| Veknoid_Outcast said: The 2009 movie was OK. Into Darkness was poor, I thought. Beyond looks to be the weakest of the three. Why couldn't Abrams create a new sci-fi property if he wanted to make a space opera? Or just wait for Star Wars, a series more tailored to his skills as a director? Why turn Star Trek upside down? As for Abrams trying to respect the origins and identity of Star Trek, I see no sign of that, time travel mechanic included. Not only are the characters strange - Spock, a half Vulcan, flies off the handle at any perceived slight - but the story doesn't make sense. A Starfleet dropout promoted to captain the Federation flagship? And if Abrams just wanted to do his own thing why did he essentially remake Wrath of Khan in Into Darkness? |
Because Abrams' own things tend to be remakes, as we've already seen with the new Star Wars entry. 
And again, you misunderstood. The time-travel mechanic was done purposedly to not mess up with the origins and identity of Star Trek, so everything weird you see on the J.J.'s Star Trek does not influence nor it should be compared to how things worked in the originals. Sure you might argue that the Cascade Effect from time-travel shouldn't be as pronounced as it is on here, but the thing is that you shouldn't really try to judge how this new universe works using the established rules of the previous one. Just go with how J.J.'s set things in motion.
