Greg Cox wrote:
That's my own unscientific impression as well: that a good number (most?) of the fans who have issues with the movie are of the TNG generation, as opposed to us old-school TOS types. And, yes, I've grumbled in the past about people applying to "TNG standards" to a movie based on TOS...
Those of us who grew up on TOS and wanted to paint ourselves a picture of the TOS universe had to rationalize many of the inconsistencies presented by what we saw on TV, and fill in many of the holes/conflicts in continuity.
It was actually fun to do, and I (for one) thought of it as a game -- i.e., "How do I reconcile THAT seemingly inconsistent fact with what was said two episodes ago"
. Reconciling what was presented on TV with perceived canon was a sort of brain-teaser game. Some people carried this to extreme levels by making starship plans, maps of the galaxy, and tables organization of the Federation based on nothing more than a few hints -- and a lot of conjecture ("Fanon"). That was fine, too.
The point is that TOS continuity, based strictly on what was presented on TV
, was terribly inconsistent and incomplete. It wasn't until the fans started filling in the holes and rationalizing those inconsistencies with their own fanon that today's accepted version of TOS canon emerged.
TNG, on the other hand, was a lot more stringent and deliberate with its continuity (although it had its own inconsistencies). The canon of TNG was much easier to gather by simply watching the TV shows. There wasn't a lot of rationalizing and filling in of holes necessary. I'm not saying that is better or worse; I'm just pointing this out.