Entertainment
Star Trek Fans Divided Over Legal Ruling That Could Save Or Destroy The Franchise
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
These days, the Star Trek fandom is on the verge of a warp core breach. The sudden cancellation of Starfleet Academy means that there are no new shows on the horizon. Meanwhile, Paramount has pivoted and wants to focus exclusively on making Trek movies, the first of which will likely reboot the entire universe for the second time. That would potentially wipe out 60 years of continuity in favor of yet another creative gamble that may or may not actually gain the franchise any new fans, but will almost certainly drive many older fans away.
Now, with the Justice Department approving Paramount’s purchase of Warner Bros., the Star Trek fandom is divided. Some believe that this is exactly what the franchise needs; that taking a break from nonstop content so that new creators can try new approaches could lead to a new golden age of Star Trek. Others are distrustful of Paramount’s leadership and believe it would be better for the franchise to die altogether than slowly become right-wing sci-fi. However, both the extreme optimism and the extreme pessimism miss the mark, and the truth about Star Trek’s future is somewhere in the middle.
When Fans Get Sick Of Star Trek
This may come as a great shock to you, but I, uh, spend a lot of time online. Lately, I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the r/startrek subreddit and various fandom Facebook groups as everyone discusses a singular topic: the future of Star Trek. The future of the franchise already seemed dire when Starfleet Academy was canceled. Regardless of that show’s quality (or lack thereof), its cancellation meant that (thanks to Strange New Worlds having already wrapped) we had no new Trek shows in production for the first time in over a decade. That obviously put something of a damper on celebrating the franchise’s 60th anniversary!
This, combined with changes at Paramount, has soured some fans on Star Trek even having a future. After the previous merger with Skydance, David Ellison (son of billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison) now runs Paramount. The new boss is a very prominent conservative who is cozy with Donald Trump, and under Ellison’s leadership, conservative mouthpiece Bari Weiss has been hired to run CBS News into the ground. Because of these factors, many blackpilled Star Trek fans have become convinced of two things: 1) Ellison will leverage his influence to make Trek more conservative and less progressive, and 2) they’d rather see Trek die than become a franchise people like Trump would enjoy.
Trek, When The Walls Fell
Obviously, there are some optimists in the fandom that see all this disruption as an opportunity for their favorite franchise. Starfleet Academy wasn’t canceled because people hated its super-woke characters; it was canceled because not very many people were watching it. That’s a product of bad writing and bad leadership, but Alex Kurtzman was just certain that Star Trek fans would love a show about hormonal teen drama. He was wrong about this and many other things (more on that in a minute), so the optimists think that any change in leadership will lead to new writers, new ideas, and a bold new vision for this 60-year-old franchise.
Ironically enough, both the optimists and the pessimists are half-right and half-wrong. Pessimists need to realize that, regarding the politics of the man in charge, Star Trek has still managed to thrive under some people who wouldn’t pass a political purity test. Franchise creator Gene Roddenberry was a progressive visionary, but he was also a womanizer who feared putting gay characters in Trek and greenlit stuff like “Code of Honor,” the most racist Trek episode ever created. Later, the entire Golden Age of Star Trek was overseen by Rick Berman, a progressive who nonetheless killed gay storylines and was allegedly misogynistic to female cast members like Terry Farrell and Jeri Ryan.
Neither Side Is Fully Right
Where am I going with this? Basically, Star Trek became a cultural institution under progressive leaders who, nonetheless, had some very regressive attitudes towards certain things. With that in mind, it’s entirely possible that future directors and showrunners will be more progressive, even if they work for conservative leadership. It helps that Ellison is apparently a big fan of Star Trek, previously calling it one of Paramount’s most “beloved franchises.” As I have written about before, conservatives love the same Trek that progressives do, just for different reasons. So we are far likelier to get an Original Series-style reboot than, say, MAGA: The Final Frontier.
So, the pessimists are wrong, but does that mean the optimists are right? Not necessarily. It’s true that Alex Kurtzman has driven NuTrek into the ground (literally all but one show was canceled early!), and almost any change in leadership is admittedly going to be a good thing. But focusing almost entirely on Star Trek movies is probably a bad idea, especially because there are nearly one thousand episodes and only 14 films, over half of which are pretty mid. The movie focus, combined with the rumored franchise reboot, may be the nail in the coffin for old-school fans.
It Could Always Be Worse
In short, the Star Trek fandom is divided, but one thing unites us all: our love for the greatest sci-fi franchise ever made. We all want the best possible future for Trek, and there’s no reason to think the cash-strapped Paramount won’t do its best to generate money with its biggest franchise. That means nobody is actively sabotaging Trek with a political agenda, but they may yet release enough crappy movies and shows to finish a dying franchise off. All fans can do, then, is hope. After all, Rebellions are built on hope.
Wait, that’s the wrong franchise! But that’s a reminder to every Star Trek fan worried about their franchise: just go look at The Mandalorian and Grogu choking at the box office and realize things could always be worse.