How can that be a bad thing? It keeps it invigorating. Yes, by all means: reboot the Star Trek universe every few decades! That means it'll stay up to date with people's zeitgeist. That means a hundred years from now, people will still know Star Trek. And I can't find any viewpoint that could consider that a bad thing.
Well, you could try asking me, I could provide you with the viewpoint you say you're unable to find.
What's the point, I would argue, of a series that never actually ages and expands and grows, but simply resets and contracts regularly? Kirk and Spock were great characters, but so was Picard, and Sisko, and heck even the Doctor and Tuvok had their moments. Isn't there more to this franchise, this whole, great fictional universe, than six men and one woman flying the same ship for ever and ever, amen?
Example in case: Valkyrie. It's not as if that's how history really went. If it was, it would be called a documentary. But it's not. That's why people liked it so much. And do you really think 300 got their history right? It was based on a real event, but beyond that? Half was made up. And still, people liked it. All those movies do not follow "established canon" where our history is concerned. The farther away from established history, the more successful they usually are.
That's, uh... That's not, in fact, what I asked you. At all. But what the heck, we'll roll with this line, instead.
Yes, 300 was an absurd exaggeration of history, and Valkyrie was a Hollywood Historical, which is to say that it wasn't very historical at all. And one was great fun, and the other was okay I guess, I never actually watched it. But for every 300 and Valkyrie, there's a movie that's set right here, right now, and manages to tell a story without being somehow strangled by the thousands of years of human history that've existed. And you know how they do that? The same way any of us get through our days; by not actually having much of anything to do with the past. Same thing as would happen in 99.9-repeating percent of Star Trek stories; there's no reason they'd be strangled by canon, because they wouldn't actually have anything to do with it. Canon's the history of the setting, and sometimes it comes up, like quoting Shakespeare in a romcom or referencing the Nazis in an Oscar contender, but most of the time the story at hand has nothing whatsoever to do, explicitly, with the ultra-majority of everything that has ever come before it.
The first part is true, but, the regular audience doesn't buy the novels. And oldTrek fandom is too small to support a series. And to draw in more people, you need to lose some of that continuity. Just as has been done with this movie.
I'm not saying the regular audience needs to buy the novels. What I'm saying is, those novels, and the things the writers have done to the universe, show that there's no inherent aspect of canon that prevents new and exciting things from happening. VOY and ENT weren't boring because of too much canon, they were boring because lazy writers churned out weak storylines about pointlessly agressive aliens and anomalies of the week. Canon simply doesn't enter into it.
