A lot of people saying the story is a let down but I thought it was pretty cool.
Not to be a spoiler though, but I think the "history changing" was to honor the original series, by leaving the "original Trek Universe" untouched. Thus making this Trek and it's sequels in it's own separate Universe.
It wasn't until the end of the movie watching the credits that I realized Winona Ryder was in it. My siblings and I were all "she was?!" and tried to think which character she played, which I Googled and now know
Could We See Khan or an Older Kirk in Star Trek Sequels?We're happy to report that as of this weekend, J.J. Abrams' Star Trek will have made at least a total of $116 million (in the US) at the box office, which means not only is it a huge success, but a sequel is definitely going to happen. I, for one, can't wait, because the new crew that Abrams introduced us to was fantastic, and all I wanted to see at the end was their next journey. So what of a sequel? We've been talking for the last few weeks primarily about Wolverine spin-offs and sequels, so let's finally turn our focus to Star Trek. Two of the most popular ideas involve the villain Khan and an old Captain Kirk, meaning William Shatner.Abrams chatted with MTV recently, and while he's not necessarily confirmed for a sequel, writers Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orco are, so there are some good ideas out there. "The fun of this [new alternate Trek reality] is that the destiny of these characters is in their hands - it's not constrained by the pre-existing films or TV series," he says. "Believe me, whether it's William Shatner or Khan … it would be ridiculous to not be open to those ideas." If you're a big Trek fan, now you may understand why it was a good idea to use an alternate reality storyline - almost everyone still exists, or can exist, and could appear at anytime.So what of the infamous Star Trek II villain Kahn Noonien Singh, played originally by Ricardo Montalban? He's a fan favorite and we have heard Kurtzman and Orci say that they referenced that movie quite a bit. "It'll be fun to hear what Alex and Bob are thinking about Khan," Abrams teases. "The fun of this timeline is arguing that different stories, with the same characters, could be equally if not more compelling than what's been told before." So what he means exactly is that, "[Khan and Kirk] exist - and while their history may not be exactly as people are familiar with, I would argue that a person's character is what it is.""I wouldn't rule out anything," Abrams hints in regards to the possible appearance of William Shatner in future sequels (we did just learn about how he was supposed to be in Star Trek last week anyway). "The point of creating this independent timeline is to not have the restrictions we had coming into this one. And one of those restrictions was that Kirk was dead." Of course, it's too early to get too far into this discussion, but because we're all still coming off of our Star Trek high, it's a great time to entertain every last possibility. So who do you want to see in a sequel? Or should they just introduce more new villains?