the story about the new universe creative team having wanted to lay waste to the old one, just doesn't sit right with me.
It's kind of a rite of passage that each succeeding generation wants to take a sledgehammer to the one before it, just to be able to assume your rightful place in the sun. You know, the rebel without a cause thing. Whether what came before actually had some redeeming value is rarely considered. It's all about developing the ego on the road to maturation.
The problem is that in the old days, this used to be done by creating new icons that were the antithesis of the old. These days, our icons are not replaced with new icons. They are re-inhabited by the remakes. So if you don't like your father's Star Trek, then you just repossess the franchise and remake it in your own image. You don't create the anti-Trek show with its own unique characters. You just repackage it AS Trek.
So basically it's a rebelling AND embracing what you're rebelling against at the same time.
That's how Abrams and the rest can say they love Trek, and then go off in such a different direction. Trek, like any other franchise, simply becomes a means in which people can express not Trek in a traditional sense, but themselves.
The original idea behind franchises was to world-build and part of that means being willing to submit to rules that you yourself may not have created--all for the sake of consistency. This flies in the face of today's individualism where everyone has their own "take" on things and wants to express it. I think that's why the remakes happen and why audiences are increasingly comfortable with them.
I am happy with this from a certain extent. But what it also does is set up a constant battle over which take on the material is best.