I am not opposed to change. I was open to each of the series and the films. I am someone who has found something redeeming about the fifth movie - I liked how the trio were depicted as a close knit group of friends. I attempted to be open to Enterprise, but the Temporal Cold War arc left me cold and, I attempted to be open to Voyager, but the lack of interesting stories and character development lessened my interest.
I don't like it when character development is sacrificed for the plot or for special effects. This is a point that TrekMovie raises in their review.
Some of the complaints Abramsí Star Trek generated have been addressed, yet Into Darkness still plays a bit fast and loose with Trek canon and continues the style of upping the action at the expense of and some character development.
I watched Iron Man 3 today. I liked how they depicted the character development arc of Tony Stark and Pepper Potts. I felt the film had the right balance of action and dialogue. Even minor characters like the kid were given the ability to shine and were given a resolution. And the post-ending credits scene was hilarious. My only complaint is that I wished they mentioned more of what the other Avengers were doing, but I understand why they focused on Stark and this is a minor issue to what I see as a great film. (I have liked the Marvel Universe films. Even the weak ones have something to like.)
I do have a question, which I am crediting to my mother - Supposedly Khan had this blood that could revive life. Bones revives a tribble with this blood, then revives Kirk with Tribble/Khan blood. If Khan had this blood, couldn't have he saved his wife from dying? Perhaps keep her alive, as Mr. Freeze did with his wife until he could find a cure? And, if Khan always had this blood, then how far back does this timeline diverge from the one that we saw in Classic Trek?