Watch 5 ‘Star Trek: Discovery’ Emmy Consideration Vids – Featuring New Behind-The-Scenes Footage

UPDATED: CBS has released five videos as part of their Emmy “For Your Consideration” campaign to get Star Trek: Discovery noticed – and nominated – by Academy members. Each video features new behind the scenes footage, along with talk with many of the key people behind, and in front of the camera.

For Your Consideration – Outstanding Music

For Your Consideration – Outstanding Production Design

For Your Consideration – Outstanding Visual Effects

For Your Consideration – Outstanding Sci-Fi/Fantasy Costumes

For Your Consideration – Outstanding Prosthetic Makeup

Voting starts next week

These videos are just part of a larger CBS Emmy campaign for Discovery that includes interviews, a full-season screener and last week’s live event.

The nomination round of Emmy voting starts next week, on June 11th, with nominations announced on July 12th. The awards round of voting commences in August with winners announced at two events in September:  the Creative Arts Awards ceremony on September 9th and the Emmy Awards ceremony on September 17th, which will be telecast on NBC.

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

I think they mean when they speak about how much they “love” Star Trek is that they love THEIR Star Trek show. Not so much the Trek universe in general.


ML31 is 100 % right- they love their right wink Trump approved, War Trek. They hate the old, intellectual, science based, Left wing, Star Trek. They are deliberately trying to destroy it.

lol “deliberately trying to destroy it”?

Really? Trump approved? Really? Good grief man.

Fine. Care to elaborate? Without it your comment cannot be considered valid.

There are two words in discovery

Disco and Very


Why do we always need to question the motives of other people, as if criticizing their work wasn’t enough? I have many issues with Discovery‘s first season, but it’s hard to read an interview with Ted Sullivan (or even, God help us, Akiva Goldsman) and not see the genuine love for Trek, and TOS in particular. Which is not to say such love necessarily translates to having the talent to pull a show like DSC off, or even having a proper understanding of the source material–an entirely different matter.

We nerds can be very unforgiving about what, at the end of the day, are simple entertainments. This really needs to change, unless you truly believe that getting quality Trek is more important than living Trek’s underlying message.

But that’s the thing Michael… They SAY they have a love for the source material but when we see the direct result of that “love” it just doesn’t look like it’s a result of that love. So at some level there is something wrong. Are they lying? Personally, these are people who have had Hollywood jobs so it’s unlikely it’s incompetence. It just feels more likely when they speak like that they are just talking out of both sides of their mouth. As a Trek enthusiast I find it a little on the insulting side.

So someone makes art you don’t like and your immediate go-to explanation isn’t lack of talent, or not getting the source material (my theory, as it were, for the debacle of the Abrams films), or Fuller’s early departure. No, you have to assert bad faith on the part of those involved. I mean, really?

Your citation of their Hollywood experience just shows that you apparently don’t understand the first thing about the artistic process, or even the creation of popular entertainment. The fact is, for all their good intentions even the most celebrated artists fail, and on a fairly consistent basis, too. Francis Coppola directed the first two GODFATHER films to universal acclaim, then stumbled with the third. He made APOCALYPSE NOW, but also directed JACK, which just about no one liked. Was he lying to the press when he told them JACK would be a wonderful film? I don’t think so.

Jeez. No disrespect intended, but fans really need to get over themselves, and stop taking every damned thing so personally.

Wow… Talk about getting up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. I have said elsewhere I do not think they have respect for (or maybe “get”) the source material. In fact, I think the KU “got” Star Trek a million times better than these folks do. But I also think they are talking out of both sides of their mouth. More than one thing can be equally true. And giving some of their track records, it is not unusual for them to be a part of the creation of sub par material. I’m sure it doesn’t help things but Fuller seems to be making a career out of being a part of the start of projects and bailing out on them or getting fired from them. That said, if Fuller was responsible for the bulk of the bad creative decisions there was time to fix many of them after the show went to production.

” In fact, I think the KU “got” Star Trek a million times better than these folks do.”

Well, we’re certainly in disagreement there to the maximum extent possible. For my part, aside from an attractive cast I found Trek 2009 to be godawful on just about every level: a witless insult to my intelligence, derivative of TOP GUN and every cheesy buddy-cop franchise in existence, chockablock with plot holes and contrivances (something it has in common with DSC; I’m guessing Alex Kurtzmann may be the common link there), mediocre production design, and a repetitive, uninspired musical score by a composer who usually delivers far better. With its obvious use of uninspired locations, the film isn’t even very good a showcasing its very healthy production budget.

Whatever your opinions are about Discovery, I can assure you they could be no worse than the absolute disbelief and betrayal I felt when I walked out of that theater in 2009. And I made my displeasure known on this very site, resulting in a number of very. . . spirited, shall we say, public exchanges with writer Bob Orci. But, here’s the thing: never once, for all my disappointment and frustration, did I ever accuse Orci of being untruthful when he wrote about how much he loved Trek. Nor did I accuse him of raping my childhood, or of deliberately sabotaging a franchise I’ve loved my entire life by remaking it in his own image. Not once, being unfamiliar with most of his work, did I ever opine that he was a bad writer, let alone a hack. In my view, he simply made a bad film, and my only purpose in posting at all was to explain why I felt that way, if only to ease my frustration by getting it all off my chest.

By comparison, for me, Discovery was a mere disappointment, and that only because I initially thought it showed so much promise. As to my tone, well, sorry if you took offense. I mean you no ill will personally. But at least I didn’t accuse you, a total stranger, of posting something in bad faith just because I didn’t agree with it. There is that, at least.

OK. Fair enough. I really cannot comment on Star Trek ’09 apart from I do not recall any interviews with producers, actors or writers where they said the movie was one thing but it turned out to be very different. But that HAS been the case with STD. I really do think that given the result it is completely fair to question their so called “love” of Star Trek as they made something that did not have any connections to Star Trek aside from a few words. Fine to disagree but I find it not very sporting to rip on me for accusing the people running the show of saying one thing and delivering something else. If you think they DID deliver on what they promised then feel free to tell me that. That would be were the disagreement would lie and one I would be happy to discuss.

I am certain that if you made your ideal Star Trek you would piss off a million true fans like yourself just like they did. As would we all. Everyone’s concept of what Trek should be is different. People do their best, they make choices. You disagree with those choices, fine. No need to demonize them further.

It’s not a matter of what I think Star Trek “should” be. I love the idea of trying a new concept or even re-imagining Trek. The difference is, if I were say I was re-imagining Trek and ended up giving viewers something like the fan films… (the ones that duplicate as best they can TOS) People would have every right in the world to accuse me of saying one thing and delivering something else. And I would have to own it. I kinda feel like a couple of people are missing the point here…

*Sigh* Funny, that’s the same way we feel about you. Maybe it’s just the imprecision of human language to effectively communicate subjective feelings about things (e.g. Trek) that are important to us; I don’t know.

1. Who’s “we”? Who else besides yourself are you speaking for?

2. Please give me one instance where I said one thing here and delivered something completely different to support this theory you delivered as fact.

Honestly, though I find JJTrek to be fun to a point and rewatchable (with the exception of STID), I now think Abrams & Co. have a better grasp of the source material than the Discovery showrunners do. Just my opinion, and not suggesting bad faith on anyone’s part. I do call bullsh*t on some of the showrunner’s comments and promises, but that’s another story.

Yes, indeed. Calling someone out on their broken promises (and being consequently skeptical of new ones) is a very different thing from accusing them of deliberately acting in bad faith.

***But that’s the thing Michael… They SAY they have a love for the source material but when we see the direct result of that “love” it just doesn’t look like it’s a result of that love. *** – to some. Others love what they see. There is nothing wrong going on here. You don’t like their vision of Star Trek. Others do. They do. Simple matter of taste. IDIC

Well, I do think it pretty obvious I was not speaking for anyone but myself.

There is so much wrong with your statement.

Such as?

I agree ML31. On any general day this production team is in love with itself and pats itself on the back for no reason – this was particularly cringe.

Yes, because this was truly the first TV production staff in world history to tout its accomplishments as worthy of respect, even as certain members of their audience disagreed.

Get over it already.

You sound just like the TOS fans who couldn’t stand TNG. I can’t help but laugh. It’s all Trek whether you see it or not.

Let me put your theory to rest. I was fine with TNG. It was not as good as TOS but I was pleased to be getting new Trek. It was OK. And to me, STD seems like Star Trek in name only. Less so in content. We disagree. No need to go overboard about it.

Sorry, but no one who accuses total strangers of lying because he doesn’t care for their work has any business using the word ‘overboard’.

Sounds reasonable when said that way. Without context. But let’s put it in the proper context… We have actually read and heard said “strangers” make comments about their work that did not come to pass. They have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths from the beginning. I would say it is enough to cause doubt on anything they say regarding their show. Also, all this is said on a fan board where it is quite normal for people to write their opinions and takes on things regarding said show. In that context, questioning what producers of the show say is hardly going “overboard”. On the flip side, saying you are “laughing” at a poster due to a conclusion that has no support whatsoever… That could easily be considered going “overboard” even in a place where fans discuss opinions.

You can label a sack of rotten potatoes as being “fresh” all day long, they’re still going to stink.

@ML31 Why are you so angry?

I’m obviously not angry. I don’t like having to turn on the personal “ignore” function. I’ve done it for one person already whose name hasn’t showed up here for a while. How about just letting things slide, OK?

@ML31 Too much hate is inside you. Get help before it’s too late.

HN, you are exhibiting far too many “troll” qualities. Think I’m going to have to ignore your posts for a bit. Hopefully give you a little time to sort things out. Catch ya later.

I really like the set designs in photographs, but they don’t come across on the screen as elaborate.

I actually think a lot of it LOOKS good. The issue is that it doesn’t look like Star Trek. If this were not a Trek show I would consider the work worthy of consideration. Since it does not look like it is a part of the era they say it’s in then… Sorry but no.

Not the greatest but maybe in a green moon

The Discovery team has done such great work. I’m grateful for this new addition to the Trek universe. It’s my fav show in that it feels the most real. Great work guys!

Visually, the show was often truly spectacular. There may be some justice in an Emmy or two in that department, disappointed as I often was in the storytelling.

I just don’t see the magic at all. The creature they tortured looked really good, but the rest of the fx just seemed mediocre or really bad. And the art direction is just like everything else, not unique or memorable. No awards for you!

Well, we disagree on that for sure. (But then I’ve never gotten your love for “The Empath,” so we’ll just call it even. 😊)-

All you need to do is loop the silent part after Kirk has been tortured, where Gem ‘figures out’ Spock and McCoy. Even the Blish novelization (most of which were usually lame) gets this part right about the love between the characters.

If you can point me to anything technical in DSC — outside of aforementioned critter — that works as well, I’ll accept your assessment (which I usually admire, even when I don’t concur.)

Hey, no offense. I concur that’s a pretty good moment, as was the revelation at the episode’s end as to what the aliens were really after. But you’ll have to admit that it took a helluva lot of the three leads stumbling around a darkened soundstage, wooden phasers at the ready, for them to get there. That didn’t so much shout cheapness as club the audience over the head with it. Taken as a whole THE EMPATH isn’t a terrible episode, particularly by third season standards. But aside from Doug Cramer’s enforced cheesiness, the episode’s central idea, while sound enough, needed more development to make it truly memorable, irrespective of budget. That’s a criticism I can equally apply to quite a few episodes of every series in the franchise, including DSC. As to Discovery itself and its technical accomplishments measuring up to the best emotional beats of a fifty year-old show–well, that’s pretty subjective, isn’t it? I’ve already said I really like the production design and cinematography (my feelings about the space shots being more favorable than yours, but not by much). Obviously, you don’t feel the same way, and that’s fine. No problem agreeing to disagree, which was my original point anyway. :-)

…..BUT Star Trek Discovery ISN’T outstanding. They’re delusional to claim that it is, if anything they could claim it to be ‘Outstandingly Disappointing’. Seriously.

But some elements are though. I think its true when they say it feels more cinematic (and for the money they are spending it better). I think it definitely still lacks in places but I can’t deny the sets and make up are pretty amazing.

Still not seeing what you’re seeing, especially VFX-wise. I remember folks telling me that the reason I thought ENT’s VFX were horrible was that I watched on a regular old TV, but they weren’t paying attention; the work looked mediocre to godawful no matter what kind of set you used to view it. I remember thinking the pod approaching dock opening in BROKEN BOWELS was about the flattest looking thing I’d ever seen, and when you get to that old library in the umpty-umpth century (was it start of s2?) … that’s plain-out excruciating.

Then again, I remember complaining during the 80s about the mis-use of smoke in movies (not the appropriate use, as in, say, BLADE RUNNER and even maybe FLASHDANCE) and nobody getting that either. And when movies started getting that weird monochromatic palette after the turn of the century, I was all over that then too (I still can’t sit through MINORITY REPORT, even though it may actually be a decent movie underneath all that veneer of glare and digital gauze.)

Pretty high standards. I thought the visuals were the best part of Blade Runner.

Hey, I like the desaturated look of MINORITY REPORT. Go figure.

To me it has the nuBSG underexposed-and-overexposed-but-not-properly-exposed look. Or vice versa, I guess, given the years.

I’d rewatch nuBSG every couple years if it didn’t look so harsh, it gives me an actual headache from eyestrain and I have to go watch some Conrad Hall and Gordon Willis and Owen Roizman flicks to get to feeling happy again.

Wow, those sound like some sensitive peerpers you got there, guy. Maybe some beta-carotene would help? :-)

I personally haven’t watched BSG for the better part of a decade (and never saw the EJO-directed follow-up depicting the series’ events from the Cylon POV), not due to cinematography issues but because the show for me went off the rails in its fourth season, when the bill for lacking credible explanations for zany plot developments like the return of Kara Thrace came due with a vengeance. At its best, BSG was as good as anything on television, but the rub with serialized drama is that in the end you’re really only overall as good as your weakest episodes.

I think it is fair to say that every series did the best it could, with the technology available, and there were always moments when budget won out over realism or detail. I rewatched the final episode of DS9 the other day and that final pull-back from the window, matted in to the CGI station, looks exceptionally poor by today’s standards, but on a 4:3 425-line CRT television it was more than alright.

Blade Runner had Jordan Cronenweth as DP. A lot of people try to emulate that and fail because they overdo the busy-ness of a shot, don’t light it appropriately, or spend enough time on a slow establishing shot. Cinema lenses and depth of field matter.

It is clear that a lot of work went into Discovery’s sets and visual effects, and it does represent a huge step forward for Star Trek on the small screen. My quibble is, probably agreeing with kmart, the overuse of ‘dirt on the lens’ and lens flare, at least how it’s done in this show. There are very few long establishing shots that help us establish scale in space, for instance.

I would argue the counterpoint that a lot of previous Trek was lit unrealistically (how was the Enterprise-D always perfectly bright in space?) or overbright and flat (most of TNG / DS9 / VOY interiors) but the flip side of single-point-source harsh shadow, while realistic, makes it hard for the audience to make out ships; and the use of digital fog / smudge makes things seem lower-resolution than they probably really are.

The TOS bridges were in fact kind of dark overall, and only lightened up around STVI when there was some overlap with the TNG-period shows being on the air. The JJverse bridge was (excess detail aside) comparatively really bright.

Using color in a storytelling sense, maybe as the Federation comes out of this literal fog-of-war period, things get brighter and more colourful and crisper as we move towards the more optimistic period of TOS.

Again. I agree that it is indeed a quality production. It looks great on camera and all that. Even the costumes are good. The problem is, none of it evokes the era the show is supposed to be in. To me, that’s a fail.

What would be more appropriate, in your view? A literal reuse of the look-and-feel of The Cage? I mean, when I look at that, I see something that’s more straight out of 1950s sci-fi, it’s very Forbidden Planet, and it suffers from what TVTropes calls ‘zeerust’ – something that was intended to look futuristic at the time, but looks very dated today. Details like dated haircuts, papier-mache ‘rock’ walls, gooseneck lamp-screens, etc.

The German sci-fi series Raumschiff Orion, which was produced at the same time and is in many ways a parallel to Trek (a unified Earth with space colonies, FTL drive, alien enemies) has some cool effects (rear-projected animated displays, scintillating animated aliens) etc, but looks very much of its era (ships are basically flying saucers, tech made of home appliances and office supplies, mod haircuts) and some things are laughable (future dance crazes, an undersea base with giant goldfish matted into the windows…)

In 2018, we have a different expectation of what the future looks like than in 1960, because we’ve been to space, we have a space station, we all have touchscreen devices / communicators with more power than NASA had during the Apollo missions… visual aesthetics change. We have 4K TVs at home, with more resolution than most movie theaters have!

Star Wars brought us the idea of the ‘used universe’, realistically, ships get scratched up and leak fluids and get plates bent here and there, and you have strategic details which suggest what might be underneath, it looks like it might actually work.

Even while aesthetics might be different from show to show and movie to movie, it’s hard to deny that audiences today expect something more than a smooth flying saucer and velour tops with obviously sewn-on cloth badges and 1960s beehive hairdos…

“What would be more appropriate, in your view? A literal reuse of the look-and-feel of The Cage?”

Of course not. This question has been asked as if there are ONLY two options. A full 100% dead on copy of “The Cage” or a 100% different but modern 2017 take on Star Fleet. Believe it or not, there ARE more ways to do this. The most obvious one… Create a design that is modern 2017 design that actually evokes the feel of “The Cage”. Yes, it’s a tougher task. Coming up with a brand new look is extremely easy in comparison. But it can be done. And SHOULD have been done.

This show is indeed outstanding, to me and many viewers, critics, and fans. Your indignance over others enjoyment does not make your opinion the objective truth.

….conversely, many would disagree.

Production design that ties in better with TOS would be cooler.

Saying something is a prequel and being totally redesigned takes me out of the fact that this is a prequel. I find it insulting. But what do I know, just a fan.

All of us are ‘just fans’ who happen to have opinions all over the map regarding this particular show, none of which are any more or less valid than yours. Speak your truth, but don’t be a martyr. 😊

I don’t have a problem with the visual reboot. IMO, it looks amazing. Adhering strictly to 60s aesthetic and tech would have made the show look instantly dated.
And I’ve been a fan for over forty years now and counting ;)

It could have been updated without changing everything.

Saying bits canon but not looking similar, feels insulting.

Enterprise got the balance right.

I agree that Enterprise did get the look right. They had a tremendous advantage over STD in that their show was set 150 years before TOS while STD is a mere 10. That gave the folks at Enterprise a TONE of wiggle room in their designs. They came up with something that looked sufficiently lower tech than TOS while still retaining a modern (early ’00’s) TV look for the audience. And the uniforms and ship styles all looked like it had the potential to evolve into what we saw on TOS. STD, in placing their show a mere 10 years ahead of TOS, painted themselves into a really unenviable corner. They had far less wiggle room. If they had no desire to even evoke the look and feel of Pike’s star fleet, then they needed to either change the time frame they set their show in or just flat out claim it was a re-boot or a re-imagining. But they didn’t. They wanted their cake and to eat it too. They failed.

Well, I didn’t much care for the look of Enterprise at all. Just goes to show that there’s no way they’re going to be able to please everyone.

OK. That’s fair. I will say that I have no issue with the look of Discovery. The ship or the uniforms. In fact, overall I think it looks pretty good. IF this were a complete Star Trek reboot. You may not have liked the Enterprise aesthetic, but one thing that I think is tough to deny… It did look like it very well could evolve into what we saw on TOS over a century later.

Does not a movie set in the 60’s appear dated? You don’t have to like the fact that they had green shag carpet or harvest gold refrigerators but you accept it because that is the way it was. History of a fictional, yet established ( by acknowledgenent of subsequent series like TNG and Enterprise) timeline is no different. Aesthetics should have followed what was known, but with modern production and manufacturing techniques.

While I may have my gripes about certain details regarding the show, ST>Discovery continues to raise the bar like it’s predecessors. (I’m exempting Berman era shows, only because they were pretty much produced in the same decade.) At this rate, Today’s Star Trek will become reality sooner than expected.
On another note, I wish there was a path to submitting new concept’s and idea’s to Hollywood, including Star Trek. New blood could infuse new life into the franchise, helping it to evolve regardless of all the politics, and red tape.
That being said, ST> Discovery is really growing on me. My only gripe is: Only 13 episodes? I realize they are of a higher production value but at least ad another 4-5 episodes. They can be aired 2 episodes in the spring, then 2-3 episodes in the summer. There is too much of a time-lapse between seasons.

Its only 13 episodes because its on a streaming site. Thats the average and many shows are only 10 episodes. It only got 15 last season because CBS decided at last minute to add a few more and my guess is only because the deal they struck with Netflix gave them the boost in their budget to make more. Speaking of Netflix that site has made about forty shows at this point and I don’t think one show has ever made more than 13 episodes a season.

And also as you noted, they aren’t cheap. Discovery is one of the most expensive shows around. Majority of shows that cost over $5 million an episode rarely have more than that many episodes. Most have only ten like GOT or West World.

I’m a big fan of fewer episodes. If there’s an arc, you can a lot of filler in 29-something episodes. Look at how well some Netflix shows do it.

…Peaky Blinders and Ozark, to name a couple, Jack.

13?! I watched 15. And liked most of it,except for one thing,which is the reason I don’t know if I’ll watch much of season 2. I’ll give it a chance of course,I’ll give anything ONE chance,lol!

I’m with you. Not a fan of the new mini-seasons streaming and cable shows are doing nowdays. Maybe I’m just older but most of those shows are gone for so long I forget where the previous season left off! Just last night I noticed my DVR recorded the first episode of season 3 of Humans. I completely forgot that show even existed let alone where the previous episode left off. I liked the show but it did not stick to my mind for the last 10 months. Had the same issue when I watched season five of House of Cards a few months ago. Sometimes I feel I have to go to the internet and read the last few detailed episode recaps to catch up! So, not a fan. Give me a standard 22+ episode season any day. Shortening the season does not mean there will be no sub par episodes. This has been proved time and time again.

Watching these videos you definitely forget how much production and detail goes into all of this and probably why it took so long just to get the episodes on the air.

And it does make you appreciate how much passion goes into it. I know as fans we get cynical and point out what we hate faster than what we love but I think everyone who works on these shows really does want to get it right, especially if they are fans themselves. Discovery is far from perfect but the potential is there like every Trek show that came before it.

Good point, Tiger. I am impressed with the effort and passion going into the production of the show as well. I’m just not impressed with the show itself, sadly. I do not hate it, but can’t say I like it very much either, mainly because of the time it’s set in and what I consider shoddy writing. Hoping for a much better season two.

What is said here is true. It sure does look like they did a great deal of work and tried their damnedest to make this thing LOOK good. And it would… If it weren’t Start Trek or not set in the Trek time frame they said it was. And that is why I consider their work a fail.

I too would like to express my gratitude to the writing and production team. This show is spectacular, and I would pay money to see it in the theaters. It’s that good. Amazing work ladies and gentlemen. A testament to The Great Bird of the Galaxy.

I believe you’d have your free pick of nearly any seat you wanted if DSC was shown in theaters, Dribbles. Just my opinion. Glad you’re enjoying it, though.

How would that be different than any other Star Trek movie? Never been in a packed theature for Trek.

Obviously hyperbole. When I saw TMP, WOK, SFS, TVH, TFF, and TUC the theater was packed. But in those days I always went opening weekend if not opening night. I delay it now but I do recall ST(09) being packed….

The writing and acting are oftentimes abysmal, so all the rest of the complaints are moot. I don’t care if the uniforms don’t have the right rank pips if most of the characters are as annoying as a cheese grater to the face.

Yeah. I’m kinda on board there. If the writing and characters were better the out of place uniforms and sets would not be as big an issue. That’s where it starts. On the page. It’s funny, the props all look good. The communicators and phasers all look like they belong in Pike era Trek. But NOTHING else does! You’d think if they updated the ships and uniforms they would update the props as well. It’s kind of a weird mix…

I was able to roll with the look of the show pretty much entirely. The Klingons are over designed, but I will adjust to them. Now, Burnham forever trudging back and forth between morose monologues and saintly virtue signaling, I just can’t tolerate. I mean dang, what a tedious character. She didn’t earn any of the emotional beats the writers tried to sell us.

Agreed on Burnham. I liked what was being said about the show’s main character by the producers. That she would be on a journey from being a pariah. The thing is, the crew pretty much accepted her less than 1/3 of the way into the season. They went from not wanting to even sit near her to being totally down with her doing all that she does. So what gives? She made no personal “journey”. It was nonexistent on screen. As a result, I sure didn’t care if Burnham lived or dies. I didn’t care about her relationship with Ash/Kliongon (another lame story beat, btw). I actually stopped caring about Burnham before the Lorca reveal. The reveal that caused me to stop treating the show as a serious drama and more as a screwball comedy where the jokes didn’t work.

….and where there were hardly any jokes. Agreed Burnham got way too much of a pass by everyone for her ‘mutiny,’ and now it seems she’ll be first officer again. So, no consequences for insubordinate behavior, which sadly mirrors any government agency in existence today (that is not a political statement, I literally work for one, and know of which I speak). The actress is fine – I liked her on The Walking Dead, but if Burnham’s supposed to be the moral compass on DSC, that just goes to show how muddled season one was. Her ‘personal journey’ was about as visible as the ‘war.’

” Her ‘personal journey’ was about as visible as the ‘war.’”

Even less so if you can believe it. At least the ‘war’ finally took center stage (albeit in ridiculous ways) in the final couple of episodes. Her ‘journey’ was magically complete by the end of episode 4 in ways the audience was not a part of.

No, Burnham’s journey was not “magically complete by the end of episode 4”. Among fans, one of the major discussions in the beginning of the series was whether she was racist towards the Klingons.

By the end of her journey, she begins to understand the Klingons through Tyler and L’Rell. At the beginning of the series, Burnham saw the world in a logical black and white, but, by the season finale, she learns to embrace emotion and the grays.

She was perfectly accepted and incorporated as a member of the Discovery family very early on. Somehow she managed to shed her pariah status astoundingly fast. Hence, her journey, as described by people who created the show, was complete.

All poor creative decisions, I agree.

Watching those videos on the different categories was a lot of fun.
I wish all of them the best of luck.

I won’t be voting, far more worthy shows out there.

Well, I hope they get at least some technical nominations. I know many people have put their hard work and sweat and blood into making this show and despite having criticisms I appreciate their desire to continue the Trek franchise as best as they could. Now having giving my praise I feel like I also need to point out my opinions on some of these potential Emmy nominations. I think visual effects, make up and production design are the obvious shoe ins for nomination, but I personally didn’t like the space shots too much. One mistake I recognized when the visual effects supervisor talked in the video was that of Star Trek effects shots having too much detail. This is not inherently correct, Star Trek always prided itself in the simplicity and clarity of their visual effects shots. Star Trek never put too much detail on their visual effects work. They make it clear and understandable.This is why Klingons have a specific ship type and Starfleet have another ship type. These guys putting too much detail on their visual effects was a mistake in my opinion. Now by simplicity I don’t mean that previous Star Trek ships or visuals didn’t have any details, they certainly did, but they were not at the forefront too much, they took a back seat, in this show they are throwing all the details they find into their visual effects shots.

VFX are really low quality surprised they are pushing for that the design & look is very average.

I would say that VFX are pretty much all over the place. I agree that I also found many (or most) spaceship shots disappointing. Even in that short video, there are shots with strange choreography of ship and camera movement. On the other hand, they also did creature work and set extensions/completely digital sets some of which looked pretty good.

The outside space shots are abysmal, imo, but the inside sfx shots seemed fine, especially that poor monster they tortured for a few episodes. Ah, the future looks bright.

I’m pretty sure than nearly every show pushes every aspect for “consideration”. Even the bad ones.

I don’t deny the detail they put into it but these guys changed too much in my opinion.

It just doesn’t fit in for me.

What impresses me the most is the amount of detail and quality put into the accessories, weapons, Klingon Torchbearer, etc. But I’m impressed because Trekmovie showed these things to us in an article. On-screen they lost their luster, imo.

And that is why I would consider the PD a fail. In any other context besides Star Trek, it would look spectacular. But it’s like getting a fantastic 1960’s set for a show set in the 1920’s. As good as it is, it just doesn’t work for that show.

The original production designer was pretty good- you know, the one who quit.

So did Pato Guzman, but that’s still his original bridge design you got to see used in 3 seasons of TOS, so I’m not at all certain of your point.