I'm not going to specifically name posters, but there is this as an exammple:
"But the issue with their argument is, is that the original show and movies on which this reboot was based have THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS. And for some reason, you can ignore those issues, but when it comes the the reboots, because you don't like how they were done, they are now "legitimate criticizes"'
As though any nu-Trek criticism is in need of a disclaimer providing a detailed justification of why you are accepting of flaws in previous Trek adventures but not this one, because it's obviously a simple black-and-white thought process...
If the criticism of the new Trek is something that is specific to it and has no precedent in previous Trek, then no "disclaimer" is needed. But if people are going to pick at the new Trek for exactly (or nearly so) the type of shortcoming/flaw/error/etc. that was common enough in previous Trek, and yet is NOT picked on in prior cases
, then yes, it is legitimate to ask why this case and not the earlier case(s)?
Case in point:
Complaint: In Abrams Trek, warp speed and travel time are inconsistent and way too fast--this is a serious flaw that takes me out of the film, etc.
Rebuttal: In TOS, warp speed and travel time are inconsistent and way too fast and that doesn't seem to bother anyone too much.
Complaint: Just because they did it before doesn't mean it's ok now.
Rebuttal: But why was it not a big deal then and is a big deal now? (surely a fair question if one is seizing on this element as worthy of particular criticism)
Complaint: In Trek 2009, they destroyed Vulcan. This was far too drastic a change, in my view, to the Trek universe and I think the story would have been better served by not doing so. Here are 3 reasons why…
Rebuttal: I don't agree because… (but no reference to previous series).
The first complaint is typical of many (though not all) levelled at the Abrams films. It is only fair to include examples from prior Trek in rebuttals.
The second complaint is specific to Abrams films (Vulcan was never destroyed in previous Trek). Pointing to prior Trek in rebuttal is probably not going to be effective.
The issue is the ratio of the first type of complaint to the second. As there are many of the first type, one should not be surprised when prior Trek is called upon in rebuttal.