Had The Original Series been cast with the actors the ages they were in STAR TREK II, or III, STAR TREK would've never become the pop icon that it eventually did. Rebooting TOS like that wouldn't work. TMP had no choice but to have an elderly cast, because fans weren't going to accept other actors in their roles, as long as Shatner and the gang were still ambulatory. Yes, STAR TREK's all makebelieve, but what audience would a show like this be aimed after? The real money to be had is being spent by young people ... they're the ones to cater to, not pensioners on a fixed income.
I can't speak for whatever fans might have thought in 1979, but... You think 48 is elderly? Somehow I don't think so. But, either way, that's the age William Shatner was when TMP was released, and Patrick Stewart was 47 when TNG started.
I would just replace all your reboots with reimaginings until they get the recipe just right. Right now it's like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with cinnamon. I guess if you're really hungry anything will do.
You must be able to come up with a better example of "bad" than that...peanut butter and jelly on cinnamon toast sounds pretty good to me. Now peanut butter and banana...try Elvis's recipe if you dare. I have.
I've always wanted a Phase II type show, even now more than ever. We've learned with the Kelvin timeline films that fans -for the most part- can accept different actors playing those iconic parts. And Discovery has showed us that fans -for the most part- can accept updated and/or re-imagined aesthetics. Depending on where you place the setting of TMP (I've always placed it around 2273), there's over a decade of canon and continuity (or whatever we're calling it this month) to fill. I think it would be a great way to tell more stories with the original crew without pooping on TOS. An Enterprise-A show would also be interesting as you could mix up some old characters with new characters. Of course, then you'd have to explain why those new characters weren't there for Undiscovered Country. Or you could just set it all in an alternate timeline and not have to explain anything... other than that it's set in an alternate timeline.
I never want to hear the term alternate timeline again. But a rebooted movie era sequel does seem like a good way to go. I'd like to see a more experienced Kirk and company on their second or third five year mission with some new and interesting characters, maybe some more aliens to offset Spock in the crazy philosophical department, like maybe an Andorian Ambassador or something.
Why should they need to explain it? Gotham didn't have to explain why it's not Tim Burton's Batverse, Flash and Justice League featured totally different versions of the same character (as did X-Men: Days of Future Past and Avengers: Age of Ultron for that matter) and not a word of explanation given.
Because the moment anything was done that didn't quite fit into to canon, a significant portion of the Trekker universe would try to blow up the innerwebs... just like they've done with Discovery. Yes they would. Unless CBS All Access and the production company in charge of this hypothetical show released a statement explaining the show wasn't in the Prime Timeline but actually set in a new, matured timeline, they would need to find an in-universe explanation for the differences or else feel the fanboy wrath. Yes, I know other franchises have successfully done alternate versions of the same characters without having to explain why they're different, but as fireproof78 put it, this is Star Trek.
One merely needs to look at the outcry against ST 09 to know it would happen. To this day, I still occasionally see comments that the film overwrote the Prime Timeline and that it no longer exists in universe, despite a full scene explaining this is an alternate timeline, and production team members trying to explain it as well. It simply doesn't go over well.