^That sounds like the 'get you coming AND going' argument. If somebody doesn't like the sound of a trek movie and doesn't want to see it, he is told his opinion doesn't count because he didn't see it, and then if he does eventually see it, his opinion doesn't count because he was prejudiced against it to start with. You gotta pick your parameters, you can't have it both ways.
I knew I wasn't going to see CASINO ROYALE in the theater because for me, the film was fatally flawed by the casting of Craig as Bond, just on a physical level. When I did finally see it on DVD, I found that while that was still a huge negative aspect, I was at least as annoyed by the enormous number of plotholes and the horrendous pace of the thing, and especially by the portrayal of Bond - something I figured was going to be good based on Craig's acting talent. At that point I expected that the movie (outside of the casting) was going to be good, or decent, just on word of mouth (stupid of me to assume that in retrospect, I should have remembered TITANIC.)
So my preconceptions didn't make me more poised to hate the movie, but boy oh boy, did I hate that movie (and SKYFALL has effectively ended a 48 year run of seeing Bond movies in theaters for me, which says a helluva lot about it considering I even hung on through the Moore years. At least I still have the Fleming novels, the Dalton films and some Connery's to cherish.)
The Abrams Treks have been very similar to the Craig bonds for me; made with countless wrongheaded creative calls, yet massively successful financially nonetheless. In fact, the only Craig film I find remotely in the Bond vein is the one everybody trashes, QUANTUM, because at least there's a semblance of the Bond character, plus some superlative filmmaking if one can overlook the ADD editing.