Sigh. The whole point of Star Trek is that it’s philosophical. If you don’t want philosophical Science Fiction, there’s plenty of that for you to enjoy, but Star Trek is philosophical. Philosophy is part of Star Trek’s DNA, and if you’re given the captain’s chair, you’d better damn well respect that.
While I do, in general, like nu-Trek (I had my issues with the first movie’s plot, but I don’t begrudge its existence), it is a shame that J.J. Abrams doesn’t really “get” Star Trek. Trek 2009 was a fun action film, as I’m sure Into Darkness is, but as Wheaton says, “Star Trek is philosophical.”
To be fair to Abrams and nu-Trek, however, most Star Trek movies are action flicks (with the definite exception of The Motion Picture). Mainstream moviegoers have no time or patience for philosophy.
I like J.J. Abrams, I like nu-Trek, but I think the man will be more in his element when he directs the next Star Wars. If the Trek franchise continues, I think it might benefit to have a different voice who understands Trek more.
(Then again, there are those who will argue that that will put back us in a stagnant Berman/Braga-type era, and they might not be wrong. But I think there’s room for growth, as well as sticking more to what Gene Roddenberry had in mind all those decades ago).
It doesn’t get more 90’s than this.