Can I talk about this modern trend in "diversity casting in TV shows?"

Status
Not open for further replies.

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
And most of those were writing around cast changes and other circumstances beyond the writer’s control.
There things like the Minbari only talking about two caste to David Warner. There has been suggestions that JMS though of the worker caste after this, but it might be an mistake. The whole Minbari society set up seems awful and stupid to me, giving 66% of the power to 10% of the population (not a mistake, it's always been stupid to me)

There issues with the timeline for how the Earth-Minbari war happened, like Sheridan saying he killed extra ship and claiming this happened in our asteriod belt. It taking 2 years for the Minbari to go from the asteriod belt to Earth

These aren't like the Babylon Squared and War Without End continuity issues as that more cast change issue

This is not to say JMS didnt generally keep it all together, its like 99 out of 100 he got right. Which is very high for any show
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I always gave a shit.

And indeed, in recent times things got better. I heard that is mostly due to advent of streaming and viewers being more often expected to watch whole seasons and in order where decades ago much more focus was laid on each apisode being able to stand alone and networks being able to reorder or shorten seasons on a whim.
TNG is THE show that taught me to get over inconsistencies. You have to take each episode as a seperate entity and sometimes the characters show up in other episodes

I disagree about shortening seasons. A streaming service is more likely to have a short season because it deletes all the fluff
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,525
4,582
118
Country
United States
Admittedly, I haven't watch any Sherlock Holmes shows, but isn't his character usually just "Gosh, he's so smart, I can't believe how smart he is!"?
I mean, in the BBC's Sherlock yes, but in the other stories he's got other qualities. The BBC's Sherlock is garbage and highly unrepresentative of most of the Holmes canon


 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,048
3,213
118
Australia
Pretty much. The original stories in particular were famous for Sherlock laying out the entire case using details and clues that aren't given the reader at all. It's handwaved because Watson is the narrator and Watson just isn't as Smart as Sherlock(though not the bumbling oaf some adaptations make him out to be, the man is a Doctor and a combat vet, for gods sake).
That's one of the things I enjoy the most about the Guy Ritchie movies. They're imperfect representations of the canon, but Jude Law's Watson is great. Intelligent, capable and not given to putting up with most of Holmes' shit. Unless he has no other obvious choice.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,472
1,107
118
Country
United Kingdom
For instance, before directing Wrath of Khan, Meyers watched every prior TOS episode, whereas Baird refused to watch any of TNG before directing Nemesis. The quality/lack of both films probably wasn't contingent on that, but ask anyone which film turned out better, and you'll get only one answer.
See, here's the thing. I agree that Wrath of Khan is by far the superior film. But I don't think that is in any way due to continuity.

The Gary 7 episode of TOS opens with the Enterprise orbitting Earth in in the 1960s because something something lightspeed time travel. There is, if we accept this episode as canonical, no reason why the crew of Star Trek cannot travel to any point in history at any moment, or why any FTL-capable species wouldn't be able to do the same.

Think of all the episodes where the crew of the Enterprise arrive at a location after some mysterious event and have to piece together what happened. Why didn't they just go back in time and see what happened directly? They wouldn't even need to change history, they'd just be observing events that from their perspective already happened, like they are doing in that particular episode..

Is that a better show? Is it a more fun show to watch because it has a harder continuity?

The reason Wrath of Khan works, and the reason it was probably important to actually watch the series before making it, is that Wrath of Khan understands the characters and themes of TOS Star Trek incredibly well and manages to heighten them to a cinematic intensity without compromising the emotional heart of the show. It doesn't matter, for example, that Khan talks about never forgetting Chekov's face despite the fact Chekov didn't appear in Space Seed. That doesn't make the movie bad despite being a really obvious continuity error.

All the TNG movies have a pretty fundamental problem of not really understanding the characters, but Nemesis is one of the clearest examples. What should have come from researching the show is not an exhaustive knowledge of events in it, but an understanding of what the show's appeal is and what is important to people who would watch it. Wrath of Khan absolutely nails that, Nemesis does not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
Wrath of Khan was hated by a lot of Trek fans when it came out
I think the fan base was heavily positive about it as a whole, so it's "a lot" more in the realm of "significant minority".
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,134
331
88
Wrath of Khan had a lot of bad publicity before it went to the cinema. Because Rhoddenberry didn't like it, talked against it at conventions, leaked the death of Spock etc. When it actually released, people found it quite acceptable.

Personally i don't think it really deserves all that praise. Both number 4 and number 6 are better.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Wrath of Khan had a lot of bad publicity before it went to the cinema. Because Rhoddenberry didn't like it, talked against it at conventions, leaked the death of Spock etc. When it actually released, people found it quite acceptable.

Personally i don't think it really deserves all that praise. Both number 4 and number 6 are better.
Hot Take: I dont think number 4 was that great and 3 was a good as 2 and 4
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
Wrath of Khan had a lot of bad publicity before it went to the cinema. Because Rhoddenberry didn't like it, talked against it at conventions, leaked the death of Spock etc. When it actually released, people found it quite acceptable.
Roddenberry might have bad-mouthed it because after the yawnfest that was ST:TMP they effectively kicked him out of any position of creative control.

Hot Take: I dont think number 4 was that great and 3 was a good as 2 and 4
I find it very hard to view 3 as as good as 2. 2 feels like a movie but 3 feels like a long and high budget TV episode. I know they needed to bring Spock back somehow, but it's both implausible and a bit sickly sentimental.

Plotwise, 4 is dumb, thoroughly cheesy, with clumsy anachronism reinforced by returning to 80s Earth. Nevertheless, it really it hits the mark by just letting the characters loose. The actors know exactly what they're doing and the script lets them get on with it, loaded with joie de vivre, so it's also just good, simple fun and a winner.

As long as everyone agrees that 5 is absolutely fucking awful.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,048
3,213
118
Australia
Roddenberry might have bad-mouthed it because after the yawnfest that was ST:TMP they effectively kicked him out of any position of creative control.



I find it very hard to view 3 as as good as 2. 2 feels like a movie but 3 feels like a long and high budget TV episode. I know they needed to bring Spock back somehow, but it's both implausible and a bit sickly sentimental.

Plotwise, 4 is dumb, thoroughly cheesy, with clumsy anachronism reinforced by returning to 80s Earth. Nevertheless, it really it hits the mark by just letting the characters loose. The actors know exactly what they're doing and the script lets them get on with it, loaded with joie de vivre, so it's also just good, simple fun and a winner.

As long as everyone agrees that 5 is absolutely fucking awful.
Aside from that one scene around the campfire. Otherwise yeah, total dumpster fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Wrath of Khan had a lot of bad publicity before it went to the cinema. Because Rhoddenberry didn't like it, talked against it at conventions, leaked the death of Spock etc. When it actually released, people found it quite acceptable.

Personally i don't think it really deserves all that praise. Both number 4 and number 6 are better.
So Roddenberry was cut out of Star Trek 2. They hired a bunch of people who had NOT EVEN SEEN any Star Trek to take over, including Meyers. In fact, Meyers would ask why people are being so sanctimonious about Star Trek lore and changed much of the franchise

Also, they wanted to kill Spock early in the movie and there was a massive backlash against everyone, which included death threats to Nimoy. Because this is just the norm for fans. This is also why you don't have Spock doing much in the movie until the end - he was already cut out and they had to put him back in

Lastly, there were a bunch of people who didn't like ST2. They just stopped being Trekkies so you no longer hear from them. Just the same as when a bunch of people left when Picard showed up. Then Sisko and Janeway. It's how I can presume that all the critisicm of NuTrek just won't matter. The people who dislike the Nu stuff will give up and move on and Discovery etc will be seen as good

I think the fan base was heavily positive about it as a whole, so it's "a lot" more in the realm of "significant minority".
I didn't mean to state that it's a majority.

BTW, ST2 was seen as a huge downgrade visually becuase they used TV people rather than movie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,729
2,251
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I think I should point out that I'm saying things about history of fans back in the day, like what they wrote in letters or in papers

It's not necessarily how I feel. I think its important to understand how all fans act, positively and negatively. Star Trek has always been controversial
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
BTW, ST2 was seen as a huge downgrade visually becuase they used TV people rather than movie.
The issue here was that ST:TMP flogged enough tickets to justify more films, but they spent so much making it that there was very little profit. The demand for the second was therefore that it was done on a much lower budget.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,472
1,107
118
Country
United Kingdom
Admittedly, I haven't watch any Sherlock Holmes shows, but isn't his character usually just "Gosh, he's so smart, I can't believe how smart he is!"?
It depends what you mean.

In the old stories, Sherlock is often just doing really basic deduction. They were written in a time when the concept of detective work was in its infancy, and so it's really just about this guy bothering to think about stuff in a scientific fashion, and he only looks exceptionally smart because everyone else is shitting themselves inside out over magic ghost dogs or whatever.

Stephen Moffatt and Mark Gattiss Sherlock is kind of piss though, and really is about a magic man who figures things out off-screen by being impossibly smart in ways you're not meant to comprehend because he's jsut so much better than smoll bean plebs like you.

It's a really insulting and vaguely eugenic view of intelligence, frankly, and it's especially insulting to me now as someone who has, at times, looked like that stereotype of the insanely gifted person. Because the reality is that person doesn't exist, it's just neurodivergence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock
Status
Not open for further replies.