Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

.
.
.


S
P
O
I
L
E
R

.
.
.


“Mortality Paradox” seemed to be built on the premise of “We need to get our own Q in Orville”.  The story didn’t seem to be developed much beyond that idea.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

So the orville just came out with a book / audio book (narrated by an actor) based on one of the scripts of a popular episode.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

So the orville just came out with a book / audio book (narrated by an actor) based on one of the scripts of a popular episode.

That is... less than accurate.

The novella SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL is written by Seth MacFarlane and the audiobook version will be read by noted actor Bruce Boxleitner (BABYLON 5). The story was originally a script for Season 3 that could not be filmed due to pandemic restrictions. (I don't think you can describe it as a "popular episode" if it was never actually filmed.)

"Just came out" is also... less than correct. It's coming out July 19.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Sympathy_for_the_Devil

484 (edited by RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan 2022-06-27 18:51:27)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:
RussianCabbie_Lotteryfan wrote:

So the orville just came out with a book / audio book (narrated by an actor) based on one of the scripts of a popular episode.

That is... less than accurate.

The novella SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL is written by Seth MacFarlane and the audiobook version will be read by noted actor Bruce Boxleitner (BABYLON 5). The story was originally a script for Season 3 that could not be filmed due to pandemic restrictions. (I don't think you can describe it as a "popular episode" if it was never actually filmed.)

"Just came out" is also... less than correct. It's coming out July 19.

https://orville.fandom.com/wiki/Sympathy_for_the_Devil

Thank you for the corrections.  My details were fuzzy as I had just heard the news.  Exciting nonetheless.  I think it represents a model that could be applied to SLIDERS.  More importantly, I like that MacFarlane has thought outside the box to get the franchise out there in various ways.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I assume it's because I have young daughters, but the newest Strange New Worlds made me cry like a baby.  I don't remember being that emotionally attached to a plotline in a long time.

I've also noticed that the comedy in the Orville is all but gone.  I know they're handling heavier topics, but I liked that the Orville felt like a real place with real people.  Real people make jokes, are late to work, tease each other.  I know the Enterprise would be a great place to work full of very nice, hard-working people.  But the Orville (and the Cerritos) feel like real places.  You can be a hard worker and a goofball.  You can crack jokes even when your life is in danger (tons of people use humor to cope).

I agree that MacFarlane doesn't just want to be known for his comedy, and I think the Orville is really good even without it.  But I do miss that part, which separated his show from others.  I've also noticed that shows like Strange New Worlds are adding more humor and more "real people" to their shows.  Ortegas on SNW feels like someone who would fit in on the Orville.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Spoilers










The week's episode had a scene where Topa, an adolescent, decides to ask someone out on a date. She asks Gordon Malloy, chronologically a grown-ass man, to dinner. Malloy tells her that he sees her as family, as a sister, and she can talk to him any time she wants about anything and reinforces that he's happy to be her older brother. Malloy then tells his friends not to make fun of Topa.

I know Gordon is an arrested adolescent (and obviously, that's why Topa related to him), but he handled that really well, exactly as he should have. Gordon turned Topa down while making sure not to embarrass her or insult her.

Seth MacFarlane has this joke about how TNG had the most professional characters in the most professional workplace ever. No one was ever hungover, tired, bad-tempered, impatient; no one ever failed to do exactly the right thing, but more critically (and at times unbelievably), the characters always did the right thing in the right way.

This is in contrast to real life where most of us here do the right thing too -- but because we aren't TV characters, we will often do the right thing clumsily and miss the mark. If in Gordon's position (Gordon being an adult man being asked out on a date by an inappropriately young girl), we might express aggravation where Gordon expressed appropriately familial affection. We might be caustically dismissive where Gordon was understanding but firm about the correct boundaries. We might be horrified where Gordon gently kept his cool.

Gordon didn't just do the right thing (which I'm sure all of us here would or have done in his situation); he did the right thing in the right way. Which has me wondering -- now that THE ORVILLE is no longer doing the comedy and no longer having its characters do the right things ineptly and incompetently... how is it different from STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think the Orville is a modern version of Trek.  It's a society that is a lot like Roddenberry's vision - free of prejudice and fear and focused toward a better tomorrow.  But unlike the TNG crew, they're flawed and silly and human.

I think it's so much fun.  I do think Strange New Worlds is fantastic, but other than that, I think Orville is better than every other modern Trek show.  And I'm not terribly sure it's close.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Just a couple episodes ago, the Union was aggressively trying to pursue an alliance with a species that didn't value men.  This week, they kicked out a species that didn't value women.  Is the Moclan's crime that they're actively destroying and hunting females?  I don't want to evoke a former member here, but are those two situations all that different?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think the difference is that the matriarchal society still wanted their men; they had just reduced them to second class status like many cultures on earth have done to women for centuries.

On the Moclan side, they are committing what could be called gendercide - the complete eradication of a people just because they hold different beliefs.

There are mirrors there of things we’ve accepted as a culture and things we have not.  Oppression vs extinction.

I do agree, though - Orville has walked a tightrope in many ways of presenting material with hooks for both sides to grab onto (similar to classic Trek).  That’s how you open the door to discussion; you have to get people to the table first

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I just found that a bit wild.  I think they could've told some interesting stories about the compromises we make in the name of safety.  That the Union disapproves of both cultures, but that they need to overlook that in the name of protecting against the Kaylon.  The Janisi and the Moclans seem like such clean parallels, but I can certainly see that the Moclans are much worse.

But I'm still surprised the Union and the Moclans decided to end their partnership.  I assume if the Orville goes long enough, the Moclans would come back to the Union with news that they've allowed females in their culture to live.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think I've figured out THE ORVILLE in Season 3. It is no longer a workplace comedy set aboard a starship. It is no longer STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION with normal people who have lapses of competence and ability and good judgement. THE ORVILLE is TNG but with heartfelt and warm and stirring character arcs and emotional quandaries whereas THE NEXT GENERATION was an emotionally cold series with muted emotions and little to no character progression. If THE NEXT GENERATION were made today, it would be THE ORVILLE.

Still miss all the jokes.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Michelle Nichols, most known for her role as Lt. Nyota Uhura on Star Trek, has passed away at 89.

Nooooooooooooooo!!!

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/31/entertai … index.html

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Spoilers for the full season of the Orville

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

Man, I loved season 3 of the Orville.  It was probably a bit bloated - some of the episodes could've been a bit tighter, but it was so strong.  I think they probably crammed in a little too much suspecting that they didn't have much more leeway.  Especially towards the end, they covered a lot of material and skipped over quite a bit. 

I would think if this was a 7-season show, they probably would've developed the Kaylon weapon over the course of the whole season instead of it sorta showing up all of the sudden.  The collapse of the Moclan alliance would've probably fallen apart over the course of a few episodes and not all in one.  I mean, heck, they glossed over what seemed to be the storyline for the whole season (going into unexplored Krill space) in just a couple of episodes.

But if this is the last season we get, I'm glad they did that.  Even though they covered so much material (and burned through a lot of storylines), I think there's still plenty of stuff they could do.  Kaylon/Union vs Moclus/Krill could still be a multi-season affair.  The Isaac/Finn marriage could have a lot of strong storytelling.  Not to mention the handful of other potential relationships in the crew.

I do wish they would've left some items a little less.  Gordon's time travel episode gutted me, and it was a little annoying that it was wrapped up so easily.  The Kaylon alliance probably shouldn't have been so easy, even with the sacrifice made.  Bortus and Klyden reconciled a bit too easily.

But all in all, I loved it.  I hope it gets renewed, and if it doesn't, I hope MacFarlane tries to go the movie route.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Spoilers
















Season 3 of THE ORVILLE was very good. The "crew becomes monsters" and "crew encounter deadly fantasy scenarios" episodes were misfires. But the other eight episodes went from strength to strength. The Charly character was very well-handled. Given that the actress, Anne Winters, is reportedly dating showrunner Seth MacFarlane, some eyebrows were raised, but the optics seem okay given that Charly was meant to be a one season role with a clear conclusion and exit no matter how her relationship went. And given that THE ORVILLE brought Alara back again for a brief cameo when the actress (an ex of MacFarlane's) had no contractual obligation or financial need to return, it seems likely that, as Temporal Flux said years ago, MacFarlane's conduct is professional and appropriate.

Season 3 did a good job using its extended-length episodes to sell developments that most shows would force like the Krill and Moclan alliances with the Union falling apart and the Kaylon peace accord. Season 3 did a great job of making seven out of ten episodes focused on important social issues from DeepFake and politics to transphobia to intergenerational trauma to bigotry and then doing a sequel to "Majority Rule" for the season finale.

I felt like Season 3's last episode was a series finale. It ends with a gathering and almost all loose ends resolved and Alara returning so that all original cast members are present. It ends with a guardedly hopeful note for our own present day climate emergency and global war. It ends with nuance, both allowing Lysella to 'escape' from a troubled planet but carry the wounds of her world with her. It ends with warning that ORVILLE can't save us, only inspire us to save ourselves. It ends.

I hope there's a Season 4, but there are difficulties. Season 3 took so long to make that all cast and crew contracts have expired. If Disney+ renews the show, not everyone may be available. Most cast members, Seth MacFarlane included, finished working on THE ORVILLE and have found other jobs. There is no contractual agreement to bring them back if they won't or simply can't leave their current jobs. Even MacFarlane is busy running his new TED series. A Season 4 could conceivably have a very different if not completely new cast with a new writing team and MacFarlane only consulting if he isn't free to return fully. I think MacFarlane knew this and therefore wrote and filmed Season 3's finale as the last ORVILLE story ever.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

In other news, "Sympathy for the Devil" was to be Episode 9 of ORVILLE (or it is at least meant to take place after Episode 8). Due to budgeting issues, it was released as a novel instead. It's also an audiobook. Please note that you do not have to buy the product off Amazon; I bought my copy from Kobo.

https://www.amazon.com/Orville-Sympathy … 09Z76NZRH/

I haven't finished it yet, but the critical question for Slider_Quinn21: is "Sympathy for the Devil" canon? I understand that to the world at large, TV has a much bigger audience than a novel and TV generally won't accept a novel as canon. But this novel was written by Seth MacFarlane. Does the fact that series creator and showrunner Seth MacFarlane wrote the novel elevate it to canonicity whereas it wouldn't have the same weight if it were written by a STAR TREK freelancer?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

"Sympathy for the Devil". Holy S-word, this book is amazing. Drop whatever you're doing and go buy and read or listen to this incredible ORVILLE story right now. It's stirring, powerful, disturbing and highly relevant to our world. It's too bad they couldn't film this story for Season 3. This was Seth MacFarlane doing the ORVILLE version of SCHINDLER'S LIST. I accept it as canonical and as Episode 8-B of Season 3.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

In other news, "Sympathy for the Devil" was to be Episode 9 of ORVILLE (or it is at least meant to take place after Episode 8). Due to budgeting issues, it was released as a novel instead. It's also an audiobook. Please note that you do not have to buy the product off Amazon; I bought my copy from Kobo.

Interesting.,  I knew that the season was supposed to have 11 episodes so I was surprised last week to find that the season was ending with episode 10. 

The notion of canon is complicated to me.  I'm more open to the idea that non-screen items can be canon.  I think Star Wars is a good example.  I would think a character like Doctor Aphra would be canon, even though I don't think she's ever been referenced in any on-screen Star Wars.  But I think that the further you get from the Star Wars movies, the weaker the canon gets.

Movies
Live-Action TV
Animated TV
Comics/Books/Video Games

So Doctor Aphra's adventures are canon because they exist in this hierarchy.  However, just like Kanan's origin from his own comic was overridden by The Bad Batch (one level up), I think the Mandalorian could completely rewrite and overwrite anything from Doctor Aphra comics.  So it isn't that Doctor Aphra isn't canon.  It just isn't strong canon because it can be easily overwritten.  The same thing happened with Ahsoka and her novel, I believe.

So is Sympathy for the Devil canon?  Sure.  But if there's a season 4 of the Orville that wants to undo or rewrite any portion of that, it can.  And then it's not canon anymore.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think that is a fair take on canon.

I'd like to say that all STAR TREK novels exist in a side-universe adjacent to the TV shows and movies... but then the novels went and blew up their continuity in the three volume CODA series.

**

Slider_Quinn21 said he'd heard that actor Wil Wheaton (Wesley Crusher) had a certain "dickishness" to people in his private life and at conventions. I finished reading STILL JUST A GEEK, the new edition of some of Wheaton's blog entries with new content. Wheaton was at the center of a seriously messed up situation from ages 7 to 30.

Wheaton annotates his original 2004 writings where he calls out a lot of his 1980s to early 2000s behaviour. He says that in the 2000s, he would blog about auditions and name the specific projects for which he auditioned before casting decisions had been made.

Speaking now in 2022, Wheaton says that it was grossly inappropriate for him to name the projects as it was putting pressure on casting directors. He also regretted taking each rejection at each audition so personally.

Wheaton also notes in 2022 that his 1995 - 2004 audition performances were probably not good; he'd been auditioning for roles where the character was "dangerous", where the character didn't care about other people's opinions.

Wheaton said he had played each (potential) character as unthreatening and insecure. It was perfectly understandable if people didn't hire him to perform as hyperconfident, reckless characters.

He observed: his best performances came from playing characters who didn't have a father. Who were trying to fill that hole with friendship, submachine guns, piloting a starship, or tormenting Sheldon Cooper. It was completely mismatched to the roles Wheaton was pursuing in the 2000s.

Wheaton in 2022 also apologized for the published 2000 - 2004 diary entries where he objectified women, saying it was crude to talk about female fans that way and disrespectful to his wife.

In the annotations, Wheaton describes himself as "an asshole" in his teen years and twenties, finally elaborating. He says that he was frequently moody, withdrawn and rude on the TNG set. He also looked down on the ORIGINAL SERIES actors for doing convention appearances and making a living off of decades-old work instead of doing anything new.

He was uncomfortable with fans talking to him because each interaction made him think he'd end up mining only his STAR TREK work like the TOS actors (and he notes the irony he ended up doing exactly that). He didn't want fans touching him; no hugs, no handshakes.

Wheaton explains: his mother forced him into child acting work when he was 7 years old. From that moment forward, Wheaton's life was going to sets to perform mostly among adults, doing photoshoots for teen magazines, and acting as a monetizable asset to support his parents' lifestyles.

He was repeatedly told by his mother that he'd wanted this career; he was repeatedly disparaged by his father if he didn't get a job. Wheaton felt under pressure (at age 7) to support his family as the only person working. His father mocked him when he felt tired from working so much. His mother told him he wasn't tired or upset about working so much. Wheaton barely spent time with friends his own age: his circle was the TNG cast (adults), and his manipulative mother and degrading father.

Reading between the lines, I'd guess Mr. Wheaton was insecure that his little boy was the family breadwinner; hating Wil allowed Mr. Wheaton to avoid any guilt for wringing all the money he could from the boy and working Wil until Wil cracked under the pressure and quit STAR TREK.

With all his film and TV work, young Wheaton had been too isolated to develop age appropriate social skills. His parents didn't love him, only the money he brought in. Interacting with fans or normal human beings felt like another form of being squeezed for profit. He became hyperaverse to physical contact and an anxious wreck of a human being.

Wheaton seemed to have a guardedly civil relationship with his parents from 1999 to 2009. Starting in 2009, before doing THE BIG BANG THEORY and getting a decent payday out of it, Wheaton decided to take over his finances as a grown-ass 30 year old man. He told his mother and father to hand over the financial details of the Wil Wheaton corporation (the registered business that received and processed all of his acting earnings and paid the taxes and union fees).

Wheaton's parents refused. Wheaton took action (or threatened legal action) and got all the banking information and receipts. Wheaton discovered that from 1986 to 1994, his parents had taken 85 percent of his earnings from his STAND BY ME and TNG performances and transferred that money into their own accounts. No savings, no investments. His parents took it and spent it.

Wheaton's parents had also taken 100 percent of Wheaton's residual payments from TNG from 1994 to 2009. These residuals for syndicated reruns and DVD releases had been hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, all of it going into Mr. and Mrs. Wheaton's pockets even as they watched their son -- whose work had earned all of this money -- facing crippling debt, foreclosure and potential homelessness, and starvation from 1999 to 2005.

Wheaton had borrowed money in 1999 from his parents for his wedding and house and frequently had to borrow additional amounts to buy food for his wife and adopted children (his wife's kids from a previous marriage). Wheaton discovered that the loans had come from his own corporation. Out of his residuals. His parents had lent Wheaton his own money and made him repay with interest.

Wheaton had spent 1999 to 2009 thinking all his STAR TREK money was gone (spent on a house for his new wife and her kids). Feeling stupid for leaving STAR TREK and its regular pay and savings. Ashamed for condemning his wife and children to life on the poverty line. But STAR TREK had never stopped paying Wheaton.

Paramount had been sending Wheaton six figure residuals every year since the mid-90s -- and his parents had intercepted the money for 15 years even as they saw Wheaton struggling to feed himself and his wife and his sons.

Wheaton demanded repayment, but his parents had spent all of the purloined funds, thinking they could appropriate Wheaton's annual STAR TREK payments indefinitely. Mr. and Mrs. Wheaton declared that as they had managed Wil's acting career on TNG, they were entitled to all of his residuals.

Wheaton promptly removed them from his corporation; his parents were enraged but had no legal recourse (it's the Wil Wheaton Corporation) and presumably didn't want their child labour exploitation in the press. Wheaton cut off any further contact and seethed for 10 years before making an angry 2020 Father's Day blog post where he raged about his father and mother (who, I assume, are still fuming that their abuse-fueled free ride is over).

When parents exploit their children this way, the children grow up believing that everyone on Earth will treat them the same way much as the Kaylon believed that any biological lifeform would be a threat. I can see why Wil Wheaton has a reputation for "dickishness". It could be well-earned, but he deserves pity. He is really screwed up.

I can see why Wheaton might be socially deficient, troubled, anxious, and suspicious of anyone and everyone after going through all of the above. The only winner here is Wheaton's psychotherapist; Wheaton is going to be attending sessions forever.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

"Sympathy for the Devil". Holy S-word, this book is amazing. Drop whatever you're doing and go buy and read or listen to this incredible ORVILLE story right now. It's stirring, powerful, disturbing and highly relevant to our world. It's too bad they couldn't film this story for Season 3. This was Seth MacFarlane doing the ORVILLE version of SCHINDLER'S LIST. I accept it as canonical and as Episode 8-B of Season 3.

I took a road trip with the family over the weekend, and I bought this as an audiobook to listen to during the long drive.  I know MacFarlane referred to it as an experimental way of storytelling, and I'm not 100% sure it would've been well-received by the audience the way it's written as a book...but I agree.  What a cool, unique story.  Really well done - really effective. 

I wish they'd been able to film this - I think it could've been one of their best episodes in an already-strong season.

Spoilers below:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

It takes almost 8 chapters to see anyone in the main cast and I think another full chapter before we have any idea how any of this relates to anything.  Is it time-travel?  Is it past lives?  I did think that maybe it was the "holodeck" but that someone in the crew was trying to understand human history?  Around chapter 5 or 6, I started wondering if I had the wrong book, or if the crew was just going to appear at the very end.

I'm glad I waited because, while I felt we were spending too much time on Otto, by the end I knew it was the right call.  We needed to get to know Otto the way we did, and every scene we spent with him was effective.  The whole thing was great.

It was my first audiobook so I half-expected to hear some of the cast in the production.  But I thought Bruce Boxleitner did a great job.

Thanks for the recommendation!

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Yes, but is it canon... ?

**

Really enjoying LOWER DECKS this season. Spoilers for Season 3, Episode 8, "Crisis Point 2: Paradoxus":














The transporter duplicate of Boimler fakes his death and joins Section 31 at which point he's handed the black Starfleet badge that Section 31 agents used in DISCOVERY (but not in ENTERPRISE or DEEP SPACE NINE).

BOIMLER: "Isn’t Section 31 supposed to be like a big secret? I mean why would we wear special comm badges that advertise who we are?"

SECTION 31 AGENT: "You could still be dead."

BOIMLER: "... you know, I like the badge. I like the badge!"

Hilarious wisecrack at DISCOVERY making Section 31 exist within Starfleet's chain of command sharing information with starship crew and taking orders from Starfleet Command when DEEP SPACE NINE had presented it as an officially non-existent, covert operation with the Federation pointedly ignoring its existence.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

Yes, but is it canon... ?

My revised philosophy is that everything is canon but some things are more canon than others (TV over comics for example).  So I would think it's canon until something on the show directly overrides it.

But if the show comes back for a season 4, I'd love to see the episode on screen.

Any word on Season 4?

501 (edited by ireactions 2022-10-15 10:47:35)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

No news is... no news.

At this point, none of the actors are contracted to return. Season 3 took so long to film and edit due to the pandemic that all extension options for Season 4 would have expired by now. Since Disney+ and Hulu don't pay cast and crew to work on shows that aren't in production, everyone is doing other work now.

However, Seth MacFarlane has given his word that if ORVILLE is renewed, he will work it into his schedule and the other actors are keen to return if Season 4 can be scheduled after the jobs they are doing now to earn a living. This is most unlike SLIDERS where the second Jerry's contract expired, he was out the door.

It could also be a situation where Disney+ and Hulu never actually cancel THE ORVILLE but also never renew it, much like FOX never cancelling THE X-FILES after the 2018 season but never ordering Season 12.

Usually, networks and streamers announce cancellations so that cast and crew contracts can be closed and concluded, allowing the studio to cease paying staff to keep their schedules available and allowing employees on a now cancelled show to find other work.

But Disney+ and Hulu don't have to do that with THE ORVILLE because the Season 4 options in the cast and crew contracts have expired by now. THE X-FILES starting with Season 10 only signed David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson to one season at a time, so no cancellation notice was needed.

It's entirely possible that Disney+ and Hulu might never officially cancel THE ORVILLE and would simply never address it.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Thoughts on the first 60% of Season 3 of Picard.  First just a general "I really love this show" because I think it's really great.  I think it's as well done as Strange New Worlds but with a level of nostalgia that I appreciate more as a bigger fan of the TNG/DS9/VOY era.  I don't know if it's definitely the best of "new Trek", but it's miles ahead of the first two seasons of Picard and a lot of Discovery.

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

I'll start with my negatives.  As much as I *love* that the Changelings are back because I think they're a really cool villain...are we really doing a "Starfleet has been infiltrated and is the real bad guys" season again?  Didn't we basically do that in season 1 and then show it again in the alternate future in season 2?  I get that Starfleet is supposed to be this rock, but TNG went to this well a hundred times too.  Essentially 90% of the admirals we've ever met are evil or corrupt or secretly a (insert evil species).  The Changelings are cool, and if this is going to be their sequel story, this is probably how they'd go about doing it.

But couldn't we just have this be the TNG cast reuniting to go on one more adventure?  Does it have to be the End of Starfleet (TM) or the End of the Federation (TM) every time?  95% of Trek isn't about saving the entire galaxy.  I don't know why New Trek has to be almost entirely about that.

Okay, enough bad stuff.  I love the crew getting back together.  And I love that the space between Nemesis and this season feels lived in.  Worf, Geordi, Crusher, even Data...it feels like time has actually passed.  I know there's some weird timeline stuff (season 3 should be way further removed from season 2 if I understand the timeline correctly), but I feel like they put some thought into how these characters would react and grow.

And I'm really liking the nostalgia stuff, like I said.  Episode 6 is essentially an easter egg factory, and as corny as the scene at the shipyard with Seven and Jack could've been, it was beautiful.  Playing the theme for TOS/DS9/VOY as we saw each ship was great.  Having Seven discuss her life on Voyager as the Voyager theme played was amazing.  I've rewatched that scene several times.

(Side note since I've rewatched it so many times - Jack has heard of the Defiant but not Voyager?  Does that make sense in-world?  I get that the Defiant was a big part of winning the Dominion War, but people know the Titanic before any military ship, right?  Voyager made it seem like the ship was big news for civilians so I would think Jack would be familiar with Voyager before anything from the Dominion War.  But maybe I'm wrong?)

I also think it's interesting that if you look carefully, you can see the proposed refit from the cancelled season of Enterprise.  So they built a model for it, but they didn't mention it?  I know Enterprise has no connection to this show, but you'd think they could've added a line of dialogue about it.

Anyway, I'm still hoping to see more cameos before the season is over....or that the "Star Trek Legacy" show comes about.  I still think there are so many characters that I'd like to catch up on.  And if everyone comes back but Chief O'Brien doesn't....come on.  We need to see some of Seven's old family.  We need to see Dr. Bashir.  We need to see Quark.  I'd love an anthology series where we catch up with each of these guys properly.

And Picard has been so good that I actually started watching Prodigy.  I needed a bit more Trek in my life.  So far it's very kiddie but I hear that it gets a bit more mature as time goes on.  Anyone else watching it?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Sorry, I don't think I'll get to PICARD or PRODIGY for awhile. I still have two seasons of DISCOVERY to watch and one of STRANGE NEW WORLDS. *sigh*

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

So I really loved Picard Season 3.  I have a bunch of very spoilery thoughts and some nitpicks

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

- I guess I'll start with the future.  I think Terry Matalas gets Star Trek, and I think he hit the right nostalgia notes for most of the season.  Setting an episode at the fleet museum so we got to see all the classic ships...great.  Bringing back the Changelings and the Enterprise D...chef's kiss.  The episode with Ro and the awkwardly poetic end for Shelby...great touches.  If he wants to do Captain Seven and the crew of the Enterprise-G for another series, sign me up.  If he wants to do pretty much anything else, sign me up.  I'd love to see him get another show.

- I was surprised that we didn't get more cameos.  I think Chief O'Brien would've worked well on the show.  Someone like Bashir would've fit in nice.  Janeway would've made a ton of sense.  I know they didn't want to step on Prodigy's toes...but I don't see how Janeway being on two shows at the same time steps on anyone's toes.  They referenced her as being alive so it can't be "well what if we want to kill Janeway on this kid's show".  I do wonder why DS9 is the black sheep of the universe.  They retconned Worf's DS9 ending and he's never spoken of it again.  But since the story focused on Changelings for so long and involved Seven as a key figure, I figured we'd get more than just Tuvok as cameos.  Where's the Doctor???

- Season 3 made me so mad at Seasons 1 and 2.  It's so obvious that this show needed to be Picard and his crew.  Not that I didn't like the new characters - I liked a lot of them.  But it was so much more fun to have the whole cast there, and I can't believe they waited until season 3 to do it.  This is what season 1 should've been, and we could've had two more seasons with this as the jumping point.

- Speaking of that, Matalas didn't seem to have a ton of love for the first two seasons either.  They essentially abandoned the Laris storyline after the season premiere even though that was a huge part of season two, and the rest of the season 2 storylines (the Jurati Borg and Q's "death") got "Rise of Skywalker" level retcons.  I liked season 3 better than Seasons 1 and 2 but it's weird and confusing to re-write continuity with a couple one-off lines.

- I loved the character moments, but the plot this season doesn't hold up under much scrutiny.  One thing I thought I liked about season 2 was that the Borg seemed like a nullified threat.  Maybe they could be villains again, maybe not.  But for the Borg to essentially be the main villain for all three seasons is pretty lame in my opinion.  And to be fair, I didn't even like that the season was about Starfleet being infiltrated again (since it was technically a storyline in all three seasons if you count the Evil Starfleet from the beginning of season 2).  Changelings on a ship being chased by Changelings could be a cool story, but I'm a little tired of Starfleet command always being evil or replaced or infiltrated or whatever.

- So why did the Changelings work with the Borg?  Is it just an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" situation?  What did the Changelings get out of the Borg being rebuilt?  Wouldn't they hate the Borg just as much as they hate any other solids?  How did the Borg Queen even find the Changelings and how is it better revenge to assimilate Starfleet than to simply take over themselves (which they'd already done).

- The whole Enterprise D thing was cool, and I feel like the explanation made sense?  I don't know how difficult it would be in the 25th century to rebuild a ship by yourself, even if you're a master engineer and you have 20 years to do it.  But maybe when he says he rebuilt it, he means he had low-level grunt help.  I saw an article saying that maybe he used the outlawed "slave androids" from season 1 since they would've been legal for some of that time.  Since he references drones, maybe that's all he needed to do.  And to be fair, maybe the D wasn't as damaged as we think and it just needed a decent amount of cleanup (which could be done in 20 years).

All in all, I thought it was a great sendoff for the Next Generation Crew.  I acknowledge that the series wants to move forward with new blood, but I would love an anthology series where we get an episode for different TNG/DS9/VOY castmembers (either main cast or even smaller roles like Naomi Wildman).  Let's see what everyone is up to and get cool little one-off stories for Bashir and Quark and Tom Paris and even Harry Kim.  Let's see the Doctor again!  I know a lot of these guys could come back for the already-announced Starfleet Academy but I want an anthology show to put some of these characters to bed.  Then we can either do a time jump again (like Next Gen did), pick up from Discovery, or whatever.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I'm looking forward to seeing PICARD soon.

I think what happened that makes Season 3 feel disconnected from the show: PICARD was originally run by the very eccentric and individual Michael Chabon. Chabon has a certain style of storylines that don't entirely cohere in theme and purpose until the purpose is revealed. Season 1's arcs felt really detached and isolated: then it became clear that Season 1 was really an extended eulogy to Data, a character who exited the series rather severely in NEMESIS. Season 1 gave us a chance to revisit Data and say goodbye to him in a "gentler" way, as Brent Spiner put it. It's a very unusual narrative style that is very specific to Chabon.

In Season 2, Chabon laid out the storylines, but then he left for another job. Terry Matalas and other writers handled converting Chabon's storylines to actual scripts and all the on-set rewriting. And... it wasn't quite the same. Chabon's gift for building in the themes gently and subtly with the points being overt and clear later was not present in the writing. It's unclear how Picard's mother, Q's fondness for Picard, the redemption of the Borg and other elements really tied together or why they were in the same season of TV. Chabon is too eccentric and peculiar a writer for someone else to write scripts out of Chabon's plots.

You might say Season 2 of PICARD was the equivalent of SLIDERS' "Revelations"; a story outline written by one person, converted into a script by somebody else who either couldn't or wouldn't execute the outline coherently.

And in Season 3 -- which I have not seen -- I would imagine that Terry Matalas was finally writing his own material instead of converting Chabon's bullet points.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Very interesting.  I'm surprised that Matalas had anything to do with Season 2 since Season 3 seems so quick to move away from it.  It does feel like Rise of Skywalker compared to The Last Jedi.  Season 3 doesn't ignore or contradict season 2 - but it does move quickly to distance itself from season 2.  Maybe Matalas arrived too late in the process to do much about the overall story and did what he could with it but didn't believe in the concept.  I guess that feels right.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

It's not necessarily that Terry Matalas didn't believe in Season 2's storylines. My personal opinion on Season 2: completing Michael Chabon's unfinished stories is an impossible task and no one should ever have to try. Even a resurrected Ernest Hemingway wouldn't have been able to handle this nightmare assignment.

Chabon's sudden departure from PICARD was not expected, and it happened too late into Season 2 to start over with storylines. And Chabon has a difficult style for another writer to adopt.

My take on Chabon: he introduces a ton of story elements, but he is not entirely aware of how it all ties together when he starts. He lets the story's meaning reveal itself to him.

With Season 1: he knew that it was about artificial intelligence and Data, but it may not have been clear to him until scripting that it was all about Picard getting to see Data one last time, to tell Data how much he loved him, and to say goodbye to him fully, wholly and meaningfully -- in all the ways Picard didn't get to in NEMESIS.

I think in Season 2, Chabon again came up with story elements: Picard's mother, Q being sick, the Borg wanting peace, a fascist alternate Starfleet, time travel -- but when the time came to start writing the scripts, Chabon wasn't around to weave his story elements together. All the beats were handed over to Terry Matalas. Matalas tried and... it just didn't work.

Season 2 was like one of those Netflix Marvel TV show where there is a lot of random material to stretch out the episode count. What did the Borg have to do with Picard's mother or Project Khan or Wesley Crusher or Q dying? Matalas didn't know, Chabon wasn't there to find out.

Chabon has a rather abstract approach to story conception that's hard to replicate.

It's true that lots of shows have a head writer leave material for other writers to expand upon in the house style. But Chabon's style is very difficult to adopt in his absence. Chabon's writing is low key subtlety that is severely underplayed. It is very difficult for another writer to identify what defines Chabon style in order to extrapolate and continue what Chabon might have done. He's more M. Night Shyamalan than, say, Tracy Torme.

Maintaining a house style is all about knowing the specific identifiers of that style, maintaining them while bringing in your original ideas and perspectives. Tracy Torme's SLIDERS is about the American Dream; Jon Povill's SLIDERS questions that Dream, but both versions have Torme's style for the jokes.

In terms of Chabon's PICARD, Chabon's stylistic identifiers are so low key and chameleonic, with Season 1 slowly exploring the artificiality of life whether it's sex or machines or borders. Chabon finally offers the contemplation (as opposed to a conclusion) that artificiality is about defining beginnings and endings, and so, artificial intelligence like Data can't technically be life unless it's capable of experiencing death, a thought that Data offers in his final moments with Picard.

It is a moment that seems to have come intuitively and emotionally rather than through carefully plotted calculation. And since pastiche and maintaining a house style are fundamentally exercises in calculation, trying to predict what Chabon would have improvised is futile.

With Season 3, I think Matalas was out of Chabon beat sheets and ready to turn to do TERRY MATALAS' PICARD rather than TERRY MATALAS' MICHAEL CHABON'S PICARD.

For better or for worse. (Not sure which one, eager to find out.)

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

First off, I will say that despite excessive fan service and plot holes, this season 3 send off for the TNG crew was one of my most fulfilling TV journeys ever.  There's almost nothing I would change about it.  It reminded me of the feeling many had from the first Abrams movie, where it was "cool" to be a Trek fan again, even though personally I thought those movies shared little with actual Star Trek.  Bravo Terry! 

The return of the Galaxy Class "big" E was so unexpected and yet tremendous.  We never really got to see it in modern CGI technology at play.  Loved hearing Walter Koenig deliver some great lines.  I'm sure there's a million critiques one could have, and I've seen many friends do so.  If you weren't thrilled by this Picard season, sorry, you're clearly not a Star Trek fan.

I happened to greatly enjoy the prior Picard seasons, although I felt the Soongh android stuff was really bad, including turning Picard into one, and having a monster threaten the galaxy.  I think having Matalas come in was very fortuitous, and reminded me of when Manny Coto "rescued" the burning hulk Enterprise with a good bit of TOS nostalgia.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Grizzlor wrote:

If you weren't thrilled by this Picard season, sorry, you're clearly not a Star Trek fan.

I'm sure people can dislike a show and still be fans of the franchise.

I've finished the first four episodes of PICARD Season 3 and it's very enjoyable. Season 1 with Michael Chabon was a dark, operatic and somewhat nihilistic story of Picard in retirement and bitterness and regret, healed and made whole through a final reunion with Data. Season 2 was a puzzling attempt to do another Michael Chabon season without Michael Chabon and it was bizarre: it created a new trauma for Picard within Season 2 to resolve it in Season 2.

Season 3 so far for me feels like Season 8 of THE NEXT GENERATION. It's Picard and Riker on a mission. It's arguable that Season 1 of PICARD should just have been TNG Season 8, that PICARD was always going to be another season of TNG at some point, and doing something else was just wasting time.

However, I think there's something to PICARD and Stewart deciding that the world didn't need TNG back in its sunny, corporate optimism. Instead, they spent the first season establishing that the 25th century was a darker world where Picard and his TNG attitude had been defeated by cynicism and abandonment. Season 2, though -- it didn't seem to add very much to the show beyond the Seven/Raffi relationship. It didn't have much of anything to say about Q or the Borg. Then the second season might as well have been the third season: TNG, Season 8.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

It's interesting: many have fairly complained that Season 2 made the Borg non-malicious allies yet Season 3 has the Borg villains again with no mention of Dr. Jurati and the Cooperative.

The Cooperative are actually mentioned in one line in Episode 4: "Forget about the weird shit on the Stargazer. The real Borg are still out there," says Captain Shaw, declaring that the Borg of Season 2 were just a few anomalous individual Borg and that the Federation being on good terms with Jurati had no impact whatsoever on the Federation-Borg conflict.

I have to say, it is a shockingly dismissive attitude that grudgingly acknowledges Season 2 of PICARD and then hurriedly asks you to forget it.

But, to be fair, I can barely remember anything that happened in the very haphazard Season 2 of PICARD, so Season 3 was asking me to forget what I had mostly forgotten anyway.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

It's interesting: many have fairly complained that Season 2 made the Borg non-malicious allies yet Season 3 has the Borg villains again with no mention of Dr. Jurati and the Cooperative.

The Cooperative are actually mentioned in one line in Episode 4: "Forget about the weird shit on the Stargazer. The real Borg are still out there," says Captain Shaw, declaring that the Borg of Season 2 were just a few anomalous individual Borg and that the Federation being on good terms with Jurati had no impact whatsoever on the Federation-Borg conflict.

I have to say, it is a shockingly dismissive attitude that grudgingly acknowledges Season 2 of PICARD and then hurriedly asks you to forget it.

But, to be fair, I can barely remember anything that happened in the very haphazard Season 2 of PICARD, so Season 3 was asking me to forget what I had mostly forgotten anyway.

The problem with Dr. Jurati and the cooperative that everyone who is complaining about that particular plot hole misses is that that was an alternate timeline Borg, so it is not relevant to mention in the prime timeline.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I don't believe that the events of Season 2 are an alternate timeline. Picard recalls that his ancestors were mystified by the strange damage to Chateau Picard; the damage is caused by Picard and his friends in a firefight with the Borg. Guinan tells Picard she always remembered meeting him in 2024 (just as she remembered meeting him during that run in with Mark Twain) but withheld it until now. The time travel events were always a part of the original timeline.. although I admit, Season 2 of PICARD is very narratively shaky.

In the Season 2 finale, the Cooperative asks to be granted provisional entry into the Federation. Therefore, the Cooperative, in the context of the Season 2 finale, is representing itself as all Borg. Except... given that history hasn't been altered, doesn't that mean that the Cooperative must exist alongside the Collective Borg that's out there invading and assimilating? Wouldn't the Collective still be out there? How can the Cooperative also engage in diplomatic relations on behalf of the Collective?

But the story presents itself as the start of peace between the Federation and the Borg, so the implication would be that Cooperative has replaced the Collective at this point in time; that in the decades between FIRST CONTACT and PICARD, the Collective has either died out or given way to becoming the Cooperative.

Season 3 discards this implication and sticks flatly to what was onscreen: the only Borg who are our friends are the individual Cooperative Borg we saw onscreen in Season 2. Those are the only ones to be trusted; all other Borg are our enemies. It's kind of rude, but given how muddled and confused Season 2 was, I can't blame the Season 3 writers for being dismissive of it.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

I don't believe that the events of Season 2 are an alternate timeline. Picard recalls that his ancestors were mystified by the strange damage to Chateau Picard; the damage is caused by Picard and his friends in a firefight with the Borg. Guinan tells Picard she always remembered meeting him in 2024 (just as she remembered meeting him during that run in with Mark Twain) but withheld it until now. The time travel events were always a part of the original timeline.. although I admit, Season 2 of PICARD is very narratively shaky.

In the Season 2 finale, the Cooperative asks to be granted provisional entry into the Federation. Therefore, the Cooperative, in the context of the Season 2 finale, is representing itself as all Borg. Except... given that history hasn't been altered, doesn't that mean that the Cooperative must exist alongside the Collective Borg that's out there invading and assimilating? Wouldn't the Collective still be out there? How can the Cooperative also engage in diplomatic relations on behalf of the Collective?

But the story presents itself as the start of peace between the Federation and the Borg, so the implication would be that Cooperative has replaced the Collective at this point in time; that in the decades between FIRST CONTACT and PICARD, the Collective has either died out or given way to becoming the Cooperative.

Season 3 discards this implication and sticks flatly to what was onscreen: the only Borg who are our friends are the individual Cooperative Borg we saw onscreen in Season 2. Those are the only ones to be trusted; all other Borg are our enemies. It's kind of rude, but given how muddled and confused Season 2 was, I can't blame the Season 3 writers for being dismissive of it.

What do you think of this, presented by Den Of Geek?

https://www.tiktok.com/@denofgeektv/vid … 5969375530

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I think Season 2 was confusing for a lot of people including the actual writers of Season 2 and those fine people at Den of Geek (a wonderful sci-fi fantasy website with deightful reviews including their reviews of Denise Richards and Bruce Willis' direct to video movies. Yes, they do great stuff while some of us hang out... here... writing ruminations on POWER RANGERS and SLIDERS DVDs. *sigh*).

I can see why Den of Geek might think the Cooperative are from an alternate timeline. Season 2 was very hard to follow.

However, what's onscreen in "Farewell" (2.10) declares that the Season 2 events in 2024 have always been part of the timeline we know, that the Cooperative Borg have always existed alongside the Collective Borg, but we just never encountered them until the Stargazer incident of 2401 in Season 2 of PICARD.

I just finished episode 10 of Season 3 and the episode reasonably fits in with the Cooperative except for the fact that the Cooperative is never, ever, ever mentioned. The Collective has decayed so badly after VOYAGER that the Borg Queen was reduced to cannibalizing her own drones to exist. It's reasonable to think that in the vacuum left by the Collective, the Cooperative became the dominant Borg.

If I had to find some explanation for why the Cooperative don't come up, I guess we'd have to say that the Cooperative are currently a highly guarded Starfleet secret known only to those directly involved, to Captain Shaw (because he has a former Borg drone as his executive officer), and when people say that the Borg haven't been seen in decades, they're unaware of the Stargazer incident.

I'm not sure how well it holds up to say that the Cooperative Borg are currently a classified secret. And where are they in Season 3? I guess they're still investigating that transwarp gateway in Season 2 that was described as a mysterious piece of a complex puzzle that I assume Michael Chabon never got around to finishing and Terry Matalas understandably decided to forget about.

"Forget about the weird shit on the Stargazer."

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

ireactions wrote:

The Cooperative are actually mentioned in one line in Episode 4: "Forget about the weird shit on the Stargazer. The real Borg are still out there," says Captain Shaw, declaring that the Borg of Season 2 were just a few anomalous individual Borg and that the Federation being on good terms with Jurati had no impact whatsoever on the Federation-Borg conflict.

I actually missed this line on my initial watch and only went back after episode 9.  But here's the problem: Shaw is not a reliable witness.  And Shaw has no idea - he's speculating.  Just like he refuses to acknowledge Seven's Borg-ness, I think he refuses to acknowledge that the Borg might have evolved.  Even if the Jurati Borg were the real Borg, I think Shaw would've said it.

Now it's obvious that it was intended to be the truth.  But I would've felt better if this were delivered by someone with a little less Borg baggage.

One more thing I forgot to add to my list:

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S

The Frontier Day stuff and the "whole fleet" being there.  Ummmm....what does that mean?  The entire Starfleet fleet?  Every ship everywhere?  That can't be what they mean, right?  Because I assume Starfleet exists both as a peacekeeping force and a deterrent to other forces, right?  If the entire US military decided to have a big celebration in Washington, DC...I imagine there are a handful of nations/rogue nations/terrorist organizations that might take advantage of that.

Maybe it is simply all their non-essential ships?  Maybe it's all their ships that were going to be in Sector 001 anyway?  I have trouble visualizing what the entire fleet would even look like.  I assume it would be thousands of ships, no?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

I can say from experience that state wide law enforcement agencies will do this for a meeting.  It’s left up to Sheriffs and Police departments to handle things until they get back.

I would imagine that’s what this was.  Starfleet is the statewide / federal agency, so it was left to the local agencies to handle things

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Yeah, I guess we don't know a ton about the current politics of the Alpha Quadrant.  The Romulans aren't in any position to make a move.  I assume the Cardassians aren't either.  The Klingons are an ally.  So maybe there isn't really anyone that could make a move.  And even if they did, it would be a short move since the fleet probably was going to go home right after the festivities.

So do we think the intention was that it was *every* ship?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Slider_Quinn21 wrote:

Yeah, I guess we don't know a ton about the current politics of the Alpha Quadrant.  The Romulans aren't in any position to make a move.  I assume the Cardassians aren't either.  The Klingons are an ally.  So maybe there isn't really anyone that could make a move.  And even if they did, it would be a short move since the fleet probably was going to go home right after the festivities.

So do we think the intention was that it was *every* ship?

I'm not entirely sure the Federation has any distinctions between federal, state and municipal law enforcement.

Much in the same way Starfleet is the NASA and the NSF and the EPA and the Navy and the Air Force, Starfleet in TNG and DS9 also seemed to be the CIA and the DOD and the NSA and the FBI and the state police and the local PD and the parks and recreation department. I honestly would not be surprised if Starfleet officers were responsible for replacing lightbulbs in streetlamps and doing restaurant inspections.

I guess, if I had to come up with an explanation, it'd be that while the entire fleet will be gathering on Frontier Day, they will not be gathering at the exact same time on Frontier Day. There will be a lot of headliners in standing positions. There will also be a lot of ships that will be passing through, making an appearance, and then warping back to their posts, operating on an alternating schedule with other ships so that no patrol is abandoned.

It's possible that the Borg-compromised Starfleet went so far as to set up 'commandeered-from-the-Borg' transwarp conduits so that every ship could at least do a flyby. As handwavy an explanation as they come.

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

Is there a real-life explanation for why DS9 doesn't get as much love from the producers of modern Trek?  I think it's overwhelmingly thought of as the best Trek, but it's also overwhelmingly the black sheep of Trek as a whole.  Worf's DS9 ending was ignored essentially and he simply showed back up in the TNG movies with less and less explanation.  Chief O'Brien was essentially a TNG castmember (50 episodes) but showed up in none of the TNG movies and none of the seasons of Picard. 

The show is happy to borrow plot elements from it (mostly the Dominion War), but in terms of actual appearances, the only DS9 castmember that got any love is the Defiant (showing up in First Contact and season 3 of Picard).  I know some of the producers of DS9 rubbed people wrong at the time, but that was over 20 years ago, and I assume most of the people have left the franchise by this point anyway.

I get why Enterprise is ignored - it was a massive prequel and wasn't as beloved.  But DS9 takes place at the same time and is beloved.  Why no love for Deep Space Nine?

Re: Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!)

It's probably just a numbers evaluation. The series finale of THE NEXT GENERATION was watched by 30 million people; DS9's finale was watched by 5.3 million people.

In terms of DS9 characters not appearing on PICARD -- that's probably due to budget and the wish to bring in characters who had actually interacted with Picard or had some specific point of commonality (assimilation by the Borg). There were hopes of Season 3 featuring Janeway, Data's daughter(s), Harry Kim -- but between rebuilding the Enterprise-D and rehiring the whole TNG cast, the budget didn't stretch to those roles.

I imagine the DS9 characters were even lower on the priority list when they couldn't even afford Garrett Wang. Garrett Wang organizes STAR TREK conventions. Organizing STAR TREK conventions is an honourable profession, but one would think it wouldn't elevate him beyond affordability, so the budget really was straining.

But I don't know if DS9 is really ignored because the whole Starfleet-suspicious attitude of TREK since INTO DARKNESS originates from DS9, as does Section 31 (or some organization calling itself that, *sigh*) on DISCOVERY.

I don't know if ENTERPRISE is really that ignored either, given that the STAR TREK 2009 movie revealed the terrible fate of Captain Archer's dog Porthos.