Hunter6 said:
I thinking like with other JJ Abrams' work that as time goes maybe a week or a month that more and more people will turn on this film. It was like that with MI: III and Cloverfield.

Another Bad Review for Star Trek (2009) has came in as The New Film is about to come out.

He (kirk) is played here by Chris Pine, who struggles with a screenplay, written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, that could have been downloaded from a software program entitled “Make Your Own Annoying Rebel.”

-Anthony Lane from the the new yorker on Star Trek (2009)

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2009/05/18/090518crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=1

Again, it doesn't even compare with those two movies. You're picking the tiny handful of negative reviews out of hundreds of others. Not one movie ever released, even the classics, went without a few negative reviews.

MI: III (147 positive reviews, 64 negative reviews) barely managed 70% on Rotten Tomatoes and Cloverfield is a few points below 80 as well (145 positive to 44 negative.)

Also, MI III was miles better than the previous MI movie, way better. MI III wasn't a bad movie, MI II was a bad movie. Never saw Cloverfield.

Star Trek, already with the vast majority of reviews already in, 94 % on Rotten Tomatoes, is at 127 positive reviews and only 8 negative reviews. This is an overwhelmingly positive critical response that very few movies match. Anything that stays above 90 is considered virtually universally positively reviewed.

It seems like you're just Hell bent on hating the movie under any circumstance. Where were you for the last 26 shitty Star Trek movies? Even if this movie had been the worst piece of shit in film history (and for all I know I might think it is when I get around to seeing it, who knows) it's not as if it could kill the brand, the franchise was already long-dead. The previous Star Trek movie got nearly twice the number of negative reviews as it got positive ones. As a franchise it was well past just running on fumes.