I'll have to respectfully disagree with you.
At a certain point one must agree to disagree, and that's fine. However:
We have almost no information on why the Enterprise is hiding down there and we don't need it. Mostly because a good portion of the audience doesn't care. I get that you do, and that's cool, but pretending that it's some objective yardstick by which to measure the quality of the writing in the scene is intellectually dishonest.
A situation doesn't have to be explained
to have some kind of workable explicability
. And if you don't have the latter, yes, what you generally have is bad writing. What's "intellectually dishonest" is trying to pretend it is "intellectually dishonest" to point that out.
Now, whether or not the audience cares
about whether the writing is good is a different question. You point out very correctly that much of the audience and the filmmakers obviously just don't care, and I completely agree with that. If all one is aiming at is forgettable popcorn cinema, then cool. But the thing about shoddily-crafted blockbusters is that they're disposable and usually quickly forgotten, so the question is whether that model is really the "Future of Trek."*
If you think it is, that's fine. But I'd appreciate your not trying to tell me I'm "dishonest" for thinking otherwise.
(* And in fairness, it may well be. The first purpose of cinema after all is making money: if that can be done by wrapping flashy action in the Trek brand, which it demonstrably can, then it's hard to see how Paramount has the incentive for anything else. But I like to see people do well, and I'd like to see the great cast of the Abrams movies -- all of whom clearly love their characters and are selling the hell out of the material they have to work with -- in something... more. And I do hope, perhaps irrationally, that it may yet happen.)