I knew the Faux Treks were an epic fail right out of the chute, especially from the scene where Kirk’s mother was on a starship going into labor (presumably, James T. Kirk’s older brother would’ve been present there as a toddler or upwards of 5 years old — and none of that would’ve occurred in real Trek, as it was revealed they didn’t put families on starships until TNG, which partly accounted for Picard’s level of discomfort early on at having children aboard his ship). Hence, Abrams changed the canon right from the start, nevermind the “altered universe” his defenders claim.
If I were to sit down and list all of the problems/inconsistencies/anachronisms and the like for those two films, I could probably fill a book. Better writing and some basic knowledge of Trek history could’ve improved the situation dramatically, but all Abrams wanted was effectively a shoot-em-up with lens flare and virtual child actors playing iconic grown-up characters whom inspired millions of people. I found none of these “reboots” to be inspiring in the least. They were poorly-drawn caricatures with poorly-chosen actors.
Heaven forbid they could’ve set the Faux Trek films say 100 years after TNG/Voyager/DS9 (in the early 25th century) with a new set of actors and characters aboard an Enterprise-H off exploring, say, the Andromeda Galaxy (encountering, for example, the Kelvans in their original form that only current special effects could portray). So much for that notion.
I enjoyed the first one even though it had serious problems.
But “Into Darkness”? Pretty crappy. Best thing about it was Alice Eve in her blue bra.
I forgot all about Kirk’s older brother (corpse played by Shatner, lol). Abrams changed Chekov’s age too.
100 years after Voyager would the mid to late 25th Century, yes?
I’d love a series set in the Mirror Universe all about rebuilding the EMPIRE, *itch!!! No pansy *** Federation. ;p Have it on Showtime with full green space babe frontal nudity.