I can see where you are coming from...

You sense of deva ju is valid.

The timeline had change, but the chess pieces (so to speak) remains the same.

Hence, in my post, I used the term, "re-imagine"

I believe the huge percentage of fanboys (okay, Trekkers) need familiarity, in my humble opinion, I agree with the direction that J.J. Abrams and gang had taken.

Please understand that it is just my opinion and I really do understand your point of view.

I never meant to discourage people from watching the Star Trek series by stating the number of episodes!!

At least try out the Star Trek The Next Generation!

I know alot of fans would probably criticize me for not recommending the original

I just think that to modern viewer, it would seem a little jaded....

If you like the next gen, then consider the original!!

Cheers

I'm afraid you are correct about the gen x/y...

This movie is UNDER PERFORMING in the States...

I fear for Star Trek 3...

Stupid Americans...

Star Trek had been off television for four years before J.J. Abrams rebooted the film franchise in 2009. While Abrams' vision has clearly struck a chord with audiences (Into Darkness took in $84 million in its opening weekend), there are still many die-hard Trekkies who argue that Star Trek belongs on the small screen — and they have a point.

As a huge fan of Abrams' films, it's hard to admit that there is something very un-Trek about them. Instead of a contemplative study questioning the boundaries of morality, what Abrams delivered are exciting, shoot-em-up action flicks that happen to take place in space. Star Trek once excelled as a form of social commentary, and in an era of remote drones, ubiquitous surveillance, and phones that talk back to us, I can't think of a better time for it to return to its philosophical roots.

Fall 2013: Day-by-day grid

The Prime Directive dictates that the Starfleet will not interfere in the development of alien civilizations, even if that interference is well-intentioned. Meaning, simply because humans have the technology to do something, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The ethical dilemmas the Prime Directive posed were once one of Star Trek's greatest assets, yet these questions have been sidelined in Abrams' world, which focuses more on how Kirk will win instead of whether he should be fighting at all.

But as fans of the original series know, Star Trek was never about the battles; it was much more idealistic than that. If Star Trek were to return to TV, it would could once again explore the social ideas of peace, progress and tolerance. Yes, the crew encountered great adventures and epic fights, but it was when these incidents were balanced with a moral question (What does it mean to be human? When do the ends cease to justify the means? What makes a utopia?) that Star Trek truly shined.

it's sad that I'm the only one laughing when Kirk ask Chekov to change into a red shirt