From a reader:

Jonah,
I had high hopes for this flick, but I think itโ€™s gonna be sucktacular. Abrams apparently has no real idea about the original seriesโ€™ history. In the series, when they went to the gangster planet, Kirk had trouble driving a car because heโ€™d never been in one before. And yet now heโ€™s driving a corvette like a 12 year old Mario Andretti? Viewers over on Slashdot picked the trailer apart, and I think for longtime Trek fans, this ainโ€™t gonna be pretty. Theyโ€™ve started calling the movie โ€œStar Trek Babiesโ€. It looks more like Star Trek 90210 to me.

Suderman agrees:

Rather than return to the Interplanetary Horatio Hornblower-stylings that drove the best of the original series, and rather than imbue it with the gritty seriousness of Nolanโ€™s Batman movies, it appears as if itโ€™s borrowed a few of the surface trappings of the old series and reimagined Star Trek as little more than another J.J. Abrams production. Kirk is a self-conflicted hothead hunk who gets in power struggles with the other dominant male, the cold and calculating alien Spock, as both wrestle with their upbringings and seek a measure of self-definition. No doubt thereโ€™ll be some Big Question that will drive the narrative but wonโ€™t be satisfyingly resolved. Sound familiar? Yes, it looks like Abrams has given us โ€˜Lostโ€™ in Space, or Felicity: Starfleet Academy. Take your pick; whatever it is, though, itโ€™s not Trek.
That may not be the worst thing in the world, but as a Trek fan, I do find it frustrating. Anyone whoโ€™s ever seen an Abrams production knows his routine, and knows how simultaneously gripping and infuriating it is. Lost, probably his best work, is a delightfully shallow series โ€” a very clever tease, but not much more. I even enjoyed Mission: Impossible III โ€” though again, itโ€™s a movie built entirely on gimmicks and surface thrills. Of course, maybe you can expect from a guy whose storytelling philosophy can essentially be summed up as โ€œtantalize people with a shiny box โ€” and never tell them whatโ€™s in it.โ€ Abrams deserves some credit for genuinely trying to engage his audiences, if in an almost exclusively superficial manner, and thereโ€™s a place for his brand of string-the-viewer-along entertainment, but I really donโ€™t think that place is on the Enterprise.

Cue Brad Pitt: โ€œWhatโ€™s in the box!?!โ€

More seriously, Iโ€™ll chime in on the Trek issue tomorrow hopeully.

Update: A reader corrects me, this is the relevant โ€œWhatโ€™s in the box?โ€ reference.