Ideally? None.
Dump that whole angle.
The best fix for this mess would have been a clean sheet.of paper. Not practical, alas.
I honestly think a more interesting angle might have been to make Michael Amanda Grayson's niece. Spock has always embraced his Vulcan side over his human side. It might have been really fun to flesh out the human side of his family.
Honestly, even Amanda rejected part of the human side too, opting to embrace the Vulcan way as a better way. Something kind of ignored in the TOS films.
Well, she describes it as a better way, but she never goes unemotional/logic-emphasizing in the least.
No but there isn't the same value out on "the human way." as the Vulcan way.
By bringing Stacey Abrams to play the part of the President of the Earth, it alienated large portions of the population... some of who might have been fans.
Personally, I haven't rewatched that episode since it was released.
Also, when rewatching Disco, as part of my general Trek rewatchings, I usually just skip Disco S4.
Personally, I haven't rewatched that episode since it was released.
Also, when rewatching Disco, as part of my general Trek rewatchings, I usually just skip Disco S4.
Last edited:
President of the Federation was Rillak: part human/Bajoran/Cardassian.
Abrams played President of Earth, if memory serves me.
I stand corrected.
But my disagreement was bringing her on, not her role
In retrospect everything we'd lose because of that far outweighs any gains. We'd have never had Handsome Mount, Hot Spock and Numero Una. We'd have lost the entirety of SNW and the work it's done fixing TOS. The entirety of the 32nd century as presented.
We've had more than enough over the last 10 years to justify the rocky price of admission Discovery season 1 charged.
Season 2 of Picard and STO are all the 25th century I need.
I was more alienated by the Rock cameo.
Meh, Abrams was fine. I'd rather Star Trek commit to its ethos rather than becoming apolitical slop.
But she is such a divisive figure.
And while committing to its ethos it alienated 35% of its potential audience. This .makes the show more insular and less likely to add viewers
Who cares?
I do
I would like to see strong ratings so we can get more and hopefully better Trek
If it means compromising and turning Trek into apolitical slop that says nothing and means nothing, I'd rather the ratings suffer.
The folks that get their knickers in a twist and drop the show over casting were never watching it seriously to begin with. I can live without them just fine.
And congratulations, Trek has been canceled. Enjoy living without them
The danger is more in focusing on stunt casting than the actual story.
Agreed.
I also don't think it's necessarily a good idea to cast a current politician (from any party) in any speaking role.
In fact, I believe Abrams has been the only one ever in the franchise. (I know the prince of Jordan appeared once in VOY, but he was a background extra with no speaking part. That's different than a speaking role.)
