Yes, they destroyed Vulcan. In one swoop, they demonstrated that this isn't the same timeline/reality/whatever as the original versions of these characters, and told audiences that "All bets are off. Nobody and nothing is safe. Buckle up."
That was exactly the message I got - all bets are off - and it felt a little too blustery for me -- ie, it felt like they were over-compensating, choosing to do this thing not for story reasons, not for compelling drama, but moreso to say "this ain't your daddy's star trek! in your face!" to go all rebel-rebel and spit in the eye of something that actually WORKED for the series to gain a kind of freedom that they could have felt they had regardless.... Again, perhaps there was another way to have done it that would have felt less 'sacrilegious' and actually 'out of the film' though I have to say the Amanda moment had me enjoyably gutted, so its not all complaints here! As it happened, it just didn't feel like the greatest story choice, full stop. That, and I cried for the possibly unborn Tuvok (just kidding... sorta).
As for Kirk the troubled kid....is there anything in the canon to refute this? No. Indeed, there's nothing at all, which is why Diane Carey was able to fashion a backstory for Kirk as just such a troubled young man for her novels. ... In the "real" universe, we're to believe that Kirk was one of the youngest people ever to attain command of a starship....29, if we're to believe conjecture put forth in various sources. I'll give you that the circumstances of Kirk's rapid promotion in the film are unbelievable, but it's not worth having a stroke over. Weirder things have happened in fiction and...besides...we don't know the "real" circumstances under which he got to command the Enterprise. There are no less than three versions of that story, none of them canon.
I guess ultimately my gripe here isn't "is it canon or not" but simply, is it rewarding to me story-wise to have this 'troubled child' thing happen - is this a strong story-telling choice or is it not. Clearly, I thought it was a weak choice - seemed to me a kind of Luke Skywalker/James Dean-lite, but I do appreciate what they were trying to do with the Spock/Kirk orphans parallel thing - just a little ham-fisted/overly melodramatic/trite in my opinion. But having said that, the attack on the Kelvin and the death of George Kirk in the opening scene was definitely the highlight of the film to me.
I haven't read those Carey novels, but they are on my list!
The promotion thing is even more odd/forced to me - and is one of the things that did kind of leave me right at the end of the film feeling like my intelligence was being neglected! Though perhaps this will grow on me and/or fade from memory - I mean I do want to see the adventures of Captain Kirk, the great leader after all, not Ensign Kirk. But I am not necessarily decrying any of these things in particular for defying any sort of established canon per se. Nor am I personally having a stroke - this is Star Trek, it brings me pleasure to varying degrees, that's all!
if the crews on previous productions had possessed the kind of budget and studio support this film enjoyed, I have no doubt we'd have seen this kind of thing a lot sooner. Paramount's wanted Trek to go toe-to-toe with Star Wars for 30+ years.
And I'm sure you're right, so in some ways my complaints about ST09 are my same complaints with mainstream film in general these days -- eye candy and breathless kinetic visuals trump story, ideas, imagination, and a sense of wonder every time, and that's just a commercial reality when trying to get people into a theater. So I can't realistically blame the new creators for their decision... but I can blame society!
This just highlights to me how after so many years, and with such a paltry budget, the original series is so enduring - clearly not for its production value, but for its heart and soul. Sometimes greater limits make for greater art. Hopefully some of that can still find its way into a mega-millions blockbuster again.