I guess it is kind of pointless to chime in now, since so many have already decided to "boycott" this discussion, but I have to side with the Warbster on this one.
I really get what TheBoost is saying, but I think the use of the word boycott in the case of Star Trek is more accurate than he realizes. I agree, if someone simply didn't want to see something, then it wouldn't be a boycott. But in the case of Star Trek, many long time fans were very upset at the treatment of their beloved franchise, and THAT is the reason they choose to "boycott" it. Not simply because they didn't want to see it because they didn't think they'd like it, but because they didn't want to support it. They are making a point not to see it on principle.
For example, let's say I never shop at Wal-Mart, not for any particular reason, but simply because I have no desire to. That would most definitely not be a boycott. But let's say a few months down the road Wal-Mart does something that ticks me off and I decide to refuse to shop there. Even though I never shopped there anyway, I'd still be boycotting it because my reason for not shopping there would be based on something more. Back when I didn't shop there just because I didn't want to, I might run in to pick up a pack of batteries or some juice just because it is the closest and most convienent place at the moment, but if I were boycotting it, I would go out of my way to avoid it.
Many of the boycotting Trek fans might not have had a desire to see the new movie, but ontop of that, many of them wanted it to fail because they didn't like what was being done to it. That is an accurate use of the term boycott.