On continuity and geek-bait

Ross points us to the bootleg Star Trek trailer. Catch it while you can. I remain unmoved. Here's Ross on the franchise:

A while back, in a debate with Peter Suderman that's vanished into the American Scene's lost archives, I argued that the Trek franchise needed a complete reboot - one that keeps the iconic characters, keeps the Enterprise's five-year mission, and keeps the basic outlines of the Federation-Klingons-Romulan political dynamic, but otherwise untangles itself from the burden of maintaining real continuity with the five television series and ten movies that have come before. I suggested Batman Begins as a model.

Meh, I always hear sci-fi writers bitching about continuity. Meanwhile, James Bond is still rolling. I'd be more sympathetic if the stuff they're churning out wasn't so awful. Continuity didn't kill the last few 90s Batman sequels--Joel Schumacher did. Continuity didn't kill the the last few 80s Superman sequels--Richard Pryor, God bless him, did. And sorry to go back to this, but Mary Jane isn't--nor was she ever--the reason Spiderman drifted into suckage. (Was the Clone War Mary Jane's idea?)

Star Trek has been bad because the storytelling has been bad, because they needed to make the Borg more huggable. These dudes have an entire universe to play with, much of it unburdened by Kirk, Spok, or Wolf 359. I understand that you need tent-pole characters to market with, and I'm not opposed to prequels or reboots. But people keep pointing to the artifice, even though the basics don't bend. Batman Begins was good because Christopher Nolan kicked ass. Superman wasn't because Bryan Singer basically didn't. Rebooting, like bringing in new characters, like killing off major characters, like time travel, is a device. It works well when done well, and doesn't when it isn't