Look, no offence to those who appreciate Batman. I am also a longtime fan and I really loved Batman Begins, and as a result, I chose to disregard everything Tim Burton did becasue the newer movie made more sense to me about how the character came to be, what he stood for, and why.
But the similarities go only so far. Batman had a joke of a series in the 1960s, a smattering of animated versions over the past 40 years, and most of the history/canon came from comic books, which also attempted to re-work and re-tell the stories. People loved it when the Dark Knight graphic novel was published because it was almost like a welcome change. Remember Man of Steel 20 years ago? No one scoffed at that either because Superman's history was always in flux from the start.
Star Trek is just different. For me, there has always been a flow to the way the different series and movies connected and created the history. It was a history that no one ever tried to change or reimagine or improve upon before. I started watching during my most impressionable years- age 5 to be exact- when the facts really sunk in and became very important to me. OK, maybe my Bible analogy on another thread was a little too much, but for me, re-writing Trek history is like... I don't know, changing nursery rhymes or Aesop's fables- they were things I grew up on, my childhood memories. It was a history that went beyond comic books, variations, new artwork every few years, new publishers every so often. I've never heard of "canon" applied to DC of Marvel comics the same way it has been applied to Trek.
So while I understand the Batman/Superman/James Bond/BSG re-boot analogies that are being made, I hope that some will appreciate how I think it is unfair to apply the same gestalt to STAR TREK.
"Stop it? I'm counting on it."
"But not because you threaten me. I'll pay you because... it's my pleasure."