At this point, I'll probably be forever defending to the death a return to the prime Star Trek timeline. Sure there would be contradictions, chief among them set design but then that's just window dressing for someone like me. I don't think I've ever sat down with a technical manual, part of the reason I went easy on the Enterprise NX-01 which I found had a less advanced, more articulated and industrial look than the future 60's minimalism of the NCC-1701. Likewise canon has never been at the top of my list, although it is nice when enough events gel with dialogue spoken about in the past tense... particularly the broadstrokes.
I don't buy into the current mantra trotted out by the new film's writers at all: Star Trek is so impenetrable a franchise, it was incapable of drawing in a new audience because of its supposed intricate backstory. That depends how you craft the tale and how in depth (read irrelevent) you want to explore. I certainly don't believe a whole alternate universe needed to be created to achieve the goal of drawing everybody in. All they've done is craft a story that justifies rushing well established characters into their most famous roles in one hyperactive step, without regard to the kind of life experiences that went into earning those positions in the first place. But of course, none of that matters when there's millions of dollars at stake. The film is a contrived mess, dusted with easter eggs to distract fans like me, but the end result gets the studio a more socially acceptable youthful cast, with glitterarty appeal.
We are told how bad prequels are because our beloved characters would never be in any real danger. That their futures are already defined. If you're new to Star Trek would this really enter your head? An exciting tale would surely distract you, draw you in, and make you care for this characters... even if someone had told you how Kirk was going die. It's not how they died that matters. It's how they lived. Take bio-pics about real historical characters. You may only vaguely be aware of where these people ended up. Or take for example The Godfather II. Does splitting the narrative between past and present devalue it, knowing Vito was gunned down buying oranges in Part I? Does having seen Generations, mean you can never happily watch an episode of 60's Trek ever again? I hate this mentality in Hollywood producers...
In answer to the movies central theme, that of Pike's line to a wayward Kirk - "I dare you to do better". That's a challenge I'm confident writers were always going to take up and certainly achieve in Star Trek's screen future... with or without the kerching effect of this new movie. Why? Because it happened so often in the past with the likes Michael Piller, Ronald D. Moore, Ira Steven Behr and Manny Coto.
My own particular take on returning to the Original Series would be to stay true to the original timeline, if only in spirit as far as anything contradictory or trifling is concerned. That is how it was always done, if the story is strong enough then it'll fit just fine.
I would favour either of the following prequels...
A Captain Pike show based on "The Cage" crew, set a few years later or during his second 5-year mission. Progress it with a gradual introduction of key TOS characters, as they replace transferred or deceased crewmembers.
A Kirk centric TV mini-series (shame JJ Abrams rushed this through and screws up his life thanks to time travel and a spectacularly unoriginal villain). Such a production needs to be lengthy and cover at least 3 important crossroads in his life, several years apart but connected in some way by the same antagonist. Make him human for a change, a childhood role model who is there at every stage of Kirk's life... in his hometown, friends with his parents, at the Academy and finally his ultimate confrontation and final hurdle to overcome before he takes command of the Enterprise. A rites of passage from childhood to well into his early 30's. I'd be tempted to make him Robert April. A legendary space hero who does great deeds and then falls from grace, disappointing the boy who worshipped him as a hero. As a small child, Kirk could witness the launch of the ship. An event which ignites his love for space travel and that iconic ship. To hell with destiny, while serving aboard whatever ship he was on before the Enterprise, there's a battle against a corrupted Admiral April and a 30-year old Kirk's valour is so amazing, he chooses the ship he wants to command next and there's no coincidence.
Pepper the story with appearances from other original series characters. Some in passing and others very important like McCoy, who Kirk may have met during his service aboard a previous ship. Others like Chekov, not at all. Spock would come into the picture in the final third of the story, during a joint fleet mission where the Enterprise is leading the vanguard, but I'm not discounting how they may have crossed paths during the Academy.
) But at the same time the writers tended to shape things to fit the story being told or even forgot a detail or two. So James R. Kirk becomes James T. Kirk and Spock discusses matters that Vulcans do not speak of with outsiders with a woman he just met. Lasers weapons vanish, never spoken of again and lithium becomes dilithium without explanation. 
