There was a time when Smallville was new to me. I came to it pretty late, around Season Five or Six, so it was a good long time after it was new to the rest of the world. But I figured that after five or so years, he must be getting close to being Superman. As I continued to watch, he showed no sign because, of course, they needed to keep the show about a pre-Superman Clark going. However, in my Seventeen Year old optimism, I decided that Clark was Superman already, and that the show's version of the Superman costume was that infamous Red jacket and blue T-shirt combo that had begun to burn a hole in my eyes. It was a great idea that I thought the show wouldn't bother to prove wrong if it wanted to keep going and it made things so exciting. I loved Clark (even if he was a whiny d-bag), but by this time he was really different to the guy I thought of as Superman, I thought that maybe this Clark didn't have to become 'Superman' that maybe this version could turn into it's own thing and maybe the character I was watching was in fact the show's version of Superman. And then the last three Seasons started to focus on actually making Clark into Superman, and I was disappointed, because to me it felt like the show was taking a step backwards, like it was afraid to just get on with things. These problems were always ones associated with Smallville. Over the years I've come to accept that, as a result of being a network television show it had certain rules to follow. Now flash forward to last week when I (rather belatedly) went to see the latest Star Trek film 'Into Darkness' and there was a very specific point in the film that I found myself disappointed. Be warned, there's spoilers ahead. Not major ones, I won't even mention Benedict Cumberbatch I swear, but just in case you don't like the tiny things spoiling and your even later than me in seeing the film, be warned. If we can now take a quick trip back to 2009. The Star Trek franchise has been rebooted by Mr. Abrams, long time fans hate it, new fans love it, there's two Spocks etc. The film ends (and tiny but obvious spoilers here too) with Kirk and co saving the day, Kirk is now Captain Kirk and we hear the famous lines 'Space the Final Frontier...' I distinctly remember feeling at the time, a small excitement. That a new version of the Trek Universe had been set up, and that it was time for some new variations on the old story. But that importantly, the origin stuff was all out of the way. That the crew of the Enterprise were now ready to go on their five year mission. And now back to last week. Imagine my shock as (tiny spoiler) Kirk is finally awarded the five year mission at the end of the film. So what? Does this mean that everything we've just watched was still just origin story? That after two movies we're still not watching the crew on any of the adventures that matter? And more importantly, can't we just get on with it please? It's bad enough when Superhero films are constantly rebooted, and a retelling of their basic origins needs to be constantly rehashed, but at least then we usually have the guarantee of a decent second film. Here we don't even get that, what we get is film makers too scared to touch the original, even though they've already gone out of their way to set up a new version of the Universe, and thus also made an attempt to not negate everything that once happened. It's representative of a wider problem that Abrams Star Trek films have of trying to please fans by redoing stuff, but also by not redoing stuff. I'll be honest, I've never been much of a Star Trek fan, so why do I care? Because Abrams has gone to lengths to attract people like me to the franchise, with a sort of promise that I can enjoy this new version of the Enterprise's adventures, without having to wade my was through nearly fifty years of (admittedly on and off) materiel, only to be told that actually this isn't their proper adventures. It's an Easter Egg, yes. It's a nod to long time fans. It was the same with the end to 2012's brilliant James Bond film Skyfall, as we see (MORE SPOILERS, THIS TIME FOR BOND) Judy Dench's M replaced by Ralph Fiennes' more traditional male M, complete with classic assistant Miss Moneypenny. While not quite on the same level as the Star Trek example, this ending still gives off an overall scent of 'Now finally, he's James Bond'. Despite the fact that we saw a moment that implied this transition at the end of both of the previous two films. Skyfall manages to make Craig's character feel a lot more like the character we were once familiar with, but then this ending gives off the impression that everything that's happened until now wasn't the story that needed telling. It's become apparent over the last decade or so, that big studios think the best way to revitalise a franchise is to reset it. Whether or not you think that is the case, it's become something we have to deal with. My worry though, is that we're now on our way to a world where a franchise is rebooted with every film because people are scared to mess with the original films. While to an extent this is understandable, if studios are insistent on rebooting franchises so often, it might be nice if they had the guts to stick with it, to commit to their decision, instead of ruining the credibility of the world they've created by constantly negating their last effort.