The Klingon forhead Debate is OVER! (Spoilers)

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-02-20 01:31am

Indeed, from what has been rumored (and no point getting into it here, It'll draw enough flak in time) it's not going to be pretty. He's treading on some very well-founded ideas, but I suppose it doesnt really matter -- It will all be over soon

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2005-02-20 09:31am

Batman wrote: TOS/TNG thusly should also be aware of ENT-era engagements with the Borg,

They should know about the Hansen’s going after the Borg or the Borg destroying Guinans home world but they don't.

the cloaked Romulans,

That was idiotic but technically it doesn’t function in the same way as the cloak Spock talks about in TOS.

the Ferengi,

Not all that unusual for Trek, just put it down to them being really far from home or the regular "we have been neighbours for decades and only just met" syndrome.

Phaser specs...

Again idiotic but they aren't technically phasers.

I trust I need not continue.

Ent has no more continuity errors than previous Trek outings, or other Scifi shows for that matter.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-02-20 02:14pm

Skylon wrote:Yeah...utterly ridiculous. What was wrong with just sticking with Worf's line from "Trials and Tribulations"..."we don't talk about it with outsiders" Leave some damn fun mystery in the story...

I liked that line. Mostly it was just the writers throwing in a joke acknowledging the change in TOS and TMP+ Klingons. It was a pure throwaway line. My problem with it is that it gets taken way too seriously.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2005-02-20 02:20pm

TheDarkling wrote:They should know about the Hansen’s going after the Borg or the Borg destroying Guinans home world but they don't.

They are continuity errors because they don't.

Not all that unusual for Trek, just put it down to them being really far from home or the regular "we have been neighbours for decades and only just met" syndrome.

That's the thing, they did meet them and did capture some. Are you saying that the Enterprise crew didn't document anything about the Ferengi, even though they are supposed to be explorers? No pictures, stool samples, scans of their innards, or DNA/blood samples? Kind of shitty explorers if they just forgot about them. They should of been in the Federations database, but they weren't. That is a continuity error.

Again idiotic but they aren't technically phasers.

Like fun they weren't, they had all the characteristics of phasers. If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Ent has no more continuity errors than previous Trek outings, or other Scifi shows for that matter.

Only after a fifth of vodka does it not have more continuity errors than previous Trek outings.

Skylon · Post by **Skylon** » 2005-02-20 02:25pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Skylon wrote:Yeah...utterly ridiculous. What was wrong with just sticking with Worf's line from "Trials and Tribulations"..."we don't talk about it with outsiders" Leave some damn fun mystery in the story...
I liked that line. Mostly it was just the writers throwing in a joke acknowledging the change in TOS and TMP+ Klingons. It was a pure throwaway line. My problem with it is that it gets taken way too seriously.

It's fandom discussion taken too far. We all know the real reason it happened. The writers knew they had to say something when they were going to have Worf on screen with TOS Klingons. O'Brien and Bashier threw out the lines us geeky fanboys had been speculating and Worf just shuts us up in the best possible way.

Because frankly there is no good reason from a story reason. The DS9 writers took the best route possible, reminding us its just a damn TV show.

Something happened. They don't talk about it. That's good enough for me.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2005-02-20 02:41pm

Gil Hamilton wrote: They are continuity errors because they don't.

Indeed but continuity errors made by TNG and Voy, Ent's continuity violation doesn't change anything on the Borg issue.
At least Ent has the excuse that it happened 200+ years in the past.

That's the thing, they did meet them and did capture some. Are you saying that the Enterprise crew didn't document anything about the Ferengi, even though they are supposed to be explorers? No pictures, stool samples, scans of their innards, or DNA/blood samples? Kind of shitty explorers if they just forgot about them. They should of been in the Federations database, but they weren't. That is a continuity error.

Archer being less than competent would be in keeping with continuity.

Like fun they weren't, they had all the characteristics of phasers. If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Disruptors have all the characteristics of Phasers yet they aren't Phasers, Worf stated there weren't phasers in the 22nd century and since they aren't called Phasers he is correct.

Only after a fifth of vodka does it not have more continuity errors than previous Trek outings.

An unproven statement at this point.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2005-02-20 04:52pm

I like this explanation better than "surgically altered for infiltration," because that only explained one Klingon...Arne Darvin (TTWT and T&T episodes). As far as I know, all the other ones with smooth heads I've ever seen have that swarthy tone about them.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2005-02-20 05:31pm

Mario1470 wrote:I like this explanation better than "surgically altered for infiltration," because that only explained one Klingon...Arne Darvin (TTWT and T&T episodes). As far as I know, all the other ones with smooth heads I've ever seen have that swarthy tone about them.

You're forgetting Capt. Koloth and his first officer, Korax, from "The Trouble With Tribbles" —very light-skinned for Klingons.

Darth Lucifer · Post by **Darth Lucifer** » 2005-02-20 05:40pm

Patrick Degan wrote:
Mario1470 wrote:I like this explanation better than "surgically altered for infiltration," because that only explained one Klingon...Arne Darvin (TTWT and T&T episodes). As far as I know, all the other ones with smooth heads I've ever seen have that swarthy tone about them.
You're forgetting Capt. Koloth and his first officer, Korax, from "The Trouble With Tribbles" —very light-skinned for Klingons.

You're right...it's been so long since I've seen it, I had to search for some pics. I wonder when the Klingons decide to start cutting their hair also. From many perspectives, having long hair is just impractical (vision, saftey, etc).

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2005-02-20 07:30pm

That isn't a policy it is just a "reference guide"

Paramount owns the franchise and has the legal right to say whatever they want about their property. Star Trek.com is the official site and echoes the sentiments of the owner company of Star Trek. Roddenbarry ,the originator of Star Trek, is dead, but if you want to argue that only the stuff he approved is canon, fine, but say so, and we can decanonize all the stuff produced without his approval. At least you'll be consistent.

There really isn't a Star Trek canon. fans are fully encouraged to view Trek however they see fit

Baloney. Prove it... I could say the same thing about Star Wars, but would I be right, or just blowing smoke?

So does a number of games and books, are they canon?

The games and books are stated not to be canon. The reason he said the above is because a number of people (including posters here), right or wrong, used the fact that season 1 & 2 of Enterprise was just called "Enterprise" (no "Star Trek" in the title) to "prove" that it was non-canon.

There are a few ways we can interpret Star Trek canon. But if you're going by only what Roddenbarry approved, then you're going to have to de-canonized some of TNG, all of DS9, Voyager, and the last five, maybe six movies.

Despite the bad writing and numerous continuity errors in Enterprise thus far, it seems Manny Coto at least has been trying very hard to fix many of B&B's goofs in this last season, and that at least is small consolation.

And, since they've been cancelled, I don't find it too surprising that more "risky" plots are being used. Might as well go out with a bang, they probably figure...

FedRebel · Post by **FedRebel** » 2005-02-20 11:12pm

Just when you thought it was over

Kurgan wrote:
That isn't a policy it is just a "reference guide"
Paramount owns the franchise and has the legal right to say whatever they want about their property. Star Trek.com is the official site and echoes the sentiments of the owner company of Star Trek.

From: Trek BBS

That's a common misconception. Startrek.com is merely a licensed tie-in, and is no more canonical than any other tie-in such as the novels, reference books and comic books. In this context, the word "official" only means that it's licensed by Paramount to make a profit off of Star Trek, rather than being a not-for-profit fan site like this one or an illegal bootleg. It's got nothing to do with the authoritativeness of its content, only its right to make money off of it.

Roddenbarry ,the originator of Star Trek, is dead, but if you want to argue that only the stuff he approved is canon,

I never established that view

My view is that Trek canon needs to be restructured so that all the shows, movies, and to a lesser extent books all fit together in harmony,. I feel that Roddenberry's "definitions" on Trek canon should be observed only for the highest hierarchy level, all works composed after his passing would fit into lower levels

fine, but say so, and we can decanonize all the stuff produced without his approval. At least you'll be consistent.

The point of my page one post was to in a half assed manner debunk the view that the "policy" on startrek.com is a "canon policy"

There really isn't a Star Trek canon. fans are fully encouraged to view Trek however they see fit
Baloney. Prove it... I could say the same thing about Star Wars, but would I be right, or just blowing smoke?

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... /canon.htm read the whole page

Despite the bad writing and numerous continuity errors in Enterprise thus far, it seems Manny Coto at least has been trying very hard to fix many of B&B's goofs in this last season, and that at least is small consolation.

Given the past two trek today interviews (the one where he denied ENT was cancelled and the one where he says the finalie doesn't involve time travel despite confirmation elsewhere that two TNG characters are in it), he seems to be Star Trek's Iraqi information minister

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-02-21 07:52am

FedRebel wrote:
From: Trek BBS

That's a common misconception. Startrek.com is merely a licensed tie-in, and is no more canonical than any other tie-in such as the novels, reference books and comic books. In this context, the word "official" only means that it's licensed by Paramount to make a profit off of Star Trek, rather than being a not-for-profit fan site like this one or an illegal bootleg. It's got nothing to do with the authoritativeness of its content, only its right to make money off of it.

[/quote]

so what? that's merely referring to the content on the site. it doesn't say anything regarding the canon policy itself.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... /canon.htm read the whole page

again, so what? by the reasoning you've been spouting all along bernd schneider's page holds no more say over what's considered canon than paramount's official page. it's probably difficult for you but try and come up with an argument that says more than 'read the whole page' this time.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-02-21 11:26am

JME2 wrote:
Skylon wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:I feel compelled to post my theory on the REAL reason Klingons had ridges, lost them, then had them again.
Hehehe. I'll buy that one over any hack story about mutation.
Count me in, too.

Coto's taking a big gamble with this duology, perhaps the biggest gamble in Trek since the conception of ENT (and look how that turned out ). If this blows up in his face, then the fallout isn't going to be pretty at all (and with what I've read on what's planned rest of the season, this could be the opening salvo).

And what are the consequences if the gamble doesn't work? What are they doing to do, fire him?

FedRebel · Post by **FedRebel** » 2005-02-21 10:48pm

Darth_Zod wrote: so what? that's merely referring to the content on the site. it doesn't say anything regarding the canon policy itself.

Pay attention Zod

Kurgan wrote: Paramount owns the franchise and has the legal right to say whatever they want about their property. Star Trek.com is the official site and echoes the sentiments of the owner company of Star Trek.

Gee, it looks like I responded to a statement concerning st.coms "officiality" not the canon policy

Burak Gazan · Post by **Burak Gazan** » 2005-02-21 11:14pm

Um, canon-ality and assorted arguments aside

there are a couple things about the ep that are notable:

The Bad:
Archer suddenly is going to "walk through" T'Pol in a mind meld

WTF - Leonard McCoy had Spock's katra and it seriously messed with his head - and now this yahoo is going to talk someone through a procedure she's never attempted, on another human?? Just because he briefly held Surak's katra?? Give me a fucking break!!

The Good:
Trip giving a good zinger to T'Pol when she questions him on leaving Enterprise because of her --
"Y'know, not everything in my life revolves around you...."

WTG Trip!

The Ugly:
In the "coming next week" we see Archer being injected with something while restrained in a chair, and promptly developing Klingon skull ridges...

I thought it interesting re "smoothies" that the kling doctor, speaking of the Klingon Augments, refered to them as "stronger, SMARTER.."

just as we always suspected!

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2005-02-21 11:51pm

RedImperator wrote:
JME2 wrote:
Skylon wrote: Hehehe. I'll buy that one over any hack story about mutation.
Count me in, too.

Coto's taking a big gamble with this duology, perhaps the biggest gamble in Trek since the conception of ENT (and look how that turned out ). If this blows up in his face, then the fallout isn't going to be pretty at all (and with what I've read on what's planned rest of the season, this could be the opening salvo).
And what are the consequences if the gamble doesn't work? What are they doing to do, fire him?

No. But the serious Trekkies will want to sit in judgement over him and B/B.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2005-02-22 11:55am

JME2 wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
JME2 wrote: Count me in, too.

Coto's taking a big gamble with this duology, perhaps the biggest gamble in Trek since the conception of ENT (and look how that turned out ). If this blows up in his face, then the fallout isn't going to be pretty at all (and with what I've read on what's planned rest of the season, this could be the opening salvo).
And what are the consequences if the gamble doesn't work? What are they doing to do, fire him?
No. But the serious Trekkies will want to sit in judgement over him and B/B.

I'm sure he's trembling at the thought.

JME2 · Post by **JME2** » 2005-02-22 12:45pm

RedImperator wrote:
JME2 wrote:
RedImperator wrote: And what are the consequences if the gamble doesn't work? What are they doing to do, fire him?
No. But the serious Trekkies will want to sit in judgement over him and B/B.
I'm sure he's trembling at the thought.

Heh. Not likely.

My point is that the Forehead debate is perhaps the longest running of Trek arguments. Coto's attempts to finally answer it, while worthy of praise to some, is annoying to others. I'm perfectly fine with Worf's line as opposed to genetic experimentation. Sure there are fans that want to go after him because of this duology, but what are they really going to do? Me, I'll just sit back, go about my life, and continue writing The Best of Both Worlds long after ENT rots in its grave.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2005-02-22 02:09pm

Is there a picture of the Enterprise Klingons with smooth forehead available on the net?

I just want to see them. A picture says more than 1000 words.

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2005-02-22 02:16pm

Is there a picture of the Enterprise Klingons with smooth forehead available on the net?

Here

Here

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2005-02-22 05:09pm

Wow, they even have re-done these wiered eyebrows!

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2005-02-22 09:48pm

FedRebel wrote: From: Trek BBS

That's a common misconception. Startrek.com is merely a licensed tie-in, and is no more canonical than any other tie-in such as the novels, reference books and comic books. In this context, the word "official" only means that it's licensed by Paramount to make a profit off of Star Trek, rather than being a not-for-profit fan site like this one or an illegal bootleg. It's got nothing to do with the authoritativeness of its content, only its right to make money off of it.

I checked the link, and who is this "Christopher" guy? I checked his website and it seems he's written some (non-canon) Star Trek novels, which is impressive, but who's to say he's in the know about canon policy and the site? I agree with the above poster who replied after you, I'm not saying that StarTrek.com itself is "canon" rather they would know (if anyone would) the canon policies of the franchise.

Should I otherwise conclude that if StarTrek.com says that Enterprise is canon, I should disregard this, because I want Enterprise to be non-canon, because I dislike the show?

I never established that view

Okay. How would I prove to you that Enterprise is officially canon?

Roddenberry is unable to say anything about it, and StarTrek.com isn't to be trusted?

My view is that Trek canon needs to be restructured so that all the shows, movies, and to a lesser extent books all fit together in harmony,. I feel that Roddenberry's "definitions" on Trek canon should be observed only for the highest hierarchy level, all works composed after his passing would fit into lower levels

That's fine, but until that happens, you've merely constructed a "fan canon" not the official canon policy of the owners of the franchise.

There's no way to derive from that whether Enterprise is or can ever be or not be canon. And really the TV shows are a lost cause. Unless you're going to go back and re-edit them Lucas style or something, you'll have to use the novels and such to "explain away" all the inconsistencies and such. Whole bunches of past novels will have to scrapped or ignored of course.

But currently the novels don't mean jack, except portions of two Voyager novels for purposes of character backstory.

http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/incon ... /canon.htm read the whole page

I read his page. I didn't get the impression that Berd Schneider (a fan, who doesn't get to decide what canon is) really was advancing the view that the canon is "whatever the fans think," but maybe I'm wrong. Still, while I respect him for putting together the info on his site (which I visit often for Trek stuff) his opinion of what is canon and what isn't means jack where the owners of the franchise are concerned, unless he happens to agree with their official statements & policy.

Given the past two trek today interviews (the one where he denied ENT was cancelled and the one where he says the finalie doesn't involve time travel despite confirmation elsewhere that two TNG characters are in it), he seems to be Star Trek's Iraqi information minister

It wouldn't be the first time a sci fi franchise representative has given the fans misinformation, but yeah, it's annoying.

Still, since he's been in charge we've seen a lot of honest attempts at continuity fixes, both of old continuity errors and ones specifically introduced by the infamous B&B, and that's what I'm giving him credit for. So far my opinion is that somebody like him should have been in charge of Enterprise from the first, not this late in the game. Things could have turned out a lot different perhaps. Oh well...

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Klingon forhead Debate is OVER! (Spoilers)

I harp on Ent's faults as much as the next fan, but...

Re: I harp on Ent's faults as much as the next fan, but...

Re: I harp on Ent's faults as much as the next fan, but...

Re: I harp on Ent's faults as much as the next fan, but...

Re: I harp on Ent's faults as much as the next fan, but...