Star Trek went Disney long ago - churn out ill-considered concepts and scripts plastered with nostalgia designed to appeal to the fan base and zeitgeist and certified by a panel ensuring all the right boxes were checked off.

Strange New Worlds was a nice partial deviation from this - they still made sure to pander to all the current 'sensitivities', but if the writers of the show didn't love the original series and its fundamental qualities, I don't know who does.

The rest of it has been pablum. Academy sounded great until you read the synopsis. "Let's subvert tropes" followed by "Yeah, the academy is actually just another starship, and we'll give the kids superpowers". Their attempts to drop little Easter eggs for classic fans were just insulting - like having aliens show up with the writers obviously having zero idea that in the original series the whole point of their appearance was to watch them die in an unnecessary final act of self-imposed genocide.

Throwing Star Fleet uniforms and phasers into a setting doesn't make it good. Let it rest until they figure that out.

Starfleet Academy to Start Trek is what The Rings of Power is to Lord of the Rings. To me, both were unwatchable.

Just like Star Wars, the brand has been so devalued by the last decade+ of entries that no one looks forward to anything that's announced anymore. Giving it a break and getting rid of the current creative team is the bare minimum for anyone to take anything ST seriously.

Hopefully after lying fallow for a few years, a back-to-basics series based on hard science fiction stories by actual science fiction authors will be more successful. And of course, back to Roddenberry's original vision of a future in which everyone is at peace with who they are and who everyone else is, in which everyone has enough resources that the lower-level needs of Maslow's hierarchy are covered, so everyone's time and effort can be spent on self-actualizing, fun activities like exploring the galaxy.

One thing that really struck me about Academy was "Why are they introducing teen angst and bad soft porn?" It just struck me as formulaic and very, very tiresome.

Star Trek was always about possibilities and the future and hope. It was always about serious ideas and social problems. Delving into teen hormonal drama had nothing to do with that.

Holly Hunter was a delight, as was Paul Giamatti.

The best analogy I can come up with, is the producers think if you like eating a small plate of chili cheese fries, you are going to love eating an entire chafing tray full of them. Sometimes you only want a bit of something. Then maybe a nice salad, or a baked potato. Then you go back to chili cheese fries later.

Star Trek can't survive. Star Trek is a fundamentally progressive and left-wing franchise. It doesn't work if you start injecting culture War bullshit. And under the new ownership anything that's not culture War bullshit is out.

I haven't seen the very newest stuff but from what I understand they started to try and get away from the good old woke Star Trek plots a little and it went over about as well as you would expect. The ratings were pretty much shit and nobody's going to spend the money to make a science fiction show like that.

Honestly that's the problem. Sci-Fi is woke. You are looking towards the future and you're doing it for a mass market so nobody is going to want to sit through episode after episode of right-wing dystopia. And I don't think anyone believes in right wing Utopias because you always have to have an out group in any right-wing fiction and it's kind of hard to have a Utopia when you are explicitly excluding minorities of one kind or another.

Honestly as the Epstein class takes over media more and more it's just going to keep getting worse and worse. Go look up what Ben Shapiro's Media company is going to do and at this rate in 10 years that's what's going to be TV and streaming.

I do wonder what they're going to do when the ratings collapse but I don't think they really care about money anymore it's just about having control. Back in the '70s gay people took over TV not because the people writing were gay or woke or liberal or whatever but because TV had gotten so censored by the right wing that it was intensely boring. So ratings collapsed. They started putting gay people into sitcoms and other TV shows because it was controversial at the time and it got viewers back.

You kind of need progressive ideas to make media interesting because otherwise you're basically just looking back to a fake idealized past ala I'll leave it to Beaver.

Again though when the ratings collapse in the past they would have done something about that to bring viewers back but these days I think they might just let TV suck. Like how Twitter is losing money hand over fist because it's full of Nazis but muskrat doesn't care because it's more useful as a propaganda tool then as a profitable business.

Maybe they finally squeezed all the juice they could out of 'Trek. My $0.02? A "BSG: Crusade" reboot might work better & be better received now.

Every major character that dies, comes back to life in one way or another.

Star Trek may be dead now, but eventually it will be too irresistible for Paramount, who will always see it as a cash cow.

I only hope they go back to Star Trek's roots and scrap the "alternate universe" which is basically a Marvel copycat. We fans always loved Star Trek because it was more than just action, there was substance there too.

Anyone with even an ounce of understanding must have known that those scripts were just bad and stupid. It has nothing to donwith "wokeness" or ticking boxes - it's just if your scripts are so bad that it shows that they were written with that in mind, it makes them even worse. Hopefully it's a lesson.

Maybe the modern audience does not have TVs and computers?

Because catering to the alleged modern audience sure seems to ruin shows and games every single time.