But you are entitled to your opinion...
Thank you. I'll keep that in mind.
I won't address every bit of your response because I'm trying not to take us too far off-topic. However, I do want to address the Star Trek film references. I should have been more clear in explaining when I think the franchise veered off course.
I have no issue at all with any of the TOS films and I like and own a few of the TNG films. However, when I was sitting in the theater and saw this scene; https://youtu.be/NKFMWhxJask I very nearly walked out. For the Star Trek franchise, this scene was my 3PO telling campfire stories to plush toys moment. It's when I knew it was time to part ways.
I didn't bother with Nemesis when it was released. I saw a bit of it on cable about a year ago. Like Insurrection, it looked and felt like a 1990s TV show.
For me, Star Trek2009 was a welcome return to characters and story. I haven't seen Cloverfield beyond a few minutes, nor have I seen MI3. Shaky-cam is a guaranteed no thanks in my world. I don't chase the story around the screen trying to figure it out. I won't work or struggle to watch a film.
Abrams received an enormous amount of grief over the flares in Trek2009. I suspect they'll be all but absent in TFA. He understands what the fans want and the original atmosphere of the 1977 film.
That is fair enough.
Sorry I should have been more clear with regards to Star Trek.
I was referring principally to the TOS movies (Star Trek 1-6)....not TNG.
Star Trek V was a bomb(not dissimilar to Superman IV)....a good idea badly executed.
But the others (Star Trek 1-4 and 6) are excellent(in my opinion).
They are quite varied too in terms of style and content(which I always believed was one of Trek's attractions) .
It is interesting that the 2 Trek films that Abrahams has done are practically identical in tone and rhythm.
But Nimoy's 2 Trek films(III and IV) are quite different.
III follows a dramatic emotional arc and IV has drama combined with adult(primarily) humour.
Even Meyer's 2 Trek films(II and VI) are diverse.
II is revenge/action.
VI is a conspiracy whodunnit(with a little action).
The problem with Abrahams is that he is generic in his approach...irrespective of whatever that approach is.
So Mission Impossible and Star Trek 2009 + 2013 follow that crash bang wallop style of Michael Bay(Abraham's chum on Armageddon).
And Super 8 is a Spielbergiun Close Encounters/E.T rip off(and nowhere near as good as either of them!) in style and tone.
As for doing stuff for the fans....that is not the point.
The original Star Wars of 1977 was not for the fans.
It just so happened that the fans were drawn to the film.
You were there in 1977.
And you know why.
Smoky And The Bandit,Saturday Night Fever, A Bridge Too Far,The Gauntlet, and The Deep (amongst others)were Star War's main competitors that year.
It is easy to see why Star Wars had the impact it did when it did....it was different.
A situation that cannot be replicated. Ever.
The Force Awakens will be going up against The Hunger Games , the Martian, Dawn Of Justice .....all of which will be offering the same overinflated CGI wankfest that overpowers the storytelling in most contemporary sci fi/fantasy movies these days.
TFA will do well just to stand out from such a saturated crowd.