Star Trek

[Alex]

Yes, we're definitely not talking on the same wavelength because what you're saying doesn't make any more sense to me than what I'm saying apparently does to you.

One key difference with Bond is that, at least in the movies, there has never been any attempt to create a universal tapestry with strong interconnections between every part of the narrative. With some exceptions, James Bond movies are essentially one offs using the same character idea. Each movie, essentially, is a reboot, with vague hints at consistency and hardly any acknowledgment of what has come before.

Admittedly, if Star Trek had been left with just the original three seasons that would be true of it as well, but that has not been the form of things for nearly 30 years now. For me, part of the fun of being a Star Trek fan is in how it all tries (and frequently fails I'll make no claim that Star Trek has ever been great at internal consistency) to tell a bigger story of a proposed future than just the individual stories of a few characters.

It is fine that they've said "ok, that's played out and we just need to drop all that and start over with the same general core starting point but with the convenience of a 40-year-old short culturally embedded shorthand." It is fine that we have Riker and Troi in the form of Spock and Uhura. It is fine that the engine room looks like a power plant (because that is what is and actually that look, in my opinion, better matches the "actual" engineering described in various semi-canonical sources and even if givign Scotty the Agustus Gloop treatment was beyond idiotic). But being fine with it is not, for me the same as it not being an important development in how I've interacted with this universe for 30 years.