Are the Abrams movies even Star Trek? Feels nothing like ST.

Glad others agree.

Abrams Trek is like watching a football game; Roddenberry Trek was like watching a chess match. Both can be entertaining, but they are certainly very different things.

I was too young for Voyager or even Enterprise. I was introduced to the Trek through JJ Abrams movies. Later when I watched Enterprise, Voyager and the Jean-luc movies, I did realize why people criticize JJ movies. However, they still do a good job of introducing new people to the Star Trek Universe. Considering the revival of Star Wars, I do feel Star Trek could use some new fans.

They are action movies. Star trek was never about action.

This has always been Star Trek's dichotomy. Many ships called Enterprise have been blown up (in a permanent, non-time travel magic way), and it happened in the movies.

The movies are action. The series are where the characters and universe are built.

Just messing up a ship doesn't make it action. For a canonical example, see the Titanic.

Star Trek movies are like if the Titanic had to fight off the combined fleets of all WW1 and WW2 powers.

There's a reason the ships get blown up.

I said when the first Abrahms Star Trek came out that it was one of the best Star Wars movies in years.

I guess someone at Disney agreed with me...

The Trek movies haven't been like the show for a long time. I'm no huge fan of the Abrams movies, but it's not as if Nemesis was some cerebral voyage.

Not only a different timeline, a different universe with different physics. E.g. you can see events in one star system in real time with the naked eye from a planet in another. He does the the same in the Star Wars reboot

What timeline is Discovery in then?

Discovery is in the prime timeline. The JJ one is an inferior one. Discovery is set almost 100 years after the events of Enterprise. You might have noticed references to Captain Archer.

Discovery is set before all of that, so for now it is prime