Phily B wrote:
A lot of reviews come down to the same complaints about it "not being Star Trek" which is absurd, none of the movies have truly been Star Trek if we compare to television.
I don't think they're upset that this movie is hardly Star Trek as much as they are upset that this is the only Star Trek we'll ever be getting. Star Trek was really at it's best when it was on television. We got, what? 22-26 stories a year, instead of one story every three to four years? I think a Star Trek series would leave plenty of room for variety instead of non-stop action rehashes of previous Star Trek stories.
"Star Trek" and TV is an idea that sounds as natural as peanut butter and jelly. The problem is the success of the movies isn't necessarily a guarantee of the success of a TV show. And what form would the show take? Would yet another Kirk and Spock occupy the small screen? Or does the success of Abrams's Trek movies mean the world is ready for another version of TNG on TV? Unlikely. There are 28 seasons of Trek TV out there. There may be a few new stories to tell, but are there seven more seasons of them left to tell?
Also, I don't know a lot about investment and profit in the entertainment industry (nothing, really), but Paramount is probably very happy with its profit margin for ST09 and looking forward to even greater profits from STID. I'd think it would take a lot longer (if ever) to get that kind of return on investment from TV. Besides, network TV is dying as a medium. It's a slow death, but it's dying. Maybe a new Trek series could be the first to go straight to Podcast.