Re: Reason why I am not happy for a 4th film.
One thing is that referring to the nuTrek films as ST1, ST2, and ST3 is a way of letting people know that you don't need to be familiar with the previous ten films to follow what's going on. It indicates that these films are accessible on their own.
There really weren't that many TOS/TNG movies that required familiarity to enjoy. The Search For Spock and The Voyage Home are sequels to The Wrath of Khan.
That is a definite plus, especially if you're trying to attract a new generation of viewers.
For better or for worse, there used to be a perception out there that you needed to be a Trekkie to really enjoy STAR TREK, that it was too complicated to get into if you hadn't seen all the previous movies and shows. That it was too late to climb aboard if you weren't already a dedicated Trekkie.
In reality, I think TREK was always more accessible than that. You can watch the average TREK movie or TNG episode without having to speak Klingon or whatever. But the perception was definitely out there; I used to run into it at neighborhood barbecues, family reunions, bookstore signings, etc.
"I don't get STAR TREK. It's too complicated."
...
There comes a point where long Roman numerals after the title become a liability, discouraging newcomers from seeing the movie.
Of course you don't need to already be a fan to enjoy Star Trek. The first TOS episode I ever saw all the way through was "By Any Other Name." Fortunately it was interesting enough to get me to want to see more. If it had been "Spock's Brain" or "The Omega Glory" I might not have bothered and my life would have been very different (amazing how many of my life choices happened because of one hour of TV in November of 1975...).
Contrast that with Doctor Who - the first full episode of that I saw was part 1 of "Pirate Planet" and the
only reason I watched the next episode is because I'd promised a friend to give the series an honest try. So I slogged through one of the dumbest stories of the late Tom Baker era (although it did turn out to have a bit of interesting social commentary I hadn't picked up on at the time), and finally got hooked when I saw the wonderful "Stones of Blood."
So it can matter very much which episode, story, or movie is a person's first exposure, and how much information the new viewer has around them. I remember well-meaning friends deluging me with information about Xena, Babylon 5, Robin of Sherwood, and Highlander, and just wanting to tell them to shut up and let me take it at my own pace - I'd ask questions if there was something I didn't understand, but just stop
telling me about it.
It went back to the basics -- selling the characters, clean and simple, unfettered by having to bear in mind what happened in "episode seventeen of the fifth season of a series," and "episode twenty of the third season of another series," or "episode two of the last season of yet another series." And who the hell knows what's being contradicted or retconned, even if one's being careful.
This Trek is like watching TOS for the first time, again. True terra incognita for the first time since 1966.
But since most of us originally saw TOS out of order anyway (the first time, at any rate, unless the first time was an accurately-numbered DVD set), what difference does it make? Even now, I couldn't correctly place all the TOS episodes in their correct season if my life depended on it.
There seems to be a trend toward deriving very concise titles for a remake or sequel from its more verbose ancestor, either from title or story.
"Gone with the Wind" might become simply "Wind" or "Tara" and so forth.
Using "Trek" as a connecting verb ("Into Darkness," "Beyond") is a little too clever or cute for my sensibilities.
If I saw that a movie was just called "Beyond," my first reaction would be "beyond what?"
You can actually see the phenomenon at work in STAR TREK, where flowery titles like "For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky" or "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" gave way to simpler titles like "Contagion" or "Cathexis" or whatever.
There are exceptions, of course. TOS had "Obsession" and "The Menagerie" and the latter-day shows occasionally let loose with something more elaborate, but, in general, the modern shows seemed to prefer shorter, simpler titles than TOS.
The simpler titles of TNG and later series pretty much guaranteed that when people cite an episode title to me, chances are that I won't have any idea what they're talking about unless it's one I know very well myself. Like the ones above - I'm not even sure what series they're from, let alone which season or what they were about.
I used to play a memory game: Write down all the titles of the Star Trek episodes (TOS, obviously, as the other series didn't exist at that time). I had little mnemonic reminders such as episodes containing punctuation, episodes about time travel, episodes that were funny, episodes with a Shakespeare reference, episodes that were really long, and episodes that were only one word. I always did very well at this. But I wouldn't have a hope of succeeding at a similar exercise with TNG and later.
