Isaacs cares though otherwise he wouldn't be looking forward to what fans do. His words.
Last edited:
Lorca: Fans Will Have To Adjust
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
We all get our entertainment some how.
Don't really care how he gets his as it isn't hurting anyone else
That is more replacing 1970s styling silliness with 2010s styling silliness. It is still silly, but keeping up with the times.
I find it particularly amusing given the vitriol aimed at Berman, Abrams and co over the years.
Get a fraction of it back, in a light hearted (and pretty spot on) fashion, and some people can't handle it.
Whatever....
It was about changing formula's to attract new mainstream viewers, where you seemed to suggest that it could never work because 'SU tried that'. I haven't seen a Fast and Furious film tbh, but if you would read into what they did from Tokyo Drift (a film that made 'only' 180 million worldwide, and people were saying 'Let this franchise die already' back then) onwards, you'd know that it IS possible to resculpt (not reboot) an existing franchise to great effect. Fast 7 made 1,5 BILLION worldwide......... (!)
I don't get this new strategy of constantly antagonizing your potential viewers. I mean, I don't have very strong opinions about where they should take it, if they insist on making it edgy and "dark" and basically Game of Thrones in space, then I probably will cancel my All Access subscription. I'm not going to watch something just because they slapped the Star Trek label on it. I would imagine that a lot of fans of various franchises are disillusioned with gritty reboots nowadays. Nobody shows up to see the latest Fantastic 4, spiderman, or Ghostbusters crapfest, so this might not necessarily be different. They shouldn't count on anything, it has to be earned.
Nobody shows up to see the latest Spiderman? Okay......
And these 'potentional viewers' you speak of were no-show's at ENT and NEM... can you really blame the studio for not risking it all on 'viewers' that are a. Not that large a group and b. Are not that loyal to begin with...
And again: there are NO SIGNS that DSC will be dark and gritty, in fact everyone involved says the opposite..
Well since the show is on All Access I think the dedicated fans probably are the *largest* group. You won't have anyone stumbling upon this while channel surfing. Most of the viewers will be people who purchase All Access just to watch this show. So if the show sucks those people will have a big incentive to stop paying for the service. People will be even sooner to drop it than with Enterprise, because that was on network TV and nobody was paying extra for it. I think the All Access distribution model is actually a good thing precisely because it allows them to make a show that caters to the hardcore fans who are willing to pay. But then they come out and say it will be serialized, will have character deaths, will be inspired by Game of Thrones, will have borderline R-rated violence, will feature "terrifying villains", etc. Very confusing to me. That seems like something you would do if it wasn't being distributed as a boutique product.
You're actually flat out lying here.... 'They come out and say it will have borderline R-rated violence'............ Yeah right...... with arguments like this, you always win...
If you focus on supporting your arguments with evidence and facts, you're not focusing on what counts: winning. /s
That's actually happening. They watch random indie movies that have only been released digitally because some Potter actor was in it.
I've got my subscription to All Acess (Husband has been watching Scorpion. Don't know why, but he has) and have been impatiently waiting for Discovery for a long time. What Jason Issacs thinks of me or my fellow fans doesn't affect my decision in the slightest.
DIS has a TV-MA rating. That generally means it is not all sunshine and rainbows in a series.
And of course people said it would be dark and gritty.
CBS Interactive CEO Jim Lanzone: "It’s going to be very cinematic, very high production value, and grittier, the way a lot of premium cable shows are today."
Sonequa Martin-Green:
"I just feel that all high quality stories are gritty because life is gritty."
“It’s going to be bigger, rawer and grittier…"
Then there is all the talk about war, death and destruction. One character is a prisoner of war, who went through "a lot of horrible, horrible things" and the series will explore his PTSD. The trailers are also not exactly full of fun, light and humour.
I think there ARE SIGNS that the show will be dark and gritty. Or is nowadays every series with a less dystopian tone than The Walking Dead considered to be light and grit free?
^^
Sounds like they are going for more realistic than "dark." All of those things may be "grittier" but it also grounds the series in a way that may be more enticing to an audience not familiar with Star Trek.
And, why not explore PTSD? Isn't Star Trek "supposed" to explore and comment upon relevant topics? Is PTSD not topical or relevant?
Star Trek has explored everything from death (Balance of Terror, Skin of Evil, Generations) to trauma of war (It's nothing but a Paper Moon, Siege of AR-551) terrorism (Several TNG episodes) and on and on.
The question will be how the crew responds to it, not whether or not the show has "grit." Star Trek has to compete in a real world, with real world production values. It has to present its ideas in a way that will be acceptable to a contemporary audience. If they were just trying to please Star Trek fans, then "Star Trek Continues" or "Phase 2" or whatever could have just been the model.
But, it's not. Because Star Trek has to compete in a marketplace of entertainment in 2017. Which means that the production values will match contemporary productions, and the characters are going to be most important in presenting the optimism of Star Trek.
Sounds like they are going for more realistic than "dark." All of those things may be "grittier" but it also grounds the series in a way that may be more enticing to an audience not familiar with Star Trek.
And, why not explore PTSD? Isn't Star Trek "supposed" to explore and comment upon relevant topics? Is PTSD not topical or relevant?
Star Trek has explored everything from death (Balance of Terror, Skin of Evil, Generations) to trauma of war (It's nothing but a Paper Moon, Siege of AR-551) terrorism (Several TNG episodes) and on and on.
The question will be how the crew responds to it, not whether or not the show has "grit." Star Trek has to compete in a real world, with real world production values. It has to present its ideas in a way that will be acceptable to a contemporary audience. If they were just trying to please Star Trek fans, then "Star Trek Continues" or "Phase 2" or whatever could have just been the model.
But, it's not. Because Star Trek has to compete in a marketplace of entertainment in 2017. Which means that the production values will match contemporary productions, and the characters are going to be most important in presenting the optimism of Star Trek.
We are talking about a science fiction series set in the future. A more light and fun approach would be just as realistic as a dark and gritty approach. For realism you have to watch the news.
I agree to a degree. But CBS isn't in this for "Gene's Vision" or any other non-sense that fans put forth. They are in it to make money, and, right now, dark-and-gritty makes money. We'll have to wait another month and see how well dark-and-gritty* works within Star Trek.
*But then, I always found TOS (my favorite series) dark-and-gritty within the context of the times it was made. It routinely dealt with huge death tolls, sexual assault and other human shortcomings. With the oddity of laughter after people dying in brutal ways.
Fun and humour makes money, too. Just look for example at the Marvel movies.
I wasn't aware the news had spaceships and transporters and phasers O_o
Also, I imagine there will be touches of humor as well. I have worked a couple of jobs but rarely is it all serious and the grit of business or the fun and games of colleagues. The two are not as mutually exclusive as entertainment media would have us believe, and "more realistic" should not be avoided.
Thank you for proving my point.
Similar threads
- Locked
