The discussion uses the uncertain state of the franchise as a springboard for a broader question: what should Star Trek actually look like after its current slate winds down? Rather than pretending to have insider answers, Mike and Rich work through the announced and rumored projects before shifting toward the kind of series they would personally want. That distinction matters because much of the video is deliberately speculative, and the hosts generally acknowledge when they are discussing rumors, impressions, or preferences rather than settled information.
The strongest idea to emerge is that Star Trek may benefit from becoming smaller rather than attempting another reinvention designed for maximum reach. Rich argues for rational, competent characters confronting scientific, ethical, and practical problems, while Mike imagines an ordinary science vessel operating in an unremarkable corner of the 24th century. Their hypothetical show would avoid universe-threatening stakes, timeline complications, legacy-character appearances, and constant spectacle in favor of mysteries, dilemmas, and character interaction. It is hardly a revolutionary concept, but that is partly their point: they want a series confident enough in Star Trek's basic dramatic machinery to stop embellishing it.
Their discussion of television production supports that argument more effectively when it stays qualitative rather than financial. The comparison between older seasons containing roughly two dozen episodes and modern streaming seasons with long gaps raises a worthwhile question about audience attachment, character development, and continuity. Their belief that production limitations encouraged writers to construct stories around dialogue and reusable sets is also an interesting creative argument. However, exaggerated figures about modern production costs are plainly jokes rather than meaningful economic analysis, and broader assertions about which incarnation reached the larger audience are offered without supporting numbers.
The conversation is also refreshingly willing to admit the limits of nostalgia. Rich initially says he would simply try to recreate classic Star Trek, then immediately recognizes that doing so might fail because television and its audiences have changed. References to The Orville and Lower Decks help sharpen what he actually means: not literal replication, but science-fiction premises strong enough to work even after comedy and franchise references are removed. His suggestion that a new production prioritize writers interested in science fiction is similarly revealing, although the rigid distinction between "science fiction writers" and "TV writers" is more rhetorical than convincingly demonstrated.
Where the video becomes less persuasive is in its sweeping treatment of recent Star Trek. The hosts describe the modern era as an enormous failure and repeatedly assume that newer programs will fade into obscurity, yet they do not provide viewership, subscriber, financial, or other evidence capable of establishing those conclusions. Even the claim that the franchise's attempts to appeal to younger audiences failed is presented primarily as an impression. Rich also openly admits that he has never watched Strange New Worlds and has sampled only portions of some other relevant shows, which makes the discussion more credible as an expression of personal taste but less authoritative as an assessment of the entire franchise.
The newly discussed movie receives more appropriate caution. The reported involvement of Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley gives the conversation something concrete to examine, but the hosts recognize the long history of announced entertainment projects that never reach production and resist treating an in-development script as a guaranteed film. Their skepticism also leads naturally into a more interesting argument: Star Trek may inherently be better suited to episodic television, where smaller problems and extended conversations can carry stories without every adventure needing cinematic stakes. That is a subjective judgment, but it is articulated clearly enough to become one of the video's central themes.
Presentation is characteristically loose, argumentative, and intentionally ridiculous. Wearing screen-used Discovery costumes gives the discussion a strong visual gimmick, and the increasing discomfort caused by those costumes generates running comedy without completely overwhelming the franchise conversation. The extended lunch sequence eventually abandons analysis altogether for physical comedy involving the restrictive outfits and food, so viewers interested purely in Star Trek commentary may find the ending indulgent. Still, the contrast between a serious discussion about restrained science-fiction storytelling and two people struggling to eat while dressed as Klingons gives the video a personality that a more conventional franchise-news recap would lack.
Pros
- Develops a clear and appealing case for smaller-scale Star Trek built around science-fiction problems, ethical dilemmas, competent characters, and episodic storytelling.
- Distinguishes the proposed new movie from the many speculative franchise projects that may never actually reach production.
- Acknowledges that simply recreating older Star Trek would not automatically succeed with contemporary audiences.
- Uses The Orville and Lower Decks to clarify what the hosts value about story construction rather than relying entirely on nostalgia.
- The screen-used Discovery costumes provide a memorable visual premise and naturally fuel much of the comedy.
Cons
- Sweeping declarations about modern Star Trek's commercial and cultural failure are not supported with audience or financial evidence.
- Some judgments about recent series are unusually broad given that Rich acknowledges having watched little or none of several relevant shows.
- The proposed return to longer, cheaper seasons is interesting creatively but receives little serious consideration of contemporary television production realities.
- Hyperbolic budget comparisons and assumptions about profitability should not be mistaken for substantive economic analysis.
- The lengthy food-and-costume comedy at the end substantially reduces the amount of focused franchise discussion.
This works best not as a definitive diagnosis of Star Trek's business prospects, but as an entertaining argument for rediscovering the franchise through restraint. The hosts make a persuasive creative case for ordinary crews, smaller problems, stronger science-fiction premises, and less dependence on spectacle, even when their broader claims about modern Trek exceed the evidence they provide. The result is funny and thoughtful enough to make its hypothetical future more interesting than its attempts to declare the recent past a failure.
