Different expectation. Not different definition. That mix of different people with different backgrounds has a proven ability to embrace new SF work that does not come couched in "familiar" names. So far as I can see, that is a fact. If you have a genuinely strong concept, the amount of Trek people are or aren't familiar with, or whether you're coating it in familiar names to make it go down easier, should not matter. (We really are kind of just repeating ourselves at this point.)
Which doesn't change what's needed or expected in a sequel to something. That's a fact. You don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Except that you haven't demonstrated that something loosely using a common setting must be interpreted as a "sequel."
Dude, the hostility isn't called for. Kindly dial it down. I'm not asking "what makes something a sequel." I'm pointing out that using a common setting does not make something a sequel. And AFAICS it's a fact. I am not "playing a game" with you.
"Dude," this isn't hostility, believe me. It's a legitimate question. Oh, so you're just not getting it. So, I'll recap and summarize: It's just a case that when there's a sequel to something, some fans of the original--regardless of their level of fandom--might like to see something from it there, and the creators do take that into consideration when doing the sequel. And AFAICS that's a fact.
Okay, if you say so... Letting the "sequel" thing go for the moment: I completely agree that this is a common sentiment in fandom. That's what I said at the outset. That doesn't make it a sentiment of "the general public;" it means it is a form of fan-service. It just isn't a necessary one. If it's not something most of the fans need, and if the fans are at any rate not a large enough population to maintain the franchise, and it's not something the general public needs... then creators should feel free to make the creative decision that feels right.
No, let's not let it go, because the "sequel" thing is precisely what I'm talking about. You've been arguing with me over everything else. It's a common sentiment in Hollywood. No, that's assuming that there aren't any fans of an original production in the general public when that's definitely not true. I disagree. I think it is necessary for a sequel to carry something from the original. I don't share that opinion at all. Sure, if they want to alienate fans of the original production with the sequel. Otherwise, they generally include something from it to appease them. You can call it fanservice if you want, but it's still giving members of an audience something they want or are familiar with.
I mainly just wanted us to get past blaming this sentiment on "the general public." Now that we know what we are talking about, the rest is just arguing about what degree of "something familiar" this form of fan-service actually needs. I think the conclusive answer to that question is "the setting and concept," you think something else, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't want to completely submerge David's thread in this digression at any rate, and while I'd be happy to have this conversation: ... because in fact I do think your understanding of when that term is a propos is flawed, I can't help but feeling that the discussion is overheating at this point. Much as I appreciate your assurances of non-hostility I think we'd be better off giving it a break.
Who is this "us?" I'm not blaming anything. I'm just saying is that when something becomes very popular, some aspects of it become known to the general public, and when a sequel to it is made, it's expected that some of those aspects are included in it. You're still not getting it. I've been pointing out various examples of things from a popular series that can be familiar to an audience. It can be anything that's well-known--from a particular character or characters, to a setting, to a concept, or even just the name of a certain ship. The only one that seems to be offended or thinking things are getting hostile is you (although I'd like you to stop psycho-analyzing me though). And there's nothing remotely flawed about my understanding of a sequel. To me, it doesn't make sense at all to do a sequel to something and don't have anything from the original in it. That defeats the entire purpose of doing a sequel, really.
I like both these ideas, a lot! The whole premise of a Hive mind you can simply join, that forms a total gestalt with entire ecosystems--not only fascinating but would probably seem weird in the extreme! Heh heh heh... And while there've been Vulcans who seemingly did not take the Science route (Saavik for one--and there must have been Vulcan tactical and engineering personnel aboard USS Intrepid), I totally love your notion of one whose telepathy in effect has a big dose of empathy entwined. Might as well be a left-handed lesbian Hispanic Muslim in Arizona! Also seems to me we've come up with two of the characters--young Miss Kirk and this deviant Vulcan.
We're putting it in the Happy Box. Hug it out. Hug. It. Out. Glad you dig it! I was put in mind of it by a great old Mike Resnick story about an alien invasion of Africa by a sentient jungle... I'll dig around and see if I can find reference to it, he does a great job of bringing out how strange and terrifying it is...