Time for a change?

The U.S. House of Representatives this week passed a measure to invoke permanent daylight saving time. I figure the odds of it passing the Senate to be reasonably good, given that a similar measure passed that chamber a few years ago, before being stalled in the House, but it still begs the question of whether that's a good idea.

I'll be the first to admit that I am all for getting rid of the twice yearly clock changes, especially the one in the spring, where we lose an hour to 'spring forward'. It typically takes me about a week to readjust, during which time I feel 'jet-lagged' and out of sorts. Statistics show I am not alone in this, as it is well documented that traffic and workplace accidents spike up the first week of DST, along with incidents of heart attacks and strokes. Tempers commonly become shorter and judges tend to impose harsher sentences then as well. Falling back to so-called standard time for about four months, beginning in early November is less arduous; in fact, it feels to me like a return to normality. 

That said, eliminating semi-annual time resets by moving permanently to daylight saving time is not necessarily the best approach. What today's lawmakers seem to fail to take into account is that permanent daylight saving time was tried a little over 50 years ago and it was a failure. 

Enacted in January 1974 as an energy-saving measure in response to the OPEC oil embargo and ensuing energy crisis of the time, year-round daylight saving time did not even last a full year before widespread public support for the measure quickly eroded in the face of reality. 

 People quickly realized this shift meant increased safety risks during morning commutes, especially for school-age children, waiting for their buses in the dark. And the promised energy savings turned out to be infinitesimal at best. Lawmakers back then learned from their mistake, but it seems their later counterparts have repeatedly failed to learn from that history. 

After perpetual DST failed in 1974, lawmakers have incrementally expanded DST in 1986 and again in 2007. Today, we spend almost eight months of each year in DST and just four of standard time, roughly a two-to-one ratio. Ironically, the 2007 expansion was folded into an energy bill, thus mirroring the 1974 attempt at year-round DST, although lawmakers were a little more forthcoming that the true intent was to stimulate the economy by enabling people to be outside their homes--and thus spending money--later in the day. Unfortunately, it did nothing to prevent the following year's 'great recession'.

The bottom line is that additional hour of daylight later in the day has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is at the beginning of the day. Many people apparently fail to realize that DST does not increase the net amount of daylight, it just reallocates an hour. Proponents say it would allow more time to be outdoors after work, but dusk at 6:00 p.m. versus 5:00 p.m. in the dead of winter would make little difference for most workers, who would, at best, arrive home in twilight. Maybe there would be enough time to walk the dog without a flashlight in hand, but not enough to grill burgers. Like it or not, the amount of daylight at any given time of the year is purely a natural phenomenon, completely outside of human control. 

It should come as no surprise that the greatest support for permanent DST comes from southern tier states, especially those like Florida, that have economies based largely on tourism, while the least support comes from the northern tier states like Michigan, where geography provides for even less daylight in winter than is experienced in southern states. Under perpetual DST, the northern tier would not see daylight until well after 9:00 a.m. in the dead of winter. 

Fortunately for those states, the bill presently being considered does include an opt-out clause, allowing states to choose to remain on perpetual standard time, provided they choose to do so before perpetual DST takes affect. This is somewhat mirrors legislation enacted in the European Union a few years ago, which required member nations to opt for either perpetual 'summer time' or 'winter time' (their terms for daylight saving and standard time) before the next scheduled clock change. 

Although I have long jokingly advocated for split-the-difference time, permanently moving clocks 30 minutes to give all sides at least some of what they want, the more logical solution is permanent standard time. Days will get longer when they're supposed to be longer and will grow short when they're supposed to be short, just as nature intended it, but without the inherent safety concerns. No amount of clock tinkering will give us more daylight than we already have. 

 

The 'Secret' Sauce

 

Now that Memorial Day is receding in the rear view mirror, the summer grilling season is in full swing. This has gotten me to assess the sauces and seasonings I use to see what needs to be restocked. I was reassured to see that one of my favorites, of which few people seem to be aware, was in good supply, with a partial bottle in the fridge and an unopened one in the cabinet. What is this esoteric staple of my grilling arsenal? It's Carolina Treet Cooking Barbecue sauce. Unique among barbecue sauces, it has a savory flavor with no sweetness; in fact, it contains no sugars or other sweeteners, which is good for me as a diabetic. Look at the ingredient lists on most barbecue sauces and you'll find something like high-fructose corn syrup at the top of the list, but not here. 

Carolina Treet grew out of the vinegary tradition of eastern North Carolina barbecue, but it's thickened to cling to the meat. Legend has it the sauce was developed in the 1950s by a local grocery store in Wilmington, N.C. to coat their barbecue chicken. Today, it's gone on to be a regional favorite, carried by grocery stores throughout the Carolinas. 

When reading reviews of Carolina Treet online, the only negative ones I ever see are from people who have unrealistic expectations of it. They think they're getting a traditional, sweet, tangy BBQ sauce, and are thus unprepared for its true nature, and as Jack Nicholson's character said in A Few Good Men, "[They] can't handle the truth," which is that Carolina Treet is more of a cooking sauce, which is why that word appears above 'Barbecue' on the label. In short, tasting is believing.

I first encountered Carolina Treet more than 40 years ago when a friend, who had grown up in Wilmington, invited me to a family cookout at nearby Wrightsville Beach. The centerpiece was chicken, grilled with Carolina Treet. It was literally the best chicken I had ever had. Nothing else tasted anything like it. I immediately put it on my grocery shopping list and made it a permanent fixture of my pantry. 

What is truly surprising about Carolina Treet is the way it tastes out of the bottle is completely different from how it tastes on the cooked meat. The flavor out of the bottle is somewhat aggressive, vinegary and spicy. Years ago, I made the mistake of letting my then-stepdaughter taste the sauce on a spoon and she then refused to eat the meat grilled with it. This subsequently prompted my (now ex-) wife to ban it from our pantry. This was unfortunate because what happens to the meat on the grill is nothing short of magical. 

Since it contains no sugar, the sauce does not caramelize and blacken on the grill the way most other barbecue sauces do. Instead, as it sticks to the outside of the meat, it forms sort of a crust that melds with the juices and seals them in, so not only is the meat juicier, but the flavor of the sauce itself is transformed from the vinegar-and-spice profile straight out of the bottle to something much more subtle that enhances the flavor of the meat instead of competing with it or covering it up. 

I use Carolina Treet frequently when grilling chicken, and with consistently tasty results, and I even pour a little into the slow cooker as a flavor enhancer when I make Brunswick stew, giving the broth an extra measure of richness. But by far, my favorite way to use Carolina Treet is on pork, particularly thick-cut pork loin chops. As with chicken, I brush the sauce on when I first place the meat on the grill, and then reapply it every time I turn the meat, letting the sauce gradually build into a savory crust, as it seals in juices and turns the thin layer of fat on the edge into a rich explosion of flavor. 

Carolina Treet is definitely a regional phenomenon, available primarily on North Carolina grocery shelves, but it is one deserving of expansion. Priced similarly to other barbecue sauces at local stores, it is hard to find in other regions, and I have read of people outside the Carolinas going to great lengths to procure a bottle or two. The times I have been unable to find it on a store's shelf is usually because it's temporarily sold out, not because the store has stopped carrying it. The sauce can also be purchased online from the manufacturer's Web site or via resellers like Amazon, albeit at a significant markup, compared to the prices charged at local stores. 

There are few things in life that stand the test of time, remaining only in their original and unadulterated form, but Carolina Treet is indeed one of them. To date, it remains a category unto itself, without competing versions or store brand knockoffs, nor Carolina Treet seen fit to expand its offerings beyond the original sauce. To be honest, I truly cringe at the thought of what some huge, corporate conglomerate might do to Carolina Treet in an attempt to bring it to a more mass audience and/or cut production costs. At least for now, that's not on the radar. We don't have to worry about such gastronomic nightmares, and can take comfort that even though Carolina Treet is less known to the masses, those who do know it love and appreciate it for what it is, meaning the secret is not only in the sauce, the sauce itself is the secret! 

 

Is Star Trek Dead, Jim?

With Star Trek celebrating its 60th anniversary this year, things are not as celebratory as one might expect; in fact, with no Star Trek projects presently in production, questions regarding the viability of the franchise. 

This seeming pessimism stems from the fact that Star Trek: Strange New Worlds and Star Trek: Starfleet Academy are both coming to an end next year, and there are no new Star Trek projects in the works. This reality was further reinforced a few days ago with news that the standing sets for both shows are now being demolished, and with them, the hope that many viewers held for Star Trek: Year One, a follow-on to Strange New Worlds, chronicling the earliest adventures of Captain James T. Kirk aboard the Enterprise. Part of the argument in favor of Year One was that it would reuse costumes and sets from Strange New Worlds, thus saving considerable cost. 

The apparent hiatus is likely also related to parent company Paramount's recent merger with Skydance and a pending merger with Warner Bros./Discovery, along with the conclusion later this year of Star Trek executive producer Alex Kurtzman's contract to produce Star Trek content for Paramount+. All of these things lead to a time of major transition, where it is doubtless prudent and logical to hit the proverbial pause button until the dust settles, but that doesn't necessarily mean Star Trek is done for. Paramount has announced that a new Star Trek feature film will be forthcoming in the next couple of years, but almost no concrete details are yet available. 

With both Strange New Worlds and Starfleet Academy set to stream their final episodes sometime in 2027, the wait for the proposed new Star Trek movie after that may be relatively short, and looking back on the history of the franchise, we've seen that movie before, so to speak. The timeline below tells the story:

• 1966--The original Star Trek premieres on NBC
• 1969--The original series ends its three-year run on NBC and enters syndication
• 1972--The animated series enters pre-production, ending a three-year dormant period.
• 1973--the animated series begins its two-season run as part of NBC's Saturday morning lineup, concluding in 1974.
• 1976--Tenth anniversary. Star Trek is in a quiet period between the animated series and Phase II. 
• 1977--Star Trek: Phase Two, enters pre-production, but then evolves into Star Trek: The Motion Picture, launching the feature film franchise.
• 1979--Star Trek: The Motion Picture released
• 1982--Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan released 
• 1984--Star Trek III: The Search for Spock released 
• 1986--20th anniversaryStar Trek IV: The Voyage Home released; Star Trek: The Next Generation announced
• 1987: Star Trek: The Next Generation premieres in first-run syndication 
• 1989: Star Trek V: The Final Frontier released
• 1991--Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country released
• 1993--Star Trek: Deep Space Nine premieres
• 1994--Next Generation concludes its run on TV and Star Trek: Generations is released
• 1995--Star Trek: Voyager premieres on UPN and in first-run syndication in some markets.
• 1996--30th anniversary. Star Trek: First Contact released, DS9 and Voyager in production
• 1998--Star Trek: Insurrection released 
• 1999--DS9 concludes.
• 2000--Enterprise premieres on UPN
• 2001--Voyager concludes
• 2002--Star Trek: Nemesis, the last of the TNG feature films, is released
• 2005--Enterprise is canceled following the merger of UPN and WB television networks.
• 2006--40th anniversary. First of J. J. Abrams' Kelvin timeline Star Trek feature films enters pre-production; otherwise quiet.
• 2009--Star Trek, starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, et al, released.
• 2012--Star Trek: Into Darkness released
• 2016--50th anniversary. Star Trek: Beyond released. 
• 2017--Star Trek: Discovery begins streaming on CBS All Access (later renamed Paramount+), kicking off Star Trek's streaming era and is followed in quick and continuous succession by Picard (2020-2023), Prodigy (2021-2024), Lower Decks (2020-2024), Strange New Worlds (2022-2027), Section 31 (2025), and Starfleet Academy (2026-2027).
• 2026--60th anniversary. Star Trek: Starfleet Academy premieres and cancellation is announced as first season finishes; Strange New Worlds season 5 to stream; Fourth 'Kelvin timeline' feature film canceled after a decade of pre-production
• 2027--Final episodes of Starfleet Academy and Strange New Worlds to be streamed

Going back to the original pilot, "The Cage", which was shot in 1964, Star Trek has been in almost continuous production for more than six decades, often with multiple projects simultaneously in production. There have been times where the franchise has briefly gone dark, but those have been short-lived, not more than about three years, including pre-production periods. There is no reason to believe this time will be any different, but exactly what the next voyage will look like remains to be seen. But as Mr. Spock was fond of saying, there are always possibilities.

After Afta?

  

I have been using Mennen Afta, fresh scent, for about 40 years, and it has definitely made shaving tolerable during that time, as it cooled, soothed, and moisturized my skin after the rigors of shaving. Without it, my skin is a hot, irritated mess after shaving, to the point that it made me wish I could grow a decent looking beard and never shave again. Truth be told, Afta is one of the only personal care products to which I have developed an absolute brand loyalty over the years. Unfortunately, that product has been gradually disappearing from store shelves over the course of several years and now appears to be reaching the point of extinction. The last place I could consistently find it was Walmart, but while the shelf tag remains,at least for now, the floor-level shelf space does not portend well for its longevity, and it has remained ominously empty after I bought their last two bottles more than a month ago.

While I haven’t run out yet, I find myself thinking of the future as my supply continues to dwindle. A search on Amazon turned up only the original scent, which I dislike, especially at twice the price I was paying at Walmart. Further digging turned up an ‘out-of-stock’ listing for the fresh scent, with a notation that it is unknown when or if it would again become available. A check of parent company Colgate-Palmolive’s Web site does not show Afta among their assortment of brands; in fact, the only former Mennen product still available is Speed Stick deodorants.

Apparently, as a mature product line, parent company Colgate-Palmolive has allowed it to coast along with no advertising or promotion. Not surprisingly, sales have fallen off to the point that it is no longer viable. This unfortunate development has sent me in search of alternatives. The less desirable original scent remains available online, but inflated prices, twice what I was paying at retail, would seem to be an indicator that the product may well have already ceased production and consumers are now vying for the remaining stock. so I am instead looking to alternatives.

Back in the ‘90s, Gillette introduced a competing product that was comparable to Afta in most respects, and remains on store shelves, albeit at floor level, like Afta. But at least it’s still there and the price has not gone up. A 2.5 ounce bottle is still well under $3. The best unit price I could find was buying a carton of six bottles from Amazon for $15.24. This is about fifteen cents a bottle cheaper than the shelf price at Walmart and I don't have to drive to the store to get it, which is a double win.

Having ordered a carton, I tried the Gillette aftershave gel this morning, for the first time in more than 20 years, and found it to be an acceptable substitute. I still prefer Afta, which has a richer feel to it, but I can live with the Gillette, since there is really no alternative at that price point. The gel itself is a bit thinner than the Afta, and its scent has more of a citrus note, which is not unpleasant. It produces a more pronounced cooling sensation on freshly shaved skin, which is nice for the few minutes it lasts, but it does not feel as if it moisturizes to the same degree. The important thing is that several hours later, my skin is very slightly irritated, but less than it would be without either product.

It frankly boggles my mind that moisturizing aftershave gels have so completely disappeared from the marketplace, at least at an affordable price point. There are still some more expensive alternatives from the likes of Nivea and others, but nothing to compare with Gillette or the late, lamented Afta. In the ‘90s, this was a very robust category with entries from Edge and others, but it has gradually died away. Although beards have enjoyed a resurgence in popularity, most men are still shaving and a significant number of us are doubtless still experiencing skin irritation from doing so. A product that addresses this condition effectively and affordably would seem to be a quite viable category and not just a niche market.

Is Starfleet Academy really that bad?

The latest Star Trek series to stream on Paramount+, Starfleet Academy, has managed to garner a significant amount of negative press, but I have to ask if it's anywhere near as bad as its detractors would have us believe. After watching the first five episodes to drop, which constitutes half of the first season, my response is a wholehearted 'not really'.

To understand my take on this, I have to put it into the perspective of other streaming Star Trek series and one dreadful made-for-streaming TV movie. Starfleet Academy is decidedly light years ahead of the dreadful Section 31 movie, and for my money is even superior to the thematically similar animated Lower Decks series. I still don't understand why the moronic drivel of Lower Decks is so beloved. I still haven't been able to bring myself to watch the entire final season. 

At its worst, Starfleet Academy has moments that are equally as cringe-worthy as pretty much all of Lower Decks, and borrows way too much from the silly side of Strange New Worlds, but at the same time, it has shown its ability to bring viewers pleasingly thoughtful fare, especially in the fourth and fifth episodes, which focus on specific characters' paths of self-discovery. In episode four, Jay-Den Kraag (Karim Diane), a dispossessed Klingon, gains a sense of belonging, in worlds of both Starfleet and the Klingon Empire. While this at times feels like a re-tread of Worf's journey through Next Generation and Deep Space Nine, an impression bolstered by Diane's performance, which all too often feels like he's trying to channel Michael Dorn's performances as Worf, it is redeemed by the nuance and growth Jay-Den experiences by episode's end. 

Speaking of DS9, episode 5 is an artful homage to that series as SAM (Kerrice Brooks) attempts to discover the true fate of Captain Benjamin Sisko (Avery Brooks) at the end of DS9. Although the elder Brooks (no relation to Kerrice) does not appear in the episode, it he did authorize the use of a prerecorded voice-over at the end of the episode. Also, SAM  does share a couple of scenes with Cirroc Loftin, reprising his role as a middle-aged Jake Sisko, who helps her discover, Wizard of Oz style, that the answers she was seeking differed greatly from the truth that she found, which was perhaps inside of her all along. 

As the remaining five episodes of Season 1 drop, one can only hope the show will continue along the path of the two most recent ones as it charts its own course, unique from where previous iterations of the franchise have been before. Yes, it feels kind of soapy at times, but it is intended to appeal to a younger generation of viewers, a demographic to whom that type of content would appeal. Let's face it, those of us who came aboard with the original series represent a demographic that will, before too long, be aging out, so the powers that be are arguably on the right track to create stories that will appeal to newer audiences,

____________ 

Update 14 March:  

The tenth and final episode of Starfleet Academy's inaugural season dropped two days ago, and things did indeed get better--much, much better. We were even treated to a cameo appearance by a favorite character from Discovery, Lt. Sylvia Tilly (Mary Wiseman), who had become an academy instructor by the end of that series. Her episode at least partially made up for the disappointment for her absence as a series regular. While the remaining episodes retained a certain amount of soapiness, the characters' journeys of self discovery, both individual and collective, continued to be front and center, making for some compelling moments, especially in the two-part finale, which stands up favorably with any of the best Star Trek two-parters and even plays out better than some of the weaker Star Trek feature films. 

I am now of the opinion that the awkward cringeyness of the seasons early episodes was a clever and necessary move, designed to help viewers appreciate the characters' growth over ten episodes. They came in wondering if they belong and came out after ten episodes knowing that indeed they do. Interestingly, the writers chose not to create a season cliffhanger, but instead tying up most of the hanging plot threads. Still, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cadets return for their second year at the academy. Even with scant clues as to how the second season will unfold, we know they will come back with a greater sense of cohesion and belonging, that they have found a home. They will certainly come back more seasoned, and with an understanding of what it means to be a Starfleet officer that no textbook could hope to teach.

Fortunately for viewers, we will find out the answers to those questions when Starfleet Academy returns for its second season, which is already in the proverbial can, awaiting its premiere. The larger question is where Star Trek is going from here. In addition to another season of Starfleet Academy, we have two more seasons, or one and a half, depending on how you want to look at it, remaining of Strange New Worlds, but no word on what's coming after that. At the moment, no new Star Trek series or films are in production, or even pre-production to follow what has already been shot, but is yet to stream. The most plausible explanation is that Paramount's new management has not yet decided what to do, following the merger with Skydance and the possible takeover of Warner Bros., both of which significantly complicate the equation. Perhaps the proverbial field is about to be allowed to lie fallow, as has happened before, while those decisions are being made. 

Brightening up an older car

 There are few things that make an older car in otherwise good condition look tired than hazy headlights.

For the past 30 years or so, virtually all cars have come with clear plastic headlight lenses. They give manufacturers greater latitude in designing vehicles' front ends, but over time, the sun and road grit conspire to make those lenses look dull, yellowed, and hazy. In the worst cases, they are almost opaque, diffusing forward illumination to make the lights considerably less effective.

One might think the simplest solution is just to replace the headlights, but this is an expensive proposition that can cost in the hundreds of dollars, and there is really no need for this, as the existing lenses can be polished and restored without a lot of effort. You can have this professionally done, but it is also a good driveway project that can be done in an hour or two, and for less than the cost of a tank of gas. 

A quick Internet search will bring up any number of home remedies, including toothpaste, to clear your headlights, but the one thing they all have in common is they don't last. You have to repeat the process every few months, and some store bought kits have similar shortcomings. 

I have tried kits from several different manufacturers on various cars, and the best of the lot seems to be one called Cerakote, which involves a three-step process that returns the headlights to like-new condition with no power tools required.

The kit purports to come with everything needed to do the job, but there are a few things needed that aren't in the box. Since it involves abrasives and caustic chemicals, it is advisable to mask off the painted areas around the headlights, just to be on the safe side, even though the instructions make no mention of this. Also needed is a container of water, such as a bucket or spray bottle, which the instructions do mention with regard to washing the headlights before beginning the process and for wet sanding them in step two. You will also need a roll of paper towels.

So, the three steps are actually four, if you include washing loose dirt off of the headlights and then masking off around them before beginning the process. We'll call that the prep step or step zero. 

The first step using items from the kit is to remove the deteriorated sealant coating from the headlights with the included wipes, labeled with a large numeral one on each packet. Because the chemicals on the wipes are caustic, you should wear one of the two pairs of nitrile gloves included in the kit, which provides a total of eight wipes, four for each headlight. The instructions suggest wiping in a circular pattern and changing wipes frequently as they take on a nicotine-stained hue. This discoloration will be minimal by the fourth wipe. 

After this first step is complete, wipe off the remaining solvent with a paper towel and discard the first set of gloves. The headlights will look clearer as you perform this first step, but they will become hazy again as they dry. 

The second step is wet sanding with the provided sanding discs and applicator. Start with the 2,000-grit disc then follow up with the 3,000-grit one. The kit includes two of each, one for each headlight. Sand gently in straight, horizontal lines across the headlight lenses and use plenty of water on both the sanding discs and the headlight surface; otherwise, you will likely scratch the lenses. The instructions suggest sanding for three to five minutes with each disc. 

After the sanding step is complete, rinse the headlight lenses off with water and wipe them off with a paper towel to remove any remaining grit, then dry them thoroughly. Use towels, a blower, or just let them dry naturally. The important thing is to make sure they are completely dry before moving to the final step of applying the ceramic clear coat.

This last step is where the magic happens. The ceramic clear coat finally gives the headlights a like-new finish and protects them from hazing over again. Put on the second set of gloves and be prepared to be bowled over by a strong ammonia odor when you open the packet to extract the wipe. There is one wipe for each headlight. The instructions suggest applying one coat of sealant in overlapping horizontal strokes, making sure to cover the entire headlight surface. This is by far the quickest step, but you will need to wait a minimum of one hour before driving the vehicle and don't touch the headlights while the sealant is curing. 

Once this entire process is done, you will have spent about two hours taking your headlights from hazy to amazing. They will not only look like they did when the car was new, but you will be able to see much better at night. And Cerakote guarantees these results for as long as you own the vehicle.  Of course the best part is the satisfaction of having done this yourself. 

Star Trek's Kelvin Timeline Is At A Dead End--And Good Riddance

I found myself greeting with a sigh of relief the recent announcement that, following Paramount's merger with Skydance, the not-so-anticipated fourth installment of J. J. Abrams' Star Trek films set in the so-called Kelvin timeline would not be happening. After the third installment, Star Trek: Beyond in 2016, I really felt like that branch of the franchise had run out of gas, and I wasn't at all eager for a next voyage. It was also obvious that Paramount shared the sentiment eight years ago, when the third film was dumped into theaters with almost no promotion. 

Looking back, Star Trek (2009) was an enjoyable romp that brought a new perspective to the beloved characters that had been with us more than four decades. And a surprise cameo by Leonard Nimoy was an added bonus. To be sure, the casting of Chris Pine as Capt. Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Spock was brilliant, because their acting styles mirror their predecessors. Pine, like William Shatner, always plays the same character, regardless of the role he is cast in, and in which he is cast, essentially some version of himself. This worked in the case of Capt. Kirk, because Pine naturally projects something not unlike Shatner's swagger. Conversely, Quinto takes a deeper dive into his characters, immersing himself into them, much the way Nimoy did. 

Things took a decidedly darker turn in Star Trek: Into Darkness (2013), which attempted to re-imagine Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) as a non-stop action thriller and a total waste of talent for Benedict Cumberbatch as Khan. In the end, relentless action provided all-too-thin cover for an even thinner story, shot through with blatant ripoffs of the classic 1982 film. This was truly the Kelvin timeline's lowest ebb.

While bringing in a new director, Justin Lin, to helm Star Trek: Beyond (2016) was a good move, it was too little too late. The damage had already been done with its predecessor. To his credit, Lin did try to slow the pace down a bit in an attempt to make the film somewhat more character driven, but the moments intended to evoke an emotional connection with the characters felt contrived and ultimately fell flat. The best of these was when Quinto's Spock received a box of personal effects belonging to Leonard Nimoy's Spock, including a photo of the original cast from one of their latter films. This acknowledgement of the passing both of Nimoy and his version of Spock made me feel a nostalgic connection not for the current cast playing those characters, but for their predecesors, who had last appeared together, save for assorted cameos, in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) a quarter-century earlier and several of whom had already passed away by that time. 

So, now that the Kelvin timeline officially closed, what's next for Star Trek's feature film franchise? There's no substantive information on that at this time, probably because the powers that be at Paramount/Skydance hasn't yet figured out what they want to do with it. It appears there will not be overlap between the streaming TV shows on Paramount+ and any future feature film projects. This is fortunate, given the travesty that was Star Trek: Section 31 (2025). The less said about that one the better. It may well preclude the return of Scott Bakula's Jonathan Archer character from Star Trek: Enterprise, which he had been campaigning to reprise in an origin story for the United Federation of Planets. 

My hope is that whomever is in charge of the feature film arm of the franchise will take some time to seriously consider what makes Star Trek unique and leverage those strengths into something special, instead of repeating the mistakes Abrams made by trying to make Star Trek into an amalgam of the other franchises with which he had been involved, namely Star Wars and Mission: Impossible. While Star Trek is one of Paramount's biggest cash cows, history has shown its richest yield comes when it is nurtured and respected. Squeezing it for all it's worth will only result in a law of diminishing returns.