That reads like you felt ambushed by the movie. I know how it feels to be ambushed when a director is silent about his or her vision. Or talks his or her butt off about recreating movie, book or television series like it was originally.
However, JJ Abrams ambushed no one. He was very candid about not remaking the Star Trek franchise after the remake was announced. Here is an excerpt from one of his interviews before his
Star Trek was released:
JJ Abrams: 'I never got Star Trek' (link)
Steve Rose
Wed 6 May 2009 19.01 EDT
One thing Abrams has never been, though, is a Trekker. Or a Trekkie. Or even a Trekkist. "Star Trek," he says, referring to the original TV series,
"always felt like a silly, campy thing. I remember appreciating it, but feeling like I didn't get it. I felt it didn't give me a way in. There was a captain, there was this first officer, they were talking a lot about adventures and not having them as much as I would've liked. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, maybe I wasn't old enough. But The Twilight Zone I was obsessed with. Loved it."
Any new addition to the Star Trek universe must manoeuvre through a dense asteroid belt of existing Trek lore that has accumulated after 79 episodes of the original series, its TV successors (The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, Enterprise), 10 movies and innumerable other spin-offs. But Abrams's ignorance was, he says, an asset:
"I had no idea there had been 10 movies! I still haven't seen them all. I didn't want to become a student of Star Trek. I felt that was actually one of the few advantages I had. I was trying to make a movie, not trying to make a Trek movie."
_____________________________
You are right. The movie failed you and Star Trek fans like you. At that time, you, and Star Trek fans like you, anticipated seeing a representation of the franchise from 1965 to that present. Unfortunately, you, and Star Trek fans like you, did not know the mindset of the director tabbed to make the movie. You, and Star Trek fans like you, spent your money on something that was never going to be seen on screen.
On the other hand, Star Trek fans like myself knew Abrams' film would not copy the established franchise. And while I also had problems with the movie:
- "lol. Kirk really should have died on that ice planet."
- "Not opening your parachute is dumb way to die."
- "Everyone should have died at the black hole. And how is Nero's ship just SITTING within the event horizon of a black hole???"
- (After re-watching it years later) "Why is Thor Kirk's daddy?"
--I had fun with the overall re-imagination of Gene Roddenberry's ideal. No. Not as a replacement but nothing could replace what can before. Yet, this was a re-writing of the entire established Star Trek universe. Similar? Yeah. Different? Of course. The man making the film
said it would be.
In my opinion, Karl Urban and Simon Pegg were GREAT as McCoy and Scotty, respectively. Urban's Deforest Kelley was superb, in fact. Zoe Saldana? 'nuff said. The true Star Trek fan in Zachary Quinto shined through and it showed on screen. Cardboard? Please. Very few actors I am familiar with
at that time could have pulled off Leonard Nimoy just as well as Quinto did or better. "A walking talking Christopher Pike?" Fantastic twist on the character. The special effects were top rate. Lastly, the action pretty darn good.
Oh well. Opinions differ.