Dude, not cool. I don't like the new Star Trek movies so I need to get a life?

I know it's not 1966 anymore. It's 2016. In September it will be Trek's 50th anniversary and all we have to show for it is a complete bastardization of what made the series great in the first place. Yes, Roddenberry's conservatism hurt The Next Generation, and the show become much better after his departure. But what he created is magnificent: a bold, creative vision of the future rich in heady ideas about identity, multiculturalism, exploration, time travel, alien worlds and civilizations, and, most importantly, what it means to be human.

His legacy continued throughout the 80s and 90s and finally hit a dead end with Enterprise and Nemesis. The franchise was in need of a renaissance, yes, but what it got was a black eye. Abrams et al. transformed a contemplative series about science and big deas into an action movie about plot holes and lens flares. 

For the record, if Abrams had made good movies, I'd be willing to forgive his thorough dismantling of everything that defined Star Trek for over 40 years. But they're not good movies. They're populated by callow and unconvincing acting; contrivances and shaky logic; numbing and hollow special effects; and convoluted, murky storylines.

Here is the bottom line. It's a movie, and just a movie.  People watch movies for various of reasons.  I watch movies to briefly suspend reality, but that's just me. I'm not going to dictate to anyone why they should watch a movie as they shouldn't do the same to anyone else.  And if there is a "deeper meaning" in a movie, great!  No problem with that.  And some movies were made to have that deeper meaning.

The problem I have is idolization to the point where it blinds those from seeing something for what it is.  That doesn't mean Abrams' Star Trek films are good because that in itself is a subjective matter.  But I don't necessarily need that deeper philosophical "ummphh" in a Star Trek movie to make it enjoyable.  Some of the issues that Roddenberry tackled in the late 60's were legitiment issues that are still revelant today.  But what makes a lot more sense is that if the future (Star Trek) is suppose to be a time when we have "evolved" to the point that we have become a better people, then there would no point in presenting those issues because it would be a non-issue by then.  You see what I'm getting at?  So if someone wants to idolize Roddenberry to the point that they cannot see that Abrams' Star Trek is a fun (subjective) science fiction space romp, they don't have to see it, and that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I've recognized what Roddenberry has done, and I recognized what the Abrams' Star Trek films are.  I see them for what they are, and they are both good in my eyes in their own ways.  So if someone thinks that the Abrams' Star Trek are bad movies or it's just not their cup of tea, that's cool and should be respected.  But just because some of Roddenberry's element are not in a Star Trek movie and/or television series (as what has happened with TNG) doesn't make it wrong or bad.

My problem with the new Trek movies are that they move away from the legacy of the shows AND they're not very good. For me it's the worst possible outcome. 

J.J. purposedly created the time-travel rift at the first movie to basically not mess up with the established canon and at the same time do his own thing. Looking at J.J.'s Star Trek movies trying to adhere them to the franchise's legacy is a mistake. Those are movies that are meant to be seen by themselves.

As a trekkie myself, I do love them, and I don't really agree about them not being very good. I've enjoyed them, and I don't find them to be poor quality or badly scripted movies.

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.

Here is the bottom line. It's a movie, and just a movie.  People watch movies for various of reasons.  I watch movies to briefly suspend reality, but that's just me. I'm not going to dictate to anyone why they should watch a movie as they shouldn't do the same to anyone else.  And if there is a "deeper meaning" in a movie, great!  No problem with that.  And some movies were made to have that deeper meaning.

The problem I have is idolization to the point where it blinds those from seeing something for what it is.  That doesn't mean Abrams' Star Trek films are good because that in itself is a subjective matter.  But I don't necessarily need that deeper philosophical "ummphh" in a Star Trek movie to make it enjoyable.  Some of the issues that Roddenberry tackled in the late 60's were legitiment issues that are still revelant today.  But what makes a lot more sense is that if the future (Star Trek) is suppose to be a time when we have "evolved" to the point that we have become a better people, then there would no point in presenting those issues because it would be a non-issue by then.  You see what I'm getting at?  So if someone wants to idolize Roddenberry to the point that they cannot see that Abrams' Star Trek is a fun (subjective) science fiction space romp, they don't have to see it, and that doesn't make it a bad movie.

I've recognized what Roddenberry has done, and I recognized what the Abrams' Star Trek films are.  I see them for what they are, and they are both good in my eyes in their own ways.  So if someone thinks that the Abrams' Star Trek are bad movies or it's just not their cup of tea, that's cool and should be respected.  But just because some of Roddenberry's element are not in a Star Trek movie and/or television series (as what has happened with TNG) doesn't make it wrong or bad.