Strange New Worlds' showrunners advise fans to write to Skydance and Paramount if they're interested in a "Year One" Kirk sequel series

[Noname Given]

....There is a REASON P+ wanted to cancel it after S4 (they didn't like the direction the show was headed).

If that was the case, P+ would have canceled it after Seasom 3 (and if you look at SNW S3 Ep. 10 it WAS clearly written as a Series finale; meaning at the time Akiva Goldsman believed that after the increased costs due to the new SAG contract post actors strike that S3 WOULD be the last, yet is WAS renewed for a full 4th season.

And both cast members and Akiva confirmed that it was P+ Execs plan to complete SNW S4.anf then do a series end with a Streaming film (like Secton 31 was.) But when the Producers said a two hour film wasn't enough to tie up the character stories P+ instead agreed to a 6 episode 5th season.

Trust me in that if a studio is diseased with the direction or ratings performance of a series they will cancel it rather then renew and decide to spend more money producing new episodes.

Also, you can guarantee that if they d8d renew 8t but were still displeased with its direction/type of stories - they'd give the Producers LOTS of production notes and Edicts to follow; but all reports indicate this type of thing ISN'T occurring.

 

[Mudd]

Back in the day those fools traded Kirk, Spock etc. for Picard and his gang...

...and they've spent the last twenty years trying to get the first crew back.

 

[Danja]

...and they've spent the last twenty years trying to get the first crew back.

That ain't happening:

 

[Nerys Myk]

That ain't happening:

Crew. Not the actors playing the crew.

 

[Mudd]

I've been watching new episodes with Uhura and Chapel and Spock and recently Scotty since 2022. They're better. Oh, and of course Kirk drops around fairly often.

 

[Danja]

Crew. Not the actors playing the crew.

I know.

I was being tongue-in-cheek.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

It was years before TOS fans and cast members came around to accepting TNG as a legitimate sequel. I think it was largely "The Best of Both Worlds" that proved its worth even in skeptics' eyes. I don't think Shatner came around until they paid him to be in Generations.

Yes, the point is it paid off eventually. TNG was a great success despite two weak first seasons, GR's weird guidelines and all the trouble behind the scenes.
Fortunately, the franchise moved beyond TOS, even though it's not like I wouldn't give "Year One" a chance.

Not anything that could materially alter the story in this type of format.

There is more than just the main storyline(s), and those are of course influenced by character traits, personal experiences etc. Picard's more diplomatic way of dealing with issues, for example, is different from other commanding officers.

Making a new show 20 years after the original was made is not an example of trading in anything. Also, many of the TNG characters were evolutions of Star Trek II charcters developed by Roddenberry et al. in the 1970s, particularly Riker and Troi (cf., Decker and Ilia from TMP), which also doesn't fit the definition of trading in.

TNG started during the time of the TOS movies with the original characters and actors, and TOS itself was without a doubt still present popular culture. After all there were fans complaining about the absence of Kirk, Spock... in ST's 2nd live-action show.
TNG characters being alleged "evolutions" doesn't change anything; they are new characters. Even if we regard Riker and Troi as Decker/ Ilia copies, Decker and Ilia only appeared in TMP and were still essentially new.

...and they've spent the last twenty years trying to get the first crew back.

No.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

TNG started during the time of the TOS movies with the original characters and actors, and TOS itself was without a doubt still present popular culture. After all there were fans complaining about the absence of Kirk, Spock... in ST's 2nd live-action show.
TNG characters being alleged "evolutions" doesn't change anything; they are new characters. Even if we regard Riker and Troi as Decker/ Ilia copies, Decker and Ilia only appeared in TMP and were still essentially new.

There had been no television show in a generation featuring the original characters, and the original cast appearing on television had been off the table since the 1970s. By the time the 1980s rolled around, there was no longer anything to trade. There was no possibility of the original cast appearing in Star Trek on television, except as special guest stars as some of them did, starting with DeForest Kelley and his cameo in "Farpoint." I mean, you said it yourself, and I didn't think it even needed to be mentioned: by then, they were up in the movies.

No.

Yes. Over 15 years, and literally almost 20. Star Trek (2009) came out in... uh... 2009, and development began years before. It's now 2025. Do the math.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, the point is it paid off eventually.

I was trying to chime in and support your position, not counter it. People today forget how much resistance there was to TNG at first, but that's because it came to be so completely accepted that people can no longer imagine it not being accepted.

And the same thing always happens -- every new version of Trek is denounced by some purists as "not real Trek" and doom for the franchise or whatever, but a decade later it's generally accepted as part of the whole and it's the next new thing that's getting denounced as "not real Trek." It's happened with every new incarnation since 1979. (I want to say 1973, but TAS has had a rockier journey.)

 

[Danja]

And the same thing always happens -- every new version of Trek is denounced by some purists as "not real Trek" and doom for the franchise or whatever, but a decade later it's generally accepted as part of the whole and it's the next new thing that's getting denounced as "not real Trek." It's happened with every new incarnation since 1979. (I want to say 1973, but TAS has had a rockier journey.)

Look at how many people are trashing Alex Kurtzman's Trek.

 

[Firebird]

Look at how many people are trashing Alex Kurtzman's Trek.

1984: "Look at how many people are trashing Harve Bennet's Trek."

1989: "Look at how many people are trashing Rick Berman's Trek."

1993: "Look at how many people are trashing that space station Trek."

It's all happened before, and it'll all happen again.

 

[Starflight]

I suppose one difference is that TNG came to end up being a cultural phenomenon during its own run in a way that something like Discovery never really did.

It'd be most interesting to see how people regard Star Trek in 50 years' time from now - if people still think about it at all in a significant way - and which series they come back to.

 

[HotRod]

I suppose one difference is that TNG came to end up being a cultural phenomenon during its own run in a way that something like Discovery never really did.

But it didn't have lasting appeal. Just look at the diminishing returns from the TNG movies to the popularity of Picard. Even the much vaunted season 3 of Picard couldn't manage ratings any better than Strange New Worlds, and it had the entire original cast. TNG may have ruled the '90s, but Kirk and Spock are still the beating heart of Star Trek.

 

[Starflight]

But it didn't have lasting appeal. Just look at the diminishing returns from the TNG movies to the popularity of Picard. Even the much vaunted season 3 of Picard couldn't manage ratings any better than Strange New Worlds, and it had the entire original cast. TNG may have ruled the '90s, but Kirk and Spock are still the beating heart of Star Trek.

This is what I was getting at with the second part - I think you're right that ultimately, Star Trek for most people - and in the cultural memory - ends up being Kirk, Spock, and the NCC-1701.

It's hard to tell since it's all anecdotal, but TNG already seems to be undergoing a critical reanalysis - especially on this site, it seems like you can barely bring the show up without people tearing into it, and elsewhere online it seems much more "acceptable" to harshly criticise it than it was about 15 years ago.

FWIW I really like TNG (and Voyager, and early DS9) but I've always mostly decoupled them from TOS anyway, so I'm happy with whatever the ultimate view on what counts as "real Star Trek" ends up being. I'd be surprised if the 90s shows are totally discarded, and equally surprised if people decades from now think "oh, Star Trek was all kiddy shit until the great Discovery made it worthwhile", but anything can happen.

 

[UssGlenn]

That ain't happening:

Huh, only command division left. What an odd coincidence.

 

[Dukhat]

TNG may have ruled the '90s, but Kirk and Spock are still the beating heart of Star Trek.

This is what I was getting at with the second part - I think you're right that ultimately, Star Trek for most people - and in the cultural memory - ends up being Kirk, Spock, and the NCC-1701.

TOS got rebooted in 2009. It got rebooted again in 2017-22. I would bet that it will be rebooted yet again in 2027.

 

[fireproof78]

Huh, only command division left. What an odd coincidence.

Especially given the statistics from TOS.

 

[YouAreDooomed]

There had been no television show in a generation featuring the original characters, and the original cast appearing on television had been off the table since the 1970s. By the time the 1980s rolled around, there was no longer anything to trade. There was no possibility of the original cast appearing in Star Trek on television, except as special guest stars as some of them did, starting with DeForest Kelley and his cameo in "Farpoint." I mean, you said it yourself, and I didn't think it even needed to be mentioned: by then, they were up in the movies.

Agree to disagree.

Yes. Over 15 years, and literally almost 20. Star Trek (2009) came out in... uh... 2009, and development began
years before. It's now 2025. Do the math.

That's the (cinema) movie branch, and the attempts since 2016 have been desultory.
Disco, Picard, LD, Prodigy, Short Treks, 31 and the upcoming Academy show did/ will not try to get the TOS crew back. SNW? Partially, but still its own thing.

The franchise does not depend on its origins.

I was trying to chime in and support your position, not counter it.

My bad.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

That's the (cinema) movie branch, and the attempts since 2016 have been desultory.

Given the decline and ultimate failure of television Trek post-TNG, we'd have had none of the streaming Trek we've been seeing since and including DISCO if the Kelvinverse films had flopped.

Moreover, DISCO, starting in 2017, was more than TOS-adjacent right out of the gate.

DISCO started its episode #1 not with a throwaway cameo like "Farpoint" had, but rather with an essential TOS connection in Michael Burnham's familial ties with Spock, starting with consultation with Sarek, that ultimately led to... wait for it... TOS main character and starship intimate involvement (Spock and his Pike-era gang and... yup, it's the NCC-1701 ) that... wait for it... spun off the direct TOS prequel SNW that's literally been putting the TOS-era crew together.

How you can say @Mudd is wrong about angling to get back to Kirk and Spock for (just about) 20 years in the face of all of this evidence to the contrary is, to use a See-Threepio-ism, quite beyond my capacity.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Look at how many people are trashing Alex Kurtzman's Trek.

It's the Internet era. Grifters make a living on Youtube shitting on EVERYTHING. Look how many people HATED Smallville, and that lasted 10 seasons and set records back in the day.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies