I don't. I accept the stories as presented, not as I would like them to be. They don't have to connect, they don't have to fit some preconceived timeline. It's pure entertainment for me. Nothing more.I'm sorry, the "head canon" was not intended as a snide remark, and I apologize if it came across as one. I just firmly belive everyone has it's own head-canon. I, for myself, usually try to explain gross scientific inaccuracies if I see them. In Trek09 for example, when Spock sees the destruction of Vulcan from Delta Vega, in my personal head canon he's just greatly exxagerating his personal experience of said events. How the destruction felt to him a few lightyears away. Not that he actually saw it firsthand as depicted.
It was a joke. See The Princess Bride.I said that because in your head-canon he was only "mostly dead" - wheras in the actual movie is was super-fucking dead. Or how you explain Khan's blood works (which actually makes more sense than in the movie), even though that's not how it worked on the tribble (that also was super-dead), or the little girl (where we saw that it's indeed Khan's blood that is directly pumped into her to cure her of all her diseases).
I think "Spock's Brain" is hilarious. Not because it was supposed to be, just because it is. I don't really care for Voyager, so I don't watch it. No big deal.And again, that doesn't mean anybody should dislike it. But "Spock's Brain", "Threshold" et al. where also viciously taken apart for their scientific inaccuracies. I don't see any reasons to cut Into Darkness more slack for it, just because it's newer.