The new film is looking good from the trailers, but what i was thinking has it changed now from Gene,s vision , the trek we all liked and enjoyed the great stories that were told . Is it now just a blockbuster special effects film with no real story to the trek world ?
Has "Star Trek" changed since JJ's reboot? Yes, but it is too soon to say whether the change is for the better or worse overall (IMO). The last film, "Star Trek," was a good, head-on, thrill-a-minute action flick. This new film, "Star Trek Into Darkness," looks to be more of the same. I'm sure we, the audience, will be given a feast of CGI enhanced stimuli to fill our eyes and ears. And since that's all we ever really wanted, all's good ... right?
No psuedo-philosophies or metaphysical ponderances. No examinations of things bigger than ourselves or what are responsibilities (moral or otherwise) may be. I mean:
If I'm going to get a headache then I want it to be because Abram's trademark lens flares and quick cuts over-powered me and absolutely not because I had to think about anything beyond my soda-to-popcorn ratio (which is every bit as important as the Enterprise's mix of matter and anti-matter).
In term's of Eugene Roddenberry's "vision?" Yes. As Legion-san and others have said, there was always a gulf between what GR claimed TOS to be and the reality of what it was.
I am one of those who believe TOS was a product of great timing. It was an optimistic picture of the future in a tumultuous time that was embraced by a nervous generation hungry for reassurance (none of the Trek's that followed ever got to enjoy any similar confluence).
The original "Star Trek" gave us action and adventure. It also gave us little things to wonder about. All the stories it told were through the prism of us striving to be better. It held a mirror up by which we could evaluate ourselves (thank you, Mr. Spock!)
One of the many differences between The Original Series and The Next Generation revolved around that. Somewhere between the two eras starship captain's got evangelical. Where Kirk had been an explorer open to introspection - Picard was a crusader upon a high horse. Kirk may have given overly emotive speeches but Picard gave sermons on the mount.
In general, TOS was hawkish and bi-lateral while TNG was dovish and unilateral. DS9 went back to being hawkish (<-- there's a joke in there). Voyager was more neutral as a result of it taking place outside the AQ. And I don't want to get into trouble pontificating on what "Enterprise" was (*joke removed for reasons of peace, love and understanding*).
Anyway, my opinion and your mileage may very.