Here's the thing.

You didn't like the new Trek movie. That's fine. You say, "It's not Star Trek." That's fine.

Then you say that the only reason that's okay but us saying the exact same thing about the Star Wars prequels isn't is because George Lucas made the prequels, but Roddenberry didn't make the new Trek movie. Therefore, everything Lucas makes in relation to Star Wars must be okay because he made it, and everything not made by Roddenberry in relation to Star Trek must be shit.

But what of the tons of episodes of Trek that Roddenberry didn't write? What of Wrath of Khan? Roddenberry was forced out of creative control of the films after the first one because of its failures and shortcomings. But Wrath is widely considered to be the greatest Star Trek of them all.

George Lucas didn't write or direct The Empire Strikes Back, and has gone on record saying it's his least favorite of the six films ... yet it's widely considered the best of the series.

People aren't infallible. Just because Lucas made the prequels doesn't mean they're good. They aren't. Lucas started to lose what made Star Wars great after he saw Empire and decided he needed to have more control over the next ones, and overcompensated for what he saw as Empire's shortcomings.

You're being hypocritical because you give us shit for disliking the prequels, but won't hear a good word for the new Star Trek movie because you think it goes against what made Star Trek good. How is that any different from us disliking the prequels because we think they went against what made Star Wars good? Who made either one is irrelevant.

--addendum--

And for fuck's sake, the movie did not wipe away 40 years of Star Trek canon - it created an alternate timeline. The original still exists. Why is that so hard for people to understand?