Klingon appear in the new JJ Abram's Star Trek reboot films. Based on the various canonical explanations of head ridges vs. no head ridge Klingons (epidemic disease or whatever), and the timelines of those vs. the splitting of the TOS vs reboot timelines it would seem that they shouldn't have ridges.

Has anything been said about the reasons for their possession of head ridges?

  • Voting to close as "Too localized". Speculating about future movie releases will result in questions that lose any and all value once the movies come out. – Beofett Nov 12 '12 at 16:27
  • Although its canonocity is debatable, there were deleted scenes that included Klingons from Abram's 2009 reboot, so this should be answerable. – Xantec Nov 12 '12 at 16:57
  • 6
    @Xantec In addition, Enterprise, which is canon for both timelines, had a Klingon ridges-centric storyline. – user1027 Nov 12 '12 at 17:03
  • I'm not familiar with the "epidemic" you refer to, but I do recall hearing about Mr Roddenberry once answering a question about Klingon ridges vs no ridges by saying something to the effect of "the cameras we used in TOS didn't have good enough resolution." A tongue-in-cheek response, to be sure, but I always took the implication to be that we as viewers should simply accept that Klingons always had ridges. – Steve-O Nov 20 '16 at 1:34
  • Now that the films are out, this is neither "too localised", nor is it in breach of our "future works policy". I've edited it so that it's specifically relating to the Abrams-verse Trek films which don't appear to be covered by any duplicate questions., – Valorum Nov 20 '16 at 1:44