Is It Time for a Bold New Star Trek Paradigm?

[The Wormhole]

He chose a bald Captain

Well, no. Roddenberry was against casting Patrick Stewart exactly because he was bald. It took others convincing him Stewart was right for the role that Roddenberry finally relented on the condition of "have him wear a toupee." Then Stewart met with Studio Suits and read lines for them while wearing the toupee. Their reaction was "Perfect. Get rid of that stupid toupee and you got the role."

 

[tharpdevenport]

And for ratings grabs and to draw back in audiences, what did Voyager have to do? Bring in Klingons. Bring in Ferengi. Bring in (appearance) a Cardassian ship. Bring in other Federation personnel. Bring in the Borg. And finally, bring Starfleet and appearances of established characters.

It just wasn't working on it's own, due to poor ideas, poor execution, studio interference, and so forth and so on.

If you remove everything that grounds Star Trek and makes it Star Trek (Starfleet/Starfleet rules and ideals, the basics of the qudrant, humanoid aliens species we can more easily relate to, life lessons, commentary on life), than it's Star Trek in name only, like the political equivalent of a RINO. At that point, why even make it Star Trek? If there are such great ideas, why not create an entire new universe and what not? That way you are totally divested of Star Trek for this brave no idea of strange space and aliens blobs with no arms.

 

[trekfan_1]

Yes, you might. I might. Others around here might.

We're not the majority of the audience. We're not the one to persuade.

It would have been interesting to see what would of happened to Star Trek if Discovery ( or another show made in its place) was a wide accepted success. I dont mean just in Star Trek. I mean transcendling into the mainstream like The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones. Where would we be today I wonder.

Well, no. Roddenberry was against casting Patrick Stewart exactly because he was bald. It took others convincing him Stewart was right for the role that Roddenberry finally relented on the condition of "have him wear a toupee." Then Stewart met with Studio Suits and read lines for them while wearing the toupee. Their reaction was "Perfect. Get rid of that stupid toupee and you got the role."

Good catch — you're right, I should’ve worded that part more carefully.

That said, I think the broader point still holds: casting a bald British Shakespearean actor as the lead of a new Star Trek series — especially one that wasn’t built around familiar characters or the original TOS energy — was a pretty unconventional move. It signaled how different TNG was willing to be, both in tone and creative direction.

It doesn't matter to me if it's 1 person or a team that pushes change, I think it's time to introduce a distinct iteration of Trek. Preferably one that manages to also reach wide spread appeal with the fanbase and possibly even to the general audience. Far easier said than done I know. But i think it should be attempted

 

[Detached Nacelle]

Star Trek in name only, like the political equivalent of a RINO.

A what? I'm assuming a rhinoceros running for political office is not in the cards here. Shame really.

It would of been interesting to see what would of happened to Star Trek if Discovery ( or another show made in its place) was a wide accepted success.

I apologise for the fact that this will look douchey of me it is not my intention but it is just particularly irksome.
Would have not would of.

 

[Danja]

A what? I'm assuming a rhinoceros running for political office is not in the cards here. Shame really.

For everyone outside of the USA:

RINO: (Republican) In Name Only

 

[Steve Roby]

Roddenberry's big vision for TNG was that Deanna Troi should have four boobs. A lot of the creation of TNG's characters and setting is due to people like David Gerrold, who wrote the series bible, DC Fontana, and Robert Justman.

The era of Star Trek that started in 2017 (or, for that matter, 2009) has multiple new paradigms. That they aren't exactly the new paradigms someone wants doesn't mean they aren't significantly new and different approaches to Star Trek.

I apologise for the fact that this will look douchey of me it is not my intention but it is just particularly irksome.
Would have not would of.

Beat me to it. "Would of" doesn't mean anything in English.

 

[trekfan_1]

I apologise for the fact that this will look douchey of me it is not my intention but it is just particularly irksome.
Would have not would of.

Corrected.

 

[Commander Troi]

The era of Star Trek that started in 2017 (or, for that matter, 2009) has multiple new paradigms. That they aren't exactly the new paradigms someone wants doesn't mean they aren't significantly new and different approaches to Star Trek.

Truth! Personally, I enjoyed DISCO. They tried new things.

 

[fireproof78]

At that point, why even make it Star Trek?

Money. Gene's vision.

 

[Agony_Boothb]

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?

Why would a new galaxy bring anything different that a new time, a space station or a new quadrant didn't?

Star trek needs to take risks with storytelling and characters not just set itself in a new galaxy or quadrant. This is fundamentally why DS9 worked and Voyager didn't. DS9 used politics, religion and a man's journey from grief and civilisations journey from oppression to make the alpha quadrant interesting again. Voyager did so little with its premise, and too busy emoting the worst aspects of TNG.

Discovery journeying to the 32nd century was the best move the franchise has made since deciding to set DS9 on a space station. It cleared the board and allowed for a new canon to be forged.

Star trek needs to be moving forward and not continually stuck in the past. The 32nd century is where the franchise can take risks again and to an extent already is, but it needs to cut the memberberry cord and forge its own path