The same question stands. Using flashback scenes to the past to set up plot elements and characters is a story technique as old as stories themselves are. There is nothing inherently wrong with doing so. There also is nothing inherently problematic with introducing new characters, especially as this film is set 30 years after Return of the Jedi. New characters being introduced was totally inevitable
Of course (bolded). but not
retconned characters. You only retcon characters when you want them to draw from an established premise or character. It's like soap operas do when dredging up a "long lost brother" or an orphan adult reuniting with his birth parents and being welcomed back into the family. But in Star Wars and Star Trek, the only reason to do that would be to give them credibility and substance that they would not have otherwise. A new Jedi is not as good as a Jedi who was actually Obi-Wan's son from a wife we never knew about on Tatooine, is he? This is how JJ does it. His new Spock is VERY uncool. But that is why Spock Prime (Leonard Nimoy) was put in the show.
Also, the producer or director are not the ones who create characters or determine who they are or how they act - that is done by the writer. It's why I keep saying that the biggest issue with the prequels was the writing. The awful characterizations therein were written by George Lucas who also wrote the ludicrous dialogue. Where the producer/director make their mark is in different area - pacing, visuals, sound and such. Where they interact with characters is getting the actor/actress to deliver a performance that lines up with the script.
The Director does indeed say how the actors will interact, how they will move and where they will move to and from. The writers create the characters themselves, and the actors flesh out the characters. And at the end of it all, the Director is the one who says yea or nay, not the writers. The Producer has nothing to do with any of that.
As to Abrams and characters, actually he has created some good ones. For example Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. He created all of the IMF team except Ethan and they all were good characters who could actually have used their own sequel. In the two Star Trek films while we may dislike Into Darkness we can't point at the characters as a prime issue because overall they are not badly done. I love Karl's Urban's McCoy in both films for example and Simon Pegg has made Scotty his own creation. The prime issue in Into Darkness was the idiotic plot which principally came from Damon Lindelof (Prometheus being incomprehensible nonsense should have been a danger sign) and Roberto Orci (his remarks about Khan label him a first class idiot forevermore).
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol? What's that?
Never saw it...never wanted to.
So even IF Abrams were responsible for all the characters he has created good ones in the past. And we know he isn't because characters come from the writer not the producer.
Abrams still hasnt created any good characters that I can see.
But this movie is not out yet so none of us know. I at least accepted his Star Trek 2009 movie...until the second one came out, then both went into my mind's trash can. Im not going to see the next one in a theater. Star Wars, I will wait until all the screaming drooling fanboys have seen it and read the feedback.
