I agree that it was a fun movie, but for me it was difficult to watch. And not necessarily because I am Star Trek fan (though I am), but because I am a fan of quality storytelling and consistency within the rules of the story's universe. There were so many problems within the movie that it continually bumped me out of the experience.
Continuity-wise, I would have preferred the film makers to more completely eschew the original timeline: by acknowledging the existence of the conventional timeline, they are by association beholden to all the canon events that happened to the 25th century Spock (eg, he knows how to do quick time travel calculations).
As my friend Tim has written over at counterfictionals:
One of Saul Kripke's rules about counterFACTUAL possible worlds is that they must obey all the same laws of nature as our own. It is heuristically satisfying that counterfictionals need to obey a version of this rule as well. Stories can break continuity, but they cannot violate the physical rules and facts without becoming something else.
I may be pedantic, but in this case I'm being pedantic as a moviegoer and writer, not as a fanboy.
It's especially aggravating because many of my problems with the movie would have been relatively simple fixes.
Still, now that the reboot messiness is out of the way, I expect to enjoy any resulting sequels much more than this film.
I really wanted to like this movie. I was excited by both the imagery in the trailer and the overwhelmingly positive reviews.
But then I saw it. And while there were elements of it that appealed to me, a lot of the movie just didn't make any sense.
See my write up on the blog counterfictionals.
I have a theory that it's impossible to prove anything, but I can't prove it.