DS9 is one of my favorite television shows. But it's weak point was when it tried to be mystic and philosophical. That's hard for anyone to do, and DS9 just had talents elsewhere. When it showed heart and feeling, like "The Visitor" it was at its best, or even those negative emotions that are just as relevant, as in "For the Uniform" TNG had its own such moments like "The Inner Light." But I cannot recall a single philosophical episode that really interested me. Discovery has had one season. Give it time, I think. The Abrams movies are designed to be thrilling and fun, and to me at least, the succeed in that way. The best of ST movies always are thrilling and fun. They aren't about being sending a poignant message that no one ever thought of before like "nuclear war is bad, ok?" or "let's not be so racist" or the ever important "evil superclones are people too" and certainly not, "that hypergiant energy cloud coming to kill you MIGHT be the child you yourself created". The ponderous philosophical stuff doesn't sell popcorn and it hasn't lead to a single good ST movie, in my opinion.
Story is important but characters are also super important. I won't care about the story if I'm not invested in the characters
I think people can handle and are able to accept more intelligent and even cerebral science fiction on the small and big screen today more than they did in the sixties.
There are too many X factors that could be recreated in TOS. "Deep philosophy" means very little if the audience doesn't connect with the characters. By the way, that was one of the reasons "The Cage" was rejected is the studio was concerned that audiences could not connect with the characters.
So, we should try to make something today that will be considered a classic later? That makes zero sense.
Because we have no way of knowing what will be "classic" years to come. You are, in essence, buying a toy and hoping that it appreciates in value later on, with no guarantee of success. "The Cage" is classic because it is connected with the history of Star Trek, not because of its characters or story. Captain Pike certainly stands out because he is far more depressive, far more violent, than Kirk. I like him well enough, but that doesn't mean I could bank a future series of stories on him.
Care to tell me how you know you are making great art? Roddenberry certainly did not know what Star Trek was going to do. Secondly, just because Star Trek was great art in the 60s does not mean we can do the exact same thing and expect the same results.
I think guys like Beethoven and Mozart and the Beatles, etc. etc. kinda knew they were doing something great.
It's great now as it was then. Just because it wasn't popular or commercially successful doesn't mean it wasn't great. Some things have changed in a good way because of it. I'm not saying mimicking the style or the aesthetics of the sixties would work today (although it kinda did for JJ) but the door has been forever opened none the less.
Again, define great. For instance, George Lucas does not think that Star Wars (the original film) is great, even though many do. Artists are often too close to their work to say "Oh, this is great!" Regardless, how do you make great Star Trek? Do you ape what has come before? Do you attempt some thing new and hope people like it? These are not easy questions to answer, no matter what fan opinion might appear to be.
It’s great because he thinks it’s great. Someone who is not a Star Trek fan would not think TOS is great. Just like how some people think Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock or Thomas Kincaid produced great art, but I am not one of them. So it’s a meaningless nonsequitor that’s completely subjective and cannot be defined. Mind you, it’s fine that he thinks TOS is great, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still just an opinion and not a concrete fact shared by all.