Yes. So what makes Star Trek better than those other two movies other than featuring characters that we "know" much better? I suggest to you there is little to no difference. And that's too bad.
The character development in Star Trek
is much better than in either of the other two. Star Trek
's plot is its weakest element, but that's hardly a new development for Trek movies (not an excuse, merely an observation). I enjoyed ID4
as a summer popcorn movie (much like I enjoyed Star Trek
) but I found Star Trek
a superior film (though certainly not perfect). As for Armageddon
, I did not connect with any of the characters, so, consequently, I did not enjoy it all that much. I'd rewatch ID4
but it's unlikely I'd revisit Armageddon
I suggest to you that there was not any more character development in Star Trek than the other movies I mentioned. I suggest to you that you only think there was because the many, many hours of development that came before this movie, but don't really count because that was an alternative universe.
You can suggest all you want, but you would be wrong. I am not assessing the new movie's character development based on prior incarnations of Star Trek (films are more than a source of entertainment for me, they are a research interest and an ongoing element of my profession--I don't focus on genre films, except as cultural artefacts, but I have analyzed hundreds of films, including making note of character development. I feel quite confident about my statements regarding each of the three films in question here.).