Okay, so who "owns" the Doctor? Who "owns" James Bond? Who "owns" Batman? Dracula? Superman?
Many of these characters were iconic when they first appeared, but many other actors have portrayed the same character throughout the years (Dracula is the oldest). However, people will have their personal favorites. It doesn't mean they can't appreciate the other renditions, though. But it's definitely NOT the actor that makes the show. If you are saying that it IS the actor that makes the show, that means that the show is rubbish, because the story can't stand without the original actors. But I've noticed that people want the original stories, NOT the original actors, and that they are miffed that the characters were put in an alternate universe.
See, just about all of those are very unlike the Trek cast. The Doctor had changes to his character within the original series run, before the show had a chance to be digested by longevity the idea of his face, his entire persona, changing was established. It's actually an active part of the excitement of Doctor Who, that he can and will
Superman, Batman, and Bond had so many changes and iterations even early on that again, it's not quite the same thing.
Whereas with Star Trek, you had the original series run for 3 seasons, then syndication, then the animated series, followed by more syndication, then the movies. It wasn't until the 4th TOS movie, nearly 20 years after the show had first aired, that an entire new set of faces were brought into Star Trek with TNG.
It's not that Pine and Quinto can't be iconic, it's that they are not yet iconic
in these roles. Shatner and Nimoy are. If time is good to the new guys, and they get to do more stuff, then they probably will be. Lord knows they seem to be giving it their all in both movies. However, if it ends abruptly with movie three, it won't be Pine and Quinto who will continue to endure. It'll be the same ol' TOS run in syndication.
Star Trek IS altered- the whole story is different. Exact same for all of those above. Changes have been made to each version to "fit" the time it was shown in. You can't say Star Trek is different than any of those others because it's not.
And I know many people who love Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan, too. I despised Moore, but he's my Mom's favorite. I don't like any of the Doctors up until Tennant, but Smith is my favorite. But it has nothing to do with the actors...it has everything to do with the stories they are given. Skyfall is now considered one of the best Bond movies by many, but neither of Craig's previous ones ranked very high. I loved Goldeneye, but none of Brosnan's other movies. Without a good story, the whole thing fails, despite the best actor in the universe.
It doesn't matter to me whether or not others find Pine or Quinto "iconic" or how many other movies they do, because to me, Into Darkness is the best Trek movie I've seen. Some will agree, some won't- just like some won't agree with me on who the best Doctor is, or the best Superman, or Batman, etc. Just a matter of taste.