I mean seriously, how can people not be a little cagey about this?
Because the guy's a proven talent and known comics geek. The reason you're cagey and we're not is because you, and the others who don't like the choice, simply don't like what they've seen of his proven talent. Those of us who are psyched really do like his work. It's not hard to understand.
And personally, I think this is long overdue because, while I've loved JJ Abrams since the pilot of
Alias, ever since I got familiar with Whedon's work, I've thought that he was actually the more talented of the two "pop TV auteurs" - Always working with smaller budgets than Abrams, but producing work that was generally more inventive and unique, with stronger characters and long-term storytelling. So when JJ found success in movies, I was happy for him while still having a nagging feeling that maybe it should've been Whedon first. But I get why it was JJ - he generally has more mainstream sensibilities, like a more talented,
Twilight Zone-loving Michael Bay (I mean it in a good way, honest!).
So the point: I think the Abrams comparison is very,
very apt here, as Whedon has at least as much proven talent as he did, if not more (imo), and re-booting
Star Trek to appeal to a mainstream audience for the first time was almost as daunting a task as this. Almost.
ETA: Also worth noting - Abrams was HANDED a big-budget movie in his first outing because Tom Cruise just happened to be an
Alias fan, and because Abrams's show just happened to be one big homage to the original
Mission: Impossible. Whedon had nothing but an uphill battle to get his first film made, and still managed to make a great sci-fi action adventure for less than 1/3 the budget of Abrams's first film. Being able to make the most of a small budget should NOT be a mark against the guy. If anything, it should work in his favor. And if it had starred Tom Cruise and was a known brand to general audiences, it surely wouldn't have been a bomb.