It’s hard to compare the two (original series vs. JJ Abrams), being across such vast differences in time (relative to the progress of technology and style in filmmaking) but its impossible if you’re just going to outright denounce all the qualities the original had for its time.

Star wars came like what… A couple of years after? And looked much better

Star Trek (1966-1969)

Star Wars (1977)

You do the math.

It was not great even for it’s time. It was passable… With sci-fi, the special effects are a primordial part.

What are you comparing it to? The progress in filmmaking during that time was ridiculous. The steadicam hadn’t even been invented yet so shots were much more static. For the time, people were blown away by the sets and effects.

Also I’m not just talking about effects. Old material was acted like a radio play or theatre… Not a fan.

All the acting and direction in every show and movie at that time was stilted and stiff and yes, very akin to a play. That was the time of Adam West Batman. You don’t have to be a fan. But your statements about it not being good for its time are… Ignorant? At best.

JJ Abrams movies are “ST if it was actually on our world”.

You’re delusional is you think “actually in our world” is measured by the visual effects technology and the progress of film/TV acting and direction of the time. Connection with the real world is quite literally what set Star Trek apart and made it change the course of sci fi film and television. It took real world politics and social issues and made them part of a sci fi story.

But if epic CGI space battles and intrusive lens flare from non-existent lights is your definition of reality, there’s not much else we can say.

I still have RiF installed for the nostalgia.