The truth is that there are so many producers, writers and actors proposing stuff in the Star Trek universe that it just dies in development. The best chance anyone ever gets to see a Star Trek TV series or movie is when someone has a development deal and they let them run with the ball. It can still end up being tanked by new executives at CBS Studios or Paramount. Even today that studio has more problems than the average bear.
As a rule, I watch all Star Trek series and movies. I don't love all the series. And I don't love every season of the series I do love. And I don't love every character of every series. I often find series that incorporate kids in a drama series do terrible jobs of it. For Next Generation, I think Wesley was a weak a character and annoying. This is a reflection of the writing as Will Wheaton and Levar Burton were the best knows in the case when the show came on the air. Likewise DS9 had two young actor and I felt their storylines were weak.
Shows that run as long as Star Trek have different versions and timelines. The animated series is not considered canon. It was darn entertaining through. The reboot movie in 2009 led to a different timeline. It shared enough Trek lore as to win fans. The TV series changes often makes it difficult when creative choices are abandoned along the way. Ask Star Wars about that.
The problem with trying to to keep decades long running franchises going is that you have to satisfy old fan while building a base with new fans who have never seen the series before. The original series had a diverse cast with women in senior positions on the crew. However, the network pushed back and did not want a women as second in command. They also pushed back on Spock's ears which they called demonic. The battle on Spock's ears was won, senior officer as a woman lost.
Science Fiction was an allegory of real world issues in the 1960s. And while the FCC and network censors might not allow certain drama in a police or medical show, they let things slide in Star Trek. Hence, the Klingons were Russians, the Romulans were Chinese, issues on black and white American discourse were raised in an alien species in dispute because one side of their face was while and one side of their face was black. And let's not forget the first back and white kiss on TV with Kirk and Uhura.
Gene Roddenberry was trying to push a positive outlook on the future even if was one where war, slavery, political interference and violence happened fairly regularly. Beware if you have to wear a red shirt on Star Trek. You're toast! The criticism on some of the later Star Trek iterations is that they were too to negative. However, if all was well after, it struck many as overly optimistic. For example, Voyager was always back to a clean, well run ship after every awful encounter. Many called it "the re-set" because there were never any long lasting effects from the battle to get home. It was the introduction of Seven of Nine that helped define the series in later years.
Starfleet Academy had quite a backlash from MAGA conservatives for too many characters and storylines they thought were woke. Some of these conservatives professed to be fans of the old Star Trek. It seems some forget how the show has always been progressive. William Shatner, Captain Kirk, dismissed those criticisms even though he wasn't part of this iteration of the series. Just another example of him defending the show's long history. If anyone knows the fans of the series, it is him.
The corporate takeover of Paramount/CBS Studios by Skydance and subsequent purchase of Warner Brothers has meant and will probably mean lots of layoffs. Old deals with the studio are not necessarily being renewed. And television and cable are thought to be dead mediums. The focus is on streaming. And now just by Paramount. By all of them. Star Trek is just another asset purchased. However, for now, debt has to be paid and producer deals will change or end. By 2027, there will be no Star Trek anywhere in film or TV unless the studio orders something soon. Even hot producer Taylor Sheridan of Yellowstone fame didn't get a new deal.
As for what I thought of Starfleet Academy? I liked the idea of a ship and earth-based school. However, I thought the idea of it landing and taking off excessive and a logistical nightmare. Gene Roddenberry invented the transporters because the cost of landing and taking off a ship as a physical effect was a lot. I'm assuming the producers got a budget for various sets and wanted to make sure they had a ship that could function like this. This was a cost issue for the show. Visual effects seem to have a huge budget.
To be sure the series is as glossy as you are going to see. Bursting with colour and graced with designs that are as posh as you can imagine. Costuming and make-up are amazing. They still struggle to provide pockets for anything. This is something Babylon 5 managed to do. Garibaldi shrugging his shoulders with hands in his pockets was a thing. Star Trek has never been exactly practical on these things. Of course, I did notice pockets on the Artemins crew so maybe they still have a function in space?
I have no problems with the characters per se. However, there is a lot to go through and speeding along as they do, it is too superficial. Teleporting aboard a ship and it puts you in a uniform and cuts your hair seems over the top again. It is jarring. You would think writers and producers would think these things over. A teleport device that could undress you and cuts your hair without consent is not funny. It also raises questions of consistency in technology. Even the Star Trek movies have had to address some of their outrageous tech plot points. The 2009 movie has Scottie and Kirk teleport aboard the Enterprise halfway across the galaxy. The next movie explained that Section 31, took the tech away from Scottie. Still, why travel by starship at all if the teleporter could place you anywhere in the world?
























