As we approach Comic-Con week, where Star Trek: Discovery will be making a splash next Saturday in San Diego, Entertainment Weekly has once again brought new imagery from the upcoming Trek television revival.

Featured in their July 21 “Comic-Con Preview” issue, EW has published the first look at Klingon officer L’Rell – played by Mary Chieffo – paired up with Chris Obi’s T’Kuvma.

L’Rell (Mary Chieffo) and T’Kuvma (Chris Obi) in “Star Trek: Discovery.” (CBS)

“L’Rell LIVES!!” cheered Chieffo on Instagram, “First official photo of me as T’Kuvma’s Battle-Deck Commander.”

Also published is another new photo pairing USS Shenzhou‘s Captain Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Commander Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) from their heated discussion seen in May’s teaser trailer.

Philippa Georgiou (Michelle Yeoh) and Michael Burnham (Sonequa Martin-Green) in “Star Trek: Discovery.” (CBS)

In addition to the two photo reveals, EW‘s column from reporter James Hibberd also details that Georgiou has “mentored” Burnham for seven years, “at the behest of Sarek (James Frain)… as she rose through the Federation ranks.”

From Martin-Green:

I think it’s interesting to have these two women of color in top positions of leadership. They’re both strong women and have this mother-daughter relationship.

Stay tuned for what is sure to be a big week in Discovery news!

  • What the hell is that? That’s not a Klingon.

    “Oh, no, don’t worry guys, this totally takes place in the normal universe!”

    • Adam Bentley

      It’s prime timeline, as in it’s the timeline from the TV series and events. What it looks like has nothing to do with timeline/universe. We always knew that it was going to be visually re-imagined just like the new movies were re-imagined. Yes I was a bit disappointed they decided to update the look of the Klingons but I’m over it now and just looking forward to new series.

      You’re obviously one of these people who doesn’t understand that just because it’s visually re-imagined it doesn’t mean it’s in same “timeline” as the NuTrek movies. It’s just simply that they are produced in same era. This is not the 80’s or 90’s anymore, obviously things are going to look more modern. The new movies are only in different universe in the sense that they’re produced by different franchise.

      • Bifash

        Perfectly put.

      • it could just as well be set in a parallel universe, and you can never prove canonically that it isn’t.

        • Adam Bentley

          The writers/producer have specifically said that it’s same timeline/universe as all other TV Trek. Nuff said.

          • i know they said that, but that doesn’t make it canon. do you not know that canon is defined by what is on screen, and ONLY by what is on screen?

          • Bifash

            DSC is going to be onscreen.

          • yes, but you cannot prove on screen (in canon) that it’s set in the Prime Universe.

          • Karl

            Might as well be set in an alternate universe behind a paywall.
            There will be no kids watching this who are inspired to grow up in to careers in science, technology and the likes.
            Just a bunch of Simpson’s “Comic store guy” relishing every intentionally placed TOS easter eggs no one else will understand or even care about.
            It’s such a shame.

          • you seem to be forgetting that 95% of the world will have access to DISCOVERY on Netflix. and most of the greatest scientists have been from outside the almighty USA. so i don’t see a big problem.

          • Karl

            95% of kids have debit/credit cards do they?

          • that is a straw-man. i never made such a claim. i said that 95% of the world will have access to DISCOVERY on Netflix, which is a fact. whether they actually get Netflix or not is a different matter. but just because the 5% of the world’s population living in the USA will only get DISCOVERY on CBS All Access, that doesn’t put the series “behind a paywall”. Netflix is pretty common in large parts of the world today. i don’t know many people who don’t use Netflix.

          • Karl

            How do you expect anyone under 18 to be watching then? Either their parents a) have netflix and b) allow their kids free access to whatever they want, or c) they won’t be watching.

            For those of us who grew up with TNG, getting the comics, action figures, got all the homework out of the way on a Wednesday night before it aired on BBC 2, tuned in to the cool cast interviews on kids tv, parents who let you go see a 12 rated film when you were 11…

            Well STD isn’t going to have any of that. It’s entirely dependant on adults, possibly late teens depending of course on their family having the money to buy yet another media stream, dependant on a decent internet connection, depending on if their family will even let them in the first place.

            And of course everywhere outside of the USA doesn’t get any kind of free over-the-air pilot either, totally dependant on paying a month’s subscription just to sample one show which, aside from netflix isn’t going to be present anywhere else.

            So it’s mainly left up to the adults, most of which don’t want a prequel and certainly don’t want to watch their beloved star trek being rewritten by a bunch of money hungry tv executives who want you to pay through the nose or go without.

            The international perception of this debacle is that of confusion, hilarity, acrimony and anger. Excluding of course the TOS fans who are ready and waiting for a 3rd prequel reboot in a row.

          • “How do you expect anyone under 18 to be watching then? Either their
            parents a) have netflix and b) allow their kids free access to whatever
            they want.”

            lol, you’re making it sound like something unheard of 😀 i don’t know anyone who doesn’t have Netflix, and their kids watch stuff on it all the time.

          • Karl

            If you want to be ignored, shitposting torrents of comments rather than a single reply is the best way to get you there.

          • i don’t mind being ignored by people like you.

          • Karl

            Ask and you shall receive.

          • Karl

            Well lets drill in to the numbers to clear up your misconceptions.
            Here in the UK there are just under 27 million households. only 5 million of them subscribe to Netflix. So that’s 1 out of 6 at best.

            TNG, VOY, DS9 on BBC = 100% population coverage. ENT on Channel 4 = 100% population coverage.

            You can see the problem, yes?

          • no, there is no problem. you’re just a whiner.

          • “Well STD isn’t going to have any of that. It’s entirely dependant on
            adults, possibly late teens depending of course on their family having
            the money to buy yet another media stream, dependant on a decent
            internet connection, depending on if their family will even let them in
            the first place.”

            for a STAR TREK fan, you seem amazingly unwilling to accept change.

          • Karl

            You don’t slap star trek branding on generic sci fi and expect everyone to line up for it just because you think you’re going to like it.

          • you don’t judge a series before you’ve seen it. (unless you’re an idiot)

          • “And of course everywhere outside of the USA doesn’t get any kind of free
            over-the-air pilot either, totally dependant on paying a month’s
            subscription just to sample one show which, aside from netflix isn’t
            going to be present anywhere else.”

            yeah, but most people already have Netflix anyway. so nothing you say is really relevant.

          • Karl

            Try to keep your ranting confined to a single comment, rather than obfuscating the flow of conversation lad.

          • try not to tell other people how to freely express themselves.

          • “So it’s mainly left up to the adults, most of which don’t want a prequel”

            did you do a global study on that? can i see it?

          • “The international perception of this debacle is that of confusion,
            hilarity, acrimony and anger. Excluding of course the TOS fans who are
            ready and waiting for a 3rd prequel reboot in a row.”

            i don’t see any of that. all the STAR TREK fans i know are simply excited to see DISCOVERY. i don’t know where your “international perception” comes from, but i’m assuming it comes from the internet, where the haters are always the ones screaming the loudest.

          • Karl

            You need to get off-site more often mate

          • you need to talk to real people more, mate.

          • Bifash

            Why do they explicitly need to “prove” anything? I take it to mean you want them to somehow in the script or via dialogue explain that what we’re seeing is the Prime Universe.

            The makers have stated it is set in the Prime Universe, ergo it does. Aesthetic changes mean little – they are telling the “history of the mid-2250s with the technology of 2017, as in the 1960s they used the technology of the time to tell the story of the 2260s – that works fine for me.

            I am assuming you want it to look like it was filmed in the 1950s, which is a ridiculous notion for anyone who truly expects that.

          • “I take it to mean you want them to somehow in the script or via dialogue explain that what we’re seeing is the Prime Universe.”

            no, i don’t want them to do anything like that, because it wouldn’t be possible. even if (for some weird reason) a character on DISCOVERY were to say something like “we’re in the Prime Universe”, that wouldn’t prove anything, because logically every character in every universe thinks of their own universe as the Prime Universe.

            “The makers have stated it is set in the Prime Universe, ergo it does.”

            you’re of course free to believe whatever you want. but that doesn’t make it canon. canon is defined by what is on screen (and coming out of the speakers, of course). canon is not made by what writers/producers say in interviews. that is simply a fact. whether you accept facts or not is up to you.

            “I am assuming you want it to look like it was filmed in the 1950s”

            of course i don’t want any such silly thing. i love the fact that we’re seeing a new TREK series in a parallel universe.

          • Bifash

            I mean this all seriousness ( and this applies to Star Wars fans too about what’s canon and what’s not ) – will it help you sleep any better at night if they state “this is not canon”.

            Canon only matters for the makers inasmuch how DSC and other Trek properties onscreen interrelate to each other in key story elements ( so that facts and events do not contradict each other )*

            * Even though there is a whole HOST of contradictions and discrepancies in STAR TREK lore.

            If you want to envision that DSC takes place in an alternate reality, knock yourself out. In the same way I’ll be happy to accept the series takes place in the PRIME reality.

            DO you not see how ridiculous this discussion even is?

            Can we just not agree to judge the series on it’s merits and shortfalls when it is actually released.

            “Canon” or “not Canon” has no bearing whatsoever on the lives of fans.

          • “I mean this all seriousness ( and this applies to Star Wars fans too
            about what’s canon and what’s not ) – will it help you sleep any better
            at night if they state “this is not canon”.”

            i have no trouble sleeping at all 😀 and i never said this isn’t canon. you seem to confuse “canon” and “Prime Universe”.

            the STAR TREK canon consists of countless parallel universes. the TNG episode “PARALLELS” alone establishes at least 285,000 parallel universes, and it’s safe to assume that there are billions more.

            DISCOVERY is simply set in one of those parallel universes.

          • Bifash

            “DISCOVERY is simply set in one of those parallel universes.”

            This is your “head-canon” which is absolutely fine, but is clearly, CLEARLY not the intention of the makers of DSC who have stated that DSC is set in the PRIME TIMELINE.

          • the nice thing about art is that the observer can interpret it in ways that aren’t necessarily the same as intended by the artist 🙂

            and frankly, if the makers of DISCOVERY wanted me to believe that it’s set in the Prime Universe (not “timeline”), then they should have made it look like the Prime Universe.

          • Bifash

            Then I suggest you hit them with a leaflet campaign.

          • you don’t seem to be paying attention. as i said, i don’t have a problem with DISCOVERY being set in a parallel universe. i love it.

          • Jeremy Parks

            How much are you paid to do damage control for this soon to be 1 season piece of garbage?

          • is that supposed to be a valid argument? seems like nothing more than a stupid attempt at an ad hominem to me.

          • “If you want to envision that DSC takes place in an alternate reality, knock yourself out.”

            it’s not like i need your persmission, lol

          • “In the same way I’ll be happy to accept the series takes place in the PRIME reality.”

            if it makes you happy to constantly ignore the blatantly obvious differences in design and technology, knock yourself out 😀

          • Bifash

            “if it makes you happy to constantly ignore the blatantly obvious differences in design and technology, knock yourself out ”

            I am and I will, thank you.

          • to each their own 😀

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, me too. By far, if you really worry about how “the look” of things changes canon, TMP, which Rodenberry himself drove the production on, would be the biggest violater of that “sweat the small stuff canon” in Star Trek history. The events in TMP for the characters were taking place only 3.5 years after the end of the 5 year mission, yet everything changed — the ships, the technology, the uniforms, even the Klingons — completely changed.

            TMP was, by far, the most radical change in the “sweat the small stuff canon” in Star Trek history, yet most people ignore that inconvenient truth entirely, and instead pick on more recent productions where the “sweat the small stuff canon” violations are not quite as severe.

          • “Can we just not agree to judge the series on it’s merits and shortfalls when it is actually released.”

            you’re acting as if i had said a single negative word about the series. the fact that it’s set in a parallel universe is not a negative aspect to me. i actually love it. STAR TREK has been established as a multiverse. in fact, i would love to see a STAR TREK series about the crew of a “Universe Ship” that travels between parallel universes. they could do so much fun stuff with that. we could see a Steampunk Universe. they could do crossovers with STAR WARS or BATTLESTAR GALACTICA. it would be awesome! 🙂

          • Karl

            One does not make a prequel, change everything left and right, and then expect not to be laughed at by a world who overwhelmingly didn’t want a damned prequel in the first place.
            Who exactly are they catering to?

          • speak for other people much? i am very excited to see this “prequel” set in a parallel universe.

          • Karl

            ??

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Yea, brightgeist and others who take that way too othordox view of canon I just find silly. We are educated humans, we can use our brains to see that many things on screen or products of the production team decisions, makeup, special effects and writing. When I realize that Khan didn’t really happen in the 1990’s, or that some ships in TOS went Warp 15 and Warp 35, I don’t say: “Oh well, that means we have three different Trek universes.” That’s just silly!

            I take a more general view of canon where I don’t sweat the small stuff. Every Trek fan has a right to their view in terms of how they come to terms with canon — don’t let anyone tell you that there is a hard orthodox view of canon that we must adhere to which requires a new universe option to be created every time something looks different or is changed in the storyline.

          • Ace Stephens

            I recall some saying that Star Trek is like a period piece set in the future where it’s their job to convey the nature of what occurred. As with much of history, some things wind up in dispute regarding specifics. So, if we accept this idea of the whole of canon being adaptations of “the true stories,” we can always assume that measurements weren’t accurate or certain things differed.

            At least that’s a rationale I can comprehend while still maintaining it as canon. Then again, I’m often avoiding interpreting every little detail onscreen as “literal” because…minor things often contradict (even from scene to scene, particularly with makeup or similar) and, even in life, many things don’t quite align with preconceptions, even if those preconceptions are based on overwhelming probability or the like.

          • Adam Bentley

            Yes I know perfectly well what canon is. If the writers intend for it to be set in Prime timeline and in same universe as TOS etc then it’s CANON. End of story.

          • you don’t seem to know perfectly well what canon is. the writers’ “intention” doesn’t make anything canon. only what is on screen is canon.

          • Adam Bentley

            What they write IS on screen. They write it and set it in the prime timline and same universe. What do you expect, some sort of sign hammered in ground saying “This is Prime timeline and universe” ??

            Just because it looks different is irrelevant. If the writers specifically writ eit as a prequel to the TV Trek timeline/universe then that is what it is. You may not like it and rather think of it as different universe but what you like is irrelevant. What matters is fact, it’s prime timeline/universe, fact!

            If I can get over them not doing a sequel to Prime timeline set after Dominion War I’m sure you can get over the visual re-imagination.

          • “What they write IS on screen. They write it and set it in the prime
            timline and same universe. What do you expect, some sort of sign
            hammered in ground saying “This is Prime timeline and universe” ??”

            no, i don’t expect anything like that at all. that is why i keep telling you that it’s not possible to prove in canon that DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe. because even if there were a sign saying “This is the Prime Universe”, that wouldn’t prove anything, because everyone in every universe thinks of their universe as the Prime Universe.

            i don’t know why it’s so difficult for you to accept the simple fact that statements made by writers and producers do not constitute canon.

            so when you claim “DISCOVERY is set in the Prime Universe”, then you are not making a canonical statement.

          • Adam Bentley

            Then by your logic you could basically say the every single episode of any show is all different universe!!

            There is no way to tell what “universe” s show is in from one scene to the next so it’s basically a pointless question either way and kind of moot. It makes no difference to you which universe it’s set in. If the writers state that it’s prime timline and prime universe then that is what it is or at least that is the default position you should be in.

          • “Then by your logic you could basically say the every single episode of any show is all different universe!!”

            you could, but there would be no logical necessity to do so, because all the episodes of a series usually are visually consistent with each other.

          • Adam Bentley

            Do you accept that TOS and TNG are canon and existed in same universe?

          • every live-action STAR TREK series and movie is canon. i have been saying that all along. pay attention.

            and i don’t see any reason to think that TOS and TNG are not set in the same universe.

          • Adam Bentley

            Because by your logic because things “Look” different you’re trying to assert it’s a different universe.

            The Klingons from TOS to TNG completely changed like they have in DSC yet you don’t apply same logic? Yes we have an explanation now for the change (In ENT) but that is after the fact. Did you before ENT consider TNG in different universe?

            There is also many other thinsg they changed that contradicts TOS. There is also differences from TNG to DS9 like the Trill and other species changing as well as their backstory. What about the differences from the Andorians in TOS to ENT??

            If you’re trying to assert that DSC is different universe simply because of how it looks different then you should also make that same assertion to all shows as they all contradict each other in many ways from story to look.

          • “The Klingons from TOS to TNG completely changed like they have in DSC
            yet you don’t apply same logic? Yes we have an explanation now for
            the change (In ENT) but that is after the fact. Did you before ENT
            consider TNG in different universe?”

            you don’t really seem to be interested in having a conversation, because you keep answering your own questions.

            my answer is: no, “before ENT” i did not consider TNG to be in a different universe, because DS9 already told us that the different looks of Klingons are part of canon. if you had asked me before that DS9 episode, then i would have said yes, everything from TMP forward must either be set in a parallel universe or there must be some kind of in-universe explanation that we don’t know yet.

          • “There is also differences from TNG to DS9 like the Trill and other
            species changing as well as their backstory.”

            then there must either be in-universe explanations that haven’t been established in canon (use your imagination), or it’s parallel universes.

            “What about the
            differences from the Andorians in TOS to ENT??”

            again, same answer.

          • “If you’re trying to assert that DSC is different universe simply because
            of how it looks different then you should also make that same assertion
            to all shows as they all contradict each other in many ways from story
            to look.”

            yes, the same logic obviously applies to everything.

          • “If the writers state that it’s prime timline and prime universe then
            that is what it is or at least that is the default position you should
            be in.”

            it is my default position. but when the CANON ON SCREEN clearly contradicts that position, then i do not hold on to what the writers said, because the canon is more relevant to me than non-canonical statements made by writers in interviews.

          • “If the writers specifically writ eit as a prequel to the TV Trek
            timeline/universe then that is what it is.”

            not in canon.

            “You may not like it”

            it has nothing to do with what i like or dislike. i am merely stating facts.

            “What matters is fact, it’s prime timeline/universe, fact!”

            not a canonical fact.

          • Snap

            I would take whatever writers/producers say with a considerable grain of salt, considering JJ and company continually denied that “John Harrison” was Khan. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they will lie about anything.

          • Karl

            To put it another way, firing off in to yet another timeline/reboot/universe is an excuse which won’t wash. The backlash commenced over a year ago now and has gotten worse with every press release, leak and tweet.

            Misdirecting potential viewers is one thing, taking them for mugs who’ll roll over for anything with Trek branding and dubious abuse of it’s intellectual property is quite another.
            If you don’t care then good for you, enjoy it.

          • Snap

            I’m not sure if making it a “reboot” in an excuse which “won’t wash” as it reminds me of the situation with Battlestar Galactica. I, personally, didn’t watch the show but I know there were significant differences between it and the original and people didn’t try to reconcile the two nor write it off because it was a reboot.

            But the argument above is that the view is that what the producers say about the series is “canon,” which is clearly not the case. When it comes to canon, you cannot just pick and choose what is an isn’t canon, which may be a crazy thing to say since that is pretty much what Gene Roddenberry was doing towards the end of his life. But if the producers swear “John Harrison” is not Khan when it turns out he is and then producers say Discovery is in the “prime” timeline then people shouldn’t blindly accept that it is. There’s just too much difference between Discovery and the time period it is supposed to take place in for it not to be something alternate.

            The thing with the Abrams movies is they don’t make a whole lot of sense when you think about them objectively (Kirk goes from being a cadet on academic suspension to captain of the Enterprise) and let’s not even dignify the asinine concept of Khan’s “magic blood” which can even cure death if used quickly enough. Okay, I’m going off on a tangent.

          • Karl

            BSG wasn’t dealing with recasting, and it had a very good proposition for it’s backward step tech internally as the ship was a museum piece. They didn’t try to sex the ship up, they stuck to the 1978 design quite well and the canon reasoning for it was unquestionable. In fact the reason it was the only ship left was due to the fact that it was specifically designed to exclude networking which the cylons couldn’t infiltrate. Bingo! Now you can have phones with wires and big clicky switches and buttons under black and white CRT screens. It was old, it didn’t try to be some high tech piss take of the original.

            Here comes Discovery.. a ship with sets which bare absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to the series it’s rebooting/prequelling/whatever the hell its trying to do.

            Let’s be clear, BSG and Trek are in different leagues. It was a revival of a sub par 1978 tv show that never really went anywhere.

            Queue STD and it’s not only doing an abysmal job at resembling anything it’s prequel proposition is supposed to be a part of, but also it has 50 years of TV and film to describe to it precisely what it’s place in trek lore should be.

            You can try to fiddle your way out of it in any direction you choose, the bottom line is that STD is a bad concept, wrapped in a quasi reboot blanket which is, and will continue to get it’s arse kicked out of the room at every opportunity.
            It’s offensive, it’s greedy, and it is taking the fandom for granted at a level that goes beyond any form of goodwill afforded to CBS since this debacle began to trickle out of the writer’s room.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Most of the information you are talking about on BSG was not known until we saw the premeire. So you are making an apples to oranges comparison here — you can’t compare known plot points and concepts on BSG from multiple seasons of episodes that we have watched with a Discovery series that all we have to view is 90 seconds that tells us pretty much nothing?

            That’s an intellectually bankrupt comparison

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I stuck it out for two very bad seasons of TNG before that show became good in season 3. Was I a “mug who’ll roll over for anything with Trek” for those two crappy seasons?

            If we had had the internet in the late 80’s, then there is no way TNG get’s a third season renewal. Can you imagine the negative fan uproar on the internet for those two first seasons? It would have been fan negativity armageddon on the internet…then also no DS9, no Voyager, no Enterprise.

          • DC Forever

            Great point. You’re right. TNG would not have made it past Season 2 with all of the Internet negativity of today.

          • TUP

            That’s not true. You’re acting like it’s true but it’s not.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Different production team, but I agree with your point nevertheless.

          • Ace Stephens

            …I think there’s a difference between lying to keep a (hopefully, in their view) positive surprise secret and lying to…just…I mean, I don’t know what you’d think their goal is with this one. Just not alienate fans of the prime timeline? But they’ve already got people annoyed it’s in it and saying it must not really be or should have been another timeline anyway or way in the future or…all this stuff. So I’m unsure what their goal would be with that as, unlike the rather simplistic “Khan or not?”-thing (by comparison), this is something that’s about the very nature of the entire world of the work.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I would not be the farm on that.

        • Creek0512

          Never prove? The fact that the main character attended the Vulcan Science Academy is proof, as it no longer exist in the Kelvin universe where Vulcan was destroyed.

      • Karl

        All of that aside, why then decided to put it in prequel territory rather than simply having zero of these issues by make it something bold, forward thinking and set further in to the 24th or 25th centuries?

        There would be no real canon issues to deal with, Klingons looking different could be explained in a damned good two parter of Klingons having another more successful go at genetic modification of the species.

        More advanced ships and sets require zero explanation, as do new species in starfleet.

        It really only comes down to one decision, and that was to try and appeal to the older fanbase while not looking like some obscure syfy channel show, and using/abusing TOS to namedrop things/people/ships that even the most casual of viewer will have a rough idea of what to expect.

        And that’s their biggest mistake. They seemingly don’t trust themselves enough to be bold and to expand on the universe in much the same way as TNG did and spawned off DS9 and VOY and several movies.

        The price they will pay for that is conflict between those who will do anything for more TOS expansion, name dropping of TOS characters and all, and those who just see it as a shameless marketing ploy. Its exactly what happened with Enterprise and the reboot movies. As has been made quite clear with budgets running in to the hundreds of millions, appealing to casual viewers doesn’t, and has never worked with Star Trek.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          I get that you don’t like the concept of a prequel, and are concerned that this is pandering to TOS fans — those are fair points, even as you probably know, I am one of those older fans.

          That being said, we don’t have any sense yet on the quality of the storytelling, writing and acting, so I do think you are getting way ahead of youself in your predetermination that this is going to suck and will get cancelled. I don’t see how you can expect to be taken seriously with that opinion given we have so little info beyond a trailer that doesn’t give anything away, and a few stills and tweets? Your predetermination that is going to suck may be your opinion, but you really can’t prove it until we actually see a few episodes — you must admit that?

          For example, let’s say I agree with you that the prequel concept is bad, but then the show comes out, and it’s great serial storytelling that is captivating and has great acting. Do you change your opinion then, or will you still be here complaining about this being a prequel? Or are you so hell-bent convinced on this being bad, that you are not even going to give it a chance?

      • Karl

        All of that aside, why then decided to put it in prequel territory rather than simply having zero of these issues by make it something bold, forward thinking and set further in to the 24th or 25th centuries?

        There would be no real canon issues to deal with, Klingons looking different could be explained in a damned good two parter of Klingons having another more successful go at genetic modification of the species.

        More advanced ships and sets require zero explanation, as do new species in starfleet.

        It’s a no brainer.

        It really only comes down to one decision, and that was to try and appeal to the older fanbase while not looking like some obscure syfy channel show, and using/abusing TOS to namedrop things/people/ships that even the most casual of viewer will have a rough idea of what to expect.

        And that’s their biggest mistake. They seemingly don’t trust themselves enough to be bold and to expand on the universe in much the same way as TNG did and spawned off DS9 and VOY and several movies.

        The price they will pay for that is conflict between those who will do anything for more TOS expansion, name dropping of TOS characters and all, and those who just see it as a shameless marketing ploy.

        Its exactly what happened with Enterprise and the reboot movies. As has been made quite clear with budgets running in to the hundreds of millions, appealing to casual viewers doesn’t, and has never worked with Star Trek without dumbing down the IQ to the lowest common denominator and alienating the existing fanbase in the process.

        I sense the coming of death…

        • whine whine whine

          • Barak Aslani

            “Whine whine whine” you JJ-fans make me PUKE. We are Star Trek fans with opinions and you are trying to shame us. We love Trek. You love trolling. Go to TrekMovie were they have all that Paramount funded propoganda and leave Trekcore for real Trek fans. Nobody wants you here Brightshite, or your multiple accounts.

          • so you’re saying you don’t have any valid arguments but only lame personal attacks. got it.

          • Dave Mac

            I never drink… whine.

        • just don’t watch it then.

        • DS9 is King

          ”appealing to casual viewers doesn’t, and has never worked with Star Trek without dumbing down the IQ to the lowest common denominator and alienating the existing fanbase in the process.

          I sense the coming of death”
          I wouldn’t say that, what about First Contact First Contact went out of it’s way to Cater to the General Audiences and it was a Action Adventure shoot em up War movie and it was Dark and guess what happened? First Contact was the Most successful TNG movie.

        • TUP

          What issues? They don’t have any issues. You haven’t seen the series yet. It’s like complaining about the winner of the Super Bowl three years from now. You have no idea.

        • Ace Stephens

          It really only comes down to one decision, and that was to try and appeal to the older fanbase while not looking like some obscure syfy channel show, and using/abusing TOS to namedrop things/people/ships that even the most casual of viewer will have a rough idea of what to expect.

          I don’t know that it does. You probably know more than I do on the subject but I got the impression that this era is when the people making the show were most interested in exploring situations. Enterprise felt more like today and they felt there was a gap of sorts which could lead into the individual series and, barring some social elements, align – without necessarily being predictable or obvious.

      • Snap

        It isn’t the 70s anymore, yet Rogue One took pains to match, the visual style of the original Star Wars trilogy. The same can also be said “The Force Awakens” as the only real difference is that the dish on the Millennium Falcon is rectangular instead of circular. I don’t see people crying over outdated production values with those products, yet Star Trek fans are berated should they dare to want any semblance of visual continuity?

        Highly illogical.

        • prometheus59650

          Because TOS’s visual style, particularly interiors and wardrobe SCREAMS 1966.

          • Snap

            I am certainly not opposed to the general aesthetic being updated. I don’t think visual continuity means slavishly aping specific styles, but if it’s supposed to fit within a specific time frame it should at least follow the conventions of that time, which isn’t that hard to do.

            As I have mentioned in previous threads, each ship of that time had their own unique badge, thus the Shenzhou and Discovery should not both have the split delta as their badge. The rank being on the badge, it looks cool but is fairly impractical as it is a bit too subtle in execution, unlike the TNG badge in “Future Imperfect,” but rank uses wrist braid at that point in Trek history.

            You could even look back at real history in the not too distant past and see seriously outdated wardrobe which would be mocked hard today if anybody were to wear it, but that wouldn’t mean you could do a production set in Elizabethan England and completely redesign it to look modern and cool. If you want modern and cool, you use an appropriate setting. In the Trek vein, if you don’t want TOS style, you shouldn’t set the series within the TOS timespan.

            To reiterate what I said above, I certainly wouldn’t want the show to basically ape TOS’s production values, as I would prefer the TOS movie era in that event.

            On the subject of fan films, I haven’t seen many of those, pretty much just the last Starship Exeter one, a few of the New Voyages episodes, Of Gods and Men and Renegades.

        • Ace Stephens

          It isn’t the 70s anymore, yet Rogue One took pains to match, the visual style of the original Star Wars trilogy.

          The shooting and editing failed in that regard then. It featured numerous moving shots that didn’t match the style of the original films (including even their non-stationary shots). Also, it was clearly digital and they inserted some old shots from 35mm and it immediately took me out of the film.

          So…yeah. There are bad/wrong ways to do it too and when you skew so close that any variation stands out to the attentive, that can often be worse than just going your own way with it that still largely matches but then filling in the gaps otherwise.

          • Quonk

            Also, it was clearly digital and they inserted some old shots from 35mm and it immediately took me out of the film.

            Oh yeah, right. You mean the X-Wing and Y-Wing pilots, don’t you? That was totally weird.

            PS: Thanks to your comment I now know that disqus

            supports HTML code

          • Ace Stephens

            Oh yeah, right. You mean the X-Wing and Y-Wing pilots, don’t you? That was totally weird.

            Exactly. Bits and pieces jumped out to me in those regards and there were other elements, particularly the “handheld”-type stuff and some of the blocking…which just don’t fit Episode IV’s visual choices very closely at all. I’ve heard people say, “It’s like one big movie if you watch Rogue One and then Episode IV immediately after…” and I just think, “Sure, they connect…but anyone who doesn’t notice an abrupt shift in shooting style, grain, editing, etc. – even special effects (including in IV after all the ‘updates’) – I question if they were actually paying attention to such things.”

        • Quonk

          Not at all illogical. You’re disregarding the fact that the Star Wars franchise was never about envisioning THIS world’s future (even though I already had a bit of a chuckle when Felicity Jones’s character retrieved that HUGE HDD-looking thing that apparently contained the Death Star plans from the Imperial archive – I was kinda expecting to also see some 8”-FDDs on those computers).
          Now, I see your point and I see that the above argument doesn’t apply to KLINGONS, since they’re not of “this world” (although it could be argued that in-universe, Klingons and Starfleet always were on a similar level, technologically. Note, however, how already ENT’s Klingon had that “alien vikings” vibe to them).
          But firstly, we still know jack about this specific “brand” of Klingons and secondly, if you just look up what the production team had planned for the look and feel of the Klingon species already during production of the unrealised “Phase II” and later TMP, one can’t help but feel that this looks a lot like a manifestation of those very old ideas (which were ultimately abandoned for very mundane reasons, such as budgetary constraints).

        • michael3959

          I don’t think that is a fair or accurate comparison. TOS came from, and was produced from a 50s… 60s look, feel, milieu. (Check out the movie Forbidden Planet). The original SW movie came with a 70s look, feel, milieu which is not going to be all that different from present day sci-fi, therefore it’s easier for the creators of Rogue One to retool their movie to the original SW than it is for current TREK creators to match TOS to any new TREK series or movie. It’s harder to do.

          There was a more revolutionary leap of what technology could do, or can do when TOS started. Any followup to SW doesn’t have to deal with that. As a matter of fact, I think current CGI is a step BACKWARD from the FX that SW initiated. I hate CGI! And, again, any post SW look can be easily duplicated and matched.

      • prometheus59650

        “But I haz to haz my lite-brite consoles for it to be TOS.”

      • TUP

        I like that people are upset. It would be ok if they looked like tos Klingons. Or TMP Klingons. Or TNG Klingons. It would be okay if they looked liked any one of the different looks. But a new look? That’s where people draw the line lol

    • Bifash

      The Klingon Empire spans multiple star systems across the galaxy – who’s to say “That’s not a Klingon”?

      • exactly. and i think it’s pretty obvious that these are some kind of “ancient Klingon ancestors”. people need to wait until they actually see the series before they make uninformed statements.

      • Snap

        Is a Reman a Romulan? If so, why are they called Remans and not Romulans? Remus is in the heart of the Romulan Star Empire, after all. Hell, despite how maligned it is, Shinzon (who considers himself a “Reman”) snaps at Suran with “Silence, Romulan!” which is not the terminology one would use with one’s own people.

        Anything can be conceivably explained away with the negative evidence argument, which I could also invoke with “We have never seen these ‘Klingons’ in any Trek production and certainly never on any Klingon ship, so how can they possibly be Klingon?” As such, negative evidence is typically a poor argument to use to support a point of view.

    • TUP

      How do you know? Did you see the series yet? No so get over it.

    • Pedro Ferreira

      But the ridge was always different… Ha, ha!

  • iMike

    I don’t understand why people are having such a hard time with this. Google the evolution of Klingons … their look, as a species, has been changed quite a bit over Trek history. So these Klingons – at least the ones we’ve seen so far – don’t have hair. Personally I would rather have the series stay true to Trek’s history through storytelling than aesthetics.

    • Mo

      “People can be very frightened of change.”

      • TUP

        People just want to complain. Even if it means committing themselves to complaining about things they know nothing about.

        Too many people in the internet age are gimmicks and being the contrarian is the easiest gimmick

        • acedynamo

          No, they just look stupid.

        • Ace Stephens

          While true, there are also people with valid, differing opinions (as I’m sure you know – just noting that not everybody says the “unpopular” thing or similar just for attention or as part of a persona…but the people who go all-out doing it usually do).

          • TUP

            Very true. But forums like this get
            Bogged down by the unreasonable wilding nonsense most
            Often.

            Fortunately there are those that can discuss differing perspectives in a mature manner.

            But it’s also true we don’t have context for anything yet. The producers are being purposely vague to the point it’s highly likely
            They are tying to prevent Spoilers and preserve some surprises

          • mr joyce

            “But it’s also true we don’t have context for anything yet. The producers are being purposely vague to the point it’s highly likely
            They are tying to prevent Spoilers and preserve some surprises”

            great points made, if only more of the fans thought this

          • Mo

            “This is unfamiliar, therefore it’s automatically bad” does not constitute, by itself, a valid opinion for me.

          • Ace Stephens

            I would never suggest it does. I’m unsure what you’re referring or replying to within what I said (or was directly replying to) as a result. If just an addendum, I agree, although my immediate reaction was one of, “What are we talking about?” since I’ve said nearly that verbatim in the past and wasn’t supporting those uncomfortable with reality.

          • Mo

            I don’t know what you’ve said in the past. But I do see a lot of folks saying “there are two sides to every issue” when there truly aren’t.

            Anyone who calls himself (it’s usually a guy) a die-hard fan is of course free to say “based upon this limited piece of information, this unfamiliar element doesn’t work for me.”

            But categorically declaring “this unfamiliar element is a bad decision for the entire franchise and will never be accepted by True Fans” is reactionary demagoguery. And I’ve been hearing a lot of that since before there was an Internet to post comments upon.

            We’re also seeing that now with the new announcement of the next Doctor Who. Angry child-men everywhere are up in arms.

          • Ace Stephens

            But categorically declaring “this unfamiliar element is a bad decision
            for the entire franchise and will never be accepted by True Fans” is
            reactionary demagoguery. And I’ve been hearing a lot of that since
            before there was an Internet to post comments upon.

            I agree with this but I wasn’t commenting on it. I was commenting in response to the idea that those being pessimistic are contrarians or similar and I did so by pointing out that there are people out there who express concerns in a manner which isn’t this way. Including some here who seem thoughtful and aware.

            We’re also seeing that now with the new announcement of the next Doctor Who. Angry child-men everywhere are up in arms.

            Presumably we move in different circles, although I’m actually a bigger fan of Doctor Who (overall) than Star Trek in general. Most of the men I’ve seen seem okay with the casting or even excited – with a few scattered exceptions. Most of the women seem either overly-excited (as though the Doctor simply being a woman makes the show good/better/relevant now beyond its nature anyway) or actually dislike it (I don’t know if this relates to their being fans who are “into” the Doctor but are straight or…anything like that or not).

            But these women do not get a stigma as being “angry child-women” or anything of the sort. I suppose some would say they’ve internalized things but there’s always the chance that they simply prefer a non-violent male figure in popular media (which seems increasingly dependent upon cheap “action”…even in Doctor Who). While there have undoubtedly been misogynistic, regressive, etc. views expressed on the subject by men (indeed, I have come across some), most of the “Men seem upset!” stuff that I’ve seen comes from people who have an agenda to push (“A woman doctor carries some intrinsic quality!”…that it actually doesn’t regarding the work or society – positive or negative…as in “Which makes the show great!” or “Which means most people don’t like it since it defies the character so it shouldn’t be done…” or whatever else).

          • Mo

            Regarding Doctor Who, I was solely describing change-averse individuals. Most of them self-identified as males, who stated their reasons for rejecting a female Doctor in a tradition-bound, evasive defense of their childhood expectations, having been raised to consider themselves (or someone who looks sufficiently like them) the default standard.

            But whether you and I travel in different circles has little to do with the existence of misogynists or racists, because they exist throughout the fandom of several franchises. Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Ghostbusters, and the MCU have all had to deal with angry, entitled boys who lashed out against change to their perceived normality… whether it was the casting of a lead female or a lead person of color.

            I’m not seeing the complication you’re claiming is there. I’m seeing fans who are either happy for new material (changed or otherwise), or I’m seeing people who are waiting to appraise new material before judging it, or I’m seeing people who call themselves fans; boys who appear to have planted their flags firmly in the soil of whatever year gave them the Star Trek or Doctor Who they grew up with.

            Nothing else will appease them. No change is permitted, even within a storyline where the lead character undergoes a complete physical transformation every few years. For many of those, gender or race is a big reason that they no longer feel as especially represented as they traditionally have, and they express their resentments accordingly.

          • Ace Stephens

            Most of them self-identified as males…

            I understand that as your experience and I accept that as valid. It isn’t mine. Personally, I haven’t encountered this in predominant ratios and that shapes my views in some regards. However, I have regarding “top comments” and news articles…but those are clearly not representative (when I have looked into matters further…for instance, reading through every single comment in a large succession of them) – particularly of close-knit fandoms. Not that this range was expressly your concern.

            Regardless, bigoted people will seek this stuff out to push how much they dislike various things even if they have very little or no actual interest in the given subject matter. The “Ghostbusters” example is a recent one, with many media portrayals suggesting, as a generality, “Diehard fans of the original are upset that the new film focuses on women!”…The people who even briefly wandered into dedicated fan communities knew that this wasn’t predominantly the case among the most devoted fans (who were always rather accepting of female fans – the documentary Ghostheads is pretty good at covering all this), although they were often critical as well. Just not generally of the “Let’s include women!” notion.

            But people who don’t know/follow these properties/fandoms as well just find portions of the media spinning a web of misleading information in their endless pursuit of clicks (i.e. $$$). And then that causes people to come out defending things in ways that assess the situation poorly, causing others to be (often misguidedly as well) defensive toward them…and then many of those same media outlets run with this result as “more controversy.” And it just goes on and on. When it’s largely manufactured or, relatively, “socially-engineered.” It’s not truly reality.

            But whether you and I travel in different circles has little to do with the existence of misogynists or racists, because they exist throughout the fandom of several franchises.

            Of course. But, while those are clearly sentiments which exist in notable amounts, the actual amount is often misrepresented due to filtering systems on comment sections, some media manipulation, etc.

            Doctor Who, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Ghostbusters, and the MCU have all had to deal with angry, entitled boys who lashed out against change to their perceived normality… whether it was the casting of a lead female or a lead person of color.

            When you gender these controversies even though they weren’t limited to that, you actually contribute to the issue (quite mildly) in my view. Again, misrepresentations lead to defensive people so backlashes feed backlashes feed backlashes which lead to polarized perspectives from people who aren’t prepared to take a step back and see the situation as it is. But (unfortunately) trolls will troll regardless. And, even regarding those of genuine sentiment, the relative extremes tend to be overexposed by various media outlets.

            I’m not seeing the complication you’re claiming is there…

            Given your list, I get the impression that you may have oversimplified the situation. It’s reductive (some would say “sexist” – but I do my best to avoid being one of those who misrepresents in that manner, as I assume you might have seen) to “erase” female fans who take issue with these things in various regards like those you put forward as being in the manner of “boys.” And it’s not split up the way it appears in your comment. For instance, there are overlaps such as people who are happy for new material but also wish to wait and see before reacting too much…and fans (men, women, trans, non-binary, etc.) who have expectations from when they grew up…and all sorts of further variations.

            For many of those, gender or race is a big reason that they no longer feel as especially represented as they traditionally have, and they express their resentments accordingly.

            That’s true. On “the other end,” some seem to resent everything around them associated with what they perceive as the “majority” or similar while claiming it’s about power dynamics in media and all these other things that commonly aren’t expressly in-line with the given contextual portrayal but are insisted to be due to a given individual or group’s fixations on these things (gender, race, etc.) – often within what might be construed as “a broader scale.” But those who fixate on these in potentially distorted, sometimes “unhealthy” ways are far from the majority of people who are critical of, for instance, works which – for no immediately apparently reason (or even when reason would dictate not including them) – feature majority straight white casts (for the 45,000th time). Most who criticize that are doing so in a fairly reasonable manner, even though it relates to criticism due to gender/race/etc.

            People will create various rationales for fixating on things in resentful manners (and have a tendency to use to justify any cause they perceive to be against wrongdoing just as various individuals who perceive minorities being cast as leads in everything now as cynical cash-grabs by out-of-touch studio executives – and some ridiculously tie a specific people to that – perceive themselves and/or their interests as endlessly victimized or systematically ostracized even if the actual and often overwhelming evidence indicates that’s not expressly the case in the given instance). Most people relate to “the underdog” and some will contextualize broad perceptions in relation to that – sometimes going to ridiculous lengths in order to do so. Of course, again, most people don’t go that far. And, quite obviously, it’s not wrong in-premise to stand up against oppression or undue marginalization or similar.

            But you wouldn’t know it from following much of the news coverage.

          • Mo

            I’m not dismissing the multiplier effects of clickbait news items and polls. I see racism coming mostly from one demographic, and sexism mostly coming from a slightly different one. I suppose I’ll have to take your word that neither is as predominant as they sometimes appear to be.

            For the purposes of this conversation, I wasn’t including anyone who has legitimate cause for complaint with a piece of entertainment, such as people who took issue with Doctor Strange having cast The Ancient One as something other than an Asian.

          • Ace Stephens

            I see racism coming mostly from one demographic, and sexism mostly coming from a slightly different one.

            I absolutely agree but I do find that the ways people (both for and against various possibilities) address these things may contribute to the given issues. Including the way I do in various cases, although I wish/intend to avoid adding to any potentially “discriminatory” views.

            It doesn’t feel very “Star Trek” to me when some debates can be reduced to “bigots vs. anti-bigots” even while there can, in a given instance, be numerous other factors in play or elements of expression from the given parties that don’t necessarily fit into that (often) false dichotomy. I feel like that kind of take has the potential to reduce understanding, by possibly assuming everything is “us vs. them” if someone sounds even remotely like a “them” (whatever group that may be).

            I suppose I’ll have to take your word that neither is as predominant as they sometimes appear to be.

            Any amount of evident bigotry or closed-mindedness is “too much” in my view, but yes, I feel that these things can – and, regarding the effects much online discourse/coverage, do – snowball further due to recent changes in news media (the past decade has gotten worse due to the amount of competition and relative lack of editorial oversight online). Conversely, some changes can allow journalists to expose things that would have otherwise been minimized or excised social/political/etc. concerns (due to limited space in newspapers and similar). So there’s good and bad to some of the “causes” here.

            By no means am I suggesting that every article which says, “There’s a controversy about this thing!” is misleading (particularly not intentionally so) but I do find that there is a tendency to amplify these concerns for one’s ownagenda and there are also many “news” agencies now which seem comfortable simply repeating what others have reported, (hopefully) citing them, while doing no actual research of their own. To reference another tangential film at random, this is kind of what Spotlight is about.

            For instance, you might get a tweet cited (as an example of some form of frustration/bigotry/etc. reacting to an inclusive decision) which is clearly an ironic/sarcastic response in-context when one sees the tweet it was replying to. But it’s featured separately as though it’s earnest and many places will report on it while acting like it’s not their responsibility to contextualize it (if it doesn’t suit their revenue stream to do so) – just report it. Basically saying, “Forget an informed populace – we want consumers who need their scandal fix!” It’s sad and frustrating to me as someone who has worked in the field in the past (granted, briefly and years ago).

            For the purposes of this conversation, I wasn’t including anyone who has legitimate cause for complaint with a piece of entertainment…

            Apologies then if it seems I deviated too much from that. I originally just saw someone (else) replying in a manner which appeared to indicate that those who take issue with things are (as a relative matter of course) contrarians and I felt it was worth pointing out that – while those people certainly exist and tend to be vocal and decent in percentage of naysayers – this may be leaving out a sizeable portion of those with valid concerns. Same goes for what I’m saying of media here, although I’m trying to allow for the variety – there are some hard-hitting people out there revealing the underbelly of negative social sentiments, too. Some in the case of this recent Who news and others…may have been more irresponsible while reporting on the same thing/s.

            However, Discovery is having its issues with people who seem to be at least relatively-informed fans (unlike some bigots and/or trolls who often latch onto these things) yet insist that black and Chinese actresses must only be focal because of some insidious political/social “agenda” (but, as a comparably slight counterpoint, some did seem inordinately annoyed about Isaacs’ casting, in my view…which is particularly odd in those cases where they claim their whole point is that people shouldn’t care about race/gender/etc. in ways causing them to focus on such matters unduly and minimize/condemn people due to them). In that case, I didn’t feel these matters were particularly overblown in terms of their coverage (maybe I missed some stuff, though) – enough people were saying ridiculously narrow-minded things with no actual arguments…and, while it got some attention, I got the impression that it wasn’t treated by media outlets like it was everyone or the end of the world.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            The Doctor Who thing is pretty silly because it’s modern social justice pandering. You can gender swap anything but that doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do creatively.

          • Mo

            You’re conveniently assuming that pandering is the sole reason a woman might be cast in a role that has traditionally been given to men. You sound like someone who has always benefited from that tradition. And your reliance on the pejorative “social justice” adjective says more about your manufactured assumption than it does about the anyone who disagrees with you.

            In many cases, if you can’t gender swap a character, you’ve made too many assumptions about how that character’s role was defined by birth and by the dominant culture. You’ve also relied upon lazy writing to create that character. Take your typical lowbrow action-movie hero. Put his words in a woman’s mouth. Sounds silly? That’s likely because he always was silly to begin with.

            The new Doctor Who will likely inspire an entire new generation of little girls who can more directly identify with this hero. That’s a great thing.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I totally understand why she was cast and to be honest like everything there was probably always a worse choice although having said that I don’t know the actress’ work. The problem is current media is very left wing in it’s approach because that side holds the most power. As someone who’s central to politics I definitely see an imbalance. What you have to understand is that a lot of people in power are feminists and so there’s a tendency to provide a political agenda or political bias for everything that is done creatively. With Doctor Who Steven Moffat or Chibnall are both feminists so like Paul Feig and the Ghostbusters reboot they’ve allowed their politics to decide changes to production.

            Now obviously it depends on the person and if you’re a diehard feminist reading this then what I say will totally fall on deaf ears but the problem of gender swapping is that it always feels like a gimmick. Gender swapping is pretty lazy. Instead of gender swapping writers should be making new characters for females. I saw a YouTube video today explaining this pretty clearly. You say having a female Doctor will inspire little girls yet you forget about the wider audience and what they want. It’s all pandering to win brownie points although no one dare admit it. Diversity needs to come naturally not by shoehorning it at every turn. The only people it ends up benefiting is either feminists or SJWs.

          • Mo

            “The problem is current media is very left wing in it’s approach because that side holds the most power.”

            Really? All three branches of our government are now controlled by people who call themselves Republicans. Most big-media companies are owned by conservatives who donate to right-wing campaigns and hire right-wing lobbyists. Thirty years of degraded public education have shifted public discourse away from the center towards the right. But feminists are everywhere! They’re hiding under your bed! They’re pulling all the strings!

            “Diversity needs to come naturally.” Does “naturally” mean “at a pace you’re comfortable with”? I heard the same sort of nonsense during the 60s.

            Your casual use of “SJWs”‘ makes your sheltered position very clear. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what Star Trek was all about.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “All three branches of our government are now controlled by people who call themselves Republicans.” That might be true but the results are totally left wing. I’m guessing in media anyway it’s mostly left wing.

            “But feminists are everywhere! They’re hiding under your bed! They’re pulling all the strings!” I haven’t hardly met one person of the Internet who hasn’t called themselves a feminist. No problem with that but most feminists are pretty terrible people and their ideas are either misguided, selfish or downright nasty. That is a cause for concern when we start to notice this in media we’re aware of.

            “I heard the same sort of nonsense during the 60s.” Maybe there was some truth to that back then? All I’m saying here is that forcing diversity doesn’t always mean good stuff. My problem is media currently forcing diversity rather than just hiring the correct people for a job. The Ghostbusters reboot movie failed for many reasons however one of the integral reasons it failed is because it was a film about female Ghostbusters rather than a film featuring female Ghostbusters.

            “Your casual use of “SJWs”‘ makes your sheltered position very clear. Perhaps you’ve forgotten what Star Trek was all about.” I haven’t forgotten what Star Trek is about, I’m currently rewatching TNG (in glorious HD!) but while I hate the term SJW it does label the wrong type of people who are ruining society. These are the type of people who are offended by everything and even if you give them what they want they’re still not happy.

          • Mo

            If your entertainment choices are becoming too left-wing for your comfort, perhaps it’s because the entertainment market has begun to aiming for a different, more diverse audience.

            It’s not “forced” unless you’re picturing yourself being tied down and compelled to watch female Doctors, female rebels, or female lead Starfleet officers. You’re labeling it as forced or political because you’re no longer the default customer. And try to remember that none of these franchises belong to you.

            That new Ghostbusters failed because its writing and direction was weak. MRAs like to claim it was entirely about the casting, but it wasn’t.

            “…most feminists are pretty terrible people and their ideas are either misguided, selfish or downright nasty.” I was wondering how long you’d take to get there. A categorical condemnation by associating an entire group with the actions of an extremist minority. I daresay someone might someday look at your face or your name or your religion, and do the same thing to you. If they haven’t already done so.

            There are indeed people who are offended by everything. They exist within every political persuasion. Claiming they’re exclusive to one group alone is also sheltered thinking.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            “perhaps it’s because the entertainment market has begun to aiming for a different, more diverse audience.” Nothing wrong with that but in nearly all cases the amount of objection is useful to take into account.

            “And try to remember that none of these franchises belong to you.” It’s not about self-entitlement so much as doing the right thing creatively without political ambition or propaganda. It all becomes about politics rather than good storytelling and yes it does feel forced if I follow a franchise I care about. If I didn’t care it wouldn’t be an issue right?

            “That new Ghostbusters failed because its writing and direction was weak. MRAs like to claim it was entirely about the casting, but it wasn’t.” Not just the writing and direction but also the whole thing was misguided from the beginning. You do know Paul Feig only accepted the director chair if he was allowed to cast women in the lead role? Why does that sound selfish and politically motivated? The brutal honest reason behind the casting is that studio head Amy Pascal wanted to have a movie with females in the lead role to fight the gender wage gap, she chose Ghostbusters to revive. That’s it! There’s no creative reason behind it, they casted four ‘funny’ women in the lead roles and then came up with a plot to explain them.

            “I daresay someone might someday look at your face or your name or your religion, and do the same thing to you.” Unfortunately the most vocal are the radical feminists are the ones who get the most attention from the media but yeah whichever way I look I see shoehorned feminism. I’ve been called every name under the sun mostly by people who don’t know me and immediately jump on the sexist bandwagon. I simply stating what I see.

            “Claiming they’re exclusive to one group alone is also sheltered thinking.” Not quite, the whole point of left wing politics is to make changes to the norm, to do that they need to find out what bothers them. Right wing is mostly content to stay blissfully ignorant of everything in the world. You’ve got to have a balance. As I mentioned before the problem is the left wing people or the SJWs are better at getting their voices heard so we get rubbish like Black Lives Matter protesting on a runway. In this day and age we can all get our voices heard yet I fear this is an excuse for random nutters to complain and setup Kickstarter pages because they don’t like the colour of white knitted jumpers.

          • Ace Stephens

            That new Ghostbusters failed because its writing and direction was weak.

            Exactly!

            MRAs like to claim it was entirely about the casting, but it wasn’t.

            The cast was actually great. They tried to make it work but they were left to improvise around a lazy screenplay while trying to make the most of Paul Feig’s stumbling efforts you mentioned as well as Amy Pascal’s poor producing choices.

            Then the “controversy” occurred because it looked awful and the sexists were vocal and…then everybody began defensively trashing everyone else (associating whatever their issue was with people’s genders mostly – although Jones got a lot of flak due to her race as well) as though that was a productive use of time. Obviously, it wasn’t.

          • Ace Stephens

            I would suggest you further examine the distinction between politics (as in political views) and people (as in the culture within a specific context). Those who are conservatives associated with “running” big media companies tend to not care if the creatives beneath them (who create much of the fictional media) inject their own political views into things a decent amount as long as money is made. At least that’s my understanding – as a generality – from what I’ve observed.

            I’m certainly not saying I agree with Pedro across the board (I find myself agreeing with you more here than I do him on this specific subject thus far…) but I don’t really think this is a manner of framing things that makes sense.

            It’s not so “one-sided.” I tend to find that people who believe it is (here, you two are my current examples but you’re obviously not representative overall) are those whose views are (one-sided) and many may construe the “powerful” side as being their relative opponents within a dichotomy of sorts. I think I alluded to this before (I don’t know – I often edit my longer comments down even though they still wind up insanely long-winded) but people find ridiculous ways of framing themselves as the underdog in broad manners that, while maybe having some validity, often fail to align with reality all that much.

    • Bifash

      That’s because there’s a coterie of so-called fans who like to believe that only what THEY deem as “canon” has any validity, and any idea that deviates from their tiny sphere must be condemned.

      • Karl

        Continuity is at the very heart of Star Trek and requires a decent amount of intellect and analytical thought to build a fictional universe.

        Lack of it is the main issue with all these failed reboots/prequels/origin stories. If you’re happy with a slap dash approach then enjoy it. But having a go at others because they cant/wont suspend their disbelief is neither clever, or attractive.

        The real question is if there are enough people like you to keep it afloat. Enterprise gave it a good shot, the reboot movies tried too. 3rd times a charm, right?

        • “Continuity is at the very heart of Star Trek and requires a decent
          amount of intellect and analytical thought to build a fictional
          universe.”

          but STAR TREK is a multiverse with a near-infinite number of parallel universes. that allows for infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

        • “The real question is if there are enough people like you to keep it afloat.”

          that question has already been answered, because the Netflix deal has already fully financed the first season and part of the second season.

        • LogicalLeopard

          Continuity is at the very heart of Star Trek? Which Star Trek have you been watching? The one where they changed the makeup to the Klingons in TMP? The one where Roddenberry was the person they had to reign in on matters of canon on TNG?

          I agree that canon is very important and I hate when it’s violated. If you don’t want to suspend disbelief, that’s fine, butt’s not lie to ourselves and act like we haven’t suspended disbelief before.

          • US Centrist

            “The one where they changed the makeup to the Klingons in TMP?”

            Yes, and kept it that way for 26 years, far longer than the TOS design. I don’t generally have problems with the changes to the Klingons, but their sudden baldness is throwing me off a bit. General Chang was an exception. All Klingons having no head hair now seems to be a rule and not the exception. Won’t stop me from watching it. I just don’t know if I like it or not.

          • Wildcat30

            Why should a whole alien race have to have the same haircut?
            Humans have all kinds of hair styles.

            I’m open to a reinterpretation of the Klingon look…they should look alien and even menacing. The TMP look served us well for a very long time, but it’s time to turn it up a few notches.

          • jhoger

            The xenomorph style head is not a haircut.

          • LogicalLeopard

            BUT. THEY. CHANGED. IT. *LOL* Keeping it that way for 26 years makes NO difference. They changed it before, they changed it again. How do you think the sudden ridgedness and hairiness made people feel at TMP. Now, look, I can understand that it throws you off, that’s natural. What I object to is people acting like it’s some grave violation for a show that has made the SAME change before, even MORE dramatic than this one. But the popularity of the design isn’t really saying much, because for a couple generations of fans, its the only design they grew up with. And of course, not only would fans be attracted to a more complex makeup than the original makeup, they probably wouldn’t want to go around comic cons in what could be perceived as blackface. Or “yellowface,” since the designs seem to be based on an Oriental one.
            I do have to say though, we dont know if these are contemporary Klingons. This could be an offshoot somehow, or as I think I’ve speculated before, some sort of sleeper ship.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            But…but…the ridge is slightly different on the TMP Klingons so for the past 26 years it must have been redesigned! Sorry couldn’t resist. Ha, ha!

          • Karl

            Was never really interested in TOS stuff mate.

          • LogicalLeopard

            It’s continuity. You have to be interested in it. But you’re in good company, neither was Gene Roddenberry, apparently, after TNG.

        • Lee O.

          “Continuity is at the very heart of Star Trek and requires a decent
          amount of intellect and analytical thought to build a fictional
          universe.”

          No, it never really was. Roddenberry was a revisionist and would change things on a whim: Turn phasers from blue to yellow without explanation, because it looked better; radically change the look of the show once he had a bigger budget (TMP); change the klingon culture completely from totaliterian napoleonic regime to a feudal society with a stric honor code similar to Feudal Japan. And move the time period of TOS from the 2200s to the 2800s (Trelane remarked that 18th century clothing was worn 900 years ealier) to ultimately the late 23rd century in Star Trek IV. A Cloaking device was something totally unheard of in “The Enterprise Incident”, when they fought a cloaked ship in “Balance of Terror”.

          It was only by the time Rick Berman and Michael Piller took over (followed by Ira Behr, Jeri Taylor, Brannon Braga and Manny Coto) that continuity became more important – and even then they would occasionally change the rules.

          So, in short, your statement is simply false and uninformed.

          • Ace Stephens

            (Trelane remarked that 18th century clothing was worn 900 years ealier)

            I believe that, there, the likelihood is more that Trelane was guessing or was out of time himself. Are there other references to this?

          • All Patriot

            I’ve always felt the Klingons culture and behavior were more Viking than feudal Japan.

          • Lee O.

            They took queues from both. I read in the TNG and DS9 companions that this was their intention at least. Mostly with their honor system and the philosophy of rather dying with honor than living in shame. And I guess for Enterprise as a prequel they pronounced the viking aspects more as they felt less sophisticated than the Samurai aspects.

        • Donald Black

          BS continuity has never been part of Star Trek. Look at TOS and look at TNG. What continuity? Michael Ansera, Michael Dorn.

    • Karl

      They’re not hardcore TOS superfans who want moaaar TOS at any cost.
      It’s a strange attitude which only seems to be on sites like this.

    • Lee O.

      I agree with you on the radical redesigns and I am not against redesigning the klingons in at of itself. However, in redesigning something as iconic as the klingons, it should still be distinctly recognizable as klingons and so far, from what we’ve seen, I feel that those designs are not at all recognizable as such. Just barely really, because of the ridges, but the elongated heads, the bone-armor, the skin tone, the missing hair, all of this together breaks the mold.

      By comparison, the kiingons in Into Darkness were quite different, but still very recognizable klingon. Many of them had hair, the head ridges were extended to form a thick bone structure around the head, the nose was wider, the eyes were more cat-like, but they were still essentially the dark skinned humaniods from other incarnations.

      Of course, my assessment might change, once I see these klingons in the actual show. Plus, there is the possibility, that there is a story-reason for the difference in their appearances. And even if this isn’t the case, Discovery might still be a good show and the new klingon design and culture in and of itself can be great.

      But as of this moment, I still think they went overboard and while I like the design in and of itself, I don’t think it represents klingons well.

      • Lee O.

        I still think they could have avoided fan controversy by just making it some sort of reboot or setting it in a time period less closely to an established show that aired decades ago, which causes a lot of very specific expectations from the fanbase.

        • jhoger

          “I still think they could have avoided fan controversy by just making it some sort of reboot or setting it in a time period less closely to an established show”

          JJ rebooting trek turned off a broad swath of trek fandom.

          We like our timeline the way it is, and the way we remember it.

          • Lee O.

            Yeah, but obviously what a new show lives by is new viewership. Less dogmatic fans and new viewers would still have watch the show and the “continuity purists” could just have left it alone and seen it as something seperate. Less controversy.

            Now you have what looks like a reboot, which will still attract viewers, but also claims to be in continuity with the other shows, even though it looks totally different, which causes outrage and division in the fandom.

            Maybe that’s what they want though. Even haters will watch the show now, just to tell others how terrible it is, because it doesn’t fit visually with the other shows.

          • Lee O.

            “JJ rebooting trek turned off a borad swath of trek fandom.”

            They also brought in billions of new viewers, many of which probably checked out the earlier movies and maybe even TOS-R and TNG-R. These are the most successful films in Trek history. Even if, admittedly, Beyond didn’t fare that well at the box office.

      • Ace Stephens

        I don’t agree with all of your points but I can see what you mean with them because of how well you expressed them while allowing for possibilities or variance from your immediate concerns. I think that’s a testament to the value of clear expression and due consideration. I wish more Trek fans presented their concerns this way so things would be less about “the controversy” and more about constructive dialogue toward understanding each other (and, who knows, maybe that would rub off on the show and somehow it would help sort things out – since it’s often easier to listen when people don’t seem to be yelling about the same thing again).

        Many now seem to think expressing their concerns frequently, loudly and vociferously is the only way to truly communicate their feelings and potentially “get what what they want” (because this method is often easier to get a “quick fix” or fast appeasement even though such solutions often don’t actually address much of anything at large). Your take gives me hope that online discourse could move away from that.

        • Lee O.

          Thank you very much. That compliment means a lot to me. What you are saying is precisely my concern. And I think it isn’t just something that I observe in fandom, but really nearly everywhere now. People just being unhappy with their situation and – without really thinking about the complex issues that are involved – just complaining about it as vocally as possible. This kind of mentality in its extreme form ultimately leads to events like the recent G20 “protests” (actually “vandalism” covers it better) in Hamburg, Germany.
          I’d rather engage in a deliberative dialogue.
          Back to Trek: so many fans seem to forget the realities of tv and movie production and it seems they believe they have some sort of special right to a specific kind of star trek, when in reality they should be grateful that after 12 years new episodes are now actually being made. And if they don’t like how they turn out, they seem to forget, they always have the right, not to watch it and be content with what they have. Always.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Agreed — please see my post here with the photo montage, etc.

    • GIBBS v2

      We are all going to look like fools when the story lays it out of us and everyone goes

      “OOOoooohh, thats whats going on… now I get it”

    • All Patriot

      Let us hope that this series will right the ship. The movies are just action flicks lacking the cerebral nature for which all the previous series and movies are known.

      As far as the Klingons, at least they’re not stuck with bowl cuts for fifty years! They’ve received a fairer shake than the overused Vulcans and Romulans.

  • Bifash

    In a number of respects ( as has been pointed out by others before ) these Klingon designs hark back to some of the concepts from around the time of TMP:
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c682ef122af70c1207c0d96c20d41db2bc7a9acc6e3a78b60b3286f58d9e37c3.jpg

    • Quonk

      Good observation. I don’t mind them taking a new step in the evolution of Klingons, makeup- and costume-wise, and I knew that it’s actually in line with some very old designs, as you just pointed out.

      There are still two factors that make me a bit suspicious: Firstly I’m very curious as to how in the world the makeup should NOT be disruptive to the actors’ performances. But then again: Makeup techniques have come a long way since the days of TNG or the original Star Trek movies.
      Secondly, those are still the most “impractical” looking Klingons ever seen in Trek – I wonder whether that truly “ancient” look will be an actual plot point. I sure hope so, otherwise I’d say that the show’s designers kinda overstated their case.
      Also note how the two characters seen in the shot still look identifiably Klingon, whereas other characters wearing that sort of armor strayed wayyy further from what we know as Klingons… Actually this makes me all the more curious.

      • Bifash

        Yep, the Elizabethan style corsets and collars look mighty uncomfortable for the actors, not to mention the heavy, full face make-up. It will be definitely interesting to see how it all comes together onscreen. All in all, I am intrigued and excited.

        • Quonk

          Elizabethan? – Hey, you might be on to something there. Maybe we’ll finally get to hear Shakespeare in the “original Klingon” (taH pagh taHbe! – haw haw haw haw!)
          I for one have come to refer to these as “Gothic Klingons”. Those surface designs that are somewhat reminiscent of spiderwebs, the Nosferatu-like ears, the claws, the generally spidery lines in those designs. It all gives me that certain gothic horror vibe.

          • Bifash

            Defintiely those influences too!

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Thanks!! This sketch is actually something I have not seen before, yet I have ton’s of TMP stuff I collected back in the 80’s.

  • CAPTAIN D-MAN

    So we’re not gonna see her pretty face. Such sadness…

  • Bifash

    I suspect some “fans” are going to be triggered by the fact that these Klingons have elongated crania and double nostrils. Personally, I think it looks great.

    • Karl

      I expect some “fans” will gobble down anything served up on a plate marked Star Trek..

      • as long as it doesn’t violate the STAR TREK canon that allows for infinite diversity in infinite combinations within a multiverse of near-infinite parallel universes.

        • Snap

          If people are going to invoke IDIC then they must follow its principals instead of selectively when it suits them. Especially with this whole “fans” nonsense, as it doesn’t matter whether people love or hate what we have seen thus far of the Discovery Klingons, we are ALL fans of Star Trek and none of us have any ownership or authority to claim someone isn’t just because they don’t share our personal opinions.

          However, as far as to what you said above, if it turns out that Discovery is in its own portion of the multiverse, which shares a loose similarity with the universe we are familiar with, then my misgivings towards the Klingons as well as the other elements which fly in the face of continuity will be buried. That doesn’t mean I necessarily have to “like” the look, but I won’t really be bothered by the whole “change the look apparently for the sake of change” type of approach they have gone with.

          I am cautiously optimistic and, for the record, just like when I go into a new incarnation of Trek, I want to like Discovery.

      • but let me get this straight… on the one hand, you INSIST that this is the Prime Universe, because the writers said so… and on the other hand, you hate on the series because Klingons don’t look like the Klingons in the Prime Universe. sounds to me like you simply WANT to hate. because if you accepted that this is set in a parallel universe where Klingons look different, which would be fully within what STAR TREK canon allows, then you’d have no reason to hate it. but clearly you are one of those people who prefer to hate things.

        • mr joyce

          none of the show creators said it was set in a parallel universe though right? i mean, i guess everyone has their own head canon/perceptions, based on whats been seen before, but shouldn’t we just judge the final product rather than just a teaser trailer?

          ps. im new to this site, ive seen a lot of what you post, and i like your other posts, your thoughts don’t always align with mine, but i like your writing style 🙂

  • Fiery Little One

    huh.

  • bytes

    Klingons have ears?

    • Snap

      Yeah, you just can’t see them most of the time because of their hair. However, there are some Klingons whose ears are clearly visible, such as General Chang and Azetbur, as well as Colonel Worf in Star Trek VI.

      They don’t have pointed ears, which set off Worf’s racist attitude when he discovered the trait on Ba’el in “Birthright.”

  • bytes

    Deep Space Nine and Enterprise, both went out of their way to recreate and accept the look of The Original Series asthetics. They commented on how different it was, and acknowledged it was very strange. Yet the show and it’s characters still followed it through as normal. Seeing this show ignore those efforts, is what is bothering us that are struggling to appreciate this reimagined past.

    • mr joyce

      i agree with you with most of what you say, but i’d add that all we’ve seen is a short trailer, where a lot of things look very different, so who’s to say that there wont be tie-ins aesthetically during the actual episodes? we don’t know a whole lot about the series past the trailer, which is only a snippet. ‘the cage’ era is the timeline we are going to see onscreen, and that was only in one episode of TOS anyway, theres so much that can be done with creative licence because of this. im also sure there will very likely be some ‘retconing’ done also.

      anyway, im looking forward to it, even if so far it looks a little ‘samey’ 🙂

    • Kirk3400

      You don’t know if they have respected it yet or not though. These might be a special sect of klingons. Or they could be from before klingons had to be genetically modified to be like humans to resist a certain disease.

    • Donald Black

      How can you even say that based on what little you’ve been able to see so far? I’m thinking you just want it to fail

      • Ace Stephens

        I’m confused as to why people behave as though ships, uniforms, etc. (as design generalities) can’t change over time and/or can’t differ from location/vessel/etc. to others of its type (in the same time).

        There’s often a great deal of variance to things in life, even within formal/systematized operations.

    • TUP

      The triggering by the masses here is hilarious. You know nothing. Wait til it airs.

      • Snap

        If I may ask, why are certain reactions not permitted simply because all we have to go on is the trailer? I mean, how is it any different than people berating or mocking them for voicing their opinion? And if people aren’t allowed to voice opinions disliking what they’ve seen, why are people allowed to rave over it and shower praise upon it when they “know nothing” and need to “wait till it airs” just like the rest of us?

        • TUP

          People can say what they want. But it doesn’t diminish how stupid it sounds when people complain about things they don’t know.

          Most of these people are ranting and raving and not making sense.

          A few people are posting thoughtfully and maintaining a dislike for this. And that’s cool. But it’s rare

          • Snap

            Yeah, I see your point, but a lot of what I have seen in regards to people criticising what is currently known generally comes down to “it’s not the 60s/80s/90s anymore” or “it’s just fiction” or simply twisting comments around to suit agendas.

            So I can certainly see the ranting and raving and not making sense on both sides of the argument, especially as it is clear that there are those who will not accept any opposing argument to their own regardless of how well thought out it may be.

            Whichever side of the argument any of us are on, however, we are all in the same boat of knowing just as much or little as the next person who comments. Aesthetics are an en entirely subjective thing and while some may like what they see, others may not and I don’t see why they should be berated with arguments of “modern production values” or generally treated in a condescending manner.

            September isn’t that far away, soon we will all have a better frame of reference for these arguments.

          • TUP

            “It’s not the 60’s” is a reasonable explanation for updating the look though. Star Trek simply can’t work if we take everything from a 60’s tv show and make it
            Gospel

            I’m very much for respecting canon and there are ways to do it while updating looks.

            In this particular case we have clues that tell us the Klingons Mijt look this way for a reason.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Basically you’re allowed to have an opinion on this site as long as it belongs to the more prominent members like above you.

          • TUP

            Again, please stop with that. You’re baiting and it’s transparent and silly. I’m not a prominent member here. This past few days is probably he most I’ve ever posted here.

            I should be completed though that you feel I am prominent
            🙂

          • Pedro Ferreira

            It seems you are prominent members because you guys have been causing arguments here days before I even posted here. You can’t say I should be banned when you guys have been in the thick of it for at least two days before my arrival.

  • Thomas Thurbando

    shit.

  • Barak Aslani

    Bollocks.

  • David Lund

    Oh dear, looks like the bitching has begun again. A shame really, the costume and make up in the new photo looks incredible

    • Snap

      It may be incredible, but it doesn’t say “Klingon”* at all. If I had to compare what these characters look like in the context of existing Trek, they look like the Remans compared to the Romulans. The costumes look more like the Goa’uld from Stargate on steroids than anything you’d see on a Klingon.

      * I know someone will inevitable pull up the TMP concept drawings and cry out “See! SEE! It’s canon! They thought of this in the 70s!” But concept drawings are not canon and rejected concept drawings were rejected for a reason

    • Dan King

      It’s not canon as established by TOS

      • TUP

        Neither is TNG until enterprise came
        Along.

        • Snap

          I’m not sure what you’re referring to since the update of the Klingons occurred before TNG went into production. I mean, I see Christopher Lloyd and his group of Klingons looking nearly identical to the Klingons which would show up in TNG and beyond.

          If it was canon for the Classic era encompassing TOS and the TOS movies, it would logically be canon with TNG as well.

          • TUP

            Tos. TMP. Tng. and word changed through the years. There is no “Klingon” look.

  • Barak Aslani

    I know some of the JJ-verse/re-imagine/reboot/rehash Trekkies are going to be triggered by my comments but it’s about time they understood the sheer number of real Star Trek fans who won’t be silenced or shamed by appreciating continuity anymore. We didn’t have a leg to stand on during those three silly movies…. but here is a series claiming to be ‘Prime’, not multiverse not shmaltiverse. If these are ‘ancient klingons’ then I can buy it and will commit to the series… but… if they have mindlessly created yet another look for the Klingons, while DS9 and more-so Enterprise went to great pains to reconcile and tidy-up inconsistencies…. then this new series is as reductive and POINTLESS as the three JJ-travesty films. Star Trek fans invested in an insitution that has lasted for 50+ years because of the fans, if you insist on boring us with yet another prequel – honour those fans and that heritage instead of insulting our investment. You’re telling us what we loved needs changing… but you still want our money. Right…

    • Karl

      Nailed it lad. And the TOS fans seem to be driving this, both in production and in the fandom. It’s a really dangerous game they are playing. Putting the franchise in to a massive gamble of yet another TOS themed revisit which, quite frankly, is only of interest to a minority. I’m all for them to be getting their fix, but it’s becoming tiresome and greedy, leaving the rest of the fandom out to dry, yet again.

      It goes from insult to injury when we’re harassed from sites like this by the very same people insistent that we either like it, or don’t consider ourselves as fans anymore.

      Well this time it wont be neilson ratings, network decisions or budgets that decide to can STD, it will be yet another bad concept which really does need to be put to bed now. Let’s hope that this time they will learn and take it on board. It’s just a shame that people have such short memories and we may well end up with a 4th TOS rehash at some point over the next 10 years.

      Add to that CBS’s new approach to demolishing fan productions entirely, it’s really not difficult to see that the entire franchise and future of Star Trek is hanging in the balance and completely within the hands of a network streaming service which has zero experience in producing anything, ever.

      This is all or nothing for Star Trek, and i fear the latter with the sheer volume of acrimony it has already attracted from all but the slimmest slither of the fanbase it appears to be solely aimed at. You’re asking for the entire world to pay their fee to see the ghostbusters reboot, or the batman v superman rebo.. uhh, whatever the hell that was. Most of us already know how bad it’s going to be, and indeed have seen nothing positive whatsoever.

      If you don’t feel that way then go enjoy it, I suspect it will take cancellation before you accept that it’s a dead duck.

      • TUP

        How on earth is it tos themed.

        You can’t have it both ways. That it’s beholden to tos and yet is nothing like tos.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle
    • TUP

      Again we don’t know. There is no context.

      The silliest people are the ones committing to hating something they know nothing about.

      If there are reasonable in universe explanations for everything those posters will need a shovel to clean the egg off their faces.

      Let’s just wait and see.

      If they are ancient Klingons I really dig it

    • DC Forever

      You said “reductive” again.

      Bartender, another shot of whiskey please!

      Lol

    • Snap

      “about time they understood the sheer number of real Star Trek fans”

      Eh… no, just no. The worst argument any of us can ever make is to use “real” or “true” to modify the term “fan” because such a thing simply does not exist. Whether you are a fan of the Kevlin movies, TOS or a combination of the TNG-era series there is one thing they all share in common: there are ALL Star Trek fans.

      I agree that change for the sake of change is pointless, but in the end Discovery will be just as much “Star Trek” as any of the other productions. We are each free to like or dislike any portion of the franchise, but that doesn’t mean that those who like what we dislike are any less a “fan” of Star Trek than we are.

      Remember IDIC – Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations. It’s not just something to throw out as a Star Trek fan when we want to add credence to our arguments, it’s something we have to practice in return, otherwise we’re just being hypocritical.

  • Thomas Elkins

    Interesting. I wonder if this elongated skull is part of their “new” physiology, or is it some kind of artificial cranial deformation? There were cultures on Earth who used to purposely deform their skulls as a form of social status or sign of intelligence. Either way, we see them standing around old looking stone walls, carrying a torch. Normally when we see Klingons do this, it’s because they’re out to perform some ritual. It would be interesting if these guys were part of some religious order with beliefs that differ from other Klingons. Perhaps they don’t believe in Kahless and worship Molar or some other Klingon? That could be why they’re shown screaming or growling around that sarcophagus. Maybe because they found someone from their past they worship?

    I’m just speculating here.

    • Karl

      Don’t be silly.
      There is no explanation! they just changed it because their ego demanded that they put their stamp on the most iconic things they could find within the Trek intellectual property.

      • TUP

        Karl you have no basis for that position.

        I’m surprised the nonsense is allowed since it’s usually what sets people off and ends up in threads that are locked.

  • Vger64

    Personally I am very interested in watching this show. I believe it’s going to be good folks

  • Several comments below which primarily served to insult other users have been deleted.

    Talk about Trek and not each other – we’ll continue to remove comments that serve no purpose except to attack others going forward due to the past several weeks of arguments following our articles.

    • Dan King

      The show brings out passion in fans. Why stop that passion?

      • Kirk3400

        Insulting other people is not Trek passion.

        • Dan King

          Really? Q was insulting everyone at some point in TNG. Q is entertaining. So is argumentative bickering here.

          • mr joyce

            i saw the comments the mod deleted before they were deleted. they werent nice, extremely childish infact, and didnt further the discussion

          • TUP

            Should delete the poster instead of the post 😉

          • mr joyce

            or both.. the whole point of deleting the post is to not cause offence to others where it was totally unnecessary in the first place

          • Dan King

            So was Q…

          • mr joyce

            so you think its ok to insult people for no reason on an online discussion board?

          • Dan King

            Yes, if they deserve it and are acting stupid. And there is always a reason. Reasons motive people to take action.

          • mr joyce

            i asked you if you think its ok to insult people for no reason, and you said its ok? im guessing you are one of those people who throws around insults for no reason then?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’ve had some crazy insults leveled at me here although the mods have been quick to ignore them. I guess some people can’t handle a different opinion?

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Sounds just like how I’ve been treated here so far.

          • TUP

            HA!

          • mr joyce

            shame to hear that, and these people call themselves trek fans

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Look I know I should be optimistic about the new series but I’m not a fan of the reboot movies or modern TV in general and Discovery looks like a hybrid of both. Having said that I don’t see why my criticisms aren’t welcome and are attacked for ridiculous reasons. I must be hitting a nerve if whenever I post I immediately get these people complaining to me. Now they want me banned because I’m not drinking the Kool-Aid and saying how fantastic the new series looks.

          • mr joyce

            nothing wrong with having your own views, certainly, i wouldnt worry about it too much if i were you..i just think that a lot of people see something they dont agree with and take it too far when they try to put forward their own counter view. i say this with regards to online discussion forums, where a lot of what people try to say can come across negatively on a screen, when thats not necessarily how they thought it would sound in their head whilst typing. you could say ‘tone’ is what is getting ‘lost in translation’, so to speak. i have definately been guilty of carrying on discussions longer than they should in the past, going from a good discussion into online ‘arguments’, so the perspective i take now, is one where i try to disagree in a less dismissive way, but it can be difficult. its not easy finding a balance. i guess some people just enjoy starting arguments online, because in real life they wouldnt dream about doing it face to face, and will use any justification based on a flawed perception of tone, to start throwing around insults

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Yeah but also they’re condescending and arrogant in what they say. They feel they’re ‘educating’ me and when I argue I disagree with them they complain I have some mental deficiency. I’ve been accused of causing trouble and creating ‘false facts’. I’ve had one user ask if I’m been banned yet before I’ve even posted on the page! Now if I keep responding to these guys it’s partly my fault but considering I begin my comment threads I feel I need to respond to them otherwise they’re basically owning the whole site, clamping down on what views they don’t like.

          • mr joyce

            i got a couple ideas for you dude;

            1. you could word your ideas slightly differently as an experiment to see what responses you get next time you start a discussion,

            or

            2. you could just ignore those people, or don’t reply to them, they wont change, some people just love to argue in a non-constructive way.

            i’ve done both in the past, works with different types of online negativity.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            1) I came to these pages days before these guys and posted pretty harmless comments while expressing how much conflict there already was. I was immediately pounced upon by said users who at least one thinks I should be banned.

            2) I’m not found of using the ‘ignore list’ on Disqus because I feel that once you start blocking one person you eventually feel the power to block every person who says the littlest thing you disagree with. Having said that these users obviously haven’t put me on their ignore list because they still respond to my posts pretty fast.

          • mr joyce

            just ignore them,

          • Pedro Ferreira

            When it’s seen as my fault I feel the need to argue back it isn’t but I guess that isn’t helping. Then again it isn’t helping that certain users here are taking over the board instead of allowing a variety of opinions.

          • Ace Stephens

            I don’t know what’s being referred to but I think “argumentative bickering” is often fine/entertaining. Personal insults, however, tend to push a bit beyond jest (and, typically, the point of an otherwise healthy argument) if one doesn’t have a personal acclimation to and friendly acceptance of the individual stating them. That’s when it can become hostile rather than humane.

            Otherwise, I’d contest the notion that one should form one’s morality based on fiction (although many suggest it’s fiction’s “purpose” and I know many fans of Trek do it…so this isn’t to say people shouldn’t derive moral lessons from fiction in any regard) – particularly fiction surrounding characters contextualized as troublesome, meddling, “bad,” etc.

          • Dan King

            How can you personally insult someone when you don’t know them all at personally in real life?

          • Ace Stephens

            From anything they might have said regarding themselves personally.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Depends: someone wanting to know whether your president is Trump because apparently you act like him can be seen as offensive. Going on about mental deficiencies of another person is also a no no yet people here do it.

          • TUP

            I have never wanted someone booted from a forum but you offer zero to these discussions. You completely disregarded the Mod’s request and have attempted to start up another nasty exchange.

            Hopefully you will be dealt with appropriately so the rest of us can enjoy a nice discussion.

            Besides which, there are many people who would take it as a compliment to be compared to Trump. He did win the election, after all. My specific criticism was accurate and continues to be.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            Don’t try to excuse yourself. You and the others were already causing trouble on this page before I even arrived. I’m not getting into this with you but all I will say is you’re the one responding to my posts to say how wrong I am. I do hope the mods take appropriate action because I haven’t done anything wrong on this page unlike you guys it seems.

          • TUP

            I actually rarely post here.

            MODS: can something be done about this guy? He’s clearly the root of a lot of discussion that spirals out of control. It’s not fun for the rest of us. Thank you.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I think it’s safe to say you and the others were days here and on another news page before me and reading through these threads you guys seem to be part of the arguments. Don’t want to point fingers but I’m just here to talk about Star Trek, not tag other people’s comments to cause problems.

          • Ace Stephens

            Going into the overtly political or casting aspersions about mental health/abilities are rather obvious realms of “personal insult,” in my view. However, personally, I have a tendency to be relatively “clinical” in my mindset (I have been called “logical to a fault” on a few occasions before) and so if I propose the existence of a logical fallacy or compare something to an actual figure/illness/etc. in terms of conveying my point rhetorically (or, depending, expressing confusion or concern about a point of view), there may be a difference from some others who do so regarding whether it’s intended as a personal attack or not. Regardless, it can still reasonably be seen as such so I tend to wish to avoid it but it’s usually easier to say, “Look at this example of this political/social/medical/whatever thing we all know…” in order to make one’s point than it is to go into the minutiae of the logic of something or similar.

            But, certainly, people can take insult at anything and everything and certain realms (political, social, identity, etc.) tend to be more plainly invasive and personally insulting. And some here seem to jump to such topics far too quickly and without much evidence.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’m not the type of person that could be labelled what’s known as a snowflake but being ganged up on by three other users because I dislike something is rude. What’s worse is the level of arrogance displayed, the fact they say their ‘educating’ me. But yeah what does Donald Trump have to do with Star Trek? If I’m being compared to the guy who is mostly hated I think that’s an insult. Also those guys on here who have been rude to me strangely are the ones responding to my comments in the first place. If you don’t like what someone has said the first time why would you repeatedly respond to them?

            It’s not strange for people to attack what someone else likes but I take real issue when I’m made out to have a mental deficiency as well as other unwelcoming insults.

          • Ace Stephens

            Yeah, I don’t know what’s going on here. I haven’t gone through this whole thread but I’ve seen a few of your other posts you’ve made today around this topic and I don’t see what you’re doing that’s so bad…yet I see others saying you’re trying to cause problems (including one person I tend to find reasonable otherwise).

            So maybe there’s some big misunderstanding at the heart of this or people are stressed out or people are too caught up on generalities to realize you weren’t saying something they think you said (I’ve seen things like this come up a lot) or someone said something facetiously but it was taken seriously and now they’re just being defensive or other things like that. Or maybe you’re terrible and/or maybe I’m terrible for not understanding what the issue is here and/or maybe they’re trolling and/or whatever else.

            But I’m just going to assume “misunderstanding” so I don’t have to grow more cynical and concerned. Here’s my unsolicited “advice”: I say if they seem like they’re being particularly petty or trolling yet there’s not much more to be said of relevance (even if maybe they have some grounds for annoyance at you – which I don’t know anything about), I’d suggest ignoring them.

            Because I seriously don’t understand the issue in the immediate “back-and-forth” here.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No, good points! They’re having a go at me because I disagree with the new Star Trek show. I made a fuss before because these three were trolling me, then I got a warning from Trekcore that the four of us would be banned. I know one of these people wants to see me banned because they don’t think I contribute anything useful. I do contribute useful conversation, just not what they want to hear.

            It isn’t a misunderstanding, more like they post here so regularly they feel they own the place so anyone who has a different opinion is immediately trolled. Look down this page for instance and you’ll see differing views constantly criticised by the same people time and time again. I come onto this page and almost immediately I’m criticised for trolling even though the others have been posting here days before I showed up. Crazy eh?

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
          • TUP

            You werent ganged up on. Is there a limit to how many ppl can reply? You were facing multiple objections for being ridiculously, overly negative and rude.

          • Ace Stephens

            I still don’t know what’s going on here (Story of my life?) but thanks for sharing your side of the story.

          • TUP

            Pedro is sad that multiple people
            Disagreed with his position. His position is generally that discover sucks and he makes broad statements about “facts” that are simply not evident.

            So ofcourse people take exception. But then it ends up spiralling into useless back and forth which is really what aggravates people, including the mods.

            The Trump remake was me pointing out the tendnacy of some to state opinions or unknown things as if they were absolute facts to frame a negative narrative of the show. Trump does this all the time. He says things that are not true in such a way that makes it seem like there is no doubt of its veracity

            It was not a commentary on someone’s mental well being or an insult as many people voted for Trump. It was merely an easy way to illustrate the writing style.

            FAct is, many things being complained about are unknown. It’s seems clear much info is being held back. We have no real context by which to judge a lot of the things people are complaining about.

            We should wait til the show airs.

          • Ace Stephens

            So ofcourse people take exception. But then it ends up spiralling into
            useless back and forth which is really what aggravates people, including
            the mods.

            *nods*

            Thank you for actually going into detail even more. I can understand how this appears frustrating and you feel this way even (or especially) if he “reappears” claiming he wasn’t doing anything very bad. For him, perhaps his frustration is also earnest. I don’t know. I don’t like to assume negative things, although I will sometimes drift into cynicism as the circumstances heavily permit.

            t was merely an easy way to illustrate the writing style.

            I make similar comments (that might be misconstrued) oftentimes. But I do understand why he might view it as a relative insult. I would hope you tried to clear this up but maybe the damage was already done and/or his view of a political situation/figure was so negative that he can’t even conceive of how this wasn’t intended as some invasive attack on character. Again, I haven’t followed everything here (although I first saw the top comment which I suppose was associated).

            We should wait til the show airs.

            I’m in agreement there. I keep trying to frame things in manners which give them the benefit of a doubt in some fashion but it’s sometimes difficult. The first trailer that seemed to give so many hope is the first thing that made my heart sink regarding the show’s prospects. But I obviously still hope it’s good. I don’t even see how one could make up one’s mind now except to say things more like, “I don’t think it looks good – doesn’t mean it won’t be though.”

            I mean, War for the Planet of the Apes just came out this past weekend to rave reviews and, when many heard they were rebooting that franchise a half-dozen years back, I’m pretty sure some rolled their eyes and went “Why? It sounds like it will be terrible.” So I do fully believe we should be careful not to prejudge.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            TUP and other users don’t like a different opinion. Either I praise a show that’s coming out or I’m not a fan. I’m not allowed to think the Rick Berman era of Star Trek is good apparently. So then I get asked random silly questions like who my president is, (is it Trump?) and get made out to have a mental deficiency. It’s always the same three users ganging up on me because they see me as a threat for being negative. Their accusations of ‘false facts’ is both absurd and pedantic like their view of Klingon redesigns. I’ll be the first to admit I’m not happy with the new show but I have a right to voice my concerns. If those concerns bother these guys they perhaps they shouldn’t respond? Kind of simple logic eh?

          • TUP

            No, what happened is you present false facts to support an incorrect narrative because your gimmick is the contrarian and hater.

            An intelligent person could find legitimate things to discuss in a critical way. But thats not what you do. Your form of overly negative criticism elicits responses from people pointing out that your position is not factual and then you get upset. Thats all.

            I dont know you. There is no personal animosity. But you continue to make posts about how victimized you are, even when the moderators have asked the off-topic stuff to cease. Im actually impressed with their patience because on many other forums, you’d be put on a “time out” by now.

            Can we please discuss Star Trek and not you or your feelings?

            Thank you!

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’ve never come up with any ‘false facts’ as you say unless being pedantic about something.

            And sure I’d love to talk about Star Trek but I’m simply pointing out you and your friends behaviour towards me. You cannot criticise me when you cause as much trouble. Now can be please stop this thanks!

          • TUP

            Enough is enough

          • Dan King

            He sounds like he enjoys getting “ganged up on” 😉

          • Pedro Ferreira

            You said it, not me.

          • mr joyce

            you sound like you enjoy stirring things up

          • Pedro Ferreira

            No man I wasn’t rude, you were along with DC Forever and Oracle. Let’s leave it at that eh?

          • TUP

            You were very rude and continue to be such. You are also baiting people to respond to you so you can claim you are being attacked. Stop playing the victim. Now you sound like Ann Coulter! 😉

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I have no idea who Ann Coulter is but if I am being rude it’s only in response to you guys rudeness. You think you’re doing me a favour by ‘educating’ me but you come across as rude and patronising to me.

          • TUP

            She’s been all over the news this week.

            Its possible people are patronizing but if multiple people are, perhaps you should examine your behavior. People are reacting to your tendency to over-dramatize your dislike for things and broad statements concerning the quality of a show you have never seen.

            If you’re remarks were more specific, more reasoned, more logical, then they’d lead to appropriate discussion.

            Its not about you not being entitled to an opinion but you’re not stating an opinion in many cases. You’re blowing up about things you simply do not know about (since none of us have seen the show).

            Thats all.

          • All Patriot

            The basis for every single intelligent argument is to counterpoint with a vapid unrelated insult.

          • Pedro Ferreira

            I’ve given reasons why I dislike the new show but because these don’t fit what the more prominent users think then they start to whine and criticise me for offering “false facts” or say I’ve “lost the argument” as though this is a competition.

      • pittrek

        It’s called “moderation”

      • Snap

        In this case, this is TrekCore’s sandbox. They pay for the services and allow us to use them for free without a subscription. If they want to attach conditions for that use, it’s their prerogative.

        Even a number of the comments which have not been deleted are still somewhat “toxic.” I would also not compare Q to a comments section either, as Q is a character with character traits to suit the stories, whereas the other is socially maladaptive behaviour.

        It would be one thing if TrekCore was deleting one set of toxic comments while ignoring another set entirely. But, again, they are the ones paying the bills so whether fair or not, their moderating decisions are their right.

      • Admiral SnackBar

        “Look guys, Q got to be mean. Why can’t I?”

        • mr joyce

          lol, yeh i saw that too, justifying acting like a douche from the example of a fictional character…so sad, and not needed

    • Thank you. It’s unfortunate that some people apparently require a chaperone.

    • dixonium

      Thank you.

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    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.

    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 era. 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 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 like the more alien appearance, which harkens back to TMP desire of an alien race that looks like 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 himself, through leadership in 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.

    • Karl

      Excellent. Thank you for this.

      It’s clear where the stylistic and design approaches matured over decades into a clear depiction, and then suddenly multiple shambolic redesigns have been thrown in to the mix in what, 4 years?

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Thanks. The reason I like TMP design the best is because that was the one time in Star Trek productions where the production and creative team really tried to consider the scientific/evolutionary origins of an alien Klingon race.

    • Thomas Elkins

      None of those are super drastic changes however. The reason the Klingons have different designs in TMP, TNG and ST6 is because they are a diverse people like anyone else in this universe. When you look at each of those designs you can still instantly identify them as Klingon, despite their individual differences. There are many different things about the Klingons that help us instantly identify them besides the overall shape of there foreheads. Klingons aren’t the only species in the galaxy to have a forehead ridge design, but there are plenty of other characteristics which help us not confuse them with anyone else.

      Without looking at their foreheads, what can you tell me about the look of those Klingons? Four out of six of those Klingons have a combination of either hair on their heads, bushy eyebrows or hair on their faces. The DSC Klingon lacks all three. Now we’ve seen bald Klingons, such as Chang there, and we’ve seen clean shaven Klingons before, but for them to be completely hairless is unusual. Now I see you brought up the Into Darkness Klingon as an example of a hairless Klingon and you’d be right, but also wrong, to bring this up.

      You see, a lot of people hated the Into Darkness Klingon which means that it’s not a good example of an accepted change. If there were people who didn’t like the hairless Klingon’s look, then why would they like the DSC Klingon? Where is the logic? Of course there is one difference between the the Into Darkness and DSC Klingons. While the Into Darkness Klingon was hairless, we do in fact see goatees peaking out beneath the helmets of some of the other Klingons. This means that they are not all hairless and the hairless Klingon is not the default look of the Kelvin Klingons. If you look at all the Klingons on DSC we’ve seen so far however, they are ALL hairless. This makes them even more different.

      Of course hair or no hair isn’t even the biggest change, really. You seem absolutely fixated on their foreheads for some reason and consider than evidence of drastic changes made to them over the course of five decades, but there are more to Klingons than their foreheads. In fact, the DSC Klingons in this post’s pic are actually fine. There is nothing wrong with the DSC Klingon’s foreheads, it’s everything else about their appearance that sets them apart.

      First there is the obvious and extremely noticeable fact they have elongated skulls. This is a MAJOR change that makes them completely different from every single example above. And just look at the DSC Klingon’s nose. It’s so wide his nostrils look like they’re in his cheeks. You can see the actor’s nose and then there are extra “holes” at each side of his nose, making it appear like he has four nostrils. Whatever they are, none of the other Klingons in the history of Star Trek have had them. Going back to ridges real quick, the way it connects to his nose also makes it pass slightly over his eyes, which is slightly different from previous Klingons. It makes it look like he has squinty eyes, which the other Klingons don’t have. Just look at Gowron. His are the polar opposite of squinty.

      That however are just a few examples of there physical features. There are other things to consider, which I’ve mentioned several times already. Before we ever see the Klingons in TMP, we see their ships and they’re identical in design to those we had seen previously on TOS. So you’re informed right from the start that they’re Klingon even before you see them on the bridge. We’ve seen very little of the DSC ship so far, but what we have seen looks nothing like any Klingon ship design before it.

      Then there are their uniforms. The TMP Klingons may have different ridge designs compared to the Klingons we’d eventually see in TNG, but when did finally see them in TNG, they clearly had the same basic uniform as the TMP and STIII Klingons. It was a design consistency that lasted decades across three television series. At no point did anyone look at a TNG or DS9 Klingon and say “that’s not a Klingon” because his forehead ridges differed. You can look at their uniforms, bushy hair and goatees and instantly know who they are. That’s why seeing the DSC Klingon aesthetic is so weird. Of course DSC takes place before TMP, so it’s only natural that they don’t copy the TMP outfit, but they don’t look a thing like the TOS outfit either. Even Worf had a TOS style sash in TNG’s early days.

      Everything we’ve seen about the DSC Klingon aesthetic screams old and ancient. They look like Klingon Egyptians, complete with their own sarcophagus and even their elongated heads could be the result of artificial cranial deformation. Many ancient Earth cultures had purposely deformed their skulls as a symbol of status. These design choices lead me to believe their weird look is somehow important to the plot of the series.

      It’s not the first time we’ve seen this happen. Klingons obviously underwent a change when they went from TOS to TMP, but we have since been given a canon explanation for this change. Both the TOS and modern TNG through ENT Klingons are canon. There is nothing saying TOS era Klingons can’t have ridges, since not every single Klingon was exposed to the augment virus, but what DSC has shown so far goes way beyond any change we’ve seen before. It’s my hope that this change, like the change before, has a canon explanation. That would make me more interested in learning about these new Klingons, especially when it comes to how they interact with other classic Klingons.

      If it turns out they changed them simply because they wanted to then I’ll be extremely disappointed in them. It would pain me to see Star Trek being treated in such a way while Disney treats Star Wars with the utmost respect. The attention to detail in Rogue One was astounding and I don’t understand why Star Trek is apparently not good enough to get the same respect. There has to be a canon reason for the change.

      End of story.

      • DC Forever

        Are you looking at the same photos I am looking at here? TMP Klingon clearly stands out with that HR Geiger-like spine thing going from his nose to over his head and connecting to his spine. Surely you would’ t claim that that is anything like TNG forehead plates? It is obviously a different Klingon design.

        I don’t care much for the DSC Klingons either (unless they are explained as primitive Klingons), but there is no way one can look at these photos and tell me that the TMP and TNG Klingons are similar.

        Actually, all six of these designs are unique looking.

        • Thomas Elkins

          Sigh – Seriously? I just wrote about the many things, OTHER THAN FOREHEAD RIDGES, that make DSC Klingons completely different from traditional Klingons and all you can do is comment on their forehead ridges yet again?! I even called you guys out on having a weird fixation with their ridges and then you just respond with another comment about their ridges, lol. This discussion is exhausting, but only because nobody here is reading anything I type. I even said the DSC Klingon’s basic ridge design was fine and that my biggest concern was about EVERYTHING ELSE, but apparently all you read was ridges.

          Well I’m tired of this discussion. Live long and prosper.

          • Dan King

            Ridged for their pleasure..

    • Quonk

      Yup, they’re basically sticking to the TMP design outline. I wouldn’t mind them having hair though… I sure hope some of them have. Good ol’ Heavy Metal Klingons.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Agreed. They are going back to the Fletcher/Rodenbery idea of making a Klingon that looks more alien — so that it looks like it has more reptilian and crustacean origins.

        If we find out this was the intention — to go back to the Fletcher/Rodenbery Klingon alien origin ideas from TMP, then I am impressed with that goal of theirs. However, if they just said, ‘let’s make them look different and scarier and put our own stamp on this,” than I am not so impressed. We shall see.

        • Quonk

          Since they’ve drawn so much from earlier design documents, even down to the “hero” ship’s basic design, I’m fairly sure the Fletcher/Roddenberry design outline was their primary guideline here as well.

    • TUP

      Great post. I also find it hilarious that people are mad they dont like TOS or TNG Klingons when the Klingons have had various looks over the years. The outrage is ridiculous.

  • Dan King

    An absolute DISASTER!! They have completely BUTCHERED Canon and there is NO WAY to explain it away. They are tying to rewrite canon history to fit their vision. Shameful

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Funny hearing this from you, given you posted this regarding Discovery just 11 days ago, and we haven’t learned any major new info since then:

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

      Have you had a couple beers tonight, perhaps? 😉

      • Dan King

        Yea I am drunk. And it’s morning, not evening here.

        • DC Forever

          Were you perhaps doing shots every time Barak Aslani was saying “reductive?”

          • Dan King

            Rejected! *sic* *burp*

    • Roger Birks

      Get real. You have 700+ episodes and the movies to watch, your canon. Thats plenty of stuff to just watch over until you bite the dust….

      If the writers and producers have a vision, that is fine. The people who made TOS had a vision. We should let them see through their vision.

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Exactly. Concerning canon, don’t sweat the small stuff. Warp 36 never happened, and Khan obviously didn’t rise to power in the 90’s and escape earth, so people need to chill out on DSC.

    • TUP

      You have not seen the series so you’re angry speculation is unreasonable.

      Once it appears it IS canon

      • Dan King

        Then they need to expect the show to fail because the fans won’t accept it if they change canon

        • DIGINON

          Well, some fans won’t accept it. Others have already stated a willingness to accept it. There is no singular group of “the fans”.

        • DC Forever

          That’s a pretty bold prediction. I am taking note of this comment and look forward to revisiting it with you after the first 8 episodes run this fall.

          Just to be clear – your are predicting the show will be a failure, with bad ratings, and an eventual cancellation due to fan uproar in canon issues? Please confirm that have adequately stated your prediction here?

          • Dan King

            Yea. It’s on a special CBS streaming platform. Mainstream viewers won’t pour into the platform just for Discovery. Us nerds will be the primary customers of CBS streaming. If the show stinks and the fans dislike what has been done to canon, they will tell mainstream friends who will never subscribe.

            I have serious doubts that this show will succeed. There has been so much negative talk from fans that mainstream casual Star Trek viewers are greatly turned off.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            I am not getting you? Last week you were saying all of these positive things about the series? It’s not like we have learned anything new since then? Are you just bored and trying to gin up discussions here???

          • Dan King

            I have learned lots of new things since last week, I don’t know about you. Private messaging friends on TrekBBS has revealed more plot points that have soured me since last week.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL^2 Here we go again….no, I am not going to say it….

          • DC Forever

            See my response to Dan.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Thanks — this does remind me of that.

          • DC Forever

            OMG, Dan, please tell me that you are not claiming that you are getting secret info from fans with inside production info?

            We went down this slippery slope with that HE WHO WILL NOT BE NAMED dude for months. He ended up being completely discredited and was eventually banned from this site.

            Few here will want to hear that unsubstantiated, “trust me I have secret inside info” nonsense again.

          • Dan King

            I never said I was getting “secret info”
            We just share more details in private messages on TrekBBS. There is a core superfan group on the BBS that I am a part of.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle
          • TUP

            I dont think you understand the purpose of using CBSAA as the platform.

          • DC Forever

            OK Dan, thanks for confirming your prediction. We shall see.

        • TUP

          Every version of trek has altered canon. Canon is what is most recently seen. We all want sensible continuity and they have said they are striving for they. Let’s give them a shot before we pronounce their effort a failure

    • iMike

      We have not seen the show yet. All we know right now is that these are Klingons. They may be a separate caste of Klingons, or they may be actual Klingons simply redesigned. Redesigning Klingons does not mean that DSC has butchered canon.

  • Dan King

    Canon Klingons or ancient Klingons, the design sucks. It’s an obvious ripoff of the Xindi reptillians

    • TUP

      No its not.

      • Dan King

        Yes it is

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          I’m just not seeing much resemblance to the Xindi either; sorry.

          • Dan King

            Apparently you fail to see the same “tube” armor

    • DC Forever

      Very little resemblance. Sorry, Dan.

  • Dan King

    Speculation from fans on TrekBBS: Michael will be responsible for the destruction of the Shenzhou and Captain Georgiou. Either directly through betrayal, or by accident. It’s well know that Shenzhou does not make it past the premier, and Michael has to end up on Discovery somehow.
    It’s possible that Discovery is on a covert mission and destroys the Shenzhou as well, forcing Michael to make a hard choice.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      I expect that we will have flashback scenes throughout the season (like on Lost, for example), so the Shenzou and Capt Georgiou will appear in multiple, if not many, episodes in Season 1.

    • pittrek

      Georgiou is listed on IMDB to appear on 15 episodes, so …

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Thanks. This most likely confirms my prediction about season-long flash-backs.

        • Dan King

          IMDB is hardly trustworthy lol

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            As if Trek BBS fan conjecture is. lol

          • Dan King

            TrekBBS has a validated history of getting rumors correct, and spoilers. I suggest you join and get involved

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Was on it many years ago and got tired of the same blowhards trying to control the discussion. Thanks, but no thanks.

      • Kerchak

        IMDb is not necessarily the most trustworthy of sources, tho.

    • Eric

      I honestly think Burnham will be demoted (to Lt. Cmdr) for insubordination and transferred to the Discovery, along with Saru and others, because of their mission specific knowledge of the situation. I’m guessing that Georgiou may die, but perhaps not right away. She could be like Ned Stark and her nobility might lead to losing her head by the end of the season.

  • Dan King
  • Dan King

    They look like Klingon/Vulcan hybrids.

  • Harry Kane

    Klingons look odd, This is not cannon at all.

  • Steel_Man

    As a prequel, this is dumb. The end.

    • TUP

      Your post is silly. Why do people take the time to post nonsense. If you have a real opinion why not state it fully do it can be a discussion point?

      I’m not sure what you mean at all. Can you elaborate?

      • The Science Fiction Oracle

        Check out his other posts on Disqus….

      • Steel_Man

        Dude if you don’t know what I mean by “this is dumb”, I don’t know how much clearer I can be. Prequels are stupid. Setting this advanced-looking show before the clunky, tech-lacking Original Series is dumb. Clear enough for you?

        • TUP

          Your lack of insight is very clear, yes.

  • Victor Kilo

    ‘The Orville’ is looking better and better every time we learn something about ‘Discovery.’

    • DC Forever

      Don’t include me in your “we”

      • Thomas Elkins

        You’re not learning about Discovery?

        • DC Forever

          What I am not doing is pre-judging the quality of a TV series based on a 90 second trailer that doesn’t give away much.

          Good for you that you somehow know it will stink. Sorry, but I forgot to take Clairvoyance 101 in college.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Some of these fans apparently think they are the next Nostradamus. LOL

    • TUP

      No it’s not.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Nope

    • Snap

      I hope they run with the parody and say it was “created” by “Gene Reddenbacher.”

  • fabiofbg

    Another reboot

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Another point that’s moot

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    PREDICTION (potential spoilers below)
    .
    .
    .
    Following the destruction of the Shenzhou in the two-hour premeire (many have deduced this), while the focus of the remaining episodes will be on the Discovery and Michael, there will be continual flashback scenes to the Shenzhou and Capt Georgiou. Think of the early seasons of Lost (before it lost it’s way…pun intended!), where flashbacks were used very successfully to back up the story and the motivations and behaviors of the characters.

  • Locutus

    I don’t care if they change the look of the Klingons. I still think these are “ancient” Klingons or that there will be some caveat. My only concern is that the make-up appliances look pretty heavy. Masks make it difficult for actors to communicate emotiveness. There is something to be said for Star Trek minimal make-up in the past in that you can still see the actors performance. It’s a trade off. The new Klingons do not diminish my excitement for this though.

  • Death Ray

    Thank God you reminded me that they are not only women, but women of COLOR! At last the hateful, right wing Star Trek franchise is being dragged into the 21st century!

  • Dan King

    The skull design looks terrible. Why did they not just stick with canon and use humans in blackface to play Klingons like in the 1960’s? With the advanced makeup techniques we have today it could have been done masterfully. These kilingon things look overproduced and cheesy, as if they belong in a Babylon 5 movie

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      Of course you don’t mean the Emmy Winning, and 4 time nominated make-up work on Babylon 5? One would have to be not remembering correctly to criticize the outstanding alien make-up work on that series. Oh, and guess what, it beat out Voyager for that 1995 Emmy.

      • Dan King

        The word is used in a historical way. History is just history, people can choose to be offended if they want but the history is there unbiased.

        Babylon 5 was a joke series created by a bitter super fan who was upset he was not talented enough to work on Star Trek. It’s not worth discussing really, never even made it to the big screen. Sad.

        • The Science Fiction Oracle

          Bablyon 5 was an outstanding sf series. My favorite period of watching TV as a sf fan was when Bab5 and DS9 were both on — to me, that was like the golden age of sf on TV.

          I never understood why some fans of both series had this sort of misplaced sense of superiority of one series over the other?

          • DC Forever

            Oracle, didn’t you notice that only just a few hours after you posted that photo of G’Kar from B5 in your make-up discussion that Dan “coincidentally” then posted this B5 comment? Obviously he was baiting you, and you took the bait, hook, line and sinker!

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            LOL — OK, I see that now. How gullible of me to fall for that. Thanks.

          • Dan King

            I have the perfect website for you.

            http://www.abovetopsecret.com

          • Dan King

            Outstanding? The graphics were created on a game boy I think. Or a mac.

          • The Science Fiction Oracle

            Fool me twice, shame on me.

    • TUP

      You ask “why” but are ready to condemn without getting the answer. Come back after the series airs.

    • DC Forever

      “Blackface” is an inappropriate, racially charged word.

      • Dan King

        It’s used in a historical context.

  • Marcin Starzomski

    I do not like it.

  • Pedro Ferreira

    Perhaps they could make them a rare race of Klingons that come from the Kelvin timeline. That would solve everybody’s problem.

    • TUP

      Except this is CBS, not Paramount.

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Darn it.

    • The Science Fiction Oracle

      OK, let’s make them alien Kelvins as we know from the “By any other Name” episode. Then they can be both be in the prime universe, and be from the Kelvin civilization.

      Everybody wins!!! 😉

      • Pedro Ferreira

        Cool!

  • ButtonShoes

    Guys, gals, everyone: let’s not fight amongst each other. We’re Trekkies – we’re all in the same boat. Let’s all direct our collective ire instead towards the people who really deserve to be crapped on repeatedly: the morons at CBS (in particular Les Moonves, who obviously hates Star Trek and doesn’t understand it at all) and the producers/showrunners/creators of STD who are responsible for this Abramsverse-esque abomination that repeatedly violates canon on a whim just so they can sell subscriptions to their terrible streaming service. THESE are the people who deserve to be raked over the coals. We can start with that bum Alex Kurtzman.

    • Dan King

      Yes, I blame Moonves for all of this. Let’s tar and feather him