Why not? Standards change, as we're talking taste here.
Again, simple fairness. You can't bust JJ Abrams nuts over some of the sillier things he's done with the reboots and let Gene Roddenberry, Berman, Braga, all have a pass for equally silly/same things.
Of course you can. Since when is taste fair? If you don't like the overall film, of course you find flaws in it. Sole nitpicks are never the reason people don't like a film, they are only symptoms picked as examples in discussions.
Discussions here usually go this way:
Person 1: I fucking loved it.
Person 2: Yeah, it was great.
Person 3: I want babies with it.
Person 4: Meh, I didn't like it.
Person 1: Why?
Person 2: Why?!
Person 3: WHY?!?!
Person 4: Yeah, you know, because of this and that and those and these.
And the shitstorm begins where Person 4 has to defend his opinion down to the tiniest detail against those other people. And eventually Person 4 gets bullied into argument corners and then labelled as butthurt or extremely nerdy, who "can't enjoy something for what it is", or who is on a hate quest against the director/cast/writer.
It also goes the other way round when the majority dislikes a film and someone comes in saying he liked it.
No it's usually:
Person 4: I hated it because to me, it 'Not Trek'. (Usually followed by - Now <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> was Star Trek at it's best...
Person 1: But <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> did exactly what you're nitpicking STID for; so why is <insert earlier Star Trek film that Person 4 loved here> Trek and STID 'Not Trek'?...
And then the discussion continues...