Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.
Discovery had so many problems for me: ship flies on magic mushrooms, her mom basically doesn’t care about her anymore by the end of it - the show-starting plot line, and the Klingons look like sweaty orcs.
What’s wrong with the magic mushrooms? It’s not like Trek was ever hard sci-fi when it came to how the ships fly. For crying out loud, in Voyager they went so fast they were everywhere at once, then Tom Paris and Janeway had salamander babies.
It just felt so cliche, that the crazy discovery they make is that the strange stuff is alive. The writers couldn’t make it sentient because then they’d need to explain why it’s just like the Great Lake but different from the Great Lake. It just exists and Star Fleet happens to be the only ones who know about it.
Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:
lol, I love that you’re conflating the creator having the budget to make the show more in-line with his original vision with someone else making a lousy change for no clear reason. It’s a nice knee-slapper of a comment you have right there. Good luck with it.
TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don’t think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The “original creator” of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.
I mean, technically everything from TNG onwards would be NuTrek and Kelvin-stuff would be NuNuTrek, or rather Re-Trek, since it’s a reboot.
NuTrek started when they did a full visual reboot, including completely changing the look of the Klingons: TMP.
Then it got worse, when they followed that up with a grimdark shoot-em-up that felt nothing like Trek. These people aren’t even fans of the show!
You are talking about the TOS movies/TNG? Never understand the forehead thing either
Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.
Who wanted a visual reboot of the Klingons?
Discovery had so many problems for me: ship flies on magic mushrooms, her mom basically doesn’t care about her anymore by the end of it - the show-starting plot line, and the Klingons look like sweaty orcs.
Yeah, who wanted this visual reboot of the Klingons between old trek and nutrek?
What’s wrong with the magic mushrooms? It’s not like Trek was ever hard sci-fi when it came to how the ships fly. For crying out loud, in Voyager they went so fast they were everywhere at once, then Tom Paris and Janeway had salamander babies.
It just felt so cliche, that the crazy discovery they make is that the strange stuff is alive. The writers couldn’t make it sentient because then they’d need to explain why it’s just like the Great Lake but different from the Great Lake. It just exists and Star Fleet happens to be the only ones who know about it.
Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:
lol, I love that you’re conflating the creator having the budget to make the show more in-line with his original vision with someone else making a lousy change for no clear reason. It’s a nice knee-slapper of a comment you have right there. Good luck with it.
TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don’t think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The “original creator” of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.
“Nu” does not mean “New”.
It actually does. At least in this context.