Oh, yes it does. And particularly with Star Trek. We have different eras of Star Trek and each one is different in style and tone from the other. We have an adolescent Federation in the 23rd-Century, a more mature Federation in the 24th-Century, and no Federation in the 22nd-Century (at least up to 2161). With any dramatic story, the era is definitely important--it's no less than a major part of the setting and will impact what kind of stories will be told and how the characters will relate to the things of their era, just like is it for Westerns, World War II epics, or medieval stories. A 25th-Century Trek series will be no different because of the new situations that could be in place by then (new bad guys, new good guys, a new interstellar political climate, etc.). Oh, that's just saying that every Star Trek series is always the same, and I don't agree with that. I do think the "details" you're dismissing are actually terribly vital series aspects and do go a long way to distinguishing each series from another. I also think a major point for a 25th-Century series is to move things forward, to have a new status quo already in place after a period of time has passed and to see how different things have become as the series unfolds. By that definition, they could fit easily in any sci-fi series (just use different names). But since this is Star Trek, I would like to see how things have changed in the 25th-Century and what's new there. I want to see what comes next in that Universe rather than stay forever in the TOS era. That's really just a fundamental difference of opinion, because I find it very compelling.