If you listen to what Drexler is saying you can see where he's coming from. He sees something in TOS that is integral to its appeal and he doesn't see that something in JJtrek. He doesn't dispute JJ's success, but he hedges against the approach. He doesn't come out and openly criticize Abrams, but it's evident he doesn't think Abrams really gets TOS. Indeed he even comments on Abrams openly being more a Star Wars fan and obviously thinking that Trek should be more like SW. And Abrams has actually said so himself. Drexler also remarks that he believes Star Trek belongs (and is best) on television where you can do stories better suited to its concept. Feature films---particularly those of the block-buster kind---are predisposed to ignore the best kind of stories Star Trek has given us. A story like that found in TMP, even with all its flaws corrected, would be highly unlikely to be green-lighted today because it wouldn't be considered "big enough." Yet the story at the heart of TMP is more Star Trek than most of what followed in the feature films. STID is really a rehash of TWOK, but it doesn't have TWOK's nuances or sense of legitimacy. TWOK was built on what had been established in TOS (character wise). JJtrek is all shortcuts and shallow characterization based on the premise of throwing everything about TOS away except for some familiar names and references and making it all run around nonsensically. I would consider the best and better episodes of television Star Trek to be hands-down superior and far more engaging than what has been done with Trek in feature films. And I think that's where Drexler is coming from. Television Star Trek simply allows for a greater variety of stories while summer block-buster films seem rigidly defined to be only one kind of story. And think, too, about even TOS' action oriented stories. "The Doomsday Machine" is one of TOS' finest moments, but what really makes the episode so good? Same with "Balance Of Terror" or "The Ultimate Computer" or pretty much any others. It isn't the action and f/x that make the episodes really good although they do flavour the whole. It is the character interactions that really make them shine. It is ideas and story and characters first and action and f/x secondary. And that has really always been true. But feature films slated to be block-busters usually (but not always) are geared to be primarily spectacles with little to no substance. None of this says you cannot enjoy a popcorn flick as well as something more substantial, but it does underline why some people do not or cannot accept fluff in place of something they see as more substantial, particularly when it's made under the same name.