The CGI work in Star Trek was definitely well done. Better than most.

Something interesting to note: Whereever obvious CGI has bothered you in the past, you might not have noticed an equal number of CGI effects that were so seamless you didn't know they were an effect at all.

I've seen CGI effects that were so well done that I only learned about them long after-the-fact. Or realized only after thinking about it that they must have been an effect because there would have been no other way to do it.

It tends to be spotty; in a given film you might get a bunch of great shots and a bunch of crappy shots. It's very hit or miss. These days so many shots are farmed out to smaller companies, that any given film might have a dozen different CGI studios working on shots for the same film.

One shot in Trek that bugged me was the standard CGI effect that they always seem to have in every sci-fi movie these days...



That "transformers" kind of effect, where machinery unfolds into something larger and stronger than its original volume, or parts appear out of thin air where there doesn't appear to be any mechanical support for the parts, has always rubbed me the wrong way. Even when it's done incredibly well in terms of the visuals (the shot in Trek was seamless), I have to work hard to actively suspend my disbelief, and it pulls me out of the movie experience.