptable, and was essentially outside of canon. I will term this the “Rodenberry Klingon Directive” — Klingons can be updated and changed in future versions of Star Trek.

    Berman and Company completely mucked up Rodenberry’s intentions by appeasing to the silly fan unrest of needing an in-universe explanation of why the Klingon appearance changed. And to we got than fan-pandering episode in the final season of Enterprise, “Afllication,” which went again Gene’s directive. I think Snap here on Trek movie put this best in terms of the fan pandering bad episodes of Season 4 of Enterprise when he said:

    “I would never want “fans” to be the ones in charge of actually putting the show together. When that happens you get something similar to season four of Enterprise which, while the episodes were often enjoyable, included more than their fair share of eye-rolling moments”

    So based on the Rodenberry Klingon Directive, every era of Trek producers/creators, has the option to retool the Klingons for production reasons to update the look. So the look of the Klingons, lies outside of canon. It Trek canon were a deck of cards, the Joker card would be the Klingons — the Klingons as a dynamic construct outside of canon. Again:

    “They always looked like that, the budget just didn’t allow it. — don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.” – Gene Rodenberry

    • archer923

      Yeah. It’s so great to insult the season of Enterprise that people did like. Just because they tried to explain an issue. Weather you like it or not. This is now an error that will be bitched about. Just as much as Enterprise firing Phasers at warp.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        This assumed thing that people liked Season 4 of Enterprise so much is kind of an urban legend. Truth is, if you look at the ratings data, more and more people stopped watching the show as Season 4 progressed. That’s not consistent with this group-think opinion that the show supposedly got much better in Season 4. The ratings are what they are.

        In any case, I am not forcing you to accept my opinion. It’s really up to each fan individually whether they want to side with Gene Roddenberry’s policy on this, or whether they want to go with the episode in Enterprise. I am with Rodenbery on this.

        • Ace Stephens

          Truth is, if you look at the ratings data, more and more people stopped watching the show as Season 4 progressed.

          This is a bewildering thing to say here as an argument against Season 4’s appraisal by many fans. It’s highly likely that (quite a few) more people have watched the show since it ended than ever watched it when it aired and, when it aired, there are a large variety of factors which could influence ratings or viewing habits (including what it’s scheduled against, what night it’s on, whether it’s advertised much, etc.).

          I understand if you want to say, “Yeah, some like it but not as much as some say” but this evidence roughly means nothing in those regards.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I certainly agree that this is not conclusive. But you have to admit, it is counter-intuitive. If a series is getting better and supposedly hitting it’s stride, one doesn’t expect to see a continual ratings drop. At the very least, you would expect to see some ratings stabilization. But no, if you look at the data, it’s a surprisingly consistent downward graph line — less and less people were tuning in as Season 4 progressed.

            But, this is objective data that can be measured, so I tend to trust it more than just hearing a number of fans over the year subjectively tell me that Enterprise was much improved in Season 4. That’s a “trust me” sort of proposition that doesn’t match the obvious downward trend in viewership, especially when you consider that by Season 4, due to the ratings getting worse every year, the most likely viewers who were still watching the show were Trek fans (i.e. the general public has already checked out).

            Don’t shoot the messenger!

          • Ace Stephens

            If a series is getting better and supposedly starting to hit its stride, one doesn’t expect to see a continual ratings drop?

            There are the notorious “death slots” near the weekend that tend to be graveyards for shows on the verge of cancellation (they often give them one last push over the cliff since that’s when most people tend to go out rather than watching television). Additionally, sometimes shows lose a decent amount of viewers prior to hitting their stride or waiting for them to do so leads to, even once they start having momentum, those viewers drifting away. It happens. Heck, some shows that are great barely get any ratings and then are huge cult classics years later.

            Remember, this is objective data that can be measured, so I tend to trust it more…

            But isn’t that what I’m questioning? That your “trusting it” is actually inferring a causal relationship based on a presumed correlation between ratings and quality? There are plenty of amazing films that made less than the last Transformers and, while I’ll listen to someone talk about box office data, if they start telling me that box office (or Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic or whatever) is far more of a reliable indicator of what a devoted fandom thinks of something or the generally-accepted quality of a work (than actually hearing what people have to say about it), I’m…not going to be able to take that seriously. It connects a few dots on different pages of the workbook…and that doesn’t make a convincing picture.

            That’s a “trust me” sort of proposition…

            So are your assertions regarding the causal relationship derived from correlating downward trends in ratings to a lesser quality. Sometimes shows get better but ratings go down – sometimes shows get smarter and lose their less intelligent audience or get dumber and lose their more intelligent audience. Heck, I’m sure even the inverse could be said there as various works are ironically appreciated or work on multiple levels, even if unintentionally in some cases. Sure, we can point toward generalities – “A movie made more money so more people liked it than did this other thing!”…but that really doesn’t hold up even as a clear generality since smaller films don’t have the same exposure/marketing and on and on. There are a variety of variables you just negate because, “But I’m looking at the figures here…” as though those figures indicate something…which is actually something they do not plainly indicate.

            So hardcore Trek fans themselves were continually abandoning the show across Season 4 — that is pretty telling!

            And/or casual fans who caught it off and on slowly stopped watching because it felt too “Star Trek” or had “references to things they didn’t get” or the “multiple-part-stories” were difficult to catch up on for them or whatever. And there are also a variety of other options and variables which may have contributed.

            I just don’t see how, “Look, Avatar made more money than Wrath of Khan so we know which one’s better, alright? I’m going to trust the box office figures more than I’ll trust someone who tells me ‘But people love Khan!’ and ‘It’s inspired numerous elements in other works!’ and all this, okay?” seems like a sound sort of argument. It’s got a bunch of things assumed as givens that just don’t exist as anything other than loose associations/generalizations.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “But isn’t that what I’m questioning? That your “trusting it” is actually inferring a causal relationship based on a presumed correlation between ratings and quality? There are plenty of amazing films that made less than the last Transformers and, while I’ll listen to someone talk about box office data, if they start telling me that box office (or Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic or whatever) is far more of a reliable indicator of what a devoted fandom thinks of something or the generally-accepted quality of a work, I’m…not going to be able to take that seriously. It connects a few dots on different pages of the workbook…and that doesn’t make a convincing picture.”

            Unlike your Transformers movie example though, TV series are generally continuous over time, and statistics are kept over time than can be measured to determine how many people are tuning in. For such TV shows over multiple years, generally, yes, their is a causal relationship between the level of overall public perception of whether they are liking what they are seeing — essentially a measure of what percentage of a given set of TV viewers are motivated over time to tune into a give TV series. (I won’t use term “quality” because you are right, that is subjective).

            So in Season 4, through these statistics, the measurements showed that people were not motivated to continue watching the TV show over time. And to me this does support, but not prove (I didn’t say it proved) a likely thesis that AT THAT POINT IN TIME, viewers were not motivated enough to keep tuning in as the season went on.

            My conclusion from this is that this makes me skeptical that there were significant quality improvements in Enterprise Season 4. If their had been, why did viewers keep losing the motivation to tune into the show in a rather straight-line downward trend as the Season continued?

          • Ace Stephens

            For such TV shows over multiple years, generally, yes, their is a causal relationship between the level of overall public perception of whether they are liking what they are seeing…

            Numerous people – critics and members of the general public – cite The Wire as groundbreaking, inspirational (in terms of the medium) television. What were the ratings like? …Most people who now praise it didn’t actually know the show existed until it was over. Ratings are irrelevant to quality. If ratings are indicative of overall quality, try justifying the Big Bang Theory’s ratings to me… (apologies if you actually enjoy that show…)

            The last Transformers film was the fifth film…and critics/audiences tend to say that the reason its box office is lower than any of the others is because people didn’t like the fourth as much or things like this. Which, for a comparison within its own property, stands to some amount of relative reason – although there are a variety of other factors such as what other movies are out at the time, the strength of the marketing, etc. But that kind of goes along with what you’re proposing as the television aspect.

            However, I hear devoted Trek fans often saying Into Darkness was comparably garbage and Beyond was fine or even good. Which made more? Into Darkness. So, while one can correlate general trends, it doesn’t necessarily make a causal determination regarding quality as far as general fan sentiment. Although, in that case, I think an argument can also be made that “People didn’t like the last one very much…” influenced the following film’s box office. In the case of Enterprise, what would that mean if it directly correlated in some form? That season 3 was considered relatively bad? Or that earlier seasons were and so the dropoff prior to/during later ones was due to that? Or…on and on, one could extrapolate similarities, even if they don’t necessarily mean things that could be proven in another case.

            So in Season 4, through these statistics, the measurements showed that
            people were not motivated enough (from the episodes they had viewed to
            date) to continue watching the TV show over time.

            “Not motivated enough” in what regard? How do you determine that? I feel like you ignore numerous factors that play into the matter of the ratings during that year.

            And to me this does
            support, but not prove (I didn’t say it proved) a likely thesis that AT
            THAT POINT IN TIME, viewers were not motivated enough to keep tuning in
            as the season went on.

            It was in a death slot position back before DVR and streaming and such were really going. If you have plans to go on a date (or do something else that’s important involving an outing) Friday night and it’s that or Enterprise, then even if you’re a quite devoted fan…there’s a good chance you’re missing Enterprise. You may tape it. Or you may say “I’ll buy the DVDs.” or something. And when you add in that it’s often pre-empted or similar, the odds that you’ll miss it because “I actually have to go somewhere” or “When is it actually airing? …Saturday morning at 2am?! WHAT?!” or whatever? Way higher.

            I feel like you’re not accounting for things like this. So you draw a correlation, ignore all of the various factors which indicate it’s even less strong than the typical generality associated with the given factor (which doesn’t hold firm itself)…and then go, “Well, that’s a strong case.” It’s not.

            My conclusion from this is that this makes me skeptical that there were
            significant quality improvements in Enterprise Season 4. If there had
            been, why did viewers keep losing the motivation to tune into the show
            in a rather straight-line downward trend as the Season continued?

            “You” miss it one week since you had a date/outing, then try tuning in the next but it’s part 2 of something and you don’t want to be too lost so you decide to check in the following week…but it’s not airing in the right timeslot due to local programming (UPN sucked…) so you switch over to something else since you couldn’t figure out when it starts that week…then you intend to catch it the following week but you hear it’s Part 1 – and you know you’re busy the next week so…you decide not to watch it this week. And the week after your next outing, there’s a big special on or another show debuting that isn’t pre-empted all the time. And so you might say to yourself, “I’ve missed a lot of this season thus far and don’t want to jump in the middle. I think I’ll catch it on DVD if I can.” or something like that. (But then it’s cancelled and you say to yourself that it must not have been that great then so you’re much more casual about ever getting around to it as you buy other TV show seasons that cost less and the like.)

            You don’t see how this type of stuff kills off the ratings even if “you” actually want to watch it? Even if the episodes you might catch on occasion are pretty good?

            It’s only afterward that some people have actually gotten around to seeing all of it – and it wasn’t for lack of trying in many of their cases.

            I’d love to see any statistical data that supports the counterfactual.

            It’s not counterfactual and that you contextualize it that way suggests a narrow, biased view as far as I’m concerned. “I have facts and figures here so whatever I say in relation to correlations and generalities associated with them must be true! Even if I’m ignoring things that clearly contribute!” That’s not the way reason works. That’s typically the way someone with an agenda pretending their agenda has validity it doesn’t works.

            What you’re claiming doesn’t logically follow given the variety of factors which influence these matters (of ratings and/or generalized interpretations of the quality of the show). But even if I could point you toward some numbers (for instance, a poll about which season of Enterprise is best that was conducted after the show was over), that doesn’t mean that how those results were collected is necessarily representative. Tons of fans may not have voted in the given poll for various reasons – not knowing it was up, not knowing the website, not being able to pick one, not getting around to watching all of Enterprise yet (maybe they’re a new fan or the availability to them is comparably limited), etc.

            You can’t tie oversimplifcations and/or generalities together while ignoring evident factors otherwise and then go, “I’m pretty sure this holds up…” as far as I’m concerned. It’s just not something where it carries through in terms of reason. It winds up hollow.

            For example, if you could find data that showed that the Season 4
            streaming and disc sales of Enterprise outsold earlier seasons, that
            could show that today, fans do perceive that as the best season?

            No, it couldn’t. First seasons almost always outsell later ones because collectors (the type who buy most of them) tend to start with the first. Generally there’s a downward trend as people forget to follow-up by purchasing the next one or things like that. I can’t believe you think that correlations drawn from single sets of figures hold up in these regards (regarding “causes” or similar you infer due to them) when you surely understand how immensely complex the world is and how correlations between two limited contexts do not consider the breadth of the full context of things.

            If I ate a donut a week ago and also ate a donut today, it doesn’t stand to reason that I eat a donut every single day. Not in general and not on average. You’re missing consideration of other days between the two, probability of that occurring due to a variety of factors, availability of donuts, information on my dietary habits otherwise, etc. etc. Yet you’re going, “I know you ate a donut two days…so you always have a donut every day for breakfast.” It’s just full of so many generalized takes that are connected by you even if they don’t necessarily connect in order to draw a conclusion you seem predisposed toward simply due to having what little “factual” information you have and seeking to draw a conclusion (for some reason) about me.

            Additionally, I never said (here) that Enterprise Season 4 was generally considered the highest quality season of the show. I simply pointed out that your argument opposing that isn’t a logical one, even if you can say, “But I have a chart!” or something. That doesn’t make all the inferences and correlations you construe in relation to that things which show a causal relationship between the suggestion of (general fan perception of) quality dropping and ratings dropping.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            So in other words, you are not offering any quantitative evidence, even as imperfect as mine my be…which by the way, global media corporations make multi-million dollar decisions on every year in renewing or cancelling TV series….fact!

            So noting to counter my imperfect, limited statistics, besides a lot of conjecture about why the objective data I do have don’t mean anything?
            Scientifically, I have one admittedly imperfect set of data, You have none.

            I also have common sense to go by in that I know Trek fans love Star Trek, and since by Season 4 its logical that only the die hard Trek fans were still watching the show, we know that less of these fans were watching it every week. That tells me they lost interest, which common sense tells me that they were obvioully not super impressed with Season 4….and then, what this data on ratings does do, is it validates this common sense of mine. Can I prove it? No. Do I think it’s likely? Yes.

          • Ace Stephens

            I am suggesting that your myopic focus upon a narrow range of figures in order to support your apparent confirmation bias (due to your distaste for Enterprise and/or elements of Season 4) is distorting your ability to apply reason on this subject.

            And no, I don’t believe figures exist which can reasonably quantify the number of people who missed an episode due to pre-emption as even a drop from one week to the next in a region where the latter episode was pre-empted wouldn’t be able to reliably measure those who didn’t watch the week before who would have and those who would have missed it regardless of the pre-emption and on and on. These types of things (which directly influence ratings) aren’t things that can be resolutely determined in those regards.

            In order to understand why ratings might be down, you need to look at the breadth of the factors/information available rather than focusing solely on your minimal statistics which you then stress (fallaciously) directly suggest a conclusion you seem predisposed toward concluding.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            OK so you don’t have a chart. Got it!

          • Ace Stephens

            I honestly do not believe you would accept someone else presenting a similar argument to the one you’re presenting now if it wasn’t directed toward a conclusion you already agreed with. I know how smart you are (or have come across to me here, at least) so I imagine you’d be ripping them a new one and pointing toward things similar to what I’ve suggested (and probably other things you’re more directly aware of). I assume you know about the Friday night death slot concern, how common pre-emption was on UPN for that position, how multi-episode stories may lessen ratings in some cases, etc. and so you’d be able to stress to yourself how flawed using one bit of information and a bunch of loose associations (inferences, correlations as relative causation, etc.) to draw a conclusion you already appear to wish to draw is.

            Don’t be an example of how people point out that “an education does not make one wise” or similar. You know a ton of information. Apply it comprehensively rather than selectively as it suits your preference/perception otherwise. At least enough to see how the ratings for season 4 of Enterprise have no clear relationship to the perceived quality (by fans in general) of that season. Not even enough to stand firm on it as a “theory.” Its limitations (and the conclusions drawn which do not automatically follow) immediately debunk itself.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Well I freely admit that the data is limited in terms of conclusions that can be drawn from it, and other factors should be considered. Like I said though, when I also apply common sense, it fits.

            Again, TV studios use these stats to determine advertising charges, and whether to renew or cancel a series. You give the impression that my logic in looking at the ratings drop over time is not valid — well, those Fortune 500 company’s actuaries would most certainly disagree with you.

          • Ace Stephens

            Like I said though, when I also apply common sense, it fits.

            “Common sense,” in those cases where it deviates from reason, tends to be more akin to superstition (even if, yes, one has “figures to back it up”…that one has added numerous inferences to which aren’t derived from anything other than personal bias/interest).

            Again, TV studios use these stats to determine advertising charges, and whether to renew or cancel a series.

            What is the relevance of that? How does it relate to the quality of the work as perceived by many in general? It doesn’t in any clear form. But I assume you’ve got some connection to a connection with you filling in gaps with generalities and similar while suggesting that’s the same as it pertaining to quality.

            You give the impression that my logic in looking at the ratings drop over time is not valid — well, those Fortune 500 company’s actuaries would most certainly disagree with you.

            What are you even talking about? They don’t measure quality! Again, are you suggesting The Big Bang Theory is inherently a high-quality show? That Two and a Half Men was? Any such suggestion due to ratings is absurd not because they aren’t good shows (whether they are or not is neither here nor there) but because ratings measure viewership – not interest, investment, etc. and an audience’s general assessment of quality – and they (the type you’re referring to) certainly don’t include people who watch them over the following decade. That you would draw any distinct correlation there as indicative of such things is just so far removed from a reasoned take that I’m rather stunned to hear it coming from you (who I generally consider to be quite good at debating and applying reasoned takes here).

            Nothing the higher-ups at those companies would suggest due to ratings would “disagree with me” – because they don’t care if the show’s good or not. They’ll often say they do if in public and will push it as being high quality but what they care about is the money. The quality (in terms of an assessment of the work/s in general) is irrelevant to those figures. Almost entirely. That you would act like it’s the inverse is…straining credulity with me. I have a very hard time believing that either you have such strong distaste for Enterprise as to lose sight of reason in this case or genuinely don’t understand the huge leaps one must take for your interpretation here to appear very valid at all.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You get the last word. I am comfortable with my previous post as my conclusion to this discussion.

          • Ace Stephens

            You ended up king of arguing with yourself with your “quality”
            discussion above — please read my statements again. Where did I ever
            say the studios were measuring quality? I never claimed that, and in
            fact, I very specifically covered that in an earlier post — what they
            are measuring is the level of viewer interest over time, not quality. So
            you whole quality discussion here is certainly an interesting read, but
            it’s not related to my statements.

            Huh? This whole conversation is you suggesting that ratings are equated to quality in some notable form. That’s where you started, that’s what I replied to and that’s what you’re now denying has a relationship to what you were talking about. Your whole “They’re measuring viewer interest…”-thing, as though you aren’t suggesting that relates to quality (when that’s the entire basis for what’s being discussed here) is a laughably bad attempt at deflection.

            I don’t know why you’re twisting yourself in knots to avoid acknowledging that you’ve overstepped reason in this instance, seemingly due to a bias against elements of Enterprise. Maybe you’re just concerned that if you acknowledged that, it might suggest Enterprise is considered of a higher quality than you previously thought – although I don’t think it would actually suggest that since the generally-perceived quality of Enterprise isn’t the concern I noted here. Your poor reasoning (by associating ratings with quality) is.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            “Unlike your Transformers movie example though, TV series are generally continuous over time, and statistics are kept over time than can be measured to determine how many people are tuning in. For such TV shows over multiple years, generally, yes, their is a causal relationship between the level of overall public perception of whether they are liking what they are seeing — essentially a measure of what percentage of a given set of TV viewers are motivated over time to tune into a give TV series. (I won’t use the term “quality” because you are right, that is subjective).”

          • Ace Stephens

            Again, you are correlating correlations to correlations which are almost all loosely-defined or associated and saying, “This means something!” It doesn’t.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Sure it does. People like a TV show, they will watch it. People start to like it less, they watch it less. If they hear a buzz from people that a show they stopped watching is improving, they will start tuning in again. It’s human nature. And this is measured by the Nielsens, and the ad rates and new seasons/cancellations are then determined by corporations based on that trend data. That’s common sense, and no you are not going to convince me that this is superstition, because I know my family and friends have this sort of viewing behavior, as do most people — and the stats are averaged across millions of viewers, which removes uncertainty.

            I just ordered HBO yesterday solely to watch the next 7 weeks of GoT. Why did I order it; because I loved the last season. Why did I stop watching Person of Interest during Season 4? Well, the stories weren’t as good, and I grew bored with the repeating story-lines, so I tuned out. It’s really not all that complicated.

            So it’s not quality, but viewer interest, that “the chart” measured. And again, one would not expect that a show that some people claim had drastically improved in quality would see a continual loss in viewer interest across that season where the series is providing much better stories and really hitting it’s stride…that makes no sense, and defies common sense…hell, it even defies superstition…lol

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t disagree with the generality of your first paragraph but you fail to recognize that it doesn’t apply to what you’re talking about here.

            In the case of Enterprise season 4, when you point toward if viewers were “motivated” in that quote while knowing that some of those who tried to track down when the show was airing often had trouble (and even things like that if someone drops in on a “Part 2,” they might be prone to waiting to watch until next week even if Part 1 and 2 were both high quality…and other factors which vary from most shows of the period), you overstep reason. You ignore evident factors which have been noted in order to suggest things such as that, if people want something, they can simply have it. Some don’t get UPN even though they technically should be able to? They just weren’t motivated – should have moved to a new house. The show was pre-empted into the early morning hours with no indication on the schedule (as happened multiple weeks in some locations)? They just weren’t motivated enough to stay up all night in the hopes it would show up or call the local broadcaster (if they could find their info). Etc.

            Motivation isn’t the issue there. Tying it directly to perceptions of what it might say or indicate regarding quality (which you can point toward by any other term you want, I suppose – but it remains what you continue to suggest was demonstrably low due to figures such as ratings) is absurd. It wouldn’t necessarily be indicative regardless but then when you ignore the time slot Enterprise was in, how often its airing was shifted due to local sports coverage or similar (which is relatively uncommon for most networks but noted as having been issues for UPN and Enterprise, particularly around this time), etc., it becomes clear that you have some sort of agenda here which doesn’t relate to reason.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Look at the overall trend over the four years. It’s a nice fairly linear (starts off as a steep downward curve) set of data that show a constant downward trend, both within the seasons and across the seasons. If all of these other reasons, likes sports preemptions, were really issues, why aren’t there more outlier data points? Surely you must admit that their is an easy to identify ratings trend from this chart that points to a continual drop in viewership over time that does not stabilize during season 4 — Season 4 continued with the same trend.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8eec136e4ccf1972164ead42b1fce1d690340c46d9825a1edb7434fbcedf6d10.jpg

          • Ace Stephens

            Of course I can admit that. I was aware the show seemed to steadily lose viewers. However, I don’t draw the associations you seem to between this occurring (especially with all the issues I’ve mentioned during the final season) and it having a direct association with quality or perceived interest at large, particularly given that more people have seen the show since than watched it then. When a show has, for instance, limited promotion, its schedule is shuffled around, experiences production/airing disruptions, etc., the amount of people who slowly decide to stop watching – maybe intending to catch something but missing it enough to decide to “start over once the DVD is out” – that sort of thing goes up. And, in the case of ENT, one can add in multi-purpose stories as possibly causing issues, too.

            But that’s all irrelevant anyway regarding how the season is perceived overall by people now. Look at films like John Carpenter’s The Thing or Ridley Scott’sBlade Runner. These films didn’t do so well critically or commercially and are now considered some of the defining works of their genres in terms of quality.

            So…yeah. None of what you’re saying expressly holds up except as the most basic generalities and further associations that are strung together.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            You are making it sound like I am claiming precision and that this is conclusive. Nope. Again:

            “I also freely admit that I can’t prove this. But, I think it’s more likely than not based on the imperfect stats we do have, and through the application of common sense judgment.”

            I am fine if you want to interpret this as “the most basic generalities and further associations that are strung together.” I think it’s a tad stronger case than that, but that is my opinion.

          • Ace Stephens

            You are making it sound like I am claiming precision and that this is conclusive. Nope.

            “I use facts and figures to draw my conclusions by making lots of tenuous inferences about what those figures mean but then I don’t stand by those conclusions but it still basically proves my point!”

            Do you not see how the above “quote” is a fairly reasonable (if somewhat mocking and exaggerated) interpretation of what you’re putting forward here? It just comes across as ridiculous.

            You appear to want to believe that, in some form, season 4 of Enterprise (and/or Enterprise itself) didn’t live up to a quality some fans claim it has or some generality they put forward about big fans regarding it and so you cling to something in order to suggest it “indicates” that to be the case in some relatively objective manner. Some would say “proves” but sure, maybe that exact wording is overstepping what you intend a bit – but it’s still what it appears like you believe it does. And based on generalities tied to generalities. Correlations that don’t add up to causation. As most anyone else would realize that it has no meaningful relationship in that regard.

            Anyone who isn’t “reverse engineering” the data to prove their conclusion and has a general understanding of the show’s broadcast history would look at the ratings dropping off during season 4 (similar to how they did throughout the run) and propose that it could be due to a variety of factors. Some of which also may have influenced such matters during the show’s run. Time slot, burnout, disappointment at the conclusion of the previous season, competition in the time slot, lack of promotion, lack of consistent scheduling, cast or focus changes, multi-episode story arcs, etc.

            But you essentially go, “I HAVE ONE THING THAT DOESN’T LOOK GOOD FOR THE SHOW! SO IT PROVES MY NEGATIVE PERCEPTION OR COUNTERPOINT!”

            That’s not reasonable. You want that conclusion so you take generalities associated with television programming (while tying them to various other ones and then thinking such correlations are the same as causation even when most of it is built on false/shaky premises) and go, “This is it! It’s proof! …I mean…uh, at least a strong indicator.”

            But if I go to IMDB and find the average episode rating per season and it indicates that Season 4 of Enterprise was generally better-received overall, will you go, “Oh, sure! That means what you associate it with! What a strong argument!” Or will you go, “Oh, come on. That all relies on who would vote there for various reasons, people could spam things in positive or negative ways, whatever. It’s not indicative.”?

            Because the average episode rating out of ten, season-by-season, is…

            Season1
            7.4 (rounded)
            Season 2
            7.5 (rounded)
            Season3
            7.85
            Season 4
            7.97 (8.1 if ignoring the reviled finale episode)

            Does this somehow justify the theory that Season 4 is considered the best by fans generally? If we went by your logic, it automatically would. But I don’t expect you to concede that or go, “You’re right. This stuff really doesn’t hold up because it’s negating a ton of variables…” because you have an agenda.

          • DC Forever

            Ace, it looks to me like he simply ended up by saying that “it’s more likely than not” and admitting that he can’t conclusively prove any of it. That seems to be reasonable, given the data and logic of viewership

            His discussion works for me. The “It’s more likely than not;” I accept based on his limited information and logic. Who cares if he has an agenda, as I still think it’s the most logical answer. Ocaam’s Razor!

            Also, I believe he specially said, “at the time”, so I don’t see IMDB ratings, which I don’t even believe were around then, would be applicable here. Besides, Nielsen ratings are conducted scientifically where IMDB is a voluntary fan internet poll that is not statistically valid given that a set and population can not be defined in detail.

          • Ace Stephens

            Ace, it looks to me like he simply ended up by saying that “it’s more likely than not” and admitting that he can’t conclusively prove any of it. That seems to be reasonable, given the data and logic of viewership

            But, in order to do that, he ignores evident factors while correlating things that don’t expressly go together (particularly when things like those evident factors are considered). When he does this to claim a causal nature which isn’t expressly the case, this makes his take appear agenda-driven, as though if somehow he had data which showed the opposite, he would simply ignore it (cherry-picking) while finding something else which, in whatever form may be construed via generalizations and associations – however loose as long as they “sound about right” (“It’s common sense!”) or similar, indicates how he’s right.

            That’s not reason. That’s not logic. That’s agenda. It’s a poor way to argue a point, particularly when behaving as though one is simply pointing toward the statistics. It’s like people who say, “Fact.” to emphasize their points which aren’t. …It’s foolish in that regard.

            “That’s what kind of man I am! You’re just a woman with a small brain. With a brain a third the size of us. It’s science.” – Ron Burgundy

            Who cares if he has an agenda, as I still think it’s the most logical answer. Ocaam’s Razor!

            I think Ocaam’s Razor would include awareness of the adverse factors during the series’ final season even if incorporating the suggestion that ratings are generally representative of audience interest and/or show quality. Which, in itself, is still not something that can be claimed as holding true across all things. But, regardless, when those other factors are prominent/evident/clear/etc., those other factors must be considered. For instance – a great show may have been canceled (during its best season) largely for being put up against the juggernaut program of its time (perhaps combined with things like not being promoted well enough after switching nights and/or losing a prominent cast member who drew higher ratings and/or on and on and on and on and on…but even if one obviously might not be able to cover all variables there – one should consider many if apparent). But, using the logic that was presented here, if that cancelled show already had a couple seasons, that must mean the third wasn’t very good and, if the ratings dropped, certainly not generally considered “the best” by those who ultimately did watch it. That makes no sense and ignores things it evidently shouldn’t (if it is known that it was up against a big show, lost a cast member who was popular/key, etc.). Ocaam’s Razor doesn’t mean “simplified to the point of willful ignorance in order to justify the conclusion I wish to draw.”

            Also, I believe he specially said, “at the time”, so I don’t see IMDB ratings, which I don’t even believe were around then, would be applicable here.

            IMDB has been around for almost 27 years and user ratings were around while Enterprise aired.

            Besides, Nielsen ratings are conducted scientifically where IMDB is a voluntary fan internet poll that is not statistically valid given that aset and population can not be defined in detail.

            While I would generally agree that there is a science to it and I believe I gather what you’re referring to, what exactly does “conducted scientifically” mean to you here? While there’s certainly (far, far) more “control” than the open-ended availability of a website, it’s been known for quite awhile that even the Nielsen ratings aren’t necessarily all that reliable. Just a few years back, they had to finally get around to changing things due to DVR, “delayed viewing,” streaming services and all this. Now it’s no longer the ratings (from last night) the next day that most networks even pay attention to – instead it’s things like the live+7 rating. But Nielsen was far behind the ball on this one and so who knows what shows were canceled in the meantime because they, like the person I’m debating with here, ignored numerous variables which could (and should) have easily been considered.

            But as long as Nielsen makes their money, they don’t tend to care so much. Of course, when networks and similar say, “Wait a second…” then Nielsen finally realizes that their “science” is more an outdated system of keeping their money flowing…and they update. Years and years after the evident shifts in viewing habits began.

            Such great science! /s

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Concerning Ocaam’s razor, I think you just proved it works by providing and extremely long and complex set of reasons to prove your view?

            My view is that ratings kept plummeting over time as people grew bored and dissatisfied with the show, and this continued through season 4. And the ratings show this. And this is reinforced by common sense understanding of people in general’s viewing habits. And I admit that my threshold of truth is simply that “this is more likely than not,” and I do’t claim it’s conclusive.

            Your view, in nearly every post in this discussion, takes tons of information to explain and is very complex, yet offers no data, and frankly has a bit of “trust me for this reason…trust me that reason” without any common sense, and provides rather suspect “excuses” as to why ratings dropped.

            Since I have SOME limited data, plus I use common sense reasoning that I would suggest most people would agree with, Ocaam’s Razor applied here, would support my position and reject yours.

            Also, it seems like you have an agenda here is this discussion as well. You don’t like the Nielsens.

            PS: For your IMDB point, wow, I would love to see the IMDB data for years 2004 and 2005. I would be willing to wager that the opinions of Season 3 and 4 at that time, were much lower. Time has been kind to Season 4 — like I said, a lot of fans today claim “now” that its a great season. I suspect the vast majority of those votes on IMDB were not within the run of seasons 3 and 4.

          • Ace Stephens

            Concerning Ocaam’s razor, I think you just proved it works by providing and extremely long and complex set of reasons to prove your view?

            It’s not particularly complex (even if there are a variety of factors). That’s why it’s so frustrating to me that someone I thought was quite intelligent remains willfully ignorant due to an apparent bias/agenda.

            And this is reinforced by common sense understanding of people in general’s viewing habits.

            Common sense as in ignorant? Those aren’t synonyms. You know very well that sometimes two shows with decent or better ratings are pitted against each other and then one of them, through its ratings dropping against the other even if its quality as a show overall improves, fails to live up to what the network wanted so it’s cancelled. This used to be a relatively common occurrence. Anybody who knows anything about network rating wars understands that these sorts of things happen and it doesn’t mean anything regarding that season’s quality as perceived by those who do watch the series. There are a variety of concerns/situations like this which arise on occasion. Enterprise, being in a Friday night death slot, producing multi-episode stories (which had a tendency to make people who can’t see one of them not tune in), being pre-empted more since on a fledgling channel, etc. is not subject to the whole, “Well, ratings are down. Guess that means the show’s getting worse…”-type generality which really isn’t a very stable generality regardless. Even if it’s an understandable one.

            And furthermore, I admit that my threshold of truth is simply that “this is more likely than not,” and I do’t claim it’s conclusive.

            “Truth”? Maybe that’s your problem – you’re not seeking truth. You’re seeking that which confirms your bias which you’ve already assumed is truth. Are you suggesting the first season was the best because ratings went down after that? That’s what your assertions regarding things would suggest. Although I don’t know for certain, I can imagine you’d imply that it was “the best” in that it had the most potential before people clearly began losing interest due to having watched some of it…or something else similarly disparaging toward Enterprise like that.

            Although maybe your thing is you loved the first season or the show but felt it was all ruined in the end or something by that dastardly season 4. I don’t know. But it seems to be some sort of agenda opposing Enterprise because I can’t figure out why someone who I tend to think is fairly reasonable would put on blinders like this otherwise.

            Your view, in nearly every post in this discussion, takes tons of witten explanation to cover and is very complex, yet offers no data, and frankly has a bit of “trust me for this reason…trust me that reason,” and goes without any common sense of what most people understand to be general TV viewing habits of people…

            This seems like projection to me. “Look, it’s just common sense to ignore evident factors influencing this!” is along the lines of what you’ve said. No, it’s absolutely not common sense. I won’t just trust that it’s common sense to ignore the obvious because one dislikes how it doesn’t suit one’s bias. And, again, my explanation isn’t even that complex. But because it’s not an oversimplification, it’s “very complex”?

            “Oh, he died in a car accident. Autopsy shows he had a heart attack.”
            “They found the brake line severed at the scene. Clearly not from the crash.”
            “Heart attack behind the wheel. Simply an accident.”

            Noooooo, that’s not common sense. That’s willful ignorance, at best. To go, “Well, if he had a heart attack, he’d lose control behind the wheel. It’s common sense.” is a severe “trust me because” there. Even if, yeah, you can say, “It happens fairly often.” about that. It doesn’t mean it’s the likely concern here.

            I’m not saying it’s not a “common” way of thinking but any “common sense” approach would examine if the brake line being severed had an influence on the crash, possibly seeing if he was going at excessive speed otherwise, keeping a look out for any potential threats/enemies he may have had, knowing what his blood alcohol content was, etc. And if someone investigating shows up and clarifies, “Brake line cut, witnesses say he picked up speed heading down the hill – which is a dangerous hill anyway, and there was some speculation about someone lurking around his residence recently…” you – if you’re remotely competent and unbiased as an “investigator” – don’t go, “So heart attack it is.” That might be the official cause of death (low ratings) due to trauma, blood loss, whatever in that range (fewer people watching) as a result of those other factors (the things I’ve mentioned repeatedly)…but to then not recognize that homicide seems a bit more likely from that than the generality which you claim is “common sense” is absolutely absurd.

            …and provides rather suspect “excuses” as to why ratings dropped, when we have a measurable trend is a rock-sold, easy to understand, nearly linear downward curve, over time.

            You consider them excuses due to your agenda. What would I be in the analogy above? What you’d consider a paranoid neighbor who insists they saw someone suspicious near the deceased’s house recently? …Why would that make me paranoid or similar? I had no close relationship with the victim and have no apparent agenda regarding the matter (of course, on a television show, I’d probably be considered a suspect at some point because we haven’t introduced anybody else who knew him…). But if I say, “I saw somebody odd around his house a few days ago…” – Oh no! I’m making excuses for why we can’t just call this thing a heart attack! Or, you know, maybe I’m pointing toward something that differs from the norm and relates to the concern present in a manner that may have notably influenced it?

            While my car crash example above is hyperbolic and extreme (for relative humorous effect…although not “LOL” funny, I wouldn’t think due to the dark CSI subject matter), it is you who is being absurd here. And it seems like you think it’s me who is because I’m long-winded. But I think most people who are making a very obvious point and believe the other party has the cognitive ability to grasp it would get rather desperate in pointing out how the concerns associated with that point are so obvious.

            You kind of sound like the sort of people who say “I’m not going to watch that crap.” and then always show up to condemn it based on “having heard bad things.” You remain willfully ignorant due to preconceptions and twisting matters in order to only embrace that which gives a vague rationale to support your negative perception. And then you persist with it even though all you have to do is look over there and then you can actually figure it out for yourself (and, hey, maybe somehow still come to the same conclusion – but I highly doubt it here) instead of just going based on generalities that suit your bias.

            Since I have SOME limited data, plus I use common sense reasoning that I would suggest most people would agree with…

            Most people are rather foolish regarding an understanding of anything beyond the superficial (most people don’t pay any attention to television ratings, for instance – if they’d even recognize the Nielsen name regarding the subject, they probably wouldn’t actually know how they gather their info in a general sense), yet “common sense” implies a grasp of “sense” which may not actually be so common – but is rather simple and easily understood (if one simply pays attention to the information). But, even so, you’ve somehow oversimplified it (the concept of “common sense” here – to mean something more like whatever the populace at large might believe even if they are uninformed). I say “somehow” but I mean due to evident bias.

            “It’s common sense that you can’t die from drinking too much water!”
            Sure…but you can. So what good is that kind of common sense if all it takes to figure out that’s not the case is a quick Google search?

            …Ocaam’s Razor applied here, would support my position and reject yours.

            Ocaam’s Razor wouldn’t ignore evident factors. It just wouldn’t.

            “During this attempt at the experiment, the material burned faster than usual. We failed to realize prior to starting the experiment but there’s somehow a gas can near the material and someone said earlier that there was a smell before we lit the material on fire.”
            The material burned at the normal speed because that’s the result I want! Ocaam’s Razor!”
            “I really think you should consider that someone might have poured gas or some other accelerant on this…”
            I SAID OCAAM’S RAZOR!!!!

            That’s not Ocaam’s Razor. That’s not reason. That’s not logic. That’s agenda. That’s willful ignorance. How many times must I say this before you self-reflect regarding it?

            Again, you know about the reputation of the Friday night death slot, you know that ratings were on a downward trend regardless, you know people have reported that it was often pre-empted in various markets, etc. but you just go, “Huh? You’re making excuses.” They’re not excuses when they directly relate to the concerns presented which are ratings. They’re not excuses when it remains the case that lower Nielsen ratings do not equate with lesser quality as perceived by audiences at large. You keep taking these generalized correlations, saying they indicate causation and ignoring notable factors and then when I go, “You can’t really do that…it’s stretching too far because so much of what you’ve built up isn’t on stable conclusions there…” you go, “It’s just common sense.”

            Also, it seems like you have an agenda here is this discussion as well. You just admitted that you don’t like the Nielsens…

            What are you talking about? I nowhere admitted anything of the sort! I have no preferential opinion regarding the Nielsen ratings themselves at all! Again it seems that you are correlating things in an absurd manner. “You were critical of something by suggesting they work for money (Most people do…) and that they cater to those who pay them when there’s a big enough problem (The customer is always right is a common business mantra and not a value judgment, isn’t it?) and they were slow to incorporate recent viewing habits regarding measurement (which is well-known and something you can find in any random Google search of the subject) and so it’s understandable to put forward that they aren’t exact (because of that recent history and also things such as that their sample size, despite increasing recently, still isn’t clear as far as being representative and, regarding some forms of aggregation, they don’t reveal their methods in an in-depth fashion) and suggested that this delay influenced network decisions (networks have admitted as much which is why they pressured them to update their system).”

            That’s me not liking them? Me being aware of their basic business interests – that they’re a company looking to make money – and that networks were pressing them to change their methodology due to concerns about it not being an accurate reflection of viewing habits for awhile before they did? Me suggesting that this delay indicates their systematic (some would say “scientific”) approach was ignoring things which were apparent factors for longer than one might expect from a company whose business it is to notice that…is me saying I don’t like them?

            How? Where? What are you talking about? It seems like yet another “This correlation is causation…”-thing from you again. As though you’ve decided it’s just common sense that anyone speaking critically must dislike something. Oh boy! Do I have some Star Trek and Doctor Who and X-Files and numerous other conversations for you to read which I was involved in where those conversations clearly indicate that I must just hate those programs because I had a basic understanding of what was going on with them and, to some extent, may have concluded that I didn’t think something worked or lived up to its potential here and there for various evident factors. Must mean I have an agenda against those shows!

            I don’t care if you dislike something to do with Enterprise (except that it seems to be causing you to distort reason here). I honestly don’t. I care that I thought you were more reasonable than this. And I do not mean that as an insult in the least but I do say it out of utter frustration and disappointment (as “utter” as one would get in a random comment section with a random person one has essentially nothing else to do with). This is really obvious stuff but you ignore what doesn’t suit your bias and take generalities which aren’t fully applicable and go, “Perfect!” Far from it.

            …and are thus (even if its at a subconscious level) predisposed to not be very open to someone presenting some Nielsen data, as I did.

            Present all the Nielsen data you want. Again, I don’t care (about the quantity that you present). I don’t have an agenda, bias, etc. against Nielsen. I do, however, have a frustration since you’re apparently bad at reasoning when it comes to things that don’t suit your preferences (here, referenced as your bias/agenda). Way worse than I imagined before this conversation.

            It’s quite frustrating because I don’t know why you would choose this subject, of all things, to cling to at the expense of reason.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Wow, that’s 2,236 words to refute my straight-forward point and concise position that takes me only 70 words to describe. Whatever, I am not going to continue as you seem to be getting unnecessarily emotional here. Take it easy — it’s just a Star Trek discussion on a fan board. I normally agree with you about 95% of the time. No need for either of us to get overly upset over this discussion.

            I respect your opposing opinion here and will consider it.

            Peace!

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t mean to appear emotional even if I expressed something which to some degree was or could be construed that way. I am not writing a word count to refute your stance – the count is immaterial. My view has been explained relatively simply to start and then I took on the (comparably, online) frustrating task – particularly when I thought you would incorporate some element of exactly what I was saying right away (even if just to refute it in some form but you seemed to suggest my concern, in any notable or realistic regard, didn’t exist) – of repeating or recontextualizing it in the hopes it then is more easily understood – while also addressing other concerns and potential misconceptions.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think we can sum this up with Ace is right and Oracle is making nitpicks in an effort to say he’s right.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            For your IMDB ratings, wow, I would love to see the IMDB data for years 2004 and 2005. I would be willing to wager that the opinions of Season 3 and 4 at that time, were much lower. Time has been kind to Season 4 — like I said, a lot of fans today claim “now” that it’s this great season where the show was finally hitting it’s stride. I suspect the vast majority of those votes on IMDB were not within the run of seasons 3 and 4, because fans during 2004 and 2005 kept abandoning the show at a steady measurable rate that cannot be explained away by a couple sporting events. Can you provide IMDB ratings on the Enterprise seasons from 2005? If you can produce them, my expectation would be that they were significantly lower then, and more in line with the ratings of the first two seasons.

          • Ace Stephens

            …neither I nor none
            of my fan friends in the mid-2000’s though Voyager was getting better at
            the end…which tracks with the ratings data that shows people’s
            dissatisfaction by dropping off from watching it…

            This seems a lot like circular logic.

            “It must have sucked because the ratings were down due to it sucking.”

            “It was getting bad and ratings show that because it was getting bad.”

            These are notably close to what you just argued above. Do you not see how that doesn’t tend to appear stable as an argument? You keep accepting things as givens that aren’t. Yes, in a loose, generalized sense, ratings tend to be lower for shows people don’t like. But comparably from season-to-season when shows are placed against differing programs on a regular basis, might have a different airing schedule (for whatever reason – premieres after something, then switched after another show is cancelled or whatever…), etc.? It just doesn’t hold up as something that’s all that firm once those factors enter into the matter. And then if one goes further and the show’s (more often than others typically are) delayed with little warning and is telling its stories in a differing way to what most are used to and these sorts of things…it stands to reason that the loose generality that typically applies is probably quite a bit more stripped away by that point.

            If you have super successful show A on Channel 1 and super successful show B on Channel 2 and then, one year, B is put on against A and B has plenty of big guest stars all the time but is riding fumes and A goes deeper into character development and explores deeper themes while getting rave reviews…how does B getting higher ratings mean that A was having a worse season for their sixth or whatever than the previous? It doesn’t. It’s taking a generality that kind of holds up and then, in a specific instance where the situation differs from he relative norm, going, “No, no, it holds up because I say.”

            Also, I don’t know that you and your fan friends are representative
            of the fanbase at large. While certainly possible or possibly in some
            instances, I doubt it being the case in general (or “overall when averaged out”).

            Back to IMDB. So I suspect the vast majority of those votes on IMDB
            were not within the run of seasons 3 and 4, because fans during 2004 and
            2005 kept abandoning the show at a steady measurable rate that cannot
            be explained away by a couple sporting events.

            …Again, you oversimplify. Pre-emption (due to yes, sporting events and whatever else). multi-episode stories (which often lose people for one episode or another if they’re aware because they don’t want to miss the whole one), etc. You also seem to ignore that this was back when DVD was huge and binge-watching was really starting to become a thing and so some people might have missed a few episodes and then said, “You know what? I’ll catch it when it’s out on DVD. I may have missed too much.” or things like that. And this (any Star Trek, actually) is really a show that lends itself to that style of viewing far more than do many other programs. There are all sorts of factors there which you ignore.

            It’s not as easy as, “Three times this season, it was pre-empted for a regional sporting event.” It’s more like (in select cases for various people/regions, depending on a variety of factors) someone back then could easily say, “Three times this season, it was pre-empted for a regional sporting event and it was difficult to figure out when the delayed program was airing. But it was part 1 the first time. So after I apparently missed that whenever they aired it, I missed the following week as well because I didn’t want to not quite be able to follow it. I know someone who was going to watch it the second week but once they saw it was Part 2, they chose not to. The week after that, I was invited to a movie with friends so I went to that. Turns out I missed a Part 1 again. So, by then, I just said I’d probably not try to watch every episode but if I caught it, I’d probably watch. So I wound up diving back in for a two-parter a few weeks later but those were apparently reruns of something I missed. Then, the following week, another pre-emption so I decided not to bother trying to figure out when it aired since it seemed impossible. I caught another a few weeks later and my friend said they were good so I was going to watch a week or two after that but I think it was pre-empted again. So I just said ‘Forget it’ and decided I’d wait until the end of the season and buy it on DVD.”

            Of course, that’s probably a more severe case than many who probably just missed an episode or two a couple times then didn’t get back into things as much before maybe returning for the finale.

            But it’s almost like you’ve forgotten how difficult “appointment viewing” used to be if the channels were switching things around and things like that And perhaps forgotten that some people – like certain factions of genre fans – used to have actual patience and might wait something out because these sorts of programs were still largely marginalized in the public consciousness at large (more than during the TNG/DS9/VOY years) and not everybody who was a big fan frequented fan sites much and the like (not that they all do now either). And some people didn’t have VCRs anymore or scheduled things to tape but if they didn’t air at the right time…tough luck – cut off!

            I’m by no means saying this was a “perfect storm” or things like that but ENT was put in the cancellation position already and people reported various issues with catching it when it aired and so when the ratings drop off, why would anybody be surprised? And why would they correlate that to quality as though, “Yeah, it’s probably because it sucked even more…”

            Can you provide IMDB ratings on the Enterprise seasons from 2005? If
            you can produce them, my expectation would be that they were
            significantly lower then, and more in line with the ratings of the first
            two seasons.

            The closest I could find was April of 2009 which is closer to then than it is to now but isn’t what you asked for. And who knows what it’s indicative of anyway? This information isn’t really related to my point – it’s more a tangent meant to illustrate my point to you.

            Season 1
            7.34 (rounded)
            Season 2
            7.46 (rounded)
            Season 3
            7.81 (rounded)
            Season 4
            8.07 (rounded) (8.12 without the reviled finale)

            If we were going by generalities, this indicates that Enterprise season 4 actually went down over time (since it is currently 7.98/8.1).

            But, again, that’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that your logic doesn’t hold up and seems driven more by an agenda than by reason.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Oracle doesn’t like Rick Berman Star Trek so that’s his bone to pick with it.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Great points!

          • M33

            SFO, I gave up on ENT after the Season 3 cliffhanger. I was so disgusted.
            After it came out on DVD, we watched Season 4 and I wished I hadn’t abandoned the show when it finally delivered on its promise.
            I do think Season 4 was ENTs best, especially the Vulcan arc.

          • TIG1701

            I stopped watching it after season 2. I didn’t watch the other 2 seasons until after it was cancelled. I actually regret it now. It did get better. I think fans were just tired of Star Trek in general by then and fatigue had set in. But yeah season 4 was great. I still rewatch a lot of that season.

          • M33

            Totally understand.
            And I think the 9/11 effect didn’t help either. People’s heads, I think, were in a different space in the first few years after that. Shows that were dark, violent, dystopian, “gritty”, started really becoming popular, and perhaps the “shine” of Star Trek’s future didn’t seem as believable or maybe naive.
            Maybe.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “Shows that were dark, violent, dystopian, “gritty”, started really becoming popular, and perhaps the “shine” of Star Trek’s future didn’t seem as believable or maybe naive.” It’s worse now mate.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah, Season 26 of Doctor Who had terrible ratings but it’s considered a complete return to form for the show.

        • Dan King

          Manny Coto provided the best season of Enterprise in season 4.

        • Pedro Ferreira

          Dude we’ve been through this. Critics and audiences at the time thought Season 4 was the best. It’s no urban legend. People actually wanted the show to continue past Season 5 because the fourth was so enjoyable. If nobody cared at all then there wouldn’t have been an outcry with These Are The Voyages.

    • JP

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/486e4086dcdf4405a46e1923ae3b81c2e2e692c39b7c41d17d69e6d8059f1c6f.jpg This is what Klingons looked like in the TMP update 38 years ago. They’ve looked almost exactly like this since – you could put these Klingons in the last season of Voyager seamlessly.

      This look hasn’t been “reshuffled” significantly since then. It’s not an “every new production” type of change.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        No, that’s not the case. I will repeat for you my detailed analysis here (including a head-shot comparison) of the Klingons across 51 years of Star Trek, which clearly shows how each era of Start Trek came up with unique Klingon Designs.

        AN ANALYSIS OF KLINGONS ACROSS 51 YEARS OF STAR TREK – by The SF Oracle

        All, I present in the montage below a series of Klingon head-shots across the different iterations of Star Trek: TOS, TMP, TNG/Berman era, late TOS Movie era (ST6), Kelvin era, Discovery. Please all see my detailed written analysis below that explains the design origin of these six Klingon types. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/05350d2cf3050cf6588f11563c4a4dbfa9d362f570d1a3d2f5decb17df5f1e68.jpg
        Now, to assess each of these (note, information presented below is hewed from multiple sources, including Memory Alpha, The Making of Star Trek, Return to Tomorrow, plus knowledge from my over 40 years as a Star Trek fan):

        — TOS era. The production team on TOS used simple make-up to create the first Klingons — this included dark brown cream-based make-up, short beards that were glued on, mustaches and long eyebrows, to give TOS Klingons a look kind of like Emperor Ming of Buck Rodgers. The actor John Colicos was instrumental in working with the makeup staff to finalize the design, which took only 20 minutes to complete for daily shoots. And, while this sounds embarrassingly racist now, the the script of “Errand of Mercy” introduces the Klingon look by saying, “We see the Klingons are Orientals.” And it’s important to note here that Gene Roddenberry always wanted the TOS Klingons to look more alien than they did, but this desire was stumped by TV budgets of the era.

        — TMP. In TMP, Gene Rodenberry and Robert Fletcher completely revamped the Klingons to make them more alien, which was always Gene Rodenberry’s intention. Rodenberry said, “They always looked like that, the budget just didn’t allow it. — don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.” And it was Gene Roddenberry’s idea that the newly added center-line head ridges were actually an outgrowth of the Klingon spinal cord, proceeding up the back of the neck and over the head. While considering the Klingons as “a race of reptiles,” Fletcher also thought their distinctive spines were from a type of crustaceans: “In my mind, all the bumps on the forehead and so forth are vestigial remains of a people that evolved like crustaceans, like lobsters, who have their skeleton on the outside of their bodies; And over the millions of years, they’ve lost that complete outside skeleton, but now retain only vestiges of it.” And, in a unique anatomical trait, TMP Klingons had a major feature that would not return to the Klingons until the Kelvin era — they all had vertebrae like appendage going completely around the center-line of their skull, from backbone to nose, with no side-to-side forehead plate. This made for a one-of-a-king Klingon design that I feel is the best and most alien Klingon look to date.

        — TNG era. For TNG, Gene Rodenberry, working with Michael Westmore, again wanted to change the Klingon design. Westmore wanted to differ the TNG Klingons not only from those shown in the previous films but also from the Klingons of the original television series: “I felt that for such a fierce warrior race, copying old designs just wasn’t enough for The Next Generation–I wanted to lend a little more ferocity to their overall appearance; and Gene Roddenberry also wanted to redesign the look of the Klingons — that’s the real reason for the change in appearance.” Westmore further stated: “I was given the opportunity to go ahead and create a new Klingon look that hadn’t been done yet; (I broiught) their makeup down into their face by using noses and teeth, rather than having just a forehead.” Hence, TNG Klingons were another original and unique design for the Klingons, albeit a bit more human looking than the more alien-looking TMP Klingons.

        — STVI. When Christopher Plummer signed on for TUC, Meyer and Plummer determined that General Chang needed to be more relatable, and also that the amount of time for Plummer in makeup should be minimized. Hence we have a new Klingon design for Chang, as well as Gorkin’s daughter that looks like an compromise between the design of TOS Klingons and the TNG Klingons — probably the most forgettable and least bold of any Klingon design in the post-TOS era.

        — Kevlin Klingons. Primarily from STID (also in deleted scenes in Trek 2009), we get a new unique Klingon design that dispatches with the side-to-side forehead plates, but brings back the center-line vertebrae look (from back to head to nose) from TMP. Additionally, from the limited information and video extras we have to go by, this new Klingon design features bald Klingons, although one extra is shown with a short beard. Like TNG Klingons, they have a more human look to their faces than TMP Klingons.

        — Discovery Klingons. The DSC Klingons go full bore into creating a more alien looking Klingon, which we have not seen since TMP. These Klingons do have some side-to-side forehead plating like TNG Klingons, and do not have the center-line bony vertebrae feature. These also do continue the Kelvin look of being apparently hairless. They have though a truly unique very alien looking gold/green skin color, and a very wide nose. While I am still forming an opinion of whether I like this new design or not, I do appreciate the attempt of a more alien appearance, which harkens back to TMP desire of an alien race that looks like it is has reptilian- and crustacean-like origins.

        Summary. Looking at these six different Star Trek production era Klingons across 51 years of Star Trek, we have six unique and different Klingon designs That fact is that across 51 years of Star Trek, the creators, starting with the Great Bird himself, decided to continually change the design of the Klingons. In fact, Rodenberry, through leadership associated with three versions of Klingons (TOS, TMP, TNG) set the precedent that Klingons in Star Trek could always be updated and changed — this is a fact that is incontrovertible.

        • M33

          I like your detailed assessment of the changes over the years. Very interesting.
          I think however ENT’s retcon explanations of the differences in ridged and unridged Klingons is a decent enough effort to resolve continuity.
          How to explain why certain “ridge” groups (or non-ridgegroups) got to dominate the Empire at different points in Star Trek is worthy of a continuity explanation, and perhaps this “different houses” is a way to do the same thing—address the very discrepancies you have highlighted here.

          As I said before, it will be interesting to see if they make this work.
          Some will care.
          Most won’t even notice.

        • Roy Ben-Ami

          What you fail to mention is that for 35 of those 51 years, the Klingons had 1 consistent look.
          Across over 3 decades, Klingons in TNG, DS9, Voyager and TNG movies all had exactly the same appearance.

          The recent changes are not only disgusting to look at bu they go against 35 years of consistent established look.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            When I subtract 1987 from 2005 I get 18 years. Are you using New Math?

            TOS to TAS Klingon design era is 9 years.

            Kelvin Klingon design era was 7 years thru last year, but may not be done.

          • DC Forever

            Yea, those are the Klingon design eras.

          • DC Forever

            Roy, did you not read Oracle’s piece above? Roddenberry and Westmore specifically did a res-design of the Klingons for the TNG. Oracle even included quotes from Westmore that specifically said that. Pay attention, my friend.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Thank you!

        • JP

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78faac423cc2f49434214020400e6cd3ada71fe778375c438441d9308cf846fa.jpg Why not include DS9, Voyager, or ENT (which actually takes place before the events in Discovery)? Why not include Kruge (Christopher Lloyd?) Why not show Gorkon? Why not show all the Klingons from ST6 like I am? Besides the fact that they are counter to the narrative you want to invent.

          Chang and Gorkon from ST6 have subtle differences but are not a radical departure from Kruge before them or Worf after them, and are due more to having starring actors playing the roles. Other Klingons in ST6 are in-line with what we are all familiar with.

          You cherry-picked a few Klingons to make a case that doesn’t stand up to the full weight of evidence.

          Gene treated fans with respect and said to them “Look, we made an artistic change, I always wanted them to be this way.” What he didn’t do is try to come up with some in-story explanation that didn’t fit any previous history (of which, at this point, there is a now VERY thorough understanding of that is being retconned).

          DS9 and ENT did a fun, in-story explanation that did not insult anybody’s intelligence and actually made it fun to connect the dots between the old Klingons and the post-TMP Klingons.

          If they wanted to make their Klingons look different, they needed to do what Gene did and say “Look, we wanted to make Klingons look different. Gene set the precedent, and we think he was smart to do that. Hopefully we are as successful as he was.” And boom, conversation closed.

          But acting like this is supposed to make some kind of in-world sense is a very bad sign of what we have in store and insults the people that are supposed to be paying money to watch this.

          • DC Forever

            How do we know that once the series is underway, and Discovery creators won’t say just that (that we are setting a new canon precedent, similar to Gene)? It’s early. It’s not like The Making of Discovery is available at Barnes and Noble for us to read yet. Relax!

            And it’s pretty lame for you to be complaining about somebody that obviously took a lot of time to put that post and photos together as “cherry-picking”. Those all look pretty representative to me. More so than just a “lazy” posting on an cut and past of one single photo from TUC. And he explained the production reasons why Kang looks the way he does, because they wanted Plummer in and out of makeup quickly and be more relatable to a movie audience. It had nothing to do with them trying to broaden the Klingon race look. So unfortunately, we got a bald human with some minor bumps on his head that spoke English and quoted Shakespeare; kind of an epic fail if you think about it.

            All of the Klingon stuff is based on TV/movie production decisions, and yea, they kept changing across Star Trek.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Chang is a bald Klingon with recognizable TMP style makeup.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I don’t think some users understand here that the Klingons have ever only been tweaked slightly due to firstly a different actor wearing a mask, secondly because the production team no doubt don’t want all Klingons to visually look exactly like clones otherwise the actor’s individuality doesn’t break through. These facts seem lost on some people here.

          • JP

            Yeah, everybody likes to have a hot take. But this is pretty clear imo.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        But…but…the ridge is slightly longer, it can’t be the same Klingon design! Ha, ha!

  • Thomas Elkins

    Well I don’t like it as much as I liked the ancient Klingon idea, but it does leave it open for other Houses, (Classic Klingons), to appear in the future. I was wondering if their cranial deformity was the result of some social order that differs from other Klingons. Perhaps that’s still true with this House?

  • LeVar Lopez

    The constant complaining found in internet comments section makes me almost ashamed to call myself a Star Trek fan. Maybe I’ll just say I’m a Star Trek watcher or scholar. Your childish griping maybe would be justified if there was visual consistency in the 50 year-old franchise – but there isn’t, save for maybe the decade from Season 3 of Next Gen to the end of Voyager (yet there were still changes made during that time – sniffle sniffle). But seriously, let us all remember the sad souls of Treksterdom whom we lost to seppuku following the introduction of Romulan forehead bumps in 1988, forever tarnishing the once-proud legacy of Gene Roddenberry’s Cadillac Fleetwood Brougham. Don’t like that example? I’ll give you 1,000 more. Grow up, you’re embarrassing the community.

    • mr joyce

      well said

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Spot on!

    • Locutus

      Romulan forehead ridges are an abomination!!!

      😉

    • David Lund

      Completely agree. I find it genuinely upsetting how much hate some changes to makeup is generating. No one complained when the Borg were utterly different in First Contact…

      • hatter76

        No one complained about the update to the Borg, because they still looked like the Borg, this is much more on the iffy side, these particular Klingons with elongated heads, extra nostrils, it’s not a change that was necessary, updating is one thing, the traditional foam Latex foreheads are Old hat, but the redesign didn’t have to be this extreme, unless there is indeed a difference between these Klingons and the more average Klingons, of course it would be interesting to see them with hair, which can make a distinct difference https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6f205496442a2f568769b3c2aab81633c528b380663cfc702897b74f7c324455.jpg this looks much more Klingon

    • All Patriot

      Largely, I agree. I find the new movies just to be action movies and contain none of the thoughtfulness that Roddenberry created and inspired. They look and sound good. They just don’t make we want to see them ASAP, in the theater, or devote my full attention at home.

    • Mo

      Bingo. Raising a glass to you, sir.

    • Lee O.

      Deep Space Nine was such a terrible show, because they had to change the Cardassian wardrobe, just to have the sleek sharp black uniforms. I would have preferred the ugly cushons with the awful helmets, because it would have stayed in continuity. They hade to change the Trill design. I would have preferred seeing Terry Farrell in a weird generic forehead design. They had to remove the fins on Bajoran noses. It was such a terrible show.

      …..

      Obviously, I’m kidding. Deep Space Nine was a great show and I think after the introduction of the new sleek costumes the Cardassians are probably one of the coolest looking species in Star Trek, which only benefits their complex characterisation. Some Trekstremists clearly have a double standard and completely ignore any of these redesigns that came without any explenation. Not to mention re-using old make-up designs for completely new species. Star Trek has a revisionist continuity. Always has had and always will have.

      I’m a Star Trek fan, but I’m not a Trekstremists. 😀

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Well that sounded strawman.

  • Roy Ben-Ami

    Just reinforces my decision not to watch this new show.

    They have zero respect for Star Trek and its fans by making up all this ****.

    Shame really.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      It’s best not to get too uptight about this and just ignore Discovery.

  • iMike

    I think for those that require an explanation, this is a good one. Whose to say all Klingons developed on Qo’NoS? If they really want to get into it, there are many different directions to run with. Remans developed differently than Romulans due to the climate on their planet. Why not different castes of Klingons?

    • M33

      Remans were indigenous to Remus.
      Romulans were recent colonizers to Romulus.
      Developing differently is not the correct frame for discussion.

      But… I do understand that if they do this right… maybe… maybe they can make this stretch work.

      Look, folks, if the MST3k “its just a show” theory was true, then they wouldn’t even bother trying to make an explanation at all.
      That is the conundrum the Discovery folks have put themselves into.

      it will be interesting to see how they play this all out.

      • iMike

        At no point in Nemesis does it state that Remans developed as an independent species on their world. They share very similar features to Romulans and Vulcans so it’s not an entirely off-the-wall assumption.

        • iMike

          Also, since those in charge of DSC seem to be crafting an explanation as to why these Klingons look differently, then why would developmental differences (potentially due to environment reasons) be an incorrect frame for discussion. At this point most everything being discussed is an assumption since we know very little.

          • M33

            I agree with your idea of developmental differences, to be clear, just not in using the Remans and Romulans as an example. They did not originate on the same planet.
            Developmental differences between Romulans and Vulcans would be a correct analogy. since they were both from the same planet.

          • iMike

            Apparently I’ve missed something. Can you point out where it is stated that Remans are not off-shoots of Romulans/Vulcans? I’ve seen Nemesis a dozen times and it’s never implicitly stated there’s no relation. I didn’t say they originated on the same planet (perhaps when the Vulcans who splintered off came to the Romulan system, some settled Romulus and some settled Remus). I like to be complete in my Trek knowledge so if it’s been stated somewhere that Remans have no genetic relation to Romulans I would simply be curious to know.

          • M33

            I could be wrong, but the movie never directly stated one way or the others, but considering that they were an enslaved group from a different planet in the Romulus system, and the Romulans occupied that region a 1000+ years prior to Nemesis, and the Remans are inherently drastically different from the rest of the Romulans, my mind infers they were a conquered race rather than a genetic offshoot that they spawned.
            But, since storywise it is all up for grabs…
            I guess we are both right!

          • there is a non-canon source (a novel) that says Remans also descended from Vulcans. so, since the canon leaves it open, i think it makes sense to go with the explanation from the novel, at least until it’s contradicted by canon.

            “According to the novel trilogy Vulcan’s Soul, the Remans were descended from the telepathic Vulcans who refused to give up their abilities during the exodus to Romulus, and were enslaved by the majority non-telepaths who became the Romulans.”

            also, i think even ignoring the novel, it makes far more sense to assume that Remans are related to Romulans, because it would seem very unlikely that the same solar system where Vulcans/Romulans settled and founded Romulus would also just HAPPEN to have another intelligent species with pointed ears and telepathic abilities.

          • M33

            Fair points. Thanks for that.

          • mr joyce

            “At this point most everything being discussed is an assumption since we know very little.”

            more people NEED to remember this, but i guess the nature of certain members of the fandom is one of never ending speculation upon theories upon head canon. 2+2=5 to a lot of people

      • mr joyce

        “Look, folks, if the MST3k “its just a show” theory was true, then they wouldn’t even bother trying to make an explanation at all.
        That is the conundrum the Discovery folks have put themselves into.”

        agree and disagree on this point, well made, but flawed. reason being that the ‘its just a show’ idea is mainly directed at those who go a bit crazy over things being different to what they are used to. the reason they are making an explanation is fan service, however weak they are doing it. however, we dont know if the onscreen explanation will be either cringe, or well explained. im reserving judgement anyway. i do agree though, they are definately in a conundrum over this one, and will be interesting to see how it plays out

      • “According to the novel trilogy Vulcan’s Soul, the Remans were descended from the telepathic Vulcans who refused to give up their abilities during the exodus to Romulus, and were enslaved by the majority non-telepaths who became the Romulans.”

        • Pedro Ferreira

          But is it canon? Ha, ha!

          • no, novels are not canon. but the canon doesn’t tell us either way. there’s no information in canon to either confirm that Remans are related to Romulans or to confirm the opposite. so, as long as we don’t have any canon information either way, we can go with the next best thing, which is the novel.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah I was just being sarcastic.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        I agree.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      For those that desperately need their “canon fix” on this topic, it’s certainly a cleaner solution than that awful “Afflication” episode fan pandering brain-fart.

      But for me, I’m going with Rodenberry’s established precedent that future versions of Star Trek production teams have the latitude to keep updating the Klingons, and that this is a feature independent from canon.

      • iMike

        I personally enjoyed “Affliction,” but I realize many didn’t. My opinion is my own, but I think canon is more important when it comes to storylines and actual events in Trek history as opposed to aesthetics.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Well said!

        • M33

          For me, canon is everything we see on screen, which is how Mike Okuda defined it for the Star Trek Encyclopedia and Chronology.

          We are presented with an Audio-Video work of art. Everything within that field of experience IS canon. Smart writers find ways to address things that were carelessly or ham-handedly dealt with by previous producers.
          Doctor Who is a GREAT show to prove this point on.
          Look at the once-cheesy-in-appearance-due-to-budgetary-constraints Mondas-style Cybermen… now 50 years later made to be 100% canon to the show by means of a story explaining and establishing their look.

          It is easy to skip over the hard stuff that no-one wants to address, but great writers tie up all the loose ends.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Canon is what’s on screen, sure. But we individually have a right as fans to not accept elements of canon that contradict established precedents carefully laid out by the show’s creator, Gene Roddenberry.

            And there are also things in canon that we know to be wrong, like ships going Warp 15 and Warp 36, and Khan rising to power in the 1990’s. I choose not to have silly stress over these questions, and I just mentally assume Warp 10 and that Khan was really 2090’s not 1990’s. And I sleep just fine while making these personal canon adjustments!

          • M33

            An interesting choice!
            I accept that any TOS warp above 10 was just another factor of TNG-warp 9.something (since Mike Okuda states in the Encyclopedia that the warp scale was readjusted after TOS to make warp 10 the highest point–so that inconsistency is addressed).
            I also accept that Khan’s reign was in the 1990s, as it has been established many times through the shows.
            I think these are easily reconcilable when one understand that the story of Star Trek is an alternate timeline to our own. It is not OUR timeline, as too many things have contradicted what Star Trek laid out, but those inconsistencies are not inconsistent when viewed as part of its own timeline.
            For instance, when WWIII doesn’t happen in 2053 in our timeline, it still does for the story of Star Trek, again, with no issues.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I know some fans have just gone to that alternate timeline thing, but to me that dilutes the possibility of having a Star Trek like future if we already say it can’t happen. I know that is pretty philosophical, but its the way I feel about it.

            Also, if Star Trek canon is so messed up that it means it’s alternate history fiction, then tell me why I should really about canon? One poster here claimed that every time there is a canon inconsistency, it means the Star Trek universe just branched off and created another Trek universe — if one believes in that approach, then why would I ever need to worry about adherence to canon, since I can explain it by a Star Trek multiverse divergence?

          • M33

            Yeah, SFO, I’ve seen that poster have a very very long ranging discussion on that idea.
            It doesn’t work for me, but if it works for him, great.

            As far as the “alternate timeline to our own” diluting our own chances of having Star Trek’s future, I submit to you the TNG episode “Parallels”.
            There are countless quantum timelines, some that run nearly identical to our own with tiny differences and some that run in the Star Trek story timeline. Our timeline may be a close cousin of Star Trek… just (thankfully!) without the eugenics war and hopefully without WWIII, the slaughters of Colonel Green, the post-atomic horror, the barbaric courts of 2079.
            And frankly, there is a lot of horrifying things that humanity goes through In Star Trek’s history in order to become the society we aspire towards that I hope we can be mature enough to avoid.
            I aspire for Star Trek’s one humanity every day, where we are judged solely by the content of our character and the merit of our efforts.
            I know we will get there in time.
            So, hey, even if Star Trek is an “alternate timeline”, I think that can be a good thing, really!

          • TUP

            Its really simple. Not all humans look alike. Not all Klingons look alike. Problem solved.

          • mr joyce

            ‘head canon’ is as varied as eye colour lol..

            agreed though

          • TUP

            I disagree. Fans dont decide what is canon. Creators do. Fans can cover their ears and stomp their feet and pretend not to hear them, but it doesnt change facts.

            It IS hilarious hearing some people say they choose to believe Discovery is an alternate universe. Do people really need to do that in order to enjoy a show?

            Its canon because the creators say it is and it airs on screen. Whether we like it or not, its canon.

          • archer923

            You’re right. But fans can get a series canned. If enough think it ruined the franchise. Example: Stargate Universe, and Enterprise.

          • TUP

            True. I didnt watch Stargate but in the case of Enterprise, I think the fans would have been there if the series was better.

            It might have been a bit of a self fulfilling prophecy in that the show simply wasnt good enough so didnt draw…and thus wasnt supported by the studio and thus wasnt good enough.

            Wasnt it the out-pouring of support that got Enterprise a 4th season?

          • archer923

            No. Ultimately it was because they had to reach 100 episodes for Syndication use. Enterprise was the best watched show on UPN. And that still got it canned. The network collapsed once Ent disappeared.

          • TUP

            From what I can find online, it was actually after the 2nd season that Enterprise was slated for cancellation but they changed their minds after demanding changes and due to a fan write-in campaign.

            100 might be the magic number for syndication but is not a hard and fast rule. Some great series had less than 100 episodes and were syndicated.

          • archer923

            The show had better numbers during season 2 and 3. It was when the show reached 2 million during s4 it was axed.

          • TUP

            I dont think the studio ever really supported it. It dropped significantly in season 2 from season 1. Downward trend.

            Just not a very good show. Very bland Voyager-ish. Even the 4th season, which was better, was a lot of ridiculous fan-servicing but at least it was interesting.

          • archer923

            I don’t get why you say the studio didn’t support it. The viewership dropped. The writers where at fault with a lot of the choices. The studio only interfered with certain things. Like the Temporal cold war nonsense.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The ratings improved for Season 3 so Season 4 was more or less an option.

          • TUP

            Also, Enterprise finished with less than 100 episodes.

          • archer923

            By 2. That’s not a big deal. If season 4 hadn’t happened it only be around 76. Under TOS’ episode count.

          • archer923

            I caulk up the lack of Khan in Voyager’s time travel episode. From the fact Chronoworx altered the timeline. Preventing Khan from rising up. That’s the good thing Time travel can do for stories.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            So does that mean I can ignore the canon on screen of the Discovery Klingons?

          • Knightmoves64

            We certainly don’t waste time positing that every behind-the-scenes production change that results in on-screen discrepancies needs in-universe justification. We don’t for example create elaborate fan theories about how Kristie Alley-looking Saavik popped in for major reconstructive surgery before showing up, looking like Robin Curtis, on U.S.S. Grissom for the Genesis Planet mission.

          • M33

            Fair point.
            There are some things that are a fine line for determining what can and can not be considered in-universe canon, such as the change of an actor for the same character.
            However, most probably will never ask or even consider the need for a story explanation for Saavik, interestingly.
            But as another poster brought up, what about the discrepancy between leotard borgs and FC borgs?
            I laugh because… well, frankly, it has always glared at me, and it is one of those great choices that First Contact made (like the physical appearance of Cochrane despite his canon age–although Mike Okuda made a good explanation for it in the Encyclopedia) that we all basically said, “Yep! Looks Great! On Board!”.
            Don’t know why the DSC Klingons thing is such matter of contention in comparison. Maybe because the FC borg matched in our mind what leotard borgs were always meant to convey.
            So, yeah… maybe a textualist interpretation of canon instead of originalist?

            Star Trek is one hell of a sticky wicket, and I wish they had the gall to be ballsy enough to address the inconsistencies like Doctor Who has.

          • Lee O.

            This is a really interesting question and a really interesting point. Why do people get so worked up about the klingon design? I think the first time it really happened was on Enterprise when the klingons looked like TNG klingons and before that it seemed people just accepted the redesigns on TMP and STIII and TNG. They also accept the numerous redesigns to the Ferengi (who were portrayed more warrior like in early TNG), the Borg, the Cardassians, the Trill (in this case not only in aesthetics, but also concept), the Romulans and numerous other species.

            But I do think, you are correct. These other species (except the Romulans and the Borg) were not really major species until after the redesign, so there wasn’t a collective (no pun intended) conciousness and expectation about what they should look and be like. The Romulans arguably had so subtle changes they were barely noticed. And the Borg didn’t really break their mold. I think with the klingons, the problem is that in TNG and DS9 they were so well established and fleshed out and unlike the Romulans, they were radically redesigned for Into Darkness and now Discovery that it felt like the mold is broken and they don’t look characteristically klingon anymore. It’s really a fine line to walk.

            What’s also interesting is that in 50 years, no one ever complained about vulcan wardrobe redesigns. But they did complain about their portrayal in early Enterprise. 😀

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “They also accept the numerous redesigns to the Ferengi (who were portrayed more warrior like in early TNG)” Nah, they were marauders, same as they always were.

          • archer923

            Stack issue on issue. DSC has had a lot of complaints towards small or big things. This causes a domino effect. Which happened to Enterprise too. Eventually the wrong color wood would end up pissing someone off.

          • archer923

            Trust me. There is someone out there that has written a fan fiction to explain that. People always want to fix errors. No matter how stupid or hard it can be.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        The brain fart pandering solution you speak of was pretty well written and I’d love to see someone else do better. (wink).

  • Victorinox

    Here is the thing: Although Klingon’s have look different in each different era, we have a canonical explanation for the differences (the augment virus, etc).

    I hope they can:
    1-) Come up with a detailed canonical explanation for the difference vs. TOS.
    2-) Bridge the gap (on screen) to the look of the Klingons in TOS.

    Change for change’s sake is stupid.

    • Dan King

      1: They won’t.
      2: They won’t.

      They are starting fresh pretending TOS never happened.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        “pretending TOS never happened.”

        Essentially what Rodendberry himself did with TMP:

        “In TMP, Gene Rodenberry and Robert Fletcher completely revamped the Klingons to make them more alien, which was always Gene Rodenberry’s intention. Rodenberry said, “They always looked like that, the budget just didn’t allow it. — don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.” And it was Gene Roddenberry’s idea that the newly added center-line head ridges were actually an outgrowth of the Klingon spinal cord, proceeding up the back of the neck and over the head. While considering the Klingons as “a race of reptiles,” Fletcher also thought their distinctive spines were from a type of crustaceans: “In my mind, all the bumps on the forehead and so forth are vestigial remains of a people that evolved like crustaceans, like lobsters, who have their skeleton on the outside of their bodies; And over the millions of years, they’ve lost that complete outside skeleton, but now retain only vestiges of it.” And, in a unique anatomical trait, TMP Klingons had a major feature that would not return to the Klingons until the Kelvin era — they all had vertebrae like appendage going completely around the center-line of their skull, from backbone to nose, with no side-to-side forehead plate.”

        • Dan King

          Let’s see, the entire cast of TOS was in the movie. Of course he respected canon. This is a design designed to attract low IQ Kelvin fans to watch.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            They completely changed the Klingons, drastically.

            You know that was the point I was making. So what’s with the politician-like response of pretending you are answering a different question?

          • Dan King

            Sorry, had a few drinks. I get hostile when I drink 🙁

          • M33

            This is a public service announcement:

            “Don’t drink and post.”

            Brought to by MADP
            (Mothers Against Drunk Posting)

      • Victorinox

        I know, and I’ll watch it and hopefully enjoy it anyway. But you can always dream! 😀

    • the simple explanation is that this is one of the countless parallel universes in the STAR TREK multiverse. problem solved.

  • Fiery Little One

    Hmm… It’s weak, but I’ll accept it for now.

  • Locutus

    I still think it is an “ancient” lost house from a lineage of long-dead Klingons. Lest we forget Worf in “Genesis.” Proto-Klingons look weird! Regardless, even if it is a total reinvention, I am fine with it.

  • Matineer

    Really don’t care that much what they do with the makeup design if the characters are good. What is a concern is that it looks as if they are trying to replicate Game of Thrones — substituting Klingon “palace” intrigue for whatever royal doings go on at GOT. Klingon political stories would not interest me as much as “discovering” new planets and situations in space. Hope they have a balance between the two. And Klingon politics have been done extensively already, especially on TNG, DS9 and Klingons participated in many TOS films.

  • Dan King

    What a CRAP answer. Different houses of Klingons look the same. Canon shows that.
    SO, they are admitting these are NOT “ancient” or “sarcophagus” Klingons, but the exact same species we all know and love.

    What absolute BS. They are volating canon to feed their ego’s.

    • Thomas Elkins

      Eh, it’s no different from the time Enterprise introduced the Aenar. These Klingons probably live on some desert region near Qo’noS’ equator or something.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      If you think that’s bad, you should have seen what Gene Rodenberry did to their look between the TOS and TMP!

    • TUP

      Canon shows that every iteration of Star Trek re-designed the Klingons and even from season to season in TNG they changed. If anything it would violate tradition to not change them.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      One thing I’ve learned through Discovery is that it’s best just to invent your own canon. Then you can never be wrong!

  • Dan King

    Perhaps they are “special need” Klingons? That would explain the facial and head deformities and they are missing some genes that normal Klingons have? I could easily see normal Klingons seeing special need Klingons as inferior and take all of them to a kind of prison planet for special needs, as there is no honor in killing them.

    What happens is these special needs Klingons somehow cure themselves after hundreds of years of oppression, and lash out with their “creatively designed” ships to attack the normal Klingons.

    They could tie it into Enterprises CANON affliction episode to reveal that the event that caused “1960’s blackface/human Klingons” also causes mental defects in other Klingons.

    It would be a HELL of a lot better than this BS “Oh yea about that radically different look… them um ah… the fans hate it… how can we handle this… oh yea!!! Let’s just say they are from a different house!”

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Perhaps Qo’nos has a Labor Day telethon to raise funds to help them? Maltz’s Kids? 😉

      • Dan King

        Judging by that photo, they don’t need help. They also lack honor as no true Klingon would brandish a disruptor like that before a blades weapon.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      It’s all to do with property, e.g. housing.

  • Visitor1982

    Sometimes it’s just simple. Not everything needs to have a profound reason. They changed the Klingons because they felt like it and I’m fine with it. It’s not 1966 or 1987 for that matter, we are 30 years into the future from the last time Klingons changed. I’m fine with it.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      That’s just way too reasonable and real-world for this group. Are you kidding me? 😉

    • pittrek

      The Klingons were changed last time in 2009

      • Pedro Ferreira

        And look how that went down!

  • Thomas W.

    Would Aliens think that humans from central Africa and humans from Tibet belong to the same species? Diversity is normal. A panda and a polar bear are both bears – and look very different.

    But to say “different houses” explain the redesign is foolish. One could have said that those klingons came from another continent oder planet. We didn’t see them so far because the dominating klingon race was the one we saw in TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT – as the european people, the “white race”, has been on earth for some centuries.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      There are a lot of sf novel where humans in the future branch off into different genetically engineered versions….this could be that approach?

      • TUP

        We dont know details. But referring to his house as “ancient” might be an indication that it was its own branch, potentially inter-bred. Much like Royalty on earth. And you could have either random genetic changes passed on or, as a result of inter-breeding, these changes have occured.

        • archer923

          So these Klingon’s would be classified as incest off-shoots.

          • TUP

            Possibly and thats not unprecedented. Like I mentioned, royal families often inter-bred to keep the royal bloodline.

          • archer923

            That would be a good way to explain why they vanish later on. They died out from all the diseases and deformities.

        • DC Forever

          Sounds like Dune. I like that idea.

    • DIGINON

      Well, different Klingon houses may come from different continents/planets.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Property is big in prequels apparently.

  • pittrek

    Well .. if the Klingon look was the ONLY re-design, I don’t think people would complain so much. The problem is that they re-designed EVERYTHING and still claim it takes place during The Cage.

  • TIG1701

    Wow this is another example of how you make a show to turn off Trek fans. I just don’t get it? Why change a look just to change it when it doesn’t even add anything?

    Maybe if they weren’t so damn ugly people might be OK with it, but they really went a direction they didn’t need to go in. Its not going to win any new fans, just alienate the old ones. I’m still going to give the show a chance but I’m happy I have my DS9/TNG blu rays to keep me happy if this thing tank as bad as Enterprise and the JJ movies did.

    • zid

      I don’t get how you claim to be a fan of a show whose hallmark is diversity and then fight against making it more diverse. Don’t you get what it’s all about?

      • TIG1701

        Slow your roll, who said I’m against ‘diversity’? I have no issue with different varieties of people, the issue here though is that we have to pretend these Klingons always existed in a timeline where they clearly didn’t. It just feels like a runaround. But I’m not going to just give up on the show over stuff like this, I’m not completely nuts. As I said I’m going to give the show a chance no matter what. Maybe it will win me over. But right now, I feel this show is headed for a lot of trouble with hardcore fanboys. Not all of them obviously but enough. Maybe it do what the JJ verse couldn’t do: Feel like real Star Trek at least.

    • zid

      It’s supposed to be a universe full of a variety of different people and cultures. Even humans come in different varieties. Why not Klingons?

      • morphoyle

        There was already Klingon variety. They didn’t all have the same ridges or coloration. If there is some plausible in-universe reason for these Klingons to look like a different species, then it won’t be a problem.

    • M33

      You have DS9 blu rays!?
      You lucky dog!!

      LOL

      • TIG1701

        LOL, if only!

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Different houses okay? The Klingons are apparently really big into property development.

  • zid

    Sigh. I’ll never understand how people who claim to be fans of a show that stands for diversity can get so upset when the series tries to be more diverse. The same thing happened when the Klingons got revamped for the motion pictures and again with Next Gen, etc. I know Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations was created by Gene to sell merch but it doesn’t HAVE to be shallow. It can be meaningful.

    • morphoyle

      It’s not about diversity. You are only making that argument to frame those that disagree with you as ignorant or bigoted.

      The problem long-time fans have with this change is that major modifications to established cannon without a consistent and logical explanation make it difficult for intelligent fans to suspended disbelief.

      I’m sure this won’t be a problem for fans of the JJ reboot.

      • TUP

        Anyone arguing in favour of Canon can not use Klingons as an example. They changed throughout the franchise history and even from season to season in TNG and specific individuals even changed.

        But I suppose it makes sense. Why can’t all Klingons look the same? Like all humans do? lol

        • morphoyle

          Klingons remained consistent from TMP until the 2009 reboot. Any changes during TNG were so minor and gradual that they were barely noticeable.
          Even during those years, Klingons didn’t all look the same. They had different ridge patterns, hair, and coloration. They were/are as different from each other as various human ethnic groups.

          If you don’t care about cannon, I won’t fault you. However, many trek fans are analytical and critical, so points like this bother us.

          I’ll refrain from ending my reply with a smug and condescending quip.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Some of the people you are arguing with are nitpicking just to prove they think they’re right.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      Too many houses man, too many houses…

  • Carl

    Given the Klingon’s have had one complete overhaul in design, aesthetic and even character, along with a few minor ones over the years, I’m not particularly put out by this change.

    It may not be much of an explanation at this point, but it’s far beyond what we had for decades about the TOS/TMP onwards change, which was only eventually explained in Enterprise (and actually a pretty good explanation that can be exploited here, simply say that this group are the result of one of many efforts to undo the Augment virus damage).

  • canon can never prove that it’s the Prime Universe, because statements by writers/producers aren’t canon. so it’s simply a parallel universe to me, where Klingons look different. that way i don’t have to worry about anything.

    • TUP

      So even though they say its Prime, you will just choose to believe it isnt? lol NUTS!

      • “they say”? do you not understand that what “they say” does not constitute canon? only what is on screen is canon.

        • TUP

          Don’t be obtuse. The producers and writers say it’s prime then it’s prime regardless of how some interpret what they see on screen.

          • this isn’t my rule. the STAR TREK CANON is defined as what is on screen in the live-action STAR TREK series and movies. statements made by makers of a series are not canon.

          • TUP

            You’re being deliberately argumentative and obtuse.

            Unless you think the people making the show will suddenly change their minds before it airs (with several episodes already in the can), then you can take what “they” say at face value. The second it airs, it cements what they say – its Prime Universe.

          • spare me your personal attacks.

            i was simply stating facts. if you can’t handle facts, then leave me alone.

          • TUP

            Its not a personal attack when you’re in denial of facts.

            You have to be terribly resistant to reality to actually argue that the people making the show are wrong because you personally believe otherwise.

            Its Prime Universe because they say it is. And if you want to argue it isnt until it airs, well, the second it airs its cemented as Prime. and you can pretend it’s not for whatever ludicrous reason, but it would simply make you wrong.

          • now you’re putting words in my mouth that i never said.

            i never said the people making the show are “wrong”. i said their statements do not constitute canon. that is a fact. look it up.

            “the second it airs its cemented as Prime.”

            that is incorrect, unless it is actually somehow confirmed on screen (in canon) that the series is set in the Prime Universe. and i cannot imagine what such an on-screen confirmation could look like. even if a character in the series said something like “we’re in the Prime Universe”, that would still not prove anything, because obviously most people in most universes would think of their own universe as the “Prime Universe”.

            what we can see on screen (in canon) are differences to the Prime Universe. so, for example, if the series tells us that these Klingons are regular Klingons, then we will know that this is not the Prime Universe.

          • TUP

            You can do mental gymnastics all you want to to support whatever inane narrative exists in your mind that this series is not taking place in the Prime Timeline,

            Never in Star Trek has a graphic appears on-screen denoting the Prime Universe. It wasnt stated in 2009 that the beginning of the film was Prime either. It wasnt stated in First Contact that they went back to the “prime” timeline.

            Stop being anal. The series is intended to take place in the prime universe and any alterations to visuals is an effort to modernize them. Any changes to established canon supports the canon rule that whatever is featured most recently takes precedent.

            Now knock it off. If you want to pretend a fact isnt so because it helps you sleep at night, go for it. But you’re still wrong.

          • you seem to be upset. you shouldn’t take these things so seriously. and you should learn to accept the views of other people without getting so aggressive.

          • TUP

            Im not upset at all. Why is that always the argument by people defeated in a debate? lol

            And the other defense is “accept other opinions”. There is a difference between opinion & fact. You’re opinion can be that the visuals dont match with TOS. But you cannot say its a fact that its not Prime Universe and pretend thats an opinion.

            You’re opinion can be bad but not wrong. In this case you’re wrong. Its not an opinion. The show is Prime as stated by those creating it.

          • i can only judge by the way you write, and you are writing in a manner that appears very upset. using all kinds of personal attacks and unnecessary polemic.

            i have only stated facts so far, and that seems to upset you. i don’t know why. must be some sort of cognitive dissonance going on. people tend to react upset when they don’t like the facts they’re presented with.

            and it simply is a fact that statements made by the makers of a series do not constitute canon. whether you want to believe this fact or not, it remains a fact.

            “The show is Prime as stated by those creating it.”

            not in canon.

            “But you cannot say its a fact that its not Prime Universe and pretend thats an opinion.”

            i never said it’s a fact that it’s not set in the Prime Universe. either you’re not paying attention to what i’m actually writing, or you’re intentionally twisting my words. in either case, you should do better.

          • TUP

            Based on the way you’re writing, you’re the one who is very personally upset here.

            You are not stating facts at all. You are making up false facts and then applying your opinion.

            The sad fact is you dont want to believe a show in the 60’s just doesnt work visually today and that Discovery is modernizing that era’s visuals.

            You dont get to decide whats canon. The people creating the show do. Canon is what appears on screen so unless you think Discovery will never air or the creators will change their minds before the premiere, we can take their word at face value – Discovery is canon/

            If you want to play silly games, will you then come on here and apologize to me the second it airs? Of course not, because you’ve also created fake rules to give yourself an out. Unless the lead character breaks the fourth wall, winks at the camera and says “this is the prime universe” you will claim there is no evidence.

            The creators say its Prime. You are irrelevant to that.

            Accept it and move on and stop picking fights where there isnt one. And stop being obtuse and anal. You’re just looking bad.

          • wow, you must have serious mental problems. you’re one of the least coherent people i have ever met online.

            “You are not stating facts at all.”

            yes i am stating facts. it’s a fact that canon is determined by what you see (and hear) on screen in the episodes and movies.

            and it’s a fact that canon is NOT determined by what the makers of a series say in interviews.

            “You dont get to decide whats canon.”

            correct, i’m not deciding what is canon. i am going by the official definition of STAR TREK CANON, which says that the canon is determined by what you see (and hear) on screen in the episodes and movies.

            “The people creating the show do.”

            yes, but they can only make something canonical by putting it into an actual episode or movie. they cannot make canon by saying things in interviews.

            “Discovery is canon”

            i have never disputed that DISCOVERY is canon. you seem to be completely missing the point. of course DISCOVERY is canon. but it doesn’t look like DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe. if you haven’t understood the difference between “canon” and “Prime Universe”, then you really must have an IQ of 50.

            “If you want to play silly games, will you then come on here and apologize to me the second it airs?”

            what do you think will happen the second it airs? as i have told you many times now, it’s not likely that anything in the actual series will prove that it’s set in the Prime Universe. so what exactly would i apologize for, you moron?

            again, as you seem to have trouble understanding this:

            DISCOVERY IS CANON. but i don’t think DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe.

            maybe you just need to sit down and think about this distinction, because you seem to have some pretty severe comprehension problems here.

            “Unless the lead character breaks the fourth wall, winks at the camera and says “this is the prime universe” you will claim there is no evidence.”

            and i will be right to claim that.

            “The creators say its Prime.”

            what the creators say outside the actual episodes and movies is not canon.

          • TUP

            So the creators say “prime universe” but you say “not prime universe” and you think you are correct? based on what, being a rude jerk on message forums?

            Everything I state is factual and common sense. Dont make cracks about mental problems when you’re actually arguing that you’re perception has merit over what the creators say.

            They say its prime, its prime. Period. End of discussion. You can think what you want, but just like flat earthers, you’re wrong.

          • and i can only repeat: what matters to me is the canon (what is on screen and coming out of the speakers).

            if Rick Berman gave an interview tomorrow and said that Captain Picard was actually a gay Cardassian in disguise and he was secretly in love with Commander Riker the whole time, i wouldn’t accept that as canon just because Rick Berman said it.

            it’s okay that the creators of DISCOVERY have the personal opinion that their series is set in the Prime Universe. but if they want me to accept that opinion as canon, they would have to prove it on screen.

            do you know that there are many STAR TREK novels and other STAR TREK books that were written by people who actually worked on the series and movies? but the things written in those books aren’t canon just because they were written by people who worked on the series.

            you simply don’t seem to understand what “canon” means. i have told you about 10 times by now, but you either refuse to let it in, or it goes over your head. and that’s strange, because it’s really such a simple concept:

            anything you see and hear in the live-action episodes and movies is canon. anything else is not canon.

            so Bryan Fuller or Nick Meyer or anyone else can say whatever they want in interviews, that’s all well and good, but they simply don’t make canon by saying things in interviews. that’s a fact.

            of course you can always believe whatever you want. but it’s usually widely accepted in the STAR TREK fandom that when we talk about in-universe things and things that happen within the stories, then only the canon counts.

            if you want to let everything count, then we suddenly have to consider everything written in every STAR TREK novel and STAR TREK comic book and STAR TREK video game. and then we have lots of conflicting and contradictory information. that’s why the canon matters.

            you’re of course free to believe that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe “because someone said it”. but you have to accept that your belief is not based on canon.

          • TUP

            I cant even be bothered to read your novella of nonsense.

            But your initial point is ludicrous because Berman would never do that. Period.

            You’re literally arguing something that is as clear as day, the universe in which the show takes place. You have zero power to make any determination. Only those involved can and they say Prime. Please learn to live with it.

            Even if they scerw up and violate canon, its still Prime because they say it is.

            The kelvin in 2009 was PRIME and yet had technology not evident in TOS. So sorry, still PRIME.

            Are there really people so delusional and desperate they have to make this argument, akin to a child covering their ears and stomping their feet: “Nah nah nah I cant hear you, its alternate universe to me nah nah nah”.

            Ugh grow up.

          • “Only those involved can and they say Prime.”

            that doesn’t make it canon just because they say it.

            “The kelvin in 2009 was PRIME and yet had technology not evident in TOS.”

            no, the Kelvin we see in the movie is in the parallel universe that Nero and Spock go to through the black hole.

          • TUP

            Wrong again pal. When Star Trek 2009 opens, no one has come through a black hole yet. It is the Prime Universe as stated repeatedly by the writers/producers etc.

            If you need an on-screen graphic to tell you, too bad, it aint happening.

            The Kelvin Universe only began when the blackhole appeared. Its been established everything up to that point was in the Prime Universe.

            And yes, it IS canon because they say so. the only caveat is if, between now and the premiere, they change their minds but they have multiple episodes complete so that is unlikely.

            Wishful (and ridiculous) thinking on your part. But they say it is, so it is and the second it airs, its canon. Sorry to burst your bubble, kid.

          • “as stated repeatedly by the writers/producers etc.”

            that doesn’t make it canon. only what we see on screen is canon.

            and on screen we can see very clearly that your theory is nonsense.

            “And yes, it IS canon because they say so.”

            no, only what is on screen is canon.

          • TUP

            So upon the premiere you will come here and acknowledge that the fact its Prime timeline (as stated by the creators) is canon because it has aired?

            Or you will have another nonsensical excuse to argue a very clear point?

          • “So upon the premiere you will come here and acknowledge that the fact its Prime timeline (as stated by the creators) is canon because it has aired?”

            omg, you really are mentally challenged, aren’t you?

            that’s not how it works, you unbelievable idiot.

            only things that are on screen are canon.

            you can’t honestly be that stupid.

          • TUP

            If you’re intent is to earn a vacation from posting here, you’re probably well on your way. its unfortunate you resort to silly insults. But the Internet is the perfect place for weaklings and cowards to puff out their chests.

            Regardless, yes, its canon when its on screen. When Discovery airs, it will be canon that it is in the Prime Universe because it is.

            Thank you for agreeing with me. Let’s move on.

          • hahahaha, i would say the same thing to your face, you moron.

            “When Discovery airs, it will be canon that it is in the Prime Universe because it is.”

            only if what is on screen proves that it’s set in the Prime Universe.

            but you will never understand that simple fact. it’s pointless trying to explain anything to an idiot.

          • TUP

            There isnt a chance you’d say those insults to my face. And the old “id say it to your face” schtick by internet cowards is generally proof positive.

            One cannot debate someone like you who is close minded to common sense and logic. I haven’t insulted you but you are so very upset and defensive you feel the need to do so. Thats very sad and indicative of your lack of character (to go with your lack of insight).

            Either way, you have agreed with me that once it airs, its setting in the Prime Universe is cemented as canon. Thank you.

          • you were the first one here using personal attacks, calling me “argumentative and obtuse”, and now you’re suddenly the precious snowflake who can’t handle personal attacks, lol

            “Either way, you have agreed with me that once it airs, its setting in the Prime Universe is cemented as canon.”

            i have never agreed with that. are you literally hallucinating now?

          • TUP

            Oh yes, the “snowflake” defense. *sigh* Transparent, my friend.

            I never insulted you. I remarked on the veracity of your argument which was very shallow and silly. You cannot make up facts because you dislike the visuals.

            Star Trek Discovery is a Prime Universe series whether you agree or not. Just like the Kelvin at the start of 2009 was in the Prime Universe, even though you dislike that fact.

            Opinions are there to be debated. Facts are not.

            I’ve educated you, I’ve played along for fun. But really, you’ve agreed that once it airs, it’s canon and the series does take place in Prime which, by your definition would cement it as canon that its Prime, so I see no reason why we’re continuing other then your vile, desperate and inappropriate insults and my continued efforts to reason with you.

            But please, go ahead and get the last word. I bet you wont be able to refrain from immaturity and nonsense.

          • “I never insulted you.”

            i never said you insulted me. reading comprehension, dude… you need to work on it.

            “I remarked on the veracity of your argument which was very shallow and silly.”

            and i remarked on the idiocy and mentally challenged nature of everything you have been writing here.

            “Star Trek Discovery is a Prime Universe series whether you agree or not.”

            not according to canon.

            “Just like the Kelvin at the start of 2009 was in the Prime Universe, even though you dislike that fact.”

            not according to canon.

            “Opinions are there to be debated. Facts are not.”

            exactly. and it’s a fact that there is no canonical evidence that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe. and it’s a fact that there is no canonical evidence that the Kelvin is in the Prime Universe either.

            but i understand, you don’t care about canon.

            “But really, you’ve agreed that once it airs, it’s canon and the series does take place in Prime”

            again, are you hallucinating or just lying now? please quote me where i have supposedly agreed to that.

          • TUP

            Look, I was right again! lol

          • “But really, you’ve agreed that once it airs, it’s canon and the series does take place in Prime”

            again, are you hallucinating or just lying now? please quote me where i have supposedly agreed to that.

          • DC Forever

            No offense meant, but you have been peddling this “Trek Multiverse Canon” stuff for awhile here, but I have yet to seen another fan agreeing with that very strange canon interpretation.

            Nothing wrong with you having your own canon theory, but you need to realize that few, if any others, are buying what you are selling.

          • TUP

            I agree. EveryonI is entitled to their opinion. But there is no basis in fact to support the idea that the creators of the show are wrong and that there are different universes at play here.

            The biggest issue is his standard that it’s not prime unless specifically stated on screen. No one does that.

            By that standard every episode ever aired could be a new universe.

            The show takes place in the prime universe. And by his “it’s only canon of it airs” standard the
            The second it airs it is canon that it’s prime universe. He just won’t admit it

            And unfortunately it’s just the really goofy perspective of those that dislike this series without having seen it and clinging to absolutely nonsense to support their bizarre negative narratives.

          • DC Forever

            Yep!

          • “The biggest issue is his standard that it’s not prime unless specifically stated on screen. No one does that.
            By that standard every episode ever aired could be a new universe.”

            in principle, that is correct. but the big thing you’re missing here is this:

            there’s no logical reason assume that different episodes of TNG are set in parallel universes, because they have matching continuity.

            but when you look at what we have seen of DISCOVERY so far, ON SCREEN, then you can clearly see that this is obviously not what the Prime Universe would look like 10 years before TOS.

            and the strongest evidence are the Klingons. if these are indeed “normal” Klingons, then that absolutely proves that it’s set in a parallel universe. because, as i’m sure you know, the difference in appearance between TOS Klingons and later/earlier Klingons was canonically explained. so it would make absolutely no sense if they did a “visual update” now and expected the fans to just accept that this time around there’s no canonical explanation for it.

            if they had never done the “augment virus” explanation for the first Klingon “visual update”, then okay, we would have to accept that visual updates without canonical explanation simply happen in STAR TREK. but they did explain it. so if they did another “visual update” now, they can’t get away with saying “well, this time it’s really just a visual update”.

            so, if these are supposed to be “normal” Klingons and no other in-universe explanation is given, then the only canonical explanation is a parallel universe where Klingons simply look different, just like they look different in the “Kelvin Universe” too.

          • that’s just an “appeal to popularity” fallacy. you’re not addressing my actual argument, you’re just trying to put it down based on the fact that few people agree with it.

            and i don’t have “my own canon theory”, i am applying canon exactly the way it is defined: canon is what is on screen in the series and movies.

            if it doesn’t say on screen that this is the Prime Universe, then we have no canonical proof that it is the Prime Universe. and if we can see evidence on screen that this is different from the Prime Universe, then we have canonical proof that it is not the Prime Universe.

            that is exactly how the canon is defined. i’m not making it up, i’m just applying it.

          • DC Forever

            Actually, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON has come forward to agree with it. Get back to me when you really do have “a few people” and then we’ll talk. 😉

          • learn the English language. I didn’t say “a few people”, I said “few people”. that is a big difference in English.

          • DC Forever

            LOL. Either way, by using “few,” you infer that a handful of others support this weird multiverse canon theory; but again, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON” here has come forward to agree with it!

          • you’re wrong. i know several people personally who agree with me.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Problem is, each of them are in a different universe. 😉

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But are those universes canon?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            What Discovery has taught me is that we should just make our own canon from now on. That way we’re always right.

          • DC Forever

            Please see my response…..

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Guys where’s Ace Stephens when we need him eh?

          • and it’s not a “timeline”. where do you get that nonsensical term? it’s the Prime Universe. there are no “timelines”. what is a “timeline” even supposed to be?

          • TUP

            If you need “timeline” explained to you then you’re in a deeper hole than we all thought! 🙂

          • there is no such thing as a “timeline” in STAR TREK canon.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’m just imagining this random scene which will never take place:

            Human: Thank you for meeting me at short notice.

            Klingon: Your species is certainly interesting and you seem to appreciate our cloaking device.

            Human: By the way you don’t look like a typical Klingon, are you sure you’re from the Prime Universe?

            Klingon: Yes we are currently in the Prime Universe and my people look different due to differences in property development, e.g. houses.

  • GIBBS v2

    This is terrible PR.

    I am holding out for an actual story explanation + new look combination. Meaning one part of the reason is simply modernizing the look for a modern audience AND something in the plot that explains these guy as some almost inbred, radical religious sect of the Klingons that have been hiding away.

    • M33

      …Radical Klingon Terrorists?

      • GIBBS v2

        Radical in the Awesome sense of the word. They like to surf on the weekends.

      • Dan King

        AKA liberal Klingons

  • Mo

    Let the whining begin.

  • I think I sort of get where he’s coming from. He’s treating the Houses more like ethnicities. Honestly, I’ve always disliked how homogeneous alien species tend to be in Star Trek. Look at human beings, there are a fairly wide range of attributes. So, if that’s what they’re going for, I’m all for it.

  • Paul Downs

    I don’t know it seems to me that you had something that worked that the fans loved why mess that up??? Update there armor sure spice there ships up yeah why not but this? I think CBS and Paramount are risking to much and can bite them where it will hurt there wallets.

    • Lee O.

      Because they didn’t. The fans bashed Enterprise and stopped watching it. Before that, they bashed Voyager. They also didn’t go into cinemas for Nemesis. When CBS put great money and effort into updating and remastering TNG, few fans bought it. It’s time to get new fans, new viewers. Many of the old fans have either left or just complain about what CBS and Paramount are doing now.

  • Lee O.

    It’s a cool idea. Different houses with different cultural backgrounds have different ridge and costume designs. Makes a lot of sense. Adds depth to the species. It’s always funny how in sci fi, members of one species would always look alike, when humans can look so different from each other, even within just one culture. And it has been done before on a smaller scale (Morn family all have similar ridges (Worf, Kurn, Alexander), Duras family have similar ridges (Duras, Lursa and Betor, Toral, 22nd century Duras)). In and of itself, I like the idea. It’s an interesting “new” take on the klingons.

    As for continuity: I think at this point, debating whether it does or doesn’t match up with other Trek shows and whether they should or shouldn’t have called it a reboot, is redundant. So, I’ll just say: if the show is good and stands on its own, I will be happy.

  • Dan King

    Are these the Klingon equivalent of our radical Muslim Islamic terrorists? Star Trek was always about commentary regarding current events. I hope it does not lean pro-liberal or pro-republican

  • Joseph White

    Maybe these are the houses with space nearest the Kinshaya or Hurq Border.

  • Claudio Salvo

    Stop Killing the franchise, just make them another species not Klingon for the love of spock

  • Cory

    Personally, I can look past it all if they at least take some of the klingons and remove the ridges. Then at least there’s an effort to maintain canon. Even enterprise tried to explain it in story, and I personally appreciated that.

  • Io Jupiter

    Lord have mercy

  • Lyk

    Can’t really relax if the Klingons look that stupid with what seems no good and logical reason at all.
    Did not liked the Klingons in Abrams-Trek, don’t like them so far here. The more I see of Discovery the more i am concerned (like the Cut-Outs on the Saucer)

  • Blair

    If these Klingon’s are from ‘different houses’, could we still see Klingon’s with a more traditional design?

  • Pedro Ferreira

    So there are difference species of Klingon? Riiiiggghhhttt.