Regardless of the circumstances around its cancelation, the latest ‘Star Trek’ series has been robbed of the chance almost every other show in the franchise has been given.

[R]egardless of what you believe about Starfleet Academy‘s ending, one thing is certainly true: the series wasn’t given the chance to grow that it deserved.

Although it’s become something of a common belief among Star Trek fans that no series has a great first season (they’re often mixed, sure, but there are definitely diamonds even among the seasons assumed to be the roughest), something the vast majority of Star Trek shows have all been given is time to find their footing. It’s arguably only Prodigy that has faced a similarly unfortunate fate, booted from Paramount’s own streaming service to come to an end on Netflix after just two seasons—and that show likewise faced similar challenges of trying to find a new audience and likely was a predecessor to the ramifications of Paramount preparing itself for acquisition. Even Lower Decks, which faced a similar kind of cultural backlash when it first launched, was given the time to grow into one of the strongest series of Trek‘s latest era.

  • homes@piefed.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I thought the first season was a terrible mess, but it definitely deserved a chance at a second season

    • tea@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      We’re getting a 2nd season, right? They shot it but it hasn’t been cut and finished yet.

      • haverholm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        23 hours ago

        The second season has finished shooting, yes. And IIRC the cancellation announcement says the show will end after s2. But if Paramount want to really dig their heels in on hurting its audience, they could still stop post-production and write off the season like Warner did with that Batwoman show…