TV is hardly complicated.
I'm just completely fed up with the fanboy attitude that any remake, spinoff, or movie version is automatically worse than the original because it's not exactly like the original. I know they want all the original cast members, sets, writers, etc to keep on going forever, but due to this thing called "aging" and "stale plots by season 2," it's not going to happen. I'm not saying Voyager is better than TNG...far from it. But I'm sick and tired of people discounting anything new.
I like the new Dr Who. It's reminiscent of the Tom Baker years in the humor and weirdness. And by the logic that any new series isn't as good as the previous, where does that leave every Doctor from 1966 and up? Does that mean any of those series are worse than William Hartnell just because he came first and is the original Doctor? I liked Sylvester McCoy, but since he came after Tom Baker, does that automatically make him worse?
Also, I thought the remake of the He-Man cartoon was much better than the original.
Though, I shall stop speaking blasphemy lest I say something like "I really didn't think any of the star wars movies were worth becoming a mythos."