Is It Time for a Bold New Star Trek Paradigm?

[trekfan_1]

Before I get to my main point, let me start by saying: I’ve been a lifelong Star Trek fan. I’ve enjoyed every era of Trek to varying degrees — including much of the modern content.

But lately, it feels like both the fans and the powers-that-be are stuck in a loop.

Let me explain with a thought experiment: imagine Star Trek: The Original Series never aired in the 1960s, but instead debuted in the 2000s. Imagine Gene Roddenberry was alive today and launched a modern version of Trek. We all fall in love with the characters, and it becomes a major franchise. As this new era comes to an end, fans and studios are buzzing online about how to continue it. Some suggest a Sulu spinoff. Others want series centered around supporting characters from the Enterprise crew.

What would likely follow? Probably shows like Strange New Worlds or Picard — series built directly on existing characters and settings.

And yet, when Roddenberry launched The Next Generation, he didn’t take the easy, commercially safe route. Nobody was asking for a new crew 100 years in the future — but that’s what we got. It wasn’t a financial decision, it was a creative one. A bold one. Instead of clinging to familiar characters, Roddenberry pushed Trek forward. Sure, Dr. McCoy made a cameo in the pilot, but TNG was essentially a clean slate — and it worked.

What followed was a rich era of storytelling: DS9, Voyager, Enterprise — mostly rooted in that new foundation.

Since then, we’ve circled back with prequels (Enterprise, Discovery, SNW) and legacy continuations (Picard). And while we’ve seen creative variations like Lower Decks and Prodigy, they’re still anchored in familiar time periods and established canon.

I get it. Fans want more of what they love — more Picard, more Spock, more 24th-century lore. That’s natural. But if the internet existed in 1986, I bet most fans would’ve preferred more Kirk and Spock back then too.

So here’s the question:
How does Star Trek reinvent itself without losing its identity?

You can tweak the format. Change the tone. Add animated comedy. But what Star Trek really needs, in my opinion, is a true paradigm shift — like TNG was to TOS. But perhaps an even bigger one. A new age or mode of discovery.

Here’s my idea:
All 11 Trek series and 13 movies (so far) have mostly taken place within the Milky Way galaxy. So, what if the next evolution of Star Trek is set in another galaxy?

Imagine a Star fleet crew exploring an entirely new region of space — a setting not dominated by humanoid species. Still grounded in Trek values. Still with some human characters to keep it relatable. But narratively unshackled from Klingons, Romulans, and even the Federation as we know it.

Would it be popular? I don’t know.
Would it feel like Trek? I believe it could — if it holds true to the spirit of exploration, ethics, and discovery.

For the record, I love a lot of modern Trek. Big fan of Picard Season 3 and Strange New Worlds. I still enjoy the TNG era deeply, and of course, TOS will always be special.

Would I love to see more from those eras? Absolutely.

But looking at the big picture, maybe it’s time for Trek to step beyond the familiar. I’m not talking about genre-bending or changing its core identity — I’m talking about injecting it with fresh energy the way TNG once did but still Star Trek at its heart. As much as Lower Decks and Discovery was different, its still tied to the established eras within Trek. Yes Discovery went to the 32nd century, and maybe that's where it should of started , Maybe a more universally praised/executed version of that series set in the future from day 1 would of worked.

What do you think? Is it time for a bold new direction ? Or should we just be happy with more variations within tge existing eras?

 

[StarMan]

I'm tired, boss.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Jumping to a new galaxy worked for Stargate: Atlantis, had limited success with Stargate: Universe and kind of failed outright in Mass Effect: Andromeda, for a bunch of reasons. But I think we've already seen how it could work out in Star Trek, as that was basically the premise of Voyager. For all intents and purposes they were in another galaxy, decades away from Klingons and Romulans and Jem'hadar.

Honestly I'd have nothing against a Star Trek show set in another galaxy, but I'm not sure there's any need to shake things up so much. Voyager and Enterprise jumped away from the established universe and they have their fans. Deep Space Nine and Lower Decks are neck-deep in the Trek universe and people love them both. TNG kept some separation from TOS and it was a huge succes. Picard was a direct sequel to TNG and had a lot of success.

Really, it seems like as long as they just tell some damn good Star Trek stories and don't leave new viewers feeling unwelcome, they can put a new show in the Alpha Quadrant, Andromeda galaxy, alternative timelines, or anywhere that you'll find space adventure on a regular basis.

 

[Mudd]

Here’s my idea:
All 11 Trek series and 13 movies (so far) have mostly taken place within the Milky Way galaxy. So, what if the next evolution of Star Trek is set in another galaxy?

Imagine a Star fleet crew exploring an entirely new region of space — a setting not dominated by humanoid species. Still grounded in Trek values. Still with some human characters to keep it relatable. But narratively unshackled from Klingons, Romulans, and even the Federation as we know it.

This was called Star Trek: Voyager.

There's no difference between the premise of setting a show "in unexplored space," "The Delta Quadrant," or "another galaxy." None.

 

[The Wormhole]

Yeah, just as Voyager proved being in another quadrant cut off from the rest of the familiar Trek, another galaxy wouldn't make much of a difference. Hell, just in Voyager's first season alone, they still had a run-in with the Romulans. In another galaxy, they'd just contrive a way to bring back all the familiar Trek aliens. Ferengi have found their way to the new galaxy seeking new business opportunities. This planet holds the shocking secret origins of the Borg. Q's summer home. A surprise Klingon colony has somehow been thriving for a few centuries. And so on in that order.

It wouldn't be a paradigm shift, it would just be the same old, same old.

 

[fireproof78]

I get it. Fans want more of what they love — more Picard, more Spock, more 24th-century lore. That’s natural. But if the internet existed in 1986, I bet most fans would’ve preferred more Kirk and Spock back then too.

News articles in the paper bear this out.

Imagine a Star fleet crew exploring an entirely new region of space — a setting not dominated by humanoid species. Still grounded in Trek values. Still with some human characters to keep it relatable. But narratively unshackled from Klingons, Romulans, and even the Federation as we know it.

What will it cost, man? What will it cost?

Ultimately, that's the larger question. Innovation sounds great until it runs against the stark reality of being entertaining first and appealing to the largest possible audience to ensure a profit. Since less humanoids would mean more effects, practical or CGI, the costs go up.

Even Farscape, with muppets in the main cast only uses two muppets and double dipped on one of the voices.

Like it or not stories by humans often need to involve humans in some way.

 

[trekfan_1]

Some good feedback here.

Yes Voyager touched on the idea of being far from familiar Trek space. But Voyager still very much felt like a continuation of the TNG era — similar tone, structure, and plenty of crossover with known species and concepts. It was essentially a “lost in space” series, not a clean break. Which highlights what I’m really getting at.

The “other galaxy” idea was just one possible ingredient I threw out there — not the core of my point. And no, I wasn’t suggesting the crew would be lost or stranded again. Quite the opposite — the idea would involve intentional intergalactic travel through a new means of propulsion or exploration, not just repeating the Voyager scenario. Mainly, I just wanted to explore the idea of opening up new narrative space — unshackled from legacy stories and the constant need to tie back into the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, etc.
Those races can still be featured but maybe not as prominently .

That said, it doesn’t have to be another galaxy. It could simmpky be a future timeline — what I’m really advocating for is a creative reset in the spirit of what TNG did after TOS. A mostly or entirely new cast not directly tied to any existing series. Not a reboot — just something that’s confident enough to stand on its own, while still rooted in Trek’s core values of exploration, ethics, and the human condition.

I completely get the budget concerns. Less humanoids = more effects, and that’s expensive. But with tools like VR walls becoming more accessible, there may be new opportunities to pull this off without breaking the bank. We’re entering an era where those limitations may not be as prohibitive as they once were.

At the end of the day, I agree with many of you: great Trek comes down to great storytelling. It can work in the Alpha Quadrant, Delta Quadrant, another galaxy, a different timeline — wherever — as long as it feels like Trek and brings something fresh to the table.

 

[fireproof78]

just something that’s confident enough to stand on its own,

They don't have the confidence and fans rip them to shreds over anything different has not helped that.

I hear many say,"well, they should develop thicker skin to be in this business," to which I want to retort, "All my fan life I've been told Trek fans are smarter and better. How about trying to be kinder?"

 

[Campe]

I find entertainment in some form or fashion for every version of Star Trek I've seen. Still, there are times I want to say, "Burn it all down." Start all the way over and do something bold and new. Take risks with characters. Add new voices, new races, combine things. Use the existing continuity as a starting point and then tear it all to shreds. With 60 years of history to be beholden to, is it worth it just to take Star Trek just into a different galaxy and still have those ties and the possibility to go back to them if ratings slip? Or to just start all the way over? I know they kinda did that with the Kelvin moves. But we still had connective tissue with Spock Prime and all of the destiny bringing the Enterprise Seven together. You can start with Kirk, Spock and McCoy, but make some real changes around them and see how it affects the characters. That idea is very exciting to me.

 

[FredH]

It would be fine, and would also end up exactly the same, since in TV terms “another galaxy” is functionally the same as “more of this one” (just as, *in terms of plot*, the smaller, slower NX-01 is functions the same as the larger, faster 1701-E).

A bold new paradigm, if one existed, would be something that looked and played differently from Star Trek. Which would thus (a) be something else anyway [which could be great!], and (b) be viciously savaged by fandom like there was no tomorrow.

(EDIT: Also: no one was looking for a next generation? I guarantee you the producers wanted to maintain the franchise but with new characters, so they didn’t have to keep paying higher and higher salaries to the classic actors.)

 

[Riley]

I'm not sure how much switching to a new galaxy would really do for making Trek feel new, especially with the current folks in charge.

I think a series set aboard a generational ship could be very interesting. I've always felt that the Galaxy Class is the best design for such a mission. Maybe the U.S.S. Venture is sent on a long-range, deep space mission after the Dominion War ends. Starfleet decides someone should still be exploring while they're rebuilding. Time jumps would happen every few seasons or so, with a changing cast except for some characters who we get to see age along the way. Such a series could be pretty inexpensive as it would be set aboard ship quite a bit; the goal, after all, is to get to the destination galaxy without too many stops other than those necessary.

The other idea that I'd like to see is shifting the focus from Starfleet to the civilian side of the Federation. I hesitate to describe it as "Star Trek: Firefly," but the idea would be to see how "the other half" lives.

 

[Dukhat]

I personally think Starfleet Academy is a great idea and the best direction they could have taken. It’s a far, far, FAR better idea than Legacy, which would have just been a memberberry fest catering to a certain percentage of the fandom and would not allow the show to grow beyond some hyperinflated sense of 30 year old nostalgia that those fans probably don’t even want or need. In order to survive, Star Trek needs a younger audience, and SFA is the logical step toward that, IMHO.

Now, with that said, I am not the target audience for that show, and the premise is not interesting enough for me personally to continue my subscription (among other reasons why I’m miffed at CBS/Paramount right now and don’t want to contribute any more money to them.) But that’s just me. CBS should not make a show catered just to this fan, because this fan is the only one who would watch it (and perhaps a few other TrekBBS members I know…)

 

[Daedalus]

I'm all for taking Trek to a new galaxy, with brand new aliens and brand new threats. A lone pioneer vessel doing what a lot of fans thought Voyager should have been.

Have humans and a few familiar species in the crew, a couple of old ship paintings in the recreational areas and make the uniforms familiar but also new. That's about it.

Maybe a good way forward is to make this series and keep legacy stuff to movies. One series and a movie per year, a little like the current format of the Alien and Predator franchise.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

In another galaxy, they'd just contrive a way to bring back all the familiar Trek aliens. Ferengi have found their way to the new galaxy seeking new business opportunities. This planet holds the shocking secret origins of the Borg. Q's summer home. A surprise Klingon colony has somehow been thriving for a few centuries. And so on in that order.

It wouldn't be a paradigm shift, it would just be the same old, same old.

Yes, this. And there would be real-time communication with the Federation, and maybe a visit or two to the Earth for Reasons like it's just next door. *sigh*

When I was a kid and read Vonda McIntyre's novelization of Star Trek III, which includes a little throwaway about how Mandala Flynn's ship, the Magellan, surveyed a supernova in the Andromeda Galaxy. I thought that was wildly cool. A transwarp test bed! A quick and dirty survey mission to the Andromeda Galaxy! I would have loved then to have read a novel about that mission. I'd love at this age to read a novel about that mission, though sadly McIntyre is no longer with us.

But. Star Trek has historically been terrible about understanding the sheer scale of space. I liked the Coda trilogy, though the only way I could suspect my disbelief that some characters in a relatively near future (in cosmic terms) were taking actions that would affect lives on the far side of the Laniakea Supercluster, not to mention galaxies at the edge of the visible universe. This is not a criticism of the story or its artistic merits, just a reflection that, sometimes, Star Trek in general feels very small. Doctor Who isn't any better; Terry Nation, for example, used solar system, galaxy, and universe interchangeably.

Point is, getting off my soapbox, @The Wormhole is right -- an extragalactic Star Trek wouldn't look any different than what we've had before.