The simplest solution is not to take an antagonistic approach to the current creators, but to very carefully follow what they say. That is something that most fans don't do.
It is all too easy to hear a statement of canon policy and pretend it says what you want it to say or otherwise approach it with no depth of consideration. After all, everyone tends to want validation of their preferences, be it the old shows or the new. The absence of validation gnaws at some folks, leading them to ignore or reinterpret what doesn't validate their beliefs. They then have to convince others of that intellectual dishonesty for validation by proxy.
Canon, however, is not shaped by consensus. The "company line" is the final arbiter, a third-party point of view. Modern transmedia marketing PR has cheapened the concept as entertainment companies seek to maximize sales of licensed material also, but the fact remains that the owners/creators get to decide what is valid in the universe they create.
In the case of Star Trek, that tends to be the purview of the executive producer for all the shows . . . Kurtzman, in the present case. He and those under him have made it abundantly clear that the new "Star Trek Universe" / "Prime Timeline" they've created includes the previous Original Universe shows and films and is a "reimagine" of them.
It is thus pointless to argue that the new universe, explicitly a combination of the previous on-screen canon plus things that were previously not, should come to resemble the old. It does not have to, and, even if they end up making it look the same, it is objectively a new thing . . . but the official new thing.
If you want your old Original Universe, you can of course keep it. If you want the "Prime Timeline", then you get to have it all.
Isn't validation for all the best outcome?
