I'm a Trekkie dinosaur, the sort miffed by the first JJ iteration ... what irked me the most was the "comic superhero-ization" of the TOS characters (especially James T. Kirk) and the re-write of so much that not even the "new timeline" can explain, such as the idea that Chekov and Kirk's careers in Starfleet started virtually simultaneously.
Yeah, Shatner's Kirk was probably rightfully mocked for Shatner's wooden acting ... but however much of an egomaniac Shatner might be, at least his Kirk was believably human, fallible and flawed. From TOS into the movies, we got the sense that while, yes, he was a young Captain, he learned some things through experience (and some of that through trying the wrong thing first and learning a lesson the hard way) that the Academy could not teach. As he earned rank and prestige, his arrogance cause problems, too -- he nearly destroyed the Enterprise in the first Roddenberry-Trek movie when the Enterprise's engine imblance (due to the Enterprise being rushed amid refit to intercept V'ger) created a wormhole and the Enterprise was on a collision course with an asteroid in the wormhole; Kirk's attempt to deal with the situation would have resulted in the Enterprise being destroyed and the actual captain of the Enterprise, Decker, whom Kirk usurped to regain command of the Enterprise countermanded Kirk's order and saved the ship. Similarly, in The Wrath of Khan, Kirk disregarded Starfleet regulations -- as cited by Spock's protege, Saavik -- in regards to encoutering a starship, even a 'fellow' Federation starship, when communications have not been established, resulting in devastating damage to the Enterprise and a lot of fatalities aboard the Enterprise, including Scotty's nephew. Shatner's Kirk made a lot of mistakes, but was able to recover and deal with them ... there was a real sense, for me, that Shatner's Kirk was a real, believable character who forged his own destiny.
The Kirk portrayed by Chris Pine in the 2009 film was, by contrast, infallible and seemed to have "superhero"-esque predestiny/fate regardless of the complete lack of experience earned by Shatner's Kirk. He was fated to be right in his arguments with more experienced officers including Pike and Spock despite having zero experience.
Is character development any better in Into Darkness? For those of us die-hard "Trek dinosaurs" psychotically loyal to the original characters, would we find Into Darkness more palatable than Abrams' first Star Trek film?