Captain Robert April wrote:
In other words, they played to the general public's preconceptions of what Star Trek was all about, so not a lot of foreknowledge was necessary.
If anything, actually knowing something about Star Trek was likely to be more of a detriment than a help.
Abrams and his team focused mainly on the aspects of Star Trek
(the original) that were always there — i.e. fun, adventurous and colorful — and focused less on the pretentious sophistry.
In other words, Abrams chose to focus his interpretation of Trek on NBC's demand for "action, adventure or else."
While Abrams may have been a Trek novice, he certainly surrounded himself with people who loved the series, particularly his two screenwriters.
The movie also made the characters once again into people like they were in the first season and not the heroic types they became in the later seasons and into the majority of the TOS movies.
Joseph Cambell said that Star Wars was about the "Journey of the Hero"
Roddenberry said Star Trek was about the commom man and woman.
Perhaps in the early first season of TOS, but that quickly faded in the latter seasons when the characters became heroic tropes. By TNG, the characters were far less the common man and "more evolved" humans with no interpersonal conflicts what so ever.
The common man seemed to be shoved out the airlock in favor of Roddenberry's notion of perfected humanism, which bled away any sense of conflict and internal character struggle in Trek.
The last Star Trek film had to tell a lot of stories to tell to get the ball rolling again. So many they did not finish a few, (like why Cadet Kirk changed the programimg on the "Kobayashi Maru Test" the no win scenario and defending not giving up).
Kirk disagreed with the test fundamentally and sought to prove his point by cheating. That was made clear by Kirk's flippant attitude during the test and in the wonderfully scripted Academy board hearing on his "changing the conditions of the test so it was possible to rescue the ship.'