Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'TV Shows' started by Nelson Au, Aug 4, 2018.
23rd, so next Thursday.
This new article on the genesis of Picard shows why, even though I am excited for Picard, I have no faith in this bunch to do anything right.
Every idea has to be TOS-related, Star Trek Babies, or a retcon. That's all they seem to be able to think of.
But, Picard did evolve out of that, and we're a week away from seeing the results. So here's hoping.
Here's a clip they've released from the show. There are no spoilers in it (except that Number One is a killer!).
There's one thing, I don't guess it needs to be explained and can be assumed, but they keep talking about the Picard Ancestral Home... the one that burned in Generations. So I guess he rebuilt it?
I was really looking forward to this, but the recent Variety interview with Patrick Stewart has me concerned. He said one of the themes will be a response to the current 'refugee crisis' going on, particularly in the U.S. I know that viewing current event social issues through a sci-fi lens is nothing new for Star Trek, but after watching the decline of 'Supergirl' due to heavy-handed proselytizing, I would hate to see the same thing happen here.
Yeah, it’s clearly a different house than seen in TNG.
Another new clip. (From Twitter)
Every single Star Trek series in history has been accused of "viewing current event social issues through a sci-fi lens" and "heavy-handed proselytizing." This is nothing new, and I wouldn't expect Picard to back down on this. Indeed, this was one of the very reasons Gene Roddenberry wanted to produce the original series back in the '60s -- to bring urgent social issues to TV audiences in disguised SF-form that he couldn't do as (then-) "present-day" storytelling, due to network unease. Same thing with Rod Serling and his creation of The Twilight Zone, too.
Star Trek has always been a form of modern-day Kabuki.
The problem with "Supergirl" isn't the allegorical themes, it's the overbearing execution of those themes where the show stops in its tracks to give the audience a lecture.
I have faith in Chabon et al to integrate their allegory organically into the story and deliver the political statements with some degree of subtlety.
No doubt many of you have seen the promotional efforts and trailers and news for Picard. Trekmovie is reporting of the Los Angeles and London premieres of Picard. This is a spoiler free report as they were not allowed to speak of the plot.
I’ve decided to not read too much or see any new trailers since were so close to the premiere. I‘m looking forward to see the premiere and evaluate it myself.
in the meantime I’m slowly re-watching the second season of Discovery and press on with another viewing of Star Trek TOS.
"Picard" wont fall into the "Supergirl" trap of preaching, and lecturing. Star Trek has always taken the social issues of the current climate of the world and handled them delicately. Unbiased, and fair.
Mileage varying on the context of the subject matter obviously.
I’m excited for the show but will wait until after the season to subscribe and binge them all in one month. Just not enough on CBS AA for me to keep a subscription long term.
One rant though. I’m tired of TV shows using the 2.35:1 aspect ratio. I got no problems with letterboxing, been buying movies in letterbox since the VHS days. It makes since for movies shot in various ratios for large movie theater screens.
These TV shows though, are shot for the home where 95% of the audience has 16:9 screens. Adding black bars doesn’t make your show more dramatic or artistic. Discovery has done this as well and it has also annoyed me. I’m sure some think it makes it feel more theatrical but, many movies are shot in close to 16:9 ratios and still feel theatrical. If theses shows were getting theatrical runs then fine, shoot wide. Otherwise, why not use all the screen real estate you have available? I don’t know, maybe I’m odd for think like this but, it just bugs me.
Oh, I know, some of you are going to say “artistic choice”, which is fine. I just disagree with that choice when most of your audience has a fixed ratio.
What exactly are you talking about
Increasingly, streaming shows are shot in the 2:1 (or even 2.39:1) aspect ratio -- even though the vast majority of televisions and smartphone screens are 16x9.
"House of Cards" is the first one I can remember coming out in that ratio, and then it became the standard for Netflix Originals unless there was a compelling reason for another aspect ratio ("Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life" was shot in 16x9 so that Warner Bros. could package it with the original series in syndication, for instance).
Once other players got into the streaming original content game, they did the same thing.
I guess Vittorio Storaro got the last laugh, after all.
Ok I guess I’m still thinking when someone says ltpwtterboxed of the old dvds when non anamorphic discs would show it “letterboxed” with a black box around everything.
Im still not sure I understand how it’s being used by Chris in his post.
Also seeing a tv show on a streaming service with bars on the top and bottom never bothers me even a little bit and I rarely even notice until I see someone point it out.
Oh I should add that I don’t disagree with Chris and saying why don’t these tv show creators just film it in a tv’s ratio at 16x9 and stop trying to make it “theatrical”.
I mean, you are objectively incorrect about the aspect ratio affecting the "theatrical-ness" of a show. The aspect ratio directly impacts, among other things, the headroom and overall framing of a shot, the way you shoot in narrow places like hallways (and to a certain extent whether you can even do it), and how you capture large groups of actors. It also effects how one and two-shots are done.
I think the 2.39 aspect ratio made for some beautiful shots.
Clearly an homage to 2001:
This shot wouldn't work in 16x9:
There’s a version of this discussion happening on the page for episode 6 of the HTF podcast (the one about aspect ratios).
The answer really is artistic intent.
Has there been an announcement made for what time the show goes live? Discovery was at 8:30pm and clearly advertised as such, but I haven't seen anything at all on time with Picard.