It's not a surprise to me that any long-time Trek fan is not in love with the new movies. Did I like them? They're OK. I thought the effects were spectacular and a couple of crew members were awesome in their portrayals. However, as I've seen every episode of every Star Trek series and all of the movies, my perception of ST was already colored by what I already knew about the franchise, which was considerably more than the casual Trek fan or the movie-goer that shows up hand-in-pocket and buys a ticket because he/she doesn't like anything else at the matinee that night.
I think the Abrams and crew approached the subject with a bit of Hubris, and dissuaded all of the detractors as being 'old fuddy-duddies' who are bent by habit and tradition, and can't stand seeing anything new (or anything old that's packaged as new). You can see this underlying tone in many of his interviews so it shouldn't be any surprise to anyone to hear that. That quality hasn't helped to endear him to many long-time fans either. Not only did he come in and re-create a cast that had long-since been ingrained in pop-culture and the psyche of long-time fans, he did so by chucking aside just about everything by creating his own timeline. It's a steamroller approach and dismissive.
In any case, he made a lot of money for the Studio and will probably regard Star Wars fans with a bit of the same disregard that he did with Star Trek fans. It's not that he should, or even can please every fan when you take on such a daunting task, but perhaps doing so should be performed a with a bit more understanding. Who knows if Abrams returns to the series after his venture into a galaxy far, far away. But as he's still producing the next movie, I would speculate that we have many more lens flares in our immediate future...
By "underlying tone of disregard smacking of hubris," do you mean like the oh so subtle way you implied that people who enjoyed the films probably aren't long term, knowledgeable fans of Trek like yourself? Is that the type of tone you're referring to, and presumably providing a helpful example of? If so, I don't recall Abrams using that kind of tone or implying anything of the sort.
I recall him saying that in order for the films to be successful, they'd have to attract a new audience rather than simply relying on existing fans, which is not a dismissal of existing fans but a simple statement of fact. If he was disregarding existing fans he wouldn't have paid homage to TOS in the first place, he would have done something completely different.
Or are you referring to the fact that he didn't consider
Star Trek to be his favorite thing in the world when he was growing up (instead being more of a Star Wars fan)? Well, if that's the criteria, you'd have to dismiss a lot of Trek directors and producers. You don't have to be a die hard Trekkie to make a good film, nor does not being a huge fan beforehand mean you're unaware of the franchise and can't be enthusiastic about making a Trek movie. Nor was Abrams alone in working on the film, and other people who were even bigger fans than he was were part of its development. We've had die hard Trek fans and non Trek fans make Trek films and TV episodes, and both have produced winners and losers. It's not a guarantee either way.
