CBS Emmy Screeners Show Push For ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Nominations

The first round of voting for Emmy nominations starts in a month and studios are now sending out their “For Your Consideration” DVD screeners to Television Academy members. The set from CBS Television Studios includes eight shows. This year they are pushing for only two of their scripted dramas, The Good Fight and Star Trek: Discovery. TrekMovie has gotten ahold of the Discovery set to share a look at it.

A look at the 2018 Star Trek Discovery Emmy DVD screener

Star Trek: Discovery has picked up a few guild nominations, plus nominations for 5 Saturn Awards, a Hugo Award and even a Peabody, but the big fish in Hollywood is, of course, the Emmy. Judging by how CBS chose their promoted shows and designed their screeners, it’s clear they want to see Trek make a big splash. The Discovery screener includes four discs inside a folding wallet. The set includes the entire season, which is unusual for DVD screeners–most feature a handful of key episodes.

The discs and wallet are all custom printed with Star Trek: Discovery imagery, along with notations on which categories they want Emmy voters to consider for the show along with a number of blurbs from television critics.

CBS Studios is asking Emmy voters to consider Discovery for Outstanding Drama Series. They are also asking for consideration for a number of actors in the show including Sonequa Martin-Green for Outstanding Lead Actress as well as Doug Jones, Anthony Rapp, Jason Isaacs, Shazad Latif and Wilson Cruz for Outstanding Supporting Actor and Michelle Yeoh, Mary Wiseman and Mary Chieffo for Outstanding Supporting Actress. James Frain, Rainn Wilson, Kenneth Mitchell and Jayne Brook are all singled out for consideration for Outstanding Guest Actor and Actress respectively.

But CBS isn’t done with that, with the DVD screener asking voters to consider Discovery in other categories including Outstanding Music Composition, Outstanding Cinematography, Outstanding Writing, Outstanding Directing, Outstanding Writing, Outstanding Title Design, Outstanding Visual Effects, Outstanding Production Design, Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup and Outstanding Costumes (Fantasy/Sci-Fi).

Not only is it notable that Star Trek: Discovery is one of the few shows CBS Studios is pushing for with the Emmys (including being one of two dramas), but they are also promoting Discovery for consideration in more categories than any of the other seven shows in the collection they sent out to Emmy voters.

The critical quotes chosen for the screener are also noteworthy in how CBS is positioning the show to Emmy voters. In addition to the usual type of quotes lauding the “visually stunning” series, they chose one quote prominently that declares Discovery the “most woke series yet,” and another about how the show has the “best women on TV ever.” Politics are part of Emmy voting and CBS wants to make sure that Discovery’s message is coming through to voters.

Star Trek at the Emmys

Star Trek has a long history with the Emmys, receiving 155 nominations over the decades. Each Star Trek series has multiple nominations for each season, going back to the beginning. However, almost all of the nominations are in what are considered creative arts categories like makeup and effects, with only three nominations for acting (all for Leonard Nimoy). The franchise has only three nominations for Outstanding Drama Series, for the first two seasons of The Original Series and last season of The Next Generation. To date, no Star Trek series has ever been nominated for writing or directing.

Leonard Nimoy and wife Sandra Zober at the 21st annual Emmy Awards at the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium on June 8, 1969 (AP)

Emmy nominations for this year will be announced on July 12th. The Creative Arts Awards ceremony will be held September 8th with the main Emmy Awards ceremony coming on September 17th.

Still no word on consumer home video release

It’s worth noting these DVD screeners are not for commercial purposes. These are solely for Emmy voters. To date, CBS has not made any announcements about a home video release for the first season of Discovery on either DVD or Blu-ray, nor is it available to purchase digitally via services like iTunes.

Star Trek: Discovery is available exclusively in the USA on CBS All Access. It airs in Canada on Space and streams on CraveTV. It is available on Netflix everywhere else.

Keep up with all the Star Trek: Discovery news at TrekMovie.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Not blu-ray screeners, huh?

They never send out blu-ray screeners. If you saw the average age of a TV Academy member, you’d be surprised they don’t send out VHS tapes.

Considering that a lot of these are tech-oriented awards, you’d figure the only way to evaluate cinematography and VFX and art direction would be through seeing the work in the best possible light, which would usually be blu-ray or in the case of shows captured and completed in 4K, UHD. But then again, I guess that creates more of a piracy market, even with the watermarks in place on the image.

I really thought BANSHEE’s screeners were blu-rays, I’m going to have to recheck that.

I do remember getting a Mr. Robot screener that was a Blu-ray, but from what I recall they just put the entire season on one disc in SD

Yup, that’s it in a nutshell.

Even on DVD the screeners are getting a better quality image than most of CBS’s paying customers were getting.

The average Academy member is far more tech savvy than the general population as a whole.

I live in SoCal and have family that are Academy members. But even if I didn’t I could still confirm the screeners are only on DVD because soon the thrift stores’ll be littered with ’em.

But I’ve been expecting NETFLIX and CBS to up the ante this year with their internet offerings so I’ll try to remember to note it here if I become aware of something different.

Almost all of the discs these days come with codes to stream online, but they’re almost all browser-based with poor interfaces. The best is when HBO sends their stuff, the just give you a six month subscription to HBOGo. CBS didn’t do the same because this was sent by CBS Studios, who produce a bunch of shows for other networks and platforms.

The year before last they mailed out Chromecast’s to allow for steaming as well.

Wish they did that for their subscribers….

I’m wondering why HBO doesn’t do that for folks writing stories about their shows. I keep having to resub to HBO every time I get an assignment to cover WESTWORLD or 451 or BIG LITTLE LIES (I didn’t mind subbing to to SHO for TWIN PEAKS, I’d’ve done that anyway. Though the jokes’ on me, my TP cinematography article has been done fore more than half-a-year and still hasn’t been run, so I still haven’t been paid for it.)

I have gotten web links to stream some stuff at Hulu, but I think that is the only place offering that.

Physical media is rarely used by Academy members wth most content reviewed via PIX and other industry streaming services. Distribution of DVD’s is an intentionally lo-res method of distribution of screeners to Academy members (and in most cases a code is provided to stream the content online).

Denny C,

Not being a member myself, I’ve only had access to some of what remains after the process so I can’t speak to that.

However, I do think I recall in 2010 at one of the guild award sites (Director?…Producer?) surprisingly coming across an unrestricted stream of motion pictures they had nominated ostensibly playing for “member” consideration.

Yeah, I seem to recall that as well. They’ve tightened up things considerably since those days.

most “woke” series.
if that’s how you lead, you aren’t doing so great. :(

“woke” as in socially kick-ass :) Love it.

It’s becoming a bit overused and stale with the potential to become the ‘groovy’ of this decade – – and most people seem to use it wrong.

I dont use it. Maybe Im too old. I dont really care but its a thing now and doesnt hurt my feelings. CBS marketing decided to use it (probably somewhat tongue in cheek and to ensure their message was seen by making it different).

Its for the voters. Who cares?

The voters tend to ignore most of that anyway but a nicely packaged set of discs makes much more of an impression.

Must be American? First time I’ve ever seen it used

Says a nobody’s nothing complaining on the Internet. Meanwhile Entertainment Weekly says the series is woke as a compliment and CBS puts it on the materials promoting it to the academy. So a lot of accomplished people think it’s great, but a whining zero has an issue with it? Who cares. :)

Who the hell do you think you are talking to people like that? If he’s a nobody and a whining zero for seeing how pathetic the use of “woke” is in this context, then so am I. You obviously didn’t get brought up to learn respect for others. It would be interesting to see how you talk to people in the real world without the shield of anonymity. I hope you get seriously ill.

I don’t have an issue with “woke” but I agree these personal attacks aren’t necessary.

You had my respect for that clapback until that last sentencw. Now you are as bad as Luke Montgommery.

Anonymity? My name is right there. As in, my real name :)

I don’t think they were talking about the quality of the product, only the overuse or misuse of the word “woke” which I happen to agree with. Also I think the moderators need to check Mr Montgomery’s wording, there is personal insult there.

Didn’t mean to piss you off Luke. I have problems with discovery, but it being socially conscious is not one of them. You have a problem though. Take some advice from this “nobody” and stop being a dilly (a sixties term, as dated as “woke”).

Great entertainment is timeless. Want to make something seem NOT timeless? Just check out what’s groovy tubular hip happening gnarly xtreme far out and (wait for it…) woke.

Yeah some copywriter who makes $60,000 a year to write that stuff is so accomplished. If you think they are so accomplished, I’m sure it’s you who is the nobody.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but are you saying that someone making $60,000 a year just to write copy isn’t accomplished?

I’d be amazed if they make that much, mag business is tough and getting tougher. The freelance rate for the mag I do most of my writing hasn’t gone up one cent in the last 18 years, and the length of the stories has been shortened, so it’s a net loss, far from staying even with inflation.

And when I worked as the staff writer at a mag in 1998-2000, I was only making high 20s (same as my previous retail mgmt job) to low 30s — plus they didn’t want me moonlighting, so again a net loss, since before I could count on the retail job plus $4500 per article for two-three articles per year (in that case, the freelance rate was really good, but those were for monster-sized articles requiring more than a dozen interviews, so I earned it.)

Yeah, hard to believe a journalist would actually use that word… but then again, if today was 25 years ago, we’d probably be complaining about some critic describing the series as rad. But except for sounding tryhard there’s nothing wrong about either.

Entertainment writers have a lot more freedom when it comes to word usage.

What on earth does ‘most woke’ mean anyway?

Means that it’s totally gnarly, dude.

Ahh, I see. Strange choice of words as Discovery often puts me to sleep.

A term generally used by progressives to be aware or awake to left wing social issues.

The opposite of “Trump” which means to be both asleep to generally recognized relevant issues of humanity and to embrace racist alt right white nationalism.

Unfortunately, Discovery has attracted too many “trumps” to try to drowned out the woke.

Agreed, TUP. But I think part of the problem is that honestly Trek isn’t really that progressive anymore (a show with a black female lead, and a gay couple, is not too uncommon now, thankfully). In fact, it’s a pretty conservative show by today’s standards, and yet there are a lot of folks still fighting WWII on the islands these days. Trek was progressive by the 1960s and then 1990+s standards, but after a decade of absence/playing it safe, it’s barely competitive in that regard with so many other truly challenging shows out there. But the old show fanboys didn’t have to change with the times until now. If anything, I guess, I wish Trek would live up to its ideals and be so much more ambitious. Who cares what a vocal minority thinks?

If a black female lead and a gay couple are not progressive, thats a good thing.

And of course, its not the producers or marketing people are out there beating the drum alone. I remember when the biggest criticism was “why does Fuller keep talking about gays in every interview” when the answer was “because he keeps getting asked”.

To an extent, society to a large degree has caught up to the sensibility where by black women and gay couples are perfectly normal. But the inclusion of them compared to whites straight males is not nearly equitable.

Discovery deserves credit. And while its a talking point in media, on the show, its treated as no different, which is the progressive part.

Absolutely, TUP. I guess my point was that 1) there’s a reason why Trumpers from the past still loom and think Trek is theirs despite so much evidence to the contrary, and 2) that DISC can now go so much further and finally live up to Trek’s historic reputation as being groundbreaking. What will the future really look like?

Using “woke”, the past tense of the verb “wake”, as an adjective is also bad grammar.

And that, my friends, is a drop the mic moment.

I’m in my late 20s. I have no idea what “most woke” is meant to mean. Discovery is pretentious and up it’s own rear end. DS9 was dark, edgey and diverse, and did it all 25 years ago. Discovery breaks little to no ground and I imagine the Discoverh writers farting together and taking deep breaths in and enjoying the smells they created and smiling smugly. God forbid they stopped trying to reinvent the wheel and continued to build on the universe that came before it… No, bathe everything in blue and the universe is linked by mushrooms.

Woke – Liberal BS no matter how unrealistic shoved down our throats.

I’m definitely ‘woke’ enough to see that you people have an unseemly obsession with all manner of things being shoved down your throats (that is, when you’re not whining about being forced to bend over for something). Aside from your pathetic need to endlessly play the victim, I wonder why that is?

They are losing the culture war and their artificial head-start in life as the world is becoming more just and equal and they feel entitled to keep on holding down women, people of color and LGBT people to lift themselves up on our backs. They are afraid that they can’t get through life without their little privilege training wheels to balance them up. The whining and backlash only mean we are wining and moving closer to the future Trek has always advocated. :)

Keep making stuff up to make yourself feel better.

@G66, you’re so cowardly in making these drive by attacks and criticisms without actually being direct by what you mean. We see through you.

Cowardly? Shows your ignorance. Most of my posts detail what I mean and other times I assume people are knowledgable enough to know what I am referring to but if you want to keep with the childish personal attacks to feel better about yourself then go ahead.

Oh we know what you mean with your white nationalist nonsense. Why dont you go to the racist echo chamber forums where you can pat each other on the back for your gross perceptions and not have to worry about the evil liberal agenda twisting your crap back into reality?

Sounds like he’s pretty much got it figured out to me.

You clearly don’t know what playing the victim means. And if you don’t know what shoving down our throats means then you never will. The other Trek series had thought provoking episodes for different positioins on a subject. Now it’s the same point of view every time and it’s predictable.

Twist it as you will: complaining about TV entertainment – that you’re free to enjoy or ignore – being “shoved down” anyone’s throats means playing the victim. It means blaming self-chosen, deliberately self-created circumstances for whatever misery you’re in.
And apart from that, personally I’m still at a loss as to how Discovery is supposed to be more “liberal” than any preceding Trek series. The quality of the show’s writing isn’t up to my own perceived Trek-standards either, but what in the world does that have to do with the show having a “liberal” outlook? I just don’t get it.

Complaning about a show is not playing the victim. Playing the victim is taking things personally, that someone is hurting you personally. I am simply voicing an apinion on the show compared to the preveous incarnations and how the preveous shows, especially TOS had people from the Left, Right and Center all liking it with various opinions compared to a view that it now only takes the side of the Left. Watch interviews by many of the actors and their attitudes and hostility just as so much of Hollywood is. They don’t even try to look at both sides. There was an interview with Sonequa Martin Green where she was clearly refering to Trump and his supporters without mentioning his name and her vitriol and hostility was beyond belief. She was trying so hard (litterally in her own words) trying not to say something but was clearly infering her feelings that were completely based on unfounded perceptions and lies. Why would the star of a show do this and insult so much of the audience if they cared about them viewing the show. A good Trek show makes you think and challenge your views. It’s like many actors blatantly insulting potential moviegoers during their interviews for the film and then wonder why it bombs. But then they don’t care about selling the product for the studios and investors which fund the films because they already got payed.

Firstly, break up the wall of text.

Secondly, why is Green not allowed to have an opinion?

Thirdly, if you dont realise that Trump and his alt-right white nationalism is the minority, you need to get woke.

Its your right to support that if you so choose but dont get so bent out of shape when the majority (especially a traditionally left-leaning Hollywood), has a problem with it.

And before you come at me with criticisms of liberal whatever, Im a right wing conservative. But I have certain dis qualifiers: racism, homophobia, misogyny, mocking the disabled. If those things are cool for you, you’re the one with the problem pal (and the conservative movement doesnt need or want you).

Your ignorance and brainwashing regarding Trump is staggering. You will obviouosly believe anything that makes you think you are right without doing some honest research on people. No one had a problem with Trump or cliamed he was racist until he ran for President because that’s what people like you do, claim everything is racist or sexist or homophobic or xenophobic, etc. no matter the truth. That’s what almost everyone here that doesn’t like my opinion falls back on despite me never having a problem with female, minority or gay characters. I could go on explaining but I’m sure you won’t even try to understand the points I make and will think comments that have nothing to do with race are still racist and I don’t want my wall of text to offend you. I hope I spelled everything right so it doesn’t give you a seizure.

@G66 – so here we go with your blanket attacks on me. Im a Conservative, pal. You can’t undermine my position with your liberal agenda conspiracy.

You’re either smart enough to know what you’re doing or too stupid to see you’ve been brainwashed. Either way, you have hate in your heart. Seek professional help. It’s not too late.

Trump is CLEARLY racist, sexist, xenophobic. During the election I argued with my best friend, who is gay, that Trump was not a homophobe. His remarks about gays was essentially “what do I care”. BUT…he surrounds himself with people who ARE and thus, allows that position to be HIS. He has to own it.

If you subscribe to white nationalism and everything that goes along with it, you will lose every time. It’s not too late to turn away from hate and anger.

But do it somewhere else. You should not be welcome here.

PS: Now, if you mean to say that you wish for the social commentary in Discovery to be more subtle, more “a-clef”, maybe more open to interpretation – that would be a point worth discussing. I myself can’t stand writers who have absolutely no confidence in the audience’s intelligence. And yet still, calling this sort of deficiency “liberal BS […] shoved down our throats” is missing the point entirely as far as Star Trek is concerned.

You are correct about how the commentary is handled and yes it’s not only liberals (really progressives today) but most of the time it just happens to be liberals. Look at how they are dealing with the election after a year and a half.

Do you mean how Trump keeps talking about Hilary and Obama?

And keeps talking about the biggest victory, and the biggest turnout, and it’s all the biggest steaming pile of … to come out of a President’s mouth since Bush II, or maybe Reagan.

If 66 is bent out of shape about the Left talking about the last prez election, he better not get near me, because I’m still livid about the Gore election …

That’s a shame.

Just as Obama kept talking about Bush and Hillary is on her 50th excuse without blaming herself at all? What’s your point?

Just as Obama kept talking about Bush

It’s funny that you would claim such a thing, since it’s so easily disproven. A quick browse through the news archives shows that there were a whopping two instances when it was noted that President Obama invoked the name of his predecessor in a prominent fashion – and that was around the time of the 2010 midterms. As a matter of fact, headlines that mention Obama praising Bush throughout the his presidency are far more frequent.

You’re going to make G66’s head explode with all these facts.

As a fan of “W”, the one good thing about Trump is he has certainly made W look a heck of a lot more competent and Presidential! lol

You got issues, man. All that “liberal” bogeymanning really just comes across as an incredibly inane and hackneyed way of saying: “Yeah, I don’t like it for reasons.”
In truth you’re just making crap up based on your poor understanding of how ideals of inclusiveness and equality can be addressed. Do I agree that the writing has been heavy-handed and clumsy in a couple of places? — Yes. Do I agree with each and every idea proposed in this series? — I don’t! Do I take offence at the aforementioned points? — Why no! It’s entertainment ffs!
And yet you actually pointed it out yourself: It’s you who’s feeling insulted. Well, tough luck!

For people who want to be so inclusive and understanding, it’s amazing how people like you do nothing but assume and judge what you think other people are thinking. It’s funny how it’s people who think like you that are the ones against free speech if they don’t like it and want to take rights away or limit rights and yell Fascism despite not actually knowing what Fascism is.The hypocricy is overwhelming. And based on your comments about liberal boogeymanning shows you don’t know or understand the negative things happening these days like the rise of Socialism in this country and how so many people don’t know the history of socialism or even the meaning of socialism and fsacism anymore You must be like the people in Seattle who are blaming Amazon for the homeless problem. Read about it if you don’t know.

It’s getting a bit difficult to sort through this wild amalgamate of talking points [edit: the following lines will not be displayed correctly unless you click “read more” first]…

yell Fascism

You mean that thing which I never did?

despite not actually knowing what Fascism is

That’s a bold claim, considering I actually used to study modern and recent history. And even though I do not hold a degree, since I changed paths midway through, it’s sufficient to say that I know my way around. In fact, the long period of unrest in Italy, spanning more than a century between the risorgimento, the First World War and the rise of Mussolini (which includes the publication of pivotal documents like the Futurist Manifesto – which was chiefly concerned with the arts and philosophy of the time – and the Fascist Manifesto) as well as the rise of National Socialism in Germany have been of considerable interest to me thanks to my family history (i.e. me being descended from a German-Italian family)

like the rise of Socialism in this country

Has there been a fourth International? Are the trade unions taking over? Is a council republic being established at the moment? – I didn’t notice! Have I glossed over all these revolutionary proclamations? Or may it be that we’re talking about different countries?

I’m sorry in case I was being overly flippant here, but nothing you’re claiming there stands up to the slightest scrutiny. And yes, I know what’s going on in Seattle – but that’s the point where you need to ask yourself: “Where’s the connection to that TV show I don’t really like?”

Now, if I may issue a claim of my own – and you may debate me on this: What I read between the lines (which, I take it, you want me to do) is mainly a predisposition toward gross oversimplification along the lines of: “socialism = reduction/abolishment of personal liberty and civil rights” vs. “fascism = the freedom to lash out at everything perceived as ‘unfair’ in an ideologically charged fashion”
Am I saying you’re a fascist? – No, not quite. I’m saying that you appear to be terrified beyond the capacity for rational thought in the face of a shifting sociopolitical landscape. I’m saying you’re displaying incredibly reactionary tendencies but can’t make heads or tails of the why. Hence you take to ranting and raging about a TV which may have a number of issues but which certainly isn’t indicative of some socialist agenda or whatever you want to call it.

@g66 – no question, we are not inclusive of hate, racism, bigotry etc. Dont like it? Get lost. Simple solution.

You try just tolerating a guy who personally defends skinheads.

He never defended them. Try actually listening to what he said and use your brain who he was referring to. Try listening to the statement for yourself without the opinion of someone who wouldn’t like him if he cured cancer. You do realize their was Antifa there and look at every place they go with riots. And when he said people on both sides he was referring to the protest of the statue. That’s what the protest was for. Don’t you think there were honest people not affiliated with the white supremecists or Antifa that were there protesting on both sides since as I just said the purpose of the protest was about removing the statue. And if you did a little research you would have found out that the people there that had guns were a veterans group that went there specifically because they knew the white supremecists and Antifa would be there and they wanted to prevent a riot but obviously they weren’t successfult due to how the police were ordered to funnel people together that shouldn’t be. Like asking for trouble but that’s another story. But if you don’t care about honesty then there’s no talking to you. By the way if you followed information about the white supremecists showing up, they apparently put out an add around the country and could only get a few hundred morons to show up. Antifa has people in every city. Look at what they do at colleges around the country when someone they don’t like speaks and what they did in DC during the innauguration but I guess you are blind to them. What about when Obama always took the side of the criminal against the police despite not knowing any facts of what happened and being wrong every time. But that’s ok right. Obama had the opportunity of a lifetime if not the first time in the history of the country to legitimately bring white and black people together but instead he made it worse by blaming everything negative said about him as racist. Hell, many white people voted for him for that reason alone.

So you feel women, blacks, gays have been shoved down your throat via Discovery? Is that what you’re insinuating but are too cowardly to just say?

Clueless so it’s not worth explaining any more.

Thank you for admitting you’re clueless and can’t explain. Bravo.

What exactly do you mean? It looks to me like there’s some cognitive dissonance here when you claim Discovery is ‘shoving down our throats’ something and then proceed to claim Discovery has nothing new to offer. Which is it?

Trek has always been “liberal BS” in space. That’s why it’s awesome. Have you ever watched this series and caught on to its socialist “everybody is equal and taken care of” money-free future where doing the right thing and overthrowing oppression went hand-in-hand with “infinite diversity in infinite combinations?” Where the “needs of the many” and rejection of primitive nationalism themes clearly advocate and celebrate a socialist, secular humanistic vision of the future. Or did you just like the phaser and space fights? ;)

Trek never said it was Socialist. That is just speculation from some people for discussion. Equality of rights is not eqaulity of outcome which is socialism. Also, they didn’t use REAL money like we are moving towards electronic like credit cards, etc. They had credits or other currencies. Do you really think the Captain of the ship got payed (or whatever you want to call it) the same as the Ensign or Security or the bartender? Your utopian fantasy of the future is beyond ridiculous. People are different so there will always be conflict and emotions that cause us to differ. This isn’t meant as an insult but I bet your an Athiest based on your aparent approval of Socialism despite it’s history. I guess you are like that old episode where John Gill thought the Nazis (National Socialists) had the right idea if not for Hitler.

You do realize that Italy, the UK, France and Germany are all socialist countries of varying degrees and that millions of Christians reside in each of those countries? It’s an odd statement to equate socialism with atheism.

Italy, the UK, France & Germany are open-market capitalist economies. They have generous welfare systems, but that doesn’t mean they are socialist.

Note I said of varying degrees. State run media, universal healthcare, etc. Socialism is the purest sense doesn’t actually exist (no does communism for that matter).

Nnnnaaah. Upon closer inspection, you will find that “state run media” as an element of socialism doesn’t really bear close scrutiny – not in the countries you named at least!
I know all of those countries quite well and rest assured that in each of them public-service media (which would be the appropriate term here) exists alongside privately owned media companies, which in most cases make up a far larger percentage of each country’s respective media landscape (with the possible exception of the UK). Usually, public-service broadcasters merely enjoy certain privileges in terms of availability, thanks to them being regarded as central to freely available information.
And what’s more, owing to their function as democratically elected news outlets, a lot of public-service broadcasters actually strive for greater independence and comprehensiveness than private companies which can be pressured into assuming a certain stance much more easily. Whether they actually cover a broader spectrum of information certainly differs between countries though. Still, that’s just the broadcasting companies. Other news outlets like print media are usually privately owned in those countries anyway.
So, in short: It’s not like those countries have their “Pravda” as the only offically sanctioned news source. To draw a US-comparison: just imagine PBS and NPR operating a couple more stations while all others are still available.

None of those countries are true socialist as they have some degree of free market and I do remeber that true socialist Germany who hated religion especially the Jews. Of course there are socialist Christians, Jews and other religions but in my experiences I notice more Athiests or non religious people tend to have a socialist attitude. Our Democratic Republic was founded on priciples from belief in God (Judeo Christian). The abolition of slavery was founded on Judeo Christian priciples. All the Socialist and Communist countries that are responsible for the millions of deaths from Hitler to Mussolini to Lenin to Castro etc. were basically all Athiests. But I do understand what your saying. Thank you for the polite response as opposed to personal insults from others.

Of course I’m an atheist. Invisible magic man in the sky? Please. Guess who was also an atheist? Gene Roddenberry. :)

Dude, God was on Sha Ka Ree in the center of the galaxy. Duh. Wait, that was a bearded alien who looked a heck of a lot like Malachi Throne. Never mind.

Really, I thought he looked like Scanlan, the internal affairs guy on BARNEY MILLER (because that’s who played God, George Murdoch, also essaying the thankless role of the doc on original BSG.)

So what about what Roddenberry believed. Is he the all knowing person to follow? When you have a good answer for how you get something from nothing then get back to me. Perhaps you just don’t like the word God and would prefer creator. Try doing a little research on the odds of simple life existing like single cell lifeforms and then take it all the way to being a human. There isn’t a calculation that high but if you say randomness creates life then good for you.

It’s easy to buy into an idea like Malevolent Design (copyright) when I read your posts, 66.

All good points. Socialism itself is a failed system. We need look no further than Venezuela (an OPEC nation) to see the fruits of Socialism, including $4/ month wages, empty grocery shelves and people having to resort to eating their family pets. Socialists are Capitalists with their lives and “socialist” with everyone else. Very sad but true.

That’s funny Scandinavia is socialist and one of the top areas in the world to live in.

Exactly :)

That the replicator and bountiful sources of energy had done away with poverty and gross economic inequality by the time of TNG was explicitly stated several times in the series, as was earth being run by a world government for centuries. Are these little items on your “conservative” agenda these days? If so, maybe I’ll convert. In the meantime, you might want to forgo posting to adult sites until you’ve mastered the use of capitalization, spelling, grammar, and the apostrophe, assuming you wish to be taken seriously. Just a suggestion.

Star Trek never said it was purely socialist, but you’ve got to admit there are plenty of integrated components:

– Guaranteed healthcare… check
– Guaranteed nutrition… check
– Guaranteed livelihood… check
– Guaranteed education… check

As for money, is used with organizations/governments OUTSIDE of the Federation. I don’t think there are many references to it being used WITHIN the Federation. What exactly would Picard do with a billion Federation credits anyway?

Finally, Luke didn’t say “everyone is guaranteed to be a Captian”. That type of projection suggest you simply have a bug up your butt when someone uses the word “socialism”.

What does being liberal have to do with anything?

And by the way why do you watch a progressive show like Star Trek if you clearly hate everything it’s about?

I mean Progressive, not classic liberal and it wasn’t progressive. Also, I mentioned in another post that It is only this series that has these problems so much. I liked all the other series.

That makes me sad. You missed the message of Star Trek.

Umm tos has a racially mixed crew during a time when most people wanted segregation it was VERY progressive.

It was conservative talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham who tried to demonize the word “progressive” as nothing more than a way for liberals to rebrand themselves away from conservative attacks. In the 1990s, they successfully made “liberal” a dirty word (even Clinton ran from it for decades), and so they were determined to exterminate any other additional alternative phrasings in the process. By making that distinction between liberal and progressive, one could argue that you are just doing conservative talk radio’s bidding? Just saying.

I bet you hated when the kids used to say “groovy” and “cool” too, right? Do you have nightmares about bell bottoms? lol

“shoved down our throats”

Someone forces you to watch the show? That’s terrible! How can we help?

All this down the throat stuff makes me think somebody has a facehugger obsession, perhaps the franchise he needs to be commenting on is the ALIEN universe.

I’m fairly certain that your depiction of the DSC writer’s room must have been hilarious to some six-year old, somewhere. Maybe you can aim for an early teenage audience next time, if you think that isn’t too much of a stretch for someone in their late ‘20s.

Thank you!! It’s more “joke” than “woke” lol

Maybe EW toked before writing woke

Maybe they just have a different opinion of the series than you?

No question that they have a dif op from me, anyway.

@martin, are you an Emmy voter? If not, does it matter?

There is no way CBS will release ST:D on DVD/Blu-Ray until Season 2 is well-underway. CBS wants subscribers to retain their subscriptions; they are counting on repeat viewings within their All Access walled streaming garden. Shareholders want to hear viewership #s for the overall platform. When #s are decreasing, then expect different digital media sales to start up.

There’s big money in DVD / Blu ray but you’re absolutely right in that they need to pull viewers to All Access, not iTunes, Amazons or physical media.

Not anymore. And CBS / Paramount have already stopped distributing themselves internationally, and now let Universal handle it.

It might release right before Season 2. I know GoT’s does (or did) that and used the marketing of the Blu Ray to help promote the new season. People would buy it to binge and catch up.

Im not sure how much season one would leverage new subs to CBSAA. But I would guess CBS will know. So we shall see.

If I were them, I’d release the DVDs a couple weeks to a month before the season 2 premiere in Sept. And/or put it on Netflix in the US about then too. Great publicity.

Putting the show on Netflix’s US streaming service would be cutting their own throat. Why allow a more popular competitor access to your content when you are trying to keep your own subscribers? Makes no sense. I’d wager we will NEVER see STD on US Netflix so long as CBSAA is active.

@ML31 — because it expands the audience for syndication. The money is in first run television — that’s where CBSAA sells subscriptions. If no one ever sees it without subscribing to a service that offers little more than Trek at the moment, and all the Trek fans who are going to have already signed up, then there’s very little other way to get more first run subscribers than to entice them with last years episodes. This is the standard TV syndication model. It’s unlikely CBSAA will not follow it.

Cadet, considering it is on a streaming service the standard models of yesterday no longer apply. Syndication is not what it was. You should know that. If CBS were interested in more people being able to see it they would have put it on a more readily available arm of their empire. They want subscribers. Letting people see the show by skipping out on paying them and paying a competitor makes zero sense.

STD may eventually get released to disc. But I wouldn’t expect it anytime soon for the very reasons you mention. They want people to stream past seasons while subscribing to their service rather than let people get a hold of a disc. Netflix is even hoarding their original content from their own disc service. Lost in Space isn’t even something you can but on your “saved” list.

There was a lovely year when DS9 came in as the third-most nominated drama at the Emmys. All tech awards though, and I’d be very surprised if Discovery didn’t repeat that pattern. Patrick Stewart, The Inner Light, The Visitor… if none of them could get nods for the major awards, then what hope does Discovery have in a more crowded landscape?

And in what should be a much tougher landscape too. The best of the best nowadays makes up a greater volume of the overall programming as well as having continued to raise the bar on expectations.

It sorta feels like we are heading out of a “golden age” of TV at the moment. There is a lot more content now but most of it does not really stand out. Unlike a few years ago where the ratio of good to “meh” programming was pretty high.

Totally agree. I believe the difference here would be the CBS influence. I doubt Paramount had much Emmy cred in pushing a syndicated Sci Fi show.

Very little hope, if any. Disappointing as it was, Discovery is far from a bad show, but there are just too many genuinely great shows out there for it to meaningfully compete. I wish it were otherwise.

There are a ton better programs out there that are deserving of Emmys than STD. As a huge Trek guy I wish that were not the case. At best STD is “meh”.

Woke AF. Love how this series shows an actual sampling of humanity – and not unrealistically skewed towards the ones that are straight, white and male. It’s silly that Trek has depicted the future of humanity but has disproportionally shown just a few types of people. Note that I said “disproportionally” and not “only.” Trek has always been social justice warriors in space and now the show reflects that legacy even more. (Cue the crying by those people that feel threatened that their “kiddie booster chair” of white, straight, male representation and, hence, privilege, is being eroded across the culture at large. Backlash means progress!)

Realistic? WOW!

Kinda a rich criticism coming from the segment of society that thinks gays cause hurricanes.

Actually it’s rich coming from someone who makes a stupid comment about someone who has never ever said such a stupid thing or complained about having female or minority characters. If you have to make stuff up to feel better then go right ahead.

Its not hard to read between the line G66. You have an issue with the diversity of Discovery (by your reactions) but pretend its not true because you want your opinion to carry more weight.

Give it up. You’re hiding. At least be courageous about your shallow opinion.

Pretty judemental there and full of insults. Can’t you engage in discussion without insulting? Guess not.

What do you find unrealistic about Discovery, G66? Minus the whole future technology part

Populating a show with female and gay characters does not make a show good. I’d rather every character be a white male if the show were good than have a “diverse” cast but a bad show. The point is, I want quality first. If you have quality with your “diverse” cast, then great. If you have mediocrity with your diverse cast, then “so what?”

Populating a show with female and gay characters does not make a show good. I’d rather every character be a white male if the show were good than have a “diverse” cast but a bad show. The point is, I want quality first. If you have quality with your “diverse” cast, then great. If you have mediocrity with your diverse cast, then “so what?”

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no good gay and female characters (or non-white which your reply suggests)? Because there’s no reason you can’t have a quality show with a diversity of characters, all things being equal. Your statement sounds bigoted and racist on the face of it.

What makes you think every producer isn’t setting out to make the best possible show they can? Telling the story of a gay, female, or non-white character does not in of itself make a show bad. Diversifying the color of the cast is of no consequence whatsoever unless you think only straight white male actors are the best at the craft, or such characters are the best that can be portrayed. Gay or Straight, male or female, have no bearing on the character whatsoever, just as in real life, unless you’re assuming social stereotypes … and that brings us back to your personal biases.

Cadet, you are completely missing the point. On the face of it my statement was as NON sexist or racist as one could possibly get. Same when you break it down and analyze it as well. It is literally impossible to find that comment to be racist or sexist. Not unlikely. IMPOSSIBLE. The comment was not about no good gay or female characters. Nothing of the sort. It was about overall quality of the program. It IS possible to have a very good show with an all white cast just as it is possible to have a very good show with an all female cast. (or insert whatever gender or race you like or even combo) My point was that diverse casting does not make a show good. GOOD casting is ONE element that makes a show good. I would rather see something good than something bad. Diversity has no bearing on quality. And I guess given the earlier misunderstanding I need to clarify that… It means that something can be diverse and good just as easily as it can be diverse and bad. Just as a lily white cast and staff can make something good or bad. It really feels like you are searching for an argument here.

Most woke series ever? REALLY? WOKE? Way to build the brand.Market to the samllest crowd and insult the masses. Star Wars tried it and lost a billion, with a B, dollars from previous films. Trek films don’t have a billion to blow so I guess they want to burry it forever. Discovery is worst of all Trek shows and no coincidence the letters are STD. Thankfully I get the show for free and only watch cause I love Trek back to TOS and kind of feel obligated to give it a chance.

The idea that THE LAST JEDI suffered at the box office for political reasons is so breathtakingly stupid I’m fairly amazed that anyone capable of expressing it could breathe simultaneously, much less type.

That was only part of it but if you are going to deny it then you are the ignorant one. Try reading and watching peoples opinions.

By all means, prove any or all of your dumb assertion about THE LAST JEDI’s take being hurt by its being insufficiently respectful of Donald Trump, or whatever. Go ahead. And when your Uncle Bob, some YouTube posters and a few thousand Reddit sewer-dwellers add-up to being close to a billion dollars, let me know.

No Star Wars is still one of the most profitable franchises out there today. The Last Jedi alone was the top grossing movie of last year. I have no idea where you’re getting your info from but you’re WAY off.

I didn’t say it wasn’t profitable. I said it made about a billion less than Force Awakens. Try BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM and as far as profitable, it was GUARANTEED to be profitable based on the built in fan base but your not an investor so you don’t undertsant that if you expect to make 10 times what you invested and only make 2 times, that’s not good especially when these blockbusters are supposed to make up for most of the other movies that year that lose money. Did you read how it was dropped completely from China in five minutes and that is the second largest market in the world.

It grossed $1.3 billion on roughly a $250 million budget. As with The Empire Strikes Back, it made a ton of cash but nowhere near as much as the film that preceded it. As for China, there isn’t much of a market for Star Wars in China despite Disney’s best efforts to promote it over there.

EMPIRE’s reduced take was because in the film Yoda declared that “Wars do not make one great,” which the thumb-suckers of the day thought was insufficiently respectful of Ronald Reagan (who, you must remember, liberated the German death camps all by his ownself) and thus withheld their moviegoing dollars. I should know, I was there.

It had little to do with politics and more to do with the diminished returns of direct sequels in general. The Empire Strikes Back, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Toy Story 2, Star Trek Into Darkness and the list goes on. The initial release is a phenomenon subject to multiple viewings in theaters, sequels are often ‘one and done’ affairs that, while hugely successful, typically fall short of the film that initially launched the series.

Of course (and I hope my sarcasm was obvious). That TESB is commonly regarded as the best film in the STAR WARS franchise, yet did the least amount of business, should put to bed the notion that these outcomes have much to do with quality–let alone, heaven help us, a film’s political leanings.

While I liked The Last Jedi more than the Force Awakens, I can also admit that its success at the box office owes to things more than its quality as a film. This is my opinion, but let me say that I hate people with agendas (any and all agendas) and leave it at that.

The Last Jedi did worse than TFA for the reasons of 1) it was the second films, rather then the first and 2) it was not nearly as good.

Has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with a crappy story.

Whatever is the reason I still stand by on my point of view about agendas. I think people with agendas are brainwashed into only looking at something from a single point of view while this narrows their ability to analyze everything from all points of view. As a result I believe believe with agendas can empathize less with other people. I believe all the issues in the world can be solved by inclusivity and including all the people in the discussion, people with agendas unfortunately seem to me to be not in favor of inclusion.

I agree to a point. But the idea we should be inclusive of vile view points doesnt hold water with me.

We see what this has done with Trump making racist alt right white nationalism acceptable. The racists and homophobes have crawled out of the woodwork all over.

Regardless, it has nothing to do with The Last Jedi. The story sucked and stomped all over the hopes & desires of Star Wars fans with a “change for change sake” plot. Thats why it didnt do as well.

Of course I am not talking about vile view points, that is why it is so hard to empathize with a vile person. I am just saying that perhaps without specific agendas people might understand each other better. As long as it doesn’t involve violence or morally objectionable ideas I prefer to look at all issues from every side of the spectrum.

G66, credit to you for working really hard at twisting facts to support your narrative. But you have to try harder. Doesnt work.

You realise the marketing is to the Emmy voters not the general public, right? If “woke” bothers you that much, you’ve become so biased towards the show that you can’t see straight.

If DSC had only lived up to a fraction of its early potential I’d be happy to root for it, but given my overall disappointment I can’t work up much other than indifference and some vague hope that the second season will be an improvement. And I’m a fan, so it would come as a shock to me if the Emmy voters ended up feeling otherwise.

It’s always an uphill battle for sci fi and horror.

Jason Isaacs definitely deserves an Emmy; he was totally riveting all season long!

How much programming do you watch? Isaacs is a good actor, somebody I’ve enjoyed going well back into the 90s, but there is nothing special going on here. One or two decent speeches, and him outacting a lot of his co-stars (which is not a good thing — look at how Cumberbatch practically humiliates Pine in ID; in the brig scene I was practically squirming with embarrassment for Pine, an actor I don’t even like) does not translate as awards material. I could see people making a case for Brooks in FAR BEYOND THE STARS or Kelley in THE EMPATH, or maybe even Stewart (though he wouldn’t have gotten my vote), but there’s nothing about this Enterprise that is particularly noteworthy or memorable yet, except perhaps the idea that so many folks have seemingly fallen for it.

Isaacs was good, but the cast as a whole was unimpressive. Maybe he just seemed that much better.

This is my honest opinion but for me sometimes Isaacs felt like he was in another show. He seemed to be acting much more theatrically (perhaps on purpose, since he was an impostor)Perhaps it is because of his British origin. Most actors there come from the Shakespeare school of acting.

I think he was SUPPOSED TO seem different from the others, because Mirror characters are very different from Starfleet officers.

He always has seemed like a less good-looking version of Timothy Dalton to me, who also has a tendency to come off theatrical — but I usually let it ride for him, too. I think Isaacs was very good in a non-charismatic way in EVENT HORIZON, which had a really good ensemble (and tech crew) in service to a terrible damn movie I keep having to re-buy to get in higher rez for the terrific miniature ship vfx.

Event Horizon could have been a much better movie if they didn’t cut out lots of stuff out of it. It is still a big guilty pleasure for me.

I talked to the guy who storyboarded the whole discarded open, which shows them rescue somebody during an asteroid collapse. It would have shown how effective this team was, which is important because they don’t come off that way at all in the finished movie (kind of like SUPERNOVA in that way.) Even though they had more money than any of the TREK movies up to that point, I think around 75 mil, they still didn’t have enough to do it all correctly, so a lot of stuff fell out, and, like you say, they cut out stuff too.

I so love the captain chair that dangles from the overhead, reminds me of the consoles in MOON 44, Emmerich’s early cheapie,which had great art direction but lousy cinematography that smoked things up so badly it was hard to watch the movie (which also had some uncomfortable scenes, enough so I’ve never bought or rewatched it, but I do dig those consoles.

I barely remember Moon 44, but Event Horizons budget was 75 million dollars? I didn’t know that. That sounds a little much for the time period it was made in, but it probably doesn’t look its budget because of all the cut stuff. I’d guess the budget to be more around the 40-50 million range.

What kills me is EH was Paramount? Why were they willing to spend more on something with no built-in audience than TREK?

I personally thought his performance was one of the best things about Discovery‘s first season, and it certainly wasn’t his fault that all of the nuanced ambiguity he wove into the character was rendered mostly meaningless by a godawful creative decision on the part of the producers. I doubt the Emmy voters will see it that way, though. Amazing that a new Trek cable series with an extravagant budget and excellent cast would prove to be less buzz-worthy than, say, a KARATE KID sequel screening on YouTube. But, there we are.

Agreed, about Isaacs. I was pretty much glued to the screen for every scene he was in. A very compelling character, surrounded by mediocrity, imo, and discarded. I don’t see where DSC is deserving of any Emmys for season one, regardless. I am interested in what they do with Mount’s Pike for season two, and hope the writers actually produce something coherent and addicting this time around.

And true, Cobra Kai has Huge buzz surrounding it while Discovery does not. One thing that Sequel (not prequel, notice) has is a great nostalgia factor, to the point where it seems many people wanted a sequel to The Karate Kid and didn’t even KNOW they wanted it. That, and apparently the writing is very tight, the story and characters compelling, and so on. I’m aware the genres are worlds apart and there are other differences, but that show is doing something right.

I’m not too embarrassed to admit that I’ve rather been enjoying COBRA KAI. Like the source material it’s overly earnest, and at times more than a little silly. But much like the original KARATE KID it has a lot of heart, and that counts for something. What I especially appreciate is that it took a setup that was always a straightforward fantasy of the underdog’s victory over his tormentors and managed to morally complicate things to the extent that, by season’s end, you’re not quite sure who to root for anymore. (One episode even asks the audience to reconsider the events of the original film from the “villain’s” POV.) You’re right, of course, about the two genres being worlds apart, but that very approach to storytelling–hopefully more artful and sophisticated than what preceded it–was what the Discovery producers promised, and largely failed to delivery on.

Also as far as I can see the show doesn’t depart from what makes it Karate Kid and instead it embraces it. That can also be a factor of its success. It respects what comes before and builds on that accordingly.

” I was pretty much glued to the screen for every scene he was in. A very compelling character, surrounded by mediocrity, imo,”

I agree. The same could be said for Patrick Stewart. His charisma was the main reason even the subpar episodes were watchable. The rest of the cast was just not very good at all. You could just see how superior Stewart was over all of them in every scene. Just as Issacs made STD compelling for quite some time. Until… You know….

“Jason Isaacs definitely deserves an Emmy; he was totally riveting all season long!”

Well, he was until his final couple of episodes when the writers totally destroyed his character.

Seems like Trek Movie has become the place where whiners and complainers gather.

Welcome to! The fire’s been burning since 2006. Enough already indeed!

My personal choice for Emmys for Discovery would be for Marry Chieffo, Jason Isaacs, Doug Jones, Mary Wiseman, Jayne Brook and Michelle Yeoh. I was not too blown away by the other technical aspects yet and music and the opening theme were the weakest parts in my opinion.

Obviously Star Trek is on the progressive side of pop culture (though at it’s best, it aims for more than merely simple sloganeering, and in Deep Space Nine was not afraid of ambiguity or complexity). But good Star Trek is quality storytelling first, social messaging second. Bad Star Trek is shoddy drama with bonk-over-the-head messaging. Using woke marketing to deflect criticism away from a show’s poor storytelling is, I suppose, a sign of the times. To the user citing Entertainment Weekly, note that publication’s resident Trek writer, Darren Franich, though Discovery’s first season ended quite badly and “took the franchise backward.” One other thing, Star Trek isn’t quite socialist in the contemporary sense of the word, as it depicts a post-scarcity economy brought about by technological innovation. Anyway, I’d like to think all of us can agree that Discovery was, at the very least, on fleek.

Good points Galt, I agree with everything you said. The ideal format for Star Trek is like you said having a middle ground between quality story telling and messaging and not by constantly hitting our heads with the message and you are right DS9 did this the best I think. What they need to also is to look at the message they are trying to give from all sides of the spectrum. Star Trek used to this very well in the previous incarnations, now it wants itself to be limited its point of view in a single view. That is why TOS was so good, Kirk, Spock and McCoy each looked at a problem from a different point of view but at the end reached a common ground.

It was totes on fleek. It was lit. Some of it was extra. I can’t even.

Back to English: I tend to agree that for me the quality of the stories trumps how “woke” it’s *seen* to be.

hahahah You’re criticizing them for their promoting of the show to the Emmy’s? Like even if you believe the story-telling was lacking, you want them to promote to the Emmy’s that “Discovery wasnt very good but vote for us anyway”?

The whiners never stop.

All excellent points, and delivered without a hint of snark. Good job.

I would never have thought that I might agree with any of your statements, but: yes. Absolutely! Good points all around, actually.

Well stated.

“Most woke?” ….Rule 1: learn to speak and write properly before seeking a career as a writer. Rule 1A: As one of the leading entertainment magazines, try really hard not to hire people who can’t speak or write proper English.

You mean “white” English is “proper” English? Woke is a word that originated in the African American community. Language evolves. Have you ever read Beowulf or Shakespeare? The difference is that when white people change and grow the language it’s an “evolution”, when non-white people do the same it’s “improper.” Food for thought :)

I agree wholeheartedly with your point about language evolving. Yet the standard/nonstandard debate is a longstanding one historically. The race issue is a little more difficult to define regarding perceptions of language. Indeed some varieties enjoy more prestige than others. Yet, during the inkhorn controversy from the mid-16th to mid-17th centuries, plenty of English scholars were up in arms about the apparent evolution of language and sought to stop it. Others were actively trying to bring in more Latinate words and words of Greek descent. Fast forward to the 19th century where poor English became explicitly associated with a lack of education following compulsory education towards the end of that century. School inspectors in England commented on the “debased” English of children who didn’t speak or write the prestige variety. Sadly, many of these attitudes persist today. A study of race is certainly warranted (and many are underway in linguistic circles), but your interpretation above is somewhat simplistic. Do you have a source for “woke” coming from (what I’m assuming is) AAVE? I thought it was a “young person” term, and potentially age-graded (meaning that they’ll grow out of it) but I’d be interested to explore the etymology of this term in more detail. Thanks in advance :)

Ive seen it used by white American’s myself. In fact, a business I follow, a Carolinas-native uses it all the time. I just take it as a young person word. Personally I dont care where it started. Its a word…meh, who cares.

That was my impression of it as a “youth” term. I only ask as I have a PhD in linguistics and it’s what I do for a living haha! Can’t help being a language nerd! :)

Cool, I have a masters in Germanic languages too, but I didn’t want to put my two cents in because the issue of language development is still somewhat contradictory and can sometimes be controversial. While there are many new words being added to the English vocabulary, sometimes different events cause different additions. There are several modern day verbal statements that I personally think are not used in a correct context.

I’m mainly interested in perceptions of language varieties myself – some of the comments on this thread speak volumes in that area!

Sounds like a cool area of study, I would love to sit down and chat with you about this if I could get the opportunity.

Still hung up on racism.

You’re not woke enough to understand woke. Do you also yell at the local kids to get off your lawn? I assume the “72” in your handle is your age.

LOL. Hit the nail on the head. :)

Can anyone have an opinion without you going right to the personal insults?

Eloquently written.

Popped in to read the article and read some of the most disgraceful attacks on minorities from bigoted, hate filled “fans”.

I’d like to be surprised bit I’m not. Quite why the site administrators continue to allow hate speech on here is beyond me. A disgrace.

Agreed. 100%.

Sad but true. In a way it’s like there should be a second paragraph to Godwin’s law, along the lines of: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone bringing up a perceived “all-encompassing liberal agenda” approaches 1.

I can tolerate conservative points of view even if I disagree with them. But what G66 has been writing in the comments thread has been grossly offensive and utterly unbecoming of a so called ‘fan’ of a famously progressive and liberal film and television franchise. They have crossed a line and need to be banned.

Which of course they won’t because the administrators of this website are seemingly happy to allow these kind of narrow minded, bigoted comments.

A damning inditement of our time.

Remember when the mods returned after a long absence and began editing, warning etc everyone? And said it would no longer be tolerated?

That was a fun couple of hours. :-)

On a serious note, G66 should be banished. I generally belief almost anything should be allowed but its such clear alt-right trolling…he’s not even trying to engage in reasonable discussion. Time to cut him loose.

And Mirror Galt and his appalling and rampant sexism against female production staff and cast.

If this was a forum, G66 and Mirror Galt would have been banned within an hour. Clearly, those who run this site do not give much thought to the dispicable comments in this and other threads.

Probably because until things become personal or a hindrance to the board the people running the site adhere to the first amendment. People are allowed to have opinions. Even unpopular ones. I would be more wary of posts demanding banishment of posters just for having an unsavory opinion. Many want it merely for having a DIFFERING opinion.

Im a diehard trekkie that enjoyed season 1, it does not deserve an emmy. And they are going to lose a whole lot of fans if they are lying to us about timelines.

What is the comment about timelines in regards to? Did I miss something in the story?

Oh for heaven’s sake. How in the heck are there people who dont understand this still?

Let me spell it out for you.

It is the Prime Timeline. It has simply been visually rebooted so this particular era does not look absolutely ridiculous in the 21st century like it does on TOS.

It never fails to amaze me how people still clamour for that god awful aesthetic. I have Aspergers Syndrome and I am awful when it comes to accepting amy kind of change. But ive accepted and embraced Discovery. Why the hell can’t other people?!

I can already find a few of these sets on eBay, and people are bidding crazy amounts for them. I guess some people are that desperate to get this on DVD.

ML-31 is probably the highest bidder! :-)

Are there any DVD extras? Cut scenes?

Well the first question you should probably ask is “Are there gonna be a DVD or Blu-Ray?” People are still waiting for the announcement, but I wouldn’t get your hopes up just yet.

Not on the Emmy screeners, no.

Disc is SD only. and not dolby digital encoded. I’ve seen other SD screeners, too, that have much better picture quality overall than this one. So seems like CBS cheaped-out on their encoding and production for this screener set. They also have “property of CBS” burned in lower center throughout, and occasionally “for consideration” or some such burned in picture center pop up a handful of times in the content. Granted, semi-transparent grey, but still annoying. And I think too they shortened the end credits – I’ll have to go back and check the show on line, but end credits for this disc set do not repeat the main title music, it’s something different, and creative credits whip by much more quickly as if to try to squeeze in more interstitial time for commercials. A real disappointment if they intend to get nominations based on the quality of this presentation.

just double checked and end credits on disc match online stream, same music too, so my recollection was faulty on that point.

@Rob — that’s standard industry practice. Piracy of screeners is a massive problem in the industry. Anyone evaluating this show is likewise aware. You don’t need a pristine BluRay to adequately appraise a series for Emmy consideration.

CBS is notoriously stingy, so a poor quality DVD is not at all surprising. And you are correct – no screeners we’ve received are Bluray, nor in past years. But this one really doesn’t look that hot, and frankly not to at minimum have encoded dolby digital does a disservice to their audio and music teams.

@Rob — the lack of dolby digital has no impact on the music teams. There might be an argument to be made for surround work in DD 5.1, but that’s still a bit of a stretch since most of that work is still fairly conservative for TV shows due to the fact such home systems are not ubiquitous. So it’s not really essential here. In fact, it likely takes more work for them to limit the audio quality, rather than just doing a straight transfer. These are screeners. It’s understood they aren’t supposed to be the highest quality.

I dated a girl years ago that worked for a rental store and she’d lend me the screeners they’d get. They always included on-screen text from time to time. Since I was watching a screener of an as-yet unavailable video when I wasnt supposed to be, I didnt complain. I was glad to watch it.


While both are called screeners, the Emmy screeners are a little more concerned about not detracting from the visual experience than the upcoming video releases’ ones are. I’ve watched upcoming video release discs that do weird things like turn the color off randomly during the film to discourage copying them.

“Woke”?! Any reviews that use the English language?

It’s 2018 bruh woke has been a thing for how many years now? #getwiththetimes


According to Wikipedia its usage dates back to 1962 [in the New York Times no less], was featured in a 2008 soul song, and its widespread proliferation occurred following BLM events in 2014. By internet standards, it’s practically ancient history. By even historical standards it’s over half a century old.

On the subject of the word “woke,” I understand language changes. It’s the very nature of language. But I don’t understand the need from some of my fellow progressives to surround themselves with fashionable new buzzwords in our social causes. If the end goal is to persuade those who disagree with us, many of whom are older and don’t care to keep up with new terms, then isn’t it in our best interest to communicate as plainly as possible?

@Fritz — I refer you to the terms “Herbert” and “One”.

Using the word woke is plain English to me, has a clear meaning and in this instance has the relevant context. I mean maybe I’m just young, but to me woke isn’t coded language. If anything, woke is high praise.

Still technically it is not grammatically correct. As a teacher I believe I would have difficulty teaching this to a younger generation because I can’t teach them something that is inherently wrong in its usage, I can only teach it from its cultural viewpoint and on its impact on the society. I think this is kind of an interesting conundrum in the sense that would you be willing to teach a grammatically incorrect usage of a word just because of its impact in the current society or should you only teach the correct usage.

“As a teacher” give me a break. I’ve taught too and I’ve no problem explaining it to anyone. Your cognitive inflexibility is on display. I edit legal transcripts for a living and my mastery of English grammar is impeccable. Woke is grammatically correct, whether you personally give it that legitimacy or not. Why? Because internet. Correct usage is a thing for old people. Apparently millennials are the true wordsmiths of the day, because we have a versatility of language that seems to transcend your limited understanding of how to communicate, or at least you’re too entrenched in your rules and regulations to allow for your own freedom of expression to blossom.

Believe me I express myself just fine, and language is always fluid and changing. I think we should let the linguists talk about this before coming to any sort of conclusion, it is a legitimate discussion I think. Also I don’t like your dismissive tone about old people, while not everything they did were perfect, I believe old people and traditions must be respected while still with a place for occasional change of course. By the way, I am asking a legitimate question now because I am living in a different country than you but are you allowed to use “woke” in legal transcripts? This is just out of curiosity.

“Woke” as used in reference to being educated on social and racial issues is an adjective. It’s literally as simple as that. I could put it in a transcript just fine if that’s where it belongs. I have discussions with others in my profession about proper usage all the time. Most of them are still in denial that the word “alright” is a thing. It’s always “all right” to them. Well, they’re wrong. But they’re also traditionalists who adhere to the rules.

You should look up the etymology of the word “bespoke” while you’re at it, which started as the past tense of bespeak until it evolved. Woke as a word has evolved, and I’d take the position that if you don’t think woke is grammatically correct as an adjective, then it is you who is mistaken, not the word or the communities/people who use it that way.

I am not talking about the people or communities who use the word. I am more curious about its linguistic properties. I have a masters degree in Germanic Languages and I try to follow the development of languages, especially English, as much as I can. I was just curious if the word has been officially recognized to be used in official and legal documents. I am well aware of its cultural significance. I believe you should be open to new interpretations but at the same time I also don’t think you need to fully dismiss the traditionalists too.

As long as you’re willing to accept it and other forms of language evolution then that’s fine with me. As far as I’m concerned if I can understand it, or it can be understood among the people communicating, then it’s proper English. It’s highly context-specific, of course, and most of internet speak doesn’t belong in an English essay, but it does its job, which is to communicate ideas. And woke isn’t even internet speech anyway, it’s just been popularized on the web.

Ok thanks, I am trying to do more research on it.Of course change in language must be accepted because language is not something static, it is fluid and always changes.

And the self-promoted hype continues. There is and was zero positive buzz surrounding this series from the fanboys much less the casual viewing public…just a lot of head scratching. The notion that Discovery could collect any emmys beyond production and costume design is just wishful thinking on CBS’ s part, but they’ve got gumption, I’ll give them that.

Imagine thinking this is true.

To be fair: It’s true that almost every bit of media-buzz sorrounding DISCO has been a promotional effort. Reviews have been slow to come in, and every now and then some mainstrem media outlet (mainstream as in “not fandom-related”) has picked up on the talking points promoted by CBS, but very few have addressed the show for what it is. However, I haven’t seen a lot of “head scratching” either, not outside platforms like this site and a select couple of others – so that’s not a “general audience perception”-thing either.
And what’s more: I can’t find the corresponding chart right now, but Discovery has been ranking pretty high among streaming shows even quite a while after the conclusion of its first season – which means that it has a certain “shelf life” not commonly associated with streaming. So what it lacks in “buzz”, it makes up in numbers.

Oh there has been so little in the way of positive buzz that there is no way a second season will be commisioned.

Oh wait.

You and your small-minded cohort of hardcore fans might not like it (and spend hours and hours and hours of your lives complaining incessently to fill whatever is missing from your life) but for the love of god dont presume to speak for the fandom.

@TUP, unless someone is espousing or encourgaing violence, bullying, harrasment etc. towards someone which are obviously vile, who exactly decides what is vile or hate speech as others have said and isn’t. There is nothing more important than Freedom of Speech as well as Freedom in general which is slowly eroding. I’m sure you aren’t in favor of laws limiting speech as well as other rights (if you are indeed conservative as voting for a Republican doesn’t necessarily make you conservative) but to impune another person’s opinion completely on speculation without a spec of evidence is dangerous especially if the majority of people did this. You claim to be a conservative (pal, as you said), but are quick to assume what people thoughts and intentions are despite not a single hatefull statement made towards any race, gender or sexual preference. You say your conservative but presume to know another persons thoughts, intensions and values like a progressive would. I would love to engage in an honest reasonable discusion with you and Luke because we may agree on many things but I don’t know if that’s possible based on your responses to many of my posts as well as responses to other people’s posts. It would have been great if you could have asked me why I feel the way I do and perhaps understand where I come from but you and Luke never even attempted that. Since this is a Trek site dont’t you think this is how Trek in the past has understood and resolved difference of opinions? Just a thought. By the way, I’m a Jew with family killed in the holocaust so be carefull with your white spremecist/Nazi/skinhead comments. I had a post earlier where I mentioned the episode with John Gill thinking the Nazi way was right until it led to the same Nazi response on earth, and I couldn’t believe it when I watched John Oliver give vertually the same defense of Socialism today when talking about Venezuela.

Shhh…G66…it’s time to lay down the sword on this one. No one’s listening. No one wants to hear.

But since you want to share, I’m willing to ask: why do you feel the way you do? I am curious to understand your perspective, because I too am struggling to make sense of it, although heck if I’ve read every one of your words. Still, let’s hear the full-throated defense of your position.

See while I also don’t agree with some of what G66 is saying, I think your approach albatrosity is wrong. As G66 said, unless it involves violence or physical threats, people need to hear each other out. I will never accept “no one wants to hear” as an answer. If we want to come together as a people living on the face of this earth the most important thing we need to do is “hear each other out”. You may not like what a person is saying or you may disagree, but we need discussion. It is the lack of discussion and understanding that leads to most of these violent events that we are currently facing.

But if the coherence in one’s argumentative structure decreases inversely proportional to the level of misinformation displayed, there’s a certain point where you have to ask yourself: Does “hearing each other out” even lead anywhere?
If a complaint over a show being rubbish leads to musings over an overarching “liberal” agenda, then a point concerning a skewed understanding of “socialism” gets brought up out of nowhere and lastly, somehow, it all boils down to “stop complaining about the President!” – where would you even start trying to empathise?
A real point is always worth hearing out, a string of preposterous claims and assumptions isn’t.

True, and like I said I don’t agree with most of what he is saying, but if he starts to track off topic then we can simply say nicely that it would be better to turn to the topic at hand and not to take the discussion elsewhere. Besides isn’t one of the primary lessons of Star Trek respecting others?

Except that G66 has not been respecting others. In fact he has been increasingly rude.

There are people you, Ad, respond to and agree with who do little but get increasingly rude. Do you ignore it when you agree with it?

Honestly I was just baiting him, and I wanted to give him the chance to respond to the direct question no one had asked him, since he seemed eager to explain himself. Usually however when people explain themselves it reveals their deeper prejudices; I learned that one from the attorneys I work with. If you give them enough opportunities to speak, they’ll eventually say something unequivocally damning.

Someone explain the difference between ‘woke’ and ‘Deutschland erwache’, please.

On a someone more on topic note, I’ll be curious to see where there go with season 2. Season 1 for a first season was pretty good. I think they need to lay off of Burnham’s character a bit as frankly, it seems to be trying too hard to say ‘look at me. I’m legit.’ Let it grow a bit more organically as she interacts with the other characters. Stamets is at least interesting as he’s a bit of a jerk, but a competent one. Tilly strikes me as a Wesley Crusher, but with more realistic goals and appraisal of her skills. Lorca was an interesting character until they went the cheap ‘evil captain’ route, which was a waste of potential