I would have preferred a movie that stuck with the ORIGINAL canon. But this is what you get when you hand STAR TREK over to a director who says, "I never liked the original STAR TREK". He wanted to make HIS story at the expense of everyone else. If he was going to do that, he should have just NOT bothered to bring FUTURE Spock back, and should have done a clean re-boot of the series with no reference to the original. Then he could have killed anyone he wanted, and destroyed every planet in the Federation, and it wouldn't have mattered. Ah, well. He got rich off it. So he doesn't care about us, same as PARAMOUNT.
I would have preferred a Star Trek movie, myself. You know, one with a logically coherent storyline, realistic characters, and even a shred of science fiction in it.
Instead, we got yet another JJ Abrams dumb-fest. Imagine distilling the stupidity and pointlessness of "Lost" and "Fringe" into something that defecates all over the greatest filmed sci-fi series ever. Oh wait - don't imagine it... that's pretty much what we got.
I would have like to seen a Star Trek movie set further in the future. Take it another 100+ years further into the future than Nemisis, the last in the original cannon timeline. That way they could have had their new youthful crew, and the new flashy special effects would have made sense, on a new flashy ship. Instead they ruin the cannon of 40+ years of Trek, without so much as an apology.
I don't buy into the alternate timeline theory. As a life long Back to the Future fan, I know that changing something in the past will change your future, not just split off into an alternate timeline. Unless you traveled into an alternate universe, any change to the past will affect the future! Duh! That is also what the main villain Nero is counting on, that he will change the past and alter the future!
So the thought in my mind is instantly... "So they basically just made it so 99% of everything Star Trek that came before this is null and void!" How do you think the Federation is going to hold up without one of, if not the most, important planet in it?
Vulcan is gone, and their is so far no intention of trying to bring it back. It could be rather easy to do, even with the mess they have made, with the likes of Q (A Roddenberry created character BTW), or even further time travel. I also found it funny that they went out of their way to bring Kirk & Picard together without time travel in Generations, only to use time travel to muck up the timeline so much that there is no guarantee that Picard will even exist. The existence of anybody from the series we all love is up for debate. Sure most if not all of the human characters will be born. However, will they join Starfleet? What about the Vulcan characters like Tuvok (who is my favorite Vulcan by far, as he is full blooded), was his family among the 20,000 to survive? Chances are no.
Ugh, I could go on and on about how this movie makes everything else Star Trek null and void, but I'm sure you get the picture. There are a multitude of ways they could have brought Star Trek into the 21st century, destroying everything about it wasn't one of them...
That IS what they did, and it was a big success! Unfortunately it wasn't the right thing to do to the millions of life long Trekkers. Don't get me wrong, it's not the new actors I have a problem with it's... See my post above.
Jack, They were trying to take something that's been hashed, rehashed, alternate-universe-hased, voyager hashed, etc, and make something 'new' but keep the core of what we like about the characters and soul of the franchise.
I think they did a great job, (As do millions of loyal fans) given the LIMITATIONS that reality, and the need to create/maintain an audience OUTSIDE of us hardcore fans.
I disagree that they 'destroyed' xxx or yyy.
The BRILLIANCE of what they did is EVIDENCED by your own observation that "there is no guarantee that Picard will exist", and curiosity about "will they join Starfleet". That ambiguity is (desperately?) needed to avoid being just more of the same. As for your physics/timeline rules, I will only say "Back to the Future?" is the model? and leave it at that.
I get where people can bring out complaints, namely a boring beginning, destroying canon, etc.
But getting into it about time travel is kind of silly. Nobody really knows whether changing the past would create an alt. timeline or change the future/present, and probably never will. They did something very similar to to this in Dragonball Z and it was deeply confusing to the characters in that series too, what with stopping Cell from being born in their timeline, but not preventing him from having destroyed "a future" and whatnot. And how one person altered what different characters did, etc. Basically there is no answer, and that is why this sort of plotline was gone with.
Watch TNG episode "Parallels" and you will find that Trek is built on a DC comics-styled multiverse. All of the TV shows and movies up to this movie occur in the "Prime" timeline. Of course a few instances allowed the main timeline to be altered, such as a deceased Tasha Yar going back in time aboard the Enterprise C to defend a Klingon outpost against a Romulan attack as they were supposed to in the "Prime" timeline. This allowed her half-Romulan daughter, who should have never existed, to be the Big Bad for the Spock episodes of TNG. In "Parallels" though, it shows a hundred or so Enterprises from different realities, such as one where Picard was lost to the Borg and the Battle of Wolf 359 resulted in the destruction of the Federation.