Wow, the only arrogance I'm picking up is from you. Oh woe is thou who dares to contradict the internet tough guy!
Seriously, you really need to get your head out and learn a thing about context. Since you're having a problem with context and think everyone lives up there with you, I'll spell it out.
I was replying to a review of the trailer posted on page 1. Said review was cropped and selectively quoted. This quote was mostly was concerned about the usage of time travel in the movie. I responded to said selective quote. My response consisted of caution, that usage of a particular plot device is not damning. To tailor this response to the person making the argument I played along with several of the unimportant assumptions for sake of time. One of these assumptions was that Enterprise was a failed series due to the usage of the temporal cold war plot. Since this thread is not about whether or not Enterprise was a good show (no metric was provided) and I felt that their overall logic about the new trek movie was more relevant I ignored it. I provided no evidence and did not argue the point as it was irrelevant to my argument, I only used it as a basis for progressing my counter argument to give my argument context.
Since you seemed to miss my argument, and selectively quoted only one sentence I will restate my argument. My argument is that you cannot call a movie a failure from watching only 2 trailers and knowing that it will use time travel as a plot device. I gave examples to show how such reaching assumption does not mean the movie will in fact end up badly.
I can give further evidence if you like. Treks that are widely (but not universally) considered good include Star Trek IV and VIII. Both used time travel as major plot points. Now, you can go ahead and call me arrogant for dare calling those movies good or for daring to do something. I don't know, I'm a daring kind of guy. But please, if you're going to be so rash as to be universally contradictory, at least don't invoke hyperbole for no apparent reason.