Your single major flaw in what your saying is the assumption that most of the movie-goers are uninitiated viewers, those that have just seen JJ-Trek. I think its the other way around, if I had to venture a guess as to the amount of people that were Trek fans before the movie(s) came out were probably looking at at least 3/4s of everyone that has gone and watched them was probably already a fan. I seriously doubt that people just out of the blue were like "oh Star Trek? Whats that dude? Let me go check it out and find out!" Yeah I also get the fact that its not "Trek" enough, you know cause you can't have Trek without more than 50% of the movie being boring technobabble and dialogue that just drags out movies and ultimately kills them because people don't pay $15 bucks a pop to watch C-Span in space. Again, all the back story stuff is far more suited to a TV show format where you can have a single plot last an entire season, kinda like Enterprise's 4th season, and we saw how well that worked out.
I will agree that some of the aliens should not have been changed appearance wise, but honestly that's just a nitpick and I really don't find it that serious, especially considering the fact that it hasn't been the first time, as I've said before.
On the topic of the prime directive - it's been broken before, more than once. That's all I need to say on that subject.
As soon as you get over the nitpicks, you'll be able to enjoy the movie. Until then you can be content in knowing that your view of Star Trek hasn't been corrupted. I'd still be willing to bet money that a new show is on the horizon, you can't get 165 million in the box office the opening week without garnering some attention, and since they won't be able to use the actors that are in the movies (huge price tag, alternate reality, plus other things) logically it would have to take place in Prime Trek's timeline.
This article explains my take on it almost to the T - http://www.tvguide.com/News/Why-Star-Trek-Should-Return-TV-1065827.aspx as well as this one, especially the last few paragraphs - http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_completist/2013/05/star_trek_movies_and_tv_series_which_are_the_best_why.html
I still wager that is incorrect. I'll start with a quote from your first link there:
"You can’t make a lucrative sci-fi flick about people sitting around in a conference room debating options for resolving the situation peacefully—but something that can be accurately teased as primarily consisting of thrilling space battles is not the real Star Trek. A bunch of friendly folks using advanced technology to help people? That can only be profitable, I suspect, on the small screen."
That about sums it up. Star Trek fans, if they are the majority of people watching these movies in the theaters, having what we see on tv in a movie, is something Trek fans are perfectly fine with in the area that the quote is talking about. The people that doesn't work for is everyone else. Everyone else is what makes up the majority of movie viewers. This is why what we know as Star Trek, doesn't fit very well within the movie scene, as stated in the quote above. If Trek fans were such a large percentage of movie viewers we would have seen the movies taken slightly different forms and more than likely, JJ would not have been the director.
No matter how much be parse it, Trek fans are a minority when it comes to the total of movie watchers, this is why a Trek movie having more of the aspects that make Trek, Trek, do not translate well into movie sales. This isn't just Star Trek but pretty much all movies and movie series. Especially when a story is brought from one medium to another. Now there are a few times when it works well, Marvel has been excellent with this transition but we have content creators that created the original content or are highly involved in the movie side of things. They respect the content, the fans and the story. This is why, so far the Marvel movies have been doing so well. The entire franchise is about the fans and the knowledge of the fans. There were not bones thrown to keep the fans happy, the movies revolve around the content the fans know and love while at the same time having the added extra to draw in all the other movie goers that are just watching this weekend blockbuster hit. They knew how to fully maximize their profit, not make a quick cash grab. There is little respect for the fans or the content with the JJ-verse.
JJ and his directors didn't do that, they didn't even try. Many people that are all behind the JJ-verse are not versed in the Prime Timeline, even so far as to they don't want to see the original stuff. If the 'big masses' that got drawn into the JJ-verse experience the Prime Timeline on tv, why would they watch it? It lacks the handful of things JJ can do well, and has everything else that makes Trek, Trek. The very things, these people don't like or care about.
You are still writing defensively:
"without more than 50% of the movie being boring technobabble and dialogue that just drags out movies and ultimately kills them because people don't pay $15 bucks a pop to watch C-Span in space."
-Yep I would easily pay that $15 for that, same with most Trek fans I'd wager (and have actually, since there are like 10 movies). The average person/non-fan, THEY won't pay that price.
"As soon as you get over the nitpicks, you'll be able to enjoy the movie. Until then you can be content in knowing that your view of Star Trek hasn't been corrupted."
-It isn't that things are corrupted but that we have a whole lot of people that only know the JJ-verse and nothing else. THAT is what they expect if they were to see a tv show, which isn't the case. So sure, they make a new TV show, but it won't gain the attention that the Movies did, while Trek fans will watch it of course, we know that isn't enough with the demand of high profits there is, look at Enterprise. The 4th season was amazing!