Picard’s Ready Room Assembles For New Star Trek Series, and Rosario Dawson Asks To Beam Up

Work is progressing on the new and as yet untitled Jean-Luc Picard series. Earlier this month we got a glimpse into the writers’ boot camp that Kirsten Beyer gave to the newly assembled writers’ room thanks to writer/producer Michael Chabon. Set at the very end of the 24th century, the new show is expected to be “something very, very different” but Stewart has said it will have the same “passion, and determination and love of the material” that Trekkies would expect.

Captain on the bridge!

This morning Sir Patrick Stewart, who is an executive producer on the series, tweeted a photo of the untitled Picard show writers and producers during a planning meeting.

Behind Stewart (L-R) are: James Duff, who was brought in by Alex Kurtzman to help oversee and coordinate the Discovery writers’ room– it looks like he’s helping to guide the new Picard show as well; Diandra Pendleton-Thompson, an up-and-coming writer who did a stint working on Stranger Things and is now Akiva Goldsman’s writing assistant; producer Akiva Goldsman; Discovery writer, “keeper of the Trek flame,” and Star Trek novelist Kirsten Beyer; and Pulitzer prize-winning author Michael Chabon, who is also writing one of the Star Trek: Short Treks.

Rosario Dawson is ready, and she speaks Klingon!

Actress Rosario Dawson is well known to be a Trekkie, and in 2010 she even campaigned for a role in the sequel to Star Trek (2009). She told Conan O’Brien that she speaks Klingon, and Bryan Fuller had mentioned her name early on during the creation of Discovery.

Fresh off the second season of Netflix and Marvel’s Luke Cage, she spoke with Inverse at the Tribeca TV Festival where she once again talked about getting on the new Picard show:

“I grew up loving Star Trek and I’m still waiting for my holodeck. My favorite is Next Generation because of Jean-Luc Picard. If they need a Klingon for the new series, well, have you seen my fivehead?”

Rosario Dawson would like to do Trek next

Keep up with all the news on the Picard show and other upcoming Star Trek TV shows here at TrekMovie.com.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I gave it an attempt – No luck.

Who can zoom in, and enhance the pages on the table. :-)

Just because they do it in Bladerunner, doesn’t mean it happens in real life ;-)

I dunno, I got some image files for WELCOME TO MARWEN yesterday and you could zoom on them for about a 10,000 percent enlargement before they fell apart. You couldn’t see AROUND items in the image like Deckard could, but hey, Deckard probably didn’t have those silly 3D dot pics (that everybody can ‘see’ except me and maybe one person in SEINFELD) in his ‘verse.

If it’s any comfort, Seinfeld and I can’t “Magic Eye” either. :-)

If this technology becomes available and is successful in scanning the script pages in question,
Please let me know!

Still have reservations about the creative team. Still not convinced there is anyone there who truly understands “Roddenberry’s vision”. But it nonetheless very exciting to see Sir Pat involved.

As for Rosario Dawson – why not?


I loathe when people fetishize “Gene’s Vision.” It’s a guidepost. A starting point, not the be-all-end-all. Producers should respect it, not revere it.

The best Trek has used it as an underpainting on a broad canvas to create a more nuanced masterpiece.

Let’s not forget that Gene himself, while he created the franchise and had a hand in some of its finest moments, also hated TWOK and produced the worst episodes of TNG.

Gene Roddenberry was only ever as good as the people around him, and only when he didn’t have full control.

A lot like George Lucas.

I don’t disagree. But Discovery doesn’t even use it as an underpinning (as opposed to “underpainting”). It barely pays it lip service.

Besides, the reason I put it in quotation marks was precisely because I know Trek isn’t just about Gene’s contribution. Even in TOS you had people like Gene Coon and Bob Justman who helped influence Trek’s direction. Harve Bennett, Rick Berman, Michael Piller, Ron Moore, Brannon Braga, Ira Behr, Manny Coto – they all still retained the Roddenberry foundations.

I think people are kidding themselves if his starting point shouldn’t be the foundation of Trek…and to my mind JJ Trek and Discovery have lost sight of it in all ways other than the most superficial. I get tired of hearing the cast and crew of Discovery banging on about the legacy of Trek when what is on screen is a back step. What has Discovery offered us that was new? A couple of gay crew members? That’s it. None of the actual scripts explore the more high brow ethical dilemmas and human questions that Trek has done at its best.

Well said El Chup.

We saw two different Discoveries. The one I saw commented on religious fanaticism, alt-right discourse, gender issues (such as male sexual abuse, for one), animal rights, environmental issues, and an overall arc of acceptance and understanding of what we usually se as “the other.” Looks like Star Trek’s finest tradition to me, although I can understand why some can’t see it. There’s nothing as “in-the-face” as half-black, half-white people, and those themes and comments are spread along several episodes, given the serialized nature of the series.

On top of that, it was a lot of fun, great action-adventure (again, as Star Trek aspired to be since TOS), and enhanced the canon, exploring parts we didn’t see before, such as Mudd’s origin, or the reason why Sarek had a hard time accepting Spock’s acceptance in Starfleet, and maybe… just maybe… the early beginnings of the USS Excelsior’s failed transwarp program (that is “fanon” on my part, I’ll give you that).

From what we hear, season 2 will tackle new and equally engaging issues, such as faith versus science, life and death (Hugh, I’m looking at you!), and the emergence of a family, as the crew of Discovery starts to act like it after such a turmoiled time in season 1.

I’m really looking forward to it. But if you’re not, no problem. To each its own. But I hope you can eventually appreciate all that was done in the first 15 episodes, as we hope the series can reach even higher heights next year.

Brilliantly said

I share your optimism.

OK. You got all that out of it. Great. Some of it was there. The animal rights stuff for example. Others were nonexistent or forced in and totally felt out of place in Trek. To me, the However, you repeated what producers (who are gone now) have said what they are looking to do in season two. Well, they said they were going to do things in season 1 that they NEVER got to. Like they were going to go deeper into the Klingon culture than ever before. Sorry, did I miss that? And there was supposed to be this big Klingon war yet Discovery was barely involved. Wasn’t Burnham supposed to be some sort of Pariah and was on a redemption path all season? She seemed to solve that issue off screen 2 episodes after she earned the reputation. So I don’t think it wise to take what they SAY they were going to do in S2 as gospel. I’m taking a wait and see approach to this.

I think they did delve intolerância Klingon culture, but, again, subtle. There was no Data scene saying, “so, captain, it is so and so and so”. But we learned Klingon houses have different ideologies. Those of House T’Kuvma were religious fanatics that believe in rituals. House Kor is practical, warrior-like, typical Klingon. House Mokai is made of liars and spies. So, I’d say we know more about the different culture of the Klingon houses from 15 Episodes of Discovery than from 700+ earlier episodes. True or false?

I would say false. We already knew there were a bunch of houses. Nothing happened in STD to dive deeper into that. All the generalities you just made I certainly did not pick up on in my one viewing of each episode. If it was there it was glossed over as not very important.

I respectfully disagree. I wound up being quite disappointed with DSC overall, particularly with the disastrous direction the concluding episodes of the season took. But in fairness I also thought that for all the dark tone there was plenty of consideration of ethical issues in the better episodes, in the Trek mode, even if those questions were addressed more ambiguously than they would have been on TOS or TNG.

What was so “disastrous” about the final episodes? The inclusion of mirror-Georgiou?

Art direction of emperor’s pipe organ ship that reminded me more of the 1980 FLASH GORDON than anything vaguely trek-credible, exterior of said ship that looked like seaQuest level VFX, plotting, resolution of Federation seeming on verge of falling, and the way they pissed away Lorca. That’s just what I can remember from one freebie viewing, I’m sure folks who are more learned on DSC can elaborate … or dissent.

I’ll add to Tiger 2 and kmart’s astute observations Burnham’s redemption, which should have taken place at the end of the series or maybe never if DSC really wanted to be as edgy and daring as the show the producers promised. (In some ways it was even worse than nu-Kirk’s redemption at the conclusion of Trek 2009, if only because Burnham was potentially a far more interesting character.) The show had a lot going for it but some felony level-bad creative decisions just killed whatever enthusiasm I’d had. Maybe something can be salvaged for season 2, though I’m not overly hopeful.

Yep. Burnham’s redemption should be happening the entire run of the show. It should not have been dealt with off screen 4 episodes in. And then there is the Lorca foolishness… Oh boy what a massive missed opportunity there. I mean, nearly every show makes the odd creative faux pas. But STD… Even the few good ideas they had they either did something ridiculous with them or just didn’t use them at all.

I had no problem with Burnham being increasingly accepted as a non-official member of Discovery’s crew over the course of the season, as she demonstrated her competence and made a serious effort to get along with her colleagues. That’s just the way people roll in real life. But always in the background was her lost status as a Starfleet officer and that temporarily-suspended prison sentence, which were potentially great springboards for drama. That awful finale threw all of that away, which is what I really objected to.

Burnhams Rank was restored.
Does that mean she is redeemed?

To her place in society, yes. As to her psyche, no doubt she still has considerable issues, and that SMG has stated that they will be dealt with does give me some hope for season 2.

Didn’t she say she would have to prove herself to her crew in season 1? Well, that implied it would go on all season. Instead, she succeeded off screen only a few episodes in. So not sure we can take what the actors say at face value.

Yes, they could have played her alienation from the crew up more (and I wish they had, frankly). Still, many complained that the show was too dark and the characters too much at odds as it was. For all my own dissatisfaction, I could sympathize if a producer claimed they couldn’t win with a contingent of the fanbase that seemed ever-ready to be critical.

I can sympathize as well. You can’t please everyone. I personally would have liked to see a crew more at odds with each other. And I REALLY liked Lorca before we knew he was really a one dimensional MU black hatted mustache twirler. The morally ambiguous captain was something I thought was a fantastic idea. Too bad they didn’t actually do it.

But my real problem with the former producers was that they were CONSTANTLY defending themselves and patting themselves on the back at the same time. The proper thing to do is just say they were making the Trek show they wanted as best they could. And leave it at that.

Yeah, creatively MU Lorca was a disaster. In fact, the whole MU side-trip was a disaster, really, though it admittedly had some effective moments. I remember when it was first announced that DSC was going there, and amidst all the fan excitement here (augmented by the news that Frakes would be directing), my first thought was: why? This season was supposed to be about a Federation/Klingon war. Why take the time to do this when you’ve only got 15 episodes to tell such an epic story? Despite some good performances and the ton of money they obviously spent, it went far worse than even I had feared.

I still think the raw ingredients for a great show are there. I can only hope that they make much better choices this time around.

Agreed. With only 15 episodes there really wasn’t any time to spare to properly set up a season long Klingon war arc. I sincerely think the Dominion war arc on DS9 would have been much less effective with such short seasons. Their longer season gave them time to explore all kinds of things and not rush. Streaming giveth and teketh away.

MU Georgiou for one. But the finale was AWFUL!!!! It actually turned what was an OK season into a bitter disappointment because we waited 15 episodes to see how they would win the war by threatening to place a bomb in the planet? It just felt so weak and even silly.

Honestly I was loving the show when it was in the MU, but the last two episodes just proved they really no real ideas where they were taking the war because it just felt so rushed and comical on how it was wrapped up.

I really liked Michael arguing against genocide but I hated MU Georgiou simply chickening out of shooting her. It was such an anti climatic moment.

That wasn’t going to happen and they needed Georgiou for future seasons.
Hence, what we got.

“What has Discovery offered us that was new?”

Yes I have said this repeatedly and why I was disappointed in season one. Other than the spore drive concept (which I really like) there were no new ideas presented. Its main story arcs, Klingon war and the Mirror Universe, have been done on other shows. I liked the MU episodes but it would’ve been nice for this show to forge something new on its own as well.

We BARELY saw any new aliens which is weird in itself. The only new species we got any real in-depth look were the Kelpian and that was obviously because of Saru.

Hopefully next season’s ‘Search for Spock’ story line will come up with some innovative ideas, new aliens and planets. But so far outside of all the TOS characters showing up, the only other ‘new’ group we know showing up is Section 31.

But it would be great if they can forge ahead with something unique to add to Trek canon like the others have done time and again.

Why does every thing have to be new? How much of Trek has presented entirely new concepts?

Loads of good ideas, interesting concepts, well presented and executed in DSC, whether it was new or not. It wasn’t perfect, lots of room for improvement, but still the best first season in Trek history.

Not everything needs to be new, but it sure helps to have them.

TNG spun its wheels trying to emulate TOS at first. It stumbled with the new Ferengi, then finally hit its stride by improving the writing and introducing new things like the Borg, the story of the Enterprise-C, and later Cardassians.

Hopefully, Discovery does likewise. Of course, it is somewhat hamstrung by being a prequel to TOS, but that’s another issue.

I didn’t say everything lol, but SOME things would be nice, right? And every Trek show in it’s first season went out of it’s way to create their own aliens, conflicts, concepts, etc.

Discovery is the only one that relied on what other writers created literally decades ago to tell its story mostly minus a few things.

And it isnt like other shows mined existing races. A ship of Klingons showed up in Voyager even though they were half way across the Delta Quadrant in a rickety old ship. ENT used the Ferengi and the Borg.

Its just fashionable to trash the latest Trek series. ENT got this mauling when it was on the air. DSC is fine.

Again NO ONE said you can’t have existing races, of course that’s part of the universe, all I’m saying is it would be nice to add new things like every Trek show before it has done.

And this is a serious question, but are you suggesting just being critical of a show means you’re ‘trashing’ it? Because I pointed out something that is actually true? How is it wrong?

I understand everyone sees things differently. You obviously like the show more than some of us do, fine. But to say I’m ‘trashing’ it is a bit hyperbolic.

For example, go to a Star Wars board, look up TLJ and see how people talk about that movie and the people who made it. Listen to people call it actual trash, it’s a travesty to the franchise, Johnson and Kennedy destroyed SW, should be fired, calls to boycott the franchise etc, etc, etc.

Yes maybe some people take it a bit too far here but most are actually just telling you why they believe the show has problems. I have said plenty about the show, but I’ve never said a single hateful thing about anyone who makes it, never said its horrible, said it should be cancelled, or that it shouldn’t be cannon, not in the prime universe and on and on and on. I simply say what disappointed me and what I HOPE will improve next season as I said in my post above.

Is that really so bad on a message board?

Forget Star Wars, wait until the evening of 10/7 and go to a Doctor Who message board. There will be people saying that the episode destroyed civilization.

And yes I think Enterprise got it even worse than Discovery is getting it now. I can’t prove that obviously its just my opinion, I can be wrong. But yet people said that show did improve. Not everyone, there are a few people here who is convinced it’s last season was just as bad as its first but most seem to think it improved in time. I’m one of them and thought ENT first season was worse than this one (but not by much lol). It’s now my favorite fourth show followed by Voyager and this show.

I think those same people who hated Enterprise but had the show grow on them could happen for the same thing with the people who hate Discovery now. ENT got better to many people, I believe Discovery will naturally get the same benefit of the doubt in time. It’s still early obviously.

But yes just like there are people who still hate Enterprise now there will always be people who will hate this show, there is no doubt about that. That’s just how fandom works sadly.

All those shows you mentioned used those for a grand total of a single time which is to be expected in a property that has such a wide universe to play in. What we want is something absolute unique and new with creativity and originality involved. What I don’t get is why some people think this is such a bad thing? Shouldn’t humanity have that inherent adventurous spirit, that longing for seeking out new things, new places? Why have these concepts all of a sudden are considered bad or unfeasible?

No, it wasn’t. Every other Trek show had a vastly superior first season. Even the much maligned TNG first season. It was disjointed but at least you could see they had potential there without having to make fundamental changes or feeling the need to mine TOS for stuff.

TNG don’t really improve until it got to the third season.

Personally, I’d just like to see good human stories set against the backdrop of Star Fleet and the Star Trek universe. If they can do that exploring new aliens and such, great. If they do it at war with the Klingons, fine. But the truth is S1 produced precious little of that. (essentially one episode) In addition the plotting was juvenile and nothing we haven’t seen before elsewhere done much better.

El Chup be those who agree with him need to get their heads screwed on straight. And please don’t put words in my mouth

The term “Genes Vision” and those who use it need to be retired.

Just make good Trek. That’s all I want. I got it with Discovery. If you didn’t like it, I’m sorry for you. We can agree or disagree on that but whether not it adhered to Gene Roddenberry’s ever changing esoteric “vision” is immaterial.

I got a lot of intellectual, spiritual, and thought provoking stimulation from Discovery.

More of that please. Whether there’s action and big SFX punctuating it or not.

Very well put, Chup.

Well,the show just started.
It’s not like they showed all of their cards in the first season.

Thank you. For all intents and purposes, Trek has been dead for a long while. Which is why I rewatch up thru Voyager and that’s it. Enterprise simply didn’t have any spark with writing or acting, and the new movies, well, they have only one thing in mind: $ by virtue of the name. The name that a man cut his teeth and spilled his creative heart on in order to produce (and which many creative people enhanced throughout the 90’s). Rosario is exactly the quality person the Trek universe needs. She’s about making the world a better place.

There were some pretty good shows when Roddenberry ran TNG — Arsenal of Freedom, Measure of a Man, Q Who, and others. I know he didn’t like the militarism of TWOK; I didn’t either, and the film kind of removed any chance of doing space exploration in further movies. It’s a good movie, though. Don’t wanna dump on TWOK, just don’t think its bad guy/revenge template should be Trek’s greatest aspiration, but it’s a good movie.

There is a difference Star Trek lives on without Roddenberry. Star Wars is dead without Lucas. Even when they make money they lack the heart that the first three films had in 1977, 1980 and 1983. Force Awakens and Rogue one were good i would put them up there with the originals, just behind return of the jedi way better than the prequels. Solo and Last jedi were worse than episode I and II of the prequels. Star Trek fans hated how Kirk was killed in generations but he was never a coward who acted out of character and hid on an island for 30 years and tried to murder his nephew, his actor never said he was playing Jake Kirk.

GEN turned Kirk into a conservative bigot in order to make its points, and GEN requires Picard to snap him out of his nexus-fantasies. Out of character much?

Well, technically Kirk did have reason to be embittered over the death of a son he’d just gotten to know. Still, I don’t disagree.

Whoa there pardner. Let’s put some real-world information in here. Do you know how many full-length feature films George Lucas has directed in his life? Exactly six. THX-1138, American Graffiti, Episode IV, and the prequel trilogy. Irvin Kershner directed Empire Strikes Back, and Richard Marquand directed Return of the Jedi. ESB is usually rated the highest out of all the Star Wars movies. The prequel trilogy is usually rated the worst out of all the Star Wars movies. THX-1138 was interesting but a box-office flop. Yes, he had early promise with American Graffiti, with multiple Academy Award nominations, but I don’t think he recognized how much help he got from his producer (Francis Ford Coppola), execs and line producers who overrode his impulses to guide him towards a better finished movie. TBH his ego led him to quit the Hollywood system and do everything outside the studios – in essence all the Star Wars movies are really expensive independent movies. And while Lucas might be a great creator of worlds, every actor who’s ever worked with him, and even he himself has said he is a terrible director for human actors, and can’t write credible human dialogue. When he has nobody to tell him no, he gives in to his worst impulses, hence the Special Edition, Greedo shooting first, the Jabba’s palace musical number, Jar Jar Binks, and generally, favours spectacle over credible human emotion. It’s like watching someone play with action figures. JJ Abrams has a long career directing and producing TV shows that people cared about, because of the human characters (Felicity, Alias, Lost). Rian Johnson has directed many different kinds of movies in his career, and almost all of them were praised for giving the audience interesting characters to root for, even if they were anti-heroes (like in Looper). The roots of Luke being a flawed hero go all the way back to Episode IV. We see him as a whiny teenager, headstrong, impulsive, emotional, boastful, prideful, fearful, reckless. Brave and loyal, yes, but to argue that he “didn’t act like himself” isn’t borne out by the on-screen evidence. He failed to master his fear in the Dagobah cave, he didn’t complete his training, he couldn’t concentrate, he didn’t believe the Force could do things, he was easily swayed by visions, he tried to battle Darth Vader and lost his hand in the process. He let fear and anger very nearly tip him over to the Dark Side when Leia was threatened, which is how he nearly killed Vader in ROTJ! When faced with the idea of his nephew becoming another Vader, being swayed by visions of a possible future yet again, his fear nearly led him to do something terrible. And all the students of his New Jedi Academy were killed for it. Luke’s tragic arc was there all the time! It was right in front of us. And he ultimately redeemed himself by returning from his self-imposed exile to face his past mistakes, and make an incredible sacrifice. I mean, I don’t know how old any of you are, but when I was 18 I knew nothing about life. At 23 you’re starting to get a grip on it, and that’s how old Luke was in ROTJ. 30 years later you’re 53. You’ve lost people, family. Many people never live up to their early accomplishments and fade away. Others have tragedy strike, or allow hubris to let them slip into tragedy. You change, you might harden, you become set in your ways, become cynical. Luke’s arc is relatable and believable. (Compare this to Pine’s Kirk, who explicitly got the Hero’s Journey treatment, and how he went from genius-level repeat offender to starship captain, by finding his focus and learning how to lead.) The Last Jedi was a great movie, because it told a human story with relatable characters, set against the backdrop of war, but also because it retained the power to surprise us. Rather than dutifully marching the audience down a predictable path of events, it subverted expectations. Poe Dameron is cool and inspirational, but also headstrong and foolish and gets his entire squadron tragically killed for nothing. We see an undercurrent of darkness in Rey. We see things that make Kylo Ren less of a cartoon bad guy and much more of a nuanced character who is struggling with the direction he chose in his life – precisely why Snoke had to die, because he was the epitome of a mustache-twirling cartoon villain and boringly predictable. He was probably going to launch into some sort of Bond villain monologue when he got cut in half – thank the Maker! We see Leia as a wise badass leader, we see strong (and by that I mean interesting, not perfect) women characters, and yeah, there’s… Read more »

Yeah, GL needed Kurtz (who only just died) when it came to making good movies – esp SW. On AG, he also had the benefit of FFC backstopping him, and especially the huge favor Haskell Wexler did in shooting the thing for him.

Didn’t know that Kurtz had passed. He said some fairly stupid things about SW vs. 2001 in Cinefantastique back in the day, but he seemed good at his job and I always thought Lucas treated him pretty shabbily when he fired him over EMPIRE’s cost overruns. RIP

Oh indeed. Having a great DOP made a huge difference.

Thank you! Someone who gets it.

It actually took me a 2nd viewing of The Last Jedi to pick up on all that. My initial reaction was not good. But I liked it a TON better when I watched it on disc. It took a moment, but it grew on me. Thought Ren was lame in TFA. Much less so in TLJ. I thought TFA, while visually well done, quite repetitive of what we’ve seen before. Ironically, I think that is why it did so well at the box office. People are comforted by that sort of thing, and weirded out when something different pops up. Like it did in TLJ.

Yeah, on repeated watching you see what a troubled guy he is. Even somewhat vulnerable and sympathetic, but his villainy is rooted in his fragile ego and lack of self-awareness. He comes with all this family baggage and potential which is confusing enough, but he’s got this wounded-kid sense of self-importance that allows Snoke to manipulate him by alternately praising and “negging” him. That moment when he smashes his helmet in the elevator is when he realizes it, that Snoke has been encouraging his Vader cosplay fantasies and he’s done terrible things that he’s now questioning. The only way to make sense of it is to take control. And that pattern comes back when he’s telling Rey how she has no place in the grand narrative. I’m sure he thinks he’s being sincere at that moment, but he’s lost in his delusions, which is perhaps his tragic arc. If he redeems himself in IX that would be interesting and a way of fulfilling that “emulating Anakin” path.

Yeah, those 3 prequels had lots of heart!

Genes vision seems to be Season 1 of TNG. . . .

I’m sure some of his ideas were good, but many were definitely not.

Roddenberry created Star Trek and made us believe in a great future for humanity and that is brilliant.

Sorry, but this is a very silly comment. You, like Afterburn, seem convinced that anyone who talks of Gene’s ideas for the show supports only Gene’s pure Trek. It’s dumb.

The argument is that Trek should retain a cerebral quality. A exploration of ethical questions and humanity. Of being progressive and pushing boundaries. Of getting the audience to think and to feel positive about the human ability for advancement. That’s what I mean when I talk of “Gene’s vision”. I’ not talking pew pew pew wham bam mindless action and moustache twirling villains with little depth.

Mat, I don’t understand this desire to run down previous iterations of the show.

“As for Rosario Dawson – why not?”

I’ll tell you why not: Once she is in Star Trek people will always confuse her with Roxann Dawson. Other than that I think she would be great in Star Trek.

What about Richard Dawson?

“Survey Says….!”

Survey says: Game show hosts who had no talent and are 6 feet under

But he was such a good kisser!

Chris Pine, Chris Evans, they all look the same….

You are PRECISELY correct, my right thinking friend.
Fucking trendoid Hollywierdos who think “roping in the fans”
means having a character drink a glass of tranya.

So glad Kirsten Beyer is on board for this in order to control where the story line takes place and the sandbox they play in in terms of locations, characters, and the political climate at the end of the 24th century. Chabon I assume will do the bulk of the scene specific writing and getting inside the head of a character like Picard at this stage of his life with some pointers from Stewart.

And as for Goldsman, I’m just hoping he’s sitting there just to get plaudits and control studio politics. The less involvement the better LOL

Beyer was also on disco, and if she is the control over there, she fail.. badly.

No, she did pretty well working between the comics/novels/series and the official canon story wise.

Yeah I’m really excited to see what Beyer will do with this show. I think the 24th century is what is in her wheelhouse and probably have tons of ideas for it since that’s what she’s been doing before DIS hired her.

Goldsman has the talent in him, as his work on A Beautiful Mind, but about 15 percent return on quality isn’t enough for me, and for that reason I don’t think he should be anywhere near the franchise.

So you are saying Goldsman should take the Michael Piller role in TNG while Chabon and Beyer are Braga and Moore?

**Looks at page. Sets hair on fire. Can’t decide what to actually say about Trek, Gene’s vision, Akiva ‘Ice to meet you’ Goldsman, Picard without a ship, etc. Puts hair out. Waits for more information. Hopes the aloe works.**

I thought Akiva “Freeeeeze in Hellllll, Bettman!” Goldsman was no longer involved with AA Trek.

Allegedly, he left Discovery due to problems with its writers’ room but it seems he moved over to the Picard show.

In that case, Picard’s new Number One will have the catch phrase: “How YOU doin’?”

New character commenting on Picard’s mysterious ongoing sex appeal, and his tossed-off response: “The dome — chicks dig the dome.”

Sounds like Golsman is the Hans-Georg Maaßen of Star Trek.

I’d prefer to focus on the positive, but it must be said- Goldsman was responsible for much of the embarrassingly clunky dialogue in the first Discovery episode, so let us hope his involvement in scriptwriting is minimal, going forward.

I’m curious how you know his role in the details of season one to that level of specificity… Can you explain?

I work for a company that works for a company… That is as much as I can say. (And as a journalist, I know you shouldn’t take this at face value. Nevertheless, it is true.)

I rather liked the pilot, for all its flaws. “Trekkiness” aside, how did you feel Fuller’s draft compared with what aired?

The story is basically the same in both drafts. But Fuller’s dialogue was much more serious. For instance, that exchange when Connor treats Michael’s EVA as an airline flight didn’t exist in Fuller’s draft. And many lines changed characters to put more emphasis on Michael. For instance, originally the log entry was Georgiou’s, not Michael’s. All in all, I preferred Goldsman’s version.

I suspect I would feel similarly if I had the chance to read Fuller’s draft, going by your description. (The EVA “airline flight” was a little silly, but fun, and well in-keeping with the occasional archaic reference that would find its way into TOS from time to time.) Goldsman takes a lot of heat, and rightfully so, for some pretty crappy genre work, but he’s not without talent.

I’ll also mention that the scene where Connor stumbles into the security area where Burnham is being held (yeah, that’s a bit of a stretch) and plaintively observes that “This shouldn’t be happening. . . we’re supposed to be explorers, not soldiers” before being blown into space himself, is for my money one of the saddest, best scenes in Trek, ever, and totally belies the accusation that Discovery‘s first season was about nothing at all but explosions and FX. I get that people had issues with the season, as I did myself, but still can’t fathom why it’s so difficult to acknowledge a show’s virtues as well as its flaws, whatever you think of the work on balance. Hell, I saw some things to like about The Orville, in spite of finding it to be a mediocrity overall, and even Trek 2009, which I consider to be just godawful, had a decent moment or two.

I can find the gems in the show. Lethe was a really top notch episode. Too bad the rest of the show was not up to the task.

Agree about Lethe. When I first saw it, I thought it was decent but not great. But when I rewatched it a few weeks ago I was surprised just how much more I liked it. It was actually a really solid episode and my second favorite of the season now. I like The Sanest Man a little better because it was fun and felt like classic ‘weird’ Star Trek again with the time loop angle. It felt like a classic TNG or VOY episode. And it’s nice to have a more standalone episode.

And Harry Mudd is just a fun character to watch. I can’t wait to see his Short Trek story now.

Agreed about “Lethe.” I also thought “Context is for Kings” was pretty good as well. Other than those two (and liking elements of the pilot), it was mostly a matter of finding individual moments of worth while tamping down my disappointment. I’d hoped for better, that’s for sure.

Not really. I’ve read Fuller’s draft, and Goldsman’s draft, and the Goldsman version felt trekkier to me. Fuller’s version was darker.

Where are these drafts?

Stewart’s level of involvement worries me. Remember this is the guy who agitated for Picard to be turned into an action hero in the later seasons and movies. He’s only human, so I’m guessing ego is going to come into play here. Picard should be aloof, confident, authoritative and totally righteous in his approach. I fear Sir Patrick will want new things from the character in this series to justify it as an acting swansong. If that impulse wins out though and Picard is radically different, it’s going to kill the new show stone dead.

My guess is that he has the action hero bug out of his system by now but I do agree that his idea of an old Jean-Luc Picard may not necessarily match with TNG fans’ expectations. For some people, changing Picard too much may kill the show before it really starts, as you say. But others may also be more accepting IF they use the changes to tell an interesting story.

I didn’t mind him being more of an action hero in the movies but I do suspect we won’t get too much of that on the show. But I really doubt it’s going to be the same Picard from TNG as well in the sense he’s going to just be on the sidelines as others do all the fun stuff. Again I don’t see it like the movies but I actually do see him being part of the adventure, which he did actually do in the show, just a lot less compared to all the other captains.

It won’t kill it with me, so long as it’s done well.

Have we brought up the TJ HOOKER/The Protectors scenario? That show was originally about a bunch of new cops, with Hooker as their boss/instructor, a supporting part like Ryker on THE ROOKIES. But before they finished shooting the pilot it had already morphed into Shatner Action star show. Am wondering if this might be all that but in reverse.

Or wouldn’t it be cool if they Janet Leigh’d him a 1/2 hour into the first ep, or partway through the season? (well, I’d think it might be cool, but I guess it would alienate the TNG devotees, and that is probably way too big of a group to risk losing.)

You mean The Shat actually made it all about him? Heavens!

(The one time I saw the Great Man live and in person, someone in the audience posed the ever-obligatory “Why do you think Trek is still so popular after all these years blah blah blah” question, and before I could finish my eye-roll he replied something to the effect that he didn’t really know, it’s all a mystery, and that maybe we would be having T.J. Hooker conventions in a decade or two. Which was a pretty revealing answer, even if he was kidding.)

It’s kind of hard to make a new series about Picard without the guy who played Picard.

I think he’s not worried about Stewart playing Picard but about Stewart being actively involved in developing the show

Gary 8.5,

I think DIGINON is right, but I am also constantly amazed that Trek fans forget that with all it’s time travel and regeneration that other actors ALREADY have played their iconic heroes’ roles.

It has to be a little odd for Patrick Stewart to be working on a project with a group of people new to his corner of the Star Trek universe that were in no way involved at any point in time with The Next Generation over seven seasons and four films.

Of course it’s also possible that he’s viewing this entire project as just another paying gig.

It could be just to generate a bit of hype. That room sans Sir Patrick would just seem to be more Discovery, which is quite terrifying.

It’s bad enough with the likes of Kurtzman and Goldsman ruining pre-TOS, I dread to think what they could do to Trek post-Nemesis.

Can they not get Ron D Moore and David Mack involved?

I worked with David Mack many years back and his knowledge of Star Trek is extensive. He should have been in a writer’s room years ago.

Gene had a great concept and idea with Star Trek, but it’s always been better when others produced and wrote it. His scripts in TOS were not that good. TNG got better after he wasn’t in charge, ditto for the films.

Agreed! Never got the Roddenberry worship. I mean I like him but most of my favorite Star Trek he had little to no involvement in. And I read somewhere by William Shatner he had little involvement on TOS after the first fifteen episodes or something. Shatner could be lying but it wouldn’t surprise me since even the better ideas on that show seem to mostly come from other people. He did give us Q though which I really love.

Here to. To me the Roddenberry worship is misplaced. Sure, he created the show and the concept. But that is as far as love for him should go. It really wasn’t him who made the show work. It was others. For example, the Kirk-Spock-McCoy trinity gelled AFTER GR ceased the day to day operations) I’ve seen and read much of his other work and I’m convinced Star Trek was a mistake from him. I’ve seen enough to believe Shatner when he said the show get better when Gene Coon took over. Roddenberry just didn’t seem to know how to run a TV show.

Something from Chaos on the Bridge… Roddenberry felt humanity had moved past God in the future. Yet in his pilot TNG episode we encounter essentially God. The Q concept was just awful and I would argue that the TNG pilot was the worst pilot of all the shows mainly because of Q. Q became acceptable when he became more of a joke. In that sense, Q would work a ton better on The Orville!

Nonsense. Before Gene Coon’s arrival, he produced solo the first half of the best season that Trek has ever had in fifty-plus years. He also wrote one of the two TOS episodes to win a Hugo. Not to take anything away from the immense contributions of Coon, Fontana, Justman et al, but how is that anything other than “making the show work”?

There were a lot of great first season episodes. But early on there was where most of the dog episodes were. Mudd’s Women, Charlie X… Not all that good at all. The consensus is that the show did get better when GR became less involved on the day to day operations. It seems the same could be said of TNG as well.

I’ve never seen CHARLIE X grouped with MUDD’s WOMEN, that’s like putting DOOMSDAY MACHINE in with AND THE CHILDREN SHALL LEAD! Charlie has my fave Kirk line reading, that, “go to your quarters or I’ll pick you up and carry you there.” Low and powerful and really means it, without hyperbole.

My fave: the awkward moment when Kirk is trying to figure out how to explain to Charlie that, sorry, Yeoman Rand just isn’t in the cards. Dammit, but early Shatner could just be so good.

Nope, sorry. “Where No Man Has Gone Before.” “The Corbomite Maneuver.” “The Enemy Within.” “The Naked Time.” “Balance of Terror.” All shows that are considered amongst Trek’s very best (and most of the others aren’t too shabby either, particularly by the the standards of later seasons, where they’d be standouts). You’re certainly entitled to your opinion on “Charlie X,” but it’s just a fact that it’s widely considered to be a wonderful show, D.C. Fontana’s first, written when she was Roddenberry’s secretary and he had the good sense to give her a shot, to his everlasting benefit and ours. If you can really demonstrate that there is some sort of “consensus” that the first half of the season was inferior or “not working” I’d love to see it.

I do agree with you about GR’s participation on TNG, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish.

We are all entitled to our opinions. WNMHGB was more “pew pew” and why the series got sold over the more thoughtful “The Cage”. I didn’t think it was all that great at all. Corbomite Maneuver really wasn’t all that hot. Nice bluff on Kirk’s part but beyond that one thing, meh. (Although Tranya has became a running joke for me and my friends way back from grade school to this day) Not saying there weren’t some good ones. Naked Time was good and had that GREAT Spock moment. “Jim, when I feel friendship for you, I feel ashamed.” Enemy Within was good, not great. Looking back it seems there were two stand out episodes out of the first 13 produced. Balance of Terror and The Naked Time. 4 if you count merely good episodes. A ratio well below the series average. There were 11 stand outs (beyond just the merely good ones) in the first 30 episodes produced. And only 2 of them appeared in the first 13. So yes, I think it pretty obvious when GR ceased the day to day operations of the show.

I don’t fully blame Fontana for how weak Charlie X was. That was a GR story so she did what she could with it. She really did a bang up job on her other scripts. This Side of Paradise, in particular.

All I can tell you is that your attitude about those shows is not at all typical among fans over the decades (I know, having been involved in fandom since the early ’70s). That doesn’t make it wrong, of course, there being no right or wrong judgements when it comes to aesthetics. That said, WNMHGB is anything but a “pew pew” episode, and in fact won Trek its first award for “Outstanding Contributions to Science Fiction” at the World SF Convention in 1965. I do find it curious that you compare it unfavorably to “The Cage” as an example of Roddenberry’s lack of competence as a producer, though, since he of course wrote that pilot, as well as the two-part expansion that won Trek the Hugo in 1967. (It remains, in my view, the best two hours of Trek ever produced.) As to Coon, as I’ve said previously his contributions to the show were immense, and there’s no question that the series as a whole wouldn’t have been anywhere near as good without him. I don’t even have a problem saying that he was overall a better (albeit more conventional) writer than Roddenberry, though he certainly had his own weaknesses: a penchant for repeating the same plots, if they had worked well, over and over again, as well as lifting, whether consciously or not, ideas from other people. And I’m not sure, frankly, why fans make such an issue out of the fact that many of the best ideas in Trek came from other people in the first place, since no would claim that the creators of MAD MEN, THE SOPRANOS, or BREAKING BAD thought of everything themselves. Back in the ’70s, GR was given credit for just about everything, which was clearly wrong. Now, he’s routinely treated mostly as a fraud who rode to success on the work of other people, which is just as egregious, if not worse.

I don’t know… My experience, while anecdotal, seems to be pretty typical of fandom. And I myself have been among fans since the ’70’s. WNMHGB was indeed more conventional since it involved ESP, Phaser rifle fire and a Kirk fist fight. All things that in my book would put it in the “pew-pew” category. But that and The Cage are not the reasons why my opinion of Gene’s ability to run a show lean towards the negative. If that was all I would think the opposite. It is the entire body of work. This is not entirely a rip on GR. He did come up with the concept and set up a number of rules. I can praise him for that. But it seems the show just was better run under different hands. That’s all. Even if those different hand’s weren’t perfect.

“The Cage” had telepathy, phaser fire, and Pike fighting an assortment of aliens. Not sure I see the distinction, to tell you the truth. But, whatever. You’re entitled to feel the way you feel, so we’ll leave it at that. :-)

There is that. But context is everything and it would seem the suits at NBC saw the context of the two uses and were more moved by the 2nd, more conventional pilot. I liked The Cage quite a bit, myself, BTW.

I won’t pretend I know the history of TOS as others here but yes I know a lot of anecdotal stories and I know for many the show we think of today seems to be mostly equated to Gene Coon and his influence just like the films became more popular under Harve Bennet and TNG turned a corner under Rick Berman and so on.

I think Roddenberry certainly defined the franchise but it seems like the most popular entities and direction actually came from other people. Now to be fair a lot those people who steered in those other directions Roddenberry put in charge in the first place so he should get credit for that too of course. A good leader is also about trusting others to lead. I know TNG that was originally the problem and why the first two seasons were so bad. But once he left after that it improved immensely.

You’re not wrong about Q but that’s why I loved him. He was basically a God, but fallible. That’s what made Q interesting and fun, he looked at humans as inferior and dangerous but he acted like a child himself. That’s what got him kicked out the continuum. He’s so busy talking down to others he was oblivious to his own failings. I know Q basically was an extension of Roddenberry’s other character, Trelane which seemed Godlike and also mocked lower species. I know fans always wished they officially tied the two together.

I was about to bring up the Q-Trelane similarity. It’s almost as it Trelane was indeed a Q. And for the record, I found “The Squire of Gothos” to be a very sub par at best. In general, I never really liked any of the Enterprise-encounters-God-like-being episodes. The exception was “Who Mourns for Adonis?” Which I very much liked.

I have not seen the Trelane episodes in ages. I’m thinking of giving it another watch now! TOS did seem to have more of those type of god like aliens. They were on all the shows but it was clear Roddenberry loved those type of advanced beings to the point they are almost magical.

I watched Who Mourns for Adonis again last year. It’s still holds up even if a bit strange.

I don’t mind the hyper advanced races thing. But the God-like ones.. Not as much. However it might just be that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic to lesser beings like us! lol. But TOS did dip into that well a little too much for my taste. No biggie, however.

Bill Campbell’s performance is a lot of fun to watch, and the “child-god” ending was probably a real kicker for 1967. Not a bad show by first season standards (it would be a standout if they’d made it later), but definitely not one of my favorites.

“Adonais,” really? Ugh. Best thing about that show was Leslie Parrish (va-voom) and Kirk’s genuine sadness at the necessity of vanquishing Apollo at the end. The episode would have been far more noteworthy had the network not wimped-out at the scripted ending where McCoy announces the Palamas is pregnant with Apollo’s child, which would have made she show the most talked-about thing on television at the time, but even that wouldn’t have made it very good.

And McCoy’s “I uh… I wish we didn’t have to do this, Jim.” Apollo was a tragic figure. The episode worked because the end was so strong. I’m glad they did not go with the pregnancy thing. Don’t see that working well at all. Especially since the episodic nature of the show back then the concept would have been dropped the very next week. Better it not happen. But it still sounds better than having Lorca be from the MU.

If a largely silly episode–Jimmy Doohan’s jealous tantrums were especially cringeworthy–could be completely redeemed by its last five minutes, I’d agree.

Perhaps so but Scotty has been a little melodramatic from time to time. Even in some of the best episodes there are cringworthy moments.

“Adonais” would have been a far better show if Trek had had the courage to really let Apollo make a genuine case that the life he was offering the Enterprise crew would be worth the loss of its freedoms. Instead, he comes across mostly as an arrogant, petulant superbeing with an itchy lightning-finger whose ego demands that he be worshipped. Whatever dignity he had Michael Forrest brought to the role, as opposed to the words the actor was given to speak.

He does earn some sympathy at the end, because it’s made obvious that he does love and care for the human race, in the way even a spoiled, petulant child loves his pets. But there’s never any real question that Kirk must do whatever it takes to defeat him.

“Adonis” was one of the last in series of episodes TOS aired that posed the question, “Which is preferable–eternal bliss, or progress and change and all the messiness and unhappiness that inevitably comes with it?” Being an American TV series there was really no doubt which side Trek would ever come down on, and only two episodes treated the subject with much subtlety at all: “The Menagerie,” where in Pike’s extreme case a life of illusion is deemed preferable, and “This Side of Paradise.” Kirk of course makes the call for duty over happiness in that one as well, but the episode’s haunting finale underscores Spock’s loss as he returns to the emotional repression and isolation of his regular life, the price paid for paradise lost.


I think you are confusing Gene’s belief that we’d move beyond the need for the crutch of a God, i.e. one supreme being to rule us all, with never encountering more advanced god-like beings.

I think his concept with the Q was that they would need us just as much as we would “need” them to continue to grow.

That’s one way to put it, Dis.

Did you ever hear about a two-part TOS episode called “The Menagerie”? It was not-good enough to win the Hugo, one of only three episodes in the entire fifty year history of the Trek franchise to do so. Just sayin’.

Wow exciting times! The man himself is even there. It looks like things are really moving. My guess is they want to get production started early next year so we may get some real news soon like basic premise and even casting the next few months!

And would love Rosario Dawson on the show. I don’t want her as a Klingon though, at least not a Discovery Klingon lol. She would be completely buried in that make up. But would be good to see her if they are creating more traditional Klingons.

Yeah, it’d be cool if the Picard show could get going soon enough to be ready for airing in the fall (probably not likely), and Discovery could be a winter/spring show.

She’d have been an awesome Uhura, more indication of Abrams’ questionable taste. She might have ducked a bullet with DSC, but I’d sure to like to see her in a good TREK production. Ditto for Clive Owen, for that matter, in SIN CITY they made for an interesting couple.

Yep – would love to see her as a Captain or lead in a well written Trek series.

Whatever criticisms can be leveled at Abrams’ take on Trek, do you really find the casting of Zoe Saldana to be among them?!

Yeah. It ain’t all that high on the list, but it’s in there. She’s sorta okay in GOTG, but honestly I don’t see what all the excitement is about, and never have.

Though American-born, Nichols (in addition to being very hot) has an aura of the mysterious and exotic about her; I have no trouble completely buying the scene in “The Man Trap” where she speaks Swahili with the Salt Vampire. I wish they’d done more stuff like that with the character.

Nah, firstly there’s nothing wrong about Zoe Saldana and secondly, I’m sorry to open that can of worms, but Dawson is too obviously mixed-race. In this day and age, they would’ve faced accusations of “whitewashing” there.


First, I agree there’s nothing wrong with Saldana and secondly, I consider the notion that the mixed-ethnicity Saldana is somehow “less obviously mixed-race” an offensively racist notion on so many levels.

Have to disagree with you on this one. I’m no fan at all of Abrams’ take on Uhura or much of anything else Trek, but the character is supposed to be a Swahili-speaking African. Nichols I can buy; Zaldana strains credibility. Dawson is absolutely gorgeous, and I’d love to see her in any other role, but she doesn’t fit this particular bill at all, sorry.

Michael Hall,

You do realize, of course, that all homo sapiens alive today, even Swahili-speaking Africans, are of the same African origin race and that its variations in skin color do not actually designate separate races any more than eye color?

You do a disservice to the science of evolution and to Africans in general when you picture everyone that will ever be born in that region of Africa from here to the 23rd century as cookie-cutter clones of images that ultimately derive from old “Jungle Jim” Hollywood newsreel cultivated racial notions.

Nichelle was not herself a Swahili-speaking African, i.e. her skin color did not make it so. Sadly, in the 1960s her skin color was not so much a necessity to her believable portrayal of a 23rd century Swahili-speaking African as to break that inane skin-color separatism stereotype of that decade that required it be served in order to break it in the US.

I’d hoped the rise of the fictional film nation of Wakanda had put an end to these phenotype stereotypes

Your points are reasonable and well-taken, in the context of the 23rd century. Hell, in such an internationalist future Uhura could conceivably be as pasty as I am, and thankfully no one would care. Still, that’s really not in keeping with the original conception of the character. It’s admittedly a bit of a reach, but for my money Nichols could somewhat believably play the traditional concept of an African (as Montalban could play a Sikh), while Dawson just can’t. YMMV, of course.

Michael Hall,

Consider that most humans today possess cells that produce extra melanin, which darkens their skin color in reaction to their exposure to skin-cancer inducing uv. One imagines that everyone in that climate-controlled future of STAR TREK would be exposed to less of it and the cancer that follows so that, indeed, most would appear noticeably lighter to the likes of us.


Rosario Dawson = YES

I can’t wait for a 25th Century Star Trek with a new Enterprise and a whole new crew set after voyager and nemesis. They killed the Trek future in 2002, been nothing but prequels since and alternate universe fan fiction.

I really really hope we see a new Enterprise. I don’t think they can have a Picard show without an Enterprise in it but I would be excited if he was an Admiral or something and was on the Enterprise F for some special mission with a whole new crew of characters! Then if he leaves the show it can carry on with them.

And yeah so many people are just sick of prequels. It’s about time we FINALLY move forward again. And going heading to the 25th sounds perfect because we will soon be embarking in a whole new era the can build to whatever they want! As a Trek fan THAT excites me! :)

Tiger2, they keep saying the Picard show is going to be “very different”, so maybe Picard is now the Federation President or something. Imagine Star Trek’s version of The West Wing.

Seeing the early 25th century also opens up some exciting “world-building” possibilities, depending on the budget.

Speaking of which — Thanks for your reply to, er, my reply about Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels the other week ;) If you only have time to read a couple of them, I recommend “Consider Phlebas” and then following it up with the semi-sequel “Look to Windward”. CP is an all-out interstellar war epic with distinctly DS9-style themes. LTW deals with the long-term consequences, has incredibly eloquent & heartbreaking dialogue, and goes into the most detail depicting the Culture’s post-scarcity civilisation; it’s also widely regarded as the best book in the series.

Yeah I’m honestly excited just to see whatever they do! I’m going to be open to anything they do with Picard. I’m just excited about all the possibilities and it sounds like they are thinking of this show being a turning point of leaving the 24th century and beginning a new era in the 25th! I haven’t been this excited about a Trek show probably since TNG actually in the sense it’s feeling new and forward thinking again.

And thanks for the response on the Culture books! Yeah I’m actually going to try and read one. I’m reading a new series now and probably when I’m done with those I will order the one you recommended! I have been reading some of the reviews online and it sounds like the type of stories I love. So will definitely give it a shot now.

Amen to that, skyjedi.

I just hope the new Star Trek series won’t be dark, dreary and depressive. A Star Trek series really shouldn’t be as joyless as a funeral and look like it was shot in the dark with no lamps around.

“A Star Trek series really shouldn’t be as joyless as a funeral and look like it was shot in the dark with no lamps around.”

Or put another way, it shouldn’t be like Discovery!

I’m OK with DIS being a bit darker but yeah I want the Picard show to feel more like traditional Star Trek roots where it’s about exploration, adventure, fun, humor, philosophical, etc. TNG did all of that in spades! And not just depressing, brooding and heavy like so much of DIS felt.

I have no problems with DIS trying to be different from the others but it still has to be GOOD! And I think most fans want something closer to TOS, TNG, VOY vibe with the next show so it would be nice to have those differences between both shows.

I don’t see how Discovery is any darker than any of the TNG movies

Nice. True. And adding Rosario Dawson to the mix wouldn’t hurt either. ;)

Yeah Voyager sure could be tough to watch sometimes couldn’t it?



Orci 2020

Make Trek Great Again.

Nice seeing Stewart in the thick of things. And get Rosario on Star Trek! Talented, beautiful, speaks Klingon, what else do you want? Make her a Captain though.

I wonder what the fan reaction would be if we learn that Romulus still exists in this series and then learn that Romulus and Vulcan achieved reunification after the events of Star Trek Nemesis. The poop will hit the fan, let me tell ya’.

Rosario Dawson needed to be on Trek like yesterday…absolutely gorgeous lady and an excellent actress. Lets just hope if they do get her, they don’t bury her beauty in such a deep makeup.

There are some interesting reflections in the table under one of the stacks of papers…

Rosario can SPEAK Klingon…why has she never been in any iteration of Star Trek?


I don’t think she’s aware what she’s letting herself in for…