If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLancie?

[Set Harth]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Nutrek = The Original Series, for now at least.

Given that TNG supposedly existed in the same continuity as TOS, in-universe Q was around somewhere in the TOS era even though he hadn't been invented yet out-of-universe. Due to the changes in the timeline, there's no reason he couldn't appear earlier. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's at least possible.

 

[cbp44189]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

some annoying, uncharismatic prick, like the original deLancie Q...idk.... Russel Brand?







You read my mind.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Nutrek = The Original Series, for now at least.

Given that TNG supposedly existed in the same continuity as TOS, in-universe Q was around somewhere in the TOS era even though he hadn't been invented yet out-of-universe. Due to the changes in the timeline, there's no reason he couldn't appear earlier. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's at least possible.

Oh, sure. Anything's possible. I can even imagine story fragments of how he may make an appearance - a kind of first contact by him with Humans which sets the tone for his future interactions.

But, and it's just my opinion, I wouldn't want to see them step over Trelane entirely and go straight to Q. I'd just like for them to be respectful to the character origins, somehow. Something TNG, IMO, failed to do.

It may all be moot anyhow, we still have no idea if 'Omnipotent' beings will ever have a place in the Nuverse at all. 'Supernatural' stories may not be permitted in the new "more realistic" Trek.

 

[Set Harth]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

It may all be moot anyhow, we still have no idea if 'Omnipotent' beings will ever have a place in the Nuverse at all. 'Supernatural' stories may not be permitted in the new "more realistic" Trek.

Omnipotent beings are so much a part of series Trek that it seems unlikely that the Abramsverse would outright ban them from appearing, though it wouldn't be especially shocking if they weren't chosen as the focus of future films. I mean, the Abramsverse has Katric arks, and that seems kind of "supernatural" to me.

 

[UFO]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Given that TNG supposedly existed in the same continuity as TOS, in-universe Q was around somewhere in the TOS era even though he hadn't been invented yet out-of-universe. Due to the changes in the timeline, there's no reason he couldn't appear earlier. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's at least possible.

Oh, sure. Anything's possible. I can even imagine story fragments of how he may make an appearance - a kind of first contact by him with Humans which sets the tone for his future interactions.

But, and it's just my opinion, I wouldn't want to see them step over Trelane entirely and go straight to Q. I'd just like for them to be respectful to the character origins, somehow. Something TNG, IMO, failed to do.

It may all be moot anyhow, we still have no idea if 'Omnipotent' beings will ever have a place in the Nuverse at all. 'Supernatural' stories may not be permitted in the new "more realistic" Trek.

I guess even Q (the species) have children from time to time and the young Q took the name "Trelane" as part of his role playing game with humans. He later reverted to Q when he "matured" into his equivalent of "early twenties" (ignoring their respective appearances of course which he may have also changed). That would mean dealing with a Trelane type character rather than a Q one of course, which may be even less popular.

So yes, it’s possible but probably not desirable unless done really well with a great idea behind it.

I'm a little bemused at your use of "'more realistic' Trek" even with quote marks. Do you just must mean more modern perhaps? Although that wouldn’t rule out supernatural beings given the number of ghost shows around recently, so I guess I’m stumped. Anyway, if the nu-universe itself can be personified as self-directing, then the odd supernatural being seems almost an anticlimax.

 

[Dukhat]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

I dont know, thats my impression of him.

Hmm, I must have missed those scenes where the Traveler did fricking ANYTHING to give the impression that he was a paedophile.

 

[Gil T.Azell]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Charlie Sheen or Sean William Scott

 

[Yevetha]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

you got to be kidding.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Stephen Fry.

He would be a new take on Q, but I have no problem with reinventing the character.
Think of the way he portrayed "Jeeves" in Jeeves and Wooster, but without all of the politeness and the without feeling that he should not speak his mind.

 

[shapeshifter]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

It may all be moot anyhow, we still have no idea if 'Omnipotent' beings will ever have a place in the Nuverse at all. 'Supernatural' stories may not be permitted in the new "more realistic" Trek.

Omnipotent beings are so much a part of series Trek that it seems unlikely that the Abramsverse would outright ban them from appearing, though it wouldn't be especially shocking if they weren't chosen as the focus of future films.

I guess we will see but if I were a betting sort I'd bet against them appearing unless their 'powers' are based on Technology or, and I think this is as supernatural as it's gonna get in the Nuverse - ESP, telephathy, mind reading/control - that kind of thing.

I mean, the Abramsverse has Katric arks, and that seems kind of "supernatural" to me.

In the Abramverse Katric Ark may not mean the same thing as it did in the Old. In the Old it was a polycrystalline vessel used by ancient Vulcans to preserve a katra, a Vulcan's living spirit,
after death. [<from MA] Other people, as we know, could also be used. In the Nuverse things seem to have changed. Also from the same page at MA:

In the alternate reality created by Nero's temporal incursion of 2233, the katric ark was also the name of a large facility on Vulcan used for the preservation of Vulcan heritage and culture. The ark was impenetrable to both communications and transporter signals.

In 2258, as Vulcan was on the verge of destruction due to an attack by Nero, the Vulcan High Council, including Sarek and his wife Amanda, retreated into the ark in an effort to save the knowledge contained within. As this was occurring, Sarek and Amanda's son, Spock, arrived to evacuate the High Council. Spock and the Council emerged from the ark on a cliff and awaited transport by the USS Enterprise, although Amanda was killed when the cliff gave way beneath her due to heavy seismic activity. (Star Trek)

Not so supernatural sounding, and this jives with ENT in which we never saw Surak inside anything other than another person.

In Star Trek, I don't remember seeing anyone carrying an 'ark' so, apparently, unless someone (other than Amanda or that guy the statue fell on) was carrying him within his/her head Surak is dead.

Given that TNG supposedly existed in the same continuity as TOS, in-universe Q was around somewhere in the TOS era even though he hadn't been invented yet out-of-universe. Due to the changes in the timeline, there's no reason he couldn't appear earlier. I'm not saying it's likely, but it's at least possible.

Oh, sure. Anything's possible. I can even imagine story fragments of how he may make an appearance - a kind of first contact by him with Humans which sets the tone for his future interactions.

But, and it's just my opinion, I wouldn't want to see them step over Trelane entirely and go straight to Q. I'd just like for them to be respectful to the character origins, somehow. Something TNG, IMO, failed to do.

It may all be moot anyhow, we still have no idea if 'Omnipotent' beings will ever have a place in the Nuverse at all. 'Supernatural' stories may not be permitted in the new "more realistic" Trek.

I guess even Q (the species) have children from time to time and the young Q took the name "Trelane" as part of his role playing game with humans. He later reverted to Q when he "matured" into his equivalent of "early twenties" (ignoring their respective appearances of course which he may have also changed). That would mean dealing with a Trelane type character rather than a Q one of course, which may be even less popular.

Nice. Curious, though: how do you account for Trelanes use of machinery, behind the mirror?

So yes, it’s possible but probably not desirable unless done really well with a great idea behind it.

It's all we can ask.

I'm a little bemused at your use of "'more realistic' Trek" even with quote marks. Do you just must mean more modern perhaps? <snip>

TBTB used the term to describe their re-imagined Star Trek. I am interpreting it to mean: nothing outside the scope of what is considered realistic in the modren world. A being like Q doesn't fit.

 

[UFO]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

I guess even Q (the species) have children from time to time and the young Q took the name "Trelane" as part of his role playing game with humans. He later reverted to Q when he "matured" into his equivalent of "early twenties" (ignoring their respective appearances of course which he may have also changed)

Nice. Curious, though: how do you account for Trelanes use of machinery, behind the mirror?

I’m so glade you asked that question (because I, well er, forgot about it.).

Without rewatching the episode, I would suggest a combination amplification system for his burgeoning powers and "training wheels". Perhaps when he had to resort to his more powerful system, after Kirk destroyed the mirror, it alerted his parents?

I'm a little bemused at your use of "'more realistic' Trek" even with quote marks. Do you just must mean more modern perhaps? <snip>

TBTB used the term to describe their re-imagined Star Trek. I am interpreting it to mean: nothing outside the scope of what is considered realistic in the modren world. A being like Q doesn't fit.

I see (thanks), but as mentioned, "converting the Federation to Pantheism" rather blew the lid off that restriction.

Besides, I never viewed the Q, or anything else in the ST universe(s) as supernatural. Whether adult Q need machinery to aid them or not (I guess not), their "powers" are at least potentially amenable to scientific explanation, in my view (they only appear to be magic).

*** Edit *** By the way, has it been definitively established that the Q don’t used any mechanisms (even nanomachines)? Removing such from Q would have been a simple way of depriving him of his "powers".

 

[Cyrus]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Jim Carrey

 

[Yevetha]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

How old is he?

 

[Gojira]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

How old is he?

Jim Carry just turned 50 this year. I have seen him do some serious work and if he toned down his act a bit he would make an excellent Q.

 

[Satyrquaze]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Q was the greatest thing in TNG besides the Borg.

Seriously, I'm getting to the point where I wonder why I even bother clicking on Yevetha's threads.

Stephen Fry.

He would be a new take on Q, but I have no problem with reinventing the character.
Think of the way he portrayed "Jeeves" in Jeeves and Wooster, but without all of the politeness and the without feeling that he should not speak his mind.

I like the way you think.

 

[ALF]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

I can only think of who shouldn't play him... Michael Sera, Seth Green and Seth Rogan are all at the top of that list.

I wouldn't mind seeing a really well cast female Q. Suzie Plaxton's a wonderful actress but she made a far better Keh'Lar than a Q.

 

[Yevetha]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Whoever played Galen in B5 would also be great.

 

[Sindatur]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Whoever played Galen in B5 would also be great.

Peter Woodward, yea, I can picture that

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Whoever played Galen in B5 would also be great.

Peter Woodward, yea, I can picture that

By the way, Peter Woodward has had a recurring role as an "Observer" on Fringe, which is also a Bad Robot production (created by J.J. Abrams).

 

[Sindatur]

Re: If we will ever have a new Q who should play him other then DeLanc

Whoever played Galen in B5 would also be great.

Peter Woodward, yea, I can picture that

By the way, Peter Woodward has had a recurring role as an "Observer" on Fringe, which is also a Bad Robot production (created by J.J. Abrams).

I need to check out Fringe at some point, hopefully it'll end with a proper ending, and then I can watch the whole series