Bryan Fuller posted this on Instagram as a birthday greeting to Laurence Fishburne, back on July 30.

So apparently Fuller had intended to carry over the Hannibal cast into Discovery in various parts — and this was how he'd imagined Fishburne in Klingon prosthetics. It also suggests that the much maligned Disco Klingon designs were decided upon after Fuller left as (preliminary) show runner.

ETA: Here is a rundown of the casting plans he had in mind, originally revealed on the D-con chamber podcast. I would have watched Gillian Anderson as a starship captain.

a preproduction mockup of Laurence Fishburne as a Klingon.

all 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 5 hours ago

what was wrong with the tng klingons?

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

    I like it better than the disco Klingons, but that design looks far too jem’hadar-esque

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago

    The color is better but why is this needed? Why on a TV show budget would you chose to put the people most likely to be in a fight scene or show physicality into even more prosthetics and makeup.

    This should have been done as a part of a movie budget that the show had to then deal with like it was the first time around.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    I just wish his capacity to deliver on time and on-budget was equal to his capacity for wishcasting and buck-passing.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 hours ago (12 children)

    Decent, feels unfinished though.

    Apparently people don't know why lots of fans didn't like the look of the Discovery Klingons?

    I'll explain as one such person - it was another symptom of the writers not giving any respect or care to the work of those who had written the lore before them, even though they were standing on their shoulders, to the point of malice.

    Klingons evolved on an M-class planet of caves, with icy mountain tops housing homes and monasteries, a thick atmostphere, and both cold and warm cave systems - some volcanic, but erupting rarely (~centuries). They had evolved with hair and grew it long to provide warmth, with long hair and well-kempt facial hair (beards, mustaches, large eyebrowa) being common and distinguishing features, along with their head ridges.

    The initial Klingons of TOS had no facial ridges, and ENT went to lengths to work an explanation into the lore that they had made a genetic virus to eliminate humans during their first war (or something similar) and it backfired, Phlox was able to help them with a cure, which allowed their head ridges to return. To me, this is the kind of story that someone who appreciates and respects the writers before them and the fans dedicated to the show, would attempt.

    Do people not remember that Discovery started out with completely hairless Klingons - no explanation? Until there's a fan backlash and complaints about season 1.. And then they magically have it back for season 2 in specific episodes, with the backpedal 'oh, they shave it during war'. The now also have wide, flared noses - which given they are mostly black-skinned in season 1, though their actors are mostly not felt frankly pretty borderline cringe race-trope imo.. Overall their features are generally really smooth now, like some kind of fish-people that evolved on an aquatic planet.

    Discovery writers really seem to hate Klingons to be honest: they blow up parts of their planet in The Burn to kill most of them and make it inhabitable, reducing a proud species of intelligent warriors that have previously brought fear and respect wherever they travel to a sombre group of refugees from a race on the brink of extinction. Then again, in the mirror universe they also destroy Kronos by blowing it up - but properly this time. Disintegrated. Then later in Picard, they wipe out the entire planet's population with a biovirus... I really don't see any other conclusion than someone on the Kurtzman crew hates Klingons (or their fans for speaking out about dumb lore changes, or both).

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    Then later in Picard, they wipe out the entire planet’s population with a biovirus…

    I don't remember this at all. Did I miss some throw away line of dialogue?

    Your comment makes it seem you’re taking this very personally. It’s okay to hate a creative decision; there are decisions I could name from every Trek series that I hate, some for very subjective reasons. But to attribute that decision to malice, disrespect, or some kind of secret hatred for some part of the franchise is weird. Attributing it to hatred for the fans themselves sounds kind of petulant, frankly.

    Generally, if a writer hates some part of a franchise, they wouldn't repeatedly make it a major part of their shows. They'd ignore it and build up the parts of the franchise they do like. Look at how the people running things back in the '90s handled the animated series. They didn't write a big Edosian War storyline or make a Caitian with a tragic backstory one of their core characters. They simply pretended all those elements didn't exist.

    That's what it looks like when someone doesn't care for part of a franchise. Like it or not, a cosmetic redesign like we're talking about just looks like an attempt to freshen things up, and maybe appear more cinematic to grab the attention of a wider audience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

    with the backpedal

    My only problem with this is that backpedaling is arguably what they did with

    went to lengths to work an explanation into the lore

    One of them you liked, and one you didn't. And that's fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    I mean, one was a storyline and the other is handwaving.

    Personally, as a fan of things, I like it when more.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • This is getting far into the subjective weeds, but I'd much prefer if the ENT producers hadn't bothered.

    While it does technically qualify as a story, I wouldn't call it a particularly good one.

    I won't try to convince you otherwise though; I'm glad it has its fans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 hours ago (4 children)

    they are mostly black-skinned in season 1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    Yeah, the racially charged complaint against the DSC design doesn't entirely add up given the darkface makeup used in all previous versions of (white people playing) Klingons, including the TNG through ENT depictions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago (11 children)

    I had lots of issues with dsc, but the Klingon design wasn't one. Did people not like those?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 hours ago (9 children)

    "Not respecting history" was a frequent talking point among the Twitter and Reddit accounts that also just-so-happened to complain about "wokeness" around the time DSC was released.

    Obviously if someone genuinely gave a rats ass about visual continuity they would be upset by TMP and TNG Klingons too, but you rarely see that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

    I did like the DSC Klingons as aired, and if people had the patience required for things to play out, they could have waited for future writers to make up an elegant answer like the augment virus in ENT 🙂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

    I loved the way they were presented, and I immediately felt like the richness of the added details (like the differences between the great houses) made it the new "definitive" depiction of Klingon culture, just like how DS9 really added a lot to the Ferengi. I also honestly don't even feel that visually they were presented as radically different enough to justify an augment-virus-style retcon (but I wouldn't have complained)!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

    You are making some wild conflations here. Discovery didnt have the budget issues that make the TOS era Klingons more accepted, putting aside that Discovery was just a bad show to begin with so it’s easy to pile on nit picks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

    So TNG's bigger budget makes it acceptable to completely disregard the existing history, legacy and visual continuity, but DSC's bigger budget doesn't?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago* (2 children)

    No, TOSs smaller budget makes it more acceptable to not have been able to establish a different visual. Discoverys bigger budget, extensive use of CGI, and lack of input from Rodenberry himself, make it less excusable to ignore the history that now exists.

    But I was actually taking far more issue with your insinuation that not liking discovery made you akin to MAGA assholes on Twitter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Ah well. People would've complained about that design as well. Probably also if they had just continued with the Worf-like looking ones. They look the same as before? No innovation? Yawn.

    We're hard to please. Remain Klingon!

    K'LawRence would have been interesting. Who's the best actor to play a Klingon that hasn't been cast before?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments