Often I see the sentiment here that they should just do another TV series with Kirk & crew. While I admit that I would still watch it*, the prospect of rebooting any of the crews on TV just doesn't excite me. Maybe it's just because I feel like a lot of them had their run and that I'm not going to get much more out of their characters and situations. For the new movies, it's fine because we're only given so much time to devote to each character, but with a TV show can you really do that much more for them? Perhaps, but I just feel that with TV moving on would be better than dredging up the old stuff. And moving on doesn't mean a show in the 25th century or anything like that. It just means some different characters with a new perspective. I was fine with the concept of Enterprise going back in time, but I just wasn't fond of the execution. Basically, the time period is irrelevant to me. And I certainly get the idea of rebooting for reasons of familiarity or finances. Also, there's the idea that people might not want to watch the adventures of Captain Mimsey O'Roarke of the USS Asparagus, as Greg Cox put it when referring to novels. But I think some of that applies to TV as well. Why should we care about this new crew? And therein lies the challenge of writing this way: it's difficult. Bringing up old characters and putting them in new situations definitely has its own challenges, but is just way more safe of a decision, and the last thing I want is for them to keep playing it so safe. So what do you think? * This reminds me of an old friend of mine who cheered when there was a teaser for maybe First Contact or Insurrection, saying that they could have showed a turd on the screen and put "Star Trek" over it and he'd still be excited. I might be in that group, although I was pretty soured to Trek in 2005. Star Trek is just one of several franchises that have my money no matter what.