Where did ‘Star Trek’ go? And what does it mean for the future of Paramount – and movie theaters?

For the first time in nearly a decade, there isn’t a new “Star Trek” series actively in production.

And if that sentence doesn’t feel strange to you, it probably should — even if you’re not a Trekkie — because there is more to that statement than no new “Star Trek” shows.

That’s because for most of its existence, dating all the way back to the 1960s, “Star Trek” has been a television constant. Not always at the forefront, not always a hit, but almost always there.

Now, suddenly, it’s not — and that raises a bigger question than just: When is the next show coming?

The bigger question is: What is “Star Trek” supposed to be now? And what does this mean for Paramount?

A franchise built on the small screen

“Star Trek” didn’t start as a blockbuster movie franchise, but as a weird, thoughtful, occasionally campy TV show in the 1960s. And somehow, against all odds, it stuck.

From the original series to “The Next Generation,” “Deep Space Nine,” “Voyager,” and “Enterprise,” “Star Trek” became one of the most consistent presences in television history. For decades, there was always a ship, always a crew, always a mission.

It wasn’t always flashy. It wasn’t always action-packed. In fact, a lot of the time, it was just people sitting in rooms debating philosophy, morality and what it means to be human — and it resonated across generations.

My very unofficial ‘Star Trek’ journey

I’ll be honest, I’ve always been a bit of a casual “Star Trek” fan at best.

As a kid, I remember watching the original series and thinking, “This is kind of cheesy, but for some reason I’m kinda into it.”

The sets looked like they were held together with duct tape, the fights were — let’s call them “creative” — and yet there was something undeniably charming about it all.

“The Next Generation”? I was probably too young, and my attention span was likely somewhere between “goldfish” and “puppy,” so the long, philosophical conversations in space didn’t exactly grab me. (If you’re curious, that attention span is now somewhere in the “puppy to slightly larger puppy” realm.)

But then the 2009 reboot hit. Suddenly, “Star Trek” felt new again. It was fast, fun, cinematic — definitely something I could latch onto.

Even if you weren’t a die-hard Trekkie, you knew “Star Trek” mattered. You knew the phrases and the legacy.

“Beam me up, Scotty.”

(Which, by the way, was never actually said exactly like that, but that’s a conversation for another day.)

From TV staple to streaming overload to … nothing?

In the last decade, “Star Trek” found a new home on streaming. Starting with “Discovery” in 2017, Paramount+ went all in:

• “Picard” (2020)
• “Lower Decks” (2020)
• “Prodigy” (2021)
• “Strange New Worlds” (2022)
• “Starfleet Academy” (2026)

For a while, it felt like there was always a new “Star Trek” show either airing or about to.

Now, that pipeline is drying up.

Shows are ending. Projects are being canceled. And for the first time in years, there’s no clear next chapter on the TV side.

That all feels a little weird, if I’m being honest. Because if “Star Trek” is anything, it’s a TV franchise.

Right?

Or is ‘Star Trek’ actually a movie franchise?

Here’s where things get interesting.

Even though “Star Trek” was born on television, some of its most iconic moments have come on the big screen.

From the original cast films to 1982’s “The Wrath of Khan” to the J.J. Abrams’ reboot that brought in a whole new audience, “Star Trek” has proven it can work in theaters.

Paramount seems to be betting on that again.

With the studio shifting focus back toward big theatrical releases, and coming off massive success with franchises like “Top Gun: Maverick” and the newest installments of the “Mission: Impossible” franchise (Thanks, Tom Cruise), there’s a real question being asked internally: Is the future of “Star Trek” on the big screen? Is that where it truly belongs?

Meanwhile, Paramount’s TV future may hinge on 1 man

While “Star Trek” is stepping back, Paramount still has a major presence in television, thanks in large part to one name: Taylor Sheridan.

The creator behind “Yellowstone” and its ever-growing universe has essentially become the backbone of Paramount+, which raises an interesting (and slightly uncomfortable) question: Is Paramount becoming the “Taylor Sheridan Network”?

If so, where does that leave something like “Star Trek”?

Even more intriguing: If Sheridan’s reported deal with NBCUniversal goes through, what happens to Paramount’s streaming strategy?

Because suddenly, you’re looking at a platform that:

1. Is losing one of its biggest franchises (“Star Trek”)
2. Could potentially lose its biggest creator (Sheridan)

Why ‘Star Trek’ still matters

Here’s the thing about “Star Trek”: It’s never been about explosions or nonstop action.

Sure, those elements exist, but that’s not why it’s endured. It’s endured because it’s about ideas.

Ideas like: hope, exploration, humanity at its best (and sometimes its worst), and the belief that maybe, just maybe, we figure things out.

It’s science fiction, but it’s also philosophy.

And in a world where most franchises are built on spectacle, “Star Trek” has always carved out a different lane. That’s why it’s lasted this long, why people still care, and why its upcoming absence feels so noticeable.

So, what happens next?

What’s next? That’s the big question.

Does Paramount double down on movies and try to turn “Star Trek” into a theatrical powerhouse again? Does the series eventually return to TV, where it arguably belongs? Does it try to do both?

(And yes, somewhere out there is the alternate universe where Quentin Tarantino’s R-rated “Star Trek” actually happened, which still feels like one of the wildest “what ifs” in Hollywood history.)

There’s no clear answer right now. What is clear is this: For the first time in a long time, the futures of both “Star Trek” and the longtime mega movie studio Paramount feel uncertain.

Final thoughts

Maybe this is just a reset. Franchises ebb and flow, right? They disappear for a bit, then come back stronger.

Or maybe this is a real shift — not just for “Star Trek,” but for Paramount as a whole.

A move away from streaming saturation and back toward the theatrical experience is something I am all for, and maybe “Star Trek” is the franchise and Paramount the studio that becomes the major catalyst behind that push.

I know their golden boy, Tom Cruise, is hoping for just that.

Whatever the future holds for Paramount and “Star Trek,” it’s a bit of a strange feeling.

For the first time in decades, there isn’t a new crew boldly going anywhere. For a franchise built on exploration, that could either mean we’re putting our compasses away or we’re gearing up for a bold new journey.