Get A Closer Look At L’Rell–With Hair!–In ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Season 2

The second season trailer for Star Trek: Discovery released two weeks ago at NYCC revealed a new look for the Klingons, confirming that they now have hair. But it was a brief glimpse. Today during the Destination Star Trek convention being held in Birmingham, UK, CBS released a new image of L’Rell, and now fans can get a better look.

L’Rell 2.0

Here is the new image of Klingon Chancellor L’Rell in Star Trek: Discovery season two.

Mary Chieffo as L’Rell in Star Trek: Discovery

The image shows a very different L’Rell from what was seen in the first season, with the addition of hair quite prominent. At New York Comic Con, Mary Chieffo explained that Klingons shave their heads in time of war and let it grow out in times of peace, explaining why all Klingons in the first season were seen without any hair. Here is what Chieffo said about Klingon hair at NYCC

You might have noticed in the trailer, there is a bit of a new aesthetic going on. [flips her hair around] And that is a really exciting addition that has been made and is inspired by Glenn Hetrick, who is our designer and a huge Trek fan himself. He was inspired by season 6, episode 23 of The Next Generation “Rightful Heir.” There is a reference when Kahless is brought back as a clone…the way he proves himself is he tells the story of how he cut off a lock of his hair and dipped it into a volcano and made the first bat’leth, with which he killed Molor, the terrible tyrant who was running Qo’noS at the time.

L’Rell in the first episode of season one

But, L’Rell’s look appears to have undergone more changes. The prosthetic appliances on the face and mouth seem less pronounced than they were in season one, especially when compared to the pilot episode of the first season. Also, Chancellor L’Rell has had some work done, as the scarring resulting from the firefight and escape of Tyler and Lorca (in the 5th episode of the first season) is now gone.

L’Rell in episode nine of season one

Say HIja’ to the dress

Also new for L’Rell: she has swapped out her House of T’Kuvma armor for a dress befitting her new status as the leader of the Klingon Empire. Chieffo also spoke about L’Rell’s season two wardrobe at NYCC:

The Chancellor aesthetic when it comes to clothes – Gersha Phillips again has outdone herself…I was wearing these boots and she was “Oh, you like heels?”…I’ve got these epic heeled boots and these gorgeous dresses and a little bit more of your classic Klingon cleavage that you all love so very much!

A close-up reveals the classic Klingon emblem on Chancellor L’Rell’s belt, no doubt part of her overall message of forging Klingon unity.

Klingon emblem incorporated into Chancellor L’Rell’s dress

L’Rell’s new look is distinctly more feminine than her look in season one. This is something that Chieffo herself talked about as part of her character’s arc. At NYCC, she said:

I think there’s also a theme for L’Rell in the second season of embracing her femininity as she embraces her power, which I think the two can coexist. It’s not an easy road for her. There are men, specifically male Klingons, who take issue with a woman being in power.

Attention to detail: Chancellor L’Rell’s nails match her dress

Chieffo reveals the new look

Mary Chieffo showed off L’Rell’s new look at a panel in Birmingham on Sunday. The actress also had some fun with the reveal on social media.

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else. The second season will debut on All Access and Space on Thursday, January 17th, 2019, and on Netflix January 18th.

The first season of Star Trek: Discovery will be released on Blu-ray and DVD on November 13th.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news here at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

did they give her extra nostrils?

No, L’Rell still has four.

LOL until now I didn’t even notice they had four nostrils. Is that just a Discovery thing or did other versions also have four too? I think it looks fine either way.

It’s a Discovery thing. That and the vampire claws.

Ok thank you!

And yes this is EXACTLY what I thought they would do when we heard they was changing them, make them look more like traditional Klingons but still keep some elements of the Discovery Klingons. Actually what I said now that I am thinking about it is you will see both more traditional Klingons mixed in with some of the bald/season 1 Discovery Klingons but maybe the entire bald look has been wiped out completely now.

And now no one has to worry about freaking out if and when we do see Klingons on that show too.

Anyway, it’s great!

Meant the Picard show.

And the double-penis.

Ugh don’t remind me. That was just ridiculous.

Ridickulous, actually.

I could just see someone in the writers’ room, snickering, “Klingons have two penises! Klingons have two penises!” like a Junior High schooler. ugh

That’s actually from Berman Trek.

Really the double penis thing came from another show? I honestly don’t remember. What show and episode?

Maybe I blocked it from memory because it was so bad lol.

Yeah. TNG’s “Ethics” is what inspired the double dong, and that episode says that all major Klingon organs have a back up redundancy, so that would naturally include one’s meat and two veg (meats and four veg?).

But did they actually SAY they had two?? I honestly don’t remember that at al. But now I have another episode to catch up on lol.

And does redundancy mean there is two of everything? Its a real question. Can’t it just mean like if you’re a lizard and you lose a tail it will grow back or something? OK, now I’m getting some really disturbing images lol.

Well, they don’t specifcally say Worf has a double dick if that’s what you mean. Rather two or more of every key organ, which of course would include one’s todger. But according to TNG the redundancy organs often fail, so I suspect that one todger is probably a bit of a let down in the bedroom…

Ok I gotcha! I guess I should just rewatch that episode then. I been doing tons of TNG rewatches so I can add one more to the list!

Losing one’s virginity must be a helluvan experience for both sexes

I’m certain of few things, but I am absolutely certain that nobody mentioned genitalia during TNG’s run (other than data being — shudder — fully functional).

But, yes, redundancy.

That was internal organs, but I suppose Klingon genetics would not differentiate …

Do they have two brains? LOL

Two small brains….

The whole general idea of redundancy actually dates back to a time well before the Berman-era, namely the design documents for TMP where the idea of an “exoskeleton” was first suggested (which is obviously an instance of redundancy in a species that also has an endoskeleton) – that’s how the forehead ridges were born.
But I like to believe that they just have two bladders and thus two urethrae. The double schlong idea just seems too friggin ridiculous, not to say downright puerile. Just more pretty darn vulnerable body parts…
Also, wouldn’t one presume that that would have a certain influence on Klingon male fashion? Double codpieces and stuff like that?

Well, the “dual stream” could also be explained by a Prince Albert or similar piercing.

What ?! Frontal nudity was never shown on trek and since when do klingons have 2 penis? Did I miss something ?

Never knew why they would literally sharpen their teeth but have manicured nails

Maybe they’re like my cats and chew the outer sheaths of the nails off, LOL

“I saw a Klingon biting her nails”
“Was she nervous?”
“No, sharpening”

I think it’s a Discovery thing riffing on the Klingon redundancy trait introduced in the TNG episode Ethics but I could be wrong.

Klingons always had a double ridge, which i guess could be taken as a double nostril. It’s just way more pronounced in Discovery and actual double nostrils.

What I want to know is why she isn’t purple anymore. I guess Klingons also change colors in time of peace, heh. Or maybe she got a little augment virus with her plastic surgery.

You’d figure a Klingon would want to keep the scars as a badge of honor or something.

Yeah she literally looks like a totally different color too lol. I think most people assume its more of a lighting/filtering thing and why no one is commenting on it. But yes they could’ve changed her skin tone as well. At least made it a bit lighter.

I think I preferred the previous L’Rell look! Maybe changed her clothing to a softer civilian look, but why try to make her more “conventionally beautiful”? [I’m all for losing the excess mouth prosthetics though.]

It was Chieffo’s acting that made L’Rell as feminine as she was.

yeah the skin colour was the first thing I noticed, I’m fine with them correcting a misstep though, it’s not the first time they’ve course corrected the look of an alien and I don’t need a canon explanation. Scars are very Klingon though So L’Rell’s decision to have them removed will possibly factor into the story. If we consider that she loved Voq and Tyler is the human incarnation of Voq then I suspect she might have done it for him.

Did they actually state the scars are gone though? That photo of Chancellor L’Rell is shot from the other side of her face, it might just be obscured by the angle.

Doesn’t her face look rounder and more smooth as well. Aside from the scar being gone or not visible. Strange.

She’s the same colour – just under different lighting.

Possible but it seems unlikely. Klingons in STD looked bluish from the start. This photo is making her look more traditionally Klingon.

The look of her complexion could be the lighting. Good question though. I think they could enhance the look of her lips with color, i.e., light color where they should look plump and a darker shade just around the outside of the “plump” area. Good that they got some of that prosthetic away from the actors’ mouths!

And I agree, you’d think she’d want to keep the scars, but then again, she was shot by a lousy Terran, so maybe not?

Well, sometimes their blood is purple as well, but usually it is red like ours.

This could be due to their unique body chemistry.

I could argue they always had four. Go look at TNG era makeup, there are two prominent ridges around the nostrils of nearly every
Character, just no visible opening. It’s obvious to me that DSC took that and ran with it, retconnijg them to be nostrils.

Fine by me. Only nitpickers make a big deal out of minor details like that.

Until Manny Coto comes in and writes a season long arc to explain if.

I don’t feel your insult to Coto is justified. He oversaw the best Trek season in years (until he was pushed aside for the finale episode). And why are people so enraged by the Augment virus idea? I thought it was neat idea and it in no way stops the Discovery showrunners fro featuring multiple versions of Klingons, including smooth headed ones (not that they will).

Manny Coto is very much missed, by this fan.

Manny Coto is severely overrated in his work on Enterprise. He’s a fine producer, and his season was enjoyable, but it was far far overhyped by fans. It’s no surprise that the likes of El Chup (one of DSC’s biggest critics) loves his work.

He is definitely not missed, and the franchise would have been better off without him, simply because the Augment Virus storyline is– while a good dramatic 3-parter– one of the worst things to ever happen to Trek.

Rick Berman’s overt mockery of fans love of Coto is spot-on (and hilarious).

” El Chup (one of DSC’s biggest critics)”

Wrong. You fail to read my posts.

Having some criticism towards mainly the writing and the visual approach to canon doesn’t make me “one of the biggest critics”. Save that kind of talk for the overt haters.

It’s a shame you feel the need to start picking out specific posters and trolling them.


No offense but posts like this just feels so hypocritical. And people do it all the time here. You seem so offended that people don’t like Discovery or its producers but then you have no problem telling others what shows you hate or think is over rated. And you attacked a member here FOR liking said show.

Don’t you see what you’re doing is EXACTLY the same thing you accuse people of doing here? And don’t misunderstand what I’m saying! I have NO problem that you criticize another show. You’re just stating what you don’t like about it. That’s fine. That’s what you are suppose to do on a message board. But YET every post of yours comes off so offended that people simply state what they don’t like about Discovery. You treat it like its almost wrong to even do it. It’s people giving out their opinions. If they are not attacking the people who DO like it, then what does it matter????

And calling out a member who likes a show is doing the very thing you claim to hate. That was uncalled for. And you only did that because you don’t like his views on Discovery. Again can’t we just talk about a show without making it personal?

Thank you Tiger.

My apologies if EC is a fan. It’s hard to keep track of user names, and who likes what, on a site I really don’t spend a lot of mental energy on.

As for hypocritical? Everyone’s a hypocrite. But this statement is not hypocriticism.

To be fair, it is possible that Coto is being rated higher than it might belong because of the state Enterprise was in when he entered in.

That said, I don’t think his praise is unjust. The show DID improve when he showed up.

Very true, ML31. The show was languishing, the Xindi arc was only a mild improvement, and fans were eager to see connections to TOS. Coto brought a dynamic flair that the show had been missing, and much stronger stories.

But he didn’t save the show, and his season wasn’t exactly great television. It was simply better.

Yeah… I don’t think anyone claimed Coto saved Enterprise. Only that Enterprise got much better once he came on board. And many wish he was on board from the beginning as they feel the show could have had the standard 7 seasons like other Treks.

Exactly ML. I even said it was too late for the show to be saved and I actually complimented the DSC showrunners for trying to correct any less successful elements earlier than Enterprise did.

Yeah. Coto was a nice breath of fresh air for this fan. I feel his worst misstep was the Klingon appearance change explanation. It certainly was not needed from my point of view. But it’s not a horrid thing and really, it’s not a bad explanation if there HAD to be one. TNG certainly had worse errors over the years. Hard to do worse than the cliche ridden Data’s evil twin.

I agree the virus was a neat idea. As a fan production I’d have more appreciation for it. But it was not necessary, and it added a downright poisonous element to the fandom, as fans now wanted every discrepancy to be addressed.

Frankly, the story was OK, but not great. It was a nice, fun little episode(s). Absolutely nothing special. Just like his season. It was the best Trek season in years by default only because the first 3 had been so bland.

That does not make it great.

I agree, the augment idea was not necessary. I don’t think neither is the one for DIS but I can understand why they feel the need to do it. But most fans probably don’t care. They just wanted them to look like traditional Klingons again and will probably accept the show more for it.

The augment stuff was done to explain why Klingons looked different obviously. Fine but they were far from the only species that had changed through the years, just the most radical I guess. But no one cared why Romulans or Trills looked different nor needed some in-universe explanation for it.

To play the Devil’s Advocate here… Klingons have a slightly higher place in Star Trek lore than Trills. Romulans come up 2nd to them as well. As the forehead in TNG appeared with little fan annoyance. It did bug me, but it waasn’t all that radical and I just went with it. If they gave the Romulans pointy heads, THAT would have crossed a line.

For the record, I do agree with you on this.

Yeah I certainly agree. I guess the point is we’ve always had changes in alien make up, no one has ever really asked why such and such looks different in all the decades of Trek, including the Klingons themselves. But of course there were always some trying to justify the change within the canon but its never really been a big deal either.

And if ANYONE should be explained, it should be the Romulans in TNG since the Vulcans didn’t get the same change. But I don’t want to give anyone anymore story ideas lol.

I wouldn’t call the make up change from TOS to TMP and beyond “minor”. And besides, it was DS9 that dropped the ball on that really. If they had just ignored the difference, it wouldn’t have been an issue canonically.

Exactly. And I wouldn’t say DS9 dropped the ball. DS9 made a meta joke in a tongue-in-cheek episode that was pretty meta in its own right.

It was Manny Coto and Enterprise that really screwed it up. In addition, that arc forever created the expectation among the fandom’s worst canon gatekeepers that every retcon needed to be explained.

“In addition, that arc forever created the expectation among the fandom’s worst canon gatekeepers that every retcon needed to be explained.”

That is quite a leap in logic. That episode enabled nothing. The worst gatekeepers would always insist on explanations for every little thing no matter what.

I disagree. They wanted to do the Tribble crossover, which was quite clever. But they HAD to address the change in look. To pretend the K-7 Klingons looked like the type the DS9ers knew would be disingenuous. They acknowledged it with an amusing response from Worf, and moved on. Nothing more to it. That episode is hardly the reason for the Enterprise augment virus 2 parter. At all.

LOL, I didn’t mind that plotline in Enterprise as much as some folk. Mainly bc I love retcon.

The four nostrils seem quite practical for someone from a warrior race. Fighting takes a lot of breath!

Yeah, but it also means you can smell farts twice as potently….

I didn’t MIND the augment subplot but I agree with most it just wasn’t necessary just like its not necessary to explain why Klingons now have hair.

What’s so funny about that is no one in the show EVER explained why they were bald in the first place. Notice no one in Starfleet once pointed out the fact Klingons after a hundred years of no contact all showed up looking like Thanos. The obvious reason is that this was simply how they were suppose to look, period. And it also proves none of this was remotely ‘planned’. Fifteen episodes and no one ever said ‘like what’s up with all you guys being bald now’ (or the 23rd century equivalent ;)).

But no one bothered to create an explanation why they looked different in first season, don’t see the point of explaining why they look different next season.

Discovery was a new show coming from a completely new creative team after more than a decade of no TREK on TV. While being set in the TOS time period, it was clearly a visual reboot. This gave them some license to redesign Klingons without providing an in-story explanation.
Changing the Klingon look from one season to the next on the same show is different. And we’re talking more than just small cosmetic changes here. That should be acknowledged on the show. They don’t need to dwell on it for long but it shouldn’t be the elephant in the room.

I agree with you, its fine to acknowledge it of course because you’re right these are BIG changes. Even bigger than I thought we would get. But in good way though!

My real fear is I don’t want it to be a ‘story line’ like the augment virus. Mention it in a few lines and move on. As you said just don’t dwell on it because they feel they have to ‘justify’ the change. People who are happy about the change don’t care lol. They are just happy it’s changed, period.

“But no one bothered to create an explanation why they looked different in first season, don’t see the point of explaining why they look different next season.”

Agreed. They should have just changed and when asked just say they changed the look because they have new make up guys, or they agreed with some of the critics, or whatever behind the scenes reason. They didn’t need to come up with an in universe explanation. One that doesn’t make sense to begin with.

Never really took it as extra nostrils but just more pronounced nose ridges. Worf has them but they’re not as pronounced/separated.

Mary is one hot female Klingon. The actress herself is gorgeous, and even with all that make-up i’d love to be trapped in a turbolift with her in zero gravity. Mmmm!


Really? I find her rather unattractive, and in Klingon makeup disgusting. Though the 2.0 is much easier on the eyes, I must admit! Could even be considered beautiful for Klingon standards…

Mary is tall, long-legged, beautiful eyes… what’s not to like?

I don’t know, maybe it’s the cheek or jaw bones (or what it’s called in English), the nose, and/or the mouth. I think it’s mainly her face that I just don’t find attractive, but also she’s not exactly my definition of slim/slender (sorry if those terms are wrong, that’s coming straight out of the dictionary). But of course someone else is entitled to an entirely different opinion…

The Vulcan chick on DS9’s ‘the maquis’ eps wasn’t terribly slim but looked very good to me. This klingon, not so much appeal at all.

Mary looks like a woman, not a child; she has a woman’s shape, meaning [gasp!] larger hips than bustline. Most women in Hollywood are skinny to the point of emaciation and have nice plump boobs due to silicone implants. NOT a natural look.

Olaf, Mary has amazingly beautiful bone structure, but her chin is rather prominent.

What the heck, guys? It’s 2018. Do we really need Hot or Not on a Star Trek site?

Apparently we do, Jack. There were plenty of people defending the gratituious Alice Eve indie shot in STID, recall…

We never stop being human, no matter the year, no matter how much people try.

We don’t need to discuss in detail whether an actress is attractive or not or slim enough or not to be human.

And what does Alive Eve have to do with this? Whether one finds her attractive or not, the scene made no sense in the story. She wasn’t changing into a spacesuit.

And on Chieffo’s twitter post, there are guys doing exactly that —it’s lousy. If you don’t find her attractive, keep it to yourself. And if you do, isn’t saying she’s attractive enough — as opposed to saying what you’d like to do to her? You can be a hunan being and still treat other human beings with respect.

Agreed! Poor Olaf he must be still trying to live and act the way men did back in the 1960s!!! I of course loved TOS, but get with the times man, this is 2018!

Let’s not dwell on that, shall we? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder after all.

The critiquing of Mary Chieffo’s looks is really uncomfortable. Nobody deserved to have the way they look slammed OR objectified. In fact its disgusting, sexist and pig ignorant.

This whole thread is rather suspect. So time to move on folks.

It will be interesting to see her in power to unite

The Rightful Hair :-)

Heh, heh, heh… nice

LOL, fellow punster!

Ohhh, that one was a no-brainer and yet I wouldn’t have thought of it. Kudos!

Yeah, the hair’s not really working for me on her makeup anyway. I loved how alien they looked before, this just looks like more humans with forehead appliances.

Same. And if they have to have hair, I always liked the weird 60s/TrekIII/TUC elaborate updos (but something different) than the wiggy look.

I loved Worf’s queue that he wore while in his Starfleet uniform. They could do a sort of samurai style for the men, since the samurais’ tonsures go back about as far as Worf’s ridges did.

This was my biggest problem with the Klingon look by the time DS9 started really using them. Those wigs were getting incredibly dated, and HD did them no favors on Enterprise.

Yeah, they were a little too Spinal Tap/Halloween costume.

And the more ceremonial/Shogun-y braids and ponytails of the TOS movies seemed to work with the whole idea of honour. To me at least. It just hinted at a more complex, interesting culture, IMO.

Yeah I think they can have multiple type of hairstyles, just like we humans do. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. In fact that might have been a more interesting way to go with in first season of Discovery and each house represents a certain hair style to display different cultural differences.

I think what they should have done was have different races of Klingons. Show a house with ridges. Show a house with the TOS look. Show the STD type in another house. Have a good mix. Would give their civilization more complexity. And was something I was expecting when they said before the show aired that they would examine Klingon culture like never before. Alas, that never happened.

This was my preference. It would have allowed them to have a dynamic new look while also placating those of us who value the past developed culture. But I’ll take these compromise versions as the next best thing.

Yes, exactly! We all kind of expected something like that first season but didn’t get it. Then I thought its possible next season but they already made it clear we’re not seeing the TOS versions and it looks like the DIS versions will just meld into a different image if L’rell is any indication.

I said this before myself, just show ALL of them, just get it out the way so this issue can be over and done with. They all look different because they just ARE! So if you like the TOS/Augment Klingons, there you go. The TMP Klingons, they are over there. The TSFS/TNG era Klingons, those guys are drinking blood wine in a corner somewhere. The DIS Klingons, they can’t believe they are related to all those other freaks, but its one big (semi) happy species.

And all of this constant arguing of what they should look like or how they are presented can finally be put to rest.

I hate to say it, but yes, Curious, I agree on the hair. And I loved how Mary was able to communicate femininity with her voice and a head tilt and other acting techniques.

But I’m sure all the complainers will be happy. Now they’ll switch to something else.

“Now they’ll switch to something else.”

Like the bad creative choices made in S1, I would hope. To me, those other errors sometimes overshadowed the bigger issues with S1.

It depends. If they do something new that is bad then maybe. But right now my primary remaining deal breaker is better writing. If the writing improves then any remaining issues I have will be frustrations, but now ones that break the show for me, especially since we now know where we stand with things like new visuals and recast TOS characters.

And before it didn’t look like a human with a head appliance? I honestly don’t see the difference. The only thing that looked truly alien was the tartagrade.

That is an awesome look

Agreed. Alien and beauty- all wrapped in one…

Well, that looks much more like it. Like the Russian proverb says “better late than never”.

OMG this is perfect! She actually looks like a Klingon again and not some Alien/LOTR hybrid. Love it! I’m happy the producers are trying to get it right and the Klingons were easily one of the biggest put offs for a lot of people. It’s just great to see that glorious hair! :)

Now I wonder will they still talk for having marbles in their mouths? ;)

Agreed. Problem is, how much later is the second season supposed to be in order for the Klingons to grow so much hair? Or does it grow twice as fast as humans as well? ;-)

LOL that didn’t even occur to me until now. We know in season 2 there is no time jump since we see the Enterprise show up and will jump right into the next adventure. Maybe they will explain it somehow but it would be funny suddenly all the Klingons have long sheen hair and beards and like two days have past lol.

I guess they can say it was several months between that award ceremony and when Discovery left Earth to pick up their new captain. I can’t remember if there was any dialogue they left Earth right away.

I think the Klingons will be having their own completely separate story from Discovery and her crew, so it really won’t matter all that much when it takes place.

Actually I don’t think that is completely true. IIRC one of the the Klingon actor who plays Tyler/Vog hinted they will bump into Burnham again at some point. And it would be weird the two would never connect in any way, especially serialized story telling. At some point they are going to have to combine them to make the Klingon story line just feel relevant with whatever is going on with Discovery. If not it would literally just feel like they are keeping the Klingons around to use the actors.

That said I do think Section 31 is going to play a part in the Klingon story line and my guess is that group will be the connection between the Klingons and Discovery at some point.

Maybe one of the glowy red things is in Klingon space.(?) Voq talking to Burnham I can see happening since they had the feels.
As this seems to be so close to the end of the war it’s hard to see much real cooperation between the Federation and the Klingons happening.

No I suspect ANY co-operation lol. I do think we will see Tyler waffling between both sides though because of his feelings for Burnham. I honestly hated the whole Vog/Tyler thing but now that they did it they can really go into depth with a man of two identities but not fitting into either type of plot line. While I hope not it may even turn into some bizarre love triangle between him, Michael and L’orell.

I meant I don’t suspect any co-operation!

I would imagine the crew got some leave time at least. They would want to spend time with their families after what was [for those left behind during those nine long months] a devastating war.

“We know in season 2 there is no time jump since we see the Enterprise show up and will jump right into the next adventure.”

Actually we don’t know that. There was a tie jump between episode two and three in Season One. No reason to assume Season Two must all take place immediately after Pike shows up.

You could be right but they made it look and sound so urgent like the Enterprise or Pike needed their ship right away. But yeah maybe not. We’ll see.

What are you talking about? The Klingons on Discovery always had hair [insert Jedi mind trick].

Well, you could retcon it that way, for sure. Two hearts, more blood supply to the hair follicles …? LOL.

Didnt Worf go from having hair just above shoulder length to a long ponytail in just a couple months? Like between seasons 5-6? Maybe Klingons do grow their hair at a faster pace?

‘Accelerated hair growth is often experienced by Klingons during Jak’tahla’- Worf, Star Trek Insurrection.

Can we stop with the “a lot of people” — unless you’ve done polling. Just speak for yourself. You like hair on Klingons, we get it.

I’m talking about all the people who wanted it. I didn’t say everyone, just a lot. Ok, let’s say enough, hence why it was changed! ;)

And I would’ve been fine if they didn’t have hair. But now that they do, yeah it’s great. That said they could still around a few baldies too for the people who liked them first season. We’ll see.

Sorry, but the reaction this has gotten at the conventions should tell you that the fans mostly approve of making them a little more familiar. The most divisive element of the show by far was the radical redesign of the Klingons.

I must admit I don’t get the complaining from those who liked the bald look. This is literally the same make up but with wigs and beards added. You’d think it would be the best of both worlds, but apparently not.

I don’t get it either? I mean it would be different if fans who wanted the change was STILL unhappy about it, like they can never be pleased or will always find some reason to hate the show. I think this change being overwhelmingly positive proves two important things. A. That the producers can just change course if they see the fanbase is unhappy with something (and not the only Trek show to do it btw) and B. That most fans who do have problems with the show are NOT hating it just to hate it. This proves that they want to like the show in the long run, its just certain things that bothers them about it. In this case its just keeping to canon.

This is a win-win, so I don’t get the issue? Of course I understand people who just thought the first season Klingons were better. And I have said multiple times I don’t see the issue with just having them BOTH around? I even thought we would probably get ones with hair but the other ones would stay too. I don’t have a problem with that at all. But with the new story canon I guess that won’t happen now. But its still possible. I mean do they ALL have to grow hair back lol.

But TV shows that just double down on ideas fans generally hate only gets cancelled faster IMO. I mean Enterprise kept that theme song and well…

Thing is that Enterprise actually gave us what we wanted in Season Four, but by then it was too late. The axe had already fallen. SO you’re right in that Discovery’s showrunners are wise to listen to feedback sooner rather than later.

And you know, it should be in the spirits of Trek to try and bring unsure fans back into the fold. Sure, there are always going to be the clowns who want the show to be a carbon copy of TOS, but I think generally they are a minority compared to those of us who just wanted something reasonably familiar.


And in fact what’s funny about Discovery is that they seem to be doing all the things Enterprise did in its fourth season, which most people thought was a good direction (me included). In DIS case, they decided to go that way a lot of sooner which means they ARE learning from their mistakes. Now I can certainly argue they may be doing TOO MUCH too fast but I’m keeping this positive.

I think what may be bothering people is that there is some ‘grave dancing’ happening. And maybe that is true for some, but I GENUINELY think most people just wanted them to acknowledge canon in some way, more so than hating the new Klingons. And what I mean by that is I don’t think most wanted them erased completely so much as they simply wanted to see the others IN ADDITION TO the DIS ones. And I really thought that was the plan. There are 20 posts of me saying that lol. I always assumed they would just show the ‘other’ houses in season 2 as the Klingons we knew with the hair, or at least a close version of that. But they went a different way for some reason.

But yes most of us ‘complainers’ simply want a BETTER show and can be reasonable if they show the effort. Thats all this is about for most of us.

And again, this is a point I have labored on for some time, I could have lived with ALL the visual changes had the show just been BETTER! They can change the Klingon look, change the entire visual feel of Discovery but if the show is not good, none of that will matter to me. I just want the show to be better, first and foremost. Sure, I’m happy with the change in Klingons. It’s a positive step. But it’s just window dressing. If the show is still bad, that other stuff won’t help.

It’s your opinion, which doesn’t imply that is the correct one. Millions of people around the world loved the season 1 episodes and found the plot a really well written and amazing story. I found myself jumping on my chair lots of times and had to watch every single episode more than once, cos the episodes were too complex just for one go.

Of course in my opinion. Your assessment that millions felt like you did is conjecture based on little more than the fact that you yourself enjoyed the show. Overall the show has gotten a mixed reaction. Therefore, assuming multiple millions have even watched the show world wide (which could be a bit of a stretch), there are also millions who watched it and reacted with, “meh.”

Agreed. Anyone looking for a carbon copy of TOS is delusional. Since the bad judgment, imo, to place this in the time period it’s in, though, I just want Discovery to look even remotely familiar. This change to the Klingons (which I found to be the least of the show’s problems so far, incidentally) is a good sign going forward.

But if you want it to look “remotely familiar” how can you like the Klingon design at all? Wouldn’t you want a bunch of white men wearing bronzer?

No, because the TOS Klingons were in about six hours of Trek. The ridged look is the definitive look, encompassing multiple movies, two series regulars and literally hundreds of hours of appearances. That’s why the TMP argument as a comparator never stands up to scrutiny.

TOS Klingons: 7 episodes over 3 years.

Ridged Klingons: 100+ episodes in four shows and 7 films over 30+ years.

And as its been said many times, Roddenberry didn’t like the TOS versions, that was just the best they could do given the cheaper budgets and technology at the time. The Klingons in the TOS films and TNG is how he envisioned them and why they changed.

DIS it was just change for change sake and not for the better for many fans.

Mary Chieffo would look great as an Old-Skool Klingon female – either from TOS, or the Kirk era movies.

Oh please, not with the pressed cleavage-revealing hole that just begs “STAB HERE”

Lol I always hated that. Why would a warrior race make armor/clothing with such a devastating weakness just to show off some cleavage?

To distract the Bad Man’s attention, maybe? To show they have no fear of death? Or…Boobs, just because.

Ban hammer, please.

I was there when she revealed this image and (unsurprisingly) the new look was met with unanimous approval. Mary Chieffo herself seemed to be very happy with the new look and, although she did not criticize the season 1 style makeup, she did imply it was restrictive and stated that in order to express emotion, she had to make greater use of her eyes and the angle of her head. Hopefully these new style prosthetics will make her job easier and allow the audience to get a better appreciation of the complexities of the L’Rell character.

And despite the restrictive prosthetics and an aesthetic I was not fond of I thought she made an excellent Klingon so I am looking forward to seeing her in the new season.

If they went this way in the first season they probably would’ve got a lot more fans on board accepting the show on day one. Of course the look of the Klingons were not the only problems why some fans were put off but because they were SO prominent first season that if you didn’t like them it basically ruined the season for you since they were practically in every episode. I know that’s why I didn’t really like season one all that much because I just couldn’t connect with these Klingons.

But season 2 it looks like they heard the fans and making big changes. And you’re right it just looks so much less restrictive for those poor actors so they will be able to emote more and talk better. And its just nice to see the actors a bit more in the make up.

I didn’t like the look, but it was poor writing that ruined Season One for me.

Agreed! I mean I didn’t like the look either but if the Klingons (like a lot of things on this show) were just better written and more interesting I probably wouldn’t have cared after a few episodes.

This ^

“This ^”

And this.

There were some weak moments, but much of the writing was still better than the bulk of VOY and ENT, and the entirety of the first season of TNG.

And light years beyond TOS.

Also, it’s worth noting there are at least two types of writing we talk about: story writing, and scene writing. Story means the broader story points, where the narrative moves, and how it gets from here to there. Scene writing is more dialogue and scene-to-scene construction.

Both had some flaws, a few weak moments, and at least a couple of groan worthy aspects, but overall when viewed as a whole was still very good.

Agree to disagree on some of that. I do agree with you the first season was a bit better than ENT and TNG’s first year but I loved Voyager and TOS first seasons more by a mile. And its main story line, the Klingon war was too boring, ignored most of the war and lacked any real intrigue. That and I just hated the Klingons in general even though I liked all the main characters like L’rell, Voq and Kol. But what they were given to do was pretty wasted IMO.

Another agree to disagree. I get subjectivity but calling STD better than TOS S1 feels like a HUGE stretch.

The story elements were what failed everything for me. Not only the narrative moves in getting from here to there, their “there” was faulty to begin with. Burham’s speech, the one they said they started with and worked backwards from to get there, was pretty much the weakest speech in Trek history. “Genocide is bad, m’kay?” And then there was the entire Lorca is from the MU debacle. Their key end of season plot twist was just stupendously dumb, so idiotic that when fans predicted it I didn’t believe it due to how ridiculous it was. And that’s the thing… There were just too many dumb things in S1. Way too many.

I’ve said this before but its really the finale that put a bad taste in my mouth. That was EASILY the worst episode of the season for me, but because it was the one that wrapped up everything my expectations were I guess too high and it failed IMO.

That’s the problem with serialized story telling because you are waiting all season to see how it ends and when it SUCKS then it just makes the season as a whole worse. I’m not saying I hated the entire season over it and I don’t think I ‘hated’ any episode including the finale. I still liked individual episodes but thats probably why I don’t have a real drive to rewatch it all again. The Klingon war just felt so lifeless with no real clear motives or goals. I mean what exactly were the Klingons going to do if they won the war? I get the reunite the house part but WHAT did they expect to achieve in the war itself?

The Voq/Tyler plot basically embodies that entire problem. Because its like no one figured out WHY he should be Tyler, he literally just WAS Tyler. It never went beyond that and one of the problems of the season.

I know you hated the MU but if I’m being honest those episodes saved the season for me. Most of the Klingon episodes I don’t have ANY motivation to watch them at all. The whole story line just felt half baked.

For me the MU went on two episodes too long, and we really didn’t need Mirror Phillipa coming back to prime. It’s such a waste of Michelle’s talents, especially when you consider how likeable the prime version was.

Tiger, I’m not a huge fan of the MU. But in an attempt to be positive the MU works much better AFTER the characters have been established. And that means NEVER in the first season. It is fun to see the opposite sides of the good guys we follow all season long. But IMHO, just one episode is good enough for that. More than that it just get’s tired. The Enterprise “…Mirror, Darkly” episode worked for me because, I’ll admit it, of the fan service. It was cool to see the Defiant and the Enterprise guys get in the TOS uniforms. It was cool to see a Tholian and a Gorn. Apart from that the 2nd episode was a bit tired.

Agreed. The rot started mostly for me when we got to the Empress Georgiou reveal. With that and the Voq reveal, and Lorca reduced to moustache twirler, within such a short space of time, all easily predicted by us on here in advance, I just let out a massive groan as we went into the final episodes. Then the last episode. Ugh. The most evil person possible given the fate of the Federation. It was so dumb for a Trek show I couldn’t believe it. It was all doubly frustrating because in the first half of the season the writing was better and the foundations were there to build on. But it feels like it was all dumped for some low brow soap opera nonsense. That’s what I want rid of in season two.

I am actually quite pleased thy are going a little more episodic as I think it will help stop bad episodes from infecting the whole story.

Sorry, TOS is absolutely unwatchable for me, and this is coming from someone who adores a lot of 60s TV, who grew up with TOS in the house. Just.. unwatchable. Garbage TV.

Ok, but I assume you realise that called TOS “unwatchable, garbage TV” isn’t going to win you a lot of fans in Trek circles, right?

If there was no TOS there would be no Discovery. It was TOS, however crude in your opinion, that started it all from scratch. Came up with the fundamental foundations of the franchise, it’s push for breaking down barriers and for intelligent storytelling. It may be cheesy by today’s standards, but your description grossly underestimates its importance to the franchise and to television in general.

Your opinion is fine but you know calling it garbage is just going to get others to react.

TOS though does seem to be more of a love it or hate it show. Not by the content so much the style of it if you were born much later than when it came on. But I am surprised to see new fans on Reddit gravitating to it and really enjoying it. And I do think some of that can be credited to the Kelvin movies of course.

And why I always say even if you don’t personally love a show or film or think its bad, just remember that shame show or films got people to sample other Trek. And while I don’t love DIS, it’s nice that it may give a few new fans to check out the other Trek’s as well.

Wow… A very very very rare opinion indeed.

I did not like the Klingon look. But that wasn’t what hurt the show to me. It was the bad plotting and writing that did that. It fully went over the cliff with the Lorca reveal. After that, nothing in that show could be taken seriously at all. It was a comedy where every joke bombed.

I like it, save for the fact that they seem to have strangely built up her cheeks and chin.

I noticed that too, at first I thought that perhaps Mary had gained a little weight since the first season, but it looks like altered prosthetics. Hopefully the updated prosthetics are less stiff and allow for easier facial movements.

I’m sure that’s what it’s for, and it would be a good idea if it is. I hated the fact that the Klingon actors had to talk like they had cotton wool stuff in their mouths, a la Don Corloeone

I also hope they have made it easier for Doug Jones to breathe, and he always sounds like he has a block nose when he speaks.

This might be an illusion though. What I’ve noticed is that the general shape of L’Rell’s chin looks a lot more akin to Mary Chieffo’s actual chin.
That leads me to believe that they’ve actually reduced the prosthetic makeup around her mouth so that she can act more naturally. Her lower lip certainly looks less “built-up” than it did originally (one of weirder aspects of the Klingon makeup – they all had those abnormally huge lower lips), so maybe that affected the entire prothesis in that region.
As far as the cheeks are concerned: maybe that’s just meant to convey that she isn’t on the brink of starvation anymore.

They didn’t just add the hair. Her whole face, the ridges, the nose, the coloring, etc. are a bit different. They also got rid of the big scar tissue.

My guess is they added the hair to reduce prosthetic make up time. Now they don’t have to sculpt the back part of the head anymore. Just the wig and that part is done. Of course one reason for that change is for sure also all the critique they got for the bald look.

The changes of the face make her more traditionally pretty. Everything looks smoother, less angular, her skin tone is more even, her nose a bit smaller, etc. I guess the main reason for all of this outside of prettying her is to make it easier for the actress to emote.

I liked the more alien look, but am glad Mary will have a little more mobility of expression. She took the heavy prosthetics she had in S1 and made dignity. I’ll be interested to see what S2 brings. Qplagh’!

Want to point out that the only bald Klingon we saw in the original continuity was Chang, who was of the mindset that Klingons always had to be at war. I assume it’s coincidental, but it’s nice that it fits that way.

Chang wasn’t bald. He had a ponytail and a moustache.

Bald does not mean hairless.

Plummer just wanted to look different from the rest, and told them to leave the wig off. They had to very hurriedly sculpt a back half head (which you can see is getting refined even as they shot the dinner scene, it looks very red for a shot or two) to accommodate him. That’s direct from the makeup artist, so it is an actor thing, not a character trait, like Shatner insisting on that terrible curly thing on his head in TMP instead of using a more conventional and credible rug.

Wow you do learn something every day. Interesting.

Looks like she got some sun, as well.

I would guess it’s a matter of lighting – in the second trailer you can see that the colour of her skin is still the same, but they DID change the texture. It’s a lot less shiny. It reminds me a lot of the way that Michael Dorn’s Worf-makeup (which also started out looking very “rubbery” in the beginning) was refined over the years.

The sudden new hairdo looks strange due to the continued lack of eyebrow hair. But it’s the 4-nostril aspect that will always give these particular characters a non-TOS look to me, no matter what wigs they stick on them now.

And even though I applaud the introduction of an iconic-looking Klingon Battlecruiser going forward (despite being such a huge departure from Disco’s established ornate Klingon design ethic), I’ll just continue to view this show as occurring in a non-prime universe to get the best out of it, thanks.

Well NONE of the Klingons look like TOS though except TOS. It was the TOS films that changed them in the first place.

But we all know how you like to view it.

The white haired Klingon had eyebrows. Maybe L’Rell shaves them?

I can handle the two nostrils, as long as the overall look is Klingon-like, which this is compared to the baldies.

I can handle subtle changes. As long as the overall aesthetic LOOKS like a known Klingon. Dual sets of nostrils, IMHO, falls into the subtle change category.

Agreed. I’ve said on here repeatedly my standard is that updates are tolerable as long as things are still recognisable or done out of pure necessity. The biggest complaints from people have been where they’ve gone too far. The Klingons. The uniforms (albeit they never personally bothered me even if I think they’re crap designs). The sets.

For me the microcosm is the Enterprise. For me that redesign has the good and bad of their approach. It was obvious the TOS ship would need upgrading to some degree and the ship is a good design and looks recognisable. I think everyone would agree that more surface detail was a necessity to withstand a modern production. They did that. Makes sense. But then you strangely had things like altered nacelle pylons while retaining arguably dated looking elements like the classic defector dish. So I was left scratching my head as to why they didn’t just retain the TOS dimensions and just add in detail. I think it’s that approach that perplexes me. The desire for change for change’s sake rather than necessity. From my standpoint, if you want more creative freedom either do a full on reboot or set the show post Nemesis. A prequel, especially one so close to another show of the franchise, come loaded with aesthetic expectations.

“A prequel, especially one so close to another show of the franchise, come loaded with aesthetic expectations.”

Bingo! I honestly don’t think it was that hard for a good production designer to make a new Star ship for today’s televisions that can evoke the time frame the show is said to be set in. But apparently Fuller is the one who wanted NONE of that. At least, that is what I have gleaned over the last year.

You and I are on the same page there, Cervantes.

I personally think the Klingon ships were just overdesigned in the first season. They needed to have more sleekness and a little more simplicity in their designs. I never understood this need from designers to overdesign everything. Sometimes the simplest designs work the best.

I always find it laughable when fans say they have to imagine a separate continuity to enjoy it. Like changes to continuity make them so uncomfortable they have to live in a fantasy world.

Newsflash: it’s all fantasy. If you have to create a fictional REAL WORLD where this show isn’t related to the other shows, there’s something very wrong.

@ Afterburn – nah, it’s just I’m contrary enough to not swallow the initial Discovery team’s radical re-design of so many aspects, while claiming the show is definately a faithful tie-in to the original.

It’s a total reboot/re-imagining of the original concept, as far as I’m concerned…but I just find it more appealing to imagine it’s a show set in its own separate universe, rather than look at it as a whole new different take of the original source material, which ‘over-writes’ it.

My point is well proven by your comment. Keep imagining, Peter Pan!

@ Afterburn – thanks, I intend to.

Funny, some fans like the new look while others hate it. No matter what they won’t please everyone. IMO for those fans like myself who didn’t mind the look of the Disco season 1 Klingons, the season 2 look will probably be mostly a non-story – the new look is just fine. For those who honestly didn’t like it for legit reasons, then this will probably placate them – so why not make those fans happy. The Discovery fanbase always has more room for older fans like myself. As for the naysayers who hate Discovery and everything about it, well it really doesn’t matter the season 2 Klingons look like.

Exactly. And I’m not sure why, but it really bugs me that some posters are claiming this as a victory for fans (and by fans they mean them personally).

It’s trivial —if you can’t enjoy a show because of a hairdo or because you think the Turbolift door is the wrong color, then stop watching.

And we live in a time where the loudest, most entitled voices cause change that few want. It’s disgusting.

A lot of comments on YouTube (an absolute dumpster fire at the best of times) are continuing to pour scorn all over Discovery for the most minor things. I hate that its given rise a toxic fandom who loudly, rudely and disgracefully attack the show, those who produce it, those who star in it and those who like it. Its abominable and it needs to be challenged.

Yeah just stay away from the Youtube comments lol. Their fierce hatred of the show pales into comparison to anything I seen here and other places. At least here there is actual balance between lovers and haters and the people in between. Youtube its just complete and utter hate. Even I was called a Discovery ‘apologist’ once because I had the nerve to say I liked the redesign Enterprise and thought it fit well in this universe. I was nearly berated by one guy who thought ANY change from TOS was blasphemous. And I am FAR from an apologist for this show.

Conversely, on Facebook criticism of Discovery is scorned. I tried to have a constructive discussion about the Klingons and writing on there and the amount of trolling I got was unreal. You literally aren’t allowed to say anything with even a hint of criticism on there, otherwise they’ll turn on you like pack hounds. One guy even accused me of being a deliberate troll who he was familiar with for “posting hate all over”, even though I pointed out to him I’d only made about ten posts in the group!

This board is sanity compared to those places. It’s generally even calmer than places like Trekbbs.

Agreed El Chup!

This site isn’t perfect, it has it’s trolls and contrarians but most people here actually do want to just have a conversation no matter how they feel about a show or film. There are plenty of unregulated sites which in theory is good because you are free to say what you want and how. The problem is it just descends into chaos or the most vocal A types just shout over everybody else with name calling and even bullying to a degree.

I love Star Trek and clearly love to discuss it but I still recognize its just a TV show end of the day. But some people just take these opinions waaaaaaay too personally or think their opinions are the only ones that matters. This site is pretty balanced as I agree with both sides a lot. That means a real conversation is happening and not just people yelling at each other (although that definitely happens lol).

I still wish there was an ignore button here but all the trolls I dealt with lately are gone at least. It would still be nice to have though for others.

Only because they edit the hell out of the comment section on this site, Out of fear of ‘Diversity of thought’. Or through fear of offending a grown adults feelings.

Well that’s probably true to a degree, but I think its more about keeping civility and less about people’s direct opinion of it. A few trolls were banned in the last few weeks/months and they were definitely Discovery fans, one troll in particular.

So I don’t think they are trying to steer thought here one way or the other. They just don’t want people to throw out flame bombs for attention, pick childish fights with half the board or the constant gate keeping posts, which sadly that one I still see a lot here.

But with YT, thats ALL it is there and makes you not want to read more than a few before you given up.

I have given MANY negative thoughts here about both with the Kelvin films and now Discovery. I have never been given a single warning of taking my opinion too far the many years I been here.

Really? I’ve seen comments as simple as “Discovery is Backpedaling” getting deleted. Slightly controversial threads deleted. Authoritarian, much? I know Trekkies like their Utopic Safe Spaces, but at least try to accept differing opinion without extreme censorship.

Again, I have personally said Discovery is backpeddling a few times here since the hair reveal. Those posts are still up. Quite a few people have said that, theirs are still up too. I get what you’re saying, I just don’t think its as simple as saying its removed because someone said something mean about Discovery. If that was the case half these boards would be deleted, right?

Were you were deleted personally? If so, of course I don’t blame you for feeling angry (if thats the case). If it is, then just email them and ask why? If it is about others obviously I don’t know, but dissent here is not exactly hard to read considering how many people do it here daily.

I’ve had a fair few comments deleted. Especially if I’ve criticized Discovery higher-ups for hiring writers based on their Race/Gender, rather than their competency. I’m pretty sure people get deleted for harsh criticism of a sub-par show. As long as no one Is threatening to kill anyone, let the thoughts flow.

I have never had a comment here deleted that I can remember. Had a few “awaiting moderation” that never get posted (presumably because nobody employed by the site checks), but I’ve never been actively censored.

Maybe it is how you offer you opinions?

Will try to offer my opinions in the correct manner, as to avoid censorship, Comrade Chup.

If your comments are being deleted it’s because you act Troll-like.

Does it take one to know one?

Good question.

Not full Troll, Just Troll-like? I see. Very subjective.

From what I’ve viewed in life, The weak are often the worst when given power.

That is certainly true where I work, Mr. Limpopo.

Where do you work?

I was recently called a fascist for calling out a YT troll who body shamed Mary Wiseman and then made several vile remarks about Michelle Yeoh and Sonequa Martin-Green. This awful troll then decided to target me, mocked my autism and called me all manner of rancid names under the sun.

I reported him over and over again- and YT never acted. Its disgusting.

How did they know you’re autistic? I have ADD and anxiety, I don’t tend to throw that out there for sympathy or let a’holes use that as insult fodder. You can always ignore them. Let the world see their comments.

You have a better chance of defeating all terrorism than you have a nasty YT comment censored lol. I mean it has to be an EXTREME post to get any of them ever deleted and my guess is maybe 1% of those are ever erased and no one is ever banned for it.

But to be fair the reality is YT is a huge site. They get hundreds of videos literally every day. Some of those posts goes into the thousands on one video alone. They just don’t have the man power to regulate that site compared to here which is tiny and have a few dozen posters and usually 1-2 articles a day. So they don’t even try over there. There they are more concerned about the types of videos that gets put up than how people talk about them most of the time.

But it does suck when people get personally attacked like you have. It shouldn’t be allowed at ALL but sadly it is. I’m sorry that happened to you and while I do think things can get heated here it’s rare when anything here gets that personal, unless the moderators just erases them most of the time.

But you can ignore people on YT though! It doesn’t stop them from seeing your comments but they can’t respond to you. That’s really the only feasible course of action there.

You know probably the best comments about the legit critiques of Disco vs the haters came from Jason Issacs (aka Captain Lorca). He basically said he learned to listen to those with legit arguments and for those who hated the show because they were trolls who hate everything, he learned to ignore it. Considering the show is a smash hit around the world on Netflix and up here in Canada on Space and Crave, plus it is getting massive social media and digital mentions in the US (in leu of TV ratings which are not available), plus CBS just bought space for a massive new Toronto production studio in Mississauga, not to mention the recent massive Disco cast lineup at FanExpo in Toronto and the full house at CCNY, I think Disco is doing just fine. All that said, why not make some changes to make it an even bigger success. Sounds good to me.

@ Tiger2: Your estimate for Youtube is way off. They don’t just get “hundreds of videos literally every day”, they get more than 500,000 hours of new videos each day. So that should be several millions of videos.
You say that they don’t have the manpower to regulate that, as if that were an excuse for what’s going on on that site. I’ve heard that argument before about Facebook. However, I’d say that they should only be allowed as much growth as they can handle. I mean what good are site rules if you cannot enforce them? Just imagine having only a few hundred (or whatever the number of content moderators is at Youtube) police to keep up law and order in the whole US. Ridiculous, right?

LOL half a million YT videos a day??? I was going to put a few thousand but I thought I would be exaggerating. I guess not. ;)

As far as them regulating the site though, I’m not ‘excusing’ it, I’m just citing reality. I mean now that you have made it clear they get MILLIONS of videos every week, exactly how many people would they even need to moderate all of it? Comparing law enforcement to keep violence and criminal activity down is different from a company banning trolls. That’s the governments JOB, to protect people. Thats what people pay taxes for. YT is a private business. End of the day like most websites its up to them what they choose to regulate or not.

And I will say Facebook is a bit different because its social media. The whole point is that your life and identity is on that page and can lead to cyber bullying.

YT is just anonymous people commenting on a video. It’s a different animal. And in all honesty, YT could simply get rid of the comment section altogether if they wanted to. You go there to watch the videos, not to talk to people. IMDB did that very thing. They said it was just too many trolls, they couldn’t regulate it enough and simply shut down their message boards. It could come to that if they feel it gets too much. But they seem fine with it at the moment.

I’d say that Youtube is definitely social media, just like Facebook. People use it to post personal stuff about their lives. They communicate with each other, either through the comment section or by video response. You may just go there to watch videos but for a lot of users it’s much more than just an archive of videos.
Companies like Facebook and Youtube have rules of conduct that supposedly govern what users are allowed or not allowed on their sites, just like laws are rules of conduct for societies. Question is: Should users hold those companies responsible for upholding the rules they have set? Or is it acceptable for companies to basically lose all control?
Anyway, this has gone way off topic.

FB is still different though. Your entire life is on that page and anyone can find you at any time, from your friends to your boss. You can’t find people on YT the way you can FB. Yes its interactive obviously, especially if you produce content, but you can actually be anonymous on there if you choose to like we are now. Can’t do that at all on FB.

And people who post videos can regulate their own comments section. And if someone is bothering you, you can personally put them on ignore. End of the day though YT is a private business. They have ‘rules of conduct’, but its not a law. They don’t get fined if they don’t follow it because its what they set up. They thing is the ONLY way you’re going to get any real regulation if the govt literally steps in and NO ONE seems to want that outside of privacy and hacking issues.

So if people don’t want to partake because they hate the comments section, obviously I get it, but it doesn’t seem to stop most people from visiting, just reading less of them. End of the day people have to regulate themselves on some of this. If you feel a website is just too toxic, you just have to decide not to go. If enough people did that then there might be some changes but it would have to be a lot!

This must be a joke because most of the posts on this site seem to be negative. Youtube is far worse, which is why I don’t talk online too much about the show.

LOL. Once I got used to them, I quite liked the new Klingons. I wrote a rather long post once about how much more alien they seemed, what with the hands and four nostrils and so on. My only lament was about the heavy prosthetic around their mouths, which restricted actorly expression. But they managed beautifully in spite of that.

I am hoping the changes for Season 2 were organic, not based on fan backlash. I am hopeful they learned either during production, or after watching, that the lack of hair and heavy prosthetics weren’t the best choices.

Because I wish fans would be more forgiving, and understand that there is a big difference between ideas in planning and concept, than in execution. Odo’s makeup changed drastically from the pilot, as did Worf’s, the TNG uniforms changed at least 3 times in sometimes subtle ways (and sometimes not so subtle)– and most of these changes were for reasons relating to comfort (TNG uni’s), practicality (Worf’s makeup) and design strength (Odo).

Even sets on Trek have changed due to production and design reasons– the ENT-D con chairs were swapped out after the first season when they realized the officers looked odd reclining so far, and though I can’t remember them off the top of my head I recall noticing MANY changes to DS9, and VOY in the first year or so, as they discovered practical setbacks to issues with uniforms, makeup, and sets.

So given the history of aesthetic changes within the franchise, it’s just as plausible the producers made these changes for similar reasons.

I’m pretty sure it’s a little of both. My guess is no one was all that in love with the new Klingon make up, especially the actors who have to emote in all that mess. And their decision was probably made easier once they realized a lot of fans hated it and CBS probably told them change whatever they had to to make fans happier.

This was really all of Fuller’s ideas end of the day which is why I’m kind of glad he’s off the show now because I have a feeling he would’ve stuck to his guns to keep them how they were. That’s why the guy can’t keep a job now, it seems to be his way or the highway every time he quits another show.

But I agree, they change stuff all the time, so why its silly to try and explain it. They changed them because they wanted to improve them and make fans happy. You don’t need anymore than that.

And while things get changed on shows all the time, in most cases no one notices. A chair pretty much will look like a chair. But if you make Vulcan’s purple… Everyone will notice and say, “WTF??” So there is no need for absolutes. Subtle changes are fine. Major changes that make things different from what they are… Not so good.

PS… I can only imagine how Worf’s ridges change would be taken in today’s social media world…

Just one of many problems solved with their look. Looking forward to more info on the D7.

Nobodys mentioning her rather drastic skin tone change? She went from dark blue/grey to caucasian flesh tone.

I think that’s just the lighting. In another picture she looks green. The grey make up is like a blank canvas when it comes to lighting.

Women good. Man bad.

Right? When are men going to get a fair shake? /s

Thanks for the /s, as if it wasn’t obvious. You act as if women have never been Queens or rulers throughout history. You act as if Women (The bearers of future generations) weren’t protected for their own good in a hostile and dangerous world. You act as if Women never choose to be protected for their own good. You act as if Women aren’t capable of saving their own ass by playing up to their biological differences and social positions.

Sigh, okay, so we’re doing this.

1. Women have been rulers, yes, but just because a few were able to be rulers doesn’t mean a woman has the same chance to be a ruler as a man.

2. Women were protected, yes, but they were also used as sexual slaves if on the losing side. And make no mistake, casual workplace sexism and rape in war are TOTALLY DIFFERENT, NOT IN THE SAME PLACE. However, any time a person is treated differently because of gender or sex is discrimination, and that has been baked into my culture. In my country, women didn’t get to decide to be protected or be the protectors until 1917, and women weren’t allowed join the military academies until 1976. Until then, they had to pretend to be men, or be nurses and cooks, but definitely not fighters.

3. Yes, some women do get to choose to be protected, just as I have, but to force that upon them is to not treat them equally. How do you know what’s good for them? You don’t get to decide what’s good for anyone else except yourself and your children until they turn 18.

In short, you’re intentionally making this a black and white issue: either women are oppressed or they are free. In fact, they’re somewhere in between, and making it black and white means you’re either blind to the difference or you intentionally do not want to see it. I hope you figure out the difference soon, for the women in your life’s sake.

I’ll end with a quote.

“With the first link, the chain is forged. With the first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”

Anything​ I say will just be met with a greater example of prejudice against women. Sometimes women like to take on traditional roles and let men lead because it’s just easier that way. Did you know how men fought in Wars? Hand-to-hand defending their people from invading hordes and tyranny. Vicious, grim, brute force. Or in trenches, covered in guts and effluence, constantly bombarded by fire. Would you really, as a women, want to be in that situation? I hope you’re pushing for more women to be blown apart on the front line, equal rights – equal responsibility. No one is forcing women into traditional roles, if they were that would be wrong, most western men know this. Go pick on the Islamists if you want to take down ‘The Patriarchy’ or is that boogeyman too real and won’t sway to your foolishness? The West has far more opportunities than ever for women, anything else wanted is just nagging or denial of physical/mental failings or wanting to tip the triangle to a full on Matriarchy. And there you go demonizing and shaming me at the end for having a different opinion and not bowing down to all women’s (feminazi) demands. You don’t even know me.


These posts that you’re saying are deleted. They wouldn’t happen to have other alt-right style catchpharses in them like “SJW”?

Not at all. You assume I’m Alt-right because I use the term Feminazi? It’s in popular use. Shall I use the word Feminist? The connotations of extremism and authoritarianism are pretty much linked to the modern day Feminist, anyway. I’ll remember to use it in future, Comrade Chup.

See your use of “Comrade Chup” reveals yet even more. You assume I am a leftist. I am not. I am just intelligent. I mean, how intellectually knee jerk do you have to be to assue that just because I criticise your phrase I am left wing?

We live in an era where these sorts of dumb catchphrases replace proper discourse.

If you want to have a debate about feminism and what constitutes a legitimate feminist or someone abusing the label, fine. But nonsense like “feminazi” just aims to discredit any and all discussion of feminism, just like the ill defined “SJW” tries to shut down any question of equality, whether legitimate or not.

You are evidencing the non-thinking, toxic partisanship that is the greatest threat the West has seen since the war. You should be embarrassed to call yourself a Star Trek fan, because Star Trek is and always has been about fighting this sort of limited thinking. It baffles me that people like you are even Trek fans as it seems you’re genuinely oblivious to the values Star Trek has spent half a century discussing and promoting.

Still, I think you have proved beyond doubt why your posts are being deleted.

I’ll say what I want. It’s high and mighty authoritarian, intellect by association way of thinking that lets you not see other perspectives. You don’t get to judge who is and who isn’t a Star Trek fan. That makes you a Gatekeeper and a hypocrite. Here’s to ‘Diversity of thought’. But not so much in your case.

Sorry, but what is “intellect by association”?

Isn’t that what you are doing by repeating catchphrases fed to you by partisan types, instead of thinking for yourself?

What? Yeah, you’re not that smart, are you? You think all Star Trek fans should think alike and accuse me of ‘Not thinking for myself’ because I used the word ‘Feminazi’ instead of ‘Feminist’. A word! But you have an entire mind full of The Right and only Star Trek way of thinking.

“you’re not that smart, are you? ”

Star Trek has always been humanist and has promoted socially liberal values such as equality for women, minorities and people of different backgrounds. That you come to a Trek site and spout the language of discrimination and then complain about your posts being deleted suggests to me the problem lies with you and your capacity to understand what to expect.

But based on your replies I have little doubt that you are one of these people who thinks everyone’s an idiot but you. I’ll leave you to your seeming confusion as to why you might not be finding it easy here, save turning this into a puerile mudslinging match.

“Indeed it is 2018 and it’s time for women to take the burden of civilisation (now the hard work is done) in all criteria. No shirkers. Front line for all Women in all fields, War, Heavy Industry, Sport, Sewerage. And if they can’t excell in those fields, by god we’ll send men who identify as women to get the job done in our name! YOU CAN DO IT!” -Mr. Limpopo October 22, 2018 9:34 pm

^ That let’s me know you a little more.

I gotta say, you make me sad. I’m a teacher, and it makes me sad that you could be a parent who tells their daughter they can’t do something because women are lesser to men. Women don’t need to be protected anymore; the saber-toothed tigers are gone, so to speak. If a woman wants to join the military, that shouldn’t be seen as shocking, and if a woman wants to stay at home and raise the kids, that’s okay too. The point is it’s their choice, not yours or mine or any man’s. The “Front line,” comment you made implies that men are the wall protecting women from the world, and the assumption there would be because we’re better. And that’s what makes me sad: Star Trek is not about people who are better than others based on biology. In fact, it’s the opposite.

Women can do whatever they want. But shouldn’t complain when they can’t DO whatever they want. I’m trying to show you that honesty is needed, not false expectations or lowered standards for everyone else. I’ve given you reasons why women weren’t sent to war and you’ve blatantly ignored them. Women still don’t fight on the front line in the West, but if you want that to happen then that’s up to you. There are biological truths that you want to ignore for a convenient ideal. I’m not the bad guy you want me to be. Your being utterly ignorant and twisting my statements to suit your delusional view of the world.

Okay, I think I understand your point now. Please correct me if I misunderstand.

Because women are biologically different than men, our society should acknowledge their limitations, and factor that into what they can do.

Objectively speaking, is that your point?

Women infallible. Criticism bad.

Looking for the person who said women are infallible.

Yep, thought so.


But they can do anything and everything a man can do and vice-versa. Ooookay.

Any father who tells their daughter that are inferior to men is, in my opinion, committing a form of mental abuse.

Now your making things up. I didn’t say that. Utterly delusional. You’re missing my point.

Girl: Daddy, I want to be a Boxer when I grow up.

Father: That’s excellent news, YOU CAN DO IT MY SWEET CHILD!

Girl: I want to Box against Men.

Would you still champion your child’s dreams?

If I thought she was fit and trained enough to stand a chance, then yes. But your example is somewhat disingenuous since your comments so far have a blanket assertion that women are weaker than en in all respects.

I suppose it would be better for her to learn the hard way than listen to reason and concern from such a caring and rational father.

Once again, you are lying. Stop lying and learn to read.

But people are better than others in certain criteria based on their biology. It’s a fact! Men who identify as women are better at winning women’s sports events.

“Men who identify as women are better at winning women’s sports events.”

Jesus wept. *facepalm*

The obviously attempt to make an issue of transgenderism aside, you’re honestly saying that a woman can never be stronger the a man?

Ludicrous, ill informed nonsense.

In some cases yes. Perhaps yourself as an example. But not as major rule. Are you saying all women are physically equal to men and can compete in all fields and maintain the same standards?

No. But I an equally not saying that all men are physically superior to women. They aren’t.

No? So you’ve accepted my point. Thanks.

Admin, please ban Senior Limpio.

Welcome to 2018.

Indeed it is 2018 and it’s time for women to take the burden of civilisation (now the hard work is done) in all criteria. No shirkers. Front line for all Women in all fields, War, Heavy Industry, Sport, Sewerage. And if they can’t excell in those fields, by god we’ll send men who identify as women to get the job done in our name! YOU CAN DO IT!

warning for trolling.

locking thread

That is a huge step in the right direction.

She finally looks female and less like a freak of nature.

But I wonder: Did she have her scars removed and changed her skin color?
That would be pretty Michaeal Jackson style :-)
Just sayin’.

Hair and fashion overall are looking great. But wasn’t L’Rell proud of her scar “earned” in battle? Or why did she take some beauty surgery? ;)

They may give a reason for why L’Rell no longer has her scars on the show.

Cool, but I hope they have a reasonable explanation for the changes. So far they don’t sound convincing.

80% there. Fix the nose and slightly tweak the headpiece and you’re there.

Not only did they give her hair but they changed her skin color, too? We know they are pandering because they’ve changed their tuned. It would’ve made more sense if they went with their original explanation: The Klingon species is as diverse as humanity. They don’t all look alike. Some have hair, some don’t. They are not all brown-skinned. They come from many different planets in the empire. Maybe we never saw the Discovery Klingons before now because their power/influence waned after this disastrous conflict that ended in their humiliating defeat at the hands of the Federation.

So where are her eyebrows? ;)

So even Klingons use botox (in the 23rd century).. sigh..

B’oto’x cha!

With hair, fine, without hair, fine. I’m so sick to death of people arguing over the look of the Klingons. I wish they would pick a look and stick with it, frankly, no matter what look they chose. I just don’t care, but the constant changes just set off the nonsensical nitpickers, and bowing to them sets them off again.

That’s what I care about– because it becomes hard to debate the actual merits of the stories when 75% of the discussion is centered on makeup and character design. And when someone is spending so much of their time bristling at and arguing over the visuals, it creates a bias against the actual stories and episodes whether they realize it or not.


So many fans went into DSC ready to hate it and tear it apart simply because of the change to the Klingons, change to the era’s technology and designs. This kind of pre-release bias had them foaming at the mouth before a single frame of footage was ever screened, and it ultimately prevented any objective analysis (as objective as any analysis can be) of the quality of storytelling.

So much of the criticism I see from diehard fans is borne out of their intense dislike for the visual changes, sometimes even openly. Viewed outside of that lens, DSC is a very good (if flawed) sci-fi series that fits well within the Trek franchise, even if it doesn’t always fit so neatly into the canon as those diehards would like.

Yes, some of the stories take a little bending of the canon to enjoy from that perspective, and yes, some of the show’s story and style flaws need to be addressed. But I think those flaws should be addressed because the producers recognize them on their own, not because a bunch of fans scream at them. I agree wholeheartedly with Ron Moore in that regard. The producers need to turn off social media, and get back to making what they believe are the best stories.

Finally, one thing that ever fan needs to remember is that NO SHOW IS PERFECT. Every Trek show, every Trek movie, heck every show and movie ever, have flaws. Some more than others. Fans seem to compare DSC to previous Trek as if TOS wasn’t hokey and bizarre at times, as if TNG’s first two seasons weren’t largely unwatchable, as if DS9 wasn’t dark and often downright dystopian, as if Voyager wasn’t a rehash of TNG with more action, as if ENT wasn’t just plain boring for most of its run.

And as if TAS wasn’t just. plain. awful. Even for a 70s kids cartoon.

I think most fans on this site seem to be holding Discovery to an impossibly high standard, and are completely unforgiving of even the most minor issues.

I agree with almost everything you’ve said here.

[Except I really like ENT!]

On the question of prequels, personally, I rather enjoy seeing the founding of certain principles as in Enterprise.

And I don’t give a rat’s if DISC bends a few previous tropes to tell good stories.

I do like ENT. I rediscovered it when it hit Netflix and really found a new appreciation for it. But there’s no denying it could be exceptionally bland at times, mostly because the characters and actors were just so dull.

A poor episode of TNG or DS9 for example could be saved by characters we really liked, or a charming performance.

I will agree that much of the criticism hinges on the bad decision to completely change the visual aesthetics of the era they are supposed to be in. IMHO, that was a bad decision. That said, the show was hardly well done even when one ignores all the canon violations. Both visual or otherwise. It hardly fit into the Trek universe. The storytelling was klunky, the characters were uninteresting and the plotting and writing had a lot to be desired. The one interesting character they created was in reality a 1 dimensional mustache twirling villain. All decisions that would sink any show. Much less one called Star Trek.

PS… The many poor episodes of TNG were made watchable only by the charisma of Patrick Stewart. He made a dull and uninteresting character watchable. Only one of the rest of the characters in that show was even remotely interesting.

“That said, the show was hardly well done even when one ignores all the canon violations”

Your opinion is colored by your dislike of the visuals and your love of Canon.

“It hardly fit into the Trek universe.”

I disagree, I think it fits in rather nicely, while still charting its own course.

” The storytelling was klunky, the characters were uninteresting and the plotting and writing had a lot to be desired.”

It was not without its flaws: some of the performances let something to be desired at times, some of the plotting was indeed klunky (but not nearly as often as you seem to imply), but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t still very good. You’d be hard pressed to rattle off dozens of shows without these flaws. Even some of the biggest hits have them, even some of the most beloved by genre fans.

“The many poor episodes of TNG were made watchable only by the charisma of Patrick Stewart. ”

Sorry, even he couldn’t save the first season. His performances in that season weren’t worth watching, and frankly, weren’t even that watchable. As for the rest of the cast, if that’s your assessment, than im not sure we can continue. I found the majority of that cast likable, charming, and eminently watchable on a week-to-week basis once the show found its footing in season 3.

“Your opinion is colored by your dislike of the visuals and your love of Canon.”

An ignorant assumption on your part. Especially since I have been known to claim that the canon issues for me could be easily blown off had the show’s plotting and writing been better.

“It was not without its flaws: ”

Of course many shows have flaws. Wrath of Khan is accepted as the best Trek film of them all and it had inconsistencies left and right. But I hold that up as an example of such issues are lessened considerably if the overall product is good. But when your main “twist” was the Lorca character mystery was because he was really “evil” Lorca from the mirror universe, then it makes one wonder how hard they really tried to make the show work. I mean, I’m sure they tried, but when that is your result….

And yes. Patrick Steward did indeed save the first season. His charisma and acting chops not only saved the first season but the entire series. He literally made mediocre to bad episodes watchable. The other actors were pros and did OK. But none of them were standouts and quite frankly, made to look worse than they may have been by Stewart’s amazing performance. They were all done in by being bland vanilla characters bereft of any kind of interesting traits. Although I think that was because Roddenberry insisted on it. Didn’t do the writers any favors for that one. Of course, YMMV on that.

This chap seems to be unable to consider that not everyone who has criticisms is a mindless hater. He seems to assume of you dislike any element, you dislike the whole package.

I understand that quite well, Chuppy.


Trolling again….while calling for someone else’s ban?

Poor form.

I find the TNG characters VASTLY more interesting and deep than the DSC characters. For me bland didn’t really creep in until Voyager.

I think part of the problem is that the modern approach to TV is such that you can only really invest in the development of two or three key characters.

Not going to argue on how interesting casts are. Totally subjective. I will say that I found the DSC characters to be just as bland and uninteresting as the TNG charactes. For the first half, they had the amazing Lorca character to keep me interested. Once they ruined him, there was no interesting character left. Saru inherited that mantle by default. STD does not have a Patrick Stewart with the charisma to overcome bad stories and weak scripts. TNG, with their vanilla characters, at least had that.

But can you honestly say the first season of TNG had more interesting characters than DSC? Tilly is far more interesting than anyone on TNG in that first year. Just… god awful writing in 1987. Thanks to Roddenberry.

I can honestly say that TNG had ONE interesting character. For the entire 7 season run. Discovery had one but that character was revealed to be fake. So he really doesn’t count.

I found Tilly not only one dimensional but irritating as well. Nearly every scene she was in was hard to watch. She was Discovery’s Wesley Crusher.

“But can you honestly say the first season of TNG had more interesting characters than DSC?”

Yes! Loved Data, Tasha and Riker in the first episode. Took some time to get use to Picard for not being Kirk lol, but by the end of the first season accepted him. The only one I had any issues with was Troi and Wesley in the first season.

And so many of the DIS characters still feels a bit unlikable for me. I don’t hate any of them (but I don’t hate most main characters in Trek although many I could’ve done without) but none of them are on my ‘love’ list so far. Saru may come the closest. Stamets is also getting better. Couldn’t stand him when he was introduced but like him better now. Don’t have issues with Burnham like so many on the internet seem to do but she is still faaaar down the list in terms of a favorite lead. What’s funny is the two characters I DID truly like, PU Georgiou and Lorca (can these two be any different lol) they killed off.

Tilly is one of the better characters in DIS but I still think she feels a bit too forced. All her lines come off like “this is me trying to be funny”. She’s a good character but not anything amazing IMO. I did like her more in “Runaway” though.

Data and Riker were wooden and boring and uninteresting for 20-22 episodes of that first season. The entire cast was likewise dull and lifeless for the entire year. (side note: “The Neutral Zone” and “Conspiracy” were the lone bright spots that season)

Tyler, Tilly, Captain Lorca, Stamets, all were more interesting and better performed within the first few episodes they appeared, while Burnham grew into a more interesting and stronger character as the season wore on. Harry Mudd in his two episodes outshined everyone in TNG season 1.

The weakest part of DSC S1 was the ill conceived opening 2-parter, and what appeared to be a rushed and klunky “conclusion” that they crafted after it seems like a previous writer backed the story into a corner.

This is why we call them opinions. ;)

I loved those guys in the first season, especially Riker and Data. I just didn’t feel the same with anyone in DIS so far and why I don’t have a big pull to rewatch the season. The show is young though and its clear next season they are trying to make the characters more likable with humor and levity. So that can change.

And just to prove I’m not just trying to be a contrarian of all things Discovery I had the EXACT same problems with the characters on DS9 in its first season too. I did like some of them like Dax and O’Brien (he technically doesn’t count) but they also felt pretty unlikable in the beginning to me. And I think they just felt too different from the TNG characters I had came to love. That changed a lot though by its second and third season. Now I love all those guys too….even Quark lol.

Agreed about the opening 2 parter. It did feel rushed like the season finale. It’s more proof they didn’t plot the show all that great but with all the turnover, delays and other issues it’s not exactly a shock why.

“It was not without its flaws: some of the performances let something to be desired at times, some of the plotting was indeed klunky (but not nearly as often as you seem to imply), but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t still very good.”

I have to disagree. The set up in the first half of the season was quite good. A decent effort for a fledgling show. But about two episodes into the second half it really nose dived. There was little pay off or character exploration for most of the crew. Burham turned out to be as interesting as a shop window dummy. Lorca was totally wasted. Saru bumped top the side. The Klingon War ended with a wimper and little exploration of the race beyond L’Rell. Some of the cliche villains were painful to watch and the plot of the last episode is flat out moronic.

The worst part of it is that because of the overserialisation of the show, to keep up with modern TV, if one episode stank it would impact others because it was basically a couple of stories stretched over 15 episodes. At least with past Treks (with maybe the expedition of Voyager), even if you got a generally bad or average season there would still be at least a couple of really great episodes.

Discovery’s first season HAD to pay off what it set up, and it didn’t. The last episodes, especially the finale, felt like they had been rushed out on the back of a bubble gum wrapper. That’s an unquestionable failure in writing, and one the seriously damages the overall story.

Agreed, and well put.

I like the new look! I still don’t really care for the neck texturing and hands, but this change is definitely in the right direction.

I likey!

How about that? Jeez! That’s it!!! Walter Koenig MUST replace Anton!!! (Remember when they all grow old very fast on an Original Series episode!!) … well…that could also happen with Kirk (LOL)

Not perfect…. but better.

I can’t wait for the next phase of whining: “I preferred the old one” “Why did they change it” “This isn’t original” “they are just rehashing stuff” blah blah blah

I don’t think this is really going to help.

If the writing and plotting are still just as bad, all this change amounts to is washing the window so you could see the mess inside better.


Oh c’mon, all of this retconning is just awful. Yes, the look is *way* better than season 1, but it couldn’t get any worse, couldn’t it? And yes, I’m quite content with the new look, but that stupid explanation the makeup artist has come up with is just that – stupid.

First, why don’t the Klingons have hair *before* the war with the Federation starts? And don’t tell me they’re constantly at war with someone, because then they should have no hair in season 2, either. And second, as I already stated – how long would it take to grow L’Rells hair to the state we see in season 2 and how much time has passed since season 1? Granted, we don’t actually know, but it wouldn’t have been years.

Just admit you’ve made some bad choices before season 1 (or Fuller did or whoever) or come up with a better explanation, like having diversity inside the klingon “race”, i.e. the DSC klingons, the TNG klingons, the TOS klingons, etc. It’s 24 or 25 houses after all, and they hinted at something like this, right? Then why not have our beloved TNG klingons win some sort of civil war inside the empire and become the dominant species? Could’ve been so easy, but umm, no…

Oh c’mon, why not just get over it? Mountain over mole hill.

I like the idea of multiple ethnicities among the Klingons. This could partly explain 24 houses and the conflicts between them, because nothing leads to mutual dislike like “other-ing.”

Tyler may say something to L’rell like, “The new look suits you well.” To which she could respond, “Yes, I’ve decided I like this look and will keep it.” So it could just be a wig she’s trying on…

That’s about on par with saying 007 underwent plastic surgery and came out the other side looking like George Lazenby (which was actually considered.)
Wonder about the surgeon who could shave four or five inches off the height of all previous Bond actors to get him down to Daniel Craig …

Apples and celery.

if you’re talking the previous Bonds Vs. the Craig-thing, you’re right.

Well, technically Craig is a reboot.

Besides, comparing the loose continuity of the Bond movies with the much more cohesive hundreds of hours of Trek is a bit silly.

” it couldn’t get any worse, couldn’t it?”

For all my criticisms of DSC, yes I think it could. We could have had a show that only superficially resembles the franchise. At least there is SOME effort to respect the franchise and, after the first season, attempts to right wrongs.

I like this look better. I actually liked the Into Darkness Klingons.

I’m a little disappointed by this — I like things we haven’t seen before. And I liked how alien they looked (and a little more like the TMP Klingons).

Others have guessed that a big part of why they went extreme with the Klingon makeup was to hide the whole Tyler/Voq thing.

An unrelated question — have all the Discovery Klingons had an accent when speaking English? I’m assuming they’re not using a translator. Will the accents continue?

As far as I remember, L’Rell was the only Klingon who may have spoken English. I think all the others either spoke Klingon (with subtitles), or we heard them through the translator.

I like this new design, but let’s be honest, it’s straight-up backpedalling. It just is.

Yup. I commented on this as well.

Depends on WHY they did it. As I said above, it’s entirely possible that the idea worked better on paper than in execution, and the backpedalling is simply the producers recognizing that it didn’t work as well as they’d hoped– no different than lots of make up designs, uniforms, and sets in Trek history that were changed and improved throughout various runs.

Including the Klingons, who got a big change in TMP, and noticeable improvements in TSFS.

I though the improvements and variations came with TFF – SFS has got some awful looking ones in closeup, like the one that proto-Spock pitches into a log.

Hmmmm. TSFS Klingons always looked the most TNG like to me. TFF and TUC go for more slimline ridges and obviously TMP is a more uniform one fat ridge look. In contrast Kruge always looked like he could pitch up in an episode of TNG.

Talk of Kruge, can you believe Chris Lloyd was 80 this week? Great Scott…

I agree. The makeup for Kruge is what became the basis for TNG Klingons. It was a marked quality improvement over the more crude ridge makeup and fangs on the TMP Klingons.

But this just goes to show that Trek has ALWAYS been trying new things and making constant improvements.

I wasn’t particularly impressed with Westmore’s klingons, so if they tie back into SFS (a movie I far from love), that’s just another dubious aesthetic call IMO. Just thought it looked like somebody baked off a pop-tart or one of those ‘sealed’ sandwiches and slapped it on Worf’s forehead, distracted away from focus on the character’s eyes.

I really dislike nearly all of the TNG makeup work, but to be fair, the cinematographers have to take some of the blame too. The ‘shine’ that kills the old age makeups and a lot of TNG appliance work is something that should have been worked around on set, but I guess the pressures of tv production made that impossible.

And it didn’t get better with the passage of time … really good shows like the Picard-getting-old-in-a-dream one (clearly I’m getting old, not being able to remember the title when I can still do whole sequences of TWOK dialog from memory) and DS9’s THE VISITOR are almost wrecked for me by the makeups, which look just as bad as the monstrosity in TOO SHORT A SEASON from s1.

I think Doug Drexler is the one who explained to Storaro (correct me if I’m wrong about this, trek knowitalls) in DICK TRACY that getting foam rubber to photograph properly was just a trick, and once you understand the trick, then it is just a matter of adjusting everything else to accommodate it. Now while that may sound like adjusting the gravitational constant of the universe in order to fix a hangnail, the alternative is … well, TOO SHORT A SEASON.

True but the changes from TMP to SFS were subtle. A quick look at both and one recognizes both as the same species. Look at those two and compare them to the STD Klingon. A Trek newbie would rightly assume the STD version is NOT a Klingon. Not when looking at what has been established as a Klingon.

Imagine what Star Wars fans would do if Wookies were presented as bald just because some new producer wanted to put his own “stamp” on the franchise?

A wookie with male pattern baldness would be a hoot.

It’s backpedalling because they are trying to act like this is part of some master plan. If they just said what you said then at least they would be admitting it didn’t work.

But look, I don’t think what they are doing is uncommon obviously. This is just how corporations work and end of the day these people are part of that corporation. Star Trek Discovery is the same show that has lost three show runners by its second season and was delayed three times in its first and yet everyone always comes out smiling and pretend everything is going great and all to plan. They are owned by the same network that just lost its CEO of 20 years over a sex scandal but everyone pretends like its nothing to see.

THATS why people are skeptical. The can see through the BS. DIS is probably a complete mess behind the scenes. But I know everyone there wants to get it right and I know they just can’t SAY they things wrong. But no one is stupid.

It’s back peddling because they are aware of the attention paid to canon. They could have just ignored it, but they are conscious that some will want to know why they suddenly have hair. While their explanation is ill thought out, at least they have sat and thought about trying to fit it in to canon. I see that as a good thing.

They are only making it a part of a master plan because they feel the need to over-communicate in the age of social media. This is the biggest problem the show has, if you ask me.

I would love for the producers and writers to stop posting online and just make the best damned show they can.

I for one, don’t really read the interviews or pay much attention to the instagram or twitter posts. Much easier to enjoy the show that way– I don’t need the false peak behind the curtain, filled with rhetoric and placating comments.

They still look stupid.

I like the new look a lot more, but there’s a lot more going on than just hair. Her whole head is different, and what others haven’t mentioned here yet is that the back of her skull is no longer protruding out like a xenomorph.

Did the Klingon plastic surgeons shrink her skull too?

Anyways, that’s how it should have been to begin with, but it’s just a TV show after all so I’m going to enjoy it for what it is.

Ugh. How does Hetrick get work? He must be connected or maybe producers buy his hokey “extreme” schtick.

Definitely looking better!

Wow. She actually looks like a Klingon now! Well done!

The more I hear of S2 makes me feel like STD ought to just pretend S1 never happened and start here.

Yes, albeit I could do without Spock, which seems like a signal that they have little faith in their own original characters.

True. That has been said before. But if they started with this story… One that had Pike and the Enterprise… It feels more like an attempt to kick start a new show with established characters. A little like an extended version of Picard sending Sisko off to DS9 or Voyager crew assembling on DS9 before dealing with the Marquis. Doing this in season 2 feels like they know their show has failed and are now in desperation mode. Context, once again, is everything.

They have plenty of faith, the addition of Spock to the plot is to try to win over grumpy TOS fans who refuse to accept the new cast, the new look, and the new style.

Should have stuck to the no hair look.

I think it actually looks much less ‘realistic’ than the TNG-era make-up. It just looks like what it is – a plastic/rubber edifice.

But all the ST aliens looked like that. Even when Mary was under that grey-blue elongated skull cap.

This must be a joke. TNG era Klingons look embarrassingly fake at times, now that they’re in HD. You can see the seam lines around the eyes, the hair glue on the mustaches, and the paint around the eyes.

Worf, Gowron etc. are 24 times more alive than the bland, yammering rubber Klingons on Discovery.

Yeah the other Klingons had personality, fun and bombastic. The DIS Klingons are just boring villains who gives a lot of speeches in slow choppy Klingon but feel lifeless. L’rell was the only one that had a spark of a personality at least.

But they went on and on about them and how we were going to get a different side of them but apparently it was their stick in the mud side.

“slow choppy Klingon”

Another minor complaint of mine. Why is the Klingonese so stilted in DSC when it rolled of the tongue so easily in the past?

And for me, even L’rell felt dull and lifeless. Everything Klingon related in S1 failed. Literally everything. Which is quite difficult to do, to be honest. What makes it especially frustrating was what they said they were going to do with the Klingons before the season started. Literally NONE of what they said transpired. None. It was either an outright lie or a stupendous error.

Tiger, this still doesn’t relate to the OP’s point about fake looking makeup. I for one liked the choppy speech of the DSC Klingons. I liked it to some extent. It, like the new makeup, gave them a more alien feel.

Was it a good choice for dramatic presentation? No. But it wasn’t a bad idea to try out. All in all, I applaud DSC for doing some new things, and taking chances.

Trek languished in the late 90s/early 00s because they kept playing it safe and never took any bold risks beyond a couple of long form arcs (which by that time had become more of a trend in then-contemporary TV). They never tried to do anything new and different, and the franchise sunk into a creative pit as a result.

I am a big believer in all aspects of life that I’d rather see someone try and fail than not to try. They didn’t always drive get a hit, and sometimes they struck out, but take enough swings and eventually you’ll hit one out of the park.

Right now they’ve hit a solid line drive with the first season. I’m hopeful the next will knock in a run, and by season 3 they’ll be hitting dingers left and right.

More like a solid grounder that went right to the shortstop for a nice double-play, if we’re going to use baseball comparisons, imo, but to each his own. And to reiterate, the look of the Klingons was the least of my many problems with season one.

No. The first season of TNG was a weak dribbler they beat out for an infield hit on an error by the third baseman.

Season 1 of discovery was a solid line drive. To say it was a failure is willful obstinance. It succeeded, it held an audience, it got good reviews, it was successful enough to keep Netflix coming back to fund more and to allow them to green light two new shows…

You may not have liked it, but to call it a failure (aka a “double play”) is just not correct.

Its one image of L’rell. They will adjust the make up in time like every show tries to do. They’ve gone this far to improve things, they will go a little more if they have to. ;) Not the end of the world.

And it’s nothing wrong to take chances, it just didn’t work so they changed gears. Most of us are applauding that they recognized it wasn’t working. I had PLENTY of issues with DIS first season and currently its my least favorite show of the franchise. But yeah its only been 14 episodes, that can change on a dime and oddly enough they are making ALL the changes people like me moaned about. It shows me they recognize the problems and care enough about the franchise (and their jobs lol) to improve it. All good things!

I like taking chances. But taking chances story wise. Even character wise. Giving the franchise’s biggest antagonist a radical redesign and changing the entire look and feel of the era its set in is not taking a chance. It’s the result of an over active ego of a producer desperate to put his own personal “stamp” on the franchise. STD feels like the guy who acts like he knows everything but really doesn’t. In all honesty the only way STD has taken a chance was by being on the CBSAA streaming service and apart from the visual changes it really is tired. Nothing we haven’t already seen (and more importantly, done better) on other shows for the last 15 years. STD was a strikeout swinging at balls way outside the strike zone. Hopefully the next batter (S2) will at least foul off a pitch or two.

Deflection. My point stands.

True, and I like the way it was deflected, but seeing 80’s television makeup on current technology’s HD screens – what else would you expect? Of course it’s going to look more shoddy.

You’re not wrong, but that’s just more deflection. He said it looked worse than TNG makeup. That’s simply not true.

This is true, but equally the actors could barely talk through the lizard make up for DSC, so major improvement is debatable. At least the likes of Christopher Lloyd, Michael Dorn, Bob O’Reilly and so on could emotes properly.

What was needed was an improved make up that retained the overall definitive look (which long ago became the ridged look). What we got were full facial appliances that harmed performances. At least Mary The Chief now has a chance to develop her performance.

L’Rell is still plucking her eyebrows. I assume the other Klingons will do the same. This might be related to a custom wherein one is not at war, but not quite at peace either, and the eyebrows are plucked to keep one on edge.

I wonder how fast Klingon hair grows. or is this artificial hair?