I guess that's a much larger topic - it depends on what angle you are looking at (and Lucas' notorious inconsistency) - but in any case, in terms of cohesiveness, what they are doing under Disney ownership is something that they didn't even attempt. Instead, they hired a guy to keep it all sorted in a database assigning a ridiculous amount of "levels" of canon.
Ah, not a JJ fan, huh? LOL.
Don't buy that - because it's hogwash. And Abrams hasn't ever claimed any such thing. Fanboi blather.
He is a huge, since the beginning, Star Wars fan, but he started getting involved in Star Trek going on a decade ago now - back when no one would have ever suspected this was going to happen, back when someone who suggested that Episode VII would ever be made would be sent to the funny bin. He even turned it down the first time it was offered to him.
Well, this we are going to disagree on. He saved Trek. Well, that's not even something we can disagree on, as the numbers speak for themselves. He took a completely dead, driven into the ground movie franchise and turned it into the biggest hit it's ever been.
While a section of the core Trek fanbase was disappointed (primarily with the last film), the core fanbase is a drop in the bucket of the millions of folks who now pay to go see Trek movies. It's also the matter of "What is Trek?" because that has changed considerably over the years, particularly since it has never had a single direction.
Roddenberry in particular, by the end, basically stated that there was no conflict in the 23rd century and completely denied the very nautical roots of the story (which is why he was pretty much ignored after TMP and even the most ardent fans have to admit that TNG didn't get good until his involvement ceased). He hated Trek II and VI in particular - two of the most successful and beloved of the original films.
It's a long topic to get in to, but the primary complaint I guess folks have is they have too many action sequences - which I firmly believe we would have seen much more in the Trek films if they weren't always essentially low-budget pictures. After the relative disappointment/expense of TMP, Paramount treated the original Trek films as barely a step above "Friday the 13th" - if they weren't constantly redressing the same couple of sets because they couldn't afford to build more, you would have seen less talk = more action.
I do think that he doesn't get enough credit from those fans for reviving the franchise, particularly since he did the greatest fan service ever in what I call the "Abrams maneuver" - the fact that he led the charge to painstakingly keep canon intact. If it were solely up to Paramount, it would have been a straight reboot. They had no desire to preserve what is now Trek Prime. I can tell you, if that had happened - I wouldn't have been interested at all.
So no matter if one liked the final product or not, I think that there shows a whole lot about respecting a franchise's roots.
And it's cool to be skeptical. I've been following this very closely for quite some time, on all levels - and although I am absolutely no "insider" I do know a few folks on the fringe (licensees, etc.) and everything I have heard has been very positive, that the new trilogy is being made as direct sequels to the OT.
You should check out A
brams and Kathleen Kennedy's panel at Celebration from last week. It's about 45 minutes, you can find it on YouTube. When you hear the approach that has been taken - filming on actual film, building real sets, model work as opposed to CGI cartoons everywhere, etc. - it's the antithesis of the prequels. Everyone involved has made it very clear that the goal is to capture the OT and make the films we always wanted.
Another great thing to check out is
Kevin Smith's on-set experience...I think that will give you the warm fuzzies, LOL.
