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.
News CBS All Access Wants Emmys For Star Trek: Discovery
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
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.
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.
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. 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?
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?
It's not a time and place. It's a fictional setting, and open to revision.
I have more advanced stuff in my home now than on the original Enterprise. Seeing that goofy set now would be absurd and make the show unwatchable except for a small, but very vocal, minority of fans.
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.
The show can still be good with Burnham as the lead even if the actress doesn't improve. In fact it's okay right now. Successful shows have been built around less than great and talented talents before. Great writing can enhance poor or average acting. "I think the new "Carbon Altered" or whatever it was called on Netflix is one example of this. I really enjoyed Herclues and Kevin Sorbo was your lead. It's been known to happen and that was with me not even raising the bar up with shows that have had people like William Macy,Kevin Spacey,Paul Giamatti, etc as your lead. If you put her on the 4 type of tv stars that go like this:
1 Movie Star
2 Tv star
3 Capable star
4 Oh, Boy, What have we done!!
I think she is on the, capable star list right now. Maybe tv star to if you were using her for a more pure action based show. She would have been a nice lead on a "Stargate" show back when they were on. Not so much a serious drama, right now.
Jason
Actually the Victorian times or any show or movies set in the past aren't really 100% accurate representations of those times either. 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. 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.
Jason
It's a time and a place within a fictional setting. I disagree that it's therefore open to revision in a broad sense.
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.
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!
Of course, I've already pointed out ways in which one could set it in this timeframe and still make it look as advanced as one liked. Simply say it's an alternate timeline, or a straight reboot. Why not? What would it harm Discovery if the producers had said "We're rebooting Star Trek"? Their insistence that it's Prime timeline when it's so obviously not harms their own show with at least some fans, yet they seem so forcefully committed to the idea. I often wonder why.
That's nice for you. Not really comparable to what I've been talking about, though.
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.
Why? Because there is a middle ground between "it must be 100% perfect" and "we shouldn't even bother trying", is there not? I reference again "In a Mirror, Darkly" and "Trials and Tribbleations"; neither perfectly reproduced TOS - it always bugged me that the phaser disintegration effect we see when Archer shoots that guy is so different from the TOS effect, for example. And it really bugs me that they changed the design of the Gorn so radically.
(Minor aside. One of the very few things I give props to Discovery for is that the Gorn skeleton in Lorca's lab is a real Gorn instead of one of those velociraptor things. Fantastic!)
But I can overlook mistakes or tweaks, IF they are made in the context of a show that is so clearly making a herculean effort to be respectful of the source material.
To me that is a world away from Discovery's attitude of "TOS looked like crap and we're going to do something way more awesome."
As an example of this kind of thing I'd point to the uniforms in the 2009 movie.
To me that is an acceptable change; they've updated the look, but they've done so in a way that is obviously a respectful nod to the original design. I prefer the original uniforms myself, but these don't offend me the way the Discovery uniforms do.
And of course JJ was extremely careful of doing the one thing that Discovery absolutely refuses to do - set his movies in an alternate timeline. So many fans who were outraged at the idea of a Trek reboot were brought onside and turned into supporters because JJ was smart enough to reassure them that he wasn't messing with or disrespecting the thing they loved, just doing his own take on it. The Discovery producers seem bent on doing the opposite, as if they want to openly antagonise fans.
Which is why I call it an act of deliberate vandalism. I don't impugn their motives by calling them evil, I'm sure they're doing something they think is the right thing to do. But it's such a foolish decision to do things the way they have.
To me, that wouldn't add any credibility to Discovery.
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. 
But seriously, Star Trek regular cast members do not get nominated for Emmys almost as a rule. Just going by memory, I want to say that Jean Simmons may have gotten a nom for guest actor, in that TNG episode she was in. But as for regular cast, I don't think it has ever happened and I don't think it'll happen for DSC, at least not for season 1.
However, several years ago the SAG Awards did a huge tribute to Trek on one of their award shows. They had the casts of TOS, TNG, DS9, and I think, Voy come out on stage. They did it because of all the times great performances by regular cast had been ignored by the Emmys. They did the same thing for the nuBSG cast some years later.
IMO, in terms of acting awards, a SAG award is as prestigious as an Oscar.
Finally, I thought Doug Jones' performance was far and away the strongest, in a season of strong performances, followed by Jason Isaaks and Shazad Latif. As the others get more into their characters I expect an even better overall performance.
But seriously, Star Trek regular cast members do not get nominated for Emmys almost as a rule. Just going by memory, I want to say that Jean Simmons may have gotten a nom for guest actor, in that TNG episode she was in. But as for regular cast, I don't think it has ever happened and I don't think it'll happen for DSC, at least not for season 1.
However, several years ago the SAG Awards did a huge tribute to Trek on one of their award shows. They had the casts of TOS, TNG, DS9, and I think, Voy come out on stage. They did it because of all the times great performances by regular cast had been ignored by the Emmys. They did the same thing for the nuBSG cast some years later.
IMO, in terms of acting awards, a SAG award is as prestigious as an Oscar.
Finally, I thought Doug Jones' performance was far and away the strongest, in a season of strong performances, followed by Jason Isaaks and Shazad Latif. As the others get more into their characters I expect an even better overall performance.
Although popular shows have won multiple Emmys, popularity is not one of the criteria for winning.
Don't know if this has been mentioned, and just for the record, Doug Jones has never won an Oscar.
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.
Well, first, these "minor petty" visual (and audio!) changes really bother me. Always did. They bothered me on Enterprise, too.
The Enterprise team worked hard enough to make it "work" within the overall design history of the franchise that I was able to eventually push my ongoing annoyance with it to the back of my head. And Enterprise was set far enough in the past that they had more wiggle room. And -- most importantly -- Enterprise eventually told good enough stories that I was willing to set aside the fact that the ship was an upside-down Akira-class. It still bugs me, but the show is good enough that it makes up for this shortcoming.
But these things are essential to my experience of verisimilitude. When I make my little no-account Trek audio drama, I try to make the engineers use the "correct" sound effects for each audio "set". (When we went back to the movie era for an episode, we had to go rip a bunch of new sound effects from the movie soundtracks!) It jars me out of the show when those tiny details are wrong. But Discovery just drops sound effects from the bridge of Voyager NCC-74656 onto the bridge of the Shenzhou at random, and it knocks me straight out of suspension-of-disbelief mode.
I know I represent a minority (with the audio stuff, quite an extreme one), and doing it the way Disco did it may indeed have been the way to make more money from more viewers, but just because my opinion is uncommon doesn't make it hate for the sake of hate. It's how I engage with all television. It's cool that you engage with it differently, but -- let me blow your mind here -- not every viewer on Earth shares your exact same tastes and preferences.
Second, despite everything I just said, the visual/audio stuff is really very minor compared to Discovery's character assassination of both Harry Mudd (from charming conman to homicidal psychopath!) and Sarek of Vulcan (from model Vulcan pacifist to would-be xenocidal maniac who wants Burnham to fall in love). These wild revisions pose serious, textual challenges to the notion that Discovery is set in the same universe as "Mudd's Women" and "Journey to Babel" -- and I resent the fact that Discovery has made me hate both those characters now. Watching "Journey to Babel" is much less fun when you think Sarek deserves to be thrown out an airlock.
Huh. You're right. He wasn't even nominated. They showered "The shape of Water" with awards and nominations. Literally every minor actor in this movie got an Oscar nomination for acting. Except Doug Jones. Who together with Sally Hawkins is the main performance in that movie. Weird. Apparently guys in heavy make-up still get snubbed - even if an entire film centered solely around them gets all the awards. Awkward.
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.
Where the Emmys are concerned - the campaign isn't about pride in a creation. CBS doesn't care whether STD is of high quality or not, except to the extent that it helps them sell subscriptions. They care about their numbers, and this Emmy campaign is directed toward securing some bragging rights to help them promote the product.
I definitely believe that some of the producers and writers on this show think they're doing better work than they are - their Twitter feeds are filled with self-congratulation and delusional boasting.
I definitely believe that some of the producers and writers on this show think they're doing better work than they are - their Twitter feeds are filled with self-congratulation and delusional boasting.
I say again: What does the production history of Star Trek Voyager have to do with ST D?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
