Not at all. 1964-1991 is my way of expressing the period I preferred and found the Star Trek I most enjoyed even with its low points. My preference is irrelevant to whether it continued to be an ongoing business interest.
Then how would you categorize J. J. Abrams' and his creative efforts towards Star Trek in the context of your original question?
In general I drifted from Trek in the mid '90s because it was evolving in a way that didn't much speak to me anymore. When I discovered
Babylon 5 that pretty much killed contemporary Trek for me. I still periodically dropped in on Trek to see what was happening because after being involved with Trek since 1970 I still liked the universe and the potential for what could be done with it even if I didn't care for what was being done with it. After early TNG and a handful of DS9 episodes Trek basically died for me personally.
That said, of course, I couldn't claim that Trek as an ongoing franchise and business interest had stopped. It certainly continued even if current Trek didn't interest me anymore. But I have to say a part of me was saddened because I wanted to enjoy new
Star Trek, but TPTB weren't producing something that worked for me.
I really disliked VOY as it seemed to perpetuate everything I grew to dislike about contemporary Trek. I had a sliver of hope for ENT because in its basic concept it had potential to reinvigorate what I felt had grown stagnant. But it didn't pan out as it was (to me) essentially VOY redressed.
Now we come to JJtrek. The idea of a reboot had possibilities to get me interested in new Trek particularly as the TOS era is my favourite
Star Trek. But, again, it didn't happen. In fact I found it even worse than what had proceeded it.
In context of my original question.
Abrams redrew the TOS concept and era by throwing away so much of what I loved about the original and replaced it with mindless hyperactivity without substance. He followed the pretty much established play book of summer popcorn fare while using familiar names and references. Nonetheless he was successful in catering to a generally uncritical general audience and made a lot of money even as he ditched all that made the original special. He reduced it all to cliches and caricature.
From a personal perspective he certainly didn't save
Star Trek because he failed to revive what I had loved about it when it was good whether it be TOS, the films or TNG.
From a business standpoint I don't think he saved
Star Trek because that would be presuming it was dead and soon to be forgotten, which it most certainly wasn't. No, it was no longer in its heyday, but its owners continued to foster and cultivate interest with fans and audiences by keeping the pre-existing series and films available and in circulation as well as introducing new tie-in merchandise that all continued to generate revenue.
Star Trek was far from being a dead and forgotten property.
Was JJ's effort the right one? That depends on your perspective. Did he revive the things that had made TOS special and distinct? I say an emphatic "no." Did he generate a lot of money for the franchise? Can't be argued. Was his approach the only way that could have succeeded? No.
There is this notion that smart or well thought out and entertaining are mutually exclusive. I don't subscribe to that notion.
Star Trek at its best, whether in television or film, was well crafted while being highly entertaining. And
Star Trek is but one example. Perfect? No. But you don't have to be perfect. You just have to be good or very good.
If one thinks
Star Trek (and in this case particularly TOS) was never anything more than mindless escapism then JJtrek can wear those shoes. But if one thinks
Star Trek did aspire and managed more often than not to be something beyond convention then, well...JJtrek doesn't cut it and largely because he embraced convention.
