I agree that Star Trek is a much broader story than a simple revenge plot. Star Trek TWOK was good for this as a one-off. The revenge plot had a point in the movie, as a counterpoint to the theme of aging that was driving the whole thing. But over the course of the original series, there were plenty of different ideas running that weren't revenge plots at all - episodes like "The Enemy Within", "Where No Man Has Gone Before", "Amok Time" and many others really explored some good concepts and developed the characters. It's quite depressing to see the whole thing dumbed down to this level.
It's also not anything new -- it's a trend that also started with the TNG films. You had Malcolm McDowell's part in GENERATIONS, then Tom Hardy's role in NEMESIS -- and when they tried to deviate a bit and make a "softer" type of film in INSURRECTION, the grosses went south, and fast. FIRST CONTACT had a "big bad" so to speak in the Borg queen, but at least there they mixed it up with a time-travel story at the same time.
It's a problem because when you make a film now every 2-3-4 years and on a huge budget, I think Paramount is weary of making anything OTHER than a free-standing type of "event" movie that will draw in fans beyond the Trek hardcore. That means, sadly, less of the lower-key type of stories we saw in the original show that you referenced. For me, knowing that, I was quite entertained by the first Abrams movie in terms of it capturing the essence of the original characters -- it wasn't a dark, grungy "reimagining" like the Battlestar Galactica Sci-Fi revamp -- while still working in a fast-paced modern blockbuster environment. I found it far more enjoyable than any of the TNG films, but that's just me (First Contact was the only one that approximated, say, the best films of the original cast).
In general, I think we can agree that -- and I have no problem with -- them pressing the reset button altogether from where Trek was at the end of the Rick Berman era -- viewers were oversaturated with Trek, disinterested in it, and the TNG film series simply never ignited the way the original cast movies did. And Abrams' decision to go with a parallel reality or thereabouts -- frankly I thought it was brilliant myself as a way of "resetting" this continuity and starting over while still mixing in elements of the old. More interesting than a straight remake, but also more respectful than pretending they never happened or doing a "reimagining" in every regard.
My problem is you've got to do more than 1 movie every 4 years, and again, give us something MORE than the same type of film (if indeed we get another revenge type of scenario). They've gone from oversaturating the Trek crowd to taking so long that they've totally lost the momentum the first movie generated (again, we can disagree over the effectiveness of its story, but there is no denying the fact that the film made a ton of money domestically, and far more than most of the prior films ever did). You can't have actors grow into these roles when you're not seeing them on-screen more than 2 hours every 4 years. It's ridiculous.
Abrams is a guy who I think has been behind some terrific projects -- I mean, the first few years of LOST were as captivating as anything I've seen on TV (I won't rehash the last few years lol), and GHOST PROTOCOL is a phenomenally entertaining film (with obvious credit going to Brad Bird who directed it). But I agree David, I think he's more effective as a producer than a director (MI3 wasn't as good as GHOST PROTOCOL, SUPER 8 was just intermittently satisfying, etc.), and his talents as a filmmaker are less than impressive.
The Victor Fries in Batman: The Animated Series is one of the most tragic villains in the Batman universe, and I'd love to see that version realized on the big screen.