Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

[Christopher]

It would actually be interesting to hear what his earnings from each movie were, so we can find out who fell beneath him in that regard. I don't think the junior officer/Kirk comparison is that accurate.

What has money got to do with it? We know perfectly well that Abrams was the man in charge. It was a five-man "Supreme Court," yes, but Abrams was the director, the one with the final say, and everyone else was subordinate to him. He had final approval over everything, and anyone who disagreed with him and failed to change his mind would lose the argument. That is what a director does.

I suppose my use of the expression "top brass" is the main trigger point for a lot of the disagreement over my comment? Understood. Personally I would still consider him important to the development of these two movies, and possibly helped inform his future as Trek exec many years later.

Yes, of course he was, but it's absurd to pretend that's equivalent to being a showrunner or a production company executive. Kurtzman was not the boss until Discovery. The distinction matters.

Feel free to disagree, but I see a lot of '09 still playing out in Trek today. The seeds of what would be the "Kurtzman era" were planted way back when.

In the sense that working under J.J. Abrams may have influenced his choices later when he was the boss, I'm sure that's true, just as he learned from working under Abrams on Fringe before that, and from working under Rob Tapert on Hercules and Xena. That's how the business works, or used to before streaming broke the model: a writers' room was a training ground for future showrunners. But being the student differs from being the teacher.

Lastly, my first comment on the subject was more of an effort to decipher what trekfan_01 meant by Kurtzman being in the role almost as long as Berman. I probably shouldve left well alone.

That is the point. It is simply a factually incorrect assertion and therefore should not be defended. Kurtzman rose through the ranks from junior staffer to boss, like Jeri Taylor, Ira Steven Behr, Brannon Braga, Kenneth Biller, and Bryan Fuller. Berman started out as a studio vice president at Paramount who accepted a nominal demotion to supervising producer on TNG season 1, but was actually appointed by the studio to be a watchdog keeping Roddenberry's excesses in check, so unofficially he was effectively at the top to begin with. And he rose to executive producer in season 2 and took more overt control as Roddenberry's health declined. There's just no comparison to Kurtzman's arc.

Particularly since Kurtzman's tenure on Trek was not continuous. He worked for Abrams on the 2009 and 2013 movies, then split with his partner Orci and founded his own production company in 2014, having no involvement in Star Trek Beyond, and was separately hired by CBS in 2016 to produce Discovery. Let's not forget that at the time, Paramount and CBS had split into separate companies and the movies and TV series were independent of each other, which is why they were in separate continuities.

 

[Daedalus]

What has money got to do with it? We know perfectly well that Abrams was the man in charge. It was a five-man "Supreme Court," yes, but Abrams was the director, the one with the final say, and everyone else was subordinate to him. He had final approval over everything, and anyone who disagreed with him would lose the argument. That is what a director does.

Yes, Kurtzman was subordinate to Abrams. Do you feel I implied otherwise?

Yes, of course he was, but it's absurd to pretend that's equivalent to being a showrunner or a production company executive. Kurtzman was not the boss until Discovery. The distinction matters.

I never said he was equivalent, it's important to make that clear. He got to be part of the writing team who wrote an actual Star Trek film. I feel it's very disingenuous to assert that being a "junior writer" for a major Hollywood production means he doesn't have a seat at the top table.

(Again, he is emphatically not as important to this Star Trek production as Abrams.)

That is the point. It is simply a factually incorrect assertion and therefore should not be defended.

The assertion may be factually incorrect, but dismissing it outright ignores the potential for good-faith error. Clarifying a misunderstanding was the intention, rather than a desire to prove the OP correct.

 

[Mudd]

I expect that if the new management at Paramount intends to produce Trek movies they'll search hard for new leadership on that front. They probably won't want start that up again with half-measures. You can assume any Trek film projects that have been bruited about recently to be shut down. They'll want their own Feige or Gunn.

Any changes to Trek on TV will likely be in the context of an overall streaming strategy. That strategy may not go at all in the hand-wringing gloom-and-doom direction that fans are anticipating.

Chris Pine's likelihood of returning as Kirk is probably a little bit higher than Cavill's was of wearing a red cape again.

 

[Christopher]

I feel it's very disingenuous to assert that being a "junior writer" for a major Hollywood production means he doesn't have a seat at the top table.

I did not say that he didn't have a seat. I said that having a seat is not equivalent to being a showrunner. It is incorrect to say that Kurtzman has been in his current status since 2009. That is what I said. Kindly do not misrepresent what I said.

 

[Daedalus]

I did not say that he didn't have a seat. I said that having a seat is not equivalent to being a showrunner. It is incorrect to say that Kurtzman has been in his current status since 2009. That is what I said. Kindly do not misrepresent what I said.

Same. Don't misrepresent what I said either.

 

[Noname Given]

If you’re referring to me, I like those guys just fine. Or at the least, I have nothing against them, other than Goldsman doing exactly what Matalas did after PIC ended.

Except SNW has had better streaming ratings and critical success then PICARD seasons 2 & 3 which were both under Terry Matalas.

 

[Noname Given]

When your show is given a truncated fifth season, that’s being cancelled.

Yeah, no. Not getting a new Season is being cancelled.

 

[eschaton]

I expect that if the new management at Paramount intends to produce Trek movies they'll search hard for new leadership in that front. They probably won't want start that up again with half-measures. You can assume any Trek film projects that have been bruited about recently to be shut down. They'll want their own Feige or Gunn.

Any changes to Trek on TV will likely be in the context of an overall streaming strategy. That strategy may not go at all in the hand-wringing gloom-and-doom direction that fans are anticipating.

Chris Pine's likelihood of returning as Kirk is probably a little bit higher than Cavill's was of wearing a red cape again.

Not that it will happen, but I want to note that Kevin Feige knew absolutely nothing about Marvel (or comic books in general) until he went to work for them. He wanted to make Star Trek movies!

It's interesting to think about an alternative world where Feige somehow ended up in charge of Star Trek instead.

 

[DigificWriter]

An example of something that was Cancelled versus something that wasn't, provided in order to illustrate what the term actually means.

Cancelled: The Wheel of Time. Negotiations for future seasons broke down, and the actors were released from their contracts.

Not cancelled: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. Contracts were signed specifically covering the production of a set number of episodes, and once the terms of said contracts were fulfilled, the series came to an end.

 

[Dukhat]

Yeah, no. Not getting a new Season is being cancelled.

Is SNW getting a sixth season? No? And the fifth season got cut short? Yes? Sure sounds like cancellation to me. Really, this argument is quite stupid.

An example of something that was Cancelled versus something that wasn't, provided in order to illustrate what the term actually means.

Cancelled: The Wheel of Time. Negotiations for future seasons broke down, and the actors were released from their contracts.

Not cancelled: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. Contracts were signed specifically covering the production of a set number of episodes, and once the terms of said contracts were fulfilled, the series came to an end.

When SNW was in preproduction three years ago, did the CBS suits sit down at that time and say ‘We’re only gonna produce the show for five years at ten episodes per year, but we’re going to specifically have season 5 last only six episodes before we end the show.’ ? Highly unlikely. Again, this is a silly argument. Semantics are semantics. The show got cancelled.

 

[DigificWriter]

Is SNW getting a sixth season? No? And the fifth season got cut short? Yes? Sure sounds like cancellation to me. Really, this argument is quite stupid.



When SNW was in preproduction three years ago, did the CBS suits sit down at that time and say ‘We’re only gonna produce the show for five years at ten episodes per year, but we’re going to specifically have season 5 last only six episodes before we end the show.’ ? Highly unlikely. Again, this is a silly argument. Semantics are semantics. The show got cancelled.

Stating that Strange New Worlds wasn't cancelled isn't "arguing semantics".

It's making a statement of fact.

 

[Noname Given]

Is SNW getting a sixth season? No? And the fifth season got cut short? Yes? Sure sounds like cancellation to me. Really, this argument is quite stupid.

The 5th Season of SNW is promoted the same way the 7th season of TNG...

Paramount: "It's the last season..."

So no, not cancelled - ended - and announced before the 5th season was written.

 

[Tuskin38]

Things have changed since then. SNW is now being cancelled after five seasons (just as I predicted it would).

"Cancelled" I think in this instance is not really appropriate. It reminds me how many misuse the term "reboot" as a term for any sequel. They are getting a set end point . SNW is their flagship show. They have been given multiple seasons renewals at a time similar to popular British shows like Father Brown and All Creatures Great and Small .

If they were planning on at least five seasons (which we don’t know for sure), and the fifth season was announced as the last but was cut from ten episodes to six, I’m not sure how anyone wouldn’t get ‘cancelled’ from that. It’s like someone’s living in denial

This is appropriate for all 3 quotes, but didn't Akiva or someone say in an interview that they had to fight for a 5th season? Sounds more like it was going to be cancelled at 4 but they managed to convince the studio to give them a 5th with 6 episodes as a compromise.

 

[Noname Given]

This is appropriate for all 3 quotes, but didn't Akiva or someone say in an interview that they had to fight for a 5th season? Sounds more like it was going to be cancelled at 4 but they managed to convince the studio to give them a 5th with 6 episodes as a compromise.

Yeah, except if the studio didn't see any profit in doing so - they wouldn't commit to it.

Remember this decision was made when Paramount still was not certain the Paramount/Skydance merger would go through and get final approval

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Is SNW getting a sixth season? No? And the fifth season got cut short? Yes? Sure sounds like cancellation to me.

If we were currently on season 5 I would agree with you 100% but deciding to end a story in advance isnt a cancellation per se it's a scheduled conclusion. At most, you could compromise and say a deferred cancellation but a cancellation means no more not finish the batch you're on and then make even more and then no more. A lot of shows would have killed for that definition of cancellation to have been their fate.

 

[Dukhat]

So could somebody with an ounce of sense please explain why a truncated fifth season isn’t an indicator that the show is being cancelled? Because the way @Tuskin38 described it, the show was getting the chopping block after S4 but somehow CBS acquiesced to allowing six more episodes to prematurely end the show.

 

[Nerys Myk]

So could somebody with an ounce of sense please explain why a truncated fifth season isn’t an indicator that the show is being cancelled?

I thought they were going to end it at four, but Akiva and Henry talked them into a short fifth season. So like the end of LD, we’re getting something extra.

 

[Dukhat]

I thought they were going to end it at four, but Akiva and Henry talked them into a short fifth season. So like the end of LD, we’re getting something extra.

If they were planning to end, and not cancel, the show at the end of season 4, why did they need 6 more episodes?

 

[JoseNoodles]

Sure, if they pay me.

 

[Danja]

If they were planning to end, and not cancel, the show at the end of season 4, why did they need 6 more episodes?

Paramount wanted the show to end after S4. Akiva & Co. weren't anticipating it.