Yeah, the guy was no saint and I honestly think he would've probably LOVED a lot of the things people hate about this trek, both bad and good. As a fan of both franchises I always hated that people confuse the two or think they are mutually exclusive. I swear, the only thing in common is the 'star' in the title and spaceships, but star wars is no more an issue or rival to Trek than guardians of the galaxy or the occasional movie set in space is. Star wars is a dystopian space opera with strong fantasy and fairytale elements. It doesn't really decipt how writers imagine our future, which is what trek does instead. The purpose is very different. Star wars also does have a main recurring plot you might need to follow from the beginning of the franchise otherwise you don't understand what is happening and what the characters are about. Recently, it's suffering too. Solo wasn't as successful as they hoped and, in many ways, useless. The other spin off was better. The last jedi had mixed reviews and was disappointing as a sequel so it's now believed JJ has to essentially save the trilogy. The difference, perhaps, is that the disappointing results aren't making Disney give it up like Paramount is apparently doing with trek now. I might argue that it's actually the star wars franchise that is more for star wars fans than the general audience that trek movies, when done well, can instead capture regardless. Strangely though, many seem to believe the opposite because trek does have a reputation, specifically it's believed that trek movies are only made for old trek fans who loved the 60s show. And they are boring and too complex. The only thing I will agree with is that trek losing JJ as a director is a problem because this trek is his 'baby' so losing him created a lot of side effects and no doubt contributed to beyond's demise. It's my opinion that a trilogy should be created by the same creative team. This trek suffered the fact there was no real 'plan' for it, no author who has a vision and knew where they wanted to take the plot and end it. If it weren't for the character arcs and things like spock/uhura and other dynamics, these movies wouldn't be really linked together by a common recurring plot that, I think, is what captures the audience the most; the whole 'what next?' And wanting to know how the stories of the characters will continue is important, IMO. However, JJ had never planned to be as invested in star wars as he was in trek, and I honestly think he had more power in this trek than he ever will in the star wars franchise. Some people seem to think he didn't direct beyond just because of star wars but knowing him from his previous works, I know it isn't his style to want to direct all the movies. He might have directed beyond and might direct more trek movies, but it isn't a given because being the sole director isn't his preference. I'm ok with seeing familiar dynamics but the tos homages ultimately aren't the main appeal of this trek for me nor its purpose. I prefer to see developed character dynamics that tos didn't develop and that can thus provide a new perspective. If I were a writer, I'd surely find myself investing my creativity in new things rather than simply trying to replicate what a show from the 60s (with all the cultural influence of that time) did. It's kind of ..myopic to want to ostensibly see the old dynamics as the same exact thing they were in tos, never mind the fact these characters are different so even those dynamics should, to respect the characters integrity, change if you want to insert them. That particular dynamic was, in beyond, pretty much like an extended tos nod to placate old fans only. While it did provide some quite funny scenes I liked, it came cross as forced to me. For one, giving them more scenes shouldn't mean that Spock is basically stuck with Mccoy the whole movie and he can barely interact with the others (this sidelined Spock and turned into a sidekick where in the first movies he was co-protagonist). Most importantly, you can't ignore this Spock is different and he doesn't thus provide those pretexts tos Spock provided to provoke the banter with the doctor. As a result, this Mccoy comes across as annoying because he seems to attack Spock and dislike him for no other reason than prejudice. He also lacks evolution and that reboot value to him that should make it possible to see him under a different light too. Plus, he already has the banter with his friend Kirk that is more credible, and Kirk himself had that love/hate relationship with this Spock which is far more motivated by the plot than the spock/mccoy one is. And I have to add that I don't need nor want this Spock to be an impersonation of tos Spock just to have the same banter with Mccoy. I'd rather have their interactions reflect the fact itself that this Spock is a more contemporary character who still has a mixed child conflict, but he doesn't pretend to be just vulcan nor he seems to be on denial about his feelings. There are things that should inform Mccoy's opinion of him in a different way than how tos Spock was perceived in his reality. Point is, this ostensibly wanting to see the old dynamics and making it a 'flaw' when you don't see the same things did, IMO, prevent some fans from seeing the real character arcs they have in this trek and thus the merit of the dynamics of this trek. In Mccoy's case, it also is bad that so many only notice his purpose in the old trio lacking here but essentially underrate his dynamic with Kirk that had been important and meaningful from the very beginning.