I actually really like Nemesis - but Star Trek XI was a FAR superior movie. That you can't recognize STXI's humanistic core, and want for more meaningless babytalk technobabble (exactly when did TOS explain it's weapons or technology?), is kind of sad.
What humanistic core? A completely ruined context of once beloved characters? Imposter kirk destroying a sitting duck ship and then patting himself on the back for it? The arrogance of the enterprise crew?
Mind you, TOS had a few somewhat arrogant characterizations from time to time, but they were always augmented with humanistic virtue and the sentiment that 'I am learning something about myself right now, about my brethren, about my species, about other species'.
The 2009 thing contained none of that.
alternate kirk gave Nero a chance to live despite how he felt. Nero refused help and insulted him. So kirk blew him up.
Despite how he felt?
Real kirk would never have felt that way! And this is the point that goes unnoticed. Yes kirk has spoken with distaste for klingons, but he would never destroy a sitting duck space ship if another alternative were available, such as boarding and imprisoning the captain.
Imposter kirk was intended to appeal to action hero fans. That is the only explanation. Real kirk could also appeal to action hero fans, but his actions and reasoning require some participation from the audience, rather than being neurologically numbed by bright, powerful explosions because imposter kirk is just such a 'bad asss' like Bruce Willis in the die hard movies, or the terminator, or what have you.