I agree with you to some extent, mostly about story. This has 80 episodes and 2 movies in this universe. Seeing it in a larger context at this point, causes weak stories that rely on that universe's history. It makes references to that history, and weakens the individual story being told and people let it pass because it feels like Star Trek, like something that has been done before. We are so bogged down in "did Star Trek do this before?" that we get lost in whether it's a good idea or not. Killing Kirk to save the ship, for instance, is an idea that can stand on its own. It's a good idea, but we don't see Kirk pushed to extremes before it, that earns the sacrifice. It relies upon Star Trek II to make its emotional climax. And that's a bad thing, in my opinion. It means the movie can't stand on its own. It feels like it's been done before.
I think they need to realize what Gene's vision was of Starfleet. I will argue with you about that all day, because I think they are acting OUT OF CHARACTER. Whether the impulse deck looks sleek and long versus two separate triangles does nothing for the story.
Whether Khan is British or Sikh or Latin is not about the character's performance unless (and he's not) the character is defined by being British or Sikh or Latin.
Judging it against Star Trek (2009) is fine. Judging it against Star Trek: The Motion Picture or Star Trek: Insurrection seems foolish to me.
I know this comes off as self-important and like I think I'm the smartest kid in the class. I'm sure I've ticked off a few people reading this. I just haven't seen much discussion about the meat that makes a movie. By the same token, if you talked about lighting and it didn't apply to the story, I would be annoyed with that as well.
