Are Trek fans overly obsessed with continuity compared with other genre fans? I tend to think so. When I was a kid, I was a huge fan of the TV version of Alien Nation. Some of you might remember that the show was cancelled in 1990 following a season-ending cliffhanger in which some of the characters had been poisoned by bacteria created by a group of human purists, headed by a woman named Darlene Bryant, for the purpose of eradicating the alien Newcomers.
Four years later, Fox decided to produce a TV movie resolving the cliffhanger. Unfortunately four years had passed and the characters all looked older, particularly Lauren Woodland, who played the lead alien's daughter Emily.
So changes had to be made. Emily's age was retconned and made into an important plot point. The year was retconned from 1996 to 1999. The entire final episode cliffhanger was essentially scrapped and encapsulated into a two minute opening scene in which only the most important details of the original story were retained. Furthermore, there were inexplicable differences. Darlene Bryant was now Phyllis Bryant. The bacteria was now a virus. Captain Bryon Grazer was now Captain Bryan Grazer. References were made to George's recent promotion which happened in the last series episode -- which the opening scene of the movie erased.
Had that happened to a Trek series, imagine the fallout, the screaming about alternate universes and canon. Among Alien Nation fans, I don't remember any issue at all. No one talked about continuity, canon, alternate universes, or anything like that.
Granted, that was a long time ago. I'm not really active in any fandom, other than making occasion posts here. Can anyone else comment on the similarities and differences between Trek fans and other fans when it comes to continuity?