I found it difficult to imagine new actors inhabiting those beloved roles. Then again, I'd argued in various articles and book chapters ("The Sword in the StarShip: Arthuriana in the Four Incarnations of Star Trek," "Beam Me Up, King Arthur? Star Trek and the Arthurian Tradition," etc.) that Star Trek is the new Arthuriad; it struck me that if I'd held rigidly to the first cinematic Arthur I ever encountered (Richard Harris in Camelot), I would've missed seeing other performances that became equally meaningful and powerful for me (such as Nigel Terry in Excalibur). And I certainly wouldn't throw out Chrétien de Troyes just because Sir Thomas Malory is the man. The more I read about J.J. Abrams' vision for and commitment to this new Trek film, the higher my hopes rose.
Well, now I've seen it. Is it respectful of and loving toward Gene Roddenberry's vision? Is it satisfying for someone who values canon? Most importantly, is it good?
Yes, it most certainly is.
To quote Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan...
McCoy: How do you feel?
Kirk: Young. I feel young.