Star Trek: Year One Hopes Fade As Paramount Begins Dismantling Enterprise Sets

Star Trek: Year One Hopes Fade As Paramount Begins Dismantling Enterprise Sets

With Strange New Worlds ending and sets being torn down, the future of the franchise is at a crossroads with dreams of the pitched Year One spin-off series following James T. Kirk in serious doubt.

By MattThomas - Apr 11, 2026 08:04 AM EST
Filed Under: Star Trek
Source: SFFGazette.com

It’s a bit of a weird time to be a Trek fan right now. With Starfleet Academy reportedly ending after season two and Strange New Worlds wrapping up with its upcoming fifth season, the future of the franchise on TV feels like it’s hanging in the balance.

For a while, there was a lot of buzz about a potential spin-off called Star Trek: Year One. The idea, championed by showrunners Akiva Goldsman and Henry Alonso Myers, would follow Paul Wesley’s James T. Kirk during his first year in the captain’s chair.

Unfortunately, that dream might be hitting a bulkhead.

According to reports from Trek Central, the sets for both Starfleet Academy and Strange New Worlds are currently being dismantled. Crew members have even shared photos online showing the de-rigging process in progress.

In the world of TV production, taking down sets is usually a sign that a show is truly finished. This is a massive hurdle for Year One because the pitch relied heavily on the fact that the Enterprise sets were already built and ready to go.

The concept for the spin-off first gained traction last year at San Diego Comic-Con. Akiva Goldsman described it as a way to explore the "lost years" of Trek history:

"What we’ve tried to do is reach back to Pike’s Enterprise and bring it in line with the kind of storytelling we do today, then take us right up to Kirk’s first day on the job. That’s the hope. That’s the plan. And if you like us enough, you can always write, 'Dear Skydance and Paramount, you still have the sets. Don’t you want to make Star Trek: Year One?'"

While the creative team did officially pitch the series to Paramount and Skydance, they haven't received a green light. Henry Alonso Myers confirmed recently that the proposal is in the hands of the studio, but with the sets being hauled away, that "easy" transition to a new show is disappearing.

The decision to strike the sets suggests that Paramount might be ready to move away from the prequel era and the aesthetic of The Original Series. This leaves a lot of questions unanswered. We still don't know what the next chapter of Star Trek TV looks like, or if Alex Kurtzman will continue to lead the franchise as he has for the last decade. For now, it seems like the journey of the Starship Enterprise under Pike and Kirk might be reaching its final frontier sooner than we hoped.

About The Author:
MattThomas
Member Since 10/11/2017
Paramount Confirms New Star Trek Movie, But Details Remain A Mystery
Related:

Paramount Confirms New Star Trek Movie, But Details Remain A Mystery

STAR TREK Comic Book Series Will Reveal The Secret Behind Sci-Fi Franchise's Red Shirts
Recommended For You:

STAR TREK Comic Book Series Will Reveal The Secret Behind Sci-Fi Franchise's "Red Shirts"

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Kurban
Kurban - 4/11/2026, 9:08 AM
They have no one to blame but themselves.
FinnishDude
FinnishDude - 4/11/2026, 9:19 AM
I'm sorry, but more Star Trek prequels, especially in this specific in-universe time period, is the least interesting thing they could have done.
ModernAudience
ModernAudience - 4/11/2026, 9:30 AM
😂
Bucky74
Bucky74 - 4/11/2026, 9:41 AM
It’s dead, Jim. They’ve killed it
BillyBatson1000
BillyBatson1000 - 4/11/2026, 9:50 AM
Picard 3 - Section 31 - Secured and stored Kirk's body in the Daystrom Station facility saved from the Nexus, extra-dimensional energy ribbon.

Bring back the Shat.

Bring back the Shat.

Bring back the Shat.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/11/2026, 12:17 PM
@BillyBatson1000 -

The Shat is in his mid-90's.

Unless you're bringing him back as an intergalactic Depends pitch-man.
FinnishDude
FinnishDude - 4/11/2026, 12:18 PM
@BillyBatson1000 - Shatner is way too old for anything beyond one-scene cameo.
BillyBatson1000
BillyBatson1000 - 4/11/2026, 3:37 PM
@FinnishDude - Yes, his age is undeniable. But he could be a linking device used for other stories without even getting out of a chair. He's capable of the authority and gravitas to ground things in the original crew dynamic without recasting and rehashing old storylines.
BillyBatson1000
BillyBatson1000 - 4/11/2026, 3:42 PM
@spr0cks - Even as a hologram he'd put butts back in cinema seats - just out of curiosity.
hue66
hue66 - 4/11/2026, 9:50 AM
Only way I would watch is if they used AI to realistically bring back the original cast and voices. Sorry but all cast trying to fill these original roles have fallen short. Except perhaps Urban. Use "Star Trek continues" writers. They did this proposed series already which is much better than anything since Deep Space 9. BNW is okay based on the few episodes I've seen though and Picard S3. Scotty in Star Trek continues is Doohans son and you can't tell the difference.
FleischerSupes
FleischerSupes - 4/11/2026, 10:21 AM
Just put out novels, comics, and model kits and keep it on ice until someone has a real idea in 20 years.
User Comment Image
Oberlin4Prez
Oberlin4Prez - 4/11/2026, 10:21 AM
couldn't have happened to a worse era of Star Trek.
BobGarlen
BobGarlen - 4/11/2026, 10:29 AM
In all honesty for the time being it's for the best. Star Trek needs to go find itself again. It needs to "Star" Date itself for a while before courting audiences again.
KetracelWhite74
KetracelWhite74 - 4/11/2026, 10:39 AM
Take a year or two break and then start pre-production on a completely new series that is NOT a prequel.
Beer85
Beer85 - 4/11/2026, 11:30 AM
Very good that this stuff failed. Hopefully the next effort wont suck as the last 10 years of crapola.
PapaBear562
PapaBear562 - 4/11/2026, 11:35 AM
I'm glad to hear this. Not because I want to see people out of work, or out of some personal animosity, but because Star Trek needs to take a break, just as Marvel/Disney and DC needs to do. Shut it all down, mothball it, and maybe try again in 5-10 years when newer, BETTER, storytellers can be hired on remove every series after Enterprise from canon, except maybe Picard Season 3.
trekee09
trekee09 - 4/11/2026, 12:02 PM
@PapaBear562 - We loved Lower Decks and Prodigy. Of everything in the Kurtzman era, those two shows (for which he was mostly hands-off) are the ones that should still be in production. He will go down in history as a stain on the franchise. While the '09 movie was a breath of fresh air, that gave him a lot of clout and runway to all but destroy the franchise.
LenSpiderman
LenSpiderman - 4/11/2026, 1:14 PM
@trekee09 - the first 2 seasons of discovery were excellent. As soon as they resolved the Michelle Yeoh storyline it went way off the rails. Strange new worlds was good. The Chris line movies I enjoyed thoroughly. But at this point I expect Star Trek to be comprised of disjointed stories. It’s ok not to flesh out every time period of the classic characters lives or follow up on everything that was popular.
NGFB
NGFB - 4/11/2026, 12:06 PM
Goeth woketh, goeth broketh.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/11/2026, 12:18 PM
@NGFB -
Star Trek has always been "Woke"

It's just that you were too stupid to realize it before this.
NGFB
NGFB - 4/11/2026, 12:54 PM
@spr0cks - true, but read the room. Woke isn't quiet as popular lately in case you haven't noticed.
malschla
malschla - 4/11/2026, 1:13 PM
@spr0cks - Progressive and “woke” are different things. There is sometimes overlap, but progressivism (which was what the Original Series definitely was) pushed for societal change based on universal principles of fairness and equality. “Woke” refers to reactionary pushing of post-modernist ideology regardless of coherence to underlying beliefs.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/11/2026, 1:28 PM
@malschla -

You don't even know what Woke means (notice I used it without the quote marks there unlike the first time?)

Do you even know where the term originated or who it was (Demographics-wiese) that coined it?

I'm gonna go ahead and guess,....NO.

So spare me your stupid lecture as to what "Woke" is or "refers" to, ,when it's something you just learned the last 5 or maybe 10 years and had never used prior to 2010 - unlike the rest of us who actually know what it means.

Go learn what Woke means - the actual meaning and history - and then we can talk.
I hate wasting my time debating people who are doing so from positions of pure ignorance.

And no, it has nothing to do with "progressivism" in the modern political ideological spectrum - not in that way completely, anyway.

The irony of all this is that if you read your own comment you actually got the correct meaning and even defition of it, but just not in the way you think or intended.

spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/11/2026, 1:32 PM
@NGFB -

Which "room" is that, exactly?

The one in which your anti-"woke" king and Orange Buffoon of a grifting messiah is making a gigantic ass of himself on the global stage?

And how did going anti-woke work out for the likes of Gina Carano?
She's not broke anymore?
She's swimming in all that redpill cash?

Yeeeeaaah....

Who in the room here can't actually read the "room" or are too stupid to?
malschla
malschla - 4/11/2026, 1:36 PM
@spr0cks - Cool. Ad hominem.

On the off chance that you actually want to discuss this rather than just spew garbage, I am fully aware of the origins of the word, but that has little bearing on its common usage these days.

Unless you want to say that “gay” still means men who have sex with female prostitutes, you have to accept that words do change. Just because “woke” meant something in the 30s doesn’t mean that is how it is most commonly used today. Right?
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/11/2026, 1:52 PM
@malschla -

We - the people who coined the term - STILL use it that way....TODAY.
Not 100 years ago (when WE coined it).

You - the Johnny-come-latelys (i.e. white people) who decided to take something that other people use as a term of commity and endearance to us and turn it into a cugdel and club with which to use to beat us - are the ones that decided what its "these days" meaning is.
Which we don't give a crap about.

Bear in mind the definition that YOU are claiming is the common usage, only became that way because white supremacists and their boosters in the public eye like Donald Trump heard that it was being used by a community they hated on, and then decided to appropriate it into the insult it is today.
Which happened about 10 years ago when someone was coming into the public eye.

So we should just accept that as what it is, right?

That's just how STUPID you sound trying to lecture someone who's used it far longer than you have,.....and CORRECTLY,....to accept the "modern" usage that's actually an insult to them.

And oh yeah, cry to me some more about "Ad hominem" attacks.
The victimhood angle ought to really work well for you given the social dynamics involved in this particular instance.

Man acts and speaks ignorantly about something and then cries foul when his ignorance is called out for what it is.
What a joke you are.


Next time you want to cry "ad hominem" but still feel free to chime in with ignorance about something, then maybe give it a second thought.

The worst part of all this is that ignorance isn't even an excuse because you CLEARLY know what the correct mean and history of the term woke is, but choose to use the wrong definition anyway, for god knows what reason.

I know why they (The racist redpill crew) do it - because they too know what the correct meaning is.
Ever bother asking yourself why you're doing it?

In many ways, you're way worse than they are.

malschla
malschla - 4/11/2026, 2:15 PM
@spr0cks - “you” created the word? lol…. Don’t you realize how ridiculous that sounds? And, regardless, it has no bearing on its common usage today. The most common usage in America today is as I’ve described it.

And, yes, you resorted to trying to call me stupid rather than respond to my point. You’re still doing it. You seem incapable of having a discussion without resorting to insults.
Patient2670
Patient2670 - 4/11/2026, 2:38 PM
@malschla - You're not entirely wrong, but Woke was actually coined as a term of enlightenment. A compliment used to describe a person who possesses recognition, awareness of not only self, but others. Compassion, empathy and a willingness to learn new things. In recent days, it's since been corrupted into an insult, more often than not, by those who tend to posess none of those traits.
malschla
malschla - 4/11/2026, 2:44 PM
@Patient2670 - yes, the word has absolutely changed meanings. I don’t even use it, because it is nothing more than a pejorative at this point.

That’s why it is importantly to agree on definitions in a discussion. Living languages change rather quickly.
Patient2670
Patient2670 - 4/11/2026, 3:00 PM
@malschla - Agreed.
NGFB
NGFB - 4/11/2026, 5:17 PM
@spr0cks - sorry if I offended and/or triggered you. Please seek out the nearest safe space.
ElBlancoChoco
ElBlancoChoco - 4/12/2026, 12:27 AM
@spr0cks - my God you're an insufferable twat.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/12/2026, 6:58 PM
@malschla - I didn't call you stupid.

I called what you said stupid.

It seems like we can throw in failure in basic reading comprehension to the list of "ad hominems" you'll want to claim despite you presenting evidence proving it.

What I did call you was ignorant.
But it sees I was wrong in that, because you clearly know what the correct definition of Woke is but choose and insist instead on using the wrong definition under the excuse that that's the "common usage".
Common "courrupted" usage, you mean.

Make sure you're precise with your definition.

And you're not interested in a discussion.
You never were.
You just wanted to jibe in with your opinion (IGNORANT as it is,...or as you parlay it to be), just so you could enforce your world-view on someone else who saw things differently.

That's why I don't care if you think I'm using "Ad hominems" against you (which are only ad hominem if they're untrue, and that's not the case here.) or if you think I'm wrong or you know better.
You don't.

And yes, we DID create and coing the word.
All you have to do is google the first usage and by whom (the community) and in what circumstances.
But you don't want to do that (if you haven't already), because you know what result you'll get back and what it will say.

No, it feels much better to luxuriate in faux-ignorance and act all indignant when you're called out on it.
When someone tells you you're doing something wrong, and gives you the reference to show you how, but you choose to ignore it and continue doing so anyway, what do you think it says about you?


And one more thing, does the 'America' where "Woke" has that "common usage" you claim it has, actually have any black people living in it or not?

It's like hearing a Lakota word and how they using among the Lakota, and deciding we're not going to use it that way but instead are going to use it this way which diminishes their own usage and meaning, and then acting like right and they don't know what they're doing.
Which, for America I guess would be on-brand?


And yeah,....objectively.....STUPID.
And I don't care how much that hurts your feelings to hear that.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/12/2026, 6:59 PM
@ElBlancoChoco -

Cry more about it, to see if I care then.

Try it out.
spr0cks
spr0cks - 4/12/2026, 6:59 PM
@NGFB -

In any disucssion, the person looking for the safe-space is and has always been the one whining about "Woke"-this and "woke"-that.

Do you know anyone like that?
JackDeth
JackDeth - 4/11/2026, 3:00 PM
That's a shame because STAR TREK: YEAR ONE would have been fun. Can't wait to watch the new right wing TREK where the ALL WHITE cast invades other planets to take their resources and colonize the galaxy. hooray.
dancingmonkey08
dancingmonkey08 - 4/11/2026, 3:40 PM
Yes, thank you! Enough with the prequels, I like Strange New Worlds because at least it has great likable energy and gives us a few characters that at least have unknowable fates, but a Year One prequel would be boring

Why in the [frick] are we not getting a Star Trek Legacy series that explores the post Picard Galaxy...utterly stupid

Sounds like Trek is going the way of Doctor Who, celebrating a big anniversary before going dormant for a while
ModHaterSLADE
ModHaterSLADE - 4/11/2026, 3:56 PM
Shame, they got a solid actor for Kirk on Strange New Worlds.
smudgewhat2
smudgewhat2 - 4/11/2026, 9:34 PM
Chris Pine was much closer to the energy of Kirk than this actor, who was also good. If you're going to do James T. Kirk you're gonna have to figure out how to bring in charisma, desperation, loyalty, hot headedness, kirk dropkicks, adherence to justice, swashbuckling under one roof. GOOD LUCK

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.

View Recorder