Is Star Trek: United Really Cancelled? Why a New CBS Detective Show Doesn't Mean the Archer Pitch Is Dead

Michael Sussman and Scott Bakula, the man behind Jonathan Archer, are working on a new detective show for CBS, and apparently Archer has been declared dead again. One headline says Star Trek: United looks finished because the actor and writer behind the idea have another project, and I understand why that makes people nervous and really sad. "But can we let the man investigate a crime before we bury the actual Federation?"

I'm here to be the voice of hope. I've talked to Michael personally a couple of times now, and just because they got greenlit on this detective show doesn't mean he's throwing United in the trash. I promise you that, because I don't think it even means it's not going to happen. I do think it gives us a reason to lower expectations in the current situation, but those are different conclusions, and the difference matters, especially for a Trek show that still hasn't received an official greenlight.

Deadline reports Scott Bakula is attached to star in a CBS detective drama in development from Michael Sussman

Here is the actual news. Deadline reports that Scott is now attached to star in and executive produce an untitled detective drama being developed at CBS. Michael Sussman is writing the project, and it comes from Dean Devlin's Electric Entertainment.

Congratulations to Michael. That's a huge deal. Anytime you get greenlit on a project with a major network, that's got to be an awesome feeling, so I'm super happy for him. He is a very creative, visionary type of writer, and it's going to be awesome to see what he does.

So yes, the two people associated with the Archer pitch and the comeback are collaborating on something else. That part is absolutely real. What we don't have is an announcement saying they're abandoning United, or that Paramount has permanently rejected any possibility of making it.

Cosmic Book News argues the CBS move means Star Trek: United looks dead

The Cosmic Book News article takes that announcement and makes a much bigger argument: the Archer team has now moved to a cop show, so United looks dead. Honestly, I can follow the logic up to a point. I understand everything's for clicks.

If these guys have a project moving through development somewhere else, that deserves their attention. My read is that this CBS show could become their immediate priority, which it looks like it is. But that's my interpretation of the news. Nobody's handed us a calendar.

Star Trek: United is a concept someone wants to make, not a series we were promised heading into production

This is where we need to remember what United actually is. We're the biggest advocates for this to happen, and you show up every single time. We've garnered millions of views and thousands of comments, all positive reception toward the idea and concept of United.

Michael Sussman developed a pitch that would follow Jonathan Archer as president of the Federation. It was presented to Secret Hideout, but it didn't move forward at that time. Sussman then expressed hope that new leadership might revisit it. Well, we have new leadership, that's for sure. Still, this is a concept someone wants to make rather than a series we were promised heading into production.

I think some of the disappointment definitely comes from how these conversations build. Somebody shares an interesting pitch, fans get excited, and we all talk about what the show could be. We even lay out pilot episodes, and artwork starts circulating. Eventually it begins to feel like a show we're waiting for, even though the people who would pay for it didn't agree to pay. Then another project gets announced and it feels like something has been taken away, or like they aren't paying attention to the project we want. I get it.

I've talked about United because I like the possibilities, but we can be excited by the idea while remembering where the idea stands. Right now, I don't think the idea that this news takes United from definitely happening to cancelled is actually the truth. We never got the first part.

Scott Bakula already described United as an idea that had been suggested

There's also something Scott said before this detective show announcement that deserves some attention. In comments reported by CinemaBlend from a TV Insider interview, he described United as an idea that had been suggested and said he wasn't actively involved. It indicated that nothing was on his radar at that point, but he also left the possibility open rather than saying it could never happen. Smart man.

So the immediate outlook was already uncertain before CBS entered the conversation. That makes this feel less like a sudden collapse and more like people continuing their careers while the pitch remains unresolved. What else are they supposed to do? "Just sit beside the phone in a Starfleet uniform until somebody calls them and says, 'We're in.'"

Sussman could potentially develop a detective drama while keeping United available

If I were Sussman and had an opportunity to develop something with Scott, absolutely I would. You can take care of an idea and still work on the opportunity in front of you. Wanting to make United doesn't mean you have to stop being a writer until Paramount decides what it wants.

Can Sussman do two things at once? I don't see why the answer automatically has to be no. I'm not a writer, and I don't understand the workload, so I don't want to speak for him or claim any understanding of writing two shows simultaneously, because that's probably way harder than it sounds. But working on a script and remaining interested in another concept, I think those are compatible. He could potentially develop this detective drama while keeping United available for a future conversation. That doesn't require him to run two fully produced television series tomorrow.

There is a point, I think, where the workload becomes an issue. If CBS orders the show, if Scott becomes busy filming it, and if Sussman takes on substantial ongoing responsibilities, then of course fitting another series in becomes more complicated. At that stage, schedules, contracts and production demands all matter. We don't know those details, so I'm not going to pretend the answer is either effortless or impossible.

The biggest obstacle for Star Trek: United is still a decision from the executives

My take is pretty simple. Yes, this could affect when United happens, if it ever happens. But it does not establish that United can't happen. And the larger obstacle is still the same. It hasn't changed. Somebody with the authority to approve Trek television has to want this particular show. They have to open their eyes and wise up.

Sussman could have a completely empty schedule and Scott could be standing outside in an Archer costume, and it still wouldn't get made without that decision from the executives in the suits up there, most of whom probably aren't even Trek fans. Don't get me started on that.

Why I still think Archer as Federation president is a worthwhile show

The reason I don't want to completely write United off is that I still think there's a worthwhile show in the premise. Archer helped bring these worlds together. What happens when he has to help them stay together? That's a different kind of responsibility from commanding the Enterprise, and it could give Scott something interesting to play.

On a ship there's a chain of command. You're the captain, you listen to the people, you make the decision, and your crew carries it out. Leading an alliance of different worlds means dealing with people who have their own priorities and their own reasons to disagree with you. "You can't settle every argument by telling the Andorians that they're confined to quarters."

I'd want the show to explore that without forgetting why people watch Trek. Give us the science fiction problem. Give us unfamiliar cultures. Give us a decision where the easy answer creates a worse problem for next week. You could also have an adventure happening out in space while Archer deals with the consequences back on the ground. A ship discovers something, its captain, someone we could get connected to, makes a reasonable decision with incomplete information, and then several governments want an explanation. That's compelling Trek, and it could bring people into the story without making Enterprise required homework.

United looks unlikely to arrive soon, but calling it dead goes further than the evidence

So a CBS development announcement says Scott and Sussman have another opportunity. It gives us possible scheduling complications down the road, I get it. It may suggest where their attention is going right now, but it does not tell us they've stopped caring about Archer, and it doesn't tell us what Paramount might decide in a future meeting.

I also don't think we need to act like Scott taking another role is some betrayal of Trek fans. I saw that on X too. Are you kidding me? You want him working. He's an actor. If the detective show happens and it's good, great. The man doesn't owe us professional unemployment while we argue about a pitch. That's not reality.

So is Star Trek: United done for? I think calling it dead goes further than the evidence supports. I really do. Calling it unlikely to arrive anytime soon feels pretty responsible. If this CBS project moves forward, that could make the wait longer or the logistics harder, and I'm not going to brush that aside. But I'm also not turning them working on something else into a claim that this is never going to happen. For now, I'm putting United in the category of an idea I want to see, with no reason to expect an imminent announcement.

If it took a few more years, would you still be good with it, and would you want Archer leading a political drama with missions happening alongside it?