Star Trek: Into Darkness Trailer

[fantom1979]

Watched the movie last night and I loved the movie until:

Spoiler

The entire Kirk death scene. First, it was a complete rip off of Wrath of Khan, with Kirk and Spock switched. This Kirk and Spock have only known each other a year, and have spent most of that time arguing. They haven't spent 15 years grooming a friendship that Kirk and Spock had in Wrath. The scene just didn't make much sense to me in that context.

Also, after saving the kid at the beginning and the tribble with the magic blood, was there any suspense at all in Kirk's death? Think it was pretty obvious that the death was going to be reversed quickly.

Besides that, I liked most of the movie.
7/10

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

Watched the movie last night and I loved the movie until:

Spoiler

The entire Kirk death scene. First, it was a complete rip off of Wrath of Khan, with Kirk and Spock switched. This Kirk and Spock have only known each other a year, and have spent most of that time arguing. They haven't spent 15 years grooming a friendship that Kirk and Spock had in Wrath. The scene just didn't make much sense to me in that context.

Also, after saving the kid at the beginning and the tribble with the magic blood, was there any suspense at all in Kirk's death? Think it was pretty obvious that the death was going to be reversed quickly.

Besides that, I liked most of the movie.
7/10

I'll go along with that. I've been watching Star Trek since the 70s and I liked this movie quite a bit. I thought there was plenty of Trek stuff in it and Cumberbatch was awesome. I'd give it 8.25/10.

[Matthean]

One uber geek friend went and saw it, and she said it was good, but not great.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Maybe I need to sit through it a couple more times and then I'll enjoy it more...who knows.

Really? A couple more times? If you don't like it, you don't like it. Imagine if everybody who didn't like a movie went to it repeatedly to determine if they liked it or not. Every bad movie would be number 1. And we wouldn't even have the general moronic public to blame!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Really? A couple more times? If you don't like it, you don't like it. Imagine if everybody who didn't like a movie went to it repeatedly to determine if they liked it or not. Every bad movie would be number 1. And we wouldn't even have the general moronic public to blame!

Not at the theaters...hell no. But maybe when it comes out on HBO I'll give it another shot or two. That way if I continue to dislike it i can bail without wasting time/money.

[SackAttack]

Eh.

Spoiler

I liked the death scene being flipped. I thought it was a neat twist. You're right that the ending was totally telegraphed thanks to the tribble, but tbh, I think it was telegraphed from the beginning. First the little girl gets saved by his blood, and then Bones takes a vial of his blood after capturing him. That's the classic "if the gun is on the mantle in the first act..." writing proscription.

The Kirk/Spock flip was the only way to have any tension there, the way they were going.

Now, they COULD have set it up where, here's Khan, and some tension, but have Adm. Marcus be the villain, and leave foreshadowing for what happens with Khan in the future. That would have been interesting done properly, but might have felt like a sequel cop-out.

I think casting Khan was always a no-win scenario.

I liked it. I'll be picking it up when it comes out on BD.

[saldana]

i saw it last night with my dad and roommate from college...all three of us being huge Trekkors...i could have done without three main scenes that just made me sit there and say "this is stupid"

Spoiler

1. there was a terrestrial based terrorist attack at a military installation, so they brought in 10 starship officers to decide what to do about it...they sat in a room made of windows with no security...so starfleet security has no ground based military personnel or facilities that might have been more appropriate or better suited to take care of this?

2. the flying through the debris field in space suits was ridiculously drawn out and also rather stupid...i also cannot stand when their little thruster packs make noise in space...and rewinding to the beginning, when the 5 captains and first officers were in the meeting (see above), they said that they were the earth sector captains...well if the enterprise and dreadnought came out of warp 237000 kilometers from earth (the distance reported by chekov) where were the other 4 ships...that scene took forever!!!! are you telling me there was not another starship anywhere that could have gotten there fast enough to smash the crippled dreadnought?

3. the fight on top of the shuttle...we are watching a movie in which physics have always been a significant part, yet we are supposed to believe that not just the super human, and not just the half human with greater than human physical capabilites, but also the sexy little chick in the minidress can stand on top of a moving shuttle and not get blown off??

as far as the story goes, once i reminded myself that the timeline that i have known for 30 years doesnt exist anymore, i liked what they did.

Spoiler

it actually makes sense to me that they re-did an original story, because the part of human history that existed when Khan existed happenend in BOTH timelines...the Nero incident created the new timeline AFTER Kahn would have been engineered and existed

[Young Drachma]

I am a Star Trek fan from the jump, it was one of my childhood staples and I didn't love the original remake from Abrams, though there were elements I enjoyed. Liked the sequel a bit more, in the sense that it seemed to pay more homage to Trek's origins, while keeping it fresh and giving a whole new audience a chance to love it as much as nerds like me do.

I had problems with certain aspects of things, specifically the Spock-Uhura thing does nothing for me and just seems not to work but besides that and a few other quibbles (I find a bit too violent, really.) I think they've done a solid job.

What I love most is how much the actors seem to embody their roles and are really doing the series justice in the best ways. That really showed in this edition and I was really happy about it.

So while it's not the DS9 movie I always wanted, just glad to have Trek back in the world again. Looking forward to a future TV series. It's long overdue.

[Kodos]

I loved it. Any action movie is going to have quibbles. I was able to happily overlook those and just enjoy it. I think they did a great job recasting the characters we've known for so long.

[Butter]

I also would give it about a 7. Lots of issues with the script and with some of the action. I enjoyed myself, but not as much as I would've if I hadn't had those nagging doubts about certain things.

[DaddyTorgo]

This perfectly encapsulates a hell of a lot of my rants

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ

[DaddyTorgo]

Oh, and not that I'm complaining in the slightest, because Alice Eve is beautiful, but

Damon Lindelof admits the Star Trek underwear scene was "gratuitous"

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This perfectly encapsulates a hell of a lot of my rants

Star Trek Into Darkness: The Spoiler FAQ

My wife just sent me that article and I came here to post it. Sums up alot of my feeling as well.

[Pyser]

not really a star trek fan. never was into the shows. enjoyed some of the older movies

i thought this movie was a pretty damn amazing action movie. i get how die hard fans could be upset. as an impartial bystander, i thought it was a kick ass time.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Pyser

i get how die hard fans could be upset.

Why would Die Hard fans be upset with how a Star Trek movie turned out? They're two different franchises!

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why would Die Hard fans be upset with how a Star Trek movie turned out? They're two different franchises!

On the other hand, JJ Abrams getting Die Hard and Star Trek mixed up would explain a lot.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sabotai

On the other hand, JJ Abrams getting Die Hard and Star Trek mixed up would explain a lot.

well played

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Oh, and not that I'm complaining in the slightest, because Alice Eve is beautiful, but

Damon Lindelof admits the Star Trek underwear scene was "gratuitous"

Is it any more gratuitous than Sherry Jackson's camel toe in What are Little Girls Made Of? Or any more gratuitous than the cat suits worn by Jeri Ryan or Jolene Blalock?

It amazes me how short some Trek fans memories are.

[fantom1979]

Yeah, I agree BillJasper. That scene was tame compared to those shower scenes in Enterprise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRRE9zA1C5Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExGjyfyrecg

[DaddyTorgo]

Of course. Like I said - I wasn't complaining about the scene...just threw the link in here. The scene did seem really jarring to me though, even as I was watching the movie I was laughing at the like...forced nature of it.

[Matthean]

Speaking of which:
Alice Eve Was A Naughty Schoolgirl @ TeamCoco.com
Alice Eve Wasn't Sure If J.J. Abrams Cast Her In "Star Trek" @ TeamCoco.com

[Landshark44]

I saw it last night.. I'm not a die-hard trekkie, but I've scene most of the movies.

Loved this one.... Enjoyed it from beginning to end.... Thumbs up..

[DaddyTorgo]

SONOFABITCH WHY WONT THIS IMAGE LOAD!!! DELETED FOR NOW

[Desnudo]

My wife and I enjoyed it. Time went by fast for a 2 hour movie. I find Jj Abrams movies usually don't connect with me emotionally and it was the same here. Well made though.

[ISiddiqui]

I was a big fan of the movie myself. I'm not a Trek fan, but I have seen some of the movies, so the callbacks to them I thought was great stuff.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

My wife and I enjoyed it. Time went by fast for a 2 hour movie. I find Jj Abrams movies usually don't connect with me emotionally and it was the same here. Well made though.

Maybe that's part of my issue. I wanted to connect with it emotionally but just couldn't?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Saw this tonight at the discount theater.

I thought Pinto owned Spock more than Pine owned Kirk this time around. I saw lots not to love if you're an ST legacy fan, I saw plenty to enjoy if you're either new to the universe or just roll with the punches.

On the one hand I liked the references to the historical universe (both large & small), on the other hand it almost seemed like they were trying too hard to shoehorn some of them in there somewhere. Ditto with the apparent effort to have McCoy get in one analogy per scene.

What I haven't seen mentioned anywhere was how many moments (I think four in all) had scenes (or scenery) that appeared heavily inspired by video games. The hospital looked & felt like a visual lift from the Halo universe, my son mentioned one or two places that were Mass Effect moments (mostly lost to me having not played it much), there were a couple more that escape me at the moment (MW maybe and something else) that we both turned to each other at the same time to say the same thing.

[Matthean]

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Matthean

Meant to post this the other day in here. Well played sir.

[DaddyTorgo]

This is the best - came across this a while back on reddit and never posted it here.

Best idea yet for the new ST movie: So lets have the Enterprise head towards the Bajoran sector, encounter an orb and bam TheSisko appears. TheSisko, having gained the abilities of the Prophets, restores the timeline to it's original state. As his is now outside of liner time, he would still exist and not have been affected by the changes to the timeline.

[BillJasper]

I'm so sick of fans that can't accept Trek being rebooted. They're like fucking children.

[sterlingice]

I was happy because it seemed like a good way to avoid continuity errors

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I'm so sick of fans that can't accept Trek being rebooted. They're like fucking children.

Bite me

If the reboot was well-done there's every possibility I would have been okay with it. Bittersweet, but okay. If they'd used it to tell new stories unencumbered by the continuity that they felt was straight-jacketing them in, then that's fine.

Instead they used it to make crappy movies that just shoe-horned in a lot of old plot elements in a mish-mash and made fundamental changes to key characters for no apparent reason except to say "well because we could."

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Bite me

If the reboot was well-done there's every possibility I would have been okay with it. Bittersweet, but okay. If they'd used it to tell new stories unencumbered by the continuity that they felt was straight-jacketing them in, then that's fine.

Instead they used it to make crappy movies that just shoe-horned in a lot of old plot elements in a mish-mash and made fundamental changes to key characters for no apparent reason except to say "well because we could."

I've been watching Trek since 1975 and have loved both of the Abrams movies. The Abrams films just reinforced how lackluster I found the spinoffs to be. The movies weren't perfect, but they had an energy and sense of fun that had been absent from the franchise since 1991's The Undiscovered Country. I can't wait for Star Trek 3 in 2016.

Just watched Star Trek Into Darkness this afternoon. I've easily seen it a dozen times.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I've been watching Trek since 1975 and have loved both of the Abrams movies. The Abrams films just reinforced how lackluster I found the spinoffs to be. The movies weren't perfect, but they had an energy and sense of fun that had been absent from the franchise since 1991's The Undiscovered Country. I can't wait for Star Trek 3 in 2016.

Just watched Star Trek Into Darkness this afternoon. I've easily seen it a dozen times.

I agree. Let's face it, for all of the Star Trek movies there were only a couple that were good (Undiscovered Country, Wrath of Khan). The rest range from mediocre to outright horrible and none of the TNG movies really hit the mark. The Abrams films have been a breath of fresh air. The first is excellent and the second, while not quite as good, is still very watchable.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

I agree. Let's face it, for all of the Star Trek movies there were only a couple that were good (Undiscovered Country, Wrath of Khan). The rest range from mediocre to outright horrible and none of the TNG movies really hit the mark. The Abrams films have been a breath of fresh air. The first is excellent and the second, while not quite as good, is still very watchable.

I just re-watched the old movies and you're spot on. I enjoyed the new movies greatly. The old ones haven't held up very well.

[sterlingice]

I just went through them last year and 4 still has its campy charms and First Contact is the highlight of the TNG movies, overrated at the time but sounds like it's falling into underrated category now as no one has even mentioned it. Undiscovered Country was the hidden gem when I rewatched them as it was better than I remembered.

Some of them are just painful, tho. As a friend said when I mentioned I was watching them all: "completism has its costs". Final Frontier is awful, Nemesis is awful, and Generations would be awful if not for the fanservice of having both crews in one movie.

SI

[Kodos]

I enjoyed Nemesis. And Generations, although it had a lot of "Why didn't he come out of the Nexus when they had the bad guy under arrest?" issues. Still, loved the scenes with Kirk and Picard.

But then, I enjoyed Alien Resurrection. (Alien 3 sucked.)

[DaddyTorgo]

I agree with you on most of the MOVIES.

I was never much of a "movie" Trek fan though. 6 was good, 4 is campy fun, 2 is obviously cool, and First Contact is great. The rest fall into a "mediocre-to-awful" range.

The reboot-universe irritates me insofar as it means that any future TV show isn't going to be wrapped in the same "universe" as the other shows.

I also don't think it was really NECESSARY.

Nothing that they've done in the reboot universe so far has really taken advantage of having a new canvas. Instead they're shoehorning in "superpowered old Spock" and lots of throwbacks/throws-across in what just seems blatantly fan-servicey and gimmicky.

And if they have super long-range transporters now that can transport you from Earth to Kronos then why do they need starships at all essentially?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Nothing that they've done in the reboot universe so far has really taken advantage of having a new canvas. Instead they're shoehorning in "superpowered old Spock" and lots of throwbacks/throws-across in what just seems blatantly fan-servicey and gimmicky.

*cough*Destruction of Vulcan*cough*

Anything they were to do with TOS going forward had them written into a corner. We knew every aspect of the characters lives and that really sucks the drama out of storytelling. So a reboot was necessary.

And if they have super long-range transporters now that can transport you from Earth to Kronos then why do they need starships at all essentially?

A variation of these existed in a later season episode of TNG. It didn't kill the need for starships anymore than transwarp beaming does in the Abrams films. How many uber technologies did we see in TOS that were simply wiped away the following week?

I truly think part of the rub is some people are attached to TNG and the rest of the spinoffs because that was there first exposure to the franchise. Which is cool. But from my perspective, with TOS being my first exposure, I'm simply loving these films.

[Galaril]

Since it was mentioned I am not even sure we can assume another trek tv series will be made.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

*cough*Destruction of Vulcan*cough*

Anything they were to do with TOS going forward had them written into a corner. We knew every aspect of the characters lives and that really sucks the drama out of storytelling. So a reboot was necessary.



A variation of these existed in a later season episode of TNG. It didn't kill the need for starships anymore than transwarp beaming does in the Abrams films. How many uber technologies did we see in TOS that were simply wiped away the following week?

I truly think part of the rub is some people are attached to TNG and the rest of the spinoffs because that was there first exposure to the franchise. Which is cool. But from my perspective, with TOS being my first exposure, I'm simply loving these films.

The destruction of Vulcan was a cheap CGI stunt fueled by JJ's need for a "WOW" rather than something for any sort of storytelling purpose.

They obviously would have to reboot to do another TOS movie - I guess my argument is that there was no requirement to do another TOS movie.

They fell victim to the "reboot-phoria" that's sweeping Hollywood rather than doing something unique or continuing to tell new and interesting stories. Instead they're just rehashing bits and pieces of older stories slapped together.

There's no reason they couldn't have had a "Generations" style "passing of the torch" moment to tie the existing universe to a new set of characters who could do for Trek-films what the Marvel characters have done for that universe - allow them to build a new set of stories around a diverse set of characters. Instead of going back to the same well again and again.

And the corollary to your point about the later series - I think some people will fiercely defend the reboots to the bitter end because their first exposure to Trek was TOS and they're clinging to that and would rather see that in some horribly bastardized form then see anything new.

And FYI - My first exposure was probably an episode or two of TNG on TV, but pretty much concurrently was TOS and the original movies. I have as much love for TOS (more from a "groundbreaking" perspective) as I do for any of the later series.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Since it was mentioned I am not even sure we can assume another trek tv series will be made.

I would assume it will be done at some point, even if it is some years from now. Hollywood rarely comes up with new ideas, but they love to re-do old ones.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They obviously would have to reboot to do another TOS movie - I guess my argument is that there was no requirement to do another TOS movie.

Except for the fact that even after nearly fifty years, Kirk and Spock are still the most recognizable elements of the franchise.

The destruction of Vulcan was a cheap CGI stunt fueled by JJ's need for a "WOW" rather than something for any sort of storytelling purpose.

Well, it was done to force Spock down a different path, a path that we didn't see in the TV series.

They fell victim to the "reboot-phoria" that's sweeping Hollywood rather than doing something unique or continuing to tell new and interesting stories. Instead they're just rehashing bits and pieces of older stories slapped together.

We've had 25 seasons of other crews, compared to three for the TOS gang. Do people complain this badly when we get yet another Superman movie featuring Clark Kent, Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen? I don't understand why people get upset when Star Trek wants to do more stories featuring its core elements and characters?

There's no reason they couldn't have had a "Generations" style "passing of the torch" moment to tie the existing universe to a new set of characters who could do for Trek-films what the Marvel characters have done for that universe - allow them to build a new set of stories around a diverse set of characters. Instead of going back to the same well again and again.

But most of those Marvel characters and stories aren't new. They're simply being transplanted from one media to another.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The destruction of Vulcan was a cheap CGI stunt fueled by JJ's need for a "WOW" rather than something for any sort of storytelling purpose.

As Bill points out, this was to give Spock the freedom of a new direction much like Kirk got with his father's death.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They obviously would have to reboot to do another TOS movie - I guess my argument is that there was no requirement to do another TOS movie.

It would be very difficult to introduce brand new characters to that universe and get the fanbase to care. That's akin to doing a Star Wars movie without a Skywalker involved. There's just no reason for fans to care about new characters in an established universe.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

They fell victim to the "reboot-phoria" that's sweeping Hollywood rather than doing something unique or continuing to tell new and interesting stories. Instead they're just rehashing bits and pieces of older stories slapped together.

I don't necessarily disagree. I'd like to see these characters go in a different direction with new enemies.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

There's no reason they couldn't have had a "Generations" style "passing of the torch" moment to tie the existing universe to a new set of characters who could do for Trek-films what the Marvel characters have done for that universe - allow them to build a new set of stories around a diverse set of characters. Instead of going back to the same well again and again.

They did that with Generations and it didn't work too well. You're wanting them to do that again? Talk about rehashing.

Franchises demand continuity. Since Kirk has no surviving children, it makes going in that direction exceptionally difficult. Fans just aren't going to care about two brand new redshirts and Shatner/Nemoy are too old to star in yet another adventure - not to mention there's a rift among the original cast that prohibits them from working together again.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

And the corollary to your point about the later series - I think some people will fiercely defend the reboots to the bitter end because their first exposure to Trek was TOS and they're clinging to that and would rather see that in some horribly bastardized form then see anything new.

And FYI - My first exposure was probably an episode or two of TNG on TV, but pretty much concurrently was TOS and the original movies. I have as much love for TOS (more from a "groundbreaking" perspective) as I do for any of the later series.

My first exposure was watching reruns of TOS in the early 70s. Bill's right - even after 50 years, the easily most recognizable and notable characters are Kirk and Spock. Picard is a distant third and even though Patrick Stewart is a remarkable actor, he never was able to carry a movie on the big screen in that role. A hand-off from him wouldn't mean much and it would mean nothing from any of the other characters.

The more I think about it - too much for a Tuesday afternoon - I think there was only two real possibilities for a reboot. One is what they did - taking two iconic characters and giving them a clean slate to work with. The other would have been a movie based on Klingons, something that works an entirely different angle that hasn't been done before and provides a chance to introduce new human characters for sequels and spin-offs. The first, however, is probably a lot easier to sell to a movie studio than the latter.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The more I think about it - too much for a Tuesday afternoon - I think there was only two real possibilities for a reboot. One is what they did - taking two iconic characters and giving them a clean slate to work with. The other would have been a movie based on Klingons, something that works an entirely different angle that hasn't been done before and provides a chance to introduce new human characters for sequels and spin-offs. The first, however, is probably a lot easier to sell to a movie studio than the latter.

I think the latter would've been impossible to sell to general audiences and I think there's a certain amount of Klingon fatigue among the fans after them being featured so prominently in most of the spinoffs (Worf on TNG, Worf on DS9, Torres on VOY and them popping up every season on Enterprise).

I'm not opposed to spinning off. I'm opposed to it being handled the way TNG did it, where we jump a century into the future and try to mostly wash their hands of TOS. CBS might be able to sell me on a 'Captain Sulu' series starring John Cho and the weird looking bridge dude from Star Trek Into Darkness. In that scenario, you can still have references to the ongoing adventures of Kirk and the Enterprise with an occasional cameo that doesn't feel forced while still playing in your own little corner of the universe.

I love Patrick Stewart as Avery Bullock in American Dad.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think the new movies are good "popcorn summer action movies" but there's nothing about them that (to me) connects them to ANY of the Star Treks I grew up on on anything other than a surface level.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

I think the latter would've been impossible to sell to general audiences and I think there's a certain amount of Klingon fatigue among the fans after them being featured so prominently in most of the spinoffs (Worf on TNG, Worf on DS9, Torres on VOY and them popping up every season on Enterprise).

I'm not opposed to spinning off. I'm opposed to it being handled the way TNG did it, where we jump a century into the future and try to mostly wash their hands of TOS. CBS might be able to sell me on a 'Captain Sulu' series starring John Cho and the weird looking bridge dude from Star Trek Into Darkness. In that scenario, you can still have references to the ongoing adventures of Kirk and the Enterprise with an occasional cameo that doesn't feel forced while still playing in your own little corner of the universe.

I love Patrick Stewart as Avery Bullock in American Dad.

All your posts read like a grumpy old "TOS is the only Trek I care about" man BTW. "TNG tried to wash its hands of TOS." "TOS as the first therefore it can never be anything other than the best."

Not saying that's what you are, just saying that's how they're coming across to me.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

All your posts read like a grumpy old "TOS is the only Trek I care about" man BTW. "TNG tried to wash its hands of TOS." "TOS as the first therefore it can never be anything other than the best."

Not saying that's what you are, just saying that's how they're coming across to me.

That's funny because that's how you read to me heh heh.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

All your posts read like a grumpy old "TOS is the only Trek I care about" man BTW. "TNG tried to wash its hands of TOS." "TOS as the first therefore it can never be anything other than the best."

Not saying that's what you are, just saying that's how they're coming across to me.

Then I'm terrible at being the grumpy old guy, because I have watched and own it all. Including TNG on Blu-ray up through season five. But as I've gotten older, I've found that I care less and less about the spinoffs. I got to "Ethics" on the season five set and I realized I just didn't much care about those characters anymore. I didn't care about Crusher's outrage, Worf's honor nor the Klingon non-sense that was always attached to any story about him.

And TNG did try to wash its hands of TOS, Roddenberry even claimed that much of TOS was apocryphal after TNG premiered. He tried to claim that TOS was just a historical dramatization in the novelization of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Roddenberry spent a good portion of his later years trying to distance himself from TOS.

Star Trek for me was and is action-adventure in a sci-fi setting and the spinoffs tried their best to distance themselves from that formula.