Slashdot Mirror


Klingons Cut From Final Star Trek XI Movie

darthcamaro writes "Classic era trek was all about Kirk kicking the Klingons' tails. But the new Star Trek XI movie, the reboot, will not have any spoken Klingon in it — a travesty that has some fan sites up in arms already. 'We actually had a sequence that ended up getting cut from the movie that took place on Rura Penthe, in a Klingon prison,' Star Trek co-writer Alex Kurtzman said, explaining the deletion. 'And there was definitely Klingon spoken in the movie, and it ended up getting cut.' Frakkin' Federation ..."

447 comments

  1. What's the Klingon phrase for... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Get a life"?

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      tlhap yIn!

      (per http://www.mrklingon.org/ ; java applet warning!)

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Get a life" in Klingon. Brilliant.

      Hello, T-shirt!

    3. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Especially since the deleted scene will probably appear in the "deluxe director's cut" DVD anyways.

    4. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by dragonard · · Score: 1

      Free translation: I should cut you down where you stand!

      (But then, that's a free translation for most spoken Klingon.)

    5. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Criliric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      why hasn't anyone thought of this?

    6. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by cptnapalm · · Score: 3, Funny

      What is most awesome about this post is that it only took TWO minutes between someone asking for a Klingon translation and one being provided.

    7. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Kjella · · Score: 2, Funny

      why hasn't anyone thought of this?

      Because 0.01% would get it, 99.99% would not and ask you wtf is that, but all they'd catch is "He's got a t-shirt in KLINGON. Run."

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by uberjack · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would cut off your head, dwarf, if you stood but a bit higher from the ground.

    9. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by thefringthing · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's totally ungrammatical. It is "yIn tItlhap". Leave the Klingon to people who know what they're talking about.

    10. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by palindrome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the level of irony created in anyone wearing it would destroy time.

    11. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by guyminuslife · · Score: 5, Funny

      So it must have already happened, and it undid itself by resolving the paradox in four dimensions.

      Fortunately, my username perfectly qualifies me to wear the shirt.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    12. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

      And so, in winning, you've lost.

    13. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by pentalive · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course wouldn't the Klingon reply be "It is a good day to take yours."

    14. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by gadget+junkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because the level of irony created in anyone wearing it would destroy time.

      I heard the rumor that wearing it is forbidden within three miles of the Large Hadron Collider.

      --
      "If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
    15. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It might as well say "Just Kill Yourself" or alternatively "Have you ever seen a girl naked?"

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1

      How is that pronounced?

      t-lap yoln?

    17. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      It might as well say "Just Kill Yourself" or alternatively "Have you ever seen a girl naked?"

      Shouldn't that be "seen a girl naked in real life not on a TV or monitor". Or "seen and touched a naked girl"?

      Let us just hope the girl is not a relative.

    18. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr. Caution,

      I represent a conglomerate of pharmasutical companies and think your idea has merit as an innovative birth control device.

      While it clearly would have side effects, most of them would not improperly interact with medications and would play well with the "just say no/abstinence" marketplace, primarily in the red states of the US.

      Please contact our office at your convenience and we'll begin setting up research testing and planning the likely field trails.

      Best regards,
      Mrs. A. Onymous
      Market and research manager
      Reproductive Services Division
      Johnson Equipment and Medical Devices, inc.
      (NYSE:JEDI)

    19. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by SpeedBump0619 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course wouldn't the Klingon reply be "It is a good day to take yours."

      That's kind of wordy for your average Klingon I prefer:

      chugh SoH neH ("As you wish."). *squick*

      Short sweet and too the point, with bonus points for cross genre snark.

    20. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Informative

      you've lost...

      The Game

    21. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be "yItlhap"? "tI" is for a plural object.

    22. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by cigawoot · · Score: 1

      tlhIngan 'oH ghobe' Qot The klingon is not a lie.

    23. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      why so long....

    24. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shame noone will see it since you won't leave the basement.

    25. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Is there a language unicode for Klingon? You'd think slashdot of all places would have support for that so we could post in the actual language!

    26. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      "Get a life" in Klingon. Brilliant.

      Hello, T-shirt!

      Let me know when you have it printed in Klingon.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    27. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They were already preparing to run because of the odor. Asking you about you t-shirt was just a way to pass time (and not pass out) before the elevator opened.

    28. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, I think it's pathetic.

    29. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That exactly it. This Trek reboot is an attempt by the franchise to distance themselves from the fanbois, trekkies, geeks, nerds, etc. Historically, those groups have been like 99% of the Star Trek audience. This reboot is an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. Based on the trailers, I'm guessing we are going to see a sci-fi version of Fast and Furious with a few (new) Battlestar Galactica overtones.

    30. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by frieko · · Score: 1

      Just like every other teeshirt I wear!

    31. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Ian+Alexander · · Score: 1, Funny

      Because nobody who speaks Klingon would ever think to utter that phrase in any language?

    32. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by PReDiToR · · Score: 1

      I lose.

      The Game for anyone who still doesn't know what it is.

      Although, the way I heard it, you don't have to announce your loss to anyone in particular, just say aloud "I lose".

      --

      Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    33. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how there is this stigma about geeks touching naked women. Yep, it's women not girls. Unless you go that route... in which case you should be careful who you bring it up with.

      You know it only costs around a hundred bucks to get a few minutes with a naked woman? Sure, that won't get you all the way. But that's not the point.

    34. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      and the rest of the world would get hollow squares.

      Come on, who really has a Klingon-supporting font installed and set in the web browser

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    35. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by SlashWombat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      H'mm ... apart from this thread on Star Trek being hijacked for Star Wars dreck (Seriously, what nerd doesn't know that Parsec is a unit of distance, not time as used in the original Star Wars Science fantasy) ...

      Bloody Klingon is just a load of crap that makes me cringe when I hear it. If you really were serious about Star Blek, you would be aware of how the Klingons were originally portrayed ... (Looked more like Mongolians or Fu Manchu than Maori warriors wearing their cricket boxes on their heads ...)

    36. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the Han Solo trilogy, and you'll see that it *is* a unit of distance. The dude flew really close to some black holes, making the trip impressively short. Also, the nice man at the door will collect your geek card on your way out.

    37. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      they did a better job explaining it in the clone wars. It was on the internet (and TV) that makes it better than a silly book! Parsecs are how long the flight plan is so if your calculations can be that much quicker and that much more accurate, then you can take the shorter path.... because hyperspace is just 1 speed you get there quicker.

      Frankly, George pulled the space-words out of his ass and fans fixed it later. I'd say that the novels aren't George Lucas cannon (he violates them whenever he damn well pleases, no matter how much work the continuity/licensing department puts in). The Clone Wars is on TV which is official GL cannon... Which totally butchers just about every planet and alien species in 30 years of roleplaying books and official novels and comics... ooo shiny!

    38. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting until they print it on Klingon.

    39. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oddly enough, in a month or so I am, in fact, moving into a basement.

      Life imitates art.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    40. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 1

      Great. I've gone THIRTY-EIGHT freakin' YEARS without losing The Game, and you blow it with a link.

      Thanks for nothing, buddy.

    41. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having officially watched all 3 of the prequels, I've since gone forth and erased from my mind everything that happened in star wars since May of 1999 :D

      Now if only I had a complete collection of WEG SW RPG books :D

    42. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Tarlus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Because 0.01% would get it, 99.99% would not and ask you wtf is that, but all they'd catch is "He's got a t-shirt in KLINGON. Run."

      ...and without knowing what it means, they'd think, "wow, he needs to get a life."

      --
      /* No Comment */
    43. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by story645 · · Score: 1

      "Have you ever seen a girl naked?"

      What if the answer's yes 'cause you're female?

      I think a shirt like that would be awesome in an ironic-kitschy sort of way. Plus, with the amount of male eye candy in the new movie it could totally catch fire with run of the mill fan girls. (I don't even like trek all that much and I want to see the new flick.)

      --
      open source modern art: laser taggi
    44. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      pentalive wrote:

      Of course wouldn't the Klingon reply be "It is a good day to take yours."

      That sounds more appropriate for a Ferengi than for a Klingon.

    45. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting until they print it on Klingon.

      Hey, that's my line! <G>

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    46. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Saint+Gerbil · · Score: 4, Funny

      and middle america would think that you are a terrorist.

    47. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll need kilngon subtitles :)

    48. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by JosKarith · · Score: 0, Troll

      Dear Mr Caution,
      I represent a large conglomeration of pharmacautical companies that have patented this idea as of 5 minutes ago.
      By presenting this concept on a forum you have stolen their Intellectual Property and are thus guilty of piracy. Claims that you posted before the time of our patent application have no bearing in this case as our law firm is bigger than your law firm.
      We are seeking restitution for loss of profits ($1.37), Lawyer's fees ($500,000) and contributiry damages of $5,000 per person that has read, or may have read your post. To this end we require you to procure from Slashdot a full list of members including User ID, Ip address, home address, social security number and mother's maiden name and forward this list to us no later than 5 minutes after receipt of this message.
      Failure to comply with this letter will result in us having you tagged as a terrorist sympathiser by our well-paid lackies on the Department of Homeland Security, taken out the back and shot.
      It goes without saying of course, that should you discuss the contents of this letter with anyone else, especially another lawyer, we will poison your dog.

      Have a nice day,
      Gougem, Scalpem and Ripemoff,
      Attorneys at law,
      Pharmacautical Companies Associated of America.

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    49. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I always loved that the Universal Translator could happily instantly translate even brand new alien languages into perfect English, but the Klingons had a way of talking that made it stop working.

    50. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      So it must have already happened, and it undid itself by resolving the paradox in four dimensions.

      Not necessarily, by my calculations of we altered the polarization of the shield harmonics and then converted the front deflector dish to a chronitron emitter we could build a multiphasic deity emitter which would resolve any outstanding plot parodoxes in time for the last reel of the show.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    51. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Novus · · Score: 1

      Come on, who really has a Klingon-supporting font installed and set in the web browser

      Surprisingly many: X.org and XFree86 seem to include a font called "MUTT ClearlyU PUA" that includes the Klingon alphabet and numerals according to the ConScript Unicode Registry encoding for Klingon.

      Try this Klingon Unicode test page. Despite many browsers (e.g. Firefox) substituting glyphs from whatever font happens to support a character, if necessary, you may have to specify the exact font name to avoid getting the proper Klingon overridden by another font that uses the same code points for other things (for example, GhostScript adds "Standard Symbols L" that, annoyingly, overrides some of the Klingon characters), since the Unicode Consortium declined to standardise Klingon.

      Qapla'!

    52. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Upaut · · Score: 1

      Actually, they did cover that in one of the movies... The universal translator does translate language perfectly, but it leaves an audible "twang" (or mild offset of speech, or something) of translation. As seen when the crew is breaking out a Klingon dictionary so they can speak actual Klingon, without detection of being forgers.

      And with a very nationalistic, and prideful people such as the Klingons, and given the difficulty some of them have with the human language/s, it could be that many forgo the translator and attack translation with brute skill... Or as with the occasional speaking of French, it could be simply that all 'can' hear a difference in all languages, so those that do take the time to learn the original, and as thus not need their translators to work on those phrases (if they can alter the base programing), or simply can recognize the phrase and realize the significance.

      --
      3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
    53. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that neither half-assed "explanation" explains his bragging about how fast his ship is, rather than how good a navigator he is!

    54. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Doggabone · · Score: 1

      Let us just hope the girl is not a relative.

      And/or not unconscious.

    55. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      "Get a life"?

      Not sure but I hear William Shatner has said that often about Star Trek Fans. Maybe we should ask him???

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    56. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've outrun Imperial starships. Not the local bulk cruisers mind you, I'm talking about the big Corellian ships now."

      Does that sound like he's talking about making a shorter trip? No, he's talking about speed - in normal space too, not hyperspace.

      Can you picture Han saying, "She's fast enough for you, old man (as long as we're going really close to some black holes)."

    57. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't it be "yItlhap"? "tI" is for a plural object.

      I can hear all the sperm in the universe crying out in pain

    58. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by WeeLad · · Score: 1

      , I've since gone forth and erased from my mind everything that happened in star wars since May of 1999

      So you accept the 1997 remastered versions where Han shoots first?

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    59. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      Better still, wait until they print a Klingon (paragraph 3 from anchor).

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    60. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be:

      yIn yISuq!

      (yIn = life, yISuq = Get it! (imperative))

    61. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be:

      'e' DaneHchugh... (If you what that)

      ('e' - that pronoun, Da- you/it prefix, neH - want, -chugh if suffix)

    62. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by CambodiaSam · · Score: 1

      I was more impressed with how the translator also magically made a person's mouth appear to speak in the translated language, instead of looking like a dubbed film all the time.

    63. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Don't get bent out of shape, it's okay, I have a solution! A link which, if it can spin fast enough, just might reverse the process and save the day.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    64. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Telemann · · Score: 1

      I've got you covered (just finished writing this two days ago).

      http://ultralingua.com/en/klingon.html

    65. Re:What's the Klingon phrase for... by Wicked+Zen · · Score: 1

      It's working! It's woorrrrrrrkkiiiiiiiing!

  2. Travesty? by cheebie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Oh dear God.

    The original Trek only rarely dealt with the Klingons. It was more about the crew exploring the unknown.

    This is just a fanboi snit.

    1. Re:Travesty? by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I gotta agree. While the MOVIES generated from the original series dealt pretty heavily with Klingons, the actual TV series didn't go much into it. And TBH, the Klingons of the original TV series were pretty uninteresting IMHO. The change that they started going into the movies and more or less finalized moving into TNG made them far more interesting. Also, to a whole ton of fans from the TNG-onward days kinda view the Klingons as buddies of the Federation. Seeing them put back into a negative light just wouldn't be interesting to me.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    2. Re:Travesty? by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Weren't the Klingons in TOS basically just bad-tempered humans? They didn't develop the weird growths on their foreheads until much later. They were basically just a poorly fleshed out analogue for the Soviet Union.

    3. Re:Travesty? by Murpster · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't describe myself as a trekkie, but... from what I've seen, the original Trek was mostly about Kirk and Spock flying around space and kicking ass, blowing shit up, and fucking green and blue chicks... and the doctor going "Im a doctor, not a ___!" Wasn't the whole Klingon language thing not even made until many years after the original Star Trek was off the air? Who cares. Trekkies are dweebs. Get lives, or whatever it was Kirk said.

    4. Re:Travesty? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm surprised that TFA is all worked up about the loss of Klingons (which is kind of a shame), but seems to be OK with the fact that the new movie, from all they've shown us so far, is a mindless sex and violence movie. That's the real travesty: turning Trek into that. Those are entertaining movies, but that's not what Trek has ever been about.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    5. Re:Travesty? by Kelson · · Score: 3, Informative

      The original Trek only rarely dealt with the Klingons. It was more about the crew exploring the unknown.

      That was my first thought as well. Klingons were in, what, 7 or 8 episodes? Out of around 70 episodes total? And the spoken Klingon language wasn't introduced until the movies.

      So there's no Klingons -- or at least no spoken Klingon -- in the story. Big deal.

      And I say that as someone who's in the middle of rewatching TOS.

    6. Re:Travesty? by timepilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There was a decent amount of sex and violence in the original trek. It just wasn't explicit.

    7. Re:Travesty? by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      The original series had the Andorians playing a MUCH greater part and the Klingons were indeed just a bit part. Odd how the movies switched that around...
      Not planning on seeing the movie in the theatres anyways, sounds like a netflix special.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    8. Re:Travesty? by Dolohov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, most of the aliens got "facelifts" in the animated series, as I recall.

    9. Re:Travesty? by tjstork · · Score: 1

      See I really liked the Klingons in TOS and thought they sucked ever since.

      I remember watching the Star Trek TMP in the movies, and I was like "w.t.f did they do with the Klingons"..

      --
      This is my sig.
    10. Re:Travesty? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It was there, but it wasn't the centerpiece. The sex and violence is all we've seen of the new movie, however... which is a worrisome indication that maybe that's all there is to this movie.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    11. Re:Travesty? by pallmall1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They didn't develop the weird growths on their foreheads until much later.

      Those growths are why the Klingons are called clit-heads, or vulva-faces. Without those features, the Klingons wouldn't have any personality or geek popularity at all.

      --
      3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
    12. Re:Travesty? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      It just wasn't explicit.

      "Are you out of your Vulcan mind?"

      I was just a wee kid when this ran on TV the first time. I wondered why my dad took a double-take at the TV when McCoy said that. (He didn't swear, at least not audibly in my presence, so my ears were pretty naive.)

      The first time I heard that line as a teenager (ah, Saturday afternoon syndication FTW), I did the double-take and ROFL'd a bit. Yeah, not explicit, but there was definitely some "adult situations" large and small in that show. They got away with a fair bit for late 60's prime-time broadcast TV. I think they made a point of trying to get away with a fair bit. Hack censorship!

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    13. Re:Travesty? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, closer to the Mongols than the Soviets. One of the ideas floating around in sci-fi of the time was the "space barbarian" or "space mongol", an archetype who could operate space ships, but couldn't build new ones, had to rely on captured peoples, etc. The Klingons definitely look like a stereotype of Mongols, including the warrior culture.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    14. Re:Travesty? by Haoie · · Score: 1

      Only in TNG did Klingons get a sense of honour and what not.

      In TOS, they were thinly veiled Mongol types.

      --
      If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
    15. Re:Travesty? by fermion · · Score: 1
      ST:TOS was a classic literary device, a la the Odyssey and Huck fin. While it was the exploration of the unknown, it was also about the freedom to explore the known in a new context. Take the first episode, where McCoy meet an ex girlfriend. There is nothing so unknown about this. It simply takes the fear that someone we once loved have changed so much that we no longer will know them. Such a thing is a great loss. Episode 2, Charlie X, was dealing with the unknown, in the context of the increasing power of the teenager and rise of adolescence as a protected developmental period and youth activism.

      In this light, the non-human cultures were mostly one off creations, meant to be nothing more than a necessary plot device. The exception was Vulcan, but even that was hardly more explored than the Klingons.

      What is clear is that later on Klingons played a much larger roll. ST:TNG was very Klingon, with Spock being replaced by Worf as the alien. I would argue that the social aspects of the Kligons were explored much more in TNG than vulcan in TOS. The Klingons reigned large until for many years, and most of the time Kirk was indeed fighting with the Klingons.

      What we are probably seeing is that the Klingons have been overexposed, and fully explored, so there is little interesting for a new writer to deal with, at least not without getting into trouble with the the Star Trek purists. We are also seeing a post Roddenberry Star Trek, in which the characters are used to sell tickets, but the stories are not really related.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    16. Re:Travesty? by afabbro · · Score: 3, Informative

      I gotta agree. While the MOVIES generated from the original series dealt pretty heavily with Klingons, the actual TV series didn't go much into it.

      If memory serves, the Klingons were featured in these episodes:

      • Errand of Mercy - John Colicos, baby!
      • Friday's Child
      • The Trouble With Tribbles
      • A Private Little War
      • Day of the Dove

      In addition, the appeared periphrially in "Elaan of Troyius" and "The Savage Curtain" (I don't think the Kahless in that episode even spoke).

      So, 5 major appearances in 79 eps, plus a couple small mentions.

      And TBH, the Klingons of the original TV series were pretty uninteresting IMHO.

      They were certainly one-note, though some of the episodes listed above used them to good effect. There certainly was not the kind of cultural exploration we saw in later series, that's for sure.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    17. Re:Travesty? by Nyckname · · Score: 2, Funny

      At a con back in the day, someone asked James Doohan about the ridges. His reply, in his best Scottish accent, was "Remember those tribbles we beamed over? Allergies."

    18. Re:Travesty? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      79 episodes, 4 matching the keyword "Klingon" in Vidiot's decades old TOS guide.

                                                "ERRAND OF MERCY" [*** 1/2]

      First aired March 23, 1967. Kirk and Spock, stranded on Organia, attempt to interfere with the Klingon occupation of the planet, despite the Organians' insistence upon the non-necessity of violence.

                                        "THE TROUBLE WITH TRIBBLES" [*****]

      First aired December 29, 1967. Kirk must put up with Federation bureaucrats and hordes of hungry tribbles while protecting a shipment of quadrotriticale (wheat) against Klingon sabotage.

                                              "A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR" [***]

      First aired February 2, 1968. When the Klingons hasten the arms development of one faction on a hitherto peaceful planet, Kirk must arm the other side in order to maintain a balance of power.

                                                "DAY OF THE DOVE" [** 1/2]

      First aired November 1, 1968. Klingons and the Enterprise crew must unite to overcome an alien who feeds on the hatred between them.

    19. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. This is, after all, a REBOOT. That means a lot of the cruft from about thirty years of post-ToS development is being dispensed with, and that's fine by me. This is meant to rejuvenate a series that had pretty much become one monstrous cliche of itself. If there's one thing ToS had that, over time, the later series lacked, it was solid, straightforward storytelling. Everything was burdened down by the vast edifice of Everything-That-Had-Come-Before. The last two attempts, the dull Voyager and the increasingly-pathetic Enterprise, showed just how uninteresting it had all become.

      The Trouble With Tribbles was just fine with Klingons speaking English, thank you very much. In fact, and so will this.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Travesty? by TurboNed · · Score: 1

      Were they even an analogue for the Soviet Union before Star Trek VI?

    21. Re:Travesty? by catmistake · · Score: 4, Informative

      The actual cannon is, I believe, that the growths were always there on the Klingon's foreheads, but during the short time period of TOS (?4 years), there was a fashion trend that was popular among Klingons to flatten their foreheads. Worf says at some point in DS9 (the other tribbles episode) that "we do not speak of it," so it was apparently an embarassing trend that they try to forget (think about all the straight-laced former hippies burning pics of themselves out of embarrassment).

    22. Re:Travesty? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      This is just a fanboi snit.

      C'mon. I'd argue at least 75% of what's posted on Slashdot boils down to a "fanboi snit" in one form or another. This is important stuff... to the average Slashdotter.

      /sarcasm off

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    23. Re:Travesty? by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      A Klingon language first appeared in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but wasn't fully fleshed out until Star Trek III: The Search for Spock.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    24. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is hilarious. Where is the typointitle tag?

      They didn't remove Klingons, the race. They removed Klingon. The language.

    25. Re:Travesty? by Stopher2475 · · Score: 1

      They actually explain that in the "Enterprise" series. There was a plot line that had those human looking Klingons being genetically engineered and it was going to take a few generations to get back to their "normal" phenotype.

    26. Re:Travesty? by MPolo · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think "Enterprise" expanded on this, and had the smooth-headed Klingons resulting from a genetic disease, caused by trying to implement human Eugenics techniques. The disease was cured, but the physical results remained, and took many generations for the Klingons to get rid of them.

    27. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      There was a decent amount of sex and violence in the original trek. It just wasn't explicit.

      Huh? Damned near every female guest star on ToS was in a dress with their breasts damned near bouncing out. I remember Shatner talking about one actress who actually had to have her dress taped to her breasts because her nipples kept popping out.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:Travesty? by hardburn · · Score: 5, Informative

      It was explained away in the last season of Enterprise. A rouge human researcher in genetic engineering had made some superhumans, and Klingons wanted the tech, too. So they copied/stole the research and ended up implanting themselves with human DNA. The changes went viral, and soon affected the entire Klingon race. They presumably found a fix some time in between TOS and the first movie.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    29. Re:Travesty? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is that my biggest gripe with Trek is that they [b]ignored[/b] almost everything that had come before. Godlike races were conjured up and never mentioned again. The same went for technologies that could be crafted into fearsome weapons, with which the Federation would have been able to enslave or destroy the Romulans, the Dominion or anyone else who disagree with them. While they were cribbing from Niven they should have stolen the ARM as well, so they could have the technology police grab all the crazy weapons and tech.

      As for this being a reboot, I think I'm going to enjoy it about as much as I'm enjoying the current 007 reboot, that is, not at all. If you're going to write a new story, then call it something else. "Star Trek / 007 is whatever we say it is" might be true legally, but it's a steaming crock artistically.

    30. Re:Travesty? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It was a failed experiment - this was explained in Enterprise episodes "Affliction" and "Divergence".. the cure for The Levodian flu made its unfortunate victim look exactly like a TOS klingon.

      The reason Worf says they don't speak of it is it was extremely embarrasing for them.

      (Yes I realize it's just a lame excuse for them looking different in the later series, but if you're going to quote canon...)

    31. Re:Travesty? by Thuktun · · Score: 2, Funny

      The original Trek only rarely dealt with the Klingons. It was more about the crew exploring the unknown.

      It's funny how often the unknown looked like the hills of southern California.

    32. Re:Travesty? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Yes. A Private Little War is a direct reference to US-Soviet proxy wars. Both Klingons and Romulans fit the analogue in their own ways.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    33. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Well, I thought the first Daniel Craig run as 007 was pretty damned good, but the second one was just godawful. And I'll hold my tongue until I see this new Trek. I thought that it had been driven into such complete mediocrity by Berman and Braga that I doubt very much it could be worse.

      Oh, and reboots can be pretty damned good. Batman Begins and even moreso the Dark Knight are serious kick-ass movies that dispensed with all the goofiness that had plagued the series from Burton's outings onward. So I'm at least hopeful that it won't be as bad as your average Voyager or Enterprise episode, and will likely be significantly better than the last two TNG film outings.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    34. Re:Travesty? by Kamokazi · · Score: 3, Informative

      There was also an episode of DS9 where they go back in time to the 'Tribble' episode and run into Kirk, etc., and either O'Brien or Sisko asks Wharf about why the Klingons look different, and he says something like, "We do not discuss it with outsiders."

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    35. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Did it also explain why Kahless is shown in TOS without ridges, and in other series with ridges?

      Or am I not supposed to point out Enterprise's ham-handed mangling of the timeline?

    36. Re:Travesty? by hardburn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All we've seen is a few trailers. What do you expect them to show?

      --
      Not a typewriter
    37. Re:Travesty? by uberjack · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to seeing Melllvar again.. Oh wait...

    38. Re:Travesty? by FauxPasIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      You should just repeat to yourself "It's just a show. I should probably just relax".

      --
      25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
    39. Re:Travesty? by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Take the first episode, where McCoy meet an ex girlfriend. There is nothing so unknown about this. It simply takes the fear that someone we once loved have changed so much that we no longer will know them. Such a thing is a great loss.

      I think you are reading too much into the choice of the first episode. The Naked Time was originally planned to be the premier episode of the regular series. But, NBC executives latched on to the "salt monster" in The Man Trap as a more exploitable (and promotable) subject.

      That first episode got horrible reviews, and the show struggled to make up for it for the rest of the season.

    40. Re:Travesty? by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A far earlier explanation appears in Star Trek roleplaying games from the 1980s. According to them, Klingons genetically modified the crews of starships operating on the frontiers. So crews operating near the Federation looked humanized, near the Romulan Empire romulanized, and the ones patrolling the Mickey D's were supersized. Well, I made that last one up. But anyway.

    41. Re:Travesty? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The actual cannon is

      usually a howitzer or the like. But this has been explained if you take the time-travelling alien nazi holodeck novel series as canon. It was in the fourth season though and that season is the only reason I recognize its very existance, if they'd only pulled a Star Wars and started with season four it could actually have turned out great.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    42. Re:Travesty? by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's a very plausible, reasonable-sounding explanation. Not nearly as plausible and reasonable-sounding as, "Jesus H. Christ! It's not even important! We changed the way they're supposed to look, we didn't even have the make-up budget to do that shit at the time, deal with it, use your imagination, stop worrying about canon and watch the goddamn show!"

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    43. Re:Travesty? by LionMage · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First off, it's rogue. Rouge is makeup you apply to your cheeks (or anywhere else you want a "healthy blush").

      Secondly, if you actually paid attention to the episodes in question (a story arc that lasted 2 or 3 episodes), you would know that the Klingons were going to destroy the research facility to stop the spread of this viral trait. A cure was discovered, and the Klingon powers that be relented. Klingons on a single colony were affected by this trait, and it was implied that the Klingon scientists were going to have their hands full reversing this genetic mangling. It did not spread to the entire Klingon empire.

      Yeah, I know, way too much nit picking about a damn TV show. But I thought the story arc was cool, especially the idea that Noonian Soong's ancestor was actually originally interested in genetic engineering to enhance humans, not robotics or cybernetics.

    44. Re:Travesty? by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What is clear is that later on Klingons played a much larger roll. ST:TNG was very Klingon, with Spock being replaced by Worf as the alien. I would argue that the social aspects of the Kligons were explored much more in TNG than vulcan in TOS.

      Was I the only person who didn't find the obsession with the Klingons' background in TNG particularly interesting? I liked Worf enough as a character, and I didn't mind the Klingons as characters with a hint of background.

      But I found all that stuff about Klingon society and the stories based around Worf's background quite boring. It just seemed like like a pointless and synthetic metaphor for various non-Western (primarily Middle Eastern and Central Asian) cultures seen through a left-leaning Hollywood script writer's eyes.

      And while it was probably well-intentioned in a socially-aware 80s sort of way, it seemed to take itself a bit too seriously considering it was dealing with a totally a made-up, nonexistent culture with cod-Eastern guttural language and contrived religious ceremonies (with guttural names, etc.) that attempted to mimic the seriousness with which "real" non-Western people take such aspects of their culture.

      But the problem was that the stories about the Klingon culture only worked if you took it Seriously. However, they *weren't* real enough to take seriously without feeling a bit silly; yet they weren't far enough from actual humans to work as abstract metaphors either.

      What we are probably seeing is that the Klingons have been overexposed, and fully explored, so there is little interesting for a new writer to deal with, at least not without getting into trouble with the the Star Trek purists.

      Yes, I hear that the writers of the rebooted Star Trek intend expanding the social background and politics of a different alien race- the tribbles.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    45. Re:Travesty? by timepilot · · Score: 1

      Yah, I know, but I meant explicit in 2009 terms, which means showing penetration for sex and blood spray for violence.

      Really, there was a whole episode about Spock needing to get laid. And in it Spock and Kirk fight to the death. How is that not sex and violence, right?

    46. Re:Travesty? by thebigbadme · · Score: 1

      Those are entertaining movies, but that's not what Trek has ever been about.

      I want you to read this over a few more times until you realize what is being implied ...

      I, for one, find most Star Trek quite entertaining...

      --
      "It's the Law of the Universe, and I'm the sheriff." Slash-cott 2/10-2/17
    47. Re:Travesty? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      I'd rather see some more space battles and less extended 'character development'. One thing that made the Berman Trek series kind of dull was the never-ending discussions about various characters' personal development, and the brain-wracking about how not to break the Prime Directive.

      Gimme a break! Kirk broke that directive damn near every week! And he didn't go into a Shakespearean monologue about the ramifications of his monumental transgression when he did.

      If I want to watch a bunch of people sitting around discussing politics, I'll turn on C-Span - great ratings there. And if I want to hear characters blathering on about their emotional development, I'll turn on a soap opera - and then turn it off and wonder what the hell I was thinking.

      Star Trek = space adventure. Bring on the 'violence' - as long as it's well written, like the battle scenes in Wrath of Khan. And if Kirk wants to get it on with some green slave chick, hell, he's earned the diversion. At least he won't talk her ear off trying to convince her to take control of her life, get an education, and get an office job like some Enterprise captains might...

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    48. Re:Travesty? by Knara · · Score: 1

      IIRC the "Real Klingons" didn't appear until they got assimilated by V'ger in ST:TMP. It was a "big deal" at the time.

    49. Re:Travesty? by hardburn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The genetic alterations in question happened to adult Klingons, not newborns. Presumably, the cure later did the same.

      Incidentally, viral vectors can be used in real genetic engineering.

      I would have been satisfied leaving the whole thing as a retcon and pretending flat-foreheaded Klingons never existed, but the DS9 Tribbles episode was begging for it all to be answered. Tieing it into Kahn-like superhuman research and Data's family history was a surprisingly good idea for a frachise that didn't have Ron Moore to lean on anymore.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    50. Re:Travesty? by Knara · · Score: 4, Funny

      "...I should really just relax"

      I miss that show.

    51. Re:Travesty? by morcego · · Score: 1

      Which actually makes a lot more sense than any of the other "explanation", including that Enterprise storyline.
      Actually, plastic surgery would be enough here. No need for genetic engineering.

      --
      morcego
    52. Re:Travesty? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      That's the lamest attempt at excusing it away you could possible have.

      My god..it's just pathetic.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    53. Re:Travesty? by pluther · · Score: 2, Funny

      Even earlier than that, a story in the fanzine Trek posited that the ridges on their foreheads were the top of their spine, having moved up due to having their backsides kicked by the federation so often.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    54. Re:Travesty? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, when ever I see a bin Laden video it reminds me of the desert st in Star Trek. Specifically the one with the Gorn.
      Wouldn't surprise me if it turned out he's been hiding in California.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    55. Re:Travesty? by Narpak · · Score: 1

      ...but seems to be OK with the fact that the new movie, from all they've shown us so far, is a mindless sex and violence movie.

      Oh my you just peaked my interest. Never been much of a Star Trek fanboy (though I have seen most of the movies, I am nerd after all), was pretty ambivalent about the new movie but I am always up for some sex and violence!

    56. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      They were certainly one-note, though some of the episodes listed above used them to good effect. There certainly was not the kind of cultural exploration we saw in later series, that's for sure.

      That was because they were, essentially, allegorical Soviets, just as the Romulans represented Red China. In fact, I'd say that the later evolution of the Klingons moves them beyond being ruthless militarist and into something quite different; expansionist tribal warriors, ala the Huns and Mongols, which really is something quite different.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    57. Re:Travesty? by morcego · · Score: 1

      Can you give me any references on that ? I barely remember seeing Andorians on TOS, except for a few episodes where lots of races were around. Well, then again, if Klingons appeared on 5 episodes, and Andorians appeared in 9, you could say they had a MUCH greater part.

      The Andorians did show up a lot on Enterprise, but that is as far from TOS as you can get.

      --
      morcego
    58. Re:Travesty? by Patch86 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Sir, we've detected a pre-warp civilization on the planet's surface!"

      "Nazi or cowboy?"

    59. Re:Travesty? by hey! · · Score: 1

      "Travesty" refers to the Kirk-Spock relationship thing. Apparently, cross-dressing was involved.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    60. Re:Travesty? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      It was explained away in the last season of Enterprise. A rouge human researcher in genetic engineering had made some superhumans, and Klingons wanted the tech, too. So they copied/stole the research and ended up implanting themselves with human DNA. The changes went viral, and soon affected the entire Klingon race. They presumably found a fix some time in between TOS and the first movie.

      That's a time period of, what, 3.5 years? (two more years of "five year mission" followed by 18 month refit...)

      Sure, that's plenty of time to cure a genetic flaw that's afflicted the entire Klingon race, and fix the aesthetic consequences of the change...

      I'll just stick with the "better makeup" explanation. :)

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    61. Re:Travesty? by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      I don't think the problem was that the series wasn't rejuvenated, but rather that the writers didn't know what they wanted to do. What they did was inject more action and sex into the series while ineptly trying to grasp on to the more cerebral nature of Star Trek. And the result was uniformly crap to one extent or another; this goes for both the later series and most of the movies.

      There's no reason why they couldn't keep the series more intellectual. Unfortunately, the fact is that it doesn't sell. Both networks and movie companies seem unwilling to commit to anything that doesn't have the broadest market appeal. Unfortunately, that's what set Star Trek apart. This shift makes the franchise more generic.

      I'm still holding out hope for the new movie even though the trailers portray the movie as a pure action movie with the prerequisite romances for the ladies and steamy sex scenes for the men. And I get the impression that the movie is going to establish these absurd set pieces so that Kirk and friends can engage in macho extreme activities. That said, the special effects so far look excellent, which I think has been a weak point of many of the past Star Trek movies.

    62. Re:Travesty? by Knara · · Score: 1

      I thought the opposite: that Casino Royale was horrid and Quantum was much, much better.

      And I *like* origin stories.

      Agreed about Berman and Braga, though. They, and now their successors, don't really understand the Horatio Hornblower foundations of Star Trek, and that's why they continue to put out nonsensical, awful movies and TV series.

    63. Re:Travesty? by ph0rk · · Score: 1

      The "original" Dr. Who (well, ok, 3rd: Tom Baker) "rarely" dealt with Daleks, that doesn't stop them from being super badass and worthy of having in any movie-length adaptation.

      --
      semantics are everything!
    64. Re:Travesty? by Dolohov · · Score: 1

      You could be right; I can't find a picture of Klingons from the animated series, and I do remember the ones in the movie being a big deal - I always assumed that it was because so many people didn't watch the animated series.

    65. Re:Travesty? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      There's a mild irony here. The one profession great concern for canon misspelled it (unless he meant to speak of large-bore projectile weapons), and the one professing unconcern for canon spelled, and used, it perfectly.

      My inner pedant is smiling a smug satisfied smile.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    66. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Many things are a matter of taste, I suppose. I'm just saying that you can sometimes, at least, reboot things. I suspect Batman Begins is probably the inspiration for recent series reboots, and the general strategy seems to be to scrape off all the cliches and pointlessly repetitious drivel that occupies so much of so many movie series.

      Maybe it won't work, I dunno, but I've heard some folks who have seen it say the new Trek is very good, certainly a lot better than the last two TNG outings, and I think bringing in an outsider, someone who didn't feel any necessity or burden to layer things back up, was as good a chance to rejuvenate Trek as we're going to get. If this doesn't work, then I think that will be it. The franchise has been abominably abused, particularly after DS9 went off the air.

      All I can say at the end of the day is that if there's a reference to the Borg, I'm walking out of the theater. Having them show up in Enterprise was what finally did it for me. I just couldn't stand yet another story arc of "we're-so-invincible-but-not-really-except-we-are-but-no-we're-not-and-yet-here-we-are..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    67. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it would have been funnier if they had completely ignored the forehead thing and had Worf in the TOS makeup as well.

    68. Re:Travesty? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Ah, Ming the Merciless, Emperor of Planet Mongo, and all that. Hmmm... TOS as Flash Gordon. So much for " Wagon Train to the stars"...

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    69. Re:Travesty? by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno. I remember the sixties, man. A lot of it was about letting "it" all hang out.

      You thought "Austin Powers" was farcical exaggeration, well, maybe not so exaggerated. Imagine you were born in, let's say 1949. It is now 1967, and you're in San Francisco. You are eighteen years old, it's the "Summer of Love". This is an era where contraception was available, practically all known STDs were curable with penicillin, and free love was royal road to higher spiritual existence.

      I think Roddenberry approved of "sexual liberation"; I think it part of his concept of a future Man (yes "Man") freed from superstitious and archaic limitations on his freedom. The only reason you didn't see more was because this was network television with sensors and sponsors who didn't want controversy. If cable networks existed back then (the way they do now), I'd bet you'd have seen a lot more than babes in sprayed on catsuits.

      I don't know if he was on board with the whole drug aspect of the counter-culture. In any case it would be superfluous in TOS. You see, it's exploration that's the drug that takes you to new experienced you could never have imagined. That's just another facet of liberation: to boldly go where no man has gone before on one hand, on the other do the same where probably quite a few men have gone before.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    70. Re:Travesty? by hofmny · · Score: 4, Informative

      Since I just got done watching all 5 seasons of Enterprise (hey, I slept with a real girl two weeks ago.. really.. OK!), I think I can clarify this the best.
      Dr. Soong, the one we know from TNG who created Data has great grandfather, also named Dr. Soong (and played by Brent Spiner). During the time of Enterprise he was a criminal for conducting genetic engineering experiments after they were outlawed following Earth's 3rd World War. He continued the work of creating genetic super humans, raising them on a far planet until he was finally captured and imprisoned back on earth.

      One day the super humans, fatherless, decided to leave their planet and hijacked a Klingon Warship, beating the Klingon's in hand to hand combat and sending them out the airlocks. This infuriated the Klingon Empire and almost cost war between them and Earth (no Federation yet) but was defused by Captain Archer of the current Enterprise. However, the Klingon's were extremely dishonored to have human's beat them -- and feared the federation would have Super Humans on all Star Ships, which would spell the end of the Klingon Empire.

      The Klingon's stole some of the genetic material from the original hijacked ship (after it was destroyed by Enterprise some containers escaped unscathed that had embryo's the Super Human's were carrying) and started to create Super Klingon's. However, they couldn't separate the Human DNA. Any Klingon made "Super" lost their ridges and other distinctive "Klingon Features".

      To make matters worse, a virus infected the Supers and spread to normal Klingon's infecting a good amount of the empire. The virus carried genetic material, which supplanted this human DNA into regular Klingon's. The Klingon's were going to destroy every planet with the disease until the captured Enterprise Doctor, Flox, came up with a cure to the virus -- at gunpoint of one of the factions of Klingons.
      In the end, the Klingon's stopped destroying infected worlds because the infection had been neutralized, but a large number of Klingon's were now Human/Klingon hybrids.

      That was done in Enterprise to explain the Human looking Klingons in the TOS.

      ..really, I am not a geek. I prefer "nerd"

    71. Re:Travesty? by idontgno · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now my inner pedant is scowling bitterly at my epic fail at word usage: s/profession/professing/

      Damn. Now I have to find a way to make my inner pedant smile again.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    72. Re:Travesty? by Knara · · Score: 1

      Well it certainly could be better than Nemesis and Insurrection, neither of which were very strong movies (but Nemesis had some pretty hot starship-on-starship action, if you ignore the stupid ending). I have no problem with that.

      Enterprise suffered from the same problem as Voyager. Great story idea, horrible writing (and in the case of Voyager, Kate Mulgrew as Janeway was a horrible, horrible casting choice -- that series SHINES when she's not onscreen pulling it down).

      Don't even get me started on the Borg. They were the most bad-ass villains in popular science fiction in the last 30 years until First Contact, when they got turned into bees that forgot how to time travel for a while.. until they remembered... and then forgot how to be bad guys.

    73. Re:Travesty? by Knara · · Score: 1

      There weren't a ton of TAS episodes, IIRC, so wouldn't surprise me. They're not considered canon anyway (which is all but meaningless at this point, I realize), AFAIK.

    74. Re:Travesty? by Maserati · · Score: 1

      The last word on the Kirk-Spock thing:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    75. Re:Travesty? by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Oops! I guess that'll teach me to proofread my work. :)

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    76. Re:Travesty? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, I think you are partially correct. There was definitely a "Ming the Merciless" look in TOS Klingons, and Ming in turn was just Fu Manchu with space ships.

      But the Klingons were depicted has having considerable technological capability. TOS Klingons are war-like, but the warrior culture thing was much more of a TNG graft. The race was rehabilitated, made into a kind of race of spacefaring Vikings, and so became a lot more interesting.

      TOS Klingons engaged in violence, not for personal honor, but political reasons. In "Errand of Mercy" the commander orders mass executions, They are brutal, devious and without much principle other than advancing the power and scope of their empire. This always struck me as consistent with the American views on the Soviets, so much so that it could hardly be a coincidence.

      In any case, I was also struck by the Vulcan/Romulan pairing. The Chinese, back then, came in two flavors.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    77. Re:Travesty? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I thought it was only the group that took the modification.. so they couldn't go home and after Enterprise the Klingons were about to decend into war from being civilized. So the ones Kurk met were outcasts.

      Later the guy who was trying to build perfect humans decided to try robot humans instead... it would take a few lifetimes. (and his children would look remarkably like him!)

    78. Re:Travesty? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I liked the fact that he was a criminal, but only because he had a plan to rescue the "clones" that had been put on ice since the war. They were decaying and while the "civilized" world wouldn't kill them, they wouldn't allow them to be born.. so they were just leaving them to genetic decay of the ages.

    79. Re:Travesty? by PacoCheezdom · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Neither, sir. 1920s gangsters."

    80. Re:Travesty? by glavenoid · · Score: 1

      Ohhh, them's fightin' words, bubba. ;-)

      --
      I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable /. beta rollout fallout.
    81. Re:Travesty? by feyhunde · · Score: 1

      http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Koloth2269.jpg From the Animated series, they look pretty much like the regular series Klingon.

      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    82. Re:Travesty? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides which, the whole Klingon language thing has gotten too ridiculous. The linguist they hired to invent the language actually tried to make the psychology behind the language truly alien. So he did things like not have words for "hello" or "goodbye". I actually heard an interview with him where he explained that Klingons don't believe in courtesy, and just start and end interactions without ceremony.

      This was completely forgotten by the time TNG came out. I guess they decided that aliens acting alien was too subtle for a TV audience. So they decided that Klingons greet each other with "Qapla'!" Officially, that means "Success!" but I suspect it really means "Fuck off, patronizing bald guy!"

      But what's really lame is the project to translate Shakespeare into Klingon, based solely on a stupid Cold War reference (one of many) in that Kirk-is-Nixon movie.

      tlhap yIn!

    83. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      The actual cannon is, I believe, that the growths...

      [my emphasis]
      I don't think that word means what you seem to think it means....

      Maybe you were looking for canon, instead of looking for a single artillery piece.

      Some days it just does not pay to be a pedant on /.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    84. Re:Travesty? by Megane · · Score: 1

      There was a rumor back in the '90s that they were going to make a Star Trek prequel about the crew's days at the academy. This movie is obviously the fulfillment of that idea. But what had the fans really pissed off back then was the further rumor that it was going to be a Starfleet Academy movie in the Police Academy flavor of "academy".

      I haven't seen much to like so far from the TV commercial trailers. Just a bunch of people crashing cars and blowing shit up. Which doesn't really sound much like Star Trek to me. Star Trek was about taking science fiction seriously, not cookie-cutter Buck Rogers* space opera.

      I've just spent all week re-watching the original six movies (not because of the new movie; this is just when I finally got around to watching the box set I got four or so years ago), and you know what? I think SF movies were better back in the days when people had to work to make special effects with mattes and models and optical printers. Now that they can do all sorts of special effects on computer, there's no budget restraints to keep the movie makers from using films as nothing more than an excuse to cram in as many explosions and flashy shit as they can, instead of plot and characterization.

      * I mean the black & white Buck Rogers, of course. I really liked the first season of the Gil Gerard version. But the second season was lame. I wanted more Princess Ardala, not some poor two-dimensional clone of Star Trek.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    85. Re:Travesty? by Facegarden · · Score: 1

      The actual cannon is, I believe....

      It's canon.

      Lets not get carried away with fictional languages and worlds until we have a reasonable understanding of our own.

      http://www.answers.com/topic/canon-fiction

      -Taylor

      --
      Worldwide Military budgets: $2100 billion. Worldwide Space Exploration budgets: $38 billion. Really, world? Really?
    86. Re:Travesty? by Insanity+Defense · · Score: 1

      Scotty the eco-terrorist.

    87. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think both of you are 'right', but limited. We would have to ask Gene Roddenberry to be sure, though.

      At the time(1966) of ST: TOS, tensions in world politics were high.(saying that looking at today sounds silly, but...)
      The Cold War was simmering nicely with the USSR, while China was isolationist, but probing Western markets, we(USA) were looking at Vietnam(with both Soviet and Chinese support), etc...

      The 'Space Mongol' scenario just played on this to avoid political/diplomatic finger-pointing. (Buck Rogers vs. Ming the Merciless, etc.)
      We indemnify that we don't understand or accept(usually related), so we 'needed' a common cause to rally around for the 'betterment' of mankind.(read: become more like US[A] to be non-threatening)
      Something else we are neglecting in this specific discussion are the Romulans. Who did they represent? And their 'cousins', the Vulcans?
      For this discussion we should bring them both into the picture, IMHO.

      I think that was Gene's intention. In hi own way, he was trying to get us used to the idea that 'National Borders/Politics' were less important than mankind as a whole. It may have been naive, but at least understandable by reasonable people that were fed up with the whole 'Cold War' thing impinging on space exploration.

      Take all of that with a grain of salt, but having seen/read interviews featuring G.R., I will stand by my speculations.
      I have mentioned this years ago(and thus cannot track down the post), but the 'launching' of Star Trek was treated as a big deal in NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center community.
      The Premier was greeted with dinner parties galore. My family attended one of these hosted by a senior director of NTTF**/Goddard at his home. It was treated as a 'Big Deal' in the Goddard community...a way to tie-in what NASA was doing for us as a species...helping the ST:TOS world become a reality.

      **NTTF==Network Test and Training Facility. I worked there as a High school senior, in the Logistics Dept. on the 'graveyard shift' in 1976-77, playing 'baseball'(text-based), and blackjack on NASA's mainframes! ten years after Star Trek was aired.

      Looking at your /. UID, I'll resist the 'get off my lawn' speech here, and just get the fsck off of yours!...:-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    88. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude!
      Kirk went after/banged anything presented as female, and would fight at the drop of a jimmy-hat!

    89. Re:Travesty? by Naedst · · Score: 1

      I've seen the movie and I didn't think it was any more violent than previous Star Trek movies. And I wouldn't get worried about too many sex scenes.

      The movie was great though, speaking from a fan but not uber-fan perspective. Highly recommend it.

    90. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Hear! Hear!

      I repeat:
      Hear! Hear!

      If you did not experience that part of history, then you cannot grasp the nuances.
      Star Trek: TOS==1966

      Can you remember what the mid-latter 1960's were like?
      If not, you are just speculating and gathering navel lint. If you were 'experienced'(thanks, Jimi H.), 'then you know I am', and so is 'hey!(33014)'.
      I will vouch for that...WORD!(translate that as 'Right On, Man!)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    91. Re:Travesty? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      The Chinese, back then, came in two flavors.

      Sweet and sour?

      Sorry. I just couldn't resist.

    92. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      My estimation of you as a 'manly man' just jumped dramatically!

      Okay, all sarcasm aside, I do respect that admission a lot...either two LOC's, or at least 3 parsecs in a hogshead per kilometer worth of respect.

      Okay, really, really all sarcasm aside, You did just gain some respect with me, for whatever that may be worth[less] to you. :-)

      P.S. Don't sweat it...the dumbfsck's will be bemused, contest it, pedantify it, and the rest of us will laugh it off, and move on like you did!

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    93. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the actual cannon goes KABOOM. At least according to canon.

    94. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Kirk broke that directive damn near every week!

      Or, as my wife likes to say: "Captain Kirk 'tap-danced' through the 'Prime Directive' in Stiletto Heels, with a smile.

      (yes, I am married, and my wife* is a 'Trekkie'. Life is good!)

      *Yes, she is a female of my own species! But I will not claim understanding of said females of my species...

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    95. Re:Travesty? by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Damn straight, a proper geek would never abuse apostrophes so much.

    96. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well let's be perfectly honest here. The Klingons gave some teeth to a show which was rather lame by today's standards, the attempts at philosophy notwithstanding. Klingons bring us back to our barbarian roots. Did you really not notice how popular they are? And this movie going back to the beginning sure isn't going to be about exploring the "unknown" when it's a hundred years behind in the timeline.

    97. Re:Travesty? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      ...I am always up for some sex and violence!

      So that's where you've gotten to, droogie?
      How 'bout some 'ultraviolence' to go with that? :-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    98. Re:Travesty? by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      Weren't the Klingons in TOS basically just bad-tempered humans? They didn't develop the weird growths on their foreheads until much later.

      We don't discuss that with outsiders.

    99. Re:Travesty? by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed the first Craig-as-007 movie, but it felt like I was watching Transporter 2 or Bourne Identity. The spectacle was there, the action was there, but the 007 character had left the building. In its place there was this Cro-Magnon fighting machine, particularly in Quantum of Solace. I'm not looking forward to seeing this done to the Trek characters that have been a part of my life for over thirty years now.

    100. Re:Travesty? by retchdog · · Score: 1

      That episode was re-done in 2009 terms:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uxTpyCdriY

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    101. Re:Travesty? by nicodoggie · · Score: 1

      Showing penetration? you know this isn't the actual up and coming movie, right?

    102. Re:Travesty? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Muphry's law (sic) at its best.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    103. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen it. That stuff is just advertising. It's surprisingly Trek.

    104. Re:Travesty? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem was that Roddenberry lost control. Now I'll admit, to some extent, that he deserved it after the Motionless Picture debacle (though the movie still made money), but for all the jostling that guys like Shatner like to make as to their importance, everyone pretty much acknowledges that the whole thing was his baby. Things were questionable to some extent while he was the executive consultant, though you could still feel his influence during much of TNG. But after he died, Brennan and Braga basically raped his creation, turning into it a technobabble mockery, the moral tales of ToS, and some extent TNG, simplified into idiotic and repetitive cliches.

      Maybe Abram will screw it up, but he can't make it any worse than the last decade of Trek.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    105. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NERRRRRRRRRDDDDDSSSSSS!!!!!!

    106. Re:Travesty? by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      this was network television with sensors

      Sir, we have ABC off the starboard bow. Shall I fire photon torpedoes?

    107. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was there, but it wasn't the centerpiece. The sex and violence is all we've seen of the new movie, however... which is a worrisome indication that maybe that's all there is to this movie.

      They're putting the sex and violence in the trailers so that people under 20 will come to see it even though Star Trek has been boring for their whole lives. Us old folks (30 and up) will go to see it no matter what's in the trailer, so why bother aiming it at us?

    108. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The one profession great concern for canon misspelled it

      Your inner pendant is showing. Very professional.

    109. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All we've seen is a few trailers. What do you expect them to show?

      Klingons... :(

    110. Re:Travesty? by taucross · · Score: 1

      WELSSSSSHHHHYYYYY@!#@$

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    111. Re:Travesty? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      What do you expect them to show?

      Not Kirk driving a 300-year-old Corvette off a cliff for no apparent reason, that's for sure!

      Also, a hint of plot would have been nice.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    112. Re:Travesty? by ildon · · Score: 1

      They were basically just a poorly fleshed out analogue for the Soviet Union.

      This is the important part people keep forgetting about. It's also why they had to be reinvented for TNG, becoming buddies with the Federation.

    113. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main problem is that in the last 40 years the number of movies made about space exploration, where exploration means exploration and not shooting aliens every 30 seconds, is exactly zero. The "exploration" as showed in TOS, TNG and all Trek movies is laughable at best; it simply pales if compared with every damn space exploration novel written in the 50s or early 60s.
      Sadly the truth is that today nobody can write a good true space exploration plot, make a movie out of it and expect it to sell. Cinema must sell a lot, and in order to sell a lot you must put what most people want: sex, racing cars and guns, lots of guns.
      The positive aspect of today sucking SF movies is that they made me rediscover books.

    114. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People keep saying it's a reboot. It's not. It's a time travel story. Abrams specifically said he felt a reboot would be disrespectful. Why do you think Nimoy is in the movie as old Spock?

    115. Re:Travesty? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      This always struck me as consistent with the American views on the Soviets, so much so that it could hardly be a coincidence.

      Definitely not a coincidence. There's also an episode where the Federation and the Klingons are fighting a proxy war in a blatant parody of US/Soviet Cold War actions in third world nations.

      The Romulans... you may be stretching things there, but then, the Romulans are so sparse in TOS it's hard to be sure. Mostly the episode where they show up is one of several that takes a dig at racist notions, played out as more ignorant crewmembers treating Spock differently because of how he looks.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    116. Re:Travesty? by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      You're right, although in a couple of places you're falling into the false dilemma trap that the original poster was clearly caught in; the false dilemma in this case being the illogical assertion that a show has to choose between action and character development. You cite Wrath of Khan, which is a wonderful example since it was one of the movies richest in both.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    117. Re:Travesty? by Donkey_Hotey · · Score: 1

      I remember a few years back James Doohan explained that it was some sort of allergic reaction to the tribbles he beamed over...

      --
      (There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
    118. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kang and Koloth are hardly the same note. How far afield need they have gone in the casting department -- Charles Nelson Reilly? Jim Nabors? Paul Lynde?

      Okay, I'd have paid money to see that.

    119. Re:Travesty? by professionalfurryele · · Score: 1

      I found it to be just the opposite. The episode where Riker joins a Klingon ship as first officer for instance. I viewed that episodes central theme as a very right of centre 'When in Rome' message. Riker doesn't try to export or maintain Federation culture and ideals for his stay (at one point he brutally beats another officer for merely questioning the wisdom of his presence).

      The entire episode seemed to have the message that to succeed in a foreign culture it is necessary to embrace it.

      In many ways the The Next Generation Klingons represent a glorification of the best ideals of the right. The are big on both personal responsibility, discipline and a strong absolute morality.

      If anything I would say that the Klingon of The Next Generation represent an idealised form of conservatism. This is maintained in stark contrast the the idealised left that the Federation represents, and most interestingly these two distinct political ideologies are able to get along by embracing the best of each other when they have to work together.

      This also allows the series to examine the worst aspects of these two extremes. Klingon justice is harsh, and often arbitrary, while the Federation allows it's mortal enemies respite on more than one occasion.

      Viewed from this perspective the reason the Klingons have an alien culture and alien ideals is because the shows viewers are overwhelmingly liberal. The right might just as well be aliens to many on the left. So they are given an alien culture and religion (one based as you suggest largely on Eastern culture since that would be the most alien to a Western viewer).

      Just my interpretation, I'm sure it isn't what the writers of the show intended but that was the message I took home.

    120. Re:Travesty? by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      MightyMartian wrote:

      I agree. This is, after all, a REBOOT. That means a lot of the cruft from about thirty years of post-ToS development is being dispensed with, and that's fine by me. This is meant to rejuvenate a series that had pretty much become one monstrous cliche of itself. If there's one thing ToS had that, over time, the later series lacked, it was solid, straightforward storytelling. Everything was burdened down by the vast edifice of Everything-That-Had-Come-Before. The last two attempts, the dull Voyager and the increasingly-pathetic Enterprise, showed just how uninteresting it had all become.

      The Trouble With Tribbles was just fine with Klingons speaking English, thank you very much. In fact, and so will this.

      I think that starting over is the key. From what I've picked up, this movie is starting from scratch and nothing we've seen previously will count. This gives the new team the freedom to take the series in a new direction, without being bogged down with having to deal any of the already-existing stories.

      One thing I that has been overlooked is that when the Original Series was done, I doubt much thought was given to the possibility that writers would have to live with these stories over 40 years later. Added to the fact that the limitations of television further prevented the writers from doing stories they'd like to do. Although I was doubtful about the new movie when I first heard about it, I find that I'm looking forward to it.

      I think one of the biggest mistakes that the new Star Trek could make is to simply tell the same stories over again. Unlike the Original Series (which had much already established even if we hadn't yet seen it), it appears that this movie will start at the beginning. It is possible that the reason the Klingons don't appear in the new movie is that the Federation hasn't encountered them (yet). It could be that the first time we see the Klingons is during a full-out war with the Federation (how that happened, now there's a story).

    121. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and in the days they are depicting in the movie, the only real conflict was with the romulans... there are two great romulan wars...

      I will be happy as long as it's better than when Picard got time powers.

    122. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nazi or cowboy?"

      "I don't know, but the ship hailing us identifies itself as 'Serenity.' "

    123. Re:Travesty? by optimus2861 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All DS9 had to do, was make Worf look like a TOS-era Klingon, and have the other characters in the show not even notice the difference. Just exchange a couple of odd looks, perhaps coupled with a small joke along the lines of, "Did he cut his hair?" Then when they return to DS9's present, Worf is back to his fully-made-up self, and again, nobody sees the difference.

      Much of the episode was played for humor in the first place, I don't know why they didn't go there for the Klingon make-up.

    124. Re:Travesty? by TractorBarry · · Score: 1

      I thought those lumps were just the actors lunch time Cornish Pasty which they took to carrying round on their foreheads due to them previously getting stolen from their lockers.

      --
      Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
    125. Re:Travesty? by geobeck · · Score: 1

      True, but a lot of the Berman Trek episodes seemed to have so much character development and political analysis, the only way you knew you were in space was the starfield shown through the windows. They needed more action; more rogue Klingons, more Borg, and just shoot the bloody Romulans instead of sitting around all day talking to them!

      On the other hand, with budgets being what they were, the more battle-intensive episodes they made, the more Data's Humanity episodes they needed to compensate.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    126. Re:Travesty? by sorak · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree with DNS-and-BIND. The Klingons are about as far from communist as you can get. I imagine the Klingon empire would have a shitty welfare system.

    127. Re:Travesty? by sorak · · Score: 1

      ummm...it was one of those rapid cures. They gave him a vaccine, ran him through the transporter a couple of times (because that cures all genetic defects), rubbed some proactive cream on his head (which ironically seems to make Jessica Simpson look like a Klingon, in the commercials), and blammo, he was cured...

    128. Re:Travesty? by sorak · · Score: 1

      "...I should really just relax"

      I miss that show.

      Don't worry. It comes on again in two hours

    129. Re:Travesty? by Raistlin99 · · Score: 1

      Well Kahless was generated as Kirk thought he should look like. Since Kirk new smooth head klingons, Kahless was a smooth headed klingon.

      --
      I/O, I/O, its off to disk I go, with a read and a write, and a bit and a byte, I/O, I/O, I/O, I/O
    130. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the pedantic forgets the -ing on his first profession, which makes me smile smugly.

    131. Re:Travesty? by jtev · · Score: 1

      Ok, you're not the first to cast the Klingons as the Soviets, and yes, there was a lot of US - Soviet drama examined as the fight between the Klingons and the Americans. But, the Klingons, the Borg, and the Ferengi were all based on aspects of America that Rodenberry didn't like. The federation was a utopian comunist society. You get less of that in the series that he didn't directly touch. Remember that Gene Rodenberry was a card carrying member of the comunist party. This isn't an attack on his work, regardless of his politics it stands as a work of art in its own right, But please, at least try to understand where the author was coming from.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    132. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, that apostrophe key?

      Until you've learned what it's used for, please, just pretend it doesn't exist.

      Seriously.

    133. Re:Travesty? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      There's a mild irony here. The one profession' great concern for spelling misspelled professing.

    134. Re:Travesty? by JerryLove · · Score: 1

      Those growths are why the Klingons are called clit-heads, or vulva-faces. Without those features, the Klingons wouldn't have any personality or geek popularity at all.

      A Trekker would recognize those body parts?!?

    135. Re:Travesty? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but from the TNG era onward they were just "Space Vikings."

    136. Re:Travesty? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      The wife and I were talking about that just yesterday. We both agreed that unfortunately based on the trailers that Star Trek has gone EXTREME!!!!1!one!1!. I hope that it is Paramount's marketing idiots that are just picking the exciting parts and making a Non-Trek fan trailer out of them, but based on J.J. Abrams other work, this movie may just be all hat and no cattle.

    137. Re:Travesty? by mrdoogee · · Score: 1

      I always thought it looked like a soundstage in Burbank.

    138. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a side effect of being hit in the head with an inverse tachyon pulse from a modified navigational deflector?

    139. Re:Travesty? by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      Damn. Now I have to find a way to make my inner pedant smile again.

      You could find some little kid to molest.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    140. Re:Travesty? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      They're renting episodes as movies on iTunes. Just turned my kid into a mistie last weekend.

      "Werewolf!"

    141. Re:Travesty? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      While I think their take on it was humorous, actually, yours is much superior. That would have been great.

    142. Re:Travesty? by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      The Romulans are the Japanese. Offshoot of the older race separated by isolation.

    143. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Chinese, back then, came in two flavors.

      Sweet and sour?

      Sorry. I just couldn't resist.

      This is why /. needs a -1 fucktard mod option

    144. Re:Travesty? by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      There was spoken Klingon in the classic series? WTF? You're right, this sounds like fanboys experiencing their first period.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    145. Re:Travesty? by kahless62003 · · Score: 1

      It would be embarassing, as there is disgrace attached to being incapacitated: ropchoHbe' tlhInganpu' (Klingons do not get sick) (ref The Klingon Way p40)

    146. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of the episode was played for humor in the first place, I don't know why they didn't go there for the Klingon make-up.

      Have you ever actually seen the "Trouble with Tribble" episode? Nearly all of it was played for humor! It also had some great dialogue and delivery, see the the lead-up to the aftermath of the bar-room brawl between the Starfleet and Klingon crews. I like that episode even better than the one where Scotty "got the girl."

      As to your main point, I think it would've been a bit too much to go the "noboday notices the difference route". In-jokes and self-mockery are all well and good but that level of cognative disonance would've been too much of a distraction for much of the audience.

    147. Re:Travesty? by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      It's funny how often the unknown looked like the hills of southern California.

      Hmmm, you've got the right idea, but it needs a pinch of absurd specificity, IMO. With your indulgence, my two cents:

      It's funny how often the unknown looked like an hour's drive from Burbank, California.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    148. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Sir, we've detected a pre-warp civilization on the planet's surface!"

      "Nazi or cowboy?"

      "Neither, sir. Republican."
      *ducks*

    149. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Trouble With Tribbles was definitely the best episode of that series and some of the best interaction with the Klingons.

    150. Re:Travesty? by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      It's funny how often the unknown looked like an hour's drive from Burbank, California.

      The unknown is all well and good, as long as we can be home for dinner.

    151. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is just a fanboi snit"

      Way to sneak in an Apple reference!

    152. Re:Travesty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Kahless shown in TOS was based on an image pulled from Kirk's mind by an alien unfamiliar with either race. Better examples would have been Kor, Kang, and Koloth, all three of whom appeared smooth-headed in TOS and ridged in DS9. Given the nearly impossible task of coming up with a rational explanation for non-ridges-to-ridges Klingons, I think ENT did pretty well on that account.

  3. Let me be the first to say... by Idiomatick · · Score: 3, Funny

    qaStaH nuq jay!!!!

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by FlyingBishop · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sadly, Klingon is not an option on Google translate.

    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      ghaH Dun yIn !!!

    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      You guys have to stop posting over analog modems; either that or get better phone lines.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    4. Re:Let me be the first to say... by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      hmm maybe someone should send a message to Randall Munroe, Google has a habit of implementing his ideas.

    5. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Phroggy · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Let me be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zip Lock!

    7. Re:Let me be the first to say... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Rule 34 of the Internet lives!

  4. Re:who cares? by cashman73 · · Score: 5, Funny

    As long as they don't replace the Klingons Gungans with Jamaican accents, we're cool! ;-)

  5. Wrong place. by johanwanderer · · Score: 1

    /. is probably the wrong place to ask for such a deep and profound question.

  6. This is tribbling by get+quad · · Score: 4, Funny

    Smooth heads or bumpy?

    --
    "To err is human, to mod Funny divine."
    1. Re:This is tribbling by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Nice tribbles or bad tribbles?

    2. Re:This is tribbling by VisualStim · · Score: 1

      But see, that's the trouble with tribbles, it's hard to tell the nice ones from the bad ones.

    3. Re:This is tribbling by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Bumpy, most likely. Scroll up a bit, and you'll find that there's actually a canonical explanation for why klingons were smooth-headed in all their TOS appearances -- this is apparently an unusual situation.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    4. Re:This is tribbling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer smooth head myself

  7. And..... why should we care? by SDF-7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seems like a non-story to me. Wrath of Khan didn't have any spoken Klingon either (closest was Khan claiming the Klingon proverb: Revenge is a dish best served cold.... It is very cold, in spaaaaaaaaaaace.) I don't seriously think anyone missed it there, and while I know little of the plot of this film (intentionally, so no -- I don't want a summary) if the story doesn't really involve Klingons, no need to toss them in just to have them.

    1. Re:And..... why should we care? by Vollernurd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course followed by...

      "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!"

      Always gotta love that bit.

      --
      Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    2. Re:And..... why should we care? by evilkasper · · Score: 1

      So if the scenes were filmed you know they are going to be on some DVD extra feature. So whats the big deal?

    3. Re:And..... why should we care? by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seems like a non-story to me. Wrath of Khan didn't have any spoken Klingon either (closest was Khan claiming the Klingon proverb: Revenge is a dish best served cold.... It is very cold, in spaaaaaaaaaaace.)

      Since the Klingon language (tlhIngan Hol), as such (that is, having an actual grammar rather than just a handful of words) was created for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, this is not all that surprising. OTOH, its been used pretty heavily in the movies (and, to a lesser extent, series) since that, though I can't see why anyone would complain about it not being used in a new film (I can see, perhaps, complaining if Klingon's were talking in what was supposed to be "Klingon" but it wasn't tlhIngan Hol, particularly if there was no in-setting justification, but that's a different issue.)

    4. Re:And..... why should we care? by BenSchuarmer · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Klingon language (and forehead bumps) where introduced in the first movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture).

      There was a scene at the beginning where some Klingon ships were run over by V'ger.

    5. Re:And..... why should we care? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Of course followed by...

      "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!"

      Always gotta love that bit.

      No, no, you've got it all wrong.

      "Khan!" came after "I will leave you as you left me - as you left her, marooned on a dead world, buried alive" etc.

      The "Klingon proverb" bit came earlier, I believe - I think it was bridge chatter on the Reliant.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    6. Re:And..... why should we care? by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the Klingon language (and forehead bumps) where introduced in the first movie (Star Trek: The Motion Picture).

      There were a couple of words of Klingon used in ST:TMP, but there was no language (there was no grammar, and the only words in the vocabulary were those used in the scene.) It wasn't a language until the grammar and vastly expanded vocabulary was created for ST3:TSFS.

      Which is why I said, in GP, "the Klingon language (tlhIngan Hol), as such (that is, having an actual grammar rather than just a handful of words) was created for Star Trek III: The Search for Spock".

    7. Re:And..... why should we care? by chelsel · · Score: 1

      this is obviously being done in preparation for the "Ultimate Director's Cut including all original Klingon Dialog" Blu-Ray Box Set. duh!

    8. Re:And..... why should we care? by ildon · · Score: 1

      How come Klingons are only allowed to have one language but Earthicans are allowed to have like 1000?

    9. Re:And..... why should we care? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it's not like it was created from scratch. A lot of it, the grammar especially, was taken from a dead Native American language. This was mostly because one of the writers for the show had done his Phd Thesis on that language.

    10. Re:And..... why should we care? by Mordaximus · · Score: 1
      Seems like a non-story to me. Wrath of Khan didn't have any spoken Klingon either...

      Well, the obvious reason for that is there were no scenes with klingons to speak it in Wrath of Khan. There was no spoken latin either, for similar reasons. The big objection is that Klingons (the species) were removed from the movie along with their language when the only scene with them in it was cut. Both the summary, and the only slightly more wordy "article" touch on the fact.

      P.S. I will NOT turn in my geek card. There were Klingon ships in the Kobiyashi simulation at the beginning of the film, but they don't speak klingon much anyway.

    11. Re:And..... why should we care? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      How come Klingons are only allowed to have one language but Earthicans are allowed to have like 1000?

      Because "Humans are Special."

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  8. Armageddon by spun · · Score: 0, Troll

    Abrams sucks. This Trek will suck. I don't care about the Klingons, but from the ads I've seen, Abrams has worked his usual turdomancy on the franchise, turning a Sci-Fi gem into a steaming pile of Blockbuster Action Flick.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Armageddon by Hellpop · · Score: 1

      Abrams is a petaQ! What would you expect from a ko'tal like him anyway?

      --
      "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."
    2. Re:Armageddon by lucif3r · · Score: 1

      Abrams sucks. This Trek will suck.

      Wow this is some really deep and thoughtful stuff here.

      Personally, I haven't seen anything Trek lately that I would call a "Sci-Fi gem". I say let Abrams have his shot, its not like Franks was doing anything revolutionary with it, and lets not even start on Braga Let's hope Abrams can breath some life into what appears to have been allowed to become a dead franchise.

    3. Re:Armageddon by idontgno · · Score: 1

      Well, at least it's not Uwe Boll. We can be grateful for that.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    4. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I grew up cutting my teeth on the original star trek movies, I have a hard time completely blaming Abrams if this movie sucks. Considering the raping they did to other movie franchises of my childhood, I have low expectations.
      With or without klingons, this reboot is a really bad idea. If it sucks everyone is left with a bad taste in their mouth, if it is popular enough to warrant a sequel (which it will with all the explosions and T&A I saw in the trailer) we will be completely subjected to a rewriting. I don't want another bad ass villain turned to whinny mamma's boy a la Darth Vader.
      Please for the love of Trek burn down any theater that is going to show this movie!

    5. Re:Armageddon by spun · · Score: 3, Funny

      And a kick in the nuts isn't brain cancer, either. Doesn't mean we need to be grateful for a kick in the nuts. Yes, I'm aware that I just compared Uwe Boll to brain cancer, but it's not like cancer can take offense.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw an advance screening of this last night. I was unenthused going in because of the ads. I was VERY surprised by the quality of the film. This Is A Good Star Trek Movie.

    7. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh seriously get off your high-horse and STFU. Oh let me guess, you want to appear to be an elitist purist?

      Seriously, has there been a good Trek movie since First Contact? Nemesis was God-Awful, but what more can you expect from those fucking retards Berman and Bragga.

      Give this movie a chance instead of sitting there pontificating without even seeing the freaking movie.

    8. Re:Armageddon by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Abrams is a petaQ!

      Hmmm... computergeek(me)>trekgeek(me). When I saw the word "petaQ", I read it as peta Q (as in 10^15 times John de Lancie's character)

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:Armageddon by wertarbyte · · Score: 1

      I wished Michael Bay did it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRS90V8BQGo

      --
      Life is just nature's way of keeping meat fresh.
    10. Re:Armageddon by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I suspect, but can't tell for sure, that you may be thinking of Michael Bay (Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, Transformers), not JJ Abrams (Alias)

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    11. Re:Armageddon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    12. Re:Armageddon by morcego · · Score: 1

      ... or Uwe Boll can evolve.

      --
      morcego
    13. Re:Armageddon by CheshireFerk-o · · Score: 0

      ah yes the prequel sequel, i wonder who our jar-jar binks shall be, if it wasnt Data or Q or Quark... o goddamn what have we done&^%$@#$

  9. No big loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Saw an advance viewing. Didn't come out of it thinking omg no Klingon.

    Fanboys bitching about the lack of Star Trek, so they produced a movie and the first thing they do is Bitch about it.

    1. Re:No big loss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Fanboys bitching about the lack of Star Trek, so they produced a movie and the first thing they do is Bitch about it.

      You must be new here.

    2. Re:No big loss by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      of course it does have time travel... which should be shot dead and declared illegal by the sci-fi police.

    3. Re:No big loss by genner · · Score: 1

      of course it does have time travel... which should be shot dead and declared illegal by the sci-fi police.

      You mean the office of temporal affairs?

  10. Time goes on by dk90406 · · Score: 5, Funny
    No need to kling on to old plot devices.

    Argh - can't believe I just wrote that.

    1. Re:Time goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great post!

    2. Re:Time goes on by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh, and here I was reading the headline and thinking "Shouldn't that say 'Klingons Wiped From Final Star Trek movie'?"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:Time goes on by spuke4000 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of a joke:

      Q: Why is toilet paper like the Starship Enterprise?
      A: They both circle around Uranus wiping out Klingons.

      --
      This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
    4. Re:Time goes on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: What did Spock find in the toilet?

      A: Captain's log.

  11. Frakkin' Federation by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Ok, what's the translation of "Frakkin' Federation" from Klingon to English?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Frakkin' Federation by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

      In English, it works out to something like "Smegging Hell".

      (yes, I know I just added another unrelated series in for the joke; you may hate me at your convenience)

      --
      Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    2. Re:Frakkin' Federation by Ken+Broadfoot · · Score: 1

      I would love for the new Star Trek crew to run smack into the Red Dwarf. Who needs Klingons when you have Lister?

      --
      Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
    3. Re:Frakkin' Federation by Ragzouken · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't know the difference if he was suffering with Space Mumps at the time.

  12. Bah... by Etrias · · Score: 4, Funny

    Funny how all of the swearing is following the BSG meme then. Frakking? Really? I would expect no less than a double dumbass on you!

    1. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the smeg cares?

    2. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well played! :)

    3. Re:Bah... by feyhunde · · Score: 0

      I frelling don't.

      --
      I'd say more, but my guild is raiding.
    4. Re:Bah... by Etrias · · Score: 1

      Really, any colorful metaphor would have worked.

      And that's colourful metaphor for those across the pond can grok what I'm saying.

    5. Re:Bah... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1

      No points for a Sluggy Freelance reference? This place HAS gone downhill...

    6. Re:Bah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how all of the swearing is following the BSG meme then. Frakking? Really? I would expect no less than a double dumbass on you!

      No frelling way!!

    7. Re:Bah... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Shazbot!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    8. Re:Bah... by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      Shazbot!

      You are old... :p

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    9. Re:Bah... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I'm old before my time. Only 33 and the songs I grew up listening to (80's rock) are on the oldies stations, TV shows I remember watching as a kid are referred to as Classic TV, and I've begun referring to teenagers as "kids these days..." I think I'll go buy a rocking chair to better protect my lawn. ;-)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  13. No Klingon in the TOS Either... by tjstork · · Score: 2, Informative

    In fact, I do believe that one of the Klingons in the TOS was actually John Colicos. He spoke Melodrama, not Klingon.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:No Klingon in the TOS Either... by jt418-93 · · Score: 1

      colicos makes appearances on ds9 as well. in the episode with kahyless.
      one of my fave sci-fi guys too

      --
      -.no
    2. Re:No Klingon in the TOS Either... by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 1

      His episodes were... glorious

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    3. Re:No Klingon in the TOS Either... by tcolberg · · Score: 1

      Three appearances on DS9 in fact: "Blood Oath", "The Sword of Kahless", and "Once More Unto the Breach".

    4. Re:No Klingon in the TOS Either... by tjstork · · Score: 1

      "Once More Unto the Breach" is actually one of my favorite DS9 episodes. Colicos was magnificent in that role.

      --
      This is my sig.
  14. Patience please by CaptScarlet22 · · Score: 1

    Just wait for the sequel, it will be all about the Klingons.

    Nice marketing strategy there.

    --
    It's left blank because I have nothing to say to you punks!
  15. It keeps getting worse! by jollyreaper · · Score: 5, Funny

    I heard Tom Bombadil isn't even in this one!

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
    1. Re:It keeps getting worse! by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      They left out the giant squid monster.

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    2. Re:It keeps getting worse! by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      There goes my fan fiction of hot Bombadil on Worf action.

    3. Re:It keeps getting worse! by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      That's okay. I heard Ripley might show up towards the end, when they blow up the Enterprise and Kirk dies.

    4. Re:It keeps getting worse! by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, but Nimoy will have a cameo to sing about Bilbo Baggins.

      --
      That is all.
    5. Re:It keeps getting worse! by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Does Kirk shoot the giant squid with organic web shooters? And I bet they get Radioactive Man's origin story all wrong! And they cast Daniel Craig as both Good Hitler and Space Hitler! Don't they know he is blond!

      http://www.goats.com/archive/050315.html

      (check out goats for the Space Hitler reference)

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    6. Re:It keeps getting worse! by Enderandrew · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    7. Re:It keeps getting worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh if only I had a hammer

    8. Re:It keeps getting worse! by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      That's okay. I heard Ripley might show up towards the end, when they blow up the Enterprise and Kirk dies. ... and then T. J. Hooker sits up in bed and exclaims, "You wouldn't believe the dream I had..."

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    9. Re:It keeps getting worse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but Nimoy will have a cameo to sing about Bilbo Baggins.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQtyJZhV2lQ

  16. Spider-Man 3 by XanC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everybody complained that Spider-Man 3 tried to cram too many different characters and plots together. Chill out! This is but the first in a new series of films. There will be plenty of time for Klingons.

    1. Re:Spider-Man 3 by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      Everybody claimed that Spiderman 3 sucked.

    2. Re:Spider-Man 3 by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      SydShamino's rule for superhero movie scripts:
      Increase the villain count by one for each sequel. Increase the sidekick/ally count by one every other sequel. When either count grows unmanageable, reboot!

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    3. Re:Spider-Man 3 by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      Everybody complained that Spider-Man 3 tried to cram too many different characters and plots together.

      I'd say they're probably right. It's just the part where the fans angsty about that is when they're taking it too seriously.

    4. Re:Spider-Man 3 by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Everybody claimed that Spiderman 3 sucked.

      Were they wrong?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Spider-Man 3 by cptnapalm · · Score: 1

      It was a rare thing, really. An entire planetful of people crying out, "This sucks!" and, lo!, they were right.

    6. Re:Spider-Man 3 by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I don't think "Spider-Man 3" sucked, although I agree about the criticism of cramming too many characters into it. The worst Marvel movie of the "modern era" (i.e., everything since "Spider-Man") had to have been "X-Men 3"... and yes I'm including the first Hulk movie in that (although not "Elektra" and "Ghost Rider" since I didn't see them).

      They took possibly the best superhero story I ever read and turned into a huge incoherent mess of a movie that deviated substantially from the original story for no reason whatsoever. It wasn't done for dramatic effect and it made the story just plain suck. Whereas in the books Jean Grey was a character you'd grown to love over the years, and who became much more interesting (and a little scary) after her transformation into Phoenix (no, I don't play retcon games, I interpret the story as written)... in the movie she was just another computer sprite who needed to be offed so we could get to the closing credits.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    7. Re:Spider-Man 3 by Stevecrox · · Score: 1

      No Spiderman 3 sucked for entirely different reasons. The following thoughts occured while I was bored stiff in the cinema watching it.

      If you take out the whole Harry forgetting his memory and the Harry/Mary Jane subplot you could have saved 40 minutes of the movie which have been put to good use.

      Secondly the film spent ages trying to be a poor romantic drama in places. Its supposed to be a cartoon adventure film, in depth emotional interaction is over the top you could have halved the romantic stuff and still told a reasonable story. As it stands it half an attempt and appreciated by nobody.

      The basic story was good but the actual sub plots and direction sucked horribly. Because of the above two things they had zero time to develop any of the bad guys.

    8. Re:Spider-Man 3 by jackbird · · Score: 1

      I can vouch for Elektra and Ghost Rider both being fucking horrible. Good job on not seeing them.

    9. Re:Spider-Man 3 by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I kind of guess, although one of my kids saw "Ghost Rider" and liked it, so I put it on my Netflix. I'll still give it a spin. I'm curious to see if there's ever going be a movie with Nicholas Cage in it that I like.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    10. Re:Spider-Man 3 by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Wild At Heart is pretty good.

  17. The First Rule of being a Fanboi! by CFTM · · Score: 1

    Thou shalt complain about all new content to prove the veracity of thy fanboiness!

  18. Missing Klingon dialect by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    We actually had a sequence that ended up getting cut from the movie that took place on Rura Penthe, in a Klingon prison,

    So, how do you say "Bend over, you're my bitch now!" in Klingon, anyway? Did they abandon this scene because it was too much like This Ain't Star Trek XXX, and they were afraid they would get sued?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Actually, wasn't Kirk in Rura Penthe in Star Trek VI? And I don't recall any klingon-on-federation action, so I don't see why this would be any different.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    2. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      "So, how do you say "Bend over, you're my bitch now!" in Klingon, anyway? "

      "Hello, I'm Capt' Kirk."

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by Knara · · Score: 1

      Yes, they were sent there in Undiscovered Country. The last *good* Star Trek movie (directed by Nicholas Meyer, no less).

      How Meyer could write both Wrath of Khan AND the snoozefest that was "The Day After", I do not know.

    4. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You have a very broad definition of 'good'

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by osu-neko · · Score: 1

      How Meyer could write both Wrath of Khan AND the snoozefest that was "The Day After", I do not know.

      Actually, he didn't. "The Day After" was written by Edward Hume. Meyer was just the director.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    6. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I really need someone to explain why I was modded as a troll.

      Seriously, it's a damn funny response to the parent.

      Because Kirk makes all Klingons his bitch.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by kahless62003 · · Score: 1

      So, how do you say "Bend over, you're my bitch now!" in Klingon, anyway?

      Hmmm, a few possibilities spring to mind...

      yISIH'egh! DaH parmaqqaywI' SoH! (Bend yourself! Now you are my romantic conquest)
      or
      yISIH'egh! DaH SajwIj SoH! (Bend yourself! Now you are my pet)
      or
      yISIH'egh! DaH qangagh! (Bend yourself! I will mate with you now)
      Or maybe
      nuqneH, qIrq HoD jIH ('Hello', I'm Captain Kirk) }};)

    8. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a very broad definition of 'good'

      I disagree. Any movie with Christopher Llyod as a sceaming alien spouting Shakespean quotes is, IMHO, a good film.

      Similarly, any movie that has both a man sworn to avenge the death of his father and Andre the Giant is by definition not a chick flick!

    9. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You know, my initial reaction was "Translating Klingon?!? Yeah, right... that's a real marketable skill!" But as it turns out, it may actually become a marketable skill

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    10. Re:Missing Klingon dialect by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The scene with Llyod where awesome.

      The story is about a lost love, despair and the unexpected return of that love.
      Chick. Flick.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Much fresher now... by NecroPsyChroNauTron · · Score: 2, Funny

    Apparently they had difficulty making the deletion at first, but were successful with a 2nd wipe.....

  20. maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    that 13 year old boy they've got to play kirk got scared when they spoke klingon.

    I'm sorry I'm not watching a bunch of pre-pubescent twerps run around a starship, its as ludicrous as putting the Olsen Twins in charge of the USS Nimitz.

    whats with turning all these shows into showcases for poorly acting teenagers? whats next? x-men babies?

    1. Re:maybe by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      whats with turning all these shows into showcases for poorly acting teenagers? whats next? x-men babies?

      What, you think a script call for the Junior X-Men hasn't been made already?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably. and it has a new set of characters:

      Tan-Trum. Scares away evildoers by having a paddy if somebody doesn't buy him what he wants.

      Mono-Syllabic. Kills enemys with inhuman grunts and the wind generated from slamming doors.

      Itsnot-Fair. Deafens the bad guys by screaming "ITS NOT FAIR" at the top of her voice when told she can't go to a party.

    3. Re:maybe by RobDude · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe I'm missing something?

      I thought Chris Pine was the actor playing James T. Kirk. He was born in 1980. That means he's pushing 30.

      If he's still prepubescent he should probably see an endocrinologist.

    4. Re:maybe by Knara · · Score: 1

      I don't care if they are young, the only thing that really bothers me is putting them all on the Enterprise together at that age. I realize ST doesn't have a really airtight canon chronology anymore (Berman and Braga saw to that), but it's just not right.

    5. Re:maybe by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      you mean X-men: First Class?

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  21. Re:who cares? by Devout_IPUite · · Score: 1

    Here I've always found wookies to be way more annoying vocally than gungans.

  22. For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by tjstork · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you really, really, wanted to piss somebody off, they should remake the Edith Keeler episode as a feature film, but change it in some way as to really just make Harlan Ellison flip out. Have his "great work" get butchered by TWO generations of film-makers, now that would be priceless.

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by Bemopolis · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...remake the Edith Keeler episode as a feature film, but change it in some way as to really just make Harlan Ellison flip out.

      That's easy — just leave his name off it. Double points for shooting the originally submitted script. Triple points for adding the dialogue "Hello, little fuck."

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    2. Re:For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by Mr.+Beatdown · · Score: 1

      Foolscap!

      --
      My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
    3. Re:For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget the subplot where Sulu helps Scotty out with his drug-pushing problems with a unique form of 23rd century sensual massage.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just have an episode that has to do with 'historic Authors' and mention him as having made Star Wars books.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:For the NEXT Star Trek Movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're evil....EEEEEEVIL....and pretty dang funny!

  23. As CmdrTaco would put it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No Klingons. Less space than TNG. Lame.

    1. Re:As CmdrTaco would put it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he'd be more like: More dick in mouf plz! Bend me over and listen to me sing big boy!

  24. Non-issue by rnelsonee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (minor spoilers)

    I'm not a super Trekkie or anything, but I did see the movie this week, and I'm glad there's no Klingon. Hell, not only is there no Klingon speech, I didn't see a single Klingon at all. Who cares? The humans are the good guys, and they need bad guys. Since this is a fresh start, why re-hash the exact same enemies they already had in, what, 6 previous movies (just a guess, again, not a Trekkie)? I always thought the Klingons were just grumpy humanoids anyway. And AFAIK, they're been friends for nearly every TV series, so I'm not exactly fearful of their characters. Eric Bana as a really pissed off Romulan? That worked.

    1. Re:Non-issue by Knara · · Score: 2, Informative

      10 movies.

      And we already did the pissed-off-Romulan thing the movie before this one.

      Andreas Katsulas was the best Romulan, anyway.

    2. Re:Non-issue by bigjarom · · Score: 1

      6 previous movies (just a guess, again, not a Trekkie)?

      You don't have to be a trekkie to read the title of this post (XI = 11)

    3. Re:Non-issue by rnelsonee · · Score: 1

      To you and the other poster:

      I wasn't guessing there were 6 previous Star Trek movies. I was guessing there were 6 previous Star Trek movies which featured Klingons as enemies of humans.

      I'm aware of "KHAAAAAAN!" - implying Klingons were enemies at one point. I also know Picard was featured in a few, so unless Whorf is a turncoat, either the Klingons were no longer enemies in the last few movies, or life on the bridge of the Enterprise must have been *awkward*.

    4. Re:Non-issue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Joanne Linville had her moments.

    5. Re:Non-issue by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'm aware of "KHAAAAAAN!" - implying Klingons were enemies at one point.

      Khan wasn't a Klingon.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  25. What villains? by PMuse · · Score: 1

    If there are Klingons in Star Trek XI who speak to each other and don't use Klingon, that's stupid. If there are no Klingons in Star Trek XI, then complaining about the lack of spoken Klingon is stupid.

    This is officially the last Star Trek XI story I am reading until May 9.

    --
    "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    1. Re:What villains? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I work with people from India the speak English when talking to each other.

      Hell I know people who will talk in a completly made up language to help each other learn it.

      I think it's Bocce.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  26. Horrible revisionism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the klingons have been replaced with walkie-talkies!!!!

    And photon torpedoes have been replaced by quantum-Nerf!

    Stay in a galaxy far far away from this movie.

  27. They have to have... by Nyckname · · Score: 1

    something for the deluxe box set in two years. How else are they going to get us to download it a second time?

  28. Who's "up in arms"? by swein515 · · Score: 1

    Um...which fans are up in arms? The linked article isn't exactly screaming like hardcore Trekkies, nor does it link or quote fans who are "up in arms". In fact, no one really seems to care much.

    1. Re:Who's "up in arms"? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I am up in arms!

      but I work in the 'arm' department of a manikin company. The left arm division. In Omaha.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  29. bah by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 1

    Klingons are stupid, the language is stupid, their weapons are stupid, their mating habits are stupid. I never understood people getting all fascinated with that shit.

  30. Spoiler Alert by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    You're never going to believe this, but...

    *SPOILER ALERT*

    there aren't any BORG in the movie, either!

    OMG!

    1. Re:Spoiler Alert by Knara · · Score: 1

      That's okay, First Contact ruined the Borg, anyway.

    2. Re:Spoiler Alert by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      so did Enterprise.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  31. Which Klingons? by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

    If they put modern (TNG and later) Klingons in the movie, Trekkies would say "WTF! Everyone knows Klingons in the time didn't look like that". OTOH, if they used TOS Klingons, everyone would say "WTF! Everyone knows the TOS Klingons were just humans who need more prune juice".

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    1. Re:Which Klingons? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's a definitive answer. Only one small group of klingons ever looked like the TOS klingons, and it was some sort of medical condition.

      Therefore, only wannabe trekkies would be complaining about either one.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  32. Re:who cares? by xerxesVII · · Score: 5, Funny

    No kidding. Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech. He was practically incapable of whispering, and it looked like it caused him great physical discomfort to hold his tongue. I'm sure he was a good friend to have in a pinch, but sometimes you don't need your friends gargling every half-formed thought that flashes through their brains.

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
  33. ...a tale told by an idiot by dieselpawn · · Score: 1

    This movie is shaping up to be, to quote Shakespeare: "...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

  34. can't wait for the sequel- by Sternyz · · Score: 1

    because NOBODY f**ks with Data.

    1. Re:can't wait for the sequel- by kahless62003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tasha Yar?

  35. Re:who cares? by MightyMartian · · Score: 0, Troll

    CHEWIE, get that hydrospanner out of your ass, and give the droid back his lube!

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  36. Romulans??? by Bob+Hearn · · Score: 1

    What the hell are Romulans doing in this movie anyway? The first time anyone in the Federation ever saw a Romulan was after this movie is set (Balance of Terror).

    1. Re:Romulans??? by LionMage · · Score: 1

      But the Federation had a war with the Romulans in an earlier era, using more primitive weapons (some type of nuclear device). Just because nobody in the Federation had ever seen a Romulan face-to-face (or face-to-viewscreen) doesn't mean that the Federation had no prior dealings with the Romulans. There is definite dialog from Kirk and Spock, as well as other ancillary characters, from that very episode which explains all this.

      Besides, this movie is in a separate time line and a separate continuity, so you shouldn't expect the timeline of this film to correlate too closely with TOS.

    2. Re:Romulans??? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      There is a reason, but...I'm not going to spoil it for you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Romulans??? by Knara · · Score: 1

      It's a quasi-reboot. But hell, since Chronos is apparently only a few days away from Earth, as of Enterprise, what the hell does it matter anymore. Trek's been ruined for over a decade.

    4. Re:Romulans??? by genner · · Score: 1

      Besides, this movie is in a separate time line and a separate continuity, so you shouldn't expect the timeline of this film to correlate too closely with TOS.

      So the whole movie is set in the mirror universe?

    5. Re:Romulans??? by nabsltd · · Score: 1

      So the whole movie is set in the mirror universe?

      That would truly rock.

      Honestly, I'd love to see a 13 to 20 episode "miniseries" set completely in the Star Trek mirror universe. I don't think they could sustain it for more than that due to the required cast turnover ("I've got the part of captain of the Enterprise in the new Star Trek series...great...what do you mean it's only a 6-episode contract?"), but it would be a hell of a lot of fun.

  37. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by GeekZilla · · Score: 1

    "Classic era trek was all about Kirk kicking the Klingons tails."

    Classic era Trek was all about Kirk kicking EVERYONE's butts.

    (And getting the hot green chicks!)

    --
    Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
    1. Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

      Classic era Trek was all about Kirk kicking EVERYONE's butts.

      (And getting the hot green chicks!)

      That is true.

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    2. Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by hey! · · Score: 1

      As much as I admire the swashbuckling spirit of TOS, it isn't about kicking butts. It is about liberation, a specific kind of liberation that turns on this proposition: "Kirk is always right"

      Kirk never asks for advice, except to make a point of ignoring it. Kirk has effectively absolute power. He is not restrained (like a political leader would be) by having to take the advice of lesser men, even if they might have narrow technical expertise. If Kirk says fire the phasers, they fire the phasers. If he calls "General Order 24", the ship will destroy all life on a planet. Kirk has ostensible superiors, but they can't restrain him, and they don't bother because even though he flaunts the rules, he always succeeds because Kirk is Always Right.

      It's almost crypto-fascist; it would be if it weren't a fantasy. It's a fantasy of complete liberation from any restraint.

      A mature and rational human being, if confronted with a real life Spock or McCoy, would find much to admire. If confronted with a real life Kirk, he'd be revolted, because a real person who was anything like Kirk would be an ethical monster. But this not realistic storytelling. It is a fantasy. Kirk is not a monster, because Kirk is Always Right. If you accept that, then everything he does is justified.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      So it's basically 24 in space.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    4. Re:Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Denny Crane!

  38. Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Gauthic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know I'll be modded down for mentioning this: Why are the Klingons the only species in the whole movie series that the "Universal Translator" didn't automatically translate to both the audience and the characters while not in private conversation at home planet (i.e. TMP's Spock's failture scene)?

    It should be all or nothing. Romulans should speak Romulan, Vulcans speak Vulcan (unless speaking Starfleet English) due to the technomagical universal translator.

    1. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Knara · · Score: 1

      Cuz Klingon was the only language that was fully fleshed out, so they gotta use it!

    2. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Knara · · Score: 1

      And, to add to my other comment, it's implied in a number of cases that it isn't the universal translator that is doing the work. i.e. in Undiscovered Country, you have Kang speaking "To Be or Not to Be" in both Klingon and English, which would seem to imply that he is speaking both languages, not being translated.

    3. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Klingon language caused the translator to just emit a stream of sobbing wails. Afterwards, the unit would refuse to work until it underwent extensive psychotherapy. "It's not even a real language!" it would cry out.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
    4. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      First of all, it is just a show, don't worry about such things.
      Secondly, even if you do want to address the issue logically, you are missing the actual problem.
      You see, there would be no problem for a Klingon to figure out that a human is using the Klingon language - for once his lips would match his friggin' words!!!
      The problem is when they are not speaking the native tongue of the listener - hellooo Jackie Chan of the 80's!!!

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    5. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because

    6. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It should be all or nothing. Romulans should speak Romulan, Vulcans speak Vulcan (unless speaking Starfleet English) due to the technomagical universal translator."

      The language spoken by Starfleet is Federation Standard. You loose 50 geek points and are demoted to geek pledge. Turn in your geek card at the door.

    7. Re:Why do the characters even get to hear Klingon? by lindlec · · Score: 1

      What I can't figure is how the Universal Translator makes everyone's lips sync to the translated speech!

  39. They have done far worse by frovingslosh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    J.J. Abrams was on TV just last night talking about he wasn't a real trekie, and that this movie was aimed at a broader audience (Hollywood talk for "everyone should buy a ticket for my movie and the trekies should buy several") . But from what little I've seen of the previews, this retelling isn't true to the Trek history.

    McCoy was a beloved character in the show and movies. But as anyone who watched the original shows in the 60's (even those of us who don't consider ourselves trekies, don't go to conventions, have never made a starfleet uniform or a tricorder, and who don't live in our parent's basements), he wasn't the original ship's doctor and didn't come on board when Kirk did. There were two other ship's doctors in "Where no man has gone before" (not to mention the earlier failed pilot that was later incorporated into the trek history as a back story). To retell things with McCoy joining with Kirk as he takes command of the ship is just pandering as far as I'm concerned, handy to let the film focus on a bunch of backstory for these characters, and lets just ignore established "facts". After all, it's just a movie. We'll play off the fan loyalty and immense popularity of the franchise where it suits us, but we can ignore it when it get in the way of the film we want to make.

    Yes, I know the file will be a huge hit. That was a given before the first scene was ever filmed or the first characters were cast. But I think it's a shame that Abrams decided just to throw something together based on the Trek franchise, film it in a spectacular way and profit, ignoring the existing trek history when it got in his way.

    And in some ways I think that imposing the Trek franchise on his film making may have been a major mistake. I really think he could have done better if he didn't go for the quick and big bucks that the Trek franchise promises but rather had made something original in the Science-fiction area. In truth he's quite a talented film-maker, and he could have made something truly unique rather than just number 11 in a series. The original Starwars (despite what it has become) was a great movie, and one of the main reasons for that is that Lucas was free to tell an original story (even with all of the cliche's). Imagine how much less of a movie it would have been in the 70's if George Lucas had decided, or been told, that in order to make a science fiction movie and get it onto the big screen he could do all of the great special effects he envisioned and he could pretty much do the same story, but the main character had to be either Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers, because they were established and no one wanted to risk a big movie on a new story.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:They have done far worse by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's nothing quite as amusing as a pedant trying to sound reasonable and non-pedantic, and yet being so incapable of looking from the narrow rut that they occupy on the subject, that it still oozes from every sentence.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:They have done far worse by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      You ignored the whole "Enterprise-E goes back in time and tinkers with history" part in "First Contact," didn't you?

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:They have done far worse by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      But I think it's a shame that Abrams decided just to throw something together based on the Trek franchise, film it in a spectacular way and profit, ignoring the existing trek history when it got in his way.

      Umm, that's kind of what "reboots" are all about.

      If you restrict yourself to working completely within the pre-existing material, it's not a reboot at all. It's a sequel (or prequel). A reboot of a franchise typically occurs when the property owners reallize that irreconcialable mistakes have been made, and the only way to fix things is to start over and pretend the earlier material doesn't exist. They'll typically reuse a great deal of it, but anything and everything is subject to change, to suit the revised story.

    4. Re:They have done far worse by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      seriously... I mean, what longtime fan would want to see a prequel that didn't have McCoy because it was too focused on "staying true" to the cast list of 2 episodes that were quickly forgotten about?

      I've been watching the series since I was a kid; I had no idea that they had different doctors in the very beginning. And I'd spend the entire movie thinking "wtf? Where's McCoy?" if they left him out. Everyone identifies with those three (kirk, mccoy and spock) and destroying that identity in the name of accuracy would be...well... stupid.

    5. Re:They have done far worse by Knara · · Score: 1

      Except that he's right. Basically they're throwing out the entirety of the established universe and re-creating it using only the barest of threads to dress it in a way that appears similar.

      It's the same reason I disliked BSG.

    6. Re:They have done far worse by Knara · · Score: 1

      The series wasn't for kids, first off.

      Second, the idea that the bridge crew stayed the same for years on end was unrealistic (even in TNG, but at least in TNG people got promoted and Riker was berated several times by Picard for staying on the Enterprise and not accepting a promotion, to the detriment of his career).

    7. Re:They have done far worse by rpillala · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know the file will be a huge hit.

      Judging from the Wolverine workprint episode I'm sure you're right :)

      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    8. Re:They have done far worse by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      Except that he's right. Basically they're throwing out the entirety of the established universe and re-creating it using only the barest of threads to dress it in a way that appears similar.

      Which, you know, was already done with Enterprise. Anyway, given the number of time travelling entities encountered working to disrupt history in the Trek canon, there's sort of a built in excuse for a past that is completely different from the established timeline, right?

    9. Re:They have done far worse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "ears on end was unrealistic"

      AS opposed to what happens on all the real starships that do 5 year missions?

      Remember that? they where on a 5 year mission?

      ".., to the detriment of his career"

      and the audience~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:They have done far worse by orkybash · · Score: 1

      Can you say "reboot"? As in, what happened to James Bond and Batman and others within the last half-decade and produced markedly superior movies? Sorry to hear that the current fad in storytelling is happening to your franchise.

    11. Re:They have done far worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahahaha! Exactly!
      And his post is just from watching the trailer, imagine the posts after he watches the film!

    12. Re:They have done far worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look... you've got a few options open to you regarding this movie.

      1) Simply accept it as a reboot and that it therefore doesn't need to conform to every detail of Trek history previously known.
      2) Write off the differences between this movie and previously known history as being a side-effect of one of the many times Trek characters have messed about with time travel.
      3) Treat it like Star Trek V and pretend it doesn't exist, if the movie is really that unpalatable to you.

      Now really, Trek history hasn't always been absolutely internally consistent before, so I don't know why you're expecting it to be so now. And for crying out loud, the timing of when Bones joins the crew is not of vital importance.

    13. Re:They have done far worse by pcxmac · · Score: 1

      Don't not forget Star Trek 7.

    14. Re:They have done far worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not intended to be true to the history; it's trying to embody the mishmash you get when you smear all the episodes together, which is how the mass audience thinks of Star Trek if and when it does -- adjusted for modern demands for spectacle (definition of syfy: lots of plasma effects, and then something explodes).

      It's very carefully calculated, but I wouldn't want to be the scenarist for the sequel.

    15. Re:They have done far worse by Steve001 · · Score: 1

      RoboRay wrote:

      But I think it's a shame that Abrams decided just to throw something together based on the Trek franchise, film it in a spectacular way and profit, ignoring the existing trek history when it got in his way.

      Umm, that's kind of what "reboots" are all about.

      If you restrict yourself to working completely within the pre-existing material, it's not a reboot at all. It's a sequel (or prequel). A reboot of a franchise typically occurs when the property owners reallize that irreconcialable mistakes have been made, and the only way to fix things is to start over and pretend the earlier material doesn't exist. They'll typically reuse a great deal of it, but anything and everything is subject to change, to suit the revised story.

      An example of this is in the comic series "Legion Of Super-Heroes." In 1994 the creative team completely wiped out the entire continuity and started over again. The reason was that its continuity had been so damaged by recent events (such as Superman having never been a Superboy, and then the complete deletion of Superboy and Supergirl from continuity, and inserting new characters to take their place) that the writers were spending a massive amount of time trying to fix the continuity rather than moving the series forward. I've compared what was done with the Legion to the writers of Star Trek suddenly being told by the powers that be that "James T. Kirk never existed, deal with it" and yet being required to revise many of the old stories and replace Kirk with another similar character.

      Worse, every time the writers did fix something, something else would happen in another comic series that the Legion writers would have to work around. Every fix lead to more problems which had to be fixed, which led to more problems. In the end, there was little choice but to wipe it all out and then start again. This turned out to be a good thing because the writers were able to focus on telling good stories.

      This is why I think rebooting Star Trek is a good thing. Each new movie can focus on telling a great story, one that is planned to be built upon and used in the future, while not having work with a massive already-existing continuity. But the writers do need to ensure that each movie in the new series is kept consistent with the previous ones.

    16. Re:They have done far worse by dufachi · · Score: 1

      Speaking as a hardcore Trekker (and a female one at that), I don't much care that this retelling isn't 100% Pure Canon. Nitpicking about McCoy not being the original doctor is just silly. You could just as easily whine about Kirk not being the original captain, which I noticed you didn't do, or the fact that Uhura or Sulu were absent from the original pilot and Chekov didn't show up til the 2nd season. It cannot possibly be worse than the last movie. I shall reserve my judgment until I see it.

      --
      -Kinsey
    17. Re:They have done far worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You either haven't seen the movie yet or missed a big part of the plot. They explain why this movie unfolds a bit differently that you might expect.

  40. Re:who cares? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but Gungans don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.

    --
    "But this one goes to 11!"
  41. Re:Travesty? (OT, regarding your sig) by geobeck · · Score: 1

    You wouldn't say "alittle", would you?

    Sadly, many people would.

    --
    Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  42. Re: Orions by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    I heard that they were some PHB at NBC's idea, and that they were dispensed with when possible later. ...

    I almost need a new sig. Comments like that are Quantum for me. They are either true or false, and I won't know since I don't have the time to look it up in detail.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  43. This is intentional... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    We now wait for the sequel to the prequel. They have us by the short 'n curlies... And are not letting go.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  44. Re:who cares? by Em+Ellel · · Score: 4, Informative

    No kidding. Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech.

    Gee, very strange for a being who's very name is a mixture of words for man (chelovek) and dog(sobaka). Its not a coincidence that in Spaceballs the character was "Mog". (half-man, half dog)

    -Em

    --
    RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
  45. Hard Core Trek-fans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...won't even read this post because they'll start a fight over whether or not they should be called Trekkies or Trekkers. Then they'll argue about how canon this is, even with time travel given Enterprise and what they did with time travel, and whether or not Enterprise should be canon, even though it was by definition, a canon Star Trek show.

    In reality, everyone needs to realize that this will only vaguely look like any Star Trek you know. They hired a guy who wasn't a Trek fan, and asked him to remake Trek in a very different image. Correlations to past Trek incarnations should be kept to a minimum. Frankly, a whole lot of past-Trek sucked. It was the face of sci fi in American pop culture for many, but a whole lot of it did suck. This is what we have. It might very well make more money than all of the TNG-crew movies combined. Brian Fuller is already talking about a Trek TV show in Abram-verse. And you know what, I'm fine with that. Despite the 90210-looking captain, I have faith in Abrams to make an entertaining movie, and spin-off an entertaining TV show. That is far better than anything Trek has done as of late.

    1. Re:Hard Core Trek-fans... by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      I'm signed in, and I don't know how that got posted AC. Oh well.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  46. "The Sounds of Klingon"? by hey! · · Score: 1

    I thought I'd heard everything. Next thing, you'll be telling me the words of Kahless are written on the subway walls.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:"The Sounds of Klingon"? by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And tenement halls.

      Not the sounds of silence, more like the sound of Klingon opera.

      I must confess disappointment it took this long for this thread to gain a Memory Alpha link.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  47. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's a Klingon?

  48. I've already seen it and it kicks ass by gnarlin · · Score: 2, Informative

    There was a pre-showing here in Iceland that I attended and I can attest that this movie is great. I was expecting it to suck or at least to be so-so. I especially liked the witty dialog :)

    --
    A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
  49. Re:who cares? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    No mon, ya got it all wrong. :)

  50. lets see... by greymond · · Score: 1

    The movie will still have Kirk acting like a loose cannon, a rebel, exploring the galaxy on his own time, in his own place, doing his own thing, with any female that crosses his path...

    sounds like they got the movie just right to me. /shrug

    1. Re:lets see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that Kirk looks about 14 and is commanding a starship. This is a problem on multiple levels, even if it appeals more to the teenybopper marketing segment they're obviously targeting.

    2. Re:lets see... by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 1

      and Spock looks strained as trying not to be Skylar.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  51. SO not true! by denzacar · · Score: 1

    There will also be lens flares. Lots and lots of lens flares.

    On the bridge, in dark bars or in closed shuttles with dimmed light source.

    And if you thought that was annoying - wait until you watch it in a movie theater.
    Your eyes will just LOVE those short flashes of extra bright white light.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:SO not true! by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      we get those while slashdot and our other web pages are loading too.

  52. so tell a different story by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    I would not suggest that, if another Trek movie has to be made, that McCoy be left out. Just that a different story be told, one that doesn't have to play fast and loose with the established story history. Why even bother to base the story on the Trek franchise if you don't keep with the established story line? Quite frankly I don't need to see a movie that spends a significant part of the time to establish needless back stories for the characters.

    From other postings here it seems Abrams also made the villain a Romulan, ignoring that no one in the Federation ever saw a Romulan until well after the Stardate of this movie. By why? Was there really any need to label this character a Romulan? Couldn't Abrams have created some other race for him to be? Seems like just another case of the film maker wanting to get the benefits of the franchise but not be bothered by the pesky details of the story history.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:so tell a different story by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Informative

      First of all, you're being a pathetic fanboish pedant about this. But, to soothe your precious little brain, the stardate system didn't exist outside of a cool thing for Kirk to say in log entries until well over a decade after ToS went off the air. The attempts later on to explain this were nothing more than kludges.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:so tell a different story by polar+red · · Score: 1

      the established story line

      that's not the core of star trek. The federation, and what it stands for, THAT is the core of star trek. The details (like who was where when) are not that important.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
  53. Which is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Klingons Cut From Final Star Trek XI Movie"

    "the new Star Trek XI movie, the reboot, will not have any spoken Klingon in it"

    Well, which is it? No klingons at all in the movie as the story title indicates? Or will there be klingons that speak english in the movie as the summary implies? Huge difference. Huge.

  54. Not *klingons*, *Klingon* by orkybash · · Score: 1

    The headline would have you believe that the wrinkly-headed (in certain series) nemeses never appear in the movie. In fact, the wrinkly-headed nemeses appear but do not speak their token language. Which is a big "so what", the language didn't appear in TOS anyway.

  55. Re:who cares? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech. He was practically incapable of whispering, and it looked like it caused him great physical discomfort to hold his tongue. I'm sure he was a good friend to have in a pinch, but sometimes you don't need your friends gargling every half-formed thought that flashes through their brains.

    Han Solo: This is ridiculous. Even if I could take off, I'd never get past the tractor beam.
    Ben Kenobi: Leave that to me.
    Han Solo: Damn fool, I knew you were going to say that.
    Obi-Wan: Who's the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?
    Chewbacca: [subtitled] I know you are but what am I?

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  56. freeballer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why up in arms!? Jeesh its a movie, and it couldn't put in all material and stay within a reasonable timeframe... Besides this is what gets added to the "special edition" blu-ray/dvd later when they are released so we're eventually gonna see it.. Other than that.. I'm not that much of a fanatic to waste my time bitching its not there

  57. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So...what about man-bear-pig?

  58. Re:who cares? by wiredlogic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech.

    That's not coincidental. Chewie's sounds are based on the unusual sounds made by the Alaskan Malamute. Lucas had owned one before writing the script for Star Wars and wanted Chewie to sound like that.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  59. fusion klingons were human crossbreeds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    /.

  60. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but Gungans don't pull people's arms out of their sockets when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.

    That, in a nutshell, is my very favourite thing about Lego Star Wars II.

  61. Klingons = Republicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thick-headed, warmongering people are SOOOO last year.

  62. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech.

    Not if Hurley gets his script accepted in the weeks to come.

  63. Having seen the new movie already by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    I really didn't miss the Klingons.

    It had tons of fan service and rocked the world of all of my friends who got to see it with me, so just mellow out.

    Although I did like a certain scene where Ambassador Spock realizes his traditional greeting wasn't the best choice at the time.

    A very good restart.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  64. Re:who cares? by carlzum · · Score: 2, Funny

    You think wookies are annoying? You must have loved the Star Wars Holiday Special

  65. *spoilers* by Aexia · · Score: 2, Informative

    A Romulan from the TNG/DS9/VOY era goes back in time to kill Kirk and blows up the ship Kirk's father is on. His attack becomes the Federation's first encounter with the Romulans and radically changes history.

    TNG Era Spock goes back in time and tries to set things back on course.

  66. Re:who cares? by Lord+Dreamshaper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    seriously? man-dog? I always thought it was an oddly weak name that was a riff on "Chew" & "Tobacco" At least the original french translators thought so since his name is "Chictabac," literally "ChewTobacco"

    He looks more like the missing link or Bigfoot than he does a dog...

    --
    When all of your wishes have been granted, many of your dreams will be destroyed - Marilyn Manson
  67. Kernal Update???? by rts008 · · Score: 1

    What's all of this 'reboot' shite?
    Do I need a kernel upgrade to watch this? Re-compile, or 'emerge'?
    Log-out, log-in? make && make install?
    'Kill -9' my brain, then start it back up?
    WTF?

    You marketdroids and your inane, warped, and twisted lexicon are getting to be too much.
    Where's the 'synergy'?, the 'leveraging', and shouldn't this be 'value-added' or 'feature-rich'?

    You don't 'reboot' a movie, only the computer it was running on.
    Fscking kids, can't see any 'generational accomplishments' except to rename everything...'What Would John Wayne Do?'...*makes bumper sticker:WWJDD?'*... *mumble*

    Now 'get off my lawn!', and 'turn that crap down!'.
    And yes, I am older and more crotchety than usually found here!

    I have prior art on being a grumpy old man!

    P.S. I'm only semiserious, some of my tongue is 'in-cheek', but not all of it...YMMV.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  68. Re:who cares? by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

    Apparently George Lucas based the way Chewbacca talks on the sounds his Alaskan Malamute made
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malamute#Temperament>(linky)

    I work with a guy who has a Malamute, and he says his dog makes the craziest noises, he swears its trying to talk to him.

  69. Huh? by stoicio · · Score: 2

    "Classic era trek was all about Kirk kicking the Klingons' tails."

    Apparently you've never watched the original TV series. If you count
    the episodes, the Klingons appear a minority of the time.

  70. This is news? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

    Not for nerds. For the people nerds call nerds maybe. Regardless, it's certainly not stuff that matters.

    --

    Often wrong but never in doubt.
    I am Jack9.
    Everyone knows me.
  71. Re:Let me be the first to reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jzertski

    On no wait, thats cat for getting your bits stuck in something.

  72. Re:who cares? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

    V'ir nyJnlD guBhtuG gung xyVatbA ybbxF n ovG yvxR ebg13

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  73. Don't kid yourself Jimmy, . . . by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    . . . if a Klingon ever got the chance, he'd edit you and everyone you care about!

  74. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No kidding. Chewbacca always struck me as very dog-like with his speech. He was practically incapable of whispering, and it looked like it caused him great physical discomfort to hold his tongue. I'm sure he was a good friend to have in a pinch, but sometimes you don't need your friends gargling every half-formed thought that flashes through their brains.

    You just described all my co-workers !?!

  75. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh yeah? Well, go fuck yourself too, Mr Dvorak.

  76. Re:who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He was his own best friend.

  77. Re:who cares? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    Seriously, LOL.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are