Star trek IS an established fictional universe with established characteristics,established technology, established time lines, established canon and an established chain of command (another thing the 2009 namesake defecated on. And I feel really bad to anyone who can suspend disbelief in the faceof 'cadet kirk' becoming 'captain kirk' on a training mission, no less).
As such, star trek must adhere to some of these basic established parameters in order to be consider star trek, and not a parody of such or a namesake reboot that bears little similarity to the real thing.
The argument that you cannot write within established parameters is really silly. By that logic we may as well blend the star wars, babylon 5 and star trek universes into one amalgam universe so we don't have to 'adhere to established canon'.
It is the approach of lazy writing and even lazier reasoning.
Since when has any Trek "adhered to established canon"? Take off your nostalgia specs and see Trek canon and continuity for what it is: Broad strokes
. This incarnation is no different in that reguard. In fact, there is precent for everything seen in STXI in a prior Trek episode, movie or novel.
There have been continuity errors, but these were usually made by mishap, or were explained in novels (I.E the broader trekverse).
What we're discussing here has a greater magnitude than just continuity mishaps, what we are dealing with is
1-The intentional defecation on canon, unprecedented than in any pre-ENT star trek show (yes, enterprise set the precedent for this intentional abuse of canon) and
2-The intentional abuse of character continuity, behavior traits and basic essentials of what made a character who they were (back to kirk destroying neros ship when it was a sitting duck in space), which was a major part of the trek universe, and a big part of what made it unique and special. Having the characters act no different than any other generic action hero from any number of films condescendingly derides the original essence of them.
Now, call me a trek purist, but I cannot comprehend how someone can be a star trek fan if they deride everything that made it unique and and entity unto itself. That is, the philosophy, the characterization (humans being portrayed as essentially better than they are by todays standards) and, perhaps most importantly, the pursuit of science!
I'm afriad *I* can't see how someone can be so judgemental of others and still be a Trek fan.
I gave you my take on the characterizations and morals of the film in a prior post.
And, frankly, you're wrong about the continuity of Trek. Massive and deliberate retcons have been going on for it's entire run -just look at the Klingons in TMP! Look at fundamentally incompatible episodes like "The Q and the Grey" and "True Q" or "The Immunity Syndrome" and "Where Silence has Lease". Galaxy-spanning warp speeds in TOS, TAS, STV, TNG, DS9 and ENT vs the far slower warp speeds in Voyager. Trek's continuity had always been an illusion, albeit a good one.