That ship definitely has a late 24th century Sovereign-class look to it.

That third nacelle looks like the full scale Protostar drive.

That’s how Sam interpreted it, and it’s why she imitated it / mirrored it back.

But what if it wasn’t pro forma?

Does anyone else have any lingering questions or hypotheses around two nonsequiturs in the episode?

1. The Bajoran who welcomed Sam said that her “pagh is strong;”
2. Jake’s holographic reconstruction called Sam ‘sis’.

I’m wondering why and how the photonics chose the form for Sam - and whether her form is based on a real person - such as Sisko and Cassidy’s daughter Rebecca.

I’m also really wondering how a photonic being can have a pagh…

These definitely seem like things that might be followed up on later.

This has some value added in terms of contrasting the outcome of DS9 ‘The Visitor’ with Jake’s Prime Timeline outcome.

I like the SFA outcome, and I think it respects what Avery wanted in terms of showing that Sisko was a fantastic Black father who left a legacy of good parenting to future generations.

I was very moved at how Jake was a truly adult version of the youth we saw in DS9 but that he also had the posture and dignity that Avery Brooks brought to Sisko.

Cirroc Lofton really can act and it’s outrageous if he’s not been getting work if he wants it.

If you’ve seen him as himself in his podcast, there’s no doubt about his performance in this episode.

It makes me very much want to see him cast in something else.

Her response to that question reflects one of the most damning things about MIT as a graduate school — the institution recruits the best and most promising minds it can, but the profs there spend much of their time actively discouraging and demoralizing students, not least by asserting that the only way to “make a contribution” is through an exclusive commitment to a narrow set of mathematical approaches.

Oooh, so much further to go…

I hope this clip helps to calm down all the fans out there who were outraged that Paramount’s marketing put out one key art poster targeted at another demographic.

This evokes a lot of mixed feelings.

On one hand, I have no interest in wrestling and cringe at anything related to it. I’m also super uncomfortable about anything related to WWE making its way into the aspirational Star Trek franchise.

When the early wrestling shows were on local television in my childhood, my parents explained it was all performance and not real sport. So, I have always associated it with a kind of fraud and grift.

I’m always extraordinarily uneasy when young children talk about wrestling heroes as it seems an unhealthy influence. It always seems to represent a demographic that we have nothing in common with. While I’m sure some of our kids heard about WWE at school, they never expressed any interest so there was no pressure to bring anything related to it into our home — for which we were very grateful.

So, the other hand, having this strong aversion to ‘professional wrestling’, when ‘The Rock’ Dwayne Johnson first made his dramatic acting appearance on Star Trek Voyager, I was so annoyed that I didn’t watch the episode.

I realize now that I let my strong bias against the performance of ‘wrestling’ get in the way of assessing an actor on his own merit.

I also recognize that Secret Hideout has been doing its best to bring in actors that will appeal to demographics that are likely to be critical of Starfleet Academy while retaining true diversity.

So, I’m going to try to swallow my aversion and wish this woman performer success as she tries to break out of the WWE circuit.

(I still think Paramount+ senior executives are trying to do everything they can to make our household drop our subscription.)

Even my GenZ kids ask for they physical media not the digital.

Our youngest was just this afternoon sincerely explaining to me why they want their Nintendo games as cards not digital copies.

I think I like the Dauntless model better than then onscreen version.

That Voyager-A is interesting.

While many older fans are disappointed that Starfleet Academy is set in the far future 32nd century, I am hopeful that it’s focus on original characters, will be a strength.

Having a few recurring Discovery characters around, and Robert Picardo as The Doctor, doesn’t negate that it’s fundamentally about new characters and not legacy ones or their immediate family.

Like the apparent ‘no technobabble’ edict from on high, with so many ‘kids of’ and ‘sibling of’ characters in the new era, I have to wonder if the IP holder had laid down some kind of structure forcing the creators to tie new main characters to legacy ones.

I am wondering if Pelia was created as much to give Holly Hunter’s character a legacy tie and check the required box for linkage to another character as much as she was to provide a vehicle for Carol Kane.

I think we share a view on Scouts.

I think you missed the point on this though - it’s not a show for or with children.

It’s another go at selling an younger ensemble based on they’re being the offspring of a legacy character.

The article says Archer’s four adult children would be in their twenties and thirties. They would be in different roles and services.

I didn’t like the nepobaby, ‘children of’, angle in Picard and I didn’t really like Archer, so I can’t imagine why they would think this would be the way to draw in an audience.

On the other hand, they could pick up Vanguard for a more serious show.

I’m actually disappointed that United would focus more on Archer’s kids than his government

At least, there’s some kind of planning this time.

But Rick Berman was still hassling Terry Farrell to get her to get breast enlargements.

Which is one of the reasons she left the show.

It’s my favourite season just for that.

Yes, there were a few great season one Enterprise episodes such as ‘The Andorian Incident’ directed by Roxann Dawson of Voyager and guest starring Jeffrey Coombs as Shran but it was the fourth season that truly redeemed the show.

It was your assertion that ‘if you’re a fan of older Star Trek’, someone would share your view that irked me.

There’s a lot of older fans that don’t dislike the new shows. We just aren’t feeling the need to caution other older viewers about the new shows.

I felt that way about Voyager at one time.

Watched the episodes once as they came out but wasn’t seeking to rewatch.

But then our kids came along, hit their preteens, and for them Voyager reruns on cable was ‘their Star Trek.’

I watched Voyager more with them during their preteens and early teens than I did during its first run.

And I can say that it DOES stand up to rewatch. More, it has many ‘best of trope’ episodes.

I think perhaps it was Voyager’s unevenness in quality across the entire run or, perhaps fatigue from hundreds of episodes of TNG and DS9 rewatched immediately after they were broadcast, that led me to not appreciate Voyager as much initially.

All to say, I was very wrong about Voyager’s rewatch value, and perhaps many crusty 90s Trek fans are wrong about Discovery too.