Mr. Comic Book wrote:
...I don't want the "prime timeline" back. It's time to move on.
I don't know if I entirely agree. One of the endearing things about cultural icons like Star Trek and Doctor Who is that they haven't been rebooted. Star Trek has found a unique way to continue anew, and Doctor Who has had one of the most brilliant runs in modern sci-fi television.
Give it time. Eventually, when the Hartnell-present continuity of Dr. Who
runs its course, it'll be rebooted from scratch. It's not going to be immune to a complete restart at some point.
And you know what? It shouldn't. It's a strong enough property to withstand it. Star Trek
is only now showing it can survive rebooting and reinterpretation and still be successful. I don't see where or how the same can't apply to Dr. Who
I can't see the new continuity being canned, but in its present form it has a limited shelf-life. Movie contracts and film star cast members won't give the sort of longevity you get with TV shows. At some point Pine, Quinto and co. will move on and necessitate another reboot, a spin off or a jump forward in time.
Every incarnation of a long-running franchise has a limited shelf life. Periodic reboots are the norm, not the exception. I wouldn't expect the Abramsverse to last for decades on end. It's just not realistic, nor would it remain accessible to newcomers were it to drag out as the "prime timeline" did. It would eventually fall victim to the same pitfalls that killed the old continuity. There is something to be said for knowing where to call it quits instead of wearing out your welcome, and Paramount would be wise to do that from here on out.
Further, if guys like Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Robin Hood, and such can be recast and rebooted frequently without any undue harm to the characters, I don't see how or why Kirk, Spock, and the gang can't do the same. I don't see them as being more fragile than any other long-standing characters.