By all measures, both Star Trek and its sequel Into Darkness were a financial and critical success. Praised for their sleek new look and feel under the helm of Trek outsider J.J. Abrams, these two films accomplished what Stuart Baird, another Trek outsider, had failed to do with his 2002 turkey we know as Star Trek: Nemesis - revitalise what was seen as a largely dead franchise. Now, what do I mean when I say a Trek outsider? J.J. Abrams and Stuart Baird had one thing in common... they had never embraced the Star Trek franchise before they signed on to direct. In fact, Baird was so unfamiliar with Star Trek that he had to ask if our beloved Geordi La Forge was an alien or a robot due to his VISOR contacts. This is not to completely discredit Baird as a director or otherwise; without him we probably wouldn't have got Daniel Craig as 007 in another rebooted franchise we all hold near and dear to our hearts. Plus, as a standalone film, Nemesis wasn't as bad as some people make it out to be; it just served as a very, very bad finale. I'll admit, after Baird's turn seven years prior, I was hesitant to embrace J.J., the Lost and Fringe writer, and I still have criticisms of him from time to time, which I'll get to later. However, when I first saw Star Trek on opening day in 2009, I was completely blown away. Great actors, great story, great chemistry and they actually had an explanation for the reboot (in other words, the prequel also served as a sequel to Nemesis). It was also probably the most exciting film out of all twelve, and while Into Darkness was similarly exciting with its firefights, explosions and chase scenes, it just couldn't live up to the tense, edge-of-seat-esque thrill of the original film with the concept of a totally new timeline where, with the destruction of Vulcan, anything is possible... even the destruction of Earth. So what makes J.J.'s interpretation so different from Baird's interpretation? J.J. had minimal exposure to the Star Trek franchise, and more importantly, he hated it, which drew ire from a lot of Trekkies, including myself. It would seem, though, that he used this disdain for the classics to his advantage in deciding to make a Trek film that skeptics like himself would watch and love, and it worked. Now, J.J. is stepping aside for Star Trek 3, but he is staying on as executive producer so we will still have those ever so flashy lens flares that made this grand experiment unique. Whether you like the reboots or not, what's done is done, and if the franchise is going to survive it needs to keep moving. That being said, J.J. and his Star Trek reboot have made a new generation of believers out of the once tired series, but haven't really given too much thought to the old blood that brought it this far to begin with, which is one of the reasons why I think a Trekkie should take the helm for J.J. as writer, producer and director, among these other three after the jump...