I am a fan of Star Trek (at least I thought I was). I've watched most episodes of all the series (especially TNG, and not counting Enterprise), seen the movies, can tell you how Captain Picard likes his tea, etc.

I saw Into Darkness, and I have a confession to make; I liked it. It has flaws, but overall I really enjoyed it.

Apparently, there are purists who didn't. They think it's one of the worst Star Trek movies ever, maybe even worse than The Final Frontier. The reasons given seem, to quote a Vulcan I know, to be illogical. They say Star Trek is about exploring new worlds and civilizations - Oh, really? I guess you hated Wrath of Kahn then? They say the role reversal at the end was too obviously referencing W.O.K. Okay, it was very contrived and off-putting, I agree. But that was like 5 minutes at the end of the movie - why should that ruin the whole thing?! They say Star Trek can't be an action movie - nonsense. They almost all are, to varying degrees. The T.V. shows would probably have more action as well, but they are more limited in their budget. They say Cumberbatch doesn't even remotely resemble Montalban - again, true, but it doesn't ruin the movie, especially since Cumberbatch delivered an indisputably great performance. In fact, they all do, especially whoever played Admiral Marcus. The script, except the aforementioned role reversal, is well-written and engaging (I admit there are some technical issues, like teleporting between planets), it's well directed, the special effects are great.

What are some legitimate, consistent Star Trek-related reasons that a Star Trek purist would place this film near the bottom of the list of Star Trek films?