All Things Star Trek

The universe split into two timelines in 2250 or something similar, a long time before the events of the TV show though. I forget the exact date, but I looked it up yesterday because I was confused. Both timelines definitely exist in the year that the TV show is supposed to take place.

The thing is that both universes would have been very very similar until the events of the first JJ Star Trek movie. So for a show that takes place 10 years before the events of the movie, it wouldn't matter whether they were in this timeline or that. Unless Kirk's dad is involved, which I'm assuming he's not.

You are right, this is probably just them paying lip service to all those fans who don't like the new movies. It doesn't make any sense otherwise, unless I suppose Kirk's dad and/or other family members are going to be a part of the TV show in some way. (which I don't think is true, I thought the show is supposed to focus on new characters, but I admit I could be wrong)
 
(That said, I once came up with a "fantasy cast" for a nuTrek-style reboot of The Next Generation. I probably can't walk into some Trek conventions now. :p )

Challenge accepted.

Picard - Chiwetel Ejiofor
Riker - Stephen Amell
Data - Danny Pudi
Geordi - Donald Glover
Crusher - Michelle Trachtenberg
Troi - Tatiana Maslany
Worf - Mike Colter
Wesley - Hailee Steinfeld
Q - Tom Hiddleston
Guinan - Alfre Woodard
O'Brien - Jonah Hill
Tasha - Caity Lotz
 
Got your attention! I think Ejiofor can carry the same professional passion as Stewart. Another thought was Dominic West.
 
I checked the first name on the list, because I didn't recognize any of them except for two. And I don't disagree with what you just said, but if you're going to have to have actors playing the parts who look nothing like the originals, come up with a new crew. Picard's appearance was as much a part of his character as his personality.
 
I'm a craaaaaaazy caster
 
Challenge accepted.
You and I have a little bit of overlap. I wanted this to be a television series, so I tried to focus on actors known for television.

Captain Picard..... Ralph Fiennes, the only one here who I think hasn't done tv
Cmdr Riker........... Lee Pace (Halt & Catch Fire)
Data..................... Tom Hiddleston (The Night Manager)
Geordi.................. Donald Glover (Atlanta)
Dr. Crusher.......... Sarah Paulson (American Horror Story; The People v. O.J. Simpson)
Welsey Crusher... Finn Wolfhard (Stranger Things)
Deanna Troi......... Annet Mahendru (The Americans)
Tasha Yar............. Mackenzie Davis (Halt & Catch Fire) - I wanted to avoid taking two people from the same show, but I couldn't help it
Keiko Ishikawa..... Jennifer Spence (Travelers)
Worf..................... Roger Cross (Dark Matter), but I think I like Coulter better

I haven't found a Mile O'Brien I like. I love Tatiana Maslany, if I could get her in here, I would. I hadn't thought about Q or Guinan, but Woodard is a good choice.
 
No matter who I consider for the Picard role, you just can't beat Stewart. A TNG reboot would never work unless Stewart himself took on the role.
I kind of feel the same way. I almost went ahead and just said Stewart, but it felt like a cop-out. :lol:
 
[...]come up with a new crew.
This reminds me of a game I ran on a Trek forum years ago, where each participant assembled a starship crew consisting of characters from other sci-fi shows and movies. It was a "player draft" game, so each character could be chosen only once. I can't remember my whole cast, but I remember I had Sam "George" Francisco from Alien Nation and Dr. Arroway from Contact.
 
Ralph Fiennes is a very interesting choice. He might be too soft-spoken for my taste but I can see him being paternal.

No matter who I consider for the Picard role, you just can't beat Stewart. A TNG reboot would never work unless Stewart himself took on the role.

Yeah, it's a tough one. It's easier to recast TOS because the characters were written so strongly. TNG's crew had weaker characterization and Stewart basically created Picard through sheer presence.
 
Picard needs to be British and O'Brien Irish. Troi being vaguely foreign should be part of it too.
 
Data on the other hand could probably have skin of any colour.. Could even be female really, it would impact a couple stories here and there, but for the most part it wouldn't really change much on an episode by episode basis..

I suppose the Crushers, Geordi, and Riker could be of any race or sex as well.. Although Beverley should be a woman so she can play the "mother of Wesley" role.. and you could argue Riker needs to be a man, but IMO it's not necessarily required if you write the right type of character and get the right actress. Worf and Geordi are the only black characters, so it's probably fine to insist that Geordi remains black, since Worf is an alien. Does that make sense? I think it does but I have no idea who I might be offending with my theories about different races, including made up ones, all while I'm of a completely different race and context.

Keiko was only in 1 episode of TNG or something like that, right? I thought she was a rather useless character in the first couple seasons of DS9, she didn't get much chance to develop much of a personality. The writers didn't seem to care about that and the main focus of her character seemed to exist to give more depth to O'Brien's character instead. Later they developed her a bit more, but at first there wasn't really much there. So on one hand I want to say Keiko could even be a black man, but on the other there isn't really much to Keiko. The way she looks "i.e. Asian and female" is a large part of what defines her, so maybe they should stick to that. Plus how many other east Asians do you really see on Star Trek. You can't make O'Brien single either, he is a family man, that is a big part of his personality.

I agree about Troi needing a slight accent, but don't think she necessarily needs to be foreign.

Worf just needs to be large and warrior-looking. I don't think anything else would really matter, as long as the "warrior" part of his character is a big part of who he is.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, it's a tough one. It's easier to recast TOS because the characters were written so strongly. TNG's crew had weaker characterization and Stewart basically created Picard through sheer presence.
I think you may be under-selling Stewart a little. My challenge with re-casting Picard is that he is so many different things over the course of the series. He's a soldier, an academic, a diplomat, a father-figure, a ladies' man, and a man's man. I have be able to imagine whoever plays Picard ordering the Enterprise into battle against a Borg cube, geeking out over an alien archaeological site, and falling for 3 or 4 different women.

Picard needs to be British and O'Brien Irish. Troi being vaguely foreign should be part of it too.
I agree. My difficulty in casting O'Brien is mainly because I'm perhaps unreasonably committed to finding an Irish actor. I don't want someone trying to do a fake accent for a hundred episodes, even if it's just a supporting role. And the vagueness of Troi ethnicity is important, since she's not human but you don't want her to be distant from humanity, like Spock and Data (you want Worf to be relatable, too). Mahendru is half-Russian, half-Indian, born in Kabul, grew up in St. Petersburg, Frankfurt, and Long Island, and speaks 6 languages (hmm... y'know, now that I'm typing this, if she was 10 years older, she'd basically be my dream woman :lol: ).
 
More character notes from this "armchair showrunner":

TNG did a decent job with its women, back in the day. I remember a girl I was dating at time - a committed feminist who listened to L7 and Hole and knew nothing about Star Trek - being very pleased with Tasha Yar. "I like her. She's very competent." But in 2017, we need more. Data, Worf and Picard had their star turns on the series, but none of the women ever got significant story lines. I chose Paulson as kind of a 'ringer' for my team.

Of course there's no telling what kind of chemistry cast-mates will have, but I'd like to see more of the character relationships. I definitely don't want a soap opera, but the TNG crew was a little too professional, and frustratingly chaste. Deep Space 9 did a better job with the characters' relationships, I thought.

To paraphrase Donald Trump, I want to make the Borg scary again.

I'm not sure a reboot needs to explore the Klingons the way the original did. They did a great job with that, I thought, and while K'eylar and Alexander and others are important to Worf's development as a character, there's no need to redo all those stories in the same detail.

If Finn Wolfhard is playing Wesley, is it too much to cast Millie Bobbie Brown as Robin Lefler? Probably. :lol:
 
DS9 was really really good with the characters and the relationships between them. The first couple seasons were meh, but the characters were developed very well and I connected with them more strongly than I did with the TNG crew. I think a part of it might have been that DS9 was more.. vague.. in its morality. DS9 had morally neutral characters, or at least characters who you couldn't quite figure out, like Garak. It wasn't so clearcut as TNG, and even the Federation crew had to make morally ambiguous choices here and there.. which Picard had to also make, but then we always got a speech at the end about why it was right. A lot of TNG to me was moral lessons, while DS9 was more like.. explorations, where you draw your own conclusions. Not always, but that theme was a lot stronger on the show and I think it made the characters and the interactions between then a lot more interesting.
 
The Naked Time - This episode scores points with me for having an Irishman act as obnoxious as he wants. You do you, Riley. It's strange, though, that this episode is considered so legendary when other episodes are leaps and bounds better.
The show has always stereotyped the Irish characters, from Riley in TOS, to O'Brien and the Irish colonists in TNG, to the "Fair Haven" villagers in the Voyager series.

The Squire of Gothos - The most underrated episode in this season, if not the whole series. A near-perfect examination of fascism and narcissism and how it isolates the most well-meaning of us. Kirk attempts many strategies with the Squire, only to realize that the Squire will never engage him in good faith. Exceedingly relevant for our times.
Yep. During the last couple of days or so, Canadians learned that on at least one important plank of the current government's election platform, they are never going to deal in good faith. I don't hold out much hope of the others acting in good faith, either.

Some people interpret this episode to mean that Trelane and his parents are Q, and I remember the night that a couple of dozen SCA people (still in our medieval costumes after having spent the day at a tournament and feast) gathered in someone's living room to watch the premiere of TNG. As soon as Q started strutting around in his costumes and pontificating, someone said, "That's Trelane, all grown up."

I've never yet seen a convincing argument to refute the idea that Trelane is part of the Q Continuum, although not necessarily the same person as John deLancie's character.

Arena - Hovering just above average, Kirk is used by the writers as a stand-in for the Federation's war mentality. They do the same trick of having the crew watch TV with us as in the courtroom episodes, and it doesn't work as well here.
This episode was based on a short story by Frederick Brown. I've read the original story; it was pretty bleak.

A Taste of Armageddon - There are episodes like this one where Star Trek gets pretty close to being Doctor Who. It makes for some entertaining escapades even as we shake our heads at the concept.
In what way do you consider this episode to have Whovian qualities? :confused:

If I'd written this episode, I would have made a few changes, among them making it a two-parter and included scenes where they beam down to Vendikar and discover that there's nobody left alive, and hasn't been for centuries. That would have made the Eminians' situation all the more tragic, and given them added incentive for rejecting war and rebuilding their society.

The City on the Edge of Forever - Yup, it's "City on the Edge of Forever", the one episode no one is allowed to dislike. And you know what, it is a great episode, filled with excellent character moments for our core trio, and so tightly written as to feel thirty minutes shorter than it is. Especially great coda after the climax.
There is a really excellent novel called Provenance of Shadows, in which Kirk and Spock fail to find McCoy and correct the timeline. He has to live out his life in the past, and deal with a World War II in which everything happens differently from what he was taught.

I still think it's stupid that 1) They set the TV show in a different timeline than the movies and 2) That it's going to be accessible on a streaming service only (after the pilot, IIRC)
Of course Canada gets shafted. The series is shot in Canada, but we're not allowed to watch it unless we do it illegally or it might make it to Canadian Netflix some day.

Same with the Handmaid's Tale TV series. It's going to be shown on Hulu. Canadians cannot legally access Hulu.

Having the same franchise have different things happening in different timelines, at the same time, that's stupid. In my opinion, anyway.

It's lazy, it makes the franchise as a whole appear less coherent, it will confuse some people, and it basically just sounds like a really stupid idea to me. Pick one timeline and stick to it, if you start jumping around you're just going to lose people. Your average person doesn't have time to even start thinking about this mess.

It doesn't seem that it even has to be a problem. This story is supposed to take place 10 years before Kirk's first mission or something like that, and at that time both timelines were probably pretty much the same.. minus some minor changes like Kirk's Dad dying early.. which wouldn't affect a show not about Kirk. So what's the problem? Why have two timelines? It's not necessary. Whether this show is in the original timeline or the new one, you get the exact same show.. unless I'm missing something.
Assuming I will actually get to watch this some day, I'm relieved that it's not set in the nuTrek universe. I hate Abramstrek, and most of the actors can't act to save their lives. There's exactly one line of Spock's I liked - the one about displaying multiple attitudes simultaneously.

Confusing? Nope. You're underestimating the audience. People who can keep track of multiple plotlines and minute details of superhero movies can certainly keep track of which Star Trek universe they're watching. Superhero movies don't mean a thing to me, but I've watched soap operas and read fanfiction for nearly 30 years. A person gets practice in juggling timelines.

Keiko was only in 1 episode of TNG or something like that, right? I thought she was a rather useless character in the first couple seasons of DS9, she didn't get much chance to develop much of a personality. The writers didn't seem to care about that and the main focus of her character seemed to exist to give more depth to O'Brien's character instead. Later they developed her a bit more, but at first there wasn't really much there.
There's a current thread at TrekBBS about Keiko. I'm in the "I-can't-stand-her" camp. She was in several TNG episodes, and the only DS9 episode where I liked her a little bit was when she stood up to Kai Winn about the school (but she was whiny even in that one).

I agree about Troi needing a slight accent, but don't think she necessarily needs to be foreign.
Troi had an accent because Marina Sirtis has an accent. Otherwise, it makes no sense for Troi to have an accent unless Lwaxana also has an accent. Unless Troi grew up immersed in a culture other than on Betazed or Earth, there is absolutely no reason for her to have an accent because neither of her parents did (or at least her father wouldn't have had the same one she did).
 
It was a part of Troi's personality though, from my POV anyway. I thought it sort of highlighted that she was "different" in that she could read people's minds or whatever. It made her seem more mysterious and seemed to fit her character.

As for the new TV show not being in the new timeline, what difference does it make though? It happens 10 years before Kirk, whether the show was set in this timeline or that, it wouldn't have made any difference at all. It seems they are just paying lip service to people who dislike the new timeline in a "Spock totally wears orange socks" kind of way. We never get to see his socks, so it wouldn't matter either way.
 
NuKirk (as I refer to the Abrams movie character) might as well have been named "Captain Frat Boy." He's an immature jerk who thinks he's the proverbial God's gift to women, has a know-it-all attitude to rival Wesley Crusher at his most obnoxious, and I greatly dislike the actor who plays nuKirk.

Why would I want to watch more of that on TV, when I haven't been able to even begin to like the character in the movies?
 
Back
Top Bottom