The context for the info was an interview with screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci for Creative Screenwriting Magazine. The interview was conducted and written by senior editor, Jeff Goldsmith.
Anyway, Mr. Goldsmith asked if the new Star Trek project was going to be a re-imagination (a la BSG) or something that could be viewed as consistent with the established mythos.
Here's a clip of the response. Be sure to pick up Creative Screenwriting Magazine to read the rest of the article (which also covers M:I:3.):
"There are pockets within the universe, and we know the mythology well, and we are fans of the novels that happen between the movies and all that kind of stuff, which aren't even counted as part of the mythology sometimes and we do know that there is a space to begin to see a lot of the origins of a lot of the things we know and we're going to start there. We're very mindful of being totally true to the mythology and totally true to what's come there, and in a way try to embrace the fact there's such a rich history to it that this is not a case of trying to come in and be so clever that you're going to reinvent everything. It's a case of coming in and using the stuff you know is great and you know really works and not violating anything that's come before it."
You ask me, that sounds good. I don't want to see forty years of Star Trek undercut by a would-be auteur who thinks he's more clever than Roddenberry, Coon, Nimoy, Bennett, or Meyer. Of course, on the other hand, how hard would it be to prove cleverer than Brannon Braga? Perhaps that sounds snarky, but I'm still bristling (12...years...later...) over the way Braga and Moore handled Captain Kirk's death in Generations. (And still asking why Captain Picard didn't pick a better time to exit the Nexus...). But that, my friends, is a post for another day...