Do you understand that Star Trek isn't real and the technology and sets seen in the 23rd century aren't historical events that are set in stone? Comparing it to Victorian times is a bit silly and overreactive.
Yes, I believe I read somewhere that it's a TV show.Do you understand that Star Trek isn't real
I disagree with your opinion.and the technology and sets seen in the 23rd century aren't historical events that are set in stone? Comparing it to Victorian times is a bit silly and overreactive.
Both of those were kitschy fun. But behold the Fundamentalist Fan, for whom visual cannon is a thing. Jelly bean lights, plywood walls and 60's stage lighting are REEEEAAAAAAAAL.Yes, I believe I read somewhere that it's a TV show.
I disagree with your opinion.
And especially since, we've already seen episodes set in this period - DS9 did it, Ent did it. Both chose to be respectful to the era, and fans loved them for it.
Yes, I believe I read somewhere that it's a TV show.
I disagree with your opinion.
And especially since, we've already seen episodes set in this period - DS9 did it, Ent did it. Both chose to be respectful to the era, and fans loved them for it.
If you want to set a show in that time and place, yes. And if you don't want to, then why on Earth would you set a show in that time and place?Are you really propose recreating this? [facepalm emoji] Please write that you are joking. BTW linked twitter thread is good answer for too advanced technology in DSC complaints.
If you want to set a show in that time and place, yes.
If you want to set a show in that time and place, yes. And if you don't want to, then why on Earth would you set a show in that time and place?
I'm of the opinion that any play of Shakespeare that is NOT set in the original Globe theater with bearded men playing the female roles and a rather dubious amount of dark makeup for the fellow playing Othello is wrong and inaccurate.If you want to set a show in that time and place, yes. And if you don't want to, then why on Earth would you set a show in that time and place?
Of course, I also stated like three different ways you could avoid doing that and make it look as advanced as you like. Did you miss that part?
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. It would be like having Geordi La Forge be the lead character of TNG.
I think when you create a show, you don't necessarily know which characters are going to turn out to be the most interesting or which story lines the most compelling. I think you have to change gears and shift to what's working. Saru and Stamets are easily the most interesting characters. Hopefully some of the new people they bring in will be as well.
Do you understand that Star Trek isn't real and the technology and sets seen in the 23rd century aren't historical events that are set in stone? Comparing it to Victorian times is a bit silly and overreactive.
It's a time and a place within a fictional setting. I disagree that it's therefore open to revision in a broad sense.It's not a time and place. It's a fictional setting, and open to revision.
And you're perfectly entitled to that viewpoint. My (equally valid to me) viewpoint is that those who disagree deserve the same facepalm. Hell, if I facepalmed every time Discovery did something horrible, I'd have beaten myself to death by now.Sorry but only one image comment to fits your pov:
What a wonderful reason NOT to make a prequel series set in this particular timeframe! Set it post-Nemesis instead, and make it look as advanced as you like!I have more advanced stuff in my home now than on the original Enterprise. Seeing that goofy set now would be absurd
That's nice for you. Not really comparable to what I've been talking about, though.I'm of the opinion that any play of Shakespeare that is NOT set in the original Globe theater with bearded men playing the female roles and a rather dubious amount of dark makeup for the fellow playing Othello is wrong and inaccurate.
No they aren't, and IMO it would always be foolish to demand 100% perfection from any aspect of anything. Hell, I watched Fury and the fact that their tank is a Sherman Firefly, perfectly capable of destroying a Tiger tank without an ass shot, didn't bother me in the least.Actually the Victorian times or any show or movies set in the past aren't really 100% accurate representations of those times either.
As an example of this kind of thing I'd point to the uniforms in the 2009 movie.Nothing has to look exactly the way things looked in a previous setting of a previous show or time period. It is important though for a show to sort of feel like they belong compared to how we sort of perceive those past settings. If you do a show set in the 80's that means 80's clothes and 80's cars and various 80's references even if the show your doing doesn't feel like it was filmed or made in the 80's. That is why the show should maybe not look eaxctly like "TOS" but sort of feel like it belongs by using modern techniques to make old looking stuff feel new and fresh and modern if they want the show to really feel like it's part of the old shared universe.
To me, that wouldn't add any credibility to Discovery.Which might not even be possible without actor crossovers. One thing TNG,DS9,Voyager and Enterprise and even the Kelvin Universe have in common was at least one actor from a previous show recreating their character on the new shows or movies. If they ever get Bakula to play Admiral Archer or Worf to play a member of his family or they do a time travel episode and meet Patrick Stewart as Picard or any other possible character where the actor is still alive then that would do wonders for it's credibility on this issue.
Although popular shows have won multiple Emmys, popularity is not one of the criteria for winning.Maybe not, but most people I know have no idea the show even exists.
Don't know if this has been mentioned, and just for the record, Doug Jones has never won an Oscar.Fuck, I love Doug Jones. He would be IMO the only one with an actual chance of pulling a win off. That he won an Oscar recently surely won't hurt.
Well, you 've only been registered since 5/8/18 and your rank is Red Shirt, so sounds like your sample size is pretty small.It just seemed to me that I wrote a comment and suddenly a whole bunch of comments came back very quickly. That's never happened when I wrote anything before.
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.
Don't know if this has been mentioned, and just for the record, Doug Jones has never won an Oscar.
Ed Wood thought the movies he made were really good.The folks who don't like the show have really been triggered by this article. How dare those ignorant DSC producers think their show is actually good. The nerve.![]()
Sample size is in the 150 to 200 range. It sounds like you know more about statistics than I do. How big should it be before I'm allowed to make my comment?Well, you 've only been registered since 5/8/18 and your rank is Red Shirt, so sounds like your sample size is pretty small.![]()
I say again: What does the production history of Star Trek Voyager have to do with ST D?Is there a TV equivalent of the Razzie Awards? Because that's about the only thing STD should win.
The show is so poorly made they spent over $100M and couldn't even get the special effects to look good, or the acting and dialog to feel natural.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.