Just in their presentation.
Spoilers Star Trek: Strange New Worlds 3x02 - "Wedding Bell Blues"
Just watched it last night for the first time - and not too bad.
They didn't manage to work this into the episode, did they?
Not an auspicious beginning: did the scriptwriter somehow forget that scene in "Whom Gods Destroy," where Spock compares Marta's dance with the dances Vulcan children learn in nursery school?
And if I have a bit of trouble believing Babs Olusanmokun and Booker Bradshaw are really playing the same M'Benga (or that McCoy's predecessor would become his subordinate), I really have trouble, at least at the beginning of the episode, believing Cillian O'Sullivan as, well, the template for the Roger Korby played by Michael Strong.
But the episode has barely begun, and Spock has only just given Chapel the book.
And if I have a bit of trouble believing Babs Olusanmokun and Booker Bradshaw are really playing the same M'Benga (or that McCoy's predecessor would become his subordinate), I really have trouble, at least at the beginning of the episode, believing Cillian O'Sullivan as, well, the template for the Roger Korby played by Michael Strong.
But the episode has barely begun, and Spock has only just given Chapel the book.
She was the Orion nutjob from "Whom Gods Destroy," who had figured out a method to ensure permanent male fidelity ("he is my lover, and I have to kill him"), played by Yvonne Craig. <Dr. Rumack, from Airplane>But that's not important now.</Rumack>
Still, at times, it seemed a bit stretched, making me wonder when "Dad" would show up and put an end to it.
Still, it begs the question of there being little or nothing (other than different hair and a different coat) to explain why Uhura or Spock wouldn't recognize Trelane only a few years later in "The Squire of Gothos." Or why O'Sullivan's Korby neither looks nor sounds like Michael Strong's Korby.
I gave it a 7, deducting a point for the continuity trouble.
On the other hand, I can totally believe Rhys Darby as Trelane, and though I'd heard something about him showing up, and turning Korby into a dog, I wasn't expecting it to happen so soon. And as soon as I realized that this was a comedy, and that it was somewhere in the gray area between cornball and screwball, I also realized that "Rule of Funny" trumps both logic and continuity.
Still, at times, it seemed a bit stretched, making me wonder when "Dad" would show up and put an end to it.
Still, it begs the question of there being little or nothing (other than different hair and a different coat) to explain why Uhura or Spock wouldn't recognize Trelane only a few years later in "The Squire of Gothos." Or why O'Sullivan's Korby neither looks nor sounds like Michael Strong's Korby.
I gave it a 7, deducting a point for the continuity trouble.
Last edited:
Batgirl.
Did anyone actually see Trelane in his human appearing form? He was a Vulvan bartender and then the Andorian wedding planner.
Also Q shenanigans can erase memories. I like to think the timeline is Squire as mama Q is still there, then Wedding as she's now had enough of him and then finally Q2 where Q resorts to hoping Janeway will fix his errant son.
I know it isn't 100% confirmed that Trelane is the same son as Q2 but I'm sticking to it.
When life gives you a handsome Irish studmuffin don't question it.
Cool.
So, are we expecting to see Batgirl on SNW, to preserve strict continuity with TOS?
Yes, please.
Because he's not playing Michael Strong.
No, but the plumper, jollier Mudd might work again.
Q are not linear beings, Uhura and Spock are.
Last edited:
If you pay attention you’ll note that Trelane appears differently to various people throughout the episode. Scotty and Spock never saw him in his Gothos form.
Except Trelane is not a Q. While John de Lancie voiced Trelane's father, that doesn't mean he was a Q.
(No dialogue says it, and he wasn't credited as Q. I'm aware of the novel saying this, but as we all know, novels aren't part of the continuity or canon unless they actually get added on screen by someone.)
SNW Trelane knows good and well the events of the future TOS episode. No one on Pike's Enterprise has a clue who this Andorian wedding planner really is.
Let us discuss assumptions:
There is a general assumption that our trickster is Trelane. Aside from costuming, I understand that this was the writer's intention. But that's never more than suggested in the episode itself.
There is also an assumption that casting John de Lancie as the trickster's father canonizes the common fan assumption that Trelane is a juvenile Q (and possibly even "q"). But that's only suggested.
The assumption that the Q exist outside of linear time is an interesting one (if that was ever established canonically, I don't remember it; on the other hand, that's the characteristic property of the Prophets of Bajor) is neither a necessary assumption for explaining how Spock, Uhura, and Scott will be able to interact with Trelane in "The Squire of Gothos" without recognizing him (avoiding being recognized a few years later doesn't require non-linear time, nor a sufficient assumption (they don't exist outside of linear time).
On the other hand, the ability to project an entirely different appearance to any arbitrary number of observers makes perfect sense, and is at least a sufficient assumption, and may be a necessary one: we've seen Q project different appearances; the Organians have said in so many words that the stuck-in-the-Middle-Ages appearance was "mere appearance, for your sake." And we've canonically seen a Salt Vampire simultaneously project three different appearances (young Nancy, middle-aged Nancy, and "Wrigley's Pleasure Planet" Nancy, which also tells us that a Salt Vampire's mimicry is not purely physical shapeshifting, and may or may not involve any physical shapeshifting at all). So it is entirely plausible that our trickster, who may or may not be Trelane, may or may not be a juvenile Q, and may or may not be "q," can do this.
There is a general assumption that our trickster is Trelane. Aside from costuming, I understand that this was the writer's intention. But that's never more than suggested in the episode itself.
There is also an assumption that casting John de Lancie as the trickster's father canonizes the common fan assumption that Trelane is a juvenile Q (and possibly even "q"). But that's only suggested.
The assumption that the Q exist outside of linear time is an interesting one (if that was ever established canonically, I don't remember it; on the other hand, that's the characteristic property of the Prophets of Bajor) is neither a necessary assumption for explaining how Spock, Uhura, and Scott will be able to interact with Trelane in "The Squire of Gothos" without recognizing him (avoiding being recognized a few years later doesn't require non-linear time, nor a sufficient assumption (they don't exist outside of linear time).
On the other hand, the ability to project an entirely different appearance to any arbitrary number of observers makes perfect sense, and is at least a sufficient assumption, and may be a necessary one: we've seen Q project different appearances; the Organians have said in so many words that the stuck-in-the-Middle-Ages appearance was "mere appearance, for your sake." And we've canonically seen a Salt Vampire simultaneously project three different appearances (young Nancy, middle-aged Nancy, and "Wrigley's Pleasure Planet" Nancy, which also tells us that a Salt Vampire's mimicry is not purely physical shapeshifting, and may or may not involve any physical shapeshifting at all). So it is entirely plausible that our trickster, who may or may not be Trelane, may or may not be a juvenile Q, and may or may not be "q," can do this.
I know "the writers said it was" is an argument built on sand but at what point (in the general sense) do we just accept there's enough evidence in the episode showing us something without needing to be told outright and have the dots connected for us?
There's the example of Q showing up after he had already died, for whatever that's worth.
Jack "My father told me all about you. I thought you were dead."
Q "Oh, and here I was hoping the next generation wouldn't think so linearly."
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
