All of us Trek fans have our opinions and they are all subjective so none are objectively right or wrong but here is my opinion:
The original Star Trek series (3 seasons, 79 episodes) attracted me by its Secular Humanist values. It was later revealed that Star Trek creator, Gene Roddenberry was a devout Secular Humanist himself. He was a man with a lot of vision but he also had a lot of flaws. He had an ego the size of Andromeda and was a legendary womanizer.
ST-TNG was even more to Roddenberry's vision than the original series - because now he had more power to get what he wanted. His vision of a highly-evolved humanity was on full display here - albeit with its difficulty in telling a fictional story because fiction thrives on conflict and Roddenberry didn't want any.
ST-DS9 occurred after Roddenberry's death and was much "grittier" than any Star Trek which had come before. I doubt Gene would have liked it. I personally loved it. It depicted a Star Trek universe which was not so black and white. Morality was explored quite deeply here and sometimes it was very difficult to figure who was on the right side. I think this was a very good thing. Many Star Trek fans might point to The Original Series or Star Trek: The Next Generation as being more cerebral but I think DS9 asked the deeper moral questions.
ST-VOY was a downgrade in quality. I think it was still a valuable and overall-positive contribution to the Star Trek universe. Most of the characters were dull and it featured a Captain of questionable mental stability.
ST:ENT played so fast and loose with continuity, it is difficult to fit it in with the rest of the Star Trek universe. There were some excellent 4th-season episodes but it was too late by then. They had so butchered established continuity by then that too many fans were no longer interested.
The less said about the Abrams butchery, the better. That is not Star Trek.
The original Star Trek series (3 seasons, 79 episodes) attracted me by its Secular Humanist values. It was later revealed that Star Trek creator, Gene Roddenberry was a devout Secular Humanist himself. He was a man with a lot of vision but he also had a lot of flaws. He had an ego the size of Andromeda and was a legendary womanizer.
ST-TNG was even more to Roddenberry's vision than the original series - because now he had more power to get what he wanted. His vision of a highly-evolved humanity was on full display here - albeit with its difficulty in telling a fictional story because fiction thrives on conflict and Roddenberry didn't want any.
ST-DS9 occurred after Roddenberry's death and was much "grittier" than any Star Trek which had come before. I doubt Gene would have liked it. I personally loved it. It depicted a Star Trek universe which was not so black and white. Morality was explored quite deeply here and sometimes it was very difficult to figure who was on the right side. I think this was a very good thing. Many Star Trek fans might point to The Original Series or Star Trek: The Next Generation as being more cerebral but I think DS9 asked the deeper moral questions.
ST-VOY was a downgrade in quality. I think it was still a valuable and overall-positive contribution to the Star Trek universe. Most of the characters were dull and it featured a Captain of questionable mental stability.
ST:ENT played so fast and loose with continuity, it is difficult to fit it in with the rest of the Star Trek universe. There were some excellent 4th-season episodes but it was too late by then. They had so butchered established continuity by then that too many fans were no longer interested.
The less said about the Abrams butchery, the better. That is not Star Trek.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein
