When discussing the success of infinity War, The Guardian wrote about why other Hollywood franchises might want to treat the core conceits of their franchises respectfully:
...comedy is fine ... but lampooning those aspects of a much-loved saga that made fans fall in love with it in the first place is probably best left to others...
...when comedy descends into lampoonery, the last laugh is ultimately on studios. Infinity War looks likely to become one of the top five movies of all time at the global box office by the time it leaves cinemas, thanks to impressive word of mouth...
...while Marvel has at times been content to chuckle at the sillier sides to all these superheroes, the studio has always been carefully to retain our sense of awe at the MCU’s essential machinery.
There is a danger for the film-maker, it seems, in too much postmodern mickey-taking.
They were favourably saying that Marvel does not do too much piss taking of the core ideas. Did you feel there were perhaps a couple of times in 2009's Star Trek when comedy came a bit too close to satire? I personally felt this was a tendency in the recent movies, as good as they otherwise were.
Okay, loookng answer to the original question, ignoring the ongoing debate:
I think
Star Trek (09) is actually the movie MOST venturing into parody/self-deprecation humour. It's also the one where it works
the best - because the movie overall doesn't take itself too serious, it just wants to be a fun ride, it just has such a high "joke"-quota at
everyone's expense, it's okay some of them went maybe too far:
- Kirk's big hands? I think that was fine. A bit silly, but it actually heightened the tension IMO, since it was stopping Kirk from communicating
- Bedding green women/being an overall frat-boy: I don't know. It was probably too much "What do people expect from Star Trek?" "Green women" "Here are green women!". But no real problem with it
- Engineer "Red Shirt" Olsen - that one was already IMO too much. His death was undercutting a dramatic scene by focusing attention on the meta-aspect.
- The "Scotty in the water-pipe leading to a chipper"-scene: they that shit was awful and should have stayed out of the movie.
Overall though, because of the tone of ST09 in general, these instances were fine.
The problem was in
Into Darkness: Because there it was apparently
unintentional. It undercut it's own intended seriousness.
The big, dramatic self-sacrifice scene. A heroic death. Spock coping with loss. And what did they do with it?
Copied an Internet meme. I don't know, I burst out laughing at this moment happening. Not
with the movie, like I did in ST09 (even when it was making fun
at Star Trek, I still was
with the movie there), but I was laughing AT
Into Darkness. Like I normally only do at direct-to-video schlock when they fuck up the basics of cinematic storytelling. Had the movie tried to be a fun adventure story like the first one, it
might have worked. But they were obviously trying to be serious about it - and it just felt like a comedy without jokes.
Star Trek: Beyond was IMO really the best with meta irony. Kirk ripping of his shirt, then having a huge drawer of shirts was both pretty meta, but also
made sense in context (it's a uniform - he should have more than one!) and also, and this is almost genius -
transported the larger THEME of that part of the move: The journey of the Enterprise became very repetitive for Kirk - every day another adventure, another uniform ripped, and the growing self-doubt of what he's actually doing. AND being a fun inside gag!
That's great! Really,
Beyond was really the best in
the way it told it's story out of all the Kelvin Trek movies (that's why lots of people like it) - the biggest problem was really that the story itself ("stop Krall") was
really, really mundane and the stakes felt like a big step back from the previous two
.
) The Orville.
), so for me, these movies were my gateway back to loving Star Trek again. 
