I am the kind of person who enjoys "big weird" scifi like Stanisław Lem. Stories about trying to relate to and find common ground with something so alien that the prospect of even understanding is basically hopeless. Star Trek usually doesn't do stories that, which makes sense as it often uses alien races as allegories or stand-ins for real-world human relations.
That said- I thought those early Klingons were super weird and scary because they were just so alien. It really made sense thinking about how it took a century before they could get to the events of Star Trek VI, and it made the Khittomer accords feel like so much more of an accomplishment. Like- you made a treaty with WHAT?
And just aesthetically their ships and armor looked like something out of HP Lovecraft or HR Geiger:
This is not to say I dislike how Klingons were portrayed previously, kinda like Mongols in TOS or Vikings in DS9, just that they never felt scary to me. They never felt like warriors. I was never afraid for the gallant crew of the Enterprise D (a science and exploration vessel) going into battle against Klingons. But I really enjoyed the alien-ness Disco tried to go with. Anyone else with me?
EDIT: PEOPLE I SAID WHO'S WITH ME NOT WHO ISN'T CM'ON 
Yeah, I really think a lot of the support for the Klingon redesign and other revisionist aspects of Discovery/the current era of trek it spawned comes from a "but the Original Series is cringe fail and LAME. We have to make cool science fiction action shows for the modern era and couldn't possibly respect such an old show" mentality.
Huge if true. Can you provide some examples of people saying that? I can't seem to find any in this thread.
I've yet to find any rule stating only that which was commented on this post is valid evidence. You'd have to have your head in the sand to miss that the current iteration of Star Trek stems back to the 2009 reboot movie which literally was marketed as "its not your father's Star Trek" and who's director continually complained that he found TNG and TOS to be "too cerebral". Alex Kurtzman, the guy in charge now, entered the franchise with '09. I don't think he's got the same mentality per se, but given that pre-Kurtzman trek saw past sets and props faithfully recreated and even celebrated (Relics from TNG, Trials and Tribble-ations from DS9, In a Mirror Darkly from ENT), while the current iteration, with a few exceptions (Beyond, Lower Decks, Prodigy), feels almost embarassed that it's a spinoff of a campy show.
Who said anything about rules? I'm just wondering if what you're saying has any basis in, you know, reality.
You, when you got on my case for referencing discussions and things I'd seen outside this thread.
Here's a discussion about the marketing for 09, to refer to an example of what I'm talking about.
The Kurtzman era of trek's default is to be embarrassed to be a spin-off of a campy 60s sci-fi show. For me, Beyond, Prodigy, and Lower Decks are the handful of cases where they don't seem to be trying to "fix" or "solve" being attached to TOS.
Quote me, with a link, where I said something about the rules.
And I'm putting the mod hat on now, because being truthful is a rule here, so you'd better be 100% honest and accurate with what you provide.
Plus with the success of The Orville, it shows that you don't need to do a 'gritty reboot' to be successful in modern times. The Orville is basically off-brand TNG.
I so desperately wish that the Orville writers (IE, the DS9 and TNG writers I liked the most) were writing for current trek. So much of the criticisms levelled at the Berman-era are rectified here, and the show doesn't serve as propaganda for the US state department.
All without:
Personally I'm glad those transphobic fucks aren't allowed anywhere near Star Trek.