News CBS All Access Wants Emmys For Star Trek: Discovery

[dahj]

But to me, it feels like an act of spite. My impression is that what is being done is being done on purpose to deliberately harm the Star Trek franchise. Hence my use of the word "vandalism".

So you think all these people who are clearly enthusiastic about the work they're doing are all in fact just evil schemers pretending they enjoy their work, while their true goal is to ruin everything just to spite you.

And this somehow seems like a reasonable conclusion to you?

 

[Mudd]

Of course, none of those people really call the shots.

 

[Graham]

And this somehow seems like a reasonable conclusion to you?

Since that’s not what I said, I can only take your need to straw man me as evidence that you couldn’t think of any argument against what I actually did say. Which is good news for me.

 

[Mudd]

...you couldn’t think of any argument against what I actually did say. Which is good news for me.

Why? What do you win?

 

[Graham]

Why? What do you win?

Did I say I won something?

People around here have the oddest habit of inventing stuff and then acting like other people just said it.

 

[Mudd]

People around here have the oddest habit of inventing stuff and then acting like other people just said it.

Good thing there's a quote function.

 

[Graham]

Good thing there's a quote function.

Yes indeed. With that anyone can see how you just misrepresented what I said.

 

[Mudd]

That must be "good news for you."

 

[Graham]

That must be "good news for you."

Indeed.

 

[Mudd]

So...what did you win?

 

[Graham]

So...what did you win?

It’s your fantasy, you tell me.

 

[dahj]

Since that’s not what I said

I literally quoted what you said.

Here, I'll do it some more:

And there is nothing accidental about this, it is being done on purpose, for reasons that escape my comprehension.

Well, there is a very simple reason you seem to be overlooking: people who make it think this is a good and interesting way to go.

You apparently reject that reason and instead supply this one:

My impression is that what is being done is being done on purpose to deliberately harm the Star Trek franchise.

So it appears that it's easier for you to accept a vast conspiracy is at play, rather than the possibility that people who make this show have thoughts, ideas and opinions different from your own.

If this is not the intent of your words, you've expressed yourself poorly.

 

[BillJ]

The show can still be salvaged. In order to do so, they're going to have to take the focus off Burnham. It can't be her show. It won't work.

I disagree here. There is nothing about Burnham that good writing can't fix. They need to decide whether this show is just a love-letter to the rest of the franchise or if its going to be its own thing with its own mythology.

 

[Jadeb]

I disagree here. There is nothing about Burnham that good writing can't fix. They need to decide whether this show is just a love-letter to the rest of the franchise or if its going to be its own thing with its own mythology.

Aside from her over-engineered backstory, Burnham is still pretty much a blank slate, IMO. They could portray her however they want next season and it wouldn't conflict with her non-portrayal in the first one.

 

[Mudd]

This is true.

 

[johnjm22]

I disagree here. There is nothing about Burnham that good writing can't fix. They need to decide whether this show is just a love-letter to the rest of the franchise or if its going to be its own thing with its own mythology.

Maybe. I think she can work as a side character. But as the lead? I don't see it. I realize her character and dialog were poorly written in season 1, but really don't think SMG is very charasmatic or a particuarly good actress.

They need to figure out a way to have some fun with her character. She's very serious. Maybe she could be the April Ludgate of Star Trek. That would be fun.

 

[Steven P Bastien]

Any character can be changed, at will, by writers. I am absolutely amazed at how they do this in modern series. I invented my own term for it, but perhaps there is an official "writer's" term for it. I call it "character morphing". I especially noticed this in the HBO series "Rome" and more recently in "The Man in the HIgh Castle".

The writer invents a situation that causes the character to do the opposite of what he would normally do, and suddenly it's almost like you have a new character. For example a pacifistic character might witness a brutal murder of a loved one, and suddenly become a violent rebel. It's amazing how readily the viewers will accept the change.

 

[Graham]

I literally quoted what you said.

And then you said "So you think all these people who are clearly enthusiastic about the work they're doing are all in fact just evil schemers pretending they enjoy their work, while their true goal is to ruin everything just to spite you."

Did I say they were evil? I did not say it, nor do I believe it.
Did I say they were pretending to enjoy their work? I did not say it, nor do I believe it.
Did I said their aim was just to spite me, personally? I did not say it, nor do I believe it.

So you quoted me, and then immediately told several lies about what I'd said.

"If this is not the intent of your words, you've expressed yourself poorly."
Sorry, but your lies are not my responsibility.

 

[Awesome Possum]

There's plenty of discussion around about that. Do we need to rehash it here? Discovery doesn't fit with the established Trek universe. It looks absolutely nothing like actual Star Trek of the time and place it claims to be set in. It's rewriting the history of some of the most beloved characters in the franchise. Hell, they even bastardised the real Enterprise. And why? They could have simply said "it's a reboot" or "it's a new Trek universe" and I'd have been fine with then doing whatever they wanted. But no. They continually insist that this is all happening alongside real Trek. And why? For what possible reason? The only thing that makes sense is that they insist on this because they want to override real Star Trek with this shit.

How does it not fit it? I keep seeing this, but it's always crap about how the ship looks different or other petty minor reasons that don't affect the story in any way. You're searching for reasons to hate it.

Except that I didn't say quite that. You changed what I said to make it sound worse.

What you said was quite clear.

What I said was, it is a bad show so I would prefer not to see it honoured. This seems like an uncontroversial attitude to me - doesn't everyone pretty much hope the good shows will win awards and the bad shows won't? Isn't that what awards are for?

It's actually up to the people who give out awards to decide if it's good or not.

I watched a few episodes hoping it would improve, then stopped. Recently several people convinced me to watch the rest of the season, assuring me that it got better (it didn't; actually it got worse), and telling me I had no right to criticise it if I didn't watch it. So I gritted my teeth and got through it. And now people tell me if I don't like it I shouldn't be watching it!

Whatever.

The Orville is its own thing. One can like it or not like it, and either way there is no larger context. Which is why I say above, if Discovery had decided to be its own thing, if they'd just called it 'Discovery' and not pretended that it was a Prime universe Star Trek show, I'd be fine with it. I'd still not care for it, because of the terrible story and unlikeable characters and wooden acting and horrific design aesthetic and poor special effects, but at the end of the day it would just be another bad show to be ignored, just as you say.

I like it.

But they chose to put the words "Star Trek" on it for whatever reason, and then they chose to make the claim that it's set inside the existing Prime universe for some reason. That places a series of expectations onto a show - and having established those expectations, they then decided to do pretty much everything they could to screw them over. And there is nothing accidental about this, it is being done on purpose, for reasons that escape my comprehension.

You still don't have to watch it. I don't like DS9, but I don't whine about it.

But to me, it feels like an act of spite. My impression is that what is being done is being done on purpose to deliberately harm the Star Trek franchise. Hence my use of the word "vandalism".

That's a very odd attitude, it's a not a personal attack on you or any other fan or Trek itself. It's just different than what we've seen before. Different doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just new.

 

[Graham]

How does it not fit it? I keep seeing this, but it's always crap about how the ship looks different or other petty minor reasons that don't affect the story in any way. You're searching for reasons to hate it.

Well that's one way to look at it. Another is that you've arbitrarily decided that those reasons are "crap", "petty" and "minor", when they might be important to other people. Those people may even think the things you like about the show are petty and minor.

I'm perfectly fine with everyone else judging any given show by whatever standards are important to them, and so coming to different conclusions than I do about it. I would hope that they would extend me the same courtesy. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

What you said was quite clear.

I strove to make it so. And yet, people misunderstood or misrepresented it.

It's actually up to the people who give out awards to decide if it's good or not.

I'd say that's a decision we all get to make for ourselves.

I like it.

Marvellous. I am glad you get enjoyment from it, truly I am. I fully accept and support your right to judge it on whatever criteria are important to you, and to come to whatever conclusion you want to about it. And I claim the right to do the same.

You still don't have to watch it.

Indeed I don't. You don't have to read my posts about it either, correct? You could take your own advice and ignore them. And yet, you choose read and respond to opinions you don't like anyway.

Personally I think you've every right to read and criticise posts that you don't like. You can even say that my comments are so awful that I should never have posted them, and that you'd prefer I didn't post any more along those lines.

But that's just me.

That's a very odd attitude, it's a not a personal attack on you or any other fan

Nor have I suggested that it was. Arguably, Jason Isaac's comment about fans ran into that territory, but only slightly. And it's not like he's a bigwig on the show anyway, so meh.

or Trek itself.

There we disagree. I think it is.

It's just different than what we've seen before. Different doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just new.

Here's how I see this. (Maybe you don't care, and fair enough, but I'm just putting it out there.) Star Trek has a pre-established timeline and shows set within that timeline. So when you make a show set during a part of the existing Trek timeline, what you are essentially doing is making a period piece. And one of the major ways that people judge period pieces is by how well they recreate the period they're set in.

To my eyes, Discovery is like a show that's set in Victorian times but which deliberately refuses to show the world being anything like the actual Victorian times. Imagine if Sherlock or Elementary had declared that they were in fact set in the 1880s, whilst keeping the exact same look and feel that they have now - mobile phones, cars, computers, etc. Meanwhile the producers openly brag about how well their show fits into the Victorian era and just looks different because people expect stuff to be up to date now.

If you want a super advanced looking Star Trek, I'm all for it! I'd love it! And Star Trek can accommodate that easily - just set it in an era of the show where such a look is appropriate. Somewhere post-Nemesis, most likely. Or hell, just come right out and say "we're doing another alternate universe show," or even "you know what? We're rebooting Trek."

Christ, they could do that even now - if tomorrow they announced that actually, despite everything they've said, Discovery is a new universe separate from existing Trek, it would be a huge step towards making fans who object to it accept the show as, if not a good one, at least one that wasn't a living insult to its own franchise.

So yeah, there are plenty of ways they could have made a show like Discovery whilst being respectful to the existing Trek. But they deliberately chose not to be respectful - and then bragged about how respectful they are being.

And no, I don't think that makes them evil. I don't think it means they're not enjoying what they're doing. It means I think that what they're doing is badly misguided and ultimately foolish.

But your mileage may vary, of course.