The abortion that was the movie would never fly as a TV series because you wouldn't have a dedicated fanbase.
Yeah, because Star Trek '09 was a dismal failure that nobody went to see.
BTW, I think the word you were looking for was "abomination," not "abortion." An abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus. Using that word as a metaphor for a movie would not make you very popular with the female sex. The next time you bash Abrams's film, you might want to be a bit more careful with your choice of derogatory statements.
C.E. Evans wrote:
In a real sense, that's how Trek began--with a crew of nobodies. The key with any television series, regardless if it's Trek or not, is creating characters that click with an audience enough that they want to watch them again and again to see what they do or what happens to them next.
I believe Ron Moore said it best when he said that people's attitude should be "Yay, another Star Trek series!," not "Oh God, not another Star Trek series..." My fear is that making a new series with a new cast in the prime universe, but just farther into the future, would just give people reaction #2. Changing the time period is not good enough (but don't take my word for that, just see how good that worked with Enterprise). C.E. Evans is right: the characters are the most important thing, not the setting.