Well, that is fine. For you. But other writers might feel differently.
There's being critical of something and then there's beating a horse to death trying to sway the opinion of others.
Whatever issues some have with the movie, it's done and there's no changing it and saying that nine out of ten people are wrong for not seeing issues with the writing just reeks of sour grapes. Especially when no one can really define what "good writing" is. We get vague allusions to people who are having "conversations".
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that *from the moment* any one here ever saw any piece of Star Trek, it was already done and beyond changing?
Why is there some sort of statute of limitations on criticism of a film that only came out this year, but people who want to keep discussing what the 'best' episode was of a series that's been off the air for decades are just A-OK?
Everyone who is here is a Star Trek fan, interested in discussing Star Trek. That doesn't come with any kind of obligation to always be positive or to just never discuss the things you didn't like. This 'beating a dead horse' argument (which I've seen used several times now) mainly comes across to me as saying 'I think you're wrong, so shut up'. If those who disagree with the film's critics are tired of defending the film from the same arguments, the obvious solution is to just stop participating in that discussion. Not to go on and on about beating dead horses, while still participating in a discussion which you apparently don't want to be in.