Jack Crusher's Age

So season 3 takes place in the same year as season 2? Because season 2 (the premiere and finale 25th century scenes) were also in 2401.

Also, prior to the season airing Terry had said there would be a time jump of a few years between seasons 2 and 3..sounds like he later retracted that statement

 

MST3K theme tune: If you're wondering why that character looks much older than he should (la la la) repeat to yourself its just a show, you should really just relax....

 

I'm still trying to figure out how his age impacts the story.

 

Yup. His skin tone was definitely softened.
Here's Ed from 2014...

 

I love the character and Ed Speleers is doing a wonderful job. It's just a bit baffling that they created a niggling inconsistency by setting the season earlier than they needed to.

Is anyone saying it does?

 

The level of speculation is higher than the actual plot, so, yes.

 

So what? We're Trek fans; we enjoy obsessing over minutiae on discussion forums. I doubt it's a deal-breaker for anyone on this thread when we're actually watching the show.

 

Idle curiosity.

 

How about the original Jack Crusher seemingly being confirmed to have been at the Academy at the same time as Picard? I always assumed Jack was closer in a ge to Beverly.

 

From Doug Wert's age when he shot his scenes for "Family", and when he'd have recorded his message for Wesley, he was closer in age to Beverly, yes. Perhaps Picard did some instructing at the academy when Jack was there. Or he's getting senile.

 

You're trying to figure out how story details affect the story?
My how far Star Trek has fallen.

 

Well, Picard did rise to the captaincy very early. So he could have gotten rapid promotions and still be roughly the same age as Jack Sr.

Doug Wert's age when he did that scene is irrelevant in any case. We've already seen a LOT of instances of actors being way different ages than their characters (Patrick Stewart *and* Ed Speleers, for example).

 

Is his age that important of a detail?

I have yet to be convinced that it is.

 

I'm going to be obnoxiously earnest here. There is a type of fan - and I'm one of them - who quite likes imaging things that might have happened alongside canon but that don't contradict canon.

A lot of the fun I get from Star Trek is imagining what characters are/were up to off screen. But I like to colour inside the lines as much as possible.

I don't expect or want Matalas to explain in minute detail what Beverly's been up to since Nemesis. But it would be easier fun if putting together an internally consistent timeline were possible.

 

I will freely admit that I am a little looser on the attention to detail. Now, I have my quibbles (uniform colors being among my absurdist nitpicks) but character ages falls decidingly in the "less concerned" unless specifically called out as connected to the plot.

I love imagining off screen adventures, but character age is not something I put energy in to because Hollywood actors and aging is just a mess and I hate guessing people's ages. I gave up on that after leaving retail.

 

How does it affect the story if the actor's age does not match the character's age? Genuinely curious.

 

Fair enough...but if that's the case, why was it so long? She lists off several incidents as the reason why she decided not to tell him, but if the incidents all happened years after he was born, then why hadn't she told him already?

 

Trust was broken. That's a hard thing to recover from.

 

Well I think if the internet was more widespread we would've heard more complaints about Zefram Cochrane in First Contact because he doesn't look 31 (although at the time of airing Zefram should've been 33 before Enterprise changed the date of his disappearance at 87 from 2117 to 2119)

 

Hahaha, you think there weren't widespread complaints. How cute.