I'm not sure why you're jumping to the conclusion that because I pointed out a flaw in the film that I therefore consider that flaw an unrecoverable flaw that ruins the film. Yes, the "only ship in range" flaw exists in quite a bit of prior Trek and I'm not giving those shows a free pass. Nor am I claiming that this flaw ruins the film. Take my post at face value and don't read so much into it. I had problems with the film, but I rather liked Into Darkness.
Well, the comments from this and the Orci thread below didn't exactly seem like glowing reviews, so I inferred that you weren't the biggest fan. However, I only mentioned that you seemed to consider these particular flaws a major issue, possibly a dealbreaker, not that you didn't enjoy anything about the films.
So what you're saying is that Abrams' Trek films aren't broken because you like them? Perhaps some of us don't feel that they reached their goal of being "exciting action-adventure movies" and thus claim they're broken films because they didn't achieve their goal?
Yes, because whether or not a franchise is broken is an opinion. Star Trek from a financial point of view obviously isn't broken (not as great as hoped for, but definitely not broken), but from a creative point of view it is to certain people.
Movies should make sense and character actions should be believable.