I recognize that inconsistency have always been a feature of stories. The ancient Greeks and Roman referred to continuity errors in Homer's works as Homeric nods. The issue I have with this story is not with the technology nor the visuals. I have an issue with narrative logic, character motivations, and world building.
And, I do feel that people who do have issues with this film are being attacked by those who like the film. I have seen many disparaging comments lobbed by the latter toward the former. I bear no hatred toward JJ Abrams nor those who worked with him. I think some of the blame for lower financial returns can be attributed to a marketing ploy conceived by him that backfired.
I wish JJ Abrams luck on the next Star Wars film. I hope that, for the next Star Trek film, that we will have a writer or a team of writers that can write a story that has a strong narrative logic. I don't feel it should be my job as a viewer to ask the questions that should have been asked by the writers. Also, I don't feel it should be my job as a viewer to point out flaws that should have been spotted by the writers. For instance, the distance from the Earth to the Moon. A writer should insure that real world facts are accurate, which can be done by doing a Google check.
"I don't like this storyline," or "this character doesn't make any sense," are fair criticisms of any movie. I don't mind that someone ended up not liking the new movie. It happens, no one person's opinion will be exactly the same as another. The differences can produce meaningful dialogue. It's common, for example, for someone to not like an aspect of a movie because they didn't understand it, or didn't notice the context. That's where discussing the merits of that viewpoint comes in. One can say, "You must have missed the part where this is explained here...," and if the other person is willing to listen, then they can respond in kind with either an affirmative, or that they still do not enjoy the film. That's fine.
That's something to which I look forward, such discussions. The problem is this:
"J.J. Abrams spit in the face of the fandom," "Roddenberry would be ashamed of this so called 'Star Trek'," "All the people who watch this movie want are flashy pictures and zero plot," "It's an abomination! I hope it fails and the actors never work again!" "No real Star Trek fan would see this movie," or the ever popular, "It's not Star Trek. It's an action movie for people who don't like to think."
That's when you go from criticizing a film, to zealously railing against a film. That is frustrating, because it obscures conversation. It eschews reasonable discussion in favor of hyperbole. I see enough of it in the political landscape. I don't need to see it when discussing a new Star Trek movie.