Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.
Discovery had so many problems for me: ship flies on magic mushrooms, her mom basically doesn’t care about her anymore by the end of it - the show-starting plot line, and the Klingons look like sweaty orcs.
What’s wrong with the magic mushrooms? It’s not like Trek was ever hard sci-fi when it came to how the ships fly. For crying out loud, in Voyager they went so fast they were everywhere at once, then Tom Paris and Janeway had salamander babies.
It just felt so cliche, that the crazy discovery they make is that the strange stuff is alive. The writers couldn’t make it sentient because then they’d need to explain why it’s just like the Great Lake but different from the Great Lake. It just exists and Star Fleet happens to be the only ones who know about it.
Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:
lol, I love that you’re conflating the creator having the budget to make the show more in-line with his original vision with someone else making a lousy change for no clear reason. It’s a nice knee-slapper of a comment you have right there. Good luck with it.
TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don’t think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The “original creator” of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.
That footnote points to an uncredited trekplace article from 2004 that itself has no citations. There was never an “original vision" that Klingons have bumpy heads, that was an idea entirely original to TMP.
Anyway, how do we feel about the Star Trek III redesign? In TMP it was one hairless bump that was supposed to represent a spinal column, running all the way from the back over the cranium. TSFS and onward, suddenly it was a flatter, wider set of ridges that was localized only to the forehead, with a full head of hair behind it. For some reason I’m always seeing people act like those are the same design, but to me the differences are glaringly obvious.
Because that’s the definition and it’s not used to mean anything else.
The prefix “nu-” is an informal term used in British English to indicate a modern or updated version of something. For example, “nu-metal” music is a term that uses the prefix. The word “nu” originated in the 20th century and comes from the word “new”.
Everything after DS9 is NuTrek because it’s the most modern group of Star Trek shows. The movies are not NuTrek because they’re just blockbusters movies. NuTrek is not inherently pejorative or negative. The “Nu” in “NuTrek” is being used the same way it was used in NuMetal (which also wasn’t pejorative. It’s just new and fundamentally different from old trek. Just like NuMetal is newer and fundamentally different from Metal.
I mean, technically everything from TNG onwards would be NuTrek and Kelvin-stuff would be NuNuTrek, or rather Re-Trek, since it’s a reboot.
NuTrek started when they did a full visual reboot, including completely changing the look of the Klingons: TMP.
Then it got worse, when they followed that up with a grimdark shoot-em-up that felt nothing like Trek. These people aren’t even fans of the show!
You are talking about the TOS movies/TNG? Never understand the forehead thing either
Yeah, I’m facetiously comparing the 1979 arguments over bumpy headed Klingons to the 2017 arguments over cone headed Klingons. What’s “new” keeps on changing, but the arguments about it stay eerily familiar.
Who wanted a visual reboot of the Klingons?
Discovery had so many problems for me: ship flies on magic mushrooms, her mom basically doesn’t care about her anymore by the end of it - the show-starting plot line, and the Klingons look like sweaty orcs.
What’s wrong with the magic mushrooms? It’s not like Trek was ever hard sci-fi when it came to how the ships fly. For crying out loud, in Voyager they went so fast they were everywhere at once, then Tom Paris and Janeway had salamander babies.
It just felt so cliche, that the crazy discovery they make is that the strange stuff is alive. The writers couldn’t make it sentient because then they’d need to explain why it’s just like the Great Lake but different from the Great Lake. It just exists and Star Fleet happens to be the only ones who know about it.
Yeah, who wanted this visual reboot of the Klingons between old trek and nutrek?
Gene Roddenberry, I guess. IMO the guy really fell off when he turned Trek into a saturday morning cartoon show. But yeah, sweaty orc is right, just look at these monstrosities:
lol, I love that you’re conflating the creator having the budget to make the show more in-line with his original vision with someone else making a lousy change for no clear reason. It’s a nice knee-slapper of a comment you have right there. Good luck with it.
TV and movie productions are collaborative efforts undertaken by a huge number of creative people, and I don’t think any of them make their decisions for no reason. The “original creator” of the Klingons was Gene L. Coon, who had nothing to do with their portrayal in TMP.
That footnote points to an uncredited trekplace article from 2004 that itself has no citations. There was never an “original vision" that Klingons have bumpy heads, that was an idea entirely original to TMP.
Anyway, how do we feel about the Star Trek III redesign? In TMP it was one hairless bump that was supposed to represent a spinal column, running all the way from the back over the cranium. TSFS and onward, suddenly it was a flatter, wider set of ridges that was localized only to the forehead, with a full head of hair behind it. For some reason I’m always seeing people act like those are the same design, but to me the differences are glaringly obvious.
“Nu” does not mean “New”.
It actually does. At least in this context.
It actually does not.
It in fact does. Not sure what it is you think it means.
It in fact does not. Not sure why you think otherwise.
Because that’s the definition and it’s not used to mean anything else.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/nu
I’d still like to know exactly what it is you thought it meant.
My brother in christ did you even read the post before commenting? This is what it is referencing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_metal
The people who call it “NuTrek” are not too lazy to type out “new” they are using it pejoratively.
Whether or not they’re using it pejoratively is immaterial to the fact that it means “new”.
Yes and the “Nu” in NuMetal means “New”.
Everything after DS9 is NuTrek because it’s the most modern group of Star Trek shows. The movies are not NuTrek because they’re just blockbusters movies. NuTrek is not inherently pejorative or negative. The “Nu” in “NuTrek” is being used the same way it was used in NuMetal (which also wasn’t pejorative. It’s just new and fundamentally different from old trek. Just like NuMetal is newer and fundamentally different from Metal.
deleted by creator