Next year we will "celebrate" tenth anniversary of airing last episodes of last Star Trek TV series.

Since I'm a Star Trek newbie, and I'm totally out of "surrounding rumors", can someone explain me, what is the real cause for this (if any)? Ten years is a vast amount of time.

Polish (my native) version of Star Trek: Enterprise Wikipedia article have even, somewhat "funny" (though completely outdated now) remark, that with cancellation of StarTrek: Enterprise, season 2005/2006 has become first for past eighteen years, that no new Star Trek TV episode was aried. Now we have eight more seasons like that. I think there should be some reason for that.

Note, that I read this closed question and most of its comments and I don't think mine falls into the same rule. Even, if there will be any new TV series produced and aired soon, thinkt, that my question will remain valid. It is interesting and should be interesting in future (at least to Star Trek newbies, like me): What caused nearly ten years of no Star Trek TV series after eighteen years of uninterrupted trial of series after series?

In other words, this question askes for reasons for current nearly ten years long situation, not if there will be any change to it (which would make the question off-topic and closed as cited one).

closed as primarily opinion-based by Izkata, NikolaiDante, user8719, Ward, Stan Mar 24 '14 at 14:05

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 7
    They kept making new Star Trek shows every year for 18 smegging years? Why?? Reminds me of a sci-fi story I read where earth is contacted in the future by powerful space aliens, and they've been watching all of our old Star Trek shows, and the shows have stopped coming, and the aliens are here to demand that we produce more of them, or else. – user14111 Mar 24 '14 at 9:51
  • 2
    I do wonder if the TV landscape has moved on somewhat. The big TV hits these days (Breaking Bad, The Wire, etc.) have movie-level production quality. Trying to match that and have the kind of effects work that a Star Trek series requires might be impractical/too expensive, especially when movies, with their superior production values, are so easily available at home. Would a new Star Trek series do as well as Game of Thrones? – Paul D. Waite Mar 24 '14 at 9:51
  • 2
    @PaulD.Waite Around when Enterprise aired, the TV landscape was shifting slightly from "episodic" to "serialized" - in large part due to the huge popularity of Lost. Unfortunately, that's something Star Trek doesn't really "do": Only DS9 was really successful at it, although ENT tried its best. Game of Thrones is more serial than episodic, and I suspect the same can be said of Breaking Bad and The Wire (although I've not seen them myself). – Izkata Mar 24 '14 at 11:35
  • 6
    Man, I miss Episodic TV. No worrying about 'missing' parts of it, focused on quality with each episode rather than having to string it all together, absolutely no continuity between any episodes...okay so it wasn't all good but it wasn't all bad either. – Zibbobz Mar 24 '14 at 13:29
  • 3
    @PaulD.Waite: Yes. Anything not set in the present day is expensive, because so many sets and costumes have to be made from scratch. That includes Star Trek, Game of Thrones, and historical dramas like Boardwalk Empire. And things like ST need even more makeup and special effects shots than Game of Thrones. ST's ratings had been declining for some time, so the network executives didn't think another series was a good financial bet. That said, I wouldn't rule out some kind of spin-off series from the new films if Paramount thinks there's money in it. – Royal Canadian Bandit Mar 24 '14 at 13:32

I've yet to hear any official source or information regarding that.

But I think one of the biggest problems for Star Trek is the franchise itself: "We've had that story before."

It's also apparent in the existing series (even TOS). Many stories always follow the same or a similar pattern with some slight variation. Also keep in mind that the three series from the 90's (and 80's) - TNG, DS9, and VOY - all co-existed in some way in the same timespan covering different aspects. In essence, they tried to tell different stories from different parts of space with different promises and settings. That worked rather well.

But at some point there isn't anything new to explore. Should they create a second TNG or DS9? I don't think that will work overall - it might feel too repetitive. And in-universe time goes on too. They can't tell new stories during timespans that got covered already (limits possibilities regarding global things happening). They already tried a prequel (with ENT) and they'd most likely run out of ideas and bad guys in case they create another sequel.

I see the biggest chance in new stories when taking the rebooted movies into consideration. But in the end this won't solve the whole "we've had that before". It just opens the possibility to retell known stories to add some variation (e.g. The Wrath of Khan and the latest movie).

Oh, and what could be interesting for me in some way: Creating a spin-off based on the whole temporal directive/timeship stuff introduced in VOY. It could get hard to find many huge and important problems supporting alterating the time line though. Plus I don't think they'd want to continue two different timelines (pun intended, more or less :)).

Edit: I think it's actually pretty safe to assume that this related question and answer could almost be seen as some kind of duplicate. The only difference, back before Star Trek: Voyager they had that one idea they haven't done before.

  • 2
    A perfect answer as for me, thank you! Pity, that I can give you only +1 for this: "they'd most likely run out of ideas and bad guys", cause you made my day! :] However, I must disagree with you on the time-like spin-off idea. In my opinion, current VOY (and other) time-related, paradox-involved chapters are already too hard to understand by largest group of viewers (young Americans? :]). So making entire TV series around just this idea would be just perfect for trekkies, but would put entire production at financial risk, due to "the general" viewers group -- a private opinion. – trejder Mar 24 '14 at 11:09
  • 1
    What about an episode when they are on the holodeck and something goes wrong? oh. wait ... – Chris Ballard Mar 24 '14 at 12:15
  • 4
    @trejder Doctor Who is currently the most (commercially) successful it's ever been, and it's also more focused on paradoxes/time loops/etc. than ever before. I don't think time travel episodes were the fundamental problem with Voyager. – evilsoup Mar 24 '14 at 13:43
  • 1
    @trejder The "Federation at war" idea would be a new, original take on the Star Trek franchise. A Decline and Fall of the Federation scenario would be fun, perhaps after a devastating war with the Borg or another species. The Federation, as well as the Klingon, Romulan, and Cardassian Empires have fallen into disarray and fragmented into independent worlds & sectors fighting for survival. – RobertF Mar 24 '14 at 14:53
  • 1
    @Michael Well, why not? Or how about Married... with Ferengi Children? ;) – Mario Nov 10 '15 at 6:14

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.