Viking Bastard said:
There's been written many, many more issues of Spider-Man than there have been
episodes of Trek. It's had it's bad years (a whole decade in the 90s) but all it needed
was some good writers and to get the editors to loosen their grip a little and now
we're getting great stuff from guys like Millar and JMS himself.
I hear what you and Umbran are saying. A complete reboot isn't necessary. And I'd agree with that, as well.
However, I think in many cases a reboot does more good than staying with the current continuity. Both Superman and Batman have effectively been rebooted many times, not just in the comics, but in the movies, TV shows, animation, and so on. Reboots allow for different elements to come through, that often add a significant element to the overall mythology. For example, keeping Ma and Pa Kent alive, instead of killing them off when Clark reached adulthood, was a good thing, and added a significant element to his supporting cast. Reboots also reach out to a wider audience. Given the poor performance of the Star Trek movies, I'd argue Trek is in need of new fans, as well as keeping the old ones.
I think time passed isn't the most significant factor in deciding on whether or not to reboot a franchise. It's a question of vision. What is the creator's vision of the series? Sometimes, creating a new continuity can do a lot for bringing that vision to life. I really like Mark Waid's new vision of the Legion of Super-Heroes, for example, which is something that necessitated a reboot. Personally, I'd trust in JMS' vision, and that he would still be able to draw upon elements of Star Trek history to satisfy the fans, rather than just throwing everything out and starting from scratch.