DrWhoIV GROUP: Members POSTS: 8  |
Report this
Jan. 21 2011, 5:48 pm
 In the Enterprise episode "Affiliation" Phlox was attempting to uncover what was affecting the Klingons to cause them to lose their ridges.
Idea 1: A handful of Klingons were attempting to augment themselves to perform better means of espionage. But didn't realize it caused them to be susceptible to ailments they normally wouldn't.
2: A bastard species of Klingons were behind the ailment.
3: Just like it was said in the DS9 episode: 'Trials and Tribble-ations" they were differing branch of the Klingon tree. |
Mwulf GROUP: Members POSTS: 19 |
Report this
Jan. 21 2011, 6:16 pm
There's only one good answer:
Klingons were retconned when Trek got a bigger budget.
All the in-universe explanations are... ill-concieved. Almost on a level as bad as those awful Khan books. Ulgh. (The Eugenics Wars really happened... in OUR reality, only they were super secret, so no one ever found out!).
Not as bad as that, no, but pretty damn close. It's crap like that, you know, that makes the people helming this Trek ship think so little of the fans. |
Beershark GROUP: Members POSTS: 2583  |
Report this
Jan. 21 2011, 6:42 pm
Quote: DrWhoIV @ Jan. 21 2011, 5:48 pm | In the Enterprise episode "Affiliation" Phlox was attempting to uncover what was affecting the Klingons to cause them to lose their ridges.
Idea 1: A handful of Klingons were attempting to augment themselves to perform better means of espionage. But didn't realize it caused them to be susceptible to ailments they normally wouldn't.
2: A bastard species of Klingons were behind the ailment.
3: Just like it was said in the DS9 episode: 'Trials and Tribble-ations" they were differing branch of the Klingon tree. |
There was no explaination given in That DS9 episode. The others were questioning Worf and in a nod to the fans mentioned two of the most popular throries, genetic engineering and viral mutation. Worf simply stated that it was a long time ago and they do not talk about it with outsiders.
The Enterprise Episode you refer to actually combined both these explainations. The Klingons used augmented human dna to try and creat their owh augments. This caused a mutation that spreadf like a virus and caused the Klingons to look more human.
The real world explaination is when they started making movies they had a bigger budget. This did cause a bit of a paradox, and in the end I beleive they addressed it rather well.
CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.
|
bobarino GROUP: Members POSTS: 110 |
Report this
Jan. 22 2011, 3:16 pm
The Klingons screwed up when they tried to make their own augments. Took a generation to restore their normal appearance. Genetic engineering- gave Earth the Eugenics War, and cost the Klingons their ridges. Our people in our real world out there, need to be careful, working with this technology.
|
|
DrWhoIV GROUP: Members POSTS: 8 |
Report this
Jan. 22 2011, 7:01 pm
I realized my fax pa after posting-but got busy doing other stuff and forgot to correct-but still I would love to see a joint venture between Trek and Dr Who or even Torchwood
|
|
Beershark GROUP: Members POSTS: 2583 |
Report this
Jan. 23 2011, 1:46 am
I really liked these episodes of season 4, however I was distracted by James Avery. Even As a Klingon he still reminded me of Uncle Phil Banks. And his voice is too distinctive. I kept hearing The Shredder!
CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.
|
KirkSisko GROUP: Members POSTS: 3 |
Report this
Jan. 24 2011, 11:47 am
I throught that episode of Enterprise did a good job explaining how and why the Klingons look different the during time period TOS took place in. It make sense to have genetic engineering the main reason why.
|
HisRoyalHighnessTheKing GROUP: Members POSTS: 34248 |
Report this
Jan. 24 2011, 1:00 pm
I always found it amusing that ENT devoted actual episodes to explain a simple production budget issue from the 1960's.
If it got a 5th season, I'm sure Coto would have devoted a multi-episode arc explaining why starships in TOS used to wobble awkwardly across the TV screen with badly produced matte paintings of planets below.
May God Save The King
|
Matthias Russell GROUP: Members POSTS: 7705  |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 5:46 am
I thought the episode was a true "valentine for the fans". Sure the real reason was a production issue for TOS but the episode made a good and solid fictional explanation that improved continuity between the series. How can you complain about this episode? Not only was it good back story but it had a plot thread that continued earlier ones about the dangers of playing God with genetics.
As for ds9, as was said, no explanation was given. Worf said they don't talk about it with non Klingons (and ent exposed how shameful it was). We also know the TOS ones didn't want to keep their look since some of them returned in ds9 with proper ridges.
|
|
HisRoyalHighnessTheKing GROUP: Members POSTS: 34248 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 6:28 am
How can you complain about this episode?
Because it was an episode that appealed to a fringe element within the fanbase who obsessed over such a trivial production detail.
May God Save The King
|
|
DrWhoIV GROUP: Members POSTS: 8 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 7:49 am
Man didn't realize how difficult trying to compare air dates of Star Trek with Dr Who was gonna be so hard lol
But any way, check out my other Star Trek mts
|
|
Matthias Russell GROUP: Members POSTS: 7705 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 11:04 am
Quote: HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Jan. 25 2011, 6:28 am | How can you complain about this episode?
Because it was an episode that appealed to a fringe element within the fanbase who obsessed over such a trivial production detail. |
Many plot lines, especially in ent, cleared up trivial details. That doesn't mean that was WHY those episodes were produced. It was a fun concept that was executed into a good story. It didn't increase my appreciation for the franchise or tos, but I thought it made an interesting story that improved continuity as a byproduct. It seems the fringe element are the fans who are so critical of later incarnations of trek because they revel so much in the glory days of older works that they become like old men in rocking chairs complaining about the young upstarts.
|
rocketscientist GROUP: Members POSTS: 10002 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 12:42 pm
Quote: Matthias Russell @ Jan. 25 2011, 11:04 am | >It seems the fringe element are the fans who are so critical of later incarnations of trek because they revel so much in the glory days of older works that they become like old men in rocking chairs complaining about the young upstarts. |
I don't think that's the case at all. I understand what HRH is saying wrt this episode and I agree with him. There was no reason to explain the Klingon head ridges. The DS9 approach, Worf's non-answer, was fine. I certainly didn't question the ridges when I first saw TMP as a kid. I knew it was just a make-up change due to a higher budget. It needed no in-world explanation at all and I'm still wondering why they even bothered to do it on ENT. Weird. The "fringe element" that HRH is referencing are the type of fans who want every single t crossed and i dotted wrt any inconsistincies in ST, even those dealing with trivial production details like the Klingon head ridges, or, now, the different look of ST 2009. It has absolutely nothing to do with being critical of "later incarnations of trek" (spin-offs of TOS), or revelling "in the glory days of older works." If anything, I'd say fans of the spin-offs are far more into continuity than original fans of TOS, if these boards are any indication. It was TNG and the other spin-offs, where serialized story telling, continuity, and "canon," first began to be nailed down in earnest. The original show was much looser in that regard, and, personally, that doesn't bother me much at all. I think it's good to have some continuity, but it should end wrt trivial things like production details. If people get so bent out of shape by the way things look, then they're not going to see the forest for the trees, the most important aspects, the stories and the characters.
KHAAAAAAANNNNNN!!!!!
|
|
Matthias Russell GROUP: Members POSTS: 7705 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 1:31 pm
Quote: rocketscientist @ Jan. 25 2011, 12:42 pm | Quote: Matthias Russell @ Jan. 25 2011, 11:04 am | >It seems the fringe element are the fans who are so critical of later incarnations of trek because they revel so much in the glory days of older works that they become like old men in rocking chairs complaining about the young upstarts. |
I don't think that's the case at all. I understand what HRH is saying wrt this episode and I agree with him. There was no reason to explain the Klingon head ridges. The DS9 approach, Worf's non-answer, was fine. I certainly didn't question the ridges when I first saw TMP as a kid. I knew it was just a make-up change due to a higher budget. It needed no in-world explanation at all and I'm still wondering why they even bothered to do it on ENT. Weird. The "fringe element" that HRH is referencing are the type of fans who want every single t crossed and i dotted wrt any inconsistincies in ST, even those dealing with trivial production details like the Klingon head ridges, or, now, the different look of ST 2009. It has absolutely nothing to do with being critical of "later incarnations of trek" (spin-offs of TOS), or revelling "in the glory days of older works." If anything, I'd say fans of the spin-offs are far more into continuity than original fans of TOS, if these boards are any indication. It was TNG and the other spin-offs, where serialized story telling, continuity, and "canon," first began to be nailed down in earnest. The original show was much looser in that regard, and, personally, that doesn't bother me much at all. I think it's good to have some continuity, but it should end wrt trivial things like production details. If people get so bent out of shape by the way things look, then they're not going to see the forest for the trees, the most important aspects, the stories and the characters.
|
I can understand that. I definitely believe there are people who are far too anal about little things. My point is the episode was not made to appease those people, but as a fun and creative story that by consequence appeased that crowd. However, there are several people who refuse to watch VOY and ENT because of a bias that prevents them from trying something new and understanding that different centuries, crews, and issues require a different approach that create a better franchise on the whole.
I loved the simple approach of Worf in DS9 to brush the issue away. I laughed hysterically at that line. Also, my watching TOS regularly now and reading TOS era books have increased my appreciation for the original so I don't want TOS purists to think I am anti-TOS, I just want the purists to be more open minded.
|
MAJ229 GROUP: Members POSTS: 35 |
Report this
Jan. 25 2011, 1:32 pm
Hisroyalhighnesstheking (interesting call sign) makes a point as to fans who are obessed with small details (I doubt they consider them "trival"). But, I think Mr. Russell makes the better argument about the episode and about later incarnations of Star Trek, though I disagree with the sterotype that refers to "old men in rocking chairs...." You do not have to be old to complain about insignificant details. It was a good story arc, with a good subplot.
What suprises me most about the Enteprise Board is the amount of mean spirited comments, opinions without foundations other than "I have been a 'Star Trek' fan since I was in diapers," and the general amount of nastiness towards those who disagree with a writer.
It is amazing how people can get so worked up over fiction. There are no great truths in Star Trek that were not already known, just a lot of people who over history who have choosen to ignore them.
|
