Yeah, the thing about Star Trek that made it different than Star Wars was that Trek was actually a utopian (or dystopian) future, a look at a possible destiny of mankind. The travel to alien worlds was often used to be a mirror for the virtues and vices of humanity, and almost every episode tried to tell us something about human nature through this lens.

Star Trek the Motion Picture did this in spades, but there is a balance to be had. The Wrath of Khan swung a little in the opposite direction to compensate for this heady cerebral installment, and ended up being the most popular entry in the franchise. The writer of Wrath of Khan didn't actually care that much for Star Trek, and so stripped out some of the utopian elements of Trek in favor of a more military aesthetic, something which remained for the rest of the original crew movies. Plot points such as the Genesis Device felt very much like TOS, however, so it was a hybrid of old Trek and a new more mainstream aesthetic.

Trek 09 went far beyond this, and stripped out almost every hint of human reflection and utopia, depriving the universe of its first best destiny: a commentary on human nature. Is it fun? Sure. Accessible? Absolutely. Thought provoking? Nope.

JJ's writers don't seem to understand Star Trek, and Abrams seems not to have cared. I only hope that he cares for both the style and the substance of Star Wars, that mythic story set in a well worn universe populated with archetypal characters.