C3PX said:
This is a reboot, that essentially lacks the balls to take itself as a reboot.
That's the core of the problem I have with this thing. From the beginning, I had no problem with them doing a re-whatever-they-wanted-to-call-it, because it makes the most sense. But the production spent months communicating with fan sites and message boards, saying "oh no, it honors and respects the continuity of what has come before, you will see Kirk and Spock's first mission together, its Casino Royale with James T. Kirk", raising a lot of hopes and expectations, when they knew all along they weren't being straight. All that Clintonian "it all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" bullshit, saying its one thing in the face of every indication that it isn't ... it just shows contempt for the audience, i.e. me, and that's not working for me. Its left a sour taste in my mouth and has really soured me on the film. Abrams obviously is not a fan of the original series. He likes the movies, he likes in particular Star Trek - The Motion Picture because his daddy got him on the set when he was a kid, and he likes Star Wars. And he's got his dorky screenwriters to go online and sweet talk some Trek-related websites into essentially doing their P.R. work for them. And I'm just not into it. Abrams is saying "oh its not for the Trekkies, its for the Trekkies of tomorrow" - okay, fine. I'm taking him at his word that he's not making a movie for me and I'm staying home. I'll look at the DVD six months down the road, but I'm not spending my money on a flick the director has expressly excluded me from, I'm not buying the merchandise, blah blah blah. He can reboot Star Trek: The Corporate Franchise for the 21st Century without me. Truth be told, Star Trek, Inc. and I probably parted ways about 12 years ago anyway.