I don't understand the hatred for the Abrams movies. What was there, 1 and 1/2 good Star Trek movies in over a dozen attempts before then? Star Trek was always a TV franchise, and the only way to have it be a viable film franchise was to do exactly what they did.
The movies weren't what killed the franchise - it was Discovery, Picard and the rest.
In fact the movies could have reinvigorated the franchise had they been paired with another TNG, Voyager or DS-9 style series set 30 years after TNG which was in that same cerebral, thoughtful, hopeful vein as classic Trek. The dumber, flashier movies would have been a great "gateway drug" to "Real Trek" on the TV to keep the "True Trek" fans happy, and probably would have subsidized the whole operation. Those movies were pretty decent for what they were.
None of the Next Generation movies were terribly good, and they were clearly trying to be more action adventure than sci-fi, but at least they retained some of Gene Roddenberry's original spirit of Trek.
Abram's Treks were generic, dumb-as-fudge space operas, dressed in flashy Star Trek clothing, with none of that spirit.
They were made from the same pattern most generic action blockbusters are made this century:
Think up some spectacular action set pieces with fighting and explosions.
Knock out a lazy, incoherent script to get characters from one set piece to the next.
(If it's a reboot) Throw in some references to the far superior originals to pander to fans.
The first one almost qualified for "just turn off your brain and enjoy it" status.
Into Darkness was "self-administer a chainsaw lobotomy and enjoy it or die and end your suffering whatever lol" awful.
From the opening scene of "let's hide a massive star ship from the primitives under the ocean right next to where they live" to McCoy injecting Khan blood into a tribble because SCIENCE, to ripping off Wrath of Khan "but it's clever because we reversed the roles," I sat slack-jawed in the theater, because even with my low expectations, I was flabbergasted by the scope of lazy, stupid hackery on display.
Nobody who thought those movies were great was going to be drawn in to a "true Trek" series that deals with heady sci-fi concepts and boring discussions about tachyons or whatever. It's not the same audience.
The new series (plural) followed the lead of the Abrams films: Flashy effects, histrionic drama, and stupid plots written by people who don't understand or care what Star Trek was about, or sci-fi in general.
What you're suggesting could have worked, but we all know it didn't work out that way. It didn't work out that way because JJ Abrams & Alex Kurtzman never had any intention of honoring the franchise. Their goal from the beginning was to turn it into shit.
Their only major talent is going to the correct synagogue.
I don't understand the hatred for the Abrams movies. What was there, 1 and 1/2 good Star Trek movies in over a dozen attempts before then? Star Trek was always a TV franchise, and the only way to have it be a viable film franchise was to do exactly what they did.
The movies weren't what killed the franchise - it was Discovery, Picard and the rest.
In fact the movies could have reinvigorated the franchise had they been paired with another TNG, Voyager or DS-9 style series set 30 years after TNG which was in that same cerebral, thoughtful, hopeful vein as classic Trek. The dumber, flashier movies would have been a great "gateway drug" to "Real Trek" on the TV to keep the "True Trek" fans happy, and probably would have subsidized the whole operation. Those movies were pretty decent for what they were.
None of the Next Generation movies were terribly good, and they were clearly trying to be more action adventure than sci-fi, but at least they retained some of Gene Roddenberry's original spirit of Trek.
Abram's Treks were generic, dumb-as-fudge space operas, dressed in flashy Star Trek clothing, with none of that spirit.
They were made from the same pattern most generic action blockbusters are made this century:
The first one almost qualified for "just turn off your brain and enjoy it" status.
Into Darkness was "self-administer a chainsaw lobotomy and enjoy it or die and end your suffering whatever lol" awful.
From the opening scene of "let's hide a massive star ship from the primitives under the ocean right next to where they live" to McCoy injecting Khan blood into a tribble because SCIENCE, to ripping off Wrath of Khan "but it's clever because we reversed the roles," I sat slack-jawed in the theater, because even with my low expectations, I was flabbergasted by the scope of lazy, stupid hackery on display.
Nobody who thought those movies were great was going to be drawn in to a "true Trek" series that deals with heady sci-fi concepts and boring discussions about tachyons or whatever. It's not the same audience.
The new series (plural) followed the lead of the Abrams films: Flashy effects, histrionic drama, and stupid plots written by people who don't understand or care what Star Trek was about, or sci-fi in general.
1, 2, 4, and 6 were actually good.
What you're suggesting could have worked, but we all know it didn't work out that way. It didn't work out that way because JJ Abrams & Alex Kurtzman never had any intention of honoring the franchise. Their goal from the beginning was to turn it into shit.
Their only major talent is going to the correct synagogue.