They certainly can be made. There is no shibboleth that I adhere to that insists that they shouldn't even exist. But I think that more than building an enduring audience for a new tv show, let's say, that won't have much if any resemblance to the world of the films, all the films do and reflect is the ongoing demand for flashy, effect riddled, noisy action fare that pays lip service to whatever original material it ultimately is derivative of, while presenting putatively thought provoking moments in ways that have scant connection to the substance , spirit, and context that made that material distinctive and memorable. To use the names that are familiar to the older audience is largely irrelevant if there is no genuine continuity, not canon, to a significant extent, of what came before. An abomination no, but it might as well have been simply the initiation of a new series altogether that might have been even more financially successful if totally freed from the nominal tissue of connection to Trek.
Tow points on that. First of all, I don't think Abrams Star Trek misses the substance of TOS era Star Trek, in terms of characters, themes and spirit of the work. ST09, in particular, thrived on the concept of TOS as an "action-adventure with social commentary." It's success was not due to familiarity, but rather telling a twist on a familiar story.
I think that the Abrams films are as thought provoking as any other Star Trek work, and the meaning to be derived from those works is largely dependent upon individual perspective. While not reflective of what came before, my larger enjoyment of Abrams Trek is precisely because I know so much about Star Trek and TOS.
In my experience, it strikes me that fans are the most passionate, but also the most critical about change, whether it be in sports, television, or pretty much anything else. Many of the arguments against Abrams Trek have been made against TNG when it first aired, get made every time Dr Who switches Doctors, and every time a sports team switches coaches or players.
Generally, it comes down to, "Oh, these changes are terrible and the loss of [insert anything here] will kill the franchise." Yet, as much as I loved TOS or TNG, they were products of their era and by necessity need to change.
With regard to Abrams films in specific, people seem to have two primary problems. 1. The lack of "message" and 2. The "rehashing" of Wrath of Khan in Into Darkness. For me, at least in the first Abrams film, the message was about the crew learning to become their best possible selves. It just wasn't spelled out and hammered at like the "message" in Nemesis. As far as #2 the film struck me as an interesting "what if" idea that Abrams plays with quite a lot (Aka, the alternate universe in Fringe).
I agree. Change is not the easiest thing to for any fandom to go through and there is a large level of fear on the part of the production companies because if they change then they might lose an audience. In this day and age, the idea of losing any audience members is rather terrifying.
As for the message, I think ST09 had a more clear message of the crew collaborating, with other messages woven throughout of the importance of father figures (Sarek, Pike) in pushing leaders to reach their full potential. Into Darkness, in my opinion, isn't a rehash of TWOK as the themes and larger story are about terrorism and the lengths people will go to defend against perceived threats, including illegal ones.
In both instances, we see Kirk and Spock facing down dark mirrors of themselves, and what they could potentially become. Which, as you pointed out, plays right in to Abrams' alternative "what if?" scenarios that he explores. I think the messages are there, but, again as stated, not driven home with a sledge like Nemesis.
