They did that already didn’t they with the Kelvin films? And we saw how that failed so right back to the prime they went.
There are plenty of stories to tell still in all the in between years. No need to reboot anything nor rely too heavy on previous continuity.
No, it’s not considered a hard reboot. A hard reboot would be saying, this is not only in its own timeline but that no further work will be done on the prime timeline. Essentially, it would be locking in what’s considered ‘classic’ Trek and what’s considered ‘new’ Trek.
True but, calling it a “corpse of a franchise” ain’t that.
My spouse and I loved Lower Decks. We were worried since the show is being handled by the Rick and Morty guys (and we hate Rick and Morty) and that because of this, it would nothing but gross-out humor (and the pilot certainly was mostly that). But the subsequent episodes had some really great stuff going on. Especially the one with the Dog.
Yeah, the first JJ Abrams movie went out of its way to establish that it was an alternate timeline and that the rest of Star Trek was safe, just over there in Universe A, while they continued on in Universe 1. Picard even codifies this by being set in the Prime Timeline after the supernova that destroyed Romulus and set the events of Star Trek 2009 into motion.
That is splitting hairs imo. Until Discovery was announced as being back in the prime timeline the jj films were all there was. So it (even tho proven later to be an alternate universe) was still a hard reboot.
I like this idea. The current prime directive has been the source of some of the weakest and most moraly frustrating episodes of Star Trek.
It’s only one Rick and Morty guy, Mike McMahon. But he was a senior writer on the show for a year or two so he definitely guided the show’s humour a lot. Before he did TV though, he was most famous for the excellent TNG_S8 account on twitter, providing dozens of hypothetical and hilarious synopses for an 8th series of TNG.
Yeah, I’m not buying that. Previous episodes clearly showed that the Star Trek universe follows a Back to the Future model: time-travel shenanigans cause changes within a single, mutable timeline, rather than creating multiple, co-existing timelines.
I guess I can reconcile Discovery and the new Pike series as tales from the Prime timeline before its eradication by Nero.
Picard is more problematic, as it’s set after Nero’s journey to the past. My personal head-canon is that it actually takes place in one of the alternate quantum realities visited by Worf in “Parallels”: the main differences from the quantum reality of the Prime timeline are (a) Nero’s ship (and presumably Spock’s) were destroyed in the black hole and never made it back to the past to change it, and (b) Star Fleet officers say “fuck”.
holy sh–t !! you didn’t really just say that? Or maybe you’re just not a trek fan…?
So you mention both one form of time travel and mention multiple examples of alternate realities.
So which one do you place the most faith in? A time travel event can either reset its timeline and be fixed (ala Yesterdays Enterprise) or it can create a whole new universe. Both are plausible in the world of Trek.
Look to the creation of the mirror universe from our own. Arguably Cochrane’s decision to shoot the vulcans instead of welcoming them created that whole verse.
I don’t think we need to “gatekeep” the idea that knowing the fate of one character who obscurely existed in a non-pilot and another two-parter defines who a Trek fan is, though yes, the OP should likely be corrected. 
was that - posed as a question - really gatekeeping? Unless we need to be gatekeeping on what is gatekeeping…
the “Holy Shit! Can you really call yourself a fan if you don’t know that Trulene bested Ryloxx at the battle of New Gibralter in the subplot of episode 22 of the second spinoff series” line of questioning is, indeed, gatekeeping. At least insofar as I do not believe fans of anything need to show a level of understanding to enjoy something. They are either fans or they are not, and no one else needs to question one’s “fandom” based on what they do or do not know of a franchise.
As I said, though - because this is in the OP, correcting it to something like “met his fate” is likely warranted.
To be fair, it’s more realistic. If one would say “fuck” upon stepping into a pile of dog doo, for example, then it goes double for wandering into whatever alien quantum wackiness space throws at you.
Unrelated, I kind of wish Trek would focus more on going forward or sideways from where we last left off (VOY?) (Picard, Lower Decks, Prodigy) instead of trying to jam everything into the gaps around TOS. I could see why one wouldn’t wan to, since worldbuilding that takes into account all the fabulous discoveries the ships have made might be tricky (for example, that one episode where they degage Crusher using the transporter. Tada! You just cured one cause of death!). Picard did a good job making the future look even… um, more future-y.
Oh, alternate, co-existing realities clearly exist in Trek. They’re just not created by time-travellers changing the past.
No where does it say “destruction” of the prime universe. Nero’s actions caused a divergent timeline… 
Except that the Mirror universe exists, as do the all the alternate timelines Worf visited in Parallels.
