ON A SIDE NOTE: Locke, have you ever read Ender's Game? 
Where do you think I got my name? Started out on my FS site as Ender and wound up as Locke a few years later. More like Peter than Andrew, I guess. ;)
Locke & Demosthenes are two of my favorite ideas Card ever came up with. Unfortunately he wrote the concept into the ground with the Bean series. Having Bean and Petra do the same thing was a bit too much, if you ask me.
BACK ON TOPIC:
The JJ-verse should never include either TNG or DS9. The objective was to reinvent the wheel, not the cart or the horse. Kirk and company are far enough back in years to have a new rendition count as an entirely new idea. Just like new and old BSG, when you get right down to it, they aren't even the same show. One was a campy "wagon-train to the stars" and the other is a fast-paced SciFi drama movie. Both are extremely likable in their own fashions, but neither one is equipped to deal with the other on common ground. I understand this, and so accept the idea that Roddenberry's vision was different than that of Abrams or Okuda. Each brought something unique to the storyline and characters, and each has their own ideas about where the show should have it's main purpose.
To give TNG the treatment would simply overcomplicate an already intricate show. Where the original series had hokey-jokey concepts like "Spock's Brain" and "The Trouble With Tribbles", the Enterprise crew of the 24th century had to deal with complex problems of social commentary far beyond the reach or scope of the original. Likewise, the new Abrams film chose to take that same direction and expand on it, often coming closer to the Next Gen style of storytelling.
I'll end this diatribe here, since I don't want to tax my own brain by turning it into some sort of goo running out of my ears in response to my own BS.
