Well, yes...because Paris is a real place. Warp drives are not. It's science-fiction. You seem to be forgetting or willfully ignoring the fiction part because of some vendetta against fun.
On the contrary. Real science is great fun. The things you can discover about the universe by studying science are enormously more freaky and fascinating than the stuff made up by writers who just rehash old tropes from the limited amount of sci-fi cinema they've been exposed to. Have you seen the photos
New Horizon sent back from Pluto? No moviemaker has ever imagined anything that bizarre.
And warp drives may not exist in practice, but the physics they're based on is entirely real. The idea of warping space is an outgrowth of the equations of General Relativity. This is the thing about physics -- everything in the universe is governed by the same laws, and you can learn about how one thing works -- even a hypothetical thing we haven't observed in reality -- by understanding how related phenomena work. That's part of why science is so damn fun -- because it's amazing to discover how everything is interconnected and how you can extrapolate the movement of galaxies from the fall of an apple. This is why knowledge enhances the imagination -- because that process of extrapolation can lead you to possibilities you never would have found otherwise. It's more fun because you have more toys to play with, and because you can use those toys to show you where you can find even more toys that you never would've imagined on your own.
And I am so sick of the nonsensical argument that "It's fiction" means "It isn't based on anything real." What about detective fiction? Detectives are real. What about historical fiction? What about "Based on a true story?" Even stories about imaginary characters are still based on things that really exist, like doctors and lawyers and cops and families and schools. "Science fiction" doesn't mean "Stories about stuff that doesn't exist." It means fiction about science, in the same way that historical fiction is fiction about history or mystery fiction is fiction about solving mysteries. And science is a process of discovery based on evidence, reason, and extrapolation. Science fiction is fiction about hypothetical advances in science and their impact on the world.
Sometimes those advances are imaginary and nonsensical, but there is a whole genre of hard science fiction in which those advances are grounded in real theory and logical extrapolation. I should know; it's the genre I personally write. So it is a complete fallacy to claim that the absence of plausibility is part of the
definition of "science fiction."
As I've already said, there is certainly room for fanciful sci-fi like
Star Wars or
Flash Gordon. There's nothing wrong with such things existing. But they are very far from being the
only flavor of speculative fiction. This is the problem with mass-media SF -- what exists in film and television is only a very narrow, extremely limited cross-section of what the true potential of the genre is. Try reading what's out there in print and you'll be amazed at what you've been missing. What's on film and TV barely scratches the surface. And it tends to be biased heavily in favor of the "softer" varieties of SF, so it's far from a representative sample. It doesn't have as much variety as what's in print, and whatever your personal preferences, surely you can agree that it would be good to have more variety to satisfy a wider range of audience tastes.
And fortunately we are starting to see that happen. There's a trend in recent years to put more hard SF onscreen. We've had
Gravity, Europa Report, Interstellar, and
The Martian in the past couple of years, and Syfy has just premiered
The Expanse, which is unusually hard-SF by TV standards. So this is something that does exist, that is a valid alternative form of science fiction in print, and that is finally starting to become more prominent onscreen. Of course it shouldn't replace the more fanciful stuff like
Star Wars and
Doctor Who, but it's good that the alternatives can coexist, which is what I've been saying all along. It's nonsense to say that only one category of SF should be allowed and that anyone who wants something different is wrong. SF is a rich, diverse genre that film and TV have failed in the past to exploit to its fullest potential; but fortunately, they're finally starting to catch up.
Nor do I expect all Trek fans to like what I like. Yes, I'm willing to give any new Trek product a chance. I'm not going to dismiss it outright based on one 90 second teaser. 
