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.
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.
It looks like I stepped on some fanboy's toes. I'm not going to go off topic and discuss how pathetic your favorite movie is.
About characters, Star Trek is not about characters as much as setting and general themes. Yeah Kirk, Spock and McCoy were great and certainly played their part, but only to further the theme that Rodenberry had in mind. Gene didnt' want emotions like hatred, jelaousy, lust, infighting etc in Trek, which removes your options of too many character driven stories. He rewrote most of TNG season one. If Kirk and Spock were in some western, nobody would be talking about them today, it was the setting that made them famous.