Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like this guy. he played a delightfully wicked Tarleton or whatever they called Tarleton in the movie.

Tavington... I mean, I guess if they're gonna change the name, may as well keep it close right??

I don wonder what specific role, as in antagonist/protagonist type, he will fill. He tends to have the bad guy roles down.

He'd be an awesome Fleet Captain Garth of Izar...

I've always imagined Xander Berkeley (24, Boot at the End, Walking Dead) as the perfect Garth of Izar. He even looks a little like Steve Ihnat (the original Garth in ToS).

 Breotan wrote:
I've always imagined Xander Berkeley (24, Boot at the End, Walking Dead) as the perfect Garth of Izar. He even looks a little like Steve Ihnat (the original Garth in ToS).

Oh wow, yea he would fit well.

 Frazzled wrote:
I like this guy. he played a delightfully wicked Tarleton or whatever they called Tarleton in the movie.

Hes a fantastic actor - I really enjoyed his character in the patriot. This show will probably end his career though.

He'll have a steady income on the convention circuit for the rest of his life, though.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hes a fantastic actor - I really enjoyed his character in the patriot. This show will probably end his career though.

I dunno... doesn't seem to have hurt Picard or Kirk's careers... Other more side character type actors are a different story though. I personally think that he's established enough that this wont really hurt him.

That I'm kind of curious about, actually.

Stewart essentially went from Picard to Xavier. Admittedly, he probably did a whole lot of theatre stuff I'm not aware of.

Shatner was what? Kirk to TJ Hooker to Boston Legal dude, with some smallish roles in between.

 Compel wrote:

Shatner was what? Kirk to TJ Hooker to Boston Legal dude, with some smallish roles in between.

Dont forget his role as the face of travel websites

 Compel wrote:
That I'm kind of curious about, actually.

Stewart essentially went from Picard to Xavier. Admittedly, he probably did a whole lot of theatre stuff I'm not aware of.

Shatner was what? Kirk to TJ Hooker to Boston Legal dude, with some smallish roles in between.

Patrick Stewart came from 'walking the boards' and still does so now, he is quite often on in plays in Stratford and London. Going back some he also played a role in I Claudius, alongside some of the theatre greats of our time; Derek Jacobi, John Hurt and Brian Blessed.

I did read in an interview that he actually viewed the bridge of the Enterprise as the stage of a theatre in terms of how he projected himself. It probably explains why he had such a presence and power on the screen. Funny to think that he had originally auditioned of the role of Data, but the producers instantly imagined him as Picard (it's another one of those great 'what ifs' I think, along with the role of the Terminator almost going to OJ Simpson!)

I believe when he first got the Picard role there was a certain amount of ire from the theatre community (some of whom looked down their noses at a TV series, as a lesser art form). Out of devilment he said that his entire theatre career had been so he could build to getting that kind of role, which I think caused a few heads to explode

 Pacific wrote:

I believe when he first got the Picard role there was a certain amount of ire from the theatre community (some of whom looked down their noses at a TV series, as a lesser art form). Out of devilment he said that his entire theatre career had been so he could build to getting that kind of role, which I think caused a few heads to explode

Although he also apparently didn't expect it to last... There was an interview a while back where he said that the initial drafts for the show looked terrible, and he took the part to get an expenses-paid trip to the US, expecting that the show would be cancelled after a few episodes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
Shatner was what? Kirk to TJ Hooker to Boston Legal dude, with some smallish roles in between.

He also hosted Rescue 911, wrote (maybe) some books, released some CDs, and God only knows what else. He might have spent a bit of time off-screen since Star Trek, but dude's been busy.

What is this Xavier and Picard you are talking about, i will always know him as Gurney Halleck from Dune

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
What is this Xavier and Picard you are talking about, i will always know him as Gurney Halleck from Dune

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Hes a fantastic actor - I really enjoyed his character in the patriot. This show will probably end his career though.

I dunno... doesn't seem to have hurt Picard or Kirk's careers... Other more side character type actors are a different story though. I personally think that he's established enough that this wont really hurt him.

I don't mean that taking on a startrek series roll will end your career - Stewart and Shatner have done fine for themselves. The supporting rolls don't seem to do much else - Jordie did do reading rainbow - off the top of my head that's the only supporting character I've seen in another film/show (I'm sure there are others but nothing significant). I assume Issac's will be taking on the roll of the captain so I think hell be okay in that sense.

I mean taking on a role that dries up in the first season as a complete failure - that kills your career. I could be wrong about the show though - it could be a hit. I will give it a chance for sure.

Nimoy became a pretty good director actually.

 Xenomancers wrote:


I don't mean that taking on a startrek series roll will end your career - Stewart and Shatner have done fine for themselves. The supporting rolls don't seem to do much else - Jordie did do reading rainbow - off the top of my head that's the only supporting character I've seen in another film/show (I'm sure there are others but nothing significant). I assume Issac's will be taking on the roll of the captain so I think hell be okay in that sense.

Brent Spiner (data) was the mad scientist in the Independence Day films...

Will Wheaton plays Will Wheaton on TV

And I know Marina Sirtis (Troi) has a decent IMDB filmography, but I couldn't recall hardly anything she's done. I'm Sure Jonathan Frakes and Michael Dorn have done stuff sicne, but I couldn't tell ya what it is.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
i will always know him as Gurney Halleck from Dune

Gurney who? Surely you mean Sejanus from I, Claudius.

The Doctor from Voyager also played a recurring role in the Stargate series, and George Takei, aside from his gay-activist-internet-persona-thing, did much the same as Stewart and returned to do a lot of theater stuff after TOS.
The guy who played Q I've seen in other things as well.

And I know it's not Star Trek, but Nathan Fillion has done quite allright for himself since Firefly.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm Sure Jonathan Frakes and Michael Dorn have done stuff sicne, but I couldn't tell ya what it is.

I think Frakes has mainly stuck with directing.

Michael Dorn was the voice of I Am Weasel. He seems to have largely stuck with voice acting (animation and video games) since Star Trek.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I don't mean that taking on a startrek series roll will end your career - Stewart and Shatner have done fine for themselves. The supporting rolls don't seem to do much else - Jordie did do reading rainbow - off the top of my head that's the only supporting character I've seen in another film/show (I'm sure there are others but nothing significant). I assume Issac's will be taking on the roll of the captain so I think hell be okay in that sense.

Brent Spiner (data) was the mad scientist in the Independence Day films...

Will Wheaton plays Will Wheaton on TV

And I know Marina Sirtis (Troi) has a decent IMDB filmography, but I couldn't recall hardly anything she's done. I'm Sure Jonathan Frakes and Michael Dorn have done stuff sicne, but I couldn't tell ya what it is.

Mad scientist dude - how did I forget that! Ofc Will Wheaton - notable appearances.

Haha, yes very true Manchu

Think Marina Sirtis did some of the voice acting in Mass Effect (maybe the 2nd one?)

Will Wheaton also had a part in Dark Matter (should point out not playing himself!) He was also in a Star Trek themed The Weakest Link where he came across as a bit of a smarmy idiot Interestingly turns out Levar Burton (Laforge) is a rather intelligent chap..

Wil, before he started doing Tabletop.




Was primarily a professional poker player and made a respectable amount of money from it, as I understand.

So yeah, I think the premise of "Star Trek is career ending." Has been very much disproved

Yeah, Star Trek doesn't really end your career, it usually means you don't have to bother with one anymore. Several years of a successful TV show makes you a good bit of money, and you get to ride the convention gravy train for life.

So the actress who's playing the lead character has kicked off the promo interviews for STD, and apparently we are getting "Star Trek: Universe - the Man of Steelening" afterall.

Because of course we are. Ugh.

 Yodhrin wrote:
So the actress who's playing the lead character has kicked off the promo interviews for STD, and apparently we are getting "Star Trek: Universe - the Man of Steelening" afterall.

Because of course we are. Ugh.

What? Can you clarify further?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So the actress who's playing the lead character has kicked off the promo interviews for STD, and apparently we are getting "Star Trek: Universe - the Man of Steelening" afterall.

Because of course we are. Ugh.

What? Can you clarify further?

She was doing a presser about her being confirmed for the lead role and other than the usual "oh it's such an honour to work on such a storied and long-running franchise maximum mega-respect blah blah" platitudes the main thing she seemed keen to get across was that this will be "rawer" and "grittier" and "darker" Trek. IE, the Snyderification of sci-fi continues apace, because apparently everything has to be the BSG reboot now.

I don't think its possible to make a raw/gritty Star Trek. That would truly be different.

I want a trek with Space Ninjas. And Tequila. And the Federation beating the snot out of everyone else*


*I just realized I want Star Trek: Klingons! See the epic adventures of Kang and Korloff as they rampage across space, having galactic adventures, beating the Evil Federation bad guys, and getting the girl!

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't think its possible to make a raw/gritty Star Trek. That would truly be different.

I want a trek with Space Ninjas. And Tequila. And the Federation beating the snot out of everyone else*


*I just realized I want Star Trek: Klingons! See the epic adventures of Kang and Korloff as they rampage across space, having galactic adventures, beating the Evil Federation bad guys, and getting the girl!

Who knows it might be awesome, but I expect it will be written by people of the nuBSG school who'll want to write a whole series worth of In The Pale Moonlight-but-grittier-rawr etc. Honestly I never thought I'd say this but, I'm sad Fuller isn't involved any more. At least the early indications coming from him were that he intended to take the show back to a positive, utopian, intellectual tone even if the resulting show probably would have still been a bit too character-drama focused under him for my taste.

I kinda agree, Deep Space Nine should be the darkest and grittiest that Star Trek should get. - And lets not forget, DS9 can get VERY dark and gritty...

However, DS9 was dark and gritty with a point. Star Trek doesn't work if it doesn't have a point to it.

I had a theory about these points of Star Trek before.

Star Trek (The Original Series): It shows the viewers, the watchers an idea of the possibility that humanity can be good. A good man, almost

Star Trek The Next Generation: It explores further the idea of "what does a Good Man look like?"

Deep Space 9: "We know what a Good Man looks like, what does it take to become one? How do you live as one in a complex world?"


Star Trek stories are morality tales, that's their function. To make them dark and gritty... It's missing the point, unless they really are trying something like, "The Siege of AR-558" or "In the Pale Moonlight" where the point of them was to ask the questions, not necessarily provide the answers. And even then, to base a whole series around that, I don't think it works.

More than that though, Compel, and the reason I don't think DS9 stands up quite as well as others do, is that in the context of their time TOS and TNG were subversive.

People living in a modern context forget just how radical it was in 60's America to have a show like Trek with a black female bridge officer, an Asian-American Navigator, a Russian helmsman, and a mixed-race first officer, and to tell the stories it told through them. It obviously wasn't a perfect paragon of identity politics by modern standards, but again in the context of the 60's it was subversive.

They also forget, somehow, despite many of them being alive at the time, how radical it was to have a show in the 80's, the decade of consumption and capitalism, depicting a society that hadn't just solved the most obvious problems of capitalism but had abandoned it and moved on to a higher form of society based on ideals and self-improvement over material acquisition, and which depicted a version of the Federation and of Starfleet that had matured beyond the cowboy antics of Kirk's era.

The problem with DS9 was that, while it often overtook the previous Treks in a technical way -better written dialogue, better special effects, a better mix of episodic and serial storytelling- it stopped being subversive, because the answer to "how do you live as a good man in a complex world" looked suspiciously like American liberal(literal, not "leftist") centrism - the economic side of the Federation's advancement as a society was downplayed in favour of focusing even more on tolerance, the Ferengi turned from an embodiment of the inherent barbarism of capitalism into comedy sexist trogs reframed so their greed becomes a playful joke and the viewer is invited to dislike them mostly for their treatment of women, and the overall tone of the later arc is a ringing endorsement of "pragmatic" military interventionism. Regretfully(outwardly) pro-war, socially liberal, economically neoliberal was the sociopolitical context of the day, and as DS9 went on it reinforced, justified, or excused that context rather than subverting it.

I'm not saying DS9 turned into right-wing propaganda or anything, but as the writers strove to depict a "complex world" they lost the show's edge. In other words, DS9 spent less time criticising our real society and more criticising its own, and I don't watch Trek to see utopian optimism deconstructed and traduced.

For my money, DS9 peaked with Sisko in "Explorers". A Starfleet officer, almost broken by the loss of his spouse, finally finishes healing his damaged soul by applying his engineering skill to a project driven by his newfound appreciation for the local culture and through the love of his son, and in the process strikes a humiliating blow against an opponent of the Federation without ever raising a hand in anger. After that point, while there are a lot of episodes of good TV drama before DS9 finishes its run, there aren't very many episodes of good Trek, IMO anyway.

And from what we've seen so far, STD looks like being late-DS9 on steroids, with the added "benefit" of them deciding to "reinterpret" the aesthetic of the day and the appearance of several established alien races. Bleurgh.