this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2026
24 points (87.5% liked)
Starfleet Headquarters
161 readers
151 users here now
Starfleet HQ
The Federations source for all Star Trek news, updates, and discussion.
Rule 1 — Be Civil, Not Klingon
Engage respectfully with fellow crew members.
- No harassment, brigading, or trolling
- No bigotry (racism, sexism, transphobia, etc.)
- Disagreeing is fine, but personal attacks are not
Rule 2 — Stay On Topic
Posts should be related to Star Trek: news, updates, official announcements, or meaningful discussion.
- Off-topic content may be removed
- Memes should be quarantined under a level 5 containment field to !Risa@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rule 3 — No Prohibited Content
Some things are not allowed aboard the ship.
- No spam or scams
- No illegal content
- No porn or sexually explicit material
- NSFW content must be properly tagged
Rule 4 — Gatekeeping Is Not Starfleet
You can have your opinions on what counts as “real” Star Trek, but forcing them on others is not allowed.
- Everyone’s perspective is valid, TOS purists and Lower Decks fans alike
- Keep debates about canon and quality friendly and inclusive
If you see a post breaking the rules, report it so the moderators can handle it. If you'd like to be a mod, shoot Stamets a message.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm kinda surprised. I thought this one was critically well received and that the Kurtzman-era fan base really liked it.
I didn't care for it, personally, but this whole era of Trek has largely been a miss for me and I figured it had a dedicated fan base of its own.
It's sad to think there's not gonna be more Star Trek coming out soon, but I guess I was never going to be buying a Paramount+ subscription what with the company being part of the right-wing takeover of media in the US.
The ratings were terrible and it cost $8 million per episode to make. That’s sufficient to get it cancelled even if every Trekkie loved it.
It was critically loved. It hit basically every hallmark of Trek across the board, and then some, but of course the whiners had to be louder than anything else and run a review bombing campaign of the series. I've not actually heard any complaints about the show from people that weren't like yours. Just "Meh, not for me." The most I'd hear is slight complaints about voices and stuff, but never anything like people would say about Enterprise back in the day or Discovery more recently.
I wish they, the people who have whined and not added a single thing to any sort of conversation about Star Trek, would just fuck off out of the community. They just keep screaming about how things aren't exactly the same as TNG/DS9/VOY. They have no value to any conversation because the arguments they push are the same ones Boomers push for anything new in the world. They don't have any leg to stand on in claiming that the show isn't hopeful or isn't Trek when it's just a failure on them for basic media comprehension. That or because how dare they be diverse.
You didn't do this, but I am genuinely staggered with how many people have been saying how sad they are that Trek is clearly going to be put into a deep freeze when they were the ones who helped put it there by screaming about every single thing released since Enterprise not being identical to a show released, and they really need to start realizing this, 39 fucking years ago. TV has changed. The message of Star Trek hasn't but TV itself has. Get with it or fuck off.
Edit: Clarity. If you still have a problem with this then I don't really care what you think.
How has that attitude paid off?
EVERYONE IS WRONG.
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/
Wishing death on a cohort due to difference of opinion really does not add any value to a conversation or paint you in a good light.
Critically loved apparently has no value if it doesn't translate to high viewership or whatever reason execs truly had to cancel.
Attacking and hoping for the death of others is big energy but why are you focusing it at your peers who aren't enjoying your show? Why not consider the executives who actually did the cancelling? Or may have had a hand in directional choices that impacted reach and viewership.
Streaming has changed, arguably the golden age is over, well received, profitable shows have been cancelled because there are cheaper more profitable alternatives.
It sucks that a trek show is ending and I get you are not happy, but you have to critically think about how we got here. There's no conspiracy that 90-00s trek enjoyers ended it. Ultimately some suits in an office said no to it.
According to your post, having any sort of negative opinion that doesn't align with you is wrong and should be shunned. How are people supposed to have any conversation when you hold that sort of attitude? I haven't watched this show but you come off as vile.
Oh no how dare anyone not like the thing that you like.
No it was not.
I have no idea who that nobody is and I'll keep it that way. I don't need yet another in a long list of whiny Youtubers popping up on my feed bemoaning anything that isn't identical to what came before it.