Rolling Stone said:
In the last eight years there hasn't even been any serious attempts to put Star Trek back on the air, and everyone seems entirely focused on the movies. This is a horrible mistake. At its core, Star Trek is a television series. There are countless of hours of amazing Star Trek TV episodes, and only six or seven great movies. (We're on the fence about The Search for Spock.) Gene Roddenberry created a vast universe, and a movie every three or four years just isn't cutting it for the fans, especially since those movies essentially take place in an alternate universe.
While I disagree with the statement above that focusing entirely on movies is "a horrible mistake", I do also agree with the statement that Star Trek was, is and fundamentally always will be a television concept at heart, and in many ways to this day it feels more at home on television than it does at the multiplex. The concept was borne of TV, and TV is where it really flourishes. Movies can show
more than TV, but they can't flesh out the details in a way that regular television episodes can. The characters in a movie have to (by the very nature of the medium) be explored in a kind of dramatic short-hand. As David Gerrold once said, movies show the most important day of a person's life, while television can show the average day-to-day dramas. Realistically, TV has got a much wider scope. Even if they don't have the budget to match.
Having said all that, no, TNG coming back in some form is not the answer.
Something set in the 24th/25th century with a new
crew and dealing with the ramifications of that post-Nemesis, post-2009Trek 'prime' universe, yes. Something where the TNG crew could conceivably cameo, just as James Doohan or Leonard Nimoy did in TNG, yes. But a series revolving around one or more of the actual TNG characters? No. That would not be a way forward towards potential revitalization of the television franchise. In my opinion.