[ SECRET POST #4791 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4791 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Sebastian Stan, RPF]


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04. https://i.imgur.com/E1wBTnm.png
[linked for cartoon bestiality]


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 36 secrets from Secret Submission Post #686.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

08. https://i.imgur.com/tny1gyd.png

[(Anonymous)]

This is actually a point I never considered before! My knowledge of Star Trek is casual and I never the Klingons were an empire. I only watched episodes of TNG, and Worf was a highly respected character.

[(Anonymous)]

I feel like they'd stopped being a colonizing power by the time TNG came aroudn.

[tree_and_leaf]

Yes, this. And arguably a lot of the political tensions we see in TNG and DS9 era Klingons are the result of a culture which was predicated on imperialism and conquest, but can't do that any more, struggling to adapt - it's led to in-fighting and division. They've "lost an empire and failed to find a role."

[tabaqui]

I want to know how we got to Klingons like they are in this secret, to the ones in ST:Discovery to the ones in ST and Deep Space Nine and etc. WTF happened!

(ST:D Klingons are truly stupid looking.)

[(Anonymous)]

It's explained in Enterprise! (And the Disco Klingons are the same, just with shaved heads in S1.)

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but that explanation is both stupid and unnecessary given how everything else about the franchise was updated with each new generation in makeup and special effects.

[tabaqui]

Now I feel i'll have to seek it out.....

[tabaqui]

That's a show I never watched (Enterprise).
I don't remember the Disco Klingons being the same, but it's been a *long* time since I saw that show.

[(Anonymous)]

Roddenberry did the best he could with a TV budget and technology in 1966, and by 1979 he had a larger budget and could better realize his vision. And since dozens of other things were better realized with advances in stagecraft, it's best to just roll with it.

[tabaqui]

What I saw in the new ST and in ST:D was *not* better. Just....horribly weird and too, too different to make the *slightest* bit of sense.

Some things are best left alone.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you talking about not liking the bumpy-forehead Klingons in general as opposed to the just-a-dude-in-pancake-makeup TOS look, or do you mean disliking the way they look in the reboot movies and Discovery specifically as opposed to the bumpy foreheads from the earlier movies and TNG/DS9? Anon was talking about how the bumpy foreheads came along with the first movie in 1979 because they could afford to make their aliens more alien by that point. Since TNG-style bumpy-forehead Klingons were around the longest and they appear to be the most popular, I don't count it as a loss that they redesigned the Klingons for The Motion Picture. In fact, for all the years we didn't have an explanation for the change, I was perfectly happy to just handwave and ignore the fact that Klingons ever looked different than they did on TNG.

If you don't like the way they look in the reboot movies and Discovery, that's totally fair. While I'm not partial to those looks, either (especially the reboot movies) I do appreciate how Discovery tried to introduce more variation to illustrate how Klingons had been living on multiple planets for a long time and there had been a bit of racial divergence.

It's not just Klingons who got an update. TNG brought us Romulans with (significantly less dramatic) bumpy foreheads, too. We finally got an explanation for that in ST: Picard recently. The Romulans with bumpy foreheads are... from the north. :)

[tabaqui]

I liked the Klingons in the original series. I thought they looked neat; just different enough to *be* different, not so different as to be really super-alien. And they really read as kind of human in most of their interactions, etc., in TOS.

I thought that changing their look so radically for the movie in '79 was kinda dumb - this was *post* TOS, but not post THAT much. I don't remember ever hearing an in-universe reason for it, either, or at least not one that made a lot of sense. I just thought they looked dumb, and they had the option of making lots of other alien races look all kinds of ways, so why mess with an established one?

I really disliked the Discovery ones, and don't remember ever hearing an in-universe explanation for that, either.

Guess I'm just...resistant to change.

[(Anonymous)]

Why would that be on the Federation? The Romulans also colonise and the Cardassians did the same thing to Bajor while the Federation stood by due to treaties. They can't fight everybody all the time. (Also I don't think the Klingons did so much colonising anymore between STVI and TNG - they seem much more involved in internal issues and then fighting the Dominion in DS9.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know if it's been stated in canon, but I had assumed most of the Klingon colonizing and empire-building largely pre-dated the Federation as any kind of real political or military power so there really wasn't anything the Federation could do to stop it, anyway. I don't know if we even know for sure if the Klingon Empire was still at its height in TOS (I wasn't paying super close attention, but my impression from Discovery is that the empire had actually been in decline and they were trying to re-organize politically and reinvigorate their society).