ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Klingons in alternate reality

jonathan.polacek

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 27

Report this Dec. 23 2012, 6:34 pm

The klingons in the deleted scene in Star Trek XI shows them wearing masks at Rura Penthe. Could they be wearing the masks to hide the fact they do not have Klingon foreridges? Think about this is the time of the TOS series. The klingons in that series had no foreridges till the 2270's as far as i know. Could that be why they wear the masks, to hide there shame?

Beershark

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2590

Report this Dec. 24 2012, 12:49 am

No offense, but who cares? It's from a deleted scene and therefore irrelavent.


CORPORATIONS AREN'T PEOPLE! Soylent Green is people.

Transporter Accident

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Dec. 24 2012, 1:17 pm

Klingons have always had ridges, even in the original series.  Roddenberry said it himself.  They also don't show "shame" -- what kind of Klingon cares about what they look like?  That explanation was the wosrt tragedy ever.


 

jumpthepuddle

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Dec. 24 2012, 5:31 pm

I forgot the episode arc but in Star Trek Enterprise it dealt with the ridge thing and augments.

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 24 2012, 6:21 pm

Quote: Transporter Accident @ Dec. 24 2012, 1:17 pm

>Klingons have always had ridges, even in the original series.  Roddenberry said it himself.  They also don't show "shame" -- what kind of Klingon cares about what they look like?  That explanation was the wosrt tragedy ever.


but your wrong there.


Klingons have NOT always had ridges, none seen in the original series had them.


What Roddenberry said or did not say is irrelevent.He had no say in the matter.The freason some klkingons had no ridges was explained in the "Enterprise" series.


And Worf pretty much stated that his people did not like to talk about the non ridged klingons with outsiders.........sounds like shame to me.


They also don't show "shame" -- what kind of Klingon cares about what they look like?  That explanation was the wosrt tragedy ever.


 


Photobucket

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Dec. 24 2012, 9:15 pm

Quote: Beershark @ Dec. 24 2012, 12:49 am

>

>No offense, but who cares? It's from a deleted scene and therefore irrelavent.

>


The Klingons are going to be in Into Darkness, and I believe they're going to be wearing the masks.


My guess is most will not have ridges, but a few will.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Transporter Accident

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Dec. 25 2012, 7:28 pm

>>but your wrong there.


>>Klingons have NOT always had ridges, none seen in the original series had them.


>>What Roddenberry said or did not say is irrelevent.He had no say in the matter.


You might as well argue that Christ's opinion has no basis in Christianity.  Roddenberry created ST, therefore Roddenberry's opinion is canon.  Klingons have always had ridges, but because the production budget for TOS sucked, it wasn't feasible to do it.


>>The freason some klkigons had no ridges was explained in the "Enterprise" series.


Next to midichlorians, this was probably one of the worst travesty in science fiction.  It was an answer offered to a question no one - except die-hard fans - asked.  And it was a really, really bad answer with zero scientific basis.


>>And Worf pretty much stated that his people did not like to talk about the non ridged klingons with >>outsiders.........sounds like shame to me.


Worf's answer was an 'inside joke' by the writers designed to take a swipe at the fans who were asking this question.  It was the best, and funniest, way to say "Don't ask."

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Dec. 25 2012, 7:53 pm

Quote: Transporter Accident @ Dec. 25 2012, 7:28 pm

>

>You might as well argue that Christ's opinion has no basis in Christianity.  Roddenberry created ST, therefore Roddenberry's opinion is canon.  Klingons have always had ridges, but because the production budget for TOS sucked, it wasn't feasible to do it.

>Next to midichlorians, this was probably one of the worst travesty in science fiction.  It was an answer offered to a question no one - except die-hard fans - asked.  And it was a really, really bad answer with zero scientific basis.

>Worf's answer was an 'inside joke' by the writers designed to take a swipe at the fans who were asking this question.  It was the best, and funniest, way to say "Don't ask."

>


The facts remain:


- the Klingons in TOS did not have any ridges that we could see.


- Worf directly referenced this on-screen, making it canon. And I for one trust in-universe references a lot more than something a behind-the-scenes person says.


- Enterprise provided an explanation. Whether it makes sense by today's standards is irrelevant.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

stovokor2000-A

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 2001

Report this Dec. 25 2012, 8:36 pm

Quote: Transporter Accident @ Dec. 25 2012, 7:28 pm

>You might as well argue that Christ's opinion has no basis in Christianity.  Roddenberry created ST, therefore Roddenberry's opinion is canon.  Klingons have always had ridges, but because the production budget for TOS sucked, it wasn't feasible to do it.


Your ananalogy fails to be on point.


Christ's opinions on modern Christianity mave very well differ greatly when its compaired to whats considered "religious" canon.I feel he would not be very happy with all thats been done in his nasme over history.......but thats a different kind of conversation I would rather not have.


Rodenbbery was notorious n changing his mind on whast was or wasant canon.He once said that Trek 2 and 3 should both be de-canonized.The man chaned his mind about canon with about every bend of his elbow at the bar.


So, by your logic klingons had ridges in TOS but the Wrath of Khan never happened.


Besides, anything stated outside the confines of the series is not canon.Only information from within is canon.Anything writers,creators,producers state in interviews is never canoon.Its just nice info.


>>Next to midichlorians, this was probably one of the worst travesty in science fiction.  It was an answer offered to a question no one - except die-hard fans - asked.  And it was a really, really bad answer with zero scientific basis.


Thats your opinion and your welcome to it.I dont mind what they showed us.But zi also would have been fine with no excplanation.


>>.Worf's answer was an 'inside joke' by the writers designed to take a swipe at the fans who were asking this question.  It was the best, and funniest, way to say "Don't ask."


So what if it was a joke?


It still establishs that the klingon people were not proud of that era in their history.Again, sounds like shame.


Photobucket

Bondsblues

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Dec. 25 2012, 10:24 pm

The Klingons most certainly felt shame. Their whole system is based on reputation and honor, is it not? Where there is honor there must be shame. Worf had not felt shame because he was a very honorable Klingon who brought nothing but honor to his house. Others weren't so honorable and brought discommendation, or the highest possible shame to their house.

dreem24

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 70

Report this Dec. 26 2012, 11:13 am

The TOS klingons ware a military force like nazi germany but then those ridget fagots came and the force of pretty much any kind was gone in it's place there was now a joke, the force of humor combined by the ridiculous ST universe and clothing the force grow stronger and stronger...

Transporter Accident

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Dec. 26 2012, 1:34 pm

>>- Enterprise provided an explanation.


I recall the opening scene of the premiere episode of ENT, which showed a ridged Klingon in TMP/TNG attire on 22nd century Earth.  What was the deal with that, if the "ridging incident" didn't occur until the short time span between TOS and TMP?


Anyway, ENT destroyed what little credibility was left in the post-TNG era of Star Trek.  Their stories ret-conned many previously-established facts through lame fan ficiton.  For example, we saw Venice Beach in 1996, and it certainly didn't look like a world in which a global war was being waged.  Then that whole story line trying to like Khan to Data.  It's a really big Universe - not everything has to be connected.


On edit: I just read the Wiki entry about the "Augment Virus".  What a load of crap.  Oh well.  At least JJ is saving Star Trek and restoring what TOS offered.


 


 


 

jumpthepuddle

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Dec. 26 2012, 9:52 pm

What does ret-conned mean?  Sorry I am a dumb ignorant person.


TA did you actually watch ST Ent Klingon Augment arc?


TOS and TNG are the best of the Trek shows.  Enterprise was a good series.  Most humans change clothing styles over hundreds of years but Klingons and Romulans don't seem to.


The way I understand JJ destroyed the original timeline so how is that better?


 


Cheers.


 


 

Transporter Accident

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 9

Report this Dec. 27 2012, 7:53 am

Quote: jumpthepuddle @ Dec. 26 2012, 9:52 pm

>

>What does ret-conned mean?  Sorry I am a dumb ignorant person.

>TA did you actually watch ST Ent Klingon Augment arc?

>TOS and TNG are the best of the Trek shows.  Enterprise was a good series.  Most humans change clothing styles over hundreds of years but Klingons and Romulans don't seem to.

>The way I understand JJ destroyed the original timeline so how is that better?

>


 


Ret-con = retroactive continuity.  They changed the previously-established history to suit the needs of a particular episode (i.e. the writers of ENT didn't really respect the Trek-verse).


Changing clothes: yes, I agree.  Why are humans the only species with a shifting sense of fashion?


JJ-verse versus TOS: I think the 2009 reboot pays a lot of respect to the original series, and observant fans will notice all the subtle (and not so subtle) homage.  There are points that need to be selectively ignored, like the Kelvin having a crew of 800, the location of planets and travel time to them, stardates changing again, etc...  But those things happen in all Trek shows, and on the whole, the story is respectfully done as a "what if?" divergence of the timeline.


The opening scene is totally believeable in the pre-TOS era.  Replace the Kelvin bridge with the 60s plastic one, put in cheese special effects, and you could be watching some lost episode.  The blatant reference to *Ambassador* Spock tells the avid fan that some time travel has occurred from the TNG (or post-TNG) era.  I won't go into all the other nods to TOS and the movies, but they're obvious.


I'm just glad that JJ was wise enough to ignore most of the nonsense from ENT (yes, I don't like the series).


 

Mitchz95

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1830

Report this Dec. 27 2012, 9:13 am

The way I understand JJ destroyed the original timeline so how is that better?


The original timeline still exists; the Abramsverse is just a parallel universe that branched off after Nero's incursion into 2233.


the writers of ENT didn't really respect the Trek-verse


With the exception of the Romulan cloaking device blunder, I think it respected the other series very well.


JJ-verse versus TOS: I think the 2009 reboot pays a lot of respect to the original series, and observant fans will notice all the subtle (and not so subtle) homage.  There are points that need to be selectively ignored, like the Kelvin having a crew of 800, the location of planets and travel time to them, stardates changing again, etc...  But those things happen in all Trek shows, and on the whole, the story is respectfully done as a "what if?" divergence of the timeline.


The opening scene is totally believeable in the pre-TOS era.  Replace the Kelvin bridge with the 60s plastic one, put in cheese special effects, and you could be watching some lost episode.  The blatant reference to *Ambassador* Spock tells the avid fan that some time travel has occurred from the TNG (or post-TNG) era.  I won't go into all the other nods to TOS and the movies, but they're obvious.


Agreed.


I'm just glad that JJ was wise enough to ignore most of the nonsense from ENT


I personally think Enterprise was a great series. It may have started off weak, but then so did TNG, DS9, and VOY as well. And seasons 3-4 were simply amazing in terms of story quality and character development.


"The future is in the hands of those who explore... And from all the beauty they discover while crossing perpetually receding frontiers, they develop for nature and for humankind an infinite love." - Jacques Yves Cousteau

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: FleetAdmiral_BamBam, Vicsage

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum