Originally Posted by
Dr Channard
Here is the breakdown in a nutshell. There isn’t anything wrong with liking the 09 ST reboot series, but it should be understood that they are not Star Trek.
Star Trek was created by Gene Roddenberry. His TV series often employed a narrative of exploring real world social and moral issues against the backdrop of the sci-fi epic. Not every episode or movie in his series is a masterpiece, a fair number were duds. But even in many of the failures there seemed to be higher aspirations. Even though Gene died in the early 90s, the TV series arguably reached its peak popularity in that timeframe in the hands of creative people who continued his vision.
In 2009 J.J. gave birth to Abramsverse, Hollywood action romps which in narrative really had nothing to do with what Gene was doing with Star Trek. Probably the larger movie going audience who didn’t have the patience for the older TV series found these Abramsverse films to be much easier to digest. Judging these films on their own merit, they are mindless fun action films. Judging them in the context of Star Trek however, Star Trek (2009) had some considerable flaws, but was the most tolerable of the three. Star Trek Into Darkness was just nonstop pissing into the wind, and even the creators of the follow-up essentially ignored it. And that follow-up, Star Trek Beyond, there I sat, the fiftieth anniversary of Trek, watching thousands of spaceships explode in brilliant flames while the Beastie Boys were jammin' through the speakers. It had all the dignity and depth of a monster truck rally.
So yeah, that’s where I kinda stand on Abrams and his dealings with Star Trek. His doings in SW: TFA were kind of better, I guess.