I have no idea what this means.
I simply think the Kurtzman-Orci films -- mostly due to the way-too-fast pacing of the films -- did not feel as much like taking place in the Star Trek universe as I think they could have.
Granted, they did in fact take place upon a stage that looks like Star Trek, but the film did not use that stage in the same way that TOS and TNG did. It's like they made a story that only reluctantly used the Trekverse as it's setting. Those two Kurtzman-Orci films were enjoyable movies, but I think they could have made them in such a way that was just as enjoyable while still more closely matching the more thoughtful tone of other Star Trek films.
I understand the need to modernize a film tone for the 21st century, but Kurtzman and Orci's films suffered from a breakneck pacing in which everything happens much too quickly. I also understand the need for "action" in a film, but that does not necessarily mean that if people aren't running and/or flying around and /or shooting and or getting shot after 10 minutes of film time, that the film is lacking action for those 10 minutes..
Action can happen when two characters are having a conversation in the briefing room. In fact, a better screenwriter can MAKE a conversation in a briefing room part of the action.
Look at the conversation in the Genesis cave in TWoK after Khan "stranded" then there. It was simply a group of people in a cave talking, but the huge payoff at the end of that scene was set up by that talking -- talking which effectively used the character's established traits (i.e., using the Trekverse setting properly) in order to give us that great payoff at the end of that scene. Likewise with the scene near the beginning of that film when McCoy gave Kirk the birthday present glasses. Just two old farts talking about age in what seems to be a younger person's world...but it was and extremely meaningful scene and set up the theme of much the action for the rest of them film.
The bottom line is that
better (non-breakneck) pacing allows time for the established Star Trek characters to explore established Star Trek themes. That's hard for a screenwriter to have the characters to do when those characters are spending a lot of time running/flying/jumping/riding to and fro.
Kurtzman and Orci
somewhat effectively did use the established themes and characters that comprise that Star Trek setting, but I think they mainly used those themes and characters as a prop more than a setting. And being used mainly as a prop, they did not use them as thoughtfully as they could have.
I think THAT'S what a film in the Trekverse needs to do, it needs to use established Star Trek themes and characters in thoughtful situations. It's not enough to simply act upon the Trekverse stage and use Trekverse characters -- even if the film is "fun" overall. I like fun, but I also like memorable. Star Trek (2009) and ST Into Darkness were fun, but not very memorable. TWoK, TUC, First Contact -- and even
some of Final Frontier (really) were memorable -- maybe that's because they were thoughtful.
I think ST Beyond was even more thoughtful -- and maybe even more memorable -- than the two previous films, maybe because the pacing was slowed down enough (just a bit slower) in order to allow for some subtle exposition (read: well-crafted exposition that isn't obvious). That slower pace, which was mainly while they were on the planet, allowed the writers more time to have the character explore established Star Trek themes, which (IMHO) made for a more thoughtful film.
And for me at least, a thoughtful film is a more memorable film. And could still be fun.