Emmy Award season is approaching in Hollywood and CBS Studios is gearing up its “For Your Consideration” campaigns, promoting Star Trek: Picard and its star, Sir Patrick Stewart.
Please consider Patrick Stewart
Like other studios, CBS has started reaching out to Television Academy members with a campaign promoting their series. CBS All Access is highlighting the fourth season of The Good Fight and the first season of Star Trek: Picard. (The second season of Star Trek: Discovery was eligible for last year’s Emmy Awards; it garnered four nominations and took home one trophy.)
In addition to suggesting the show for consideration as Outstanding Drama Series, the online publicity materials for Star Trek: Picard put Sir Patrick Stewart front and center in hopes of convincing Emmy voters to nominate the veteran actor for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama series. Stewart has been nominated for four Emmys over his career, but never for his work on Star Trek: The Next Generation. The online Picard FYC site touts some of the glowing reviews the actor picked up for Picard, including ones from Variety and the New York Times.
New cast and Trek vets promoted for acting awards
The CBS FYC online promotion for Picard also asks Television Academy members to consider Stewart’s co-stars Alison Pill, Isa Briones, Even Evagora, Michelle Hurd, Santiago Cabrera, and Harry Treadaway for Outstanding Actor and Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series. Recurring stars Jeri Ryan and Peyton List are also suggested for consideration of Outstanding Actress in a Drama Series.
CBS has also selected the four veteran Trek actors who appeared in Picard to be considered for Outstanding Guest Actor and Outstanding Guest Actress in a Drama Series: Brent Spiner, Jonathan Frakes, Marina Sirtis, and Jonathan Del Arco.
Creative team and crew
CBS is also hoping Television Academy members will nominate members of the Star Trek: Picard creative team for awards. Hanelle M. Culpepper (episode 1 “Remembrance”) and Akiva Goldsman (episode 10 “Et in Arcadia Ego: Part 2”) are suggested for Outstanding Directing. Goldsman, along with James Duff, Michael Chabon, Kirsten Beyer, and Alex Kurtzman, are also suggested for Outstanding Writing for episode 1, as are Samantha Humphrey and Chabon again for episode 7 “Nepenthe.”
Jeff Russo—who is already an Emmy-winner—is proposed for Outstanding Music Composition, and Philip Lanyon for Outstanding Cinematography for episode 1.
CBS is also touting members of the extensive Picard crew for other Creative Arts Emmy Awards, where Star Trek has traditionally had the most luck in terms of nominations and wins. These suggested teams include those responsible for prosthetic makeup. period and/or character makeup, visual effects, title design, production design, stunt coordination, casting, costumes, editing, sound editing, sound mixing, and hairstyling,
Short Treks promoted too
The CBS FYC campaign is also promoting the second season of Star Trek: Short Treks, hoping for a nomination for Outstanding Short Form Drama Series. They are asking Academy members to consider Anson Mount for Outstanding Actor in a Short Form Comedy or Drama Series for his work in “Ask Not.” The animation teams behind Both “Ephraim & Dot” and “The Girl Who Made The Stars” are being suggested for Outstanding Individual Achievement in Animation, and actress Kyrie McAlpin is being suggested for Outstanding Character Voice-Over Performance for “The Girl Who Made the Stars.”
Voting starting soon
Voting for nominations begins on July 2nd, with the nominees announced on July 28th. The final round of voting begins on August 21st. The Creative Arts Awards will be handed out on September 12th and 13th. The Primetime Emmy Awards will be telecast on ABC on Sunday, September 20th.
In addition to the online FYC campaign, CBS has made Star Trek: Picard available to Academy members via “screener” DVDs as well as streaming online. Traditionally during Emmy voting periods, the FYC campaigns involve live events and panels in Los Angeles, but that seems unlikely during the pandemic, although some of those types of events could be done online. CBS has also previously promoted Star Trek: Discovery for Emmy Awards through outdoor, print, and online advertising targeting Hollywood professionals, and will likely do the same for Picard.
Keep up with all the Star Trek: Picard news, reviews, and analysis at TrekMovie.com.
Emmy nominations for that pile or tripe?! No one deserves any award other than a Razzie for the mess that is Star Trek Picard.
I wouldn’t be too harsh on Picard but the finale was a failure.
To take the time to type your post, and transplant “or” for “of.”
Oh, and I think Razzies are reserved for films. So no luck there either.
I dunno, I think Patrick Stewart is long overdue for a nomination for his most iconic TV role. But to have “actors” like Peyton List and the writers be a part of the same campaign seems almost sacrilegious.
She made the most of her character..again she was performing what she was written in a British accent…mostly panto villain. She made the best of a bad situation.
Agreed. Just the thought is ridiculous.
Well, certainly no nominations for writing. Acting too…actually yeah, it’s not good lol and there are wayyy better drama series out there. I feel bad for CBS, they wanted Game of Thrones “prestige” Trek and they’ve tried twice and failed
Pike, Number One and Spock in S2 Discovery! Those actors did a great job, excellent work with a limited amount of screen time.
An award for the Akiva Goldsmann mess that was the finale? Plot holes over plothole. Very bad writing and even worse directing. Pathetic….
Yeah, no one should be thinking of of pushing for the finale for an Emmy lol. Just no!
Goldsman for directing this season?!!
Just no indeed.
I’ve previously posted my ranking of directors for Picard S1 and they seem to have got it backwards. Maja Vrvilo should be put forward, and Doug Aarnowski too.
This makes me think of the choices Netflix made for it’s For Your Consideration campaign for the last season of GOT…I think it’s time for a fan campaign to put some other creatives forward for the Emmys and the Saturns.
Sadly that’s where stuff like the People’s Choice Awards comes in, because its based solely on actual viewers. And to be fair, the technical awards really should be judged by people who are professionals in the industry but the other stuff like best shows, actors, etc is mostly subjective.
To me things where fans decide are just popularity contests. Things that cater to the lowest common denominator come out on top. It’s nice they have a “People’s Choice Awards” I guess but personally I don’t give a lot of credence to what the bulk of the fans think is good. Often what is popular is not very good. Yes, that sound a bit snobby I suppose. But it’s how I’ve started to feel in my older age.
In entertainment the judgement how good something is is almost always tainted by subjective feelings whether you like something or not. Many people think that liking something equals that thing being good (or not liking something means it must bad) but that’s not necessarily the case. That’s why every award is somewhat subjective, certainly something like the “People’s Choice Awards”, but also awards given out by professionals to their peers. Many times, the list of nominees may be a better indicator than who comes out on top because deciding what’s best among a group of very good is even more subjective than deciding what’s good and what’s bad.
Yes exactly! And that was actually my point mentioning the People’s Choice Awards and its ALL subjective at the end of the day. That’s why I said ‘sadly’ because I wasn’t suggesting it was a GOOD thing lol. But we see how different people view things. It doesn’t really matter who votes on this stuff because people simply vote for things for different reasons. And when you turn it to the masses, it gets even more complicated because most people don’t spend all day weighing which movie had the best sound design or cinematography. Most couldn’t tell you anything about it or care.
And when it comes to the best actor, show, etc, most will choose simply what or who they liked, because for most people it is JUST entertainment for them. It’s not about art, process or design, it’s simply what they enjoyed. An its nothing wrong with that. That’s why I watch what I watch, because I simply like it. But sure, I like to think I watch what I watch because a lot of it is considered quality stuff, but simply not all of it. But most people don’t care either way, if its fun its fun, nothing else really matters, especially if you’re younger. That’s why while voting for stuff like the Emmy’s and Oscar’s are flawed, most actually do care and have an eye for it because its all what they do and understand.
But there is also a reason these award shows have less ratings every year because the stuff that is picked is rarely in line with what the masses like (although when it comes to TV shows, its more in line than films for some reason but still not always the case).
It’s also why the movie nominations for the Oscars are always so different from stuff like the MTV movie awards because both groups are weighing very different standards of what makes a movie great.
Worth a try but Naaaaa
The finale was a horrible mess. Most of the season was descent except the end.
It deserves an Emmy nomination for visual affects and acting but not writing.
Full of plot holes. Dumpster fire burned the house down.
And emny for visual effects? For what? Copy and paste spaceships?
Don’t forget the Shutterstock image usage and the Ikea furniture.
It was a subpar show at best. Better than Discovery S1 and the Short Treks, but that’s hardly the highest bar to overcome.
If there is an award for stealing a living, perhaps some of the writers, show runners and directors could win one.
In all seriousness though, the best performance was by Isa Briones. Everyone else was patchy even Sir Patrick.
For those old enough to remember, the *idea* of Patrick Stewart in a series is like Ross Perot having Admiral Stockdale as a VP running mate: idea is much better than reality.
Man, you said it. Agreed on all accounts.
Not feeling it. I wouldn’t feel confident nor brazenly proud enough to push any of the Kurtzman Trek programs for nomination unless I truly believed it was beyond our capability to deliver anything better. Is it?
Sam you didn’t like the show? That’s too bad. I liked it but yeah had TONS of issues with it lol.
Everything I’ve seen from them so far is backloaded. In a “no actually, the show’s been about this,” way.
I mean if I had to pick a show I guess it would be STP (if I could pick just half of a season it would be 1-10 of STD-S1). But we still have yet to see a solid whole season of something, Short Treks included.
I see your point and agree, especially when it comes to Discovery.
But I always say MOST of the Trek shows took a few years to get off the ground. I wasn’t completely in love with TNG, DS9 or ENT when they started either and they all turned around greatly IMO (but a little too late for ENT). Oddly Voyager was the only show I loved from the beginning even if it still wasn’t perfect.
But I WILL say the biggest difference between those and these shows is that we are paying for these so its much easier to move on if you’re not satisfied out of the gate. But as you know I did enjoy season 2 of Discovery a WHOLE lot more than season 1 and while I had issues with Picard I still liked it generally. I’m just hoping Discovery go the way of the other shows and become much better in its third season but yes we have to wait and see first.
The fact that we are paying directly for these shows just invites a higher level of criticism. For good reason. A regular show that is on a regular channel can be given a chance to overcome “growing pains”. There are a lot of episodes and you aren’t directly paying for it. (yes you could very well be indirectly but that is very different) But when you only have 10-13 episodes combined with paying directly it is more fair to compare it to one of the movies than a regular TV show. A movie needs to hit it on the screws right away. You cannot say “give it a chance to have a sequel to get good.” These streaming shows should be held to a different standard.
Yeah I agree, that is the difference, people will scrutinize something more when they pay for it and rightly so. That said, shows and movies can just start off bad and need time to get them right. I think in reality both Discovery and certainly Picard has enough people watching to continue for awhile and we know if nothing else those are the only shows that is bringing AA any attention as it is and why when people on Youtube says these shows are getting cancelled, its being far naive.
Its not to say they CAN’T get cancelled, but until AA makes a show that brings in more viewers than either of those then its not happening anytime soon. But yes long term they still have to keep people watching but since CBS plans to throw so much Star Trek on that channel they will probably guarantee enough fans will be watching enough of them.
Well put, ML.
This is quite typical. Nearly every production does this no matter how crappy the show is. It is highly unlikely Picard will be nominated for any major award.
Personally I think the Academy ought to divide series’ into two category. Short season and regular season. The longer season shows are at a severe disadvantage in a lot of categories for what I think are obvious reasons.
Do you mean the way older shows like TOS, TNG, DS9, etc were full of weak writing and acting because they were forced to film a show ever 5 days?
Not exactly. But listen to the arguments that are in favor of the short seasons. They can spend more money to “get things right or good” is a common one. They have a ton more time to do what they do. What do you think the production value of Picard or Discovery would be if they had only 5 days to shoot one episode? I promise you it would not be as good. They also have more time to write and plan out the series. So there are lots of advantages to having a short season.
The longer season shows get more opportunities to score. Since it’s the studios/networks pushing episodes voters don’t even have to check out the whole shows, they can simply look at the episodes submitted for consideration.
That is the one thing that works against my comment. The academy when dishing out the Emmy’s are presented with one episode for series, actor, etc. This ought to be changed to cover the entire season as a whole.
The problem is no one is going to sit and watch 30 seasons worth of shows. That’s just not feasible, especially when thousands vote. But I agree it can be beyond one episode too. At least 4-5 or something. But it proves why no one should take these awards that seriously when an entire show’s worth is based on one episode (although I’m guessing most people who vote do actually watch the acclaimed shows anyway as viewers themselves).
In some cases it cannot be helped. Like director or writer. Who are not there for the entire show normally. But in others like acting or the outstanding series ought to be based on the entire season. There might be some of that but one episode is officially submitted for that.
Directing and writing awards are handed out for specific episodes. That’s why the same show can even be nominated multiple times in the same category.
Awards like outstanding series and (I think also) acting are not episode-specific. If you look at the “for your consideration” poster with all the actors you will not see any episode names.
The outstanding drama and comedy are voted on based on one episode submission. I’ve even seen things on disc extras saying that “this episode was the one submitted for the Emmy.” Same for outstanding actors. At least it was when I happened upon that information some 20 years ago. And yes, the writers and directors were always for single episodes for obvious reasons.
Just a guess but 20-year-old information may not be the most reliable when it comes to how the Emmys “work” today…
According to the Emmys website, in categories like outstanding drama series producers actually submit a collection of their 6 best episodes, not just one. This would seem to give an advantage to shows with long seasons because they can be really picky which episodes to submit. For Picard 6 episodes is more than half the total show.
Perhaps so. But the 6 episode selection certainly does not give longer series’ an advantage. The shorter season ones still have the advantage of not having any real hard due dates, they have pretty much all the time they want to map out and write and work out what they want to do. They have fewer episodes so they can spend more money to make it better. Thees are tremendous advantages over the pressure cooker of the more traditional 20+ episode network shows. At best it might help reduce the advantage a bit. But the advantage still rests squarely with the short seasons. I stand by my suggestion season lengths should put shows in different categories.
Well, they have limited series as a separate category which, I guess, is even shorter than Picard. I’m too lazy to look up the definitions.
They do but it seems the definition of “limited” is not the number of episodes but in that it is not intended to run more than perhaps one or two seasons.
If there ever a time to give Star Trek the hard sell for an Emmy, it’s now. Not because of quality (PIC started strong, but I didn’t finish the season), but because the COVID-19 situation has thrown such upheaval into television, the competition might not be what it would otherise.
All the programs affected by COVID-19 most likely wouldn’t be eligible for this year’s Emmys anyway. Everything that would be airing now but is postponed or even canceled by the pandemic would be competing for next year’s awards.
Some of the performances were great but I doubt Emmy nomination great. Patrick Stewart probably deserved multiple Emmy nominations on TNG and I don’t think he was nominated once although I could be wrong.
But I do think they should definitely push for Hanelle Culpepper for directing the first episode. I don’t think she has a chance of winning but could be nominated at least.
Stewart probably should have been nominated for most of TNG’s seasons. I think back then the fact that it was syndicated held it back some.
His Emmy nominations…
Lead Actor Mini Series or Special: Captain Ahab. Moby Dick. 1998.
Outstanding made for TV movie: Producer. The Lion in Winter. 2004.
Outstanding Guest actor in a comedy series. Himself. Extras. 2006.
Outstanding supporting actor in miniseries or movie. Ghost/Claudus. Hamlet. 2010.
Wow I had no idea he was nominate for all of those either. But still no wins…
It’s amazing Stewart is a bonafide actor in every sense of the word and delivered amazing performances on TNG but as you said probably being syndicated but ALSO a science fiction show made it harder back then. These days the industry take sci fi more seriously today but its still not taken seriously as the others.
You are right. Being a sci-fi show probably worked against him too. Those sort of things have always had a stigma with Academy voters. BTW… He was hilarious on his stint on Extras. There was even some ribbing of Trek fans in it but those things don’t bug me much. If it’s funny it’s all good.
I think he deserved them then, and he deserves them now. I think it’s very possible he’ll get one for this series, both for his performance in Picard, and as a recognition of his career in the role.
I would love to believe that T’pol’s Beard (love that handle lol) but if he didn’t get a single one for 7 seasons on TNG, not even a freakin nomination, I have a hard time seeing it happen here. But yes hopefully I’m wrong.
Yeah I can see him getting a nomination for his finale scene with Spiner – win or lose I thought it was a suitable farewell to Data, IMO much better than the somewhat rushed goodbye in Nemesis. Even Tasha got a proper sendoff in Skin of Evil.
Oh right, I did forget about the scene between Picard and Data final time together. That seems to be the one scene most have praised even if they hated the rest of the finale. That was done very well.
TAS won an Emmy in the 70s which kinda felt like a legacy nod to TOS, so they may do the same here for Pat, though I sincerely doubt it based on what made it to the screen…
They well deserve nominations! Likely won’t win, but great performances deserve recognition.
Well seasoned actors in Picard but not worthy to nominate for Outstanding Drama Series.
No, nowhere near worth to be nominated for best show.
I think it’s worthy of a nomination. Lots more shows that get critical acclaim that aren’t nearly as good as the hype (Ozark, Stranger Things being two notable examples). For once it would be nice to see a show that I enjoyed more get the recognition it so truly deserves.
See for me I love both Stranger Things and Ozark and feel they did match the hype. I have not watched season 3 of Ozark yet but people are saying its the best one. But it just proves how subjective all of this is. And I think with Picard, there was a lot of hype going in that fans felt it didn’t live up to more than anything.
Don’t get me wrong, there were some truly stand out episodes in the season one for me, some of the best since DS9. But as a whole it still falls a bit flat. But you feel more strongly about it and maybe your view will win out. I just don’t see it because there are soooo many shows on now and a lot of quality shows. The competition only gets bigger every year with so much new media.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again. Even though there is more TV being produced than ever before it feels like there is not as much quality TV these days. I’m watching less TV than ever before and there is more original content at my fingertips than ever before. Either the quality of the programming has decreased or my standards have increased. Or maybe a little of both…
In my view, they should be putting forward the young actors in Children of Mars for nominations in a live-action short category.
Sadie Munroe and Ilamaria Ebra were both excellent in roles that demanded a high level of subtlety and physical acting for child actors.
It also seems as though CBS should be pushing harder on promoting the Shorts across the board.
The shorts are not a heavily competitive category, so CBS should be going all out to get Emmy nods where it’s innovating.
This, and the choice of director nomination to promote, makes me think that this is less about good strategy in going after awards than TPTB showing support and giving internal recognition to those they see as high status talent and creatives.
Someone further up at CBS was not doing the challenge function they should have before those decisions were finalized.
That’s a bit too ambitious…
I’m with you there.
They are really considering Akiva Goldsman for an Emmy? Were they even watching that finale? Some good choices there but personally I wouldn’t select Akiva Goldsman or Evan Egoria for consideration.
Apparently not lol.
I don’t think Picard deserves an Emmy for anything. Like it told a compelling story but there should be something more. The finale didn’t have closure.
Star Trek is not Game of Thrones. Not like the HBO of the world. Too ambitious for them here…
COVID-19 pandemic has delayed more noteworthy Emmys contenders. Picard isn’t worth it.
The eligibility period for Emmy entries ended March 31. Any program that was delayed due to COVID-19 most likely wouldn’t have aired until March 31 anyway so COVID-19 should have very little impact on this year’s contenders.
I don’t blame CBS at all for giving it a go. I’d of pared the list of “for your considerations” down a bit, but then again, they didn’t ask my input.
Ha! Yes, def an emmy for continuous, relentless background music across every single moment. Someone in another room asked me what soap opera I was watching. The first season soundtrack is probably 20 hours long for 10 hours of TV.
Apart from the groundbreaking but slightly head-scratching nod for TNG season 7 for best drama, TNG and DS9 never got the attention they deserved outside of the creative Emmys, like most genre tv. Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner, Rene Auberjonois, Avery Brooks, Nana Visitor, Robert Picardo, Jeri Ryan, Kate Mulgrew, Connor Trinneer and dozens of wonderful guest stars – never nominated for Trek, and truly deserving episodes with superlative writing had to settle for the odd Hugo nod.
Picard and Discovery don’t deserve anything but creative awards yet, this push is all just for show. Patrick Stewart and Jeri Ryan were given far better material in their previous shows, and Marina Sirtis’ performance is deserving but not showy enough. Such a shame, this could have been proper peak tv for long-suffering Trekkers.
So true. SO many actors from the various shows at least deserved nominations in the past. And I agree I thought both Stewart and Ryan were good in Picard but as you said they had a better stuff on TNG and VOY IMO (although we are only talking a handful of episodes on Picard so far versus the 100+ on the previous shows). I do agree that Sirtis had a better performance as Troi in Picard though but I always loved the character in general.
Stweart’s best shot for Trek was on the TNG run. He was on top of his game there. Now it seems he has lost a step or two. He doesn’t have the same charisma he once had. If he is to get a an award for long time decent service those are normally dished out in the supporting actor category. Not leads.
Yeah too ambitious for now.
Honestly how long must we suffer lol. You think there will be a Trek production in the next 5 years that has a chance to unite the fans? I’m not a fan of any of this “Star Trek” really, I was happy enough through 2005 and briefly 2009.
The fans haven’t been united for decades, at least since TNG premiered, maybe even longer. It’s impossible to do a Star Trek show that everybody is going to like. Doing a show that is closer to previous shows may unite some subgroups of Trek fandom but every show has its detractors so you will never unite them all.
There’s no arguing that Stewart deserves an Emmy, but it’s seriously disgraceful that he didn’t win one for any of his work on TNG, there were so many Emmy worthy performances.
Nobody on Picard deserves an Emmy….not even the great one himself. Anson Mount, however, does for his portrayal of Pike. He was the highest point in season 2 and he electrified every one of his scenes.
I thought Mount should have been at least nominated for Hell on Wheels. But that’s how things go.
Mount must be gutsy, to try SF again after that short-lived superhero thing with the chick and her CG-red hair. I just mentioned Tommy Lee Jones in a post above, but honestly, Mount is like a TV version of Jones as he was while doing features in the 80s, doing really good work in less than ideal conditions. He even sounds like him in HELL ON WHEELS.
Mount’s presence and dedication is literally the only win CBSTRek has shown me to date. If there is a Pike show, let it be run by somebody (anybody) other than the folks currently involved in Trek. Everybody always automatically says ‘get Ron Moore’ when it comes to saving or doing a new TREK, to the point I usually consider it a joke, but honestly, I can’t think of another working pro who could probably hit the ground running and deliver a Pike show winner right out of the gate (except maybe Noah Hawley.) Kinda makes me wish Moore didn’t have the active job on the Apple NASA show as well as the consulting on OUTLANDER.
” If there is a Pike show, let it be run by somebody (anybody) other than the folks currently involved in Trek. ”
On this…. I am in complete 100% agreement on. My fear with a Pike show is that it would be run by Secret Hideout.
To my knowledge Secret Hideout handles all Trek for CBS (except maybe the movie side) so yes, they would also handle a Pike show.
I am well aware that Secret Hideout would be doing the Pike show. The fear wasn’t that there was uncertainty about what company would be producing the show. My fear is that Secret Hideout would be producing it should it happen during the course of their contract.
As I indicated in another thread, best-case scenario here is that they hire somebody actually GOOD from outside and leave them the hell alone to do the show, sort of like how it was some of the time on DS9 (though these people would need to be much more hands-off.)
I look at some of the people CBS is pushing for nominations (Peyton List? Akiva Goldsman?) and three words come to mind: sheer f*$%@!g hubris (see what I did there?).
I will give Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis credit for effectively re-inhabiting their characters without the luxury of a full season of episodes to work with. But beyond them, LOL.
I know this is just another way for CBS to promote its shows but honestly, they have some cheek to be even inserting themselves into the conversation given the quality of what was ultimately put out.
Some fans may not have liked the last episode much but from an acting standpoint, I would not be surprised to see Sir Patrick or Spiner get nominated for their fireside chat in the season finale.
I had problems with the last episode because of the story and plot holes. The acting was fine. There were some cliffhangers left unexplained.
That’s the nature of cliffhangers: to leave things open for next season.
But that’s the thing, it WASN’T a cliffhanger. As far as the story itself, it was all wrapped up. We saw them at the end warping to their next adventure. And Stewart made it clear in the recent article here they are moving on to a completely new story next season, although he did say they will still explore Picard being in his new body. But it sounds like the story itself is done.
There is so much hate and negativity in these comments. A real shame. No doubt I’ll be picked apart for my opinion.
Don’t be mislead by this particular story and forum – most fan postings on this site for both Discovery and Picard are generally positive or neutral with some very legit critiques and only a very small percentage being what I would consider “hater” posts that we can all discount. Unlike some of the “hater sites” especially on social media like YT, IMO Trekmovie.com has done a great job to create a balanced forum where fans can post both positive comments and constructive critiques – so don’t let those few vociferous naysayers intimidate you. If you come back to Trekmovie.com more often, you will see for yourself.
From what I can tell here the bulk of the critiques here are legit. Sure, there are some “haters” but those really are the minority posts. What I have seen elsewhere is that the show’s aren’t being really well received among viewers. Critics have actually treated it better than fans.
Exactly DeanH. People are just giving their opinion here and usually very civil about it. TM isn’t perfect but for the MOST part people who are critical are simply stating how they feel, bringing up legitimate points and never attack others for having a different opinion. It’s not like those sites where people are vilifying others because they simply have the nerve to like the show they don’t like or its just a circle jerk of haters who dominates every thread. That doesn’t happen here, it is usually more balanced. Yes sometimes a thread will be a bit more negative than others but the opposite at times happens too and a thread becomes very positive when fans generally like an episode. It’s not one or the other all the time.
I mean check out the first episode thread of Picard. It’s like the producers of the show themselves were posting lol. It is a little sad with how much hype and excitement the first episode brought vs the bitter let down many people felt by the finale though. The exact same pattern happened with Discovery in season 2. But it also proves there isn’t a ‘narrative’ happening either. Most people are just genuinely responding to how they feel. If people truly hated these shows here (or had something against all Kutzman Trek), then that’s ALL it would be in every episode thread, hate, about every character and episode and that’s clearly not the case.
But yes, there are still some fans here that try to gatekeep like what we saw in the Lower Decks article and sometimes I get frustrated listening to people talk about what Star Trek they hate and love and treat it like all of fandom feels the same way they do about it. That happens here a lot too but I think that’s just people who don’t spend a lot of time on other sites or just overly generalize their feelings. They aren’t doing it to put down others, that’s just how they see it. The issue comes in when they think others SHOULD feel the same way, but thankfully it’s only a small few who does that here.
Timpani everyone here has an opinion. We are not haters, just fair criticism and critique. You have your honest opinion, what you think.
Citizen critics are us. Free speech
Entertaining show but light years away from the brilliant episodic story telling of the series which preceded Picard. We can all still hope season 1 is just an anomaly while the series finds its footing in a better season 2, but I feel like the golden years of Trek are behind us.
There are definite issues with the serialized format of both Discovery and Picard. I would not hold my breath that either one of these shows will switch to becoming episodic BUT I think it is fair to hope that one of the future shows (perhaps Star Trek – Strange New Worlds, the rumored name of a possible Pike series) might tell episodic stories on a weekly basis.
Yeah but how many times do we have to say “Well, it wasn’t that great, a promising start but…let’s hope this was all just bad luck.” Reminds me of Star Wars fan reaction circa 1999.
Marina Sirtis was incredible – her best performance of Troi, period. She showed incredible range and warmth. That moment alone when she sees Picard for the first time and senses his brain condition and wordlessly loses it worth the Emmy alone.
I’ve seen some say this. I am forced to disagree. She was just was worthless in this show as she was on TNG.
I’ve never seen Sirtis give a really effective performance in anything, and that includes pre-TREK work. The best I can say is some good moments, which means what she did well didn’t even sustain for the duration of a scene.
I was just seeing an old movie with Melanie Griffith’s sister and it made me remember how annoying it is to see some people with real talent not get the opportunity to break through, while others get a relatively free ride courtesy of being a small part of a hit project. It took Tommy Lee Jones forever to really break through, despite excellent performances in mediocre and little-scenes films, and if he had been a woman, his career would have ended long before he reached that point.
As much as I loved the show and champion it, the performances are light years away from Emmy level quality even from Patrick Stewart. Take a look at Better Call Saul for some excellent performances…
The only actor across all the new shows worthy of a nomination would have been Jason Isaacs, obviously not possible this year.
Better Call Saul…now there is some must-watch tv. Simply excellent.
I remember laughing really hard when seeing ‘for your consideration’ ads in early 1980 for Shatner and co on TMP, but nominating anybody or anything on this show is far more ridiculous. I’m guessing this is all mandated by contract rather than any consideration of actual value, so, again like 40 years back, too silly to seriously consider.
Hmm … I can’t say I understand it. Patrick Stewart was good, but gave an uneven performance at times. But thats probably less to do with his acting abilities and more with the material he was given. There simply were no moments that were earned on an emotional level. Most of the things that worked on that level leaned on nostalgia and thus hat nothing to do with the writing.
So while I do like his performance, I don’t see, how its worth any awards, given the competition. Storywise you could argue, that he wasn’t even the main character. Speaking of supporting characters: I really liked Alison Pills and Isa Briones’ performances. But it’s the same as with Stewart: they made the best out of the subpar material they were given, so I don’t see them winning any awards either.
As for other categories. The story was wholly unoriginal, as many have pointed out and even setting aside that fact, it just wasn’t written very well. Most characters are little more than set dressing or macguffins to be disposed of and the ones that weren’t had very little developement of their own.
Surprinsingly even the Vfx and props are pretty weak. While the show starts of strong in that department, it quickly goes down hill. The hero ship is just uninspired, as are all the generic holo interfaces and random particle effects. And then you have thos Federation and Romulan ships, that have absolutely no character. Props often look like toys, which is weird on a production this expensive.
In general I have to question, where all the money went. While I also don’t like discovery very much, that show is outstanding, when it comes to that department. Just weird.
Finally the costumedesign and music. The one thing, I’d say, they did a really good job on. Exception are the starfleed uniformes, which look really cheap and not properly fittet. Also not a fan ofthe shows theme, while the music in the show fits the series pretty well. But overall nothing awardworthy.
All great analysis. I agree that Picard felt really cheap at times. Yeah, they made some pretty sets that made for nice images, but then so many other things were skimped on, CGI starships being a big one (I love the space flowers but…what kinda idea is that). But I think it was made on a budget, a way to squeeze out more Trek content to appease the fans while wringing us dry as long as they can. Picard is like the bottle episodes of a standard TV season they would use to save budget for the big episodes, in this case, Discovery.
Also I found almost everyone on this show to be irritating. Not related, just saying.
The only number I could find says 8 to 9 million per episode. That’s definitely not “a way to squeeze out more Trek content to appease the fans while wringing us dry as long as they can”