A person who has a hard time getting into a movie with clearly outdated effects -- not just special effects, but costume effects, hairstyling effects -- is going to be hard-pressed to look past some of the glaring differences between the movie-making approaches of 1982 and 2009, respectively.
I, myself, having been born in 1987, find it a bit difficult at times to suspend disbelief when I see some of the appearances of individuals aboard even the latter years of the Enterprise-D's televised voyages, to speak nothing of its earlier years. I scrape by and manage to thrust myself into the story nonetheless because I'm constantly reminding myself that there's a strong enough chance come 2360's people will no doubt be laughing at the way we looked in 2010, too. So at that point, what does it matter?
The crisp, 2009-ish looks of a $150 million movie do make Star Trek an easier pill to swallow for a lot of people, especially when they're even younger than I am. (And thankfully for the franchise's continued longevity's sake, there were plenty of people younger than myself who had a great time coughing up their money, or their parents' money, to see last year's film.) The very fact that so much was spent on that movie and will be spent on its sequels means flash, flash, flash. For those who find there to be sufficient substance as well, this is really a win-win kind of scenario. For those who do not, well... that is unfortunate.
I do enjoy the far quieter, more philosophically-charged outings of Jean-Luc Picard quite a bit, I should say. I also enjoy the trailblazing, Earth-saving, Nero-kicking antics of NuKirk as well though.
