Three guys on the internet don't mean jack in the grand scheme of things. And even if it did just "rebooting" it won't suddenly stop those guys from foaming anyway...
Yeah, the "outer space action adventure" is not exactly a great summary, as it still applies to the shows as far as Enterprise. And it's not really what "killed" Star Trek either.
Unfortunately, it was more than three guys on the internet. But you also have to take a look at the financial picture. There is no way that CBS is going to pick up and continue in a universe that was roundly rejected at the end by the general populace. Starting with Deep Space Nine, the ratings for each successive series got worse as did the revenue generated by the feature film franchise. Enterprise finished with less than two million viewers a week after debuting with thirteen million. In order for Star Trek to move forward on TV, it will need to be rebooted and all assets of the franchise examined to determine what can be culled and fit into a new universe.
It is the perfect summary for Star Trek. Because that is what it was. Fist fights, phasers and hot babes (all three were in both pilots). Yes there were certain stories Gene wanted to tell. But looking at the product it was obvious he also wanted to push the boundaries on sex and violence for 1960's TV.
I completely disagree. If you want a new universe, might as well create a new universe. Why stick a Star Trek name on it at all then?
Continuity and concept are not the same thing (thanks Greg Cox). Star Trek can go back to square one and still be Star Trek as long as its true to the concept. Some people seem to have an unhealthy attachment to the continuity.
Part of what hurt Trek over the years was growing familiarity. TOS lasted but three years and left subsequent generations of fans hungry for more. And then the films and the advent of TNG answered that interest. But staying fresh and creative is not the easiest thing and the more material they cranked out the more familiar Trek became. It became weighed down with its own success as well as oversaturation of having more than one version of the franchise on at the same time. It became unweildy and even intimidating to some who might have felt daunted by the sheer weight of material ("You mean I gotta watch all that to understand what's going on?). DS9 and VOY and ENT strengthened that impression because they came in when this idea of arc based series was starting to take root. It's not the easiest thing to come into an arc based series at some midpoint and many potential viewers could have that idea of (then) contemporary Trek. TOS and TNG were basically episodic and that format makes it easier for new viewers to jump in midstream. I think that's partly why those shows can still work well in syndicated reruns because you don't have to watch them from the beginning. What is Star Trek? Different people will give divergent answers based on what they each take away from it. But in very general terms it's these are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. That's what TOS and TNG are. That's what is readily identifiable to most people. Star Trek is also a distinct perspective on the future: it isn't perfect, but it's better than what we have now. It's hopeful without being blindly optimistic or Utopian. As I put forth in another thread it is highly unlikely that DS9 or VOY or ENT or TMP or TWOK-TUC era will ever be rebooted (or revisited) because that's not the idea most people have of what Star Trek is. For most people it's TOS or TNG. Yes.
Those are definitely components, but it's hardly all that it was or even what makes a good show. And if your complaint was that the other series moved away from that, you're wrong.
TV is different today. People don't watch syndicated reruns unless they're just looking to have something on. The real way that people get content that they want is through Netflix, Hulu, or DVR type stuff. And those methods allow people to binge watch more than ever, which is why most of the latest greatest shows work as being arc-based. That doesn't make episodic shows out of date or anything, but a show being arc based does not indicate anything about if people will watch. I've watched them plenty as well. Since you pointed to the TOS pilots, take Enterprise's pilot. There were fist/phaser fights aplenty, and same with "babes." Never mind that most shows have this kind of stuff and it isn't what makes Star Trek what it is. It's actually a pretty shallow view of things. Now, I'd agree that the shows moved apart from TOS, but not in these superficial ways.
I wouldn't argue for a new Trek to be strictly episodic, but I would argue for it to be largely episodic with plot threads running through in the background that can be brought to the fore periodically.
One way I'd like to see TOS rebooted would be to go back and focus on Christopher Pike. He'd be the gifted new Captain of the Enterprise, with the enigmatic Number One by his side, Dr Boyce as his confidante, Joe Tyler as a brash young officer with potential, JM Colt as the feisty Security Chief, and Ensign Spock as a full-blooded Vulcan science officer. Positions such as Chief Engineer, Communications Officer and Helmsman are all open and could be filled by alien characters to give them some greater diversity.
Continuity and concept are not the same thing. Indeed. But why the attachment to the continuity is unhealthy? Very important question: what is the the concept of Star Trek? Could anyone give the formal unambiguous definition of the Star Trek concept?
A lot will depend on who you ask because different individuals will interpret it differently. - Science fiction and space adventure periodically mixed with allegory. - Generally adult level approach. - Basic anthology format to allow for broad range of stories. - Generally idealistic/optimistic, but not Utopian. - Contemporary humanity projected into a future setting. And even more basically: these are the voyages...
It isn't unhealthy if you aren't attached to it to the point of not being able to let go. I like the continuity, but I don't want it to stand in the way of rebuilding Star Trek for the 21st century. Maybe Gene Roddenberry...
Some of the best stories don't even need advanced technology. I just finished reading a terrific fanfic where Sarek and Amanda get stranded on a planet and have to survive with what they find in their natural environment and apply what they remember of survival training. Nonsense. Wrath of Khan is a sequel to "Space Seed." Star Trek Into Darkness is a remake of Wrath of Khan. It's not a sequel. It tells far too much of the same basic events to be anything but a remake. Thank you for pointing out that Voyager did not actually take place in outer space and had absolutely zero action-adventure. Not everybody cares about deviations in the technical stuff. Most of the time I don't even notice if a starship doesn't look identical to the time before. If they had to make a series called "Enterprise" it should have been about Captain April and his crew. Or even Captain Pike and his crew. Some people seem to have an unhealthy attachment to throwing everything they personally don't like out and denigrating the people who actually do prefer the original continuity. I've been asked why I would watch/read something I didn't like. You don't seem to like the spinoff series, so why did you "watch them all numerous times"? Please remember that Netflix in Canada has only a small fraction of the stuff available that you get. And we do not get Hulu. Your network stuff (like cbs.com) is also unavailable to Canadians. So if SF shows are not on our Space Channel and we can't find it on YouTube, if it's not on Canadian Netflix, it's pretty hard to find (unless we buy whole seasons on Amazon, which is pretty expensive - especially if we don't know if we'll like it to begin with).
Once again you show you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. I own twenty-four of the twenty-eight available season of Star Trek. I own all twelve of the films. It's not about whether I like them or not. I think the spin-offs drifted further and further away from the core concepts of Star Trek.
Why stick the Star Trek name on a series based on Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek featuring Star Trek characters Kirk and Spock on Star Trek's ship the Enterprise? Hmmm, that's a tough one... A more reasonable question is: why stick the Star Trek name on a new show about all-original characters on an all new ship created by someone else entirely? If you want something new, then why not actually create something new? Not unless one's only interest in Star Trek is as a vehicle for reinforcing a delusion that Star Trek is somehow a "real" universe.