I think it can be compared, and it should. If you would ask people about "Batman", their views would be heavily influenced by Christopher Nolans reboot. Now, after Batman v. Superman that may change. But during their run in the cinema they were pretty much the definitive representation of the IP. As is currently for example the Michael Bay-version of the Transformers.
JJ's Trek movies aren't bad movies. I don't want to badmouth them, and I really don't want to diminish your enjoment of them. But I don't think they ever achieved being the current "definite" representation of Star Trek, even at the height of their popularity. They always were more of a 'pop-cultural representation', a new variant of it. As was for example the 'Lost in Space'-movie (although that comparison is unfair, because 'Lost in Space' was a baaad movie).
It's just the 60's version of Kirk and Spock, Shatner and Nimoy, are still much more ingrained in pop-culture than the Pine/Quinto-versions, and I don't think the JJ-versions will have that much staying power once their movie run is finished. Again, that's not because they're bad. But because they are just one of many incarnations of the property. Instead of the 'ultimate' incarnation, that TOS and TNG were at their time.
I would compare the JJ-Trek movies to DS9: a great run, definetely worth a viewing. But it was never the "definitve" representation of Trek, weither the causes lied in unpopular creative choices, fan backlash, or simply outside influence like release times and creative competition.
This is where you and I will disagree then, which is fine. I personally am not looking for the "definitive" or "ultimate" iteration of characters or universe, or story. I am looking a story about characters that engages me, be it TOS, TNG Abrams or 2017. For me, the idea that I should take Abrams Trek and demand that it perform as well as TOS Trek or TNG Trek, when the later two had years to grow, and we only have two films thus far for Abrams Trek.
In that way, I agree that it is a new variant of it, and that enjoyment and meaning can be had in
equal parts as TOS. At least, it is for me, and I certainly see similar value ascribed among other fans. What that means in the long term is anyone's guess, but I personally would give it value as a generational variant, and perhaps even more so, as a new generation attempts to make a franchise its own.
I agree with much of what you said except for DS9 is far more representative of Star Trek despite the story arcs and darker themes. It has the human story. I do feel that JJ-Trek is representative of the state of pop culture and the 2009 film despite any minor gripes I have with it was actually a triumph for the franchise. Unfortunately they took a huge misstep with The Wrath of Khan: The Next Generation aka Into Darkness. And as others have mentioned, people are not running out to buy into merchandise or dress up as characters from the new films. People are still buying into the old, not the new.
First of all, the merchandising emphasis by CBS has always been what they know is safe money. They have had decades of Prime Continuity and will continue to cash in on that for years to come (how many variations do I need of the TOS phaser?).
Secondly, and in my opinion more importantly, there are numerous factors and reasons why people don't buy specific merchandise, not just interest in the franchise. Those factors should be considered as part of the equation, including the recession in full swing, and the limited merchandising, especially with STID.
I saw plenty of costuming, props, etc, for Abrams and it certainly didn't stay on the shelves for long. Again, limited data, anecdotal at best, but there is always more to the story that just "People don't like it."
