I'm of the opinion that Trek works best on television. That's where it started, and that's the format that allows for it to do the kind of storytelling that allows for greater exploration of characters, as well as social and scientific issues, that a film franchise-especially one with blockbuster ambitions-just can't allow. Star Wars, started as a film franchise, provides that kind of big, sweeping, mythic, action-adventure (and back in the day, not every year) that makes it work better as a blockbuster. Star Trek is more nuanced, more deliberative, and a television series allows for that better than a film franchise.
I definitely get why the Kelvin films pushed big action, big emotions, big special effects, because they had to, and for the most part, they did them well, but it was going to be hard to get the kind of stories the television show did well in blockbuster films. (I liked the Kelvin universe. But at the same time I feared even before the reboot became a reality that the focus would be on making popcorn entertainment at the expense of the deeper kind of character development or scientific/social exploration of the various series. Not every Trek episode was some deep intellectual thing to be honest, but it was a mix of the profound and the less profound. It's harder to pull that balance off in a blockbuster franchise).
I don't think as much Trek as possible is necessarily a good thing. I certainly am okay with the Picard show in theory, iffy on the new animated cartoon (though I've long wanted them to do a cartoon that could potentially broaden the audience, but I was thinking something more along the lines of an action-adventure cartoon like Cartoon Network's Clone Wars or Justice League), and would like to see what the crews from the previous Treks have been up to, but I don't like the idea of overdoing it, because that could lead to Trek fatigue. I think Star Wars is starting to feel some fatigue now, and had to change its every movie a year plan because it was just too much and would lead (or IMO did lead) to poorer offerings.
I definitely get why the Kelvin films pushed big action, big emotions, big special effects, because they had to, and for the most part, they did them well, but it was going to be hard to get the kind of stories the television show did well in blockbuster films. (I liked the Kelvin universe. But at the same time I feared even before the reboot became a reality that the focus would be on making popcorn entertainment at the expense of the deeper kind of character development or scientific/social exploration of the various series. Not every Trek episode was some deep intellectual thing to be honest, but it was a mix of the profound and the less profound. It's harder to pull that balance off in a blockbuster franchise).
I don't think as much Trek as possible is necessarily a good thing. I certainly am okay with the Picard show in theory, iffy on the new animated cartoon (though I've long wanted them to do a cartoon that could potentially broaden the audience, but I was thinking something more along the lines of an action-adventure cartoon like Cartoon Network's Clone Wars or Justice League), and would like to see what the crews from the previous Treks have been up to, but I don't like the idea of overdoing it, because that could lead to Trek fatigue. I think Star Wars is starting to feel some fatigue now, and had to change its every movie a year plan because it was just too much and would lead (or IMO did lead) to poorer offerings.
(nothing to do with the nonsense of "they keeled me childhood", but modern sci-fi writers could take a few cues from the people who write 'The Orville" in terms of tighter, more compelling storylines that have deeper characters that rely on other than the most superficial stereotypes and nostalgia.)
