Honestly the Klingon thing is the sort of thing I don’t feel needs a serious canon explanation. If I had been alive pre-TNG my preferred explanation would have been “they look different because they had different production budgets. In-lore they haven’t changed.”
It’s the same with Star Wars for me. I never cared for the fancy explanations for Han doing the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. Up until the Solo movie, my headcanon was just that Han was bullshitting. It fits his character, it doesn’t require some weird space-fantasy explanation. And best of all, it fits the suspicious reaction Obi-Wan gives after he says it.
I think it’s also why the visuals of the Klingon look in Discovery never bothered me. It always seemed like just another increase in budget and modern production design to the same fundamental design they’ve always had, the same way TNG improved upon TOS.
The problem with the 12 parsecs thing didn’t come from G-canon though. It was in extended universe, and later in the Solo movie, where the black holes explanation came in and removed the ability to interpret it as Han bullshitting.
Oh yeah for sure. But this goes back to the other discussion I was having about Doylist vs Watsonian explanations. For this sort of issue, I strongly prefer to have a Watsonian explanation that we can use. And there is an official Watsonian explanation…it’s just a dumb and unsatisfying one compared to the one I prefered.
Yeah no I get that, and normally I’m a big fan of finding Watsonian explanations for writing decisions rather than just accepting that something was done for production reasons or because of a studio note or some other Doylist reason. But for whatever reason when it comes specifically to visual changes I tend not to care as much.
Honestly the Klingon thing is the sort of thing I don’t feel needs a serious canon explanation. If I had been alive pre-TNG my preferred explanation would have been “they look different because they had different production budgets. In-lore they haven’t changed.”
It’s the same with Star Wars for me. I never cared for the fancy explanations for Han doing the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. Up until the Solo movie, my headcanon was just that Han was bullshitting. It fits his character, it doesn’t require some weird space-fantasy explanation. And best of all, it fits the suspicious reaction Obi-Wan gives after he says it.
I think it’s also why the visuals of the Klingon look in Discovery never bothered me. It always seemed like just another increase in budget and modern production design to the same fundamental design they’ve always had, the same way TNG improved upon TOS.
The 12 parsecs thing is emblematic of the entire original and prequel trilogies. George Lucas just made shit up as he went.
The problem with the 12 parsecs thing didn’t come from G-canon though. It was in extended universe, and later in the Solo movie, where the black holes explanation came in and removed the ability to interpret it as Han bullshitting.
I mean in the original trilogy when han said it. I assume George wrote it having no idea what the fuck a parsec is.
Oh yeah for sure. But this goes back to the other discussion I was having about Doylist vs Watsonian explanations. For this sort of issue, I strongly prefer to have a Watsonian explanation that we can use. And there is an official Watsonian explanation…it’s just a dumb and unsatisfying one compared to the one I prefered.
Well of course it was simply different production standards and budget, but it’s fun to come up with in-world rationalizations for these things.
Yeah no I get that, and normally I’m a big fan of finding Watsonian explanations for writing decisions rather than just accepting that something was done for production reasons or because of a studio note or some other Doylist reason. But for whatever reason when it comes specifically to visual changes I tend not to care as much.