No. My point was that making Star Trek a dumb action franchise set 100 years after TNG would have had the same result as setting one the generation before. Both would be a success with the general public who prefer action to sci-fi.
This ties in with the premise of this thread, and my view that a continuity reboot wasn't necessary.
I think you're grossly underestimating the stigma that Star Trek had to overcome in order to be accepted by the general public. "Back to basics Star Trek" felt like an interesting proposition for most people, who remembered Kirk and Spock and understood that they, not unlike James Bond, could be updated for the 21st Century. "More Star Trek", which is why you recommend, doesn't have the same ring to it.