Re-Launch, Reboot, or Re-Imagine Rebuilding the Future: Why Star Trek Fans Still Keep Looking Beyond TNG Spread the love When Star Trek finally came back to TV in 2017, we all knew what we were getting. The show had been announced two years earlier, and… by Ian Cullen December 6, 2025 Spread the love When Star Trek finally came back to TV in 2017, we all knew what we were getting. The show had been announced two years earlier, and it was clear from day one that it would be a prequel. Some fans (myself included) would have preferred a show set after the 24th century, but there was still a bit of excitement. A prequel could work. Enterprise proved the era had potential. And with modern effects and a new creative team, there was room to do something interesting. But as the new era played out, it wasn’t the prequel setting that caused friction. It wasn’t serialization. It wasn’t even the shift to more emotional storytelling. The problem was much simpler: they started changing things that weren’t broken. Major redesigns, lore contradictions, and tonal choices that didn’t sit comfortably with the established universe made it feel like the Trek many of us knew had been pulled out from under our feet. Fans aren’t allergic to change. Trek has changed constantly.What threw people off was losing the sense that it all connected — that the universe still followed the same rules it always had. And that’s why the appetite for something like Star Trek: Legacy is still enormous. It’s not because people want to go backwards. It’s because they want to go forwards again. The Prequel Problem Was Never the Prequel Doing a prequel is hard but not impossible. You just have to respect the boundaries: the design language, the technology, the history. The issue wasn’t the decision to tell stories before TOS — it was the decision to reinvent things that already had explanations in canon. And the Klingons are the textbook example. Yes, the TOS Klingons looked different from the movie-era Klingons. But Star Trek had already handled that discrepancy in-universe: DS9 addressed it with a bit of humour in Trials and Tribble-ations, with Worf diplomatically refusing to talk about it. Enterprise went further and gave us a full, detailed explanation in the Affliction / Divergence arc — a genetic plague caused by early Augment experiments that altered Klingon physiology. So the “Klingon evolution problem” was solved. It had lore, logic, internal consistency, and even character commentary behind it. That’s why the Discovery-era redesign landed so poorly with long-time fans. It wasn’t just a new look. It ignored existing explanations, contradicted established canon, and didn’t offer a new reason for the change. It broke continuity for no narrative benefit. Fans weren’t opposed to a new Klingon story.They were opposed to throwing out answers the franchise had already given. That’s the real prequel issue in a nutshell: not the setting, but the choice to rewrite instead of build. Star Trek: United — A Prequel Concept That Actually Makes Sense If you want proof that a prequel could potentially work in modern Trek, look no further than Mike Sussman’s Star Trek: United . The concept never got a green light, but it is still being pitched, and with new leadership arriving at Paramount, it suddenly feels plausible again. United picks up 30 years after Enterprise and focuses on the formation of the Federation — the politics, the diplomacy, the friction between worlds that aren’t used to trusting each other. And crucially, it doesn’t try to rewrite canon to make its point. It builds on it. United gets several things right: It treats the era as the bridge between Archer’s 22nd century and the world of TOS/TNG. It’s character-driven without throwing out established lore. It focuses on what actually makes early Federation history interesting: the politics, the negotiations, the failures, and the compromises. Legacy characters appear when they’re relevant — not as cameos to “wink” at the viewer. In other words, United understands the assignment.It connects the dots instead of redrawing them. And with Paramount in a transitional period, it’s exactly the kind of thoughtful prequel idea that could gain traction — especially with fans who want something new but still consistent with the universe they grew up with. United proves the issue was never doing a prequel.It was how the prequel was executed. Trek’s Tone Shift — When Debate Became Declaration Classic Trek had a very specific charm: characters would argue, debate, challenge each other, and the viewer was invited to think along with them—Picard vs. Crusher, Sisko vs. Kira, Janeway vs. Chakotay. Nobody was automatically right. That was the point. Modern Trek often replaced that with emotional declarations or singular moral viewpoints. Characters explained their feelings rather than testing their ideas against each other. It’s not bad storytelling — but it’s not the storytelling Trek built its reputation on. And for a lot of older fans, that tonal shift was more jarring than any redesign.Trek stopped asking questions and started giving answers. A Universe That Narrowed Instead of Expanded From TOS through Enterprise, Trek managed this incredible balancing act: kids could enjoy the adventure, adults could enjoy the political and philosophical layers, and everyone found something in it. It wasn’t a niche show — it was a broad, thoughtful sci-fi universe. The newer era tightened its focus. More serialized trauma plots, fewer ensemble dynamics, and a tone that leaned heavily toward one demographic. Again, this works for some people. But Trek, traditionally, was never about appealing to “some” people. It was the big tent sci-fi series. When that tent shrank, the audience naturally fragmented. Why Picard Season 3 Hit So Hard Now we get to the turning point. Picard Season 3 didn’t magically restore everything at once. It actually started in a much darker place — with Starfleet infiltrated, compromised, and frankly a mess. Seasons 1 and 2 showed a Federation that felt downright xenophobic and dysfunctional, but without explaining why. Season 3 finally tied all of that together. It turned the chaos into a story instead of a narrative accident. And by the end? The Federation felt like the Federation again. The future finally looked like something worth exploring. Season 3 didn’t show a functional Starfleet — it fixed it. And that sense of repair, of course correction, was exactly what older Trek fans had been waiting years to see. Why the Future (and Legacy) Still Matter The 25th century is Trek’s easiest win. It doesn’t require redesigning anything or retconning anything. It’s already set up. It’s familiar without being restrictive. It leaves room for new characters but allows legacy ones to pass the torch without overshadowing anything. Most importantly:It takes Star Trek forward, not sideways. Fans aren’t asking for another nostalgia trip. They’re asking for a future that builds on what came before. Something that honours the universe instead of rewriting it. Final Thoughts: Star Trek Doesn’t Need Another Reinvention It needs continuation. The modern debate around Trek isn’t about hating specific creators or clinging to the past. It’s about wanting the franchise to feel like one continuous universe again — one timeline, one evolving story, one future. Whether that future comes from Legacy, United, or something nobody has pitched yet, the message from fans is the same: “Show us where we go next.” Tags Source: https://www.scifipulse.net/rebuilding-the-future-why-star-trek-fans-still-keep-looking-beyond-tng/