Well, none of the Star Trek movies have offered the philosophical side of Star Trek. So why is it now, with this movie, does this reaction come out? As for the references the writers are in a real hard position of writing to multiple types of Trek fans as well as a new audience. The references are their way of nodding to the hardcore fans. They were there so that the newly set up universe with a slightly tilted view of what we as fans already know happened could both feel old and new. I think it was handled well. I can understand why others wouldn't. But the vitriolic language seems nuts to me. I mean at worst I can't see someone seeing this film exactly for what it is rather than what it isn't as anything worse then average.
That's actually a really good point that I hadn't considered before, partly because my point of reference has always been the series and not the films (which I haven't watched very many of, and don't have a huge amount of fondness for).
To be fair (to myself) I did think it about the first Abrams movie was well, although it was less about the lack of philosophising and more that the general "feel" of the ship and world were changed in fairly drastic ways, and I actually thought they redressed that in a lot of ways in this one so there you go.