Very sensible approach, since the standards are not the same. I have to disagree with your conclusions, though: I thought it failed on both fronts. And if you were willing to throw your sense of logic and plausibility out the window. I literally can't comprehend this: why would you have been willing, even hypothetically, to sacrifice what makes Trek good in order to get more of it? Having done so, why would you want more? Eep! No, no, a thousand times no! Anyone who thinks Trek should be more like Star Wars simply misconceives what Trek was all about from the start. (Unfortunately, that "anyone" apparently includes J.J. Abrams.) "As it should be" in the sense that the current writers should have creative discretion over the story they tell? Yes. But in the sense that these particular writers have anything worthwhile to offer, judging by this film? Sadly, no. It didn't actually add anything of value to Trek continuity—it just mined it for familiar trappings and a few character "bits," and discarded all the rest. I feel exactly the opposite. Even as disappointing as VOY and ENT were, we knew that at worst they were just superfluous extra floors built onto an already sturdy house with a strong foundation. By way of contrast, Abrams and crew have torn the whole thing down to the bedrock in order to rebuild. To switch metaphors, they threw the baby out with the bathwater. None of Trek heretofore is background for this. Everything all the way back to the original pilot is now superfluous. "Forget everything you know," indeed. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. All that and more. I agree with everything you've written, except this: That's way too generous. I'd say maybe a three. Yep. Yep. (I feel like I'm repeating myself here. But it's nice to see a few more critical responses finally weighing in on the thread...) Yep. Yep, yep, yep, yep, yep, and yep. You're talking apples and oranges here. Whether it succeeds commercially (a very strong likelihood) has essentially nothing to do with whether it succeeded creatively. (You doubt this? Exhibit A: Transformers, last summer. Same writers, BTW... ) That's a peculiar thing to suggest. I wasn't a fan of VOY or ENT mainly because the writing was too frequently subpar. That's essentially the same complaint I have about this movie, although the details of how it's subpar are different. IOW, I'm both lamenting the death of original Trek and saying the movie was bad—and the two statements are related. I'm glad to see Trek refocused on its original core characters, and I can't gainsay your obviously sincere enthusiasm for the movie. But honestly, I can't say that being "batshit crazy" was a characteristic I ever associated with original Trek, much less praised it for. I think perhaps you overstate your case. Original Trek did, in fact, build up a complex and fairly consistent backstory (notwithstanding a few hiccups), and that's a large part of what many of us love about it. Tomato, tom-ah-to, I guess. To me, it bubbled over with action-movie clichés and predictable story beats.