Hober Mallow wrote:
I'm not sure what you're arguing, as my point had nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of any series. All I mean by "derivative" is that the Trek spinoffs are derived from the original Star Trek series.
I think a certain amount can be read in to how you phrase things. You're basically saying that you don't like anything but the original series, and despite that the spinoffs allude to continuity from the original, they are all still clumped in together as one separate continuity that has no bearing on the original.
For starters, I think something like Enterprise is a lot different than TNG in terms of continuity, and it's because of the time between the production of those shows. The only thing that keeps those two more similar is the number of people who worked on both of them. But otherwise they are just about as different as TOS and TNG are. They were made in different generations, so of course they're gonna be different. But the general idea is that regardless of that they're all supposed to be of the same continuity, despite all the errors. Certainly more stories could be made about TOS that ignore all those other shows, but that's not likely to happen unless there's a total reboot, and even then it's not a guarantee.
Also, the chances of them making a Star Trek that you actually like are close to nil. I don't know why you bother with the future of Trek. Nobody is going to come back and reboot the original series while ignoring everything else and still somehow fit under the umbrella of what you want to see. Nothing is going to be exactly like it was in the 60s. Times have changed too much for that, or TNG, or DS9, or whatever people hold as their favorite.