Ok, this is liable to make things worse, but hear me out.
Go back and watch the original series, or review the episodes in your mind. If you examine thm closely with brutal honesty, there were only a small handful of episodes that were truly solid, good stories.
Most episodes presented oversimplified views of what are, in real life, much more complex relationships and issues -- and usually with the most complex of issues being resolved conveniently and in a tidy fashion in the last 5 minutes of the show -- i.e. Taste of Armaggedon -- two worlds at war for centuries use computers to determine who gets killed. In steps Kirk who says this idea is insane (which, of course, it truly is) but ends it by destroying a room of computers. One phaser blast to one small room of computers and the entire planetary defenses are done in -- did these people not have back-up systems?!

So we are to believe that After CENTURIES of war, planet leaders essentially say, "Gee, Kirk, you may be on to something after all. What WERE we thinking all these years. By golly, perhaps it is a good time to stop this senseless killing."
And yes, I realize the contraints of an hourly show and TV budget limited some of the stories-- but I could do this with other episodes -- my point is, Trek was simply a different form of TV entertainment -- as Roddenberry said, Wagon Train to the Stars. Yes, it broke new ground at the time. Yes, it was certainly more hi-brow than most other series at the time. Yes, it did reach a little higher than most other TV shows. BUT Trek, like most any TV show then (and even now) was created first and foremost to entertain and sell soap (or whatever the advertisers/sponsors were peddling).
Before the flames begin, let me say that Trek DID have it's share of greatness...and perhaps I'll point these out specifically in a later post.
My point -- as ground breaking as Trek was at the time, we must remember that time marches on. Audiences have become much more sophisticated in how they watch TV and movies -- how they take in visual information -- and how they have been exposed to better stories and acting through movies and cable TV. So ANY new Trek movie, to be successful both financially AND emotionally to the audience, must take into account present day sensibilities.
My post is going on longer than I had meant -- it is challenging for me to convey my thoughts more concisely. But to wrap this up, I wanted to point out that even though the trailer is filled with quick cuts and explosions, I have SEEN what Abrhams has done with LOST -- some WONDERFUL character development and storylines -- and perhaps he will bring some of THIS to Trek. Not that the TV series DIDN'T have it, but it seems to have not been very prevelent in many of the previous Trek movies -- very few seemed to have any HEART -- they lacked the SPIRIT of the original series.
So, perhaps this May we will see what we remember BEST about the TV series -- it's wonderful characters and the rich history of their relationships -- finally brought to the big screen with the kind of respect for the source material, and the kind of treatment of visual effects, along with a more epic SCOPE to the fashion in which this story is told, that will satisfy the most ardent Trekkie, Trekker or sci-fi geek like me who's wished for this type of experience ever since the original show went off the air in 1969.
Or, everything I'm saying could be bulldinky and the movie could flat out suck!
Guess we'll find out come May.
Peace. Live long and Prosper.
