# STAR TREK: PICARD Official Trailer



## trappedslider (May 24, 2019)

so glad I have prime [video=youtube;BzQS4JaTapk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzQS4JaTapk[/video]


----------



## darjr (May 24, 2019)

Chills


----------



## Zardnaar (May 24, 2019)

Short and sweet, teases things you probably want to know answers to. Good trailer.


----------



## pukunui (May 24, 2019)

I might have to watch this. Picard has always been my favorite ST captain.


----------



## Kaodi (May 24, 2019)

My headcanon until it is contradicted by the show is that whenever someone is promoted to Captain in Starfleet they receive a real bottle of Picard's wine.


----------



## Janx (May 24, 2019)

I'm excited.

It has the vinyard.

It ended with the flutey sound like from his magic flute episode.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2019)

Sigh.  Taken down.  Or at least blocked in my region.


----------



## Zardnaar (May 25, 2019)

I watched it on YouTube, I assume it's still up.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2019)

Had to hunt a bit.  Found one from Brazil.  Interesting.  Was that the voice of Michael from Discovery?


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Had to hunt a bit. Found one from Brazil. Interesting. Was that the voice of Michael from Discovery?




Wanna share your findings? Or are you just taunting us?


----------



## Legatus Legionis (May 25, 2019)

.


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2019)

Legatus_Legionis said:


> "So tell us they you left Star Fleet..."
> 
> It sounds like Patrick Stewart's involvement is minimal.




No, it sounds like it's a show about a man not in Starfleet.

Man, that's an odd takeaway!


----------



## Morrus (May 25, 2019)

[MENTION=41932]trappedslider[/MENTION] I've meant to say this before, but please do make at least a minimal effort to format your posts to make them legible to other people. Five words followed by a URL without even a linebreak doesn't even qualify as a sentence, and screws up on some devices. This isn't Twitter.


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2019)

ask and ye shall receive.

https://youtu.be/IGijGIZrGKc


----------



## Umbran (May 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Was that the voice of Michael from Discovery?




I am guessing not, though I cannot be sure, of course.

It sounds a whole lot like the actress Gina Torres (Zoe, from Firefly).  But it perhaps more likely someone who is a series regular.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 26, 2019)

The narrator seems to be part of the group that Picard lead out of Darkness with the greatest rescue armada in history.

It seems that this is referring to the Hobus Supernova referenced in the first J.J.Abrams Star Trek movie. For people that forgot, most of the movie takes place in an alternate timeline, basically a the point where the USS Kelvin encounters the Narada under Nero. However, the Narada and Nero come presumably from the "Prime" Timeline (where all the other Star Trek series played in). The Hobus sun went supernova and somehow threatened Romulus, Spock tried to secure help in the Federation and on Vulcan, but because they were reluctant to help he was too slow to save Romulus. Nero swore revenge against Vulcan and the Federation, and that lead to the events in the so called Kelvin Timeline and the first Abrams movie.

The narrator says he lead them out of darkness, which woudl suggest that whatever his exact mission was, it must have been kinda successful. What is the unthinkable that happens. 
Some fan Speculation suggests that maybe Starfleet, the Federation or Section 31 did something against the people he rescued, and that caused him to break with Starfleet. 
But maybe it were the Romulans did something, maybe they betrayed their rescuers and stole some ships or worlds to reestablish the Empire.
It seems to me that if the narrator isn't sure what the unthinkable cost him, and suggests it might be related to his faith or his faith in himself. Either scenario would be enough to cause doubt in Picard.



Umbran said:


> I am guessing not, though I cannot be sure, of course.
> 
> It sounds a whole lot like the actress Gin Torres (Zoe, from Firefly).  But it perhaps more likely someone who is a series regular.



I've heard its indeed a series regular, but I forgot who. (The semblance to Gina Torres is mentioned often.)


----------



## MarkB (May 26, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The narrator seems to be part of the group that Picard lead out of Darkness with the greatest rescue armada in history.
> 
> It seems that this is referring to the Hobus Supernova referenced in the first J.J.Abrams Star Trek movie. For people that forgot, most of the movie takes place in an alternate timeline, basically a the point where the USS Kelvin encounters the Narada under Nero. However, the Narada and Nero come presumably from the "Prime" Timeline (where all the other Star Trek series played in).




That does seem likely, especially given the echoed "but then, the unthinkable happened" line.

The tricky part there is that Star Trek's portrayal of altered timelines has always been that it doesn't create multiple parallel universes - if an event in the past alters the course of history, that new timeline takes over and the existing one goes away. That's consistent through _City on the Edge of Forever_, _First Contact_ and quite a few other examples. In order to restore a timeline you need to be somehow unaffected by the change, and have a means of going back to the past to undo the inciting incident.

The tricky part with the Kelvin timeline was always that the inciting incident began in the future, in a timeline that no longer exists, and when Nero's ship went back in time, its impact on the timeline was massive and almost instant. Even if you wanted to restore the old timeline, how do you intervene in those events in time to prevent the USS Kelvin from interacting with the Narada?

While that certainly hasn't stopped them from making series set in the original timeline, it is, at least, a sufficiently tricky issue that it would deserve some exploration in any series which is set in the original timeline but still features the events that kickstarted the Kelvin timeline.


----------



## Umbran (May 26, 2019)

MarkB said:


> That does seem likely, especially given the echoed "but then, the unthinkable happened" line.




Hm...



> The tricky part there is that Star Trek's portrayal of altered timelines has always been that it doesn't create multiple parallel universes ...
> 
> The tricky part with the Kelvin timeline was always that the inciting incident began in the future, in a timeline that no longer exists, and when Nero's ship went back in time, its impact on the timeline was massive and almost instant. Even if you wanted to restore the old timeline, how do you intervene in those events in time to prevent the USS Kelvin from interacting with the Narada?
> 
> While that certainly hasn't stopped them from making series set in the original timeline, it is, at least, a sufficiently tricky issue that it would deserve some exploration in any series which is set in the original timeline but still features the events that kickstarted the Kelvin timeline.




Perhaps.  Some possibilities...

1) Note that the time travel in this case is accomplished through means different from every other time travel seen in the Trek Universe.  It actually hints at some things in real science, in that for some kinds of black hole, the math suggests that you can go in, and get out of the black hole into another universe.  This may be what happens in the Kelvin timeline, making it all simple.  From the point of view of the prime timeline, The _Jellyfish_ and the _Narada_ fall into a black hole, never to be seen again.

2) The changes that Nero and Spock make to the timeline are self-limiting, or Prime-Spock arranges for them to be looped.  For example, Prime-Spock tells Kelvin-Spock to never touch red matter.  No black hole is created for Spock and Nero to fall into.  The time-travel never happens, so the Kelvin timeline never happens.  Or, alternatively, knowing the impact of the supernova, and when it will be, the Kelvin Timeline avoids the death of Nero's family, and he never chases Spock down.

3) Guess, what?  Kirk, Spock, and the planet Vulcan are great and all... but the timeline manages, regardless.  The events of Next Gen happen, just with fewer Vulcans.  There's a rescue armada to help the Romulans faced with a supernova, and shortly thereafter, something goes horribly awry and Admiral Picard leaves Starfleet...


----------



## MarkB (May 26, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Perhaps.  Some possibilities...
> 
> 1) Note that the time travel in this case is accomplished through means different from every other time travel seen in the Trek Universe.  It actually hints at some things in real science, in that for some kinds of black hole, the math suggests that you can go in, and get out of the black hole into another universe.  This may be what happens in the Kelvin timeline, making it all simple.  From the point of view of the prime timeline, The _Jellyfish_ and the _Narada_ fall into a black hole, never to be seen again.



I like that one. It is, as you say, the simplest and neatest solution.



> 2) The changes that Nero and Spock make to the timeline are self-limiting, or Prime-Spock arranges for them to be looped.  For example, Prime-Spock tells Kelvin-Spock to never touch red matter.  No black hole is created for Spock and Nero to fall into.  The time-travel never happens, so the Kelvin timeline never happens.  Or, alternatively, knowing the impact of the supernova, and when it will be, the Kelvin Timeline avoids the death of Nero's family, and he never chases Spock down.



That one doesn't really work. The Spock and Nero in this universe are orphans from the other timeline. Nothing their versions in this timeline do will affect how things played out in the original timeline.



> 3) Guess, what?  Kirk, Spock, and the planet Vulcan are great and all... but the timeline manages, regardless.  The events of Next Gen happen, just with fewer Vulcans.  There's a rescue armada to help the Romulans faced with a supernova, and shortly thereafter, something goes horribly awry and Admiral Picard leaves Starfleet...




Eurgh, the whole "self-correcting history" trope is one I've never been keen on - and there's no indication of that happening in the subsequent movies. Khan got woken up early and drafted into Section 31, Kirk wound up dying in the reactor instead of Spock, the Enterprise NCC-1701 was destroyed decades early and was replaced with a more advanced model.


----------



## Umbran (May 26, 2019)

MarkB said:


> I like that one. It is, as you say, the simplest and neatest solution.




The events of ST: Into Darkness contain some evidence that this is, in fact, the case - Khan has access to technology that does not work in the prime timeline, even in the Voyager era - transporter action across interstellar distances.  Khan couldn't produce that in the Prime timeline, nor could the Klingons.  Nero, who is from the Prime timeline, didn't have that tech.  So, where did this come from?

The best answer may be that this is not so much new timeline as a different universe, with different tech pathway, and they just happens to pop into it from the black hole at the points they did.  



> That one doesn't really work. The Spock and Nero in this universe are orphans from the other timeline. Nothing their versions in this timeline do will affect how things played out in the original timeline.




No, you misunderstand - as you yourself noted - in typical Trek time travel, the prime timeline now *no longer exists*.  How things played out in the original timeline is irrelevant.  We are not considering how things play out in the Kelvine timeline.  In the Kelvin timeline, Nero travels back in time.  

Except, in the Kelvin Timeline, there may be no need, or even no possibility, for Nero to travel back in time.  PARADOX!  

Trek has generally avoided outright paradoxes in its time travel.  We don't know how they'll resolve this one.  That resolution may lead to an answer to what's going on in Picard's show.



> Eurgh, the whole "self-correcting history" trope is one I've never been keen on - and there's no indication of that happening in the subsequent movies. Khan got woken up early and drafted into Section 31, Kirk wound up dying in the reactor instead of Spock, the Enterprise NCC-1701 was destroyed decades early and was replaced with a more advanced model.




This isn't "self-correcting" so much as noting that, for purposes of what makes Picard's show happen... the changes may not matter.

Yes, Kirk dies instead of Spock.  But, just like before, we get the dead one back anyway.  No net change.  And so, the Enterprise gets to be NCC-1701-A a bit earlier -that's a name.  Big whoop.  Kirk and Spock and McCoy and Scotty can still go gallivanting around the galaxy, like before.  No big deal.  They are still around to get whales in Trek 4, for example.

What changes happen that would make it so that Picard never makes it to the captain's chair?  I can't think of any that do so clearly.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 26, 2019)

> Trek has generally avoided outright paradoxes in its time travel. We don't know how they'll resolve this one.



There is an incidence of a very clear paradox in DS9. A Bajoran poet and writer comes out of the wormhole, and the Bajoran start believing that he is the true Emissary. It also clears up a mystery on how he disappeared, and never finished his most famous work. However, it turns out that he isn't the real Emissary, and was just send to help Sisko understand his role better, and the Prophets return him to the past. Where he finishes his greatest work. Major Kira remembers that it was an unfinished work, but when she checks the historical data, she finds the work completed and that the poet didn't disappear. 

In the end, we can speculate endless what would "logically" happen. CBS and Paramount seemed to go with the Prime Timeline still being around to tell new stories in it, even after the destruction of Hobus. Everything in the TV shows, including Discovery and Picard are supposed to be Prime Timeline. Of course, only until further notice. Retcons are always possible.


----------



## MarkB (May 26, 2019)

Umbran said:


> The events of ST: Into Darkness contain some evidence that this is, in fact, the case - Khan has access to technology that does not work in the prime timeline, even in the Voyager era - transporter action across interstellar distances.  Khan couldn't produce that in the Prime timeline, nor could the Klingons.  Nero, who is from the Prime timeline, didn't have that tech.  So, where did this come from?



That is explained in-universe. Scotty eventually manages to create a transporter equation that will allow transporters to be used across vast distances, and in/out of warp drive. This was in the far future, probably after the end of DS9.

Spock then takes that knowledge back in time to the Kelvin timeline, and is able to use it to modify a transporter there. It subsequently falls into Khan's hands via Section 31, and he uses it (perhaps further modified through his intellect) for even longer-range transport.



> No, you misunderstand - as you yourself noted - in typical Trek time travel, the prime timeline now *no longer exists*.  How things played out in the original timeline is irrelevant.  We are not considering how things play out in the Kelvine timeline.  In the Kelvin timeline, Nero travels back in time.
> 
> Except, in the Kelvin Timeline, there may be no need, or even no possibility, for Nero to travel back in time.  PARADOX!
> 
> Trek has generally avoided outright paradoxes in its time travel.  We don't know how they'll resolve this one.  That resolution may lead to an answer to what's going on in Picard's show.



No, those paradoxes are par for the course in Star Trek time travel. In _City on the Edge of Forever_ McCoy goes back in time and changes the timeline so that humanity never went to the stars. It doesn't matter that McCoy in the new timeline had no way of ever reaching the Guardian of Forever in order to go back in time, or even that he may never have existed, because he's not the McCoy who went back in time.



> This isn't "self-correcting" so much as noting that, for purposes of what makes Picard's show happen... the changes may not matter.
> 
> Yes, Kirk dies instead of Spock.  But, just like before, we get the dead one back anyway.  No net change.  And so, the Enterprise gets to be NCC-1701-A a bit earlier -that's a name.  Big whoop.  Kirk and Spock and McCoy and Scotty can still go gallivanting around the galaxy, like before.  No big deal.  They are still around to get whales in Trek 4, for example.
> 
> What changes happen that would make it so that Picard never makes it to the captain's chair?  I can't think of any that do so clearly.



I mean, logically, Picard and everyone in the later series wouldn't exist in recognisable form. Chaos theory would dictate that anyone conceived after the timeline was changed would have the circumstances of their conception altered in minor or major ways, leading to them at best being replaced by what are genetically their twin or non-twin siblings.

But hey, that's not how time travel in fiction generally works, so sure, there may be an alt-history Picard in a rather different looking universe who had some rather different experiences than ours did. But do you think that's really the Picard they want to write about?


----------



## Umbran (May 27, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is an incidence of a very clear paradox in DS9. A Bajoran poet and writer comes out of the wormhole, and the Bajoran start believing that he is the true Emissary. It also clears up a mystery on how he disappeared, and never finished his most famous work. However, it turns out that he isn't the real Emissary, and was just send to help Sisko understand his role better, and the Prophets return him to the past. Where he finishes his greatest work. Major Kira remembers that it was an unfinished work, but when she checks the historical data, she finds the work completed and that the poet didn't disappear.




That's not really a logical paradox - that's merely the typical memory-discontinuity found in anyone involved with time travel.  It is not so much a paradox as a trope.

 I'm talking about outright Grandfather Paradox stuff, where the actions taken during time travel make the action of time travel outright impossible.  



> In the end, we can speculate endless what would "logically" happen.




Yes.  And it is fun to do so.  Please don't try to stop us, for we will trample over you if you get in the way.


----------



## Umbran (May 27, 2019)

MarkB said:


> That is explained in-universe. Scotty eventually manages to create a transporter equation that will allow transporters to be used across vast distances, and in/out of warp drive. This was in the far future, probably after the end of DS9.
> 
> Spock then takes that knowledge back in time to the Kelvin timeline, and is able to use it to modify a transporter there. It subsequently falls into Khan's hands via Section 31, and he uses it (perhaps further modified through his intellect) for even longer-range transport.




That certainly wasn't in the movie.  And sounds pretty tortured, as I don't think we see Spock ever use such a device on screen.  It sounds like writers realizing they had introduced things that would give fans apoplexy, and screwing on a solution in a novelization or comic book after the fact and claiming that makes it better.

And, thankfully, Trek has always been incredibly loose with its canon - if it isn't on a screen, don't count on it.  

While I'll posit and consider possible solutions, I actually expect they'll simply say, "Yes, usually, time travel hasn't created alternate timelines.  This time it did.  Spock fell in a black hole, and was gone, and that's it."



> No, those paradoxes are par for the course in Star Trek time travel. In _City on the Edge of Forever_ McCoy goes back in time and changes the timeline so that humanity never went to the stars. It doesn't matter that McCoy in the new timeline had no way of ever reaching the Guardian of Forever in order to go back in time, or even that he may never have existed, because he's not the McCoy who went back in time.




Hm.  Point.  I'll have to think about that one.



> I mean, logically, Picard and everyone in the later series wouldn't exist in recognisable form. Chaos theory would dictate...




Um, no.  That's not how chaos theory works at all.  Chaos theory is about the dynamics of some particular kinds of systems, whose parts are very easy to specify, but whose behaviors are highly dependent upon initial conditions, such that predicting their behavior in the long term is nigh impossible.  

We do not know how dependent on initial conditions the history of the Federation, and its planetary populations, are.  They are very much not "easy to specify", if nothing else. 
 There are two basic models for fictional time travel, one is as you describe - any tiny change amplifies astoundingly.  The other is that a great many things aren't that dependent on the interactions of a few individuals (meaning, the protagonists).  In the latter, most of the universe marches on, hardly noticing the human drama.


----------



## Hussar (May 27, 2019)

Heh.  Maybe Discovery changed history.


----------



## MarkB (May 27, 2019)

Umbran said:


> That certainly wasn't in the movie.  And sounds pretty tortured, as I don't think we see Spock ever use such a device on screen.  It sounds like writers realizing they had introduced things that would give fans apoplexy, and screwing on a solution in a novelization or comic book after the fact and claiming that makes it better.



It was in the movie. In the first movie Spock explains to Scotty that the transporter formula he's using is one that he _will_ invent in the future. He doesn't specify when, but as you pointed out, they weren't using transporters that way during any of the subsequent TV series, so we'd have to assume it was after them.

And then, in the second movie, after Khan uses a transporter to beam to the Klingon homeworld, Scotty complains loudly about how Khan got hold of his transporter beaming equation, letting us as the audience know that this is how he was able to make such a long-range transport.



> Um, no.  That's not how chaos theory works at all.  Chaos theory is about the dynamics of some particular kinds of systems, whose parts are very easy to specify, but whose behaviors are highly dependent upon initial conditions, such that predicting their behavior in the long term is nigh impossible.



It applies to any and all systems of sufficient complexity. It certainly applies to genetics, whose building blocks are specific, but whose outcomes very enormously depending upon initial conditions.

Nudge those initial conditions even slightly, and a different spermatozoon fertilises the same egg. Genetic result: A person who, if you ran a genetic comparison to their original-universe counterpart, would show as being a twin sibling. At the very least, it's a straight coin-flip whether a person's alt-universe counterpart would be the same sex as they are.

Vary them more (and the vagaries of cellular formation mean that, for anyone conceived more than a few months after the propagation of the triggering event, not only the sperm but also the ovum will be effectively different than their original-universe equivalents), and a genetic comparison to their original-universe counterpart would peg them merely as siblings, not even twin siblings.

And that's assuming that peoples' lives continue to proceed so nigh-identically that the dates of those conceptions tally up identically to those dates in the original universe. Pretty soon, they won't - even tiny changes in initial circumstances will lead to massive accumulations of differences to how peoples' daily lives play out - and the result will be kids born at different times, in different circumstances, and some being born who wouldn't exist in the original universe, and vice versa.


But, as I said, that's just how it would work in reality if such a thing were possible. In TV-land they don't want it to work that way, because they want to explore the different ways their cast's lives would play out, not the lives of the complete strangers who replaced them.


----------



## Umbran (May 27, 2019)

MarkB said:


> It was in the movie. In the first movie Spock explains to Scotty that the transporter formula he's using is one that he _will_ invent in the future. He doesn't specify when, but as you pointed out, they weren't using transporters that way during any of the subsequent TV series, so we'd have to assume it was after them.
> 
> And then, in the second movie, after Khan uses a transporter to beam to the Klingon homeworld, Scotty complains loudly about how Khan got hold of his transporter beaming equation, letting us as the audience know that this is how he was able to make such a long-range transport.




Okay, so two lines across two movies are used to establish this?  And one of them is really speculation on Scotty's part?  Not what I call a solid establishment of the truth.

But, fine.  I'll allow that the long-range transporter, while genre-breaking, does not stand as great support of how they aren't in the same universe.  



> It applies to any and all systems of sufficient complexity. It certainly applies to genetics, whose building blocks are specific, but whose outcomes very enormously depending upon initial conditions.




It sounds a lot like you are confusing, "Too many variables to account for," and, "chaos theory."  You seem to be confusing "complicated" with "extremely sensitive to initial conditions."

The human body (or any multi-cellular organism) is astoundingly complex.  Trillions of cells doing their own thing.  However, your system is *NOT* all that sensitive to initial conditions - wake up in the morning after sleeping on your left side, or your right side, and it doesn't really make much difference.  The body maintains homeostasis, and continues on largely unaffected by small changes.

This compared to a three-body problem, or a damped & driven oscillator, which are incredibly simple systems, but if you do the experiment twice, with a a couple millimeters different placement, and you get completely different results over time.

Lots of seemingly complicated systems are such that differences in initial conditions are corrected for, or dampened away.  Many others are such that a small differences in initial conditions lead to small and/or predictable differences in final state.  Neither of these are chaotic, and chaos theory does not apply to them.

None of us have traveled in time and changed the past, right?  So, none of us can say if the progress of history is really all that sensitive to conditions.




> Nudge those initial conditions even slightly, and a different spermatozoon fertilises the same egg. Genetic result: A person who, if you ran a genetic comparison to their original-universe counterpart, would show as being a twin sibling.




So, is your contention that the overall course of history depends on the detailed content of a person's DNA?  That seems a little severe.  

We could go very deeply into nature vs nurture here.  A person who is at worst Picard's twin is raised with Picard's parents, with Picard's basic life.  You think this person is destined to be very different from Picard?  I am not convinced.

But, be that as it may, I don't think this will be an issue.  I think they are going to (and actually always have) consider the Kelvin timeline *separate* from the Prime, with no impact upon it.  I think that was actually the point of having the time travel plot - that they could have a series of movies that *didn't* infringe on their ability to have stories set in the usual canon.  

Doubly so now that it looks like the Kelvin timeline movies are done.  They aren't going to hitch themselves to a movie timeline that petered out.  The movies exist, but have no plot relevance for the Prime Canon.


----------



## cmad1977 (May 27, 2019)

Why am I so disinterested in this? Seems like it’s kinda in my enjoyment wheelhouse. Oh well.


----------



## Morrus (May 27, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Why am I so disinterested in this?




Only you can answer that.


----------



## MarkB (May 27, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> Why am I so disinterested in this?



Lack of any real information? The trailer doesn't really give us much clue what the series is actually going to be like. At this point it could be anything from an action packed retrospective anthology to a slow paced introspective character study.


----------



## Ryujin (May 28, 2019)

Worth checking out just for the presence of Sir Patrick.


----------



## Janx (May 28, 2019)

Picard in TNG had been a strong moral voice for that era.

Stewart implied that he was interested because they pitched an idea that had something to say.

I would bet the rescue mission revealed some decisions/human character issues that made Picard quit. He went on trial and represented Humanity to the Q.  If humans betray his faith...  Resigning in protest makes sense as a Picard thing to do

Star Trek is a social justice kind of show, so I'd bet whatever happened, is going to parallel some of what we have going on now (without saying what's going on now).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 28, 2019)

Umbran said:


> That's not really a logical paradox - that's merely the typical memory-discontinuity found in anyone involved with time travel.  It is not so much a paradox as a trope.
> 
> I'm talking about outright Grandfather Paradox stuff, where the actions taken during time travel make the action of time travel outright impossible.



No, it is definitely different. No one but the poet traveled through time. Only Sisko and Akorem Laan entered the wormhole to talk with the prophets. The trope would require everyone not time traveling themselves to forgot the old timeline. The episode is Accession.


----------



## Raunalyn (May 28, 2019)

Janx said:


> Picard in TNG had been a strong moral voice for that era.
> 
> Stewart implied that he was interested because they pitched an idea that had something to say.
> 
> ...




It would be absolutely wonderful and well worth it to see John De Lancie show up as Q. He was always one of my favorite "villains" in TNG.


----------



## ART! (May 28, 2019)

Janx said:


> Picard in TNG had been a strong moral voice for that era.
> 
> Stewart implied that he was interested because they pitched an idea that had something to say.
> 
> ...




Pretty much my thoughts on the matter as well. 



Raunalyn said:


> It would be absolutely wonderful and well worth it to see John De Lancie show up as Q. He was always one of my favorite "villains" in TNG.




I know they haven't announced any cameos, but it would make sense to push any reveals along those lines to much closer to the show's premiere. It's hard to imagine _no one_ from the series or movies making an appearance of some kind over the course of 10 episodes. After that, if the series continues, it seems even more likely.

Wikipedia lists this (with their source here):

Santiago Cabrera as the pilot of Picard's ship and a skilled thief.[6]
Michelle Hurd as a former intelligence officer struggling with substance abuse.[6]


----------



## trappedslider (May 29, 2019)

Looks like Data is coming along for the ride https://tinyurl.com/y673wo9o


----------



## MarkB (May 29, 2019)

trappedslider said:


> Looks like Data is coming along for the ride https://tinyurl.com/y673wo9o




Or Lore. Or B4.


----------



## Ryujin (May 30, 2019)

MarkB said:


> Or Lore. Or B4.




Given the way things ended, Data would be unlikely.


----------



## ART! (May 30, 2019)

The Data thing is pretty vague, but there are a lot of options. 

It could just be older Data who has implemented an aging subroutine, or living tissue grafts that age. 

Or, if it's a short scene, they could maybe afford some de-age-ing CGI work. 

Or Spiner could play a Soong relative.


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2019)

Janx said:


> I would bet the rescue mission revealed some decisions/human character issues that made Picard quit. He went on trial and represented Humanity to the Q.  If humans betray his faith...  Resigning in protest makes sense as a Picard thing to do.




Very.  I imagine, for example, Picard would react *very* poorly to Section 31 raising its head during or after the rescue.  The idea that his Federation used such a thing as its support... he wouldn't take that well at all.

If he was rescuing Romulans, and then the Federation put them in internment camps or otherwise treated them badly.  That would get a resignation in protest as well.  I mean, today, making a statement about how refugees are viewed and treated?  That would be totally Trek.


----------



## MarkB (May 30, 2019)

ART! said:


> The Data thing is pretty vague, but there are a lot of options.
> 
> It could just be older Data who has implemented an aging subroutine, or living tissue grafts that age.
> 
> Or, if it's a short scene, they could maybe afford some de-age-ing CGI work.




The more significant issue is that he sacrificed his life during his last on-screen appearance.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 30, 2019)

Ryujin said:


> Given the way things ended, Data would be unlikely.




Nah, the novel or comics and the game already have found ways for Data to return. He basically takes over B4 thanks to B4 having gotten his... data transfer.


----------



## MarkB (May 30, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nah, the novel or comics and the game already have found ways for Data to return. He basically takes over B4 thanks to B4 having gotten his... data transfer.




Kinda sucks to B B4, I guess.


----------



## ART! (May 30, 2019)

MarkB said:


> The more significant issue is that he sacrificed his life during his last on-screen appearance.






Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nah, the novel or comics and the game already have found ways for Data to return. He basically takes over B4 thanks to B4 having gotten his... data transfer.




Yeah, there was some David Mack trilogy that I couldn't finish but I hear winds up with Data back in some form or other.


----------



## lowkey13 (May 30, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (May 30, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Nah, the novel or comics and the game already have found ways for Data to return. He basically takes over B4 thanks to B4 having gotten his... data transfer.




Well, there are a couple of ways this has gone:

(From Memory Alpha)

_"In the novel Cold Equations: The Persistence of Memory, Doctor Bruce Maddox is contemplating deleting Data's memory engrams from B-4, who is kept in storage along with the remains of Soong's other prototype, Lore, and Lal, Data's daughter, when they are stolen by the Breen. Doctor Soong – who survived his death by transferring his mind into an android body far more Human in appearance than Data's – manages to recover his "children", and transfers Data's memories from B-4 into his own body, unable to complete the new body he had been attempting to construct for his "son". "_

This solution takes too much screen time to establish, but would handle the age issue.  

_"The comic book series Star Trek: Countdown (a tie-in to the 2009 Star Trek film) and the timeline established for the Star Trek Online game depict Data as alive in 2387. Sometime prior, Geordi La Forge installed Data's emotion chip into B-4's neural net. This caused the uploads to B-4 by Data to fully activate, allowing Data's full memory and personality to assert itself, essentially resurrecting him."_

This is easy to establish on screen, but does leave us with an age issue.

Of course, Spiner could be appearing in flashbacks or dream sequences or the like.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 31, 2019)

After having seen Captain Marvel, the "de-aging" tech is pretty impressive these days. But it might be also too expensive.


----------



## Ryujin (May 31, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> After having seen Captain Marvel, the "de-aging" tech is pretty impressive these days. But it might be also too expensive.




Having seen "Aquaman", it's still got a ways to go


----------



## cmad1977 (May 31, 2019)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> After having seen Captain Marvel, the "de-aging" tech is pretty impressive these days. But it might be also too expensive.




To be fair, Samuel L Jackson looks like he’s 40 maybe now... and he’s 70 or so.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 1, 2019)

cmad1977 said:


> To be fair, Samuel L Jackson looks like he’s 40 maybe now... and he’s 70 or so.




But also to be fair, people usually think 40 looks old.


----------

