Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Media Movies

Klingons Cut From Final Star Trek XI Movie 447

Posted by timothy
from the gravest-importance dept.
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 ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Klingons Cut From Final Star Trek XI Movie

Comments Filter:
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:34PM (#27778317)
    "Get a life"?
  • Travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheebie (459397) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:34PM (#27778331)

    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.

    • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:38PM (#27778411)

      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.

      • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by eln (21727) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:42PM (#27778471) Homepage

        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.

        • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Informative)

          by Dolohov (114209) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:50PM (#27778635)

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

        • by tjstork (137384)

          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"..

        • by pallmall1 (882819) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:52PM (#27778679)

          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.

          • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Informative)

            by catmistake (814204) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:13PM (#27779047) Journal

            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).

            • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Informative)

              by MPolo (129811) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:21PM (#27779159)
              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.
            • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Informative)

              by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@wumpu[ ]ave.net ['s-c' in gap]> on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:22PM (#27779179)

              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.

              • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Informative)

                by Kamokazi (1080091) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:33PM (#27779311)
                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."
              • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

                by guyminuslife (1349809) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:49PM (#27779575)

                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!"

              • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by LionMage (318500) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:50PM (#27779583) Homepage

                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.

            • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Informative)

              by hofmny (1517499) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:50PM (#27780451)
              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"
        • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by DNS-and-BIND (461968) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:03PM (#27778879) Homepage
          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.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by rts008 (812749)

            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 Roger

      • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Informative)

        by afabbro (33948) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:12PM (#27779029) Homepage

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by bigstrat2003 (1058574) *
      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.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by timepilot (116247)

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

        • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:51PM (#27778653)
          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.
          • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by hardburn (141468) <hardburn@wumpu[ ]ave.net ['s-c' in gap]> on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:35PM (#27779341)

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

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by hey! (33014)

            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

    • Re:Travesty? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Kelson (129150) * on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:43PM (#27778513) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • by Archfeld (6757) *

      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.

    • Re:Travesty? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:12PM (#27779041) Journal

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Thuktun (221615)

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fm6 (162816)

      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 wa

  • by Idiomatick (976696) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:35PM (#27778335)
    qaStaH nuq jay!!!!
  • by get quad (917331) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:36PM (#27778369)
    Smooth heads or bumpy?
  • by SDF-7 (556604) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:36PM (#27778371)

    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Vollernurd (232458)

      Of course followed by...

      "KHAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!"

      Always gotta love that bit.

    • So if the scenes were filmed you know they are going to be on some DVD extra feature. So whats the big deal?
    • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:00PM (#27778837)

      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.)

  • by dk90406 (797452) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:38PM (#27778409)
    No need to kling on to old plot devices.

    Argh - can't believe I just wrote that.

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

  • Bah... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Etrias (1121031) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:40PM (#27778449)
    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!
  • by tjstork (137384) <todd.bandrowsky@nOsPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:43PM (#27778495) Homepage Journal

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

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:45PM (#27778539)

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

  • Spider-Man 3 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XanC (644172) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @04:46PM (#27778571)

    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.

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

  • 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?
  • Apparently they had difficulty making the deletion at first, but were successful with a 2nd wipe.....
  • maybe (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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?

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bemopolis (698691)

      ...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."

  • Non-issue (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rnelsonee (98732) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:04PM (#27778909)

    (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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Knara (9377)

      10 movies.

      And we already did the pissed-off-Romulan thing the movie before this one.

      Andreas Katsulas was the best Romulan, anyway.

  • by Gauthic (964948) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:42PM (#27779469) Homepage
    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.
    • Re: (Score:3, 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

  • by frovingslosh (582462) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:43PM (#27779477)

    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.

    • by MightyMartian (840721) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @05:47PM (#27779533) Journal

      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.

    • *spoilers* (Score:3, Informative)

      by Aexia (517457)

      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.

  • by gnarlin (696263) on Thursday April 30, 2009 @06:39PM (#27780259) Homepage Journal
    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 :)

If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.

Working...