I like the article, its nonsense density is pretty high.
First, there is a difference between claiming that a story arc from a serialized show like DS9 was too long and that a non-serialized show like TNG is too long. Apples and oranges.
Second, Arena and Darmok do not illustrate character differences as they are different scenarios, Kirk was attacked whereas Picard was abducted. The notion that Picard would have talked with the Gorn and that Kirk would have killed the Tamarian are the type of stupid and uninformed clich?s I already wrote about.
Third, it is not the characters but the stories. The arguably best TOS episode, City on the Edge of Forever ,contains very little character-idiosyncratic stuff. Kirk and McCoy could be anybody, only Spock's icy "Edith Keeler must die" is unimaginable with another character. TFF shows that even great character moments cannot save a bad story (and I am not a radical concerning the character-story issue, I like TFF more than most people precisely because of its beautiful character moments).
Fourth, number crunching does not lead to great television and comparing ratings (sans DVD sales, sans oversea watch numbers, sans streaming, ...) with Facebook followers is ridiculous. Fifth, even if you could establish faily objectively that the majority of fans want a Sulu show, since when is satisfying the whims of the fans equivalent to producing great Trek? Aggregating preferences leads to crap, not to great art.
Sixth, you can count the Cold War like episodes involving the Feds, Klingons and Romulans in the original series on one hand, i.e. it was not a theme of the show. Before you arrogantly claim to have found the godlen formula for the next Trek series you might wanna get your facts straight.
I don't know what ingredients were needed for a new Trek show and even if I did, good ingredients are necessary but not sufficient for a good meal. Being able to tell what you like in a meal does not mean that you can cook or write a recipe.
Originally Posted by samwiseb
It's not like any prior ST following TOS could stand on its own. Except maybe TNG, but even there I am doubtful.
I thought that the "there can be only one" TOS purists died out somewhen after 1987 but it looks like the one show radicals are still among us.
Let me take the ridiculous notion that all Trek is bound to TOS seriously just for argument's sake. If this were so, if the child were forever tied to its parents, it would be hardly a surprise that Trek reached a threshold which it cannot cross. Thankfully it is not like this, Trek changes and evolves. Not always into the direction one likes (I do for example not like the current direction but I would never claim that TNG, my favourite Trek show, should be the eternal benchmark of the franchise; you cannot and should not repeat the past) but that is still better than stagnation.