I would prefer the movies stayed away from it.
Easy to say, but it's not like they do it for fun. Without the revenue that comes from product placement, the studio could never afford to make a film as hugely expensive as a modern sci-fi blockbuster. So it's just something we have to accept as a necessary tradeoff for getting the movie made at all -- just like commercial breaks are the necessary tradeoff for getting TV shows made. (And more and more shows these days have built-in product placements because it's gotten so easy to fast-forward or channel-surf through commercials.)
It's not unreasonable that some corporations might survive a few more centuries. The longest-lived independent company in history, Japan's Kongō Gumi
, lasted for 1,400 years
. Various hotels and breweries and such have been in business for up to a millennium. The Beretta firearms company is nearly 500 years old, as is Cambridge University Press.
Still, I tend to feel that for an SF film, it would make more sense to have product placements for the likes of aerospace firms and computer manufacturers, or maybe biotech or energy companies, rather than something like soft drinks.
Ultimately, though, it comes down to which companies are willing to invest in your movie, so the filmmakers may not have complete freedom of choice about which products they have to work in. If you try to get IBM and Virgin Aerospace as financial backers but the best you can manage is Taco Bell and Geico, then you really don't have any choice but to posit a far future where Taco Bell and Geico are alive and well and haven't materially altered their corporate logos in centuries. (Although I think there are some cases where a film's production designers have been allowed to come up with new, futuristic logos that the advertisers actually used in their tie-in campaigns, with their approval, of course. I can't remember an example, though.)