The comparison does not follow. Star Trek II
and Star Trek Into Darkness
are two completely different movies. It is true that both were popular for their day and that both have critics. But that is where your hasty generalization should stop.
Debate on the merit of the issue before us instead of trying to shut down all debate by saying "see how stupid you guys look?" And anyone who has the gumption to stand up and say this does not compare, apparently will be ridiculed?
If every movie has critics, why would you try and shut down the debate? Kirk did change from the series to the movies. His promotion changed who he was. I happen to think that it's an evolution towards a more arrogant Kirk, but the arrogance is justified--he's saved earth and the Federation too much.
What bothers me about these movies is that the arrogance is there before he ever does anything, the training is not, and all he can do is save the world. He doesn't have the training necessary to be Captain. He doesn't know, because he doesn't care, what the rules of engagement are between himself and a new life form. He doesn't have the judgment to know when to follow the rules and when not to. He gets busted down to the Academy, and he should've stayed there.
This is not just a different Kirk, this is one that tells us Starfleet needs nothing but fly-by-your-pants Captains. The more successful he is, the worse this will get as far as arrogance, and, in the real world, he will get people killed.
It's like going 150 miles an hour in a car. You get to your destination faster. If you stay alive, you are a damn good driver, if there's a person with a gunshot wound in the back, you may save their life. But you run just as much risk that you'll crash into the median and kill you both. Kirk is the guy driving the car. He has one speed and no nuance now. He doesn't know the rules of the road. And this is not at all an interesting character to this fan.