"I was handed a chocolate bar and an M-1 rifle and told to go kill Hitler."--Jack "King" Kirby
Reboots aren't the answer. The reboots that worked- the really, REALLY worked- were the ones that offered something genuinely new and were in some ways necessary.
Batman Begins offered moviegoers something they genuinely hadn't seen in film before- the early days of Batman's origins. The most recent film series by Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher jumped right into the action with Bruce already as Batman. There was some explanation as to his motivation as to WHY, but nothing touched upon the HOW he got to that point. His parents were murdered, then he was Batman. In addition to that, the previous series had become a total joke to the point that it was practically unsalvageable. Many of the elements of the mythos had been introduced to the films were bungled so badly that it was probably better to write it off and start anew rather than keep on going with the same narrative.
With Star Trek, again we were looking at an untold story. How the crew of the Enterprise got together, how Kirk and Spock and Bones met. Plus, it helped that it was promoted as an alternate universe, meaning the story was now changed. And, again, the previous universe had become so maligned that it seemed a good story was impossible.
Compare this to the recent Spider-Man film, which largely has seemed to disappear from the collective consciousness. It wasn't something that was really necessary, and it told a story that had already been told before. Yes, it was successful. But not nearly the same level as the other two reboots. Or compare DC's new 52. While it did get a lot of attention, it also drew a lot of criticism for not having a clear picture of what did or did not happen. Again, it wasn't all that necessary for a lot of the books that just kept on chugging along like nothing really happened.
'The marquis. Well, you know, to be honest, he seems a little bit dodgy to me.'
'Mm,' she agreed. 'He's a little bit dodgy in the same way that rats are a little bit covered in fur."
I mean, I've seen plenty of people speak with assuredness of what went on in the industry. I saw one person argue that the reason Roger Stern was fired off of the Avengers was because he criticized Spider-Man's marriage. Only for Roger Stern himself come on to correct him that that wasn't the case at all. I've seen people saw that one thing happened in the industry with absolute certainty, only to be proven wrong later. Without evidence to back up their point, their argument could just be hyperbole and conjecture.
Now, I'll grant you, a lot of what they say does make sense. That being said, there could be other factors that someone with a lot of insider knowledge might now that could contradict that. I'm not saying that someone who makes these arguments HAS to make their name and occupation known for me to take their point seriously. What I'm saying is that facts and figures to go ALONG with this helps a lot. As with anything.
I know Kevin Nichols through a guy that knows a gal. Small world!
If nihilism didn't take some delight in destruction one might suspect nihilists were an unnaturally morbid sort.
Hell, having a shared Universe didn't seem to damage the Avengers film. If anything, the shared universe concept is what made it so appealing in the first place.