Mabye the Hurq genetically experimented on the klingons and it took a while for them to find a way to reverse the process....that would explain Kang, Kor and Koloth as being childhood victims of the Hurq and later being "fixed" by Klingon science....
Does'nt explain Enterprise though....
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
i think the genetic manipulation that allows them to be bumpy headed, switch to smooth headed, then change back to bumpy headed is the best explanation.. the suliban/future-guy idea occurred to me when i saw broken bow.. its obvious that FG was disseminating chameleonlike shapeshifter abilities and would have the ability to do so again later, and that he purposely limited his gifts to control the situations they would lead to..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Ok, I haven't read the 1st page I just realised as I clicked reply but...
I originally thought that the ridges maybe a result of Praxis blowing up (or the shonky practices that eventually lead to the Praxis explosion). And since the Romulans were having some sorts of 'dealings' with some Klingons at the time - see Duras Family - it might have resulted in a Romulan side-effect as well - the brow ridges. But only to a lesser degree. See Ambassadors Nanclus and Kait-Lyn Dar.
Then along comes Enterprise and throws another spanner in the works. Now all I can thing is... FASHION!! Yes the ridges might have been a fashion thing and might be able to be filed down. Worf is very proud of his ridges and those of Alexanders AND The non-ridgless time seems to be an embarrasing subject. Maybe ridges are as Embarrasing as Safari-suits!?!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
quote:I originally thought that the ridges maybe a result of Praxis blowing up (or the shonky practices that eventually lead to the Praxis explosion).
The implications of the film's title, Star Trek VI, seem to have passed you by. And to think they changed the title of the play The Madness of George III in case people wanted to see the previous two installments. 8)
quote:I originally thought that the ridges maybe a result of Praxis blowing up (or the shonky practices that eventually lead to the Praxis explosion).
The implications of the film's title, Star Trek VI, seem to have passed you by. And to think they changed the title of the play The Madness of George III in case people wanted to see the previous two installments. 8)
Vogon - WHAT THE FUCK!?! What is there in what I said - silly or stupid - or material to be made fun of!?!?!? What does what I said - i.e. the Klingon physiology altering their long term appearance due to massive ecological and environmental damage - got to do with the title!?! WTF!?!
*boggle*
That is very annoying.
Are you saying that I think Klingons only had ridges in TUC?? The problems with Praxis and the Klingon Empire to produce such an effect would have been decades in the making - hence the subtle ridges in the movies moving to the full blown - mountain-ranges in TNG and beyong.
That's a mute point now, now that Enterprise has shown they had ridges then. So one would have to put the TOS thing into a 'fad' phase.
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
um.. even though the ridges in VI were subtle, the ridges in the previous films were anything but.. especially as far back as The Motion Picture, which had the largest Klingon heads observable.
We weren't making fun of you.. just your stupid theory. And it is a moot point.. although after this discussion, i do wish it HAD been a mute point..
-------------------- "Are you worried that your thoughts are not quite.. clear?"
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
Mute, Moot same dif. The idea was that it was some screw up cause of the fucked conditions of Q'OnoS and presumably elsewhere. This is seen in the screwed Green sky of TNG compared with the nice day seen in Broken Bow.
BUT it doesn't work anymore - Enterprise saw to that.
Well the TMP ridges were just a 'line' compared with the TSFS/TFF ridges. Then the TUC ridges - look... sanded down again.
I'm going with the 'fad'/'fashion' theory. It's basically bone - I'm sure it wouldn't hurt them to sand it down. Look at Valkris' 'ridges' in TSFS - maybe she was just getting out of the 'no ridge' fad. Or it was still stylish amongst females?
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
posted
In one of the Final Frontier books, Peter David (through Mackenzie Calhoun) makes an apt observation about the differences between the TOS and the TNG Klingons & Romulans. He states that during the TOS period, Klingons were honorless, narrow-minded thugs whose lot in life was to just cause trouble for the Federation. On the other hand, TOS Romulans were a very honorable, traditional people even though they were adversaries. However, in TNG, those roles were inextricably reversed for the two races.
On another interesting note, When Star Trek III was in production, Leonard Nimoy wanted to abandon the new Klingon look shown in TMP in favor of returning to the Original Series look. The motivation being that the latex bumpy foreheads wouldn't work well glued to an actor's face (sigh...). Someone else even wanted to change the Klingon species entirely to humanoids evolved from crustaceans. However, apparently the "bumpy head" look won out in the end.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
That explains my theory of mind-controlling Hurq horseshoe crabs.......
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Six years ago, I put together a website about the Klingon differences. It was on Geocities, I have no idea if it's still up and I don't know the address. Point is, I think I reached some pretty decent conclusions. The facts I used (remember this was before Enterprise):
1) Kahless had ridges 1500 years ago.
2.) Kor, Koloth, and Kang didn't have ridges in the 2260s (TOS), but at least Kang had them in the 2290s ("Flashback") and they all had ridges in the 2370s ("Blood Oath").
3.) Andre Bormanis, then science consultant and now writer, wrote a book called Science Logs in which he referred to Klingons developing a genetically engineered "battle class."
4.) I asked Robert H. Wolfe, then a DS9 writer/producer, about some of the theories. He said that the writers did have an explanation for "Trials and Tribble-ations," but replaced it at the last minute for the easy laugh. He also said that of two theories I mentiond, they were both wrong, but one was more wrong than the other. One of the theories was FASA's "altered to look human" explanation for TOS.
My conclusion? The official explanation that was never said on air was probably that given by Bormanis. The TOS Klingons engineered themselves into the TNG Klingons in an effort to be bigger badasses. This is why Wolfe said that one theory wasn't as wrong as the other: the FASA theory involves alteration, but in the wrong direction. Knowing writers, they probably ignored Kahless. Knowing fans, we would come up with a fix. I did.
Klingons have always had ridges, but they developed them at middle age. Kor, Koloth, and Kang were fairly young (30s) and so were their crews. In the 2260s/70s, they engineered a battle class that had ridges from birth, and that's what we saw in TNG.
Of course, now Enterprise shows youngish Klingons with ridges, so it's all shot to shit. But it's an interesting historical note, and I'd like to know just what explanation the DS9 staff came up with afterall.
quote: Klingons have always had ridges, but they developed them at middle age. Kor, Koloth, and Kang were fairly young (30s) and so were their crews. In the 2260s/70s, they engineered a battle class that had ridges from birth, and that's what we saw in TNG.
Of course, now Enterprise shows youngish Klingons with ridges, so it's all shot to shit. But it's an interesting historical note, and I'd like to know just what explanation the DS9 staff came up with afterall.
A 'battle class' turns into the whole Klingon Species - and even the original klingons decide to become 'battle class' members themselves - seems even more far fetched.
Plus Enterprise wasn't the only one to show young klingons with ridges (when did that happen by the way?) We've got Alexander and the 'kids' from "Birthright". Little B'Elanna. SP? Duras' son. Pretty good cross section of the community.
I still think it's a whole fashion thing... maybe even a Klingon navy fashion thing - like the Sailors on Earth wearing bell-bottoms!! Want to join the Klingon Fleet - you must sand down your ridges. This is an embarrasing thing - and probably quite unhealthy.
Maybe they wanted to 'look' like Humans - as a fashion craze. Instead Kang going into the barber for a "Rachael" he gets a ridge-sanding!
-------------------- "Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica." - Jim Halpert. (The Office)
"Plus Enterprise wasn't the only one to show young klingons with ridges (when did that happen by the way?) We've got Alexander and the 'kids' from 'Birthright'. Little B'Elanna. SP? Duras' son. Pretty good cross section of the community."
Young == less than middle-aged. And the young Klingons w/ ridges in the TNG era are specifically addressed in his theory.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
He's saying that ORIGINALLY, Klingons developed ridges when they matured, possibly around 40-ish. At some point between TOS and TNG, the Klingons genetically altered themselves to have ridges from birth.
I'm quite keen to hear if you're right regarind Wolfe's theory. But that's not likely to happen.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
