Previous Post Nero, the Romulan villain, is from the future, and holds a grudge against Spock, so he sets out to change the timeline to punish Spock (and, by extension, the Federation). While he meets with mixed success in his goals (he arguably succeeds in punishing Spock, but he fails in punishing the Federation), he SUCCEEDS in CHANGING THE TIMELINE, to the point that THE CHARACTERS THEMSELVES flat-out state, "So, we're basically living in an ALTERNATE TIMELINE, from whatever history would have happened otherwise." Young Kirk even asks old Spock a few details about how his personal history was different.

Supposing there was a character - let's call him "Spider-Man" - and it was decided to reboot him using some kind of continuity-changing villain; not to reset to the past but to reset to a slightly altered past tailored with decades of hindsight and lots of marketing focus group research. Fans might rightly feel that all that stuff that now "never happened" undercuts much of what makes the character tick. They might feel that the changes only work if the audience is aware of the status quo ante to be able to make comparisons. Mostly they might feel that beloved moments and beloved stories are now irrelevant and discarded.

So what's the difference with Star Trek doing it? Is the plot that the timeline has changed so that none of those several hundred episodes so far screened ever happened? Or is this another parallel reality like the Mirror Universe and the original Trek tales just happened somewhere else? If it's the former then fans should rightly feel they've been punked. If it's the latter than where's the dramatic tension or threat?

If it's the latter it's also only a matter of time before O'Brian or Worf turns up to join the cast as well.