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.”
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.
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.”
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.
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:
Similar threads
