Star Trek in Film and TV (and The Orville, too!) (Page 11 of 11)

I've always disliked the idea that timelines get wiped out. I don't like it when the audience reacts to a story with a sense of, as comic book writer Brian Michael Bendis put it, "You're breaking all the toys!" I feel that destroying timelines is like breaking all the toys and throwing out the sandbox. I would prefer that the 33rd century just exist as one of many possible futures for STAR TREK rather than destroy it. However, that may be a minority view.

The post-NEMESIS novels for TNG, DS9 and VOY had a very clean slate and did a lot of ongoing story arcs, only for PICARD to outright contradict them. The publishers elected to end their novel continuity in the CODA trilogy where the novel versions of the TNG, DS9 and VOY casts discover: all timelines are under attack by the Devidians, a race that feeds on energy from destroyed timelines. The heroes realize: the Devidians first began their campaign of destruction when the Borg altered history in FIRST CONTACT, splitting the timelines into disparate paths.

The novel timeline has been what the characters call the Splinter Timeline (media tie-ins), apart from the Prime Timeline (PICARD). The CODA trilogy ends with the novel characters sacrificing their own timeline so that the Prime Timeline and all the other timelines will be preserved while the Splinter Timeline is destroyed.

This is exactly the kind of story I dislike and disagree with. The CODA writers explained that they felt that saying the novel universe continues without ongoing publication would leave things unresolved, and they felt killing everyone off to save the Prime characters was conclusive and final. That may be, but all it did was, as Bendis would put it, "break the toys" and throw out the sandbox. I think that if a writer doesn't enjoy a a toy, they should just leave it alone rather than actively destroy it. Someone else might find a use for it someday.

I think this is just something to address in a throwaway line. "Mirror Georgiou? Again? I thought we were rid of her." "No, she's back from that possible future timeline." Or even a more involved exchange:

LUCSLY: "Hello. I'm Agent Lucsly from the Department of Temporal Investigations. I'm very familiar with you, 'Emperor.'"

MIRROR GEORIGOU: "You think you know me from reading my file, as though my data footprint is all I am and nothing compared to all you represent and all you claim to be. Department of Temporal Investigations. A portentous term bound in administrative pretense, as though time can be curtailed by a flowchart and a briefing. I have seen the end of your civilization, the conclusion of all you exist within, the downfall of all that keeps you upright. I know what is coming for you, what will consume you, what will -- "

LUCSLY: "Uh. No. Sorry. What you saw was one potential future. 38B. The Burn one, right? Yeah, that's not even the worst one. There are like four thousand apocalyptic timelines out of the 20 billion we track every day. But thanks for letting me know that it left you psychologically scarred and that it bolstered your existing narcisissm."

Still reading Patrick Stewart's autobiography...

There's a story where the serious, dour Patrick Stewart was appalled by all the laughter and goofy quipping of his castmates during the first season of STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION and then summoned them all to a meeting where he told them all off for blowing takes and cracking wise instead of solemnly and seriously performing the work of acting. "We are not here to have fun!" he roared at them.

Brent Spiner, Jonathan Frakes, Michael Dorn, Marina Sirtis, Gates McFadden and Denise Crosby contemplated this thoughtfully and collectively laughed in his face and with each other, their uncontrollable giggling continuing for a prolonged period at which point Stewart fled for his trailer with his dignity in tatters, realizing that the gang just did not take him very seriously.

There's also a neat anecdote where during Season 3, the married Patrick Stewart was seeing very little of his wife due to his filming in LA and her being in England. Stewart found himself falling in love with guest-star Jennifer Hetrick (Caroline in "Last Days", Claire LeBeau in "The Seer") and dating her while realizing that he wasn't in love with his wife anymore and filing for divorce. Stewart and Hetrick dated for a little while, but the constant pursuit of tabloid photographers was too much for Hetrick, hitting a breaking point when, on a private island vacation, they had to travel separately to get there and lasted two days before Hetrick had simply had enough. Stewart spent five more days alone on the island knowing that his girlfriend was done with him, his ex-wife was furious with him, his children loathed him, and his castmates thought he was a joyless pain in the ass and a joke.

It's so bleak that it's funny. Stewart later recounts that in later years, his TNG castmates will regularly mock-snarl at him, "We are not here to have fun!" which he agrees is extremely well-deserved.

One of the reasons why we haven't gotten any news on THE ORVILLE's renewal or cancellation: Disney was mulling over whether or not to buy Hulu, on which THE ORVILLE streams. It looks like the purchase will go through which will lead to some clarity as to whether or not Disney, having bought the streamer on which THE ORVILLE streams, will then order another season.

https://bleedingcool.com/tv/the-orville … this-week/

Seth MacFarlane has promised fans that if there's a fourth season of THE ORVILLE, he will find a way to produce and write it alongside any other commitments he has.

Most of the actors have said that they'll do their best to return, but they can't promise that because they have to take other work to earn a living and could conceivably be engaged elsewhere if Season 4 is ordered. It's possible that MacFarlane might produce and write a fourth season, but be in it less, and a crew composed of available cast members and newcomers might board the bridge.

funny anecdotes.  I have no reason to read his book as he's pretty much been highly open about his career and life over the decades.

Bit late, but PRODIGY has been picked up by Netflix which will stream the first season and then, in 2024, the second season.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv … 235615236/

COVID baloney.  It's just simply Wil Wheaton.  Forever, he was one of the biggest grouches at conventions, and had a 100% NO TOUCHING policy.  He's parlayed his warped hatred towards his immediate family into his shtick.  I could 1000% imagine Wil Wheaton not only doing the (now completely overdone) virtue signaled masking, but then never missing an opportunity to be Mr. Outrage and furthering his own cause, "grace" or otherwise.  Honestly, I had to begrudgingly force myself through the Trek post-show's that he's hosted, as I'm sure most of his old co-stars have as well, with him there.  He's not exactly part of that "family."

Mehhh

I responded to the mask comments in the political thread:
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 908#p14908

I don't doubt that Wheaton has done something to enrage you at least once in person. And it's perfectly fine to find Wheaton's screen presence and persona irksome. However:

I don't think you can project your own distaste for Wheaton onto his castmates unless you actually have some quotes or social media posts or anything beyond you assuming your dislike of Wheaton is universal to all.

Wil Wheaton -- or anyone, for that matter -- has the right to say he doesn't want strangers touching him.

Wheaton has made accusations towards his mother and father of abuse and labour exploitation: that they forced him to act, took all of his earnings and co-opted all of his residuals. Given that Wheaton was selling Wesley action figures to avoid foreclosure despite STAR TREK residuals likely to have paid him six figures annually, well after the show was cancelled, just on the seasons he worked the show, this is clearly true. I have a summary of Wheaton's claims here:
https://sliders.tv/bboard/viewtopic.php … 149#p13149

Wheaton's claims are not only extremely serious, they are extremely common: child actors are frequently used as the family living by parents or managers or accountants who use the children, steal their earnings, and gaslight the kids into thinking that it's correct and appropriate. Other survivors of such exploitation of child labour include Danielle Harris, Natanya Ross, Macaulay Culkin, Jennette McCurdy, Shirley Temple, Ariel Winter and plenty of names big and small, some of whom have signed autographs and taken pictures for you.

Wil Wheaton has every right to use his minor celebrity platform to share his trauma and grief with his fans.

Wil Wheaton may have blown his nose into your Jerry O'Connell photos and burned your Kari Wuhrer pictures and stolen your dog and drank your last ginger ale and snapped John Rhys-Davies' walking stick and stolen Sabrina Lloyd's paintbrushes and told Cleavant Derricks that he can't sing. That could all be true and Wheaton would still be a victim of exploitation from his parents.

The denial that his mother issued to the press was nonsensical, claiming that she and Wheaton had always been close (which is obviously not true since he's accusing her of stealing all of his residuals).

Wheaton may be a jerk. I've never met him, Grizzlor clearly has.

But even if Grizzlor is right, Wheaton would still be a jerk who was squeezed and robbed by his mother and father, who has the right to not be touched, who has the right to tell his story. And Grizzlor would still have every right to dislike him.