Of course I know all that. I've been watching Trek since 1969.
It doesn't matter whether people like any particular incarnation of Trek, it is all a connected body of work.
You're not hearing me over your own preconceptions. The point is, it's not about whether they liked a show, it's about how they defined
it. Lots of people back then would have passionately denied
that it was all a connected body of work. For decades, people have been claiming that the animated series wasn't "real" Trek, that the movies weren't "real" Trek, that TNG wasn't "real" Trek, that ENT wasn't "real" Trek. They've all been treated as apocryphal works or alternate realities. But over time, those objections fade away -- especially when the next new interpretation comes along and the purists turn their ire against it instead. They probably even start counting the Trek they formerly rejected as part of the whole they're now defending.
Heck, I see from your profile that you've been on this board since 2003. So I'm surprised you don't remember all the arguments about whether Enterprise
was a "real" prequel or an alternate timeline. They weren't that long ago.
The first two movies sequelize specific characters from the series, McCoy appears in the first episode of TNG and Kirk is referenced in the second or third, Picard and O'Brien cross over to DS9, various characters cross over to VOY and the Defiant crosses over to ENT, just to make the more obvious examples. It's all one big body of work.
Questions of quality aside, and despite the alleged presence of "our" Spock...
You really can't see the blatant double standard you're employing here?
It's also missing the point, because I'm not talking about internal continuity. It's all made up anyway, and claims of continuity are just part of the fiction. I'm talking about the reality that the different creators of those fictional incarnations of Star Trek
interpret it differently, bring different approaches and attitudes to it, and so even though they pretend
it all fits together, the various Trek series and films have significant differences from one another in content, tone, and intention. So the metatextual reality, from a critical perspective, is that they are separate works; the pretense of forming a common whole is merely part of the internal fiction, a conceit that the different installments of the franchise traditionally follow. (For instance, TWOK pretending to be a direct followup on "Space Seed" while freely contradicting many of its specifics such as the age and ethnicity of Khan's followers. Different works can simultaneously claim continuity with one another and violate it as it suits them.)