It really didn't need it though. The scene in DS9 was a classic example of "hanging a lantern on it". It's where you (as a writer) have a failure in consistency, and instead of running away from the subject and hoping the audience doesn't notice, you shine a bright light on it by having one of the characters point out the glaring inconsistency, and then you have another character dismiss it in response as if it's nothing and move on.Htown said:I loved that line in T&T, but once you put that physical appearance change as canon in-universe instead of just a costume change, there are always going to be questions.
Enterprise ruined it by refusing to move on. This wasn't some plot hook intended to be expanded on at a later date (like the Clone Wars reference in Star Wars), it was a super-blatant lantern fix. It was so blatant it became funny.
That suggests an alternate reality, which I think would prompt more explanation than Worf's "It's personal, so drop it." And even that was sadly proven to prompt too much explanation. Explanation is not the objective. Getting people to ignore the inconsistency is the objective. Trying to explain even part of it has the opposite effect. And your idea specifically involves the characters not mentioning it, which means that there is no opening for the disguised message from the writer to the audience telling them to drop it.I still think it would've been way funnier to have Worf's forehead ridges disappear without explanation for the duration of the crew's trip into the past.