They'll be next I am sure
Very late to this discussion, but yes - I think this may be the end of the current incarnation of Star Trek.
It feels to me like Skydance is aiming for a clean sweep of the franchise: Strange New Worlds ending, Starfleet Academy cancelled. That said, I see this as a pause rather than an ending.
I think the “Kurtzman era” of Star Trek is over. Not because it failed (it very clearly didn't), but because there seems to be a desire for a reset - probably something that better reconnects the theatrical and television sides with a new, cohesive vision.
In many ways, that’s a pity. I’m someone who would genuinely have liked to see Legacy happen (please don’t come for me). If Picard season 3 had arrived earlier, I think it might well have been greenlit during that period of relentless “content, content, content” just as SNW was.
As ever with Star Trek, I’m interested to see what comes next. The core issue, I think, is that Kurtzman’s attempts to broaden the fan base haven’t really worked. That leaves the franchise in a difficult position: the fanbase is aging; younger audiences haven’t been fully won over by attempts to appeal to them (Prodigy, Starfleet Academy); but the core audience remains strong and loyal.
The question Skydance is likely wrestling with is how to maximise that audience - new and old - so that Star Trek is viable in the long term. Or do they accept this is not a franchise that will have Marvel-level appeal and go for something smaller and more intimate (ironically, what ST was pre-JJ). My gut has always been that ST is more of an Alien Romulus than a Prometheus in terms of scale... thats when it makes sense business wise.
What I suspect they are after - but haven't quite found in the Kurtzman era - is a show that is what TNG was to TOS. Something that brings in a new generation of fans in it's own right and replenishes the fan base. For many millennials, TNG is what got them into Star Trek, not TOS. That's a much harder job to do than TNG had - there have been far more permutations of the concept now than there had been back then. That is the problem that the Kurtzman-era learned. Unfortunately to generate that level of demand, I suspect another break will also be needed.
It feels to me like Skydance is aiming for a clean sweep of the franchise: Strange New Worlds ending, Starfleet Academy cancelled. That said, I see this as a pause rather than an ending.
I think the “Kurtzman era” of Star Trek is over. Not because it failed (it very clearly didn't), but because there seems to be a desire for a reset - probably something that better reconnects the theatrical and television sides with a new, cohesive vision.
In many ways, that’s a pity. I’m someone who would genuinely have liked to see Legacy happen (please don’t come for me). If Picard season 3 had arrived earlier, I think it might well have been greenlit during that period of relentless “content, content, content” just as SNW was.
As ever with Star Trek, I’m interested to see what comes next. The core issue, I think, is that Kurtzman’s attempts to broaden the fan base haven’t really worked. That leaves the franchise in a difficult position: the fanbase is aging; younger audiences haven’t been fully won over by attempts to appeal to them (Prodigy, Starfleet Academy); but the core audience remains strong and loyal.
The question Skydance is likely wrestling with is how to maximise that audience - new and old - so that Star Trek is viable in the long term. Or do they accept this is not a franchise that will have Marvel-level appeal and go for something smaller and more intimate (ironically, what ST was pre-JJ). My gut has always been that ST is more of an Alien Romulus than a Prometheus in terms of scale... thats when it makes sense business wise.
What I suspect they are after - but haven't quite found in the Kurtzman era - is a show that is what TNG was to TOS. Something that brings in a new generation of fans in it's own right and replenishes the fan base. For many millennials, TNG is what got them into Star Trek, not TOS. That's a much harder job to do than TNG had - there have been far more permutations of the concept now than there had been back then. That is the problem that the Kurtzman-era learned. Unfortunately to generate that level of demand, I suspect another break will also be needed.
Last edited:
I never interpreted the line as referring to Pike in the past. I'm unpersuaded by the reasoning here.
The accident was recent. Mendez's dominant memory of Pike-as-he-was, without assuming stuff not in evidence ("Maybe he hadn't seen Pike in a decade") would be months or a couple of years old. And he would reasonably speak of that man from his POV, not co-sign Kirk's recollections.
The exchange:
Mendez is referring to the Pike who existed up until the accident/rescue.
For me to buy the "talking about ten years ago" interpretation as intended or plausible actually would require something like eliding Mendez's line altogether.
In reality, this is just one of the big handful of inconsistencies and nonsense embedded in a hastily written, beat-to-fit envelope story that was needed to keep the show's production schedule on track. Trying to rationalize them away is futile.
The accident was recent. Mendez's dominant memory of Pike-as-he-was, without assuming stuff not in evidence ("Maybe he hadn't seen Pike in a decade") would be months or a couple of years old. And he would reasonably speak of that man from his POV, not co-sign Kirk's recollections.
The exchange:
Mendez is referring to the Pike who existed up until the accident/rescue.
For me to buy the "talking about ten years ago" interpretation as intended or plausible actually would require something like eliding Mendez's line altogether.
In reality, this is just one of the big handful of inconsistencies and nonsense embedded in a hastily written, beat-to-fit envelope story that was needed to keep the show's production schedule on track. Trying to rationalize them away is futile.
Last edited:
With respect, it certainly did. It showed them. They were right there onscreen.
Flip a coin, and there's your chance of being right.
Maybe with TNG, even though using TATV as a defense is certainly a choice
But, how is TOS confirmed?
Seems to me that if TNG is there, that itself confirms TOS, since TNG’s future grows out of it. Plus they wouldn’t keep the TOS boldly-go snip at the end if it weren’t to be understood that that’s still part of it all.Maybe with TNG, even though using TATV as a defense is certainly a choice
But, how is TOS confirmed?
I suppose that is the intent. I don't think ENT can lead in to TOS but that's outside the scope of the thread and probably an argument that's been hashed out before.
A show centered on Starfleet's diplomatic corps WOULD be experimental (United has been pitched as "Star Trek meets The West Wing."
So, very much pulling away from the action adventure base of TOS.
That sounds boring for a Star Trek series.
Didn't people say the same thing at the concept of a star trek set on a space station?
The West Wing was based on a real world political system. A space station is a pretty simple concept.
But Star Trek has never really gone into any details about how the Federation works. Is its governing model more like the US, the EU, the UN, something else? Does it have a political and economic system that all member worlds sign on to, or, for example, is there a socialist economy for between-worlds trade but members are allowed to maintain a different economic system within their own jurisdictions? What about criminal law and sentient rights? Can a member world have slavery? Are member worlds expected to extradite people to other member worlds for something that's only considered a crime on one world, or is there one criminal code that all member worlds have to adhere to? Do member worlds have the equivalent of members of congress or parliament, or do they have ambassadors and embassies for dealing with other member worlds? (Seems to me we've seen both.) What about foreign affairs? If the Federation decides not to trade or communicate with the Gorn Hegemony, can the Andorians go ahead and do it on their own? Do members continue to maintain their own military and police forces?
Star Trek has generally ignored most of those details for two reasons: not to get in the way of a story, and not to alienate part of its audience. Is there a real advantage to spending ten hours every year or two hashing all this out, or is there some way to do the West Wing in Space while ignoring process?
In short, for those of you who want to see Unity, what does a typical weekly episode of Unity look like?
But Star Trek has never really gone into any details about how the Federation works. Is its governing model more like the US, the EU, the UN, something else? Does it have a political and economic system that all member worlds sign on to, or, for example, is there a socialist economy for between-worlds trade but members are allowed to maintain a different economic system within their own jurisdictions? What about criminal law and sentient rights? Can a member world have slavery? Are member worlds expected to extradite people to other member worlds for something that's only considered a crime on one world, or is there one criminal code that all member worlds have to adhere to? Do member worlds have the equivalent of members of congress or parliament, or do they have ambassadors and embassies for dealing with other member worlds? (Seems to me we've seen both.) What about foreign affairs? If the Federation decides not to trade or communicate with the Gorn Hegemony, can the Andorians go ahead and do it on their own? Do members continue to maintain their own military and police forces?
Star Trek has generally ignored most of those details for two reasons: not to get in the way of a story, and not to alienate part of its audience. Is there a real advantage to spending ten hours every year or two hashing all this out, or is there some way to do the West Wing in Space while ignoring process?
In short, for those of you who want to see Unity, what does a typical weekly episode of Unity look like?
One of the things that makes other Trek shows so interesting is that they often have to deal with the real-world fallout of the decisions the bureaucracy makes whenever they go on missions, or encounter situations that come to them. They're not detached from the consequences.
One assumes that United would be set at a time of some sort of discord or upheaval or conspiracy. It wouldn't just be a day in the life of his presidency.
Perhaps beginning prior to the crisis, so we can see the baseline workings and be able to contrast them with wartime actions.
Well, you just sold me on the series!
Seems like it could be a great opportunity to explore a lot of this...which, with good writing, could be done organically as part of the story.
Something for the nerds to sink their teeth into.
Perhaps there's something to be said for the idea that fictional settings don't always work as containers for any type of show.
A West Wing drama about the internal politics of the Federation feels as tangential as a gritty prestige drama about the criminal underworld in the Wallace and Gromit universe. Which is to say that even if it ends up being good as a standalone thing, it'd probably fare better as an original IP.
A West Wing drama about the internal politics of the Federation feels as tangential as a gritty prestige drama about the criminal underworld in the Wallace and Gromit universe. Which is to say that even if it ends up being good as a standalone thing, it'd probably fare better as an original IP.
Similar threads
