I struggle to think that network executives make decisions based of internet reviews and forum comments, but rather key performance indicators like viewership numbers and subscription sales.
I don’t bring this up to belittle your point, but to highlight what confuses me.
I was under the impression that this show, and the Kurtzman-era stuff in general, was doing better with the 18-34 demographic than the 35-49 (Essentially, the 90’s Trek fans) group and I would imagine that network executives would be chasing that younger group to, to use a phrase, get em hooked while they’re young. The SFA specifically seemed targetted at these younger audiences and, from what I understood, it worked!
So if it was well received by critics and the younger target demographic, then I struggle to think that the opinions of the older demographic and their lack of adoption could be enough to nail the coffin shut on the show. But also, if the executives or the showrunners did want to chase that 90’s Trek fan base, then their choices were utterly baffling.
I dunno. There’s something off about the close of this era of Trek. Then again, it’s not like the Berman/Braga-era ended elegantly, either.
Edit: Anecdotally, I know exactly one person in real life who liked SFA and it was my 74 year-old father. He’s liked every piece of Star Trek media that’s come out besides Enterprise and Lower Decks (he can’t enjoy animation, too associated with children’s media, so he didn’t even try Prodigy). Everyone else I know (other Millennial Trek fans) found it hard to watch. But, this is, like, an informal poll of maybe three or four dozen Trek fans of all the same ages, not really anywhere close to the data sample that a network like Paramount has.
I think the answer is that the franchise has new owners, who have a different idea of what it should be. Ideologically, they probably want something a lot less progressive. But also strategically, given that the first thing they announced was plans for a new film, they’re probably thinking there’s more money to be found in theatrical releases if the brand is focused there.
I suspect that the next Trek show we see will be spun out from the films and made specifically to support them, similar to what Marvel Studios does.
I hadn’t seen anything about new films, where did you see that?
I think Trek struggles to be captured in films well. The TNG ones were… rough stuff and the Abrams ones never really worked for me, but I guess they kept public attention on the franchise long enough for them to make the Kurtzman-era shows.
I struggle to think that network executives make decisions based of internet reviews and forum comments, but rather key performance indicators like viewership numbers and subscription sales.
I don’t bring this up to belittle your point, but to highlight what confuses me.
I was under the impression that this show, and the Kurtzman-era stuff in general, was doing better with the 18-34 demographic than the 35-49 (Essentially, the 90’s Trek fans) group and I would imagine that network executives would be chasing that younger group to, to use a phrase, get em hooked while they’re young. The SFA specifically seemed targetted at these younger audiences and, from what I understood, it worked!
So if it was well received by critics and the younger target demographic, then I struggle to think that the opinions of the older demographic and their lack of adoption could be enough to nail the coffin shut on the show. But also, if the executives or the showrunners did want to chase that 90’s Trek fan base, then their choices were utterly baffling.
I dunno. There’s something off about the close of this era of Trek. Then again, it’s not like the Berman/Braga-era ended elegantly, either.
Edit: Anecdotally, I know exactly one person in real life who liked SFA and it was my 74 year-old father. He’s liked every piece of Star Trek media that’s come out besides Enterprise and Lower Decks (he can’t enjoy animation, too associated with children’s media, so he didn’t even try Prodigy). Everyone else I know (other Millennial Trek fans) found it hard to watch. But, this is, like, an informal poll of maybe three or four dozen Trek fans of all the same ages, not really anywhere close to the data sample that a network like Paramount has.
I think the answer is that the franchise has new owners, who have a different idea of what it should be. Ideologically, they probably want something a lot less progressive. But also strategically, given that the first thing they announced was plans for a new film, they’re probably thinking there’s more money to be found in theatrical releases if the brand is focused there.
I suspect that the next Trek show we see will be spun out from the films and made specifically to support them, similar to what Marvel Studios does.
I hadn’t seen anything about new films, where did you see that?
I think Trek struggles to be captured in films well. The TNG ones were… rough stuff and the Abrams ones never really worked for me, but I guess they kept public attention on the franchise long enough for them to make the Kurtzman-era shows.
I’d agree the franchise has generally been best on the small screen, but there’s no denying that the Abrams films made good money.
The new film isn’t very far along yet, but it’s notable because it’s now the only Trek in any kind I’d development: https://trekmovie.com/2025/11/14/breaking-paramount-developing-new-take-star-trek-film-from-spider-man-homecoming-duo/