I agree Star Trek has a good share of continuity issues that require we Trekkies (I'm not a Trekker - ugh) to fill in the holes with all kinds of rationalizations and cognitive dissonance. But to its credit, Prime Trek did its best to keep that continuity - perhaps more than any other franchise.
Nope, they just put out technical manuals and timeline books which glossed over the discontinuities. The differences in warp speed between Voyager and the other series' completely breaks the Trekverse. And guess what? The Voyager people deliberately ignored what TOS and the TOS movies had established. That's the opposite of trying.
Ironically, that was the very thing the Trek Rebooters complained about in their justification for the alternate reality - an admission of creative bankruptcy.
Indeed, a prequel where anything can happen is far more exciting than "scenes before TOS" which just connect dots.
But my commentary was generally about lamenting "reboots," with a cynical swipe at Orwellian attempts to doublespeak "remake." Abrams Trek is just one example. Batman, Spiderman, blah, blah, blah - they all have the disease. Remakes used to be decades apart - not any more. The only series midway in I wish they would "reboot," they haven't - Alien 3, a complete and artistically brutal waste of good character development in the form of Snuff Writing out Newt, Hicks, and Bishop - an example of writers getting their jollies by pissing on franchises like dogs to make their mark. Same with Kirk and, particularly regrettable - Picard's family for a throwaway line by Soren thereby making TNG's episode "Family" a tragedy instead of an uplifting story when we see it again. As if death and saving the world/universe is the only thing they can write anymore that has any dramatic strength, but, oddly, little depth.
And yes, Hollywood spouses are easy targets. But I used it as an abstract reference these days of needing to "reboot" every few years or hook up with someone new every night, week or month because of whatever it is - lack of attention span, lack or fear of commitment, the MTV quick-cut edit and shaky cam style of cinematography, or the inability to be happy with what you have for a long time? Whatever. We're like runaway consumers always waiting for the next new thing and never happy with what we've been given - yet spoiling ourselves with two minute trailers and continuous set reports so nothing can possibly be new and our thirst can never be quenched. Ever. Like drug addicts. I just lump it all together into the problems of society today. I don't doubt they're all connected, if only loosely. So we get reboots galore and more news about Hollywood spouses daily.
Society today has far worse problems than movie trailers and reboots. And I promise you, had the internet existed in the 80's, fans would be obsessing over every last detail of the classic movies too. Look up the letterzine Interstat
or the old Best of Trek
books - fans were making the same complaints about Trek now as they were back then. Wrath of Khan
even got complaints so similar to Into Darkness
' that a BBS member swapped the names around and posted a thread about it
Reboots are nothing new. Look at theatre, where stories have been retold with new actors and modifications since the dawn of time. You're looking at a small sample of entertainment and calling the changes "the degradation of society" when those same changes have been going on throughout the creation of our society. Just not in your favourite medium with as much frequency as we see now. Fictitious characters are more than the actors who portray them. That's what makes them special.