Yes, it is. Having multiple continuities, multiple versions of the story, has enabled characters like Batman or Superman to survive in the popular consciousness and remain relevant to audiences for almost seventy years.
Think about that. Seven decades, people have been reading, listening to, or watching these characters. Seven decades, and still they're bringing in new fans and saying new things. Would anyone know or care about Batman today if Bob Kane, Bill Finger, and DC Comics had decided that Batman would only ever have one continuity and it would be a completely realistic, self-consistent one? No. Batman would have been killed off decades ago, and works like The Dark Knight would never have been produced.
Or consider the hundreds of permutations of the Legend of King Arthur. Everything from The Sword in the Stone to Le Morte d'Arthur to The Once and Future King to The Mists of Avalon to.... It's wonderful.
First: those comics are BAD. (I'm not counting the exceptions, the graphic novels, often in less big companies here, I'm talking the superheroes.) It's not a wonder it's considered kiddy entertainment and that's exactly what they are. And things continue as they are, there's a good chance they won't remain that way. You see; new fans? Not really. Readership is declining constantly; they're increasing prices per comic to compensate for the loss.
And part of the reason that the readership is declining, is because they've been doing the same thing for decade after decade after decade after decade. The same thing over and over again. They're "reboots" aren't really reboots, they don't do much if anything different; it's just the same story AGAIN.
You know, kinda what Star Trek has been doing in the past decade.
Also, Batman and Arthur NEED retelling. They're stuck in a niche, a hole, a tiny place. Gotham an Britain - the Dark Ages.
Star Trek in contrast is not. Star Trek has a massive canvas, multiple time places, an ENTIRE FFING Galaxy (and a universe really) not to mention side dimensions. Do you have ANY idea just HOW BIG a galaxy is!? Just HOW MUCH is left UNTOLD!? And that's just in one time moment, let alone the future, other dimensions, and other galaxies.
There's no NEED to retreat the same little niche again, and again, and again. Tell some of the untold stuff already!
But no - again, with Vulcans - in Voyager and then AGAIN in Enterprise. What about the Andorians for a change, the Bolians, the Caitians the TELLARITES! So much NEW, DIFFERENT, unexplored stuff... (And that's just the things we actually have seen glimpses off - the truly uknown; it can... well, fill a galaxy.)
But go back and do one little thing over and over again. Kirk/Bones/McCoy again!? Could it be used to really explore some truly new and unknwon stuff as well? Possibly, but it's going to be relatively hard. Kirk/Bones/McCoy are going to have to be in there as the main characters; the depth of exploration Spock (and his species) got in TOS and the movies gave him is pretty much impossible. That would require the unknown and new or (virtualy) unexplored to part of the main cast/themes/subjects of a (series of/or movies).
has a far better chance of surviving and staying relevant as the years go on if it follows that lead. I love the original Trek continuity. But I think it's time for Trek to embrace the idea of multiple continuities, multiple versions. Greater adaptability increases a story's chances of survival; a tree that bends with the wind is more likely to survive than one that stays rigid and gets blown over.
No, actually, it doesn't. Because it means we get to see the same thing over and over and over and over again and again and again. It's exactly the reason why Trek got so stale in the last decade. It's the reason why to keep it from getting tedious and repetitive an Arthur movie really only comes along once every ten years or so (unless they stumble on a truly original take, or rather spin). Which would mean you'd get a Star Trek only once a decade.
And besides, for all we know, there's some perfectly good explanation for why all these things that seem to violate continuity actually don't. We won't know until we see the film.
All not mattering one bit.
No, it's not, because you're relying on the idea that there's one "true" version of the story and that any deviation from that is bad. But what makes one version "truer" than another? What makes Mallory's version of the Matter of Britain superior to John Steinbeck's, or TH White's, or Marion Zimmer Bradley's? You may have your favorite, but that's subjective, not objective.
No, it's because Star Trek doesn't need to be REtold. Star Trek could have been bigger and grander, and has been so for quite some while. There's so much to explore, so much to do - why retell the same story?
I didn't say you couldn't, in theory, break the stale formula without changing the continuity. But that's what people have been trying for a while now, and it hasn't worked yet. So I say: Try something new. Do something no one's done before. Let's move Star Trek to the next phase in the evolution of any long-lived story and embrace the idea of multiple continuities. Those who like the original will always have it, and those who prefer something different can see something new in the newer continuities.
NO! They have NOT been trying to break the stale formula. The only one's who tried and somewhat succeeded are the DS9 writers, and that's only because they outright defied the studio bosses and their little gopher.
For a decade, they've done NOTHING but redoing the exact same formula, the exact same formulaic story telling, the exact same stories over and over again - to the point of lifting stories and visuals from PREVIOUS Star Trek shows as practical carbon copies. Nemesis vs TWoK anyone? Trip with a spoiled princess - James T Kirk with a spoiled princess. Phase cannons vs. Phasers same ffing SFX, they get one little difference; the spacial torpedoes, and after 2 years? It isn't the same enough! Bring in the photon(ic) torpedoes, with the exact same SFX as Voyager! Yay!
It's the same, the same, the same, the same, and there's been NO attempt at change WHATSOEVER. Everything was done to RESIST change, which is SO utterly blatant in Enterprise.
No, defacing it is letting it die because no one other than a handful of eccentrics gives a shit about it anymore.
No, defacing it, is continuity it on with crap to be dumped upon the magnificence that came before. Letting something die, is often showing respect.
In that sense, I agree completely. The essence of what Star Trek is has nothing to do with shared continuity: It has to do with whether or not it tells a story about a future that we can all aspire to, about a better world and a better life for future generations. As long as the story is optimistic, then the essence of what Star Trek is will remain the same, and in that sense, its "purity" will remain.
Then Forbidden Planet is Star Trek, Babylon 5 is Star Trek, and on, and on. Have so few characteristics and you can have rectancular "saucer sections", and triangular ion drives - and no warp drive, and Kirk be a cold-blooded murderer, etc. etc.
No, actually, we don't. I refer you to the ridiculous Enterprise built on Earth scene. I refer you to all the other scenes talked about.
I'm not convinced that something like the
Enterprise being built on Earth -- and BTW, Roddenberry wrote in
The Making of Star Trek that he thought at least part of the ship was built on Earth -- is a violation of continuity. So far as I know, there is no canonical data on where the ship was built.
This isn't continuity, this is idiocy, stupidity, and scientifically as inaccurate as you can get. It has no substance, it's just a a kewl scene of Kirk driving up to it with his motor cycle, envoking umpteenth other movies having done the same. The substance is gone, it's just style.
Odd, isn't it? That the writers apparently didn't think so inconsistent that they couldn't use it. It's almost like they establish that... shock, Spock wasn't always so well in control of his emotions. What a horror! It's inconsistent! There was character development!
I would argue that the idea that Spock would be grinning in one episode and claiming that he's always suppressed his emotions in another is inconsistent, but even if I grant you that,
Has he actually TRUTHFULLY claimed that he's ALWAYS suppressed his emotions SUCCESFULLY all the time? Last time I checked, he's racistically constantly putting down humanity for being such barbarians, and them Vulcans being oh, so much better. Doesn't exactly sound like someone who has his emotions perfectly suppressed now does it?
you can't possibly tell me that something like "The Alternate Factor"'s claiming that anti-matter is a substance that will destroy the universe if it comes into contact with normal matter is consistent with later episodes establishing that it's the stuff that powers the ship, or that Mister Leslie dying in one episode and being alive in the next isn't inconsistent.
It claimed that an anti-matter version of one person touch a matter version of that same person touching would destroy the universe; this anti-matter version standing on the soild of matter planet.
It's a really bad science, really bad episode.
It's inconsistant in its quality, but not continuity.
