Bill Nighy joining the Star Trek universe certainly caught me off guard! 🖖 What do you think—does his casting give you more hope for Starfleet Academy, or do you think the show still has too much ground to make up? Let me know your thoughts below!

Ok. Good luck to you.

For me personally, Bill Nighy is not a Film, or TV Star per se. When I hear his name my first thought is Radio Star. Bill Nighy stars as Charles Paris in the long‑running BBC Radio adaptations of Simon Brett’s “A Charles Paris Mystery,” dramatised mainly by Jeremy Front, with at least 16 series produced as of 2025. A long running joke being Paris is often mistaken as Parish, because the latter is a more common English surname.

Bill deserves better. Season one was unwatchable childish rubbish.

I gave Academy a few episodes and came to the conclusion it wasn’t for me and I hoped the fans that it was for that it got enough views to keep it going for them.  Interesting new additions to the show next season and I hope fans enjoy it but again not for me.

I enjoyed a lot of academy too. Was it technically bad in many ways? Yes. Clunky, seems to be the best word to describe it. But it did have enough Trek to be Trek, and I so appreciated that after SNW season 3. That thing was a travesty. Academy was merely deeply mediocre. I can forgive things for being that.

I was going to ask whether Bill would be an alien, but Ake's father is just perfect. He looks the part. He IS the part. And frankly Holly Hunter is the absolute highlight of the show for me, so this is going to be FUN.

Believe it or not, I didn’t hate Academy.  I didn’t love it, but I didn’t hate it.  It’s not helpful that it has the baggage of Discovery as its launching point, namely “The Burn.”  It has the worst, most unprofessional captain we’ve ever seen (and we’ve already got Burnham and Anson Mount’s Pike, so that’s saying something) and it’s got the typical nonsensical writing of Kurtzman-Trek… But, that said, among the cadets, there are some likable characters.  Many reject the idea of an Academy-based series altogether; they don’t want to see a “teen drama.”  Teen dramas don’t bother me; I’ve seen plenty of them—and it’s okay to acknowledge that teens exist.  (Technically, these kids are college age, so they’re actually in their early 20s by and large.)  

That said, you should be able to have a “teen drama” set at a military academy without it being juvenile.  That’s where Academy falters a bit.  Their primary mentor, Captain Ake, is the most juvenile character on the show—and the cadets are not presented as mature young men and women preparing for an elite military career.  They are presented as shallow, catty high schoolers that is more akin to “Riverdale” or “Beverly Hills 90210” than what it should be, such a military version of “The Paper Chase” meets “An Officer and a Gentleman” or “Top Gun.”  You can have the drama, the interpersonal conflicts, and the romance—those are not dirty words (I’m not sure why some people think they are)—but it needs to be presented from the viewpoint of young but serious characters you will soon be entrusting with the security of your nation.  

The problem is, unlike many of the writers of classic Star Trek who actually served in the military and understood the decorum and hierarchy of a navel vessel, these modern writers have no concept of such things.  This is why we get Ortegas making snarky comments to her captain, the same captain who meekly acquiesced to every insubordinate tirade of Michael Burnham—and thanked her for allowing him the opportunity to apologize.  There were members of the TOS cast and production team who literally survived the beaches of Normandy.  The most harrowing life experience of these modern writers is surviving traffic to the beaches of Malibu and the traumatic choice of what to wear to the cocktail party afterwards.  They haven’t the slightest clue what a military cadet should face, the sort hardships or decisions he or she should be forced to make.  The Kobayashi Maru was meaningful because it’s the sort of real-life, no win situation a military officer could face in the field and be forced to make a decision in the face of certain death.  Alex Kurtzman has never had to face that and I would be surprised if he ever so much as interviewed a veteran who had.

That’s the primary problem facing Academy and NuTrek in general—and modern Hollywood in general.  Back in Goldern Age Hollywood, sure, it was as much about who you knew as it was what you knew—but they were still largely people with actual life experience who paid their dues to get were they were.  Modern Hollywood?—these are largely nepobabies who have never experienced life outside of the modern Hollywood bubble—and that’s reflected in their writing.  It’s shallow people writing shallow characters, featured in plots that make no sense, because the writers no longer understand how the real world works, how A leads to B leads to C, and how real people interact with one another outside the elite circles of Beverly Hills.  They haven’t the slightest clue anymore.  And they don’t research anything anymore.  That used to be the first job of every writer.  They don’t see the need to research; they just write what they “feel.”  They may have a fancy degree, but they are completely uneducated.  

All that said, in some respects, Academy was arguably one of Kurtzman’s better outings.  That doesn’t say much, but there were some positives and a few of the cadet characters were likable.  Bill Nighy in the show is certainly an interesting development.  I’m curious to see where it goes.

Yaaay for Bill Nighy!

I know that SA has a certain "gatekeeping" fanbase that has frequently expressed vitriol that often rivals the overly diatribic hatedom that was disturbingly heaped upon Star Wars The Last Jedi. I don't get it.

It's a show. Ultimately, it's only entertainment, not some televised debate between political candidates. One doesn't have to  like what they see, don't watch it.

I grew up during the original broadcast era of TOS. THAT was my trek; as well as the TOS-era movies. There were faults with the show and the movies; but, I never got bent out of shape over any of it. Even if I had, it wouldn't have been worth my energy. I pretty much let the faults slip by and enjoyed the message and the entertainment. I still cringe over the entire episode of Spock's Brain, the infrequent sexist comments scattered throughout, Bone's near-racist insults, the Yangs and Kohms in Omega Glory, Spock's narration in The Cloud Minders, etc. Yes, it could be obviously a bit preachy. Yes, the acting was often 1960's gesturally dramatic. Yes, the network mandated happy endings that were tacked on to harrowingly somber episodes felt extremely out of place. However,  I've never considered it rational to express hateful comments or hand out threats to any of the people involved with the production.

Neverthelsss... TOS successfully pushed the cultural consciousness envelope.

And, here we are, 2026. SA has been criticised for straying away from the original zeitgeist that Gene Roddenberry first laid out... by becoming, "woke." Really? I have news for all those who are so bent out of shape: Star Trek was always "woke." Don't believe me?  Go back and look at the TOS episodes. The vast majority of episodes were expounding "woke" ideas... in a manner that got  past  network Standards and Practices. If one listens to everyone who is still alive from the TOS production era, they will verify that TOS was expounding Roddenberry's  "woke" ideas.

So to vilify SA  purely on it being 'non-true-Trek' "wokeness" is ignorant nonsense; and futile.

But, is the show perfect? NO, it is not.

Neither was TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, etc. They each have their serious problems that were brushed aside by most of fandom. I never heard of one single person making vile, hate-filled comments to anyone involved in the show. There were no threats of violence against any castmember whose character didn't perfectly fit that particular fan's socio-poilital expectation. There were voiced criticisms, sure... I had some... but nothing akin to what has seemingly pinnacled against anyone involved with SA.

To me, SA  IS Star Trek... which, is more than I can say about most of Discovery, a lot of SNW, and chunks of Picard. It seems that the producers/writers of those shows aggressively insisted on their shows being so edgy and modern that they forgot to include the heart and soul of what made Star Trek so great: Optimistic humanism and diversity. All 'woke' ideas.

What works for me in SA is that it takes place in the distant future... a future where societies have radically changed from what they were in the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries. Because of that, the far-reaching aestethics work for me... as well as the cultural/linguistic differences.

Speaking as a straight, white male of 75 years of age, I'm not-so-much into the teen drama thing. But, that's small stuff. What I think SA gets right is that it radiates Roddenberry's hopeful vision of peoples working together, while simultaneously accepting their differences. What it gets wrong, in my book, is when it relies too much on the overly tired 2020 teen tropes.

And the skant doesn't bother me. Who knows what will be fashionable nearly 1,000 years into the future?

Also, c'mon... complaints about a gay Klingon? Doesn't anyone think that out of the hundreds of billions of Klingons there have been by the 32nd Century...there wouldn't have been one Klingon who was gay (or any other LGBTQ member)? Klingon males traditionally have a hyper-masculine warrior ethos... just like what can be found within the elite military forces in the U.S. today. There have been documented gay males within the U.S. special forces, navy seals, etc. who have distinguished themselves by performing high-risk actions with consciously gallantry, extreme endurance and precision execution in an honourable manner while in the field (whether the current U.S. administration admits it or not). Sexual orientation has no connection to personal strength, courage or honour. Masculinity, toughness, and honour are character traits and personal values. They do not depend on who a person loves or desires. Being gay would definitely not prevent any Klingon from being a fierce myrmidon. In the past, Star Trek has shown us (per Roddenberry's vision) that Klingon society is not strictly a monoculture.

NOW...

about Bill Nighy:

My ONLY concern about adding him as Holly Hunter's father is that Nighy is only 8 years older than she. This was the same issue that Mark Lenard and Leonard Nimoy had... however, they somehow made in convincingly work. Hopefully, SA will make it also work.

Live Well And Prosper!

I’M NOT FIFTY!