They tried their best with two really good shows (admittedly only halfway through SFA), to get younger demos watching and they failed.
I guess Trek is doomed to be watched mostly by ageing 40somethings and a (too) few younger LGBTQIA+ people
I guess Trek is doomed to be watched mostly by ageing 40somethings and a (too) few younger LGBTQIA+ people
I was an infant watching 80's Original Series movies - regularly mocked in the media for being films starring the "over the hill gang" and into The Next Generation where the Wesley Crusher identification figure for kids, was widely derided. Shows like Dawson's Creek and the O.C, even Roswell were actively avoided, despite them being my demographic. Buffy faired better, but more for horror trope, fantasy reasons than it being a show set in a school environment. I think sometimes the target audience don't watch TV showing them what their normal teen fashion, perfect hair, love and relationship trends should be like. They actually prefer to skip all that, be seen as not following a herd, wise beyond their years, and look forward to be treated like a real adult instead.
I don't necessarily see a Star Trek show focusing less on chasing a younger audience, as a bad thing. I mean, they're clearly trying too hard like that trendy teacher whose pop culture references and slang sound foreign, forced and unnatural. Be yourself Star Trek and you'll survive just fine. It's always a push to see where the boundaries are, a fall back position to something more traditional when that isn't as well-received and then a return to that when the audience eventually appreciates it. Academy's not going in the bin. Section 31 neither. Or Enterprise twenty-five years later. Nothing. It'll be an option right there to click play on forever more, prompting reaction love & hate until it's more positively reviewed. Their first episode,"Kids Like These" I liked well enough to press on instead of walking away. Section 31 was a bit of challenge to say anything positive about though and I'm somewhat glad they didn't follow it up.
I don't necessarily see a Star Trek show focusing less on chasing a younger audience, as a bad thing. I mean, they're clearly trying too hard like that trendy teacher whose pop culture references and slang sound foreign, forced and unnatural. Be yourself Star Trek and you'll survive just fine. It's always a push to see where the boundaries are, a fall back position to something more traditional when that isn't as well-received and then a return to that when the audience eventually appreciates it. Academy's not going in the bin. Section 31 neither. Or Enterprise twenty-five years later. Nothing. It'll be an option right there to click play on forever more, prompting reaction love & hate until it's more positively reviewed. Their first episode,"Kids Like These" I liked well enough to press on instead of walking away. Section 31 was a bit of challenge to say anything positive about though and I'm somewhat glad they didn't follow it up.
Last edited:
Unbelievably dubious sources. Didn’t even realize that Dave Cullen was still around.
They’re rolling the dice hard here banking on an IMDb page as “proof,” but neither of them would even take the time to sign up for a free IMDb Pro trial. You can do that, check the page, and cancel the trial in, like, five minutes.
Examining United’s page (such as it is) via Pro will show the prospective series’ sole “production update” as “PITCHED.” There is no new news here.
Examining United’s page (such as it is) via Pro will show the prospective series’ sole “production update” as “PITCHED.” There is no new news here.
They pitched it to Kurtzman, who passed on it... Now they've pitched it to Paramount... We'll see. I think any Trek production on the small screen will be put on hold for a few years...
Nope. But it didn't bring in tons of new subscribers or garner a lot of 'hours viewed' on what it did release for its 1st season.
nope
Yup, in February.
Isn’t ’pitching a Star Trek series to Paramount’ not a thing anymore? They aren’t in charge, Skydance is.
I'm sure there are still elements there to preserve name recognition and ownership of some properties.
I very much doubt they want that, but I’d sure watch the hell out of it.
says who?
Provide a source. Not a fan AI content mill or culture war site, an actual industry source like Variety or Hollywood Reporter.
Paramount is still a thing, Skydance is the parent company. Like Viacom or Gulf & Western.
They still operate as distinct companies, even if Skydance is in charge.
Look at Michael Susman's Insta account.
How about Michael Sussman himself?
He’s trying to hype a dead proposal back to life, so I’d need more than just his word.