It does for the long term viability of the property.
No, it doesn't. The old fanbase has been shrinking, is shrinking and will continue to shrink in numbers and in commercial importance. The numbers are plain and easily researched - the so-called "fanbase" stopped renewing itself in the mid 1990s. Demand for and interest in
Star Trek continued to fall (you can look it up, and in fact could have at any point during the years you've been trying to make these fallacious claims) until the studio closed it down and turned it over to J.J. Abrams for reinvention.
The familiar, stock business of "you wait, one of these days in ten or twenty years you'll see that what I don't like is a failure and the stuff I predicted to be a success will win" is the fall-back position of people online who have been proven wrong and don't actually
have an argument based in evidence to support their wish-fulfillment fantasies. What you try unsuccessfully to do on these forums is called "moving the goal posts."
The haters predicted that the first one would fail. They were wrong. They'll be wrong this time, too. oldTrek is done, and the future of the Franchise belongs to the various directors and producers who will be brought on to produce ever-changing versions of
Star Trek until and unless the studio finally gives up on it. All evidence points away from any restoration of the old status quo that a dwindling number of trufans insist was "better."
You have no worthwhile argument to offer in rebuttal - I know, I've watched your attempts here for three years.
