Admiral Rex wrote:
Why do Star Trek and Star Wars fans think that all media must tie into a single, consistent continuity?
I can't speak for others, but I love the interconnectivity. The idea that it's the same Spock from "The Cage" through to "Unification", who gave Selar advice in New Frontier
, who legalized the Unification movement in Rough Beasts of Empire
, who watched his world die in an alternate past in JJ's Star Trek
, is mind-blowingly cool. Yes, there are too many adventures for one lifetime (let alone that first five-year mission!), but I can easily suspend my disbelief about that sort of thing.
If it's suddenly different Spocks... it loses something. I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker, but it's something I'd like maintained where possible.
All fans don't think that way. I think the reason a lot of them do is that they haven't been given an explicit alternative. All the screen incarnations of Star Trek have been presented as part of the same history, up until 2009 (and even that's presented as an alternate timeline branching off from the original continuity). And the books and comics are all presented as consistent with the screen canon even when they're not consistent with each other. So it's not like Batman or Spider-Man where they've seen multiple screen and print incarnations explicitly set in distinct continuities. There's an expectation that there's a single core continuity.
As for Star Wars, there really hasn't been that much screen content up until recently, and again, most of the tie-ins have purported to be in the same reality as the screen content rather than being an alternate version of it. And you have the added factor there of Lucasfilm Licensing actively pushing the tie-ins to be consistent with each other and telling the fans they were "canonical" in some way, promoting that perception quite strongly. The only alternative takes SW fans have seen are parodies like Lego Star Wars and the upcoming Detours show from the Robot Chicken producers.
I've always found it odd that Star Wars novels are supposed to be canon, when George Lucas is on record saying that the model of Star Trek's non-canon tie-ins were what he agreed to, and that he considers what happens in the SW novels to be a "parallel universe" to the movies.
George Lucas wrote:
I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it
consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek , we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions
[Howard Roffman] once said to me that there are two Star Trek universes: there's the TV show and then there's all the spin-offs. He said that these were completely different and didn't have anything to do with each other. So I said, "OK, go ahead."