Sequel to Nemesis?

[Guartho]

There are no characters or settings in common between the two.

Forgetting Romulus already?

Were there Romulans in Nemesis? Oh yeah, there was that one scene, I remember now.

 

[Withers]

Just the explicit intention of the writers,

You know for a solid fact that the intention of the writers was to not erase the prime universe?

Star Trek Online

I don't really see what that proves- that's like citing one of the novels that happens in the Prime Universe, post XI that it continues to exist. Sure, if that's canon, then so is everything else but it isn't and so it's not.

and the fact that it is nonsensical to assume the entire Prime universe winks out of existence simply because someone enters a wormhole.

Well, it wasn't a wormhole, and that isn't nonsensical since it has been portrayed in more episodes of Star Trek and science fiction as a whole than I can even list that if you change the past, it changes the future. A consequence of changing things in the past may well be that you prevent the future that should or would have been. If that's crazy explain it to Data in First Contact, to Daniels in Enterprise, to Janeway when she's on Relativity or to Marty McFly in Back to the Future.

Furthermore, since Nero entered before Spock, why wasn't Spock erased when Nero went through?

Spock was in the blackhole. Maybe it shielded him from the changes in the time line the same way the temporal vortex protected Enterprise E from changes in the time line when they were fighting the Borg.

I told you it would be an unpopular idea and one that I'm not exactly comfortable with either but ranting at me like I'm insane for even bringing it up isn't the best way to convince me that the whole notion has no merit. I'd be very receptive to that idea being debunked- but with reason, not... whatever that was.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

You know for a solid fact that the intention of the writers was to not erase the prime universe?

Yes.

Well, it wasn't a wormhole

Whatever it was, it's the same point.

Spock was in the blackhole.

Nero went in first; according to the position that says the entire Prime universe disappears when something like this happens, Spock should have ceased to exist.

and that isn't nonsensical since it has been portrayed in more episodes of Star Trek and science fiction as a whole than I can even list

That doesn't make it any less nonsensical.

or to Marty McFly in Back to the Future.

I rest my case.

 

[Shazam!]

maybe it could be called an alternate history.

If we can't call it a prequel, it's not much of a sequel either

This is what bugs me about Trek XI. Is it a Reboot? Prequel? Sequel?

It's no wonder the [alleged] plot holes endlessly debated when even the most fundamental aspect of the movie can't be agreed upon.

 

[Shazam!]

While what I'm about to say isn't going to be popular, for all we know, the other time line was completely erased when after Spock showed up.

I can kind of see why you'd want to rationalise it that way, but I'd like to think that the Spock we know and love from the Prime/Future universe would be doing more than just going "OH WELLS" when his planet is blown up as a result of time-travel shenanigans.

 

[Set Harth]

I don't really see what that proves- that's like citing one of the novels that happens in the Prime Universe, post XI that it continues to exist. Sure, if that's canon, then so is everything else but it isn't and so it's not.

To say that novels, comics or STO are "not canon" is one thing. But I don't intend to say that they are canon - in the sense that I don't assert that the specific events depicted in these products are to be considered "official" unless confirmed by later canon material. But the fact that this material even exists in the first place is telling. As indicated by the use of the phrase "post XI", they are predicated on the basis that the events in STXI did happen and the Prime universe went on normally. Given that STXI did not say that the Prime universe was destroyed, while the writers have specifically said that it was not, this seems to be further indication of the position of the franchise in general:

MTV Multiplayer: Has there been any involvement with people working on the movie, like J.J. Abrams?
Zinkievich: We've talked to Bad Robot a little bit. We worked with CBS to make sure anything they've been doing matches up with what we're doing, but there aren't massive tie-ins.

MTV Multiplayer: Who came up with the story?
Zinkievich: We were working really close with CBS, which owns the license.

 

[Withers]

You're saying they aren't canon but maybe they should be and I'm not buying. You can't eliminate the factors that contribute to the notion that the prime universe was erased thanks to the events of XI by pointing at the implications made by things that aren't considered official... by anyone. It just doesn't work like that.

And as to this:

Nero went in first; according to the position that says the entire Prime universe disappears when something like this happens, Spock should have ceased to exist.

I would posit that, if what happened in First Contact wasn't a reasonable enough explanation for why Spock didn't disappear, the fact that Nero hadn't started changing stuff significantly would be. He hadn't altered the past enough to upset the line of events that led to Prime Spock being who he was and where at the time he was pulled into the blackhole.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

You're saying they aren't canon but maybe they should be and I'm not buying.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if your belief about the Prime universe was what the creators of this film intended, these products wouldn't exist in the first place ( instead they'd be selling Abramsverse content or material set in the Prime before the Big End of Everything ).

You can't eliminate the factors that contribute to the notion that the prime universe was erased thanks to the events of XI by pointing at the implications made by things that aren't considered official... by anyone. It just doesn't work like that.

You seem to ignore the fact that the misguided "non-canon" defense doesn't apply to the writers.

the fact that Nero hadn't started changing stuff significantly would be. He hadn't altered the past enough to upset the line of events that led to Prime Spock being who he was and where at the time he was pulled into the blackhole.

Nero only "hadn't started changing stuff significantly" in 2233. At some point he would have "altered the past enough" and in single timeline theory that would still be prior to Spock's 2387.

 

[RookieBatman]

So, in conclusion -- make of it what you will. If you want it to be a sequel to Nemesis, it is.

If you don't want it to be a sequel, I have excellent news for you! It isn't!

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

I know. It's unsettling...

Well, it's not really unsettling, since they weren't ever going to be making any new stuff post-NEM anyway. As long as we still have our DVD's, the Prime universe is just as alive as it ever was.

Who put you in charge? How can the term "sequel" have any specific meaning at all if it becomes a matter of your opinion?

But you do seem to think that it's a matter of your opinion. (Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't make it fact.)

 

[Set Harth]

As long as we still have our DVD's, the Prime universe is just as alive as it ever was.

The Prime universe was still not destroyed by this film, regardless of what happens to your DVDs. It's "just as alive as it ever was", only without a Spock, a Narada, and a Romulus.

But you do seem to think that it's a matter of your opinion. (Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't make it fact.)

You're apparently missing the point. If you insist that all concepts and definitions are matters of opinion, then nothing is anything, and no film can be assumed to be a sequel, as long as there's someone out there waving the "OPINION" flag in a disgruntled attempt to delegitimize it. But don't take it from me:

Then we're back to square one. If these definitions are arbitrary, then the author's point of view is paramount, since he was the one who had to come up with the definitions. What you're implying here is that they're meaningless, since anyone can interpret them in a radically different way.

If a sequel is only a sequel when you say it is, that just means you don't accept that the concept can have any specific meaning at all ( which ultimately makes it useless as an attack against STXI ). I don't assume Wikipedia to be proof of anything, largely because Wikipedia material is written by completely random people and is often wrong ( but you'll find that no definition of sequel, no matter how respected the source, indicates subjectivity to opinion ). The creators of the film are a different story, as is the film itself.

What's a hologram of Leonard Nimoy doing floating around in the first few minutes of this film? What is this intended to convey? Does refusal of this obvious fact constitute anything more than sheer desperation?

 

[Ryan8bit]

Forgetting Romulus already?

You mean Spock's vision of Romulus? Doesn't count. It would if it had something to do with the Romulan senate or any events of Nemesis for that matter. It didn't.

But if that's all it takes, then Aliens is a sequel to Back to the Future because they both had part of the movie take place on Earth.

Who put you in charge? How can the term "sequel" have any specific meaning at all if it becomes a matter of your opinion?

Go back and read again, and notice that I didn't say whether it was a sequel was a matter of my opinion, but rather what the movie was about was my opinion. You don't have to be "in charge" to have an opinion on something, nor is that specific opinion of mine authoritative. I don't understand why you would think it was.

Also, if it's not a matter of opinion, then why is it a poll?

A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.
In many cases, the sequel continues elements of the original story, often with the same characters and settings.

And where is the evidence that the you-defined About() function is an essential part of the definition of a sequel?

I went ahead and bolded the section that was part of how I defined it.

The other part of my definition was frame of reference. I didn't elaborate on that much because I didn't think people would so strongly disagree, but let me reiterate my position so there is no confusion:

The movie's time period starts in and stays in the 23rd century. The only hint we have at the 24th century is through a mind meld, which is still performed in the 23rd century, and those events take up a mere fraction of the movie.

We've had several stories occur in Star Trek like this before that aren't nearly considered sequels:

-The Vorgons come from the 27th century, but "Captain's Holiday" is not a sequel to anything. It's definitely a cause and effect caused by the Vorgons' actions, but the clear emphasis is the present.
-Berlinghoff Rasmussen comes from the 22nd century after a historian came from the 26th century and Rasmussen steals his time machine. It's the same situation as the Vorgons that it doesn't matter what time period the time traveler comes from, the emphasis is the present.
-Captain Braxton comes from the 29th century. Same situation.

The differentiation is that fans perceive a chronology, and ignoring Enterprise, they think, "Oh, 2009. Well, 1987-1988 is 2364, so 2009 is 2385." They have this feeling that time keeps continuing in the Star Trek universe, and the writers somewhat acknowledged this. They picked a time period where they could blow up Romulus and not have it affect the already porous continuity of Star Trek. Since Nemesis had Romulus intact, it would have to take place some time after that. It really had nothing to do with Nemesis itself, and the time period was mostly arbitrary, just like the examples I chose. The only exception being that none of those time travelers were preexisting characters. The only reason this one involved a preexisting character is because the writers probably just wanted to see if Nimoy would do it.

Their process of writing must have gone something like this:
-Let's do a movie about the original series crew recast.
-It would be cool to have Shatner or Nimoy in it.
-The only way that would be possible is with time travel.
-Kirk died, so that's tough to do, but we could have Nimoy.
-Let's make it so that Nimoy coming back isn't contrived, so we'll have the story actually have something to do with his time period. This way, we can have it essentially be a reboot like we want and we [feel like we] can get around the burdens of continuity.
-Said idea conflicts with Nemesis, so we'll just place it after that.

You can probably fill in the gaps past that. The whole idea is that they always intended this movie to be in a certain time period, and everything else was just an afterthought to make that happen. This shows in the movie given how much time is focused on young Kirk and Spock.

So the story's frame of reference is the 23rd century. The choice of time travel is somewhat arbitrary to shoehorn Nimoy in. The time period he comes from is inconsequential in every way except for the relation to Romulus and Nero. It's not a sequel to anything.

To add to that, a claim that it's a sequel to Nemesis when the only thing they have in common is the planet Romulus, is bogus. It would be more debatable if it were claimed as a sequel to "Unification" much like Wrath of Khan is claimed to be a sequel to "Space Seed" and not the motion picture.

And there's also the name of the movie. They simply call it Star Trek. They don't give it a subtitle, and they don't give it a number. It's meant to be its own entity as part of a soft reboot.

At this point, the terms sequel and prequel aren't really applicable. Prequel was devised just as a way to explain how something didn't chronologically follow, but there aren't enough stories to warrant a term to describe things involving enough time travel. This particular movie could be called an intended prequel with a reboot spin by means of a sequel, but it's probably just best to condense that to reboot or alternate history.

So what? How does that neutralize their existence? Why was this scheme never used to pretend that Generations was not in the same continuity as TUC?

It doesn't neutralize their existence, it just makes them of less importance to the story. It's not Star Trek: Nero, it's just Star Trek, which many attribute as Kirk and Spock on the Enterprise. The focus is on their time, and anything that happens in the alternate universe doesn't really pertain to them. The time travelers are here now; it doesn't matter what comes before.

 

[RookieBatman]

As long as we still have our DVD's, the Prime universe is just as alive as it ever was.

The Prime universe was still not destroyed by this film, regardless of what happens to your DVDs. It's "just as alive as it ever was", only without a Spock, a Narada, and a Romulus.

My friend, you have a terrible habit of arguing with people who are not disagreeing with you. Withers said that it was a possibility that the time travel erased the Prime universe, and I was saying that even if that possibility were true, it wouldn't change what had already been recorded. At no time did I indicate any agreement that the Prime universe had been erased. Therefore, there was no reason to reiterate the point that the Prime universe hadn't been destroyed, since I don't disagree with it.

But you do seem to think that it's a matter of your opinion. (Just because Wikipedia says it, doesn't make it fact.)

You're apparently missing the point. If you insist that all concepts and definitions are matters of opinion, then nothing is anything, and no film can be assumed to be a sequel, as long as there's someone out there waving the "OPINION" flag in a disgruntled attempt to delegitimize it.

In a word: so? Why are you so worried that "no film can be assumed to be a sequel?" How does that harm anyone? If some random viewer wants to pretend that Highlander 2 isn't a sequel to Highlander, is that somehow going to affect your quality of life? I don't understand your level of vitriol on the subject.

But don't take it from me:

...And then you quote someone else's opinion.

Then we're back to square one. If these definitions are arbitrary, then the author's point of view is paramount, since he was the one who had to come up with the definitions. What you're implying here is that they're meaningless, since anyone can interpret them in a radically different way.

If a sequel is only a sequel when you say it is, that just means you don't accept that the concept can have any specific meaning at all ( which ultimately makes it useless as an attack against STXI ).

And here (bolded for emphasis) is where you seem to be missing the biggest point. I have no intention of using this line of discussion to attack STXI. I have said this before, and I'm stating it unequivocally now. Whether or not STXI is a sequel, prequel, requel or anything else has not and will not ever affect my opinion of the movie's quality, or my level of enjoyment for the movie. So, if this is useless as an attack against STXI, maybe that's just because I was never trying to attack STXI! It's true, I didn't like the movie. But that certainly doesn't mean that I can't discuss certain elements of it without those discussions having vindictive motivations. And I'm not even discussing it in negative terms, except you seem to have assigned a value of "not sequel = bad." This is not a viewpoint that I endorse at all, and again (and again and again), the discussion of whether or not this is a sequel has nothing to do with the perceived quality of the film.

 

[Set Harth]

You mean Spock's vision of Romulus? Doesn't count. It would if it had something to do with the Romulan senate

You don't think blowing up the Romulan senate has something to do with the Romulan senate? And you said there were no settings in common, now you're making use of those wheeled goalposts. Romulus = Romulus. However, it's a moot point because - as I'm sure you're aware - the overall setting is the same.

Go back and read again, and notice that I didn't say whether it was a sequel was a matter of my opinion, but rather what the movie was about was my opinion.

Notice that you linked its sequel status to your user-defined value of the About() function.

The focus is on their time, and anything that happens in the alternate universe doesn't really pertain to them.

Except when it causes everything that takes place in the film, and when the refugee from the Prime enables them to save the Federation. This is just another appeal to the same recently-invented fictional criterion.

It would be more debatable if it were claimed as a sequel to "Unification"

Which I did. However, given that Unification is in the same continuity as Nemesis, if a sequel to Unification featured the destruction of Romulus, would that place it before or after Nemesis?

Since Nemesis had Romulus intact, it would have to take place some time after that.

Exactly. Of course, in your average series of films, each successive installment is earlier in the chronology, but these guys are rebels.

And there's also the name of the movie. They simply call it Star Trek. They don't give it a subtitle, and they don't give it a number. It's meant to be its own entity as part of a soft reboot.

Seriously? Your claims are becoming more desperate. The films haven't been numbered since 1991. By this logic Generations was a reboot of the film series.

Also, if it's not a matter of opinion, then why is it a poll?

Why is it a poll? Let's see... because right after I cited argumentum ad populum, someone decided to make a poll in response? Since anyone can make a poll about anything, do you think this somehow proves that any undesirable fact can be neutralized by reducing it to a matter of opinion?

...And then you quote someone else's opinion.

On the topic of how reducing a concept to a matter of opinion renders the argument essentially pointless. Apparently, like everything else you find undesirable, that too can be thrown out by the same cheap tactic. How very meta!

It's true, I didn't like the movie.

The devil you say! I'm having a Claude Rains moment.

I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

 

[Ryan8bit]

You don't think blowing up the Romulan senate has something to do with the Romulan senate?

No, not specifically. It's vague and has to do with the planet as a whole. The movie has as much to do with the power struggle in the senate as it does with anyone else on Romulus, which is nothing at all. It has as much to do with the senate as it does with Sela, Pardek, Neral, or the Valley of Chula.

Except when it causes everything that takes place in the film, and when the refugee from the Prime enables them to save the Federation.

The effect is the only thing that matters and the cause is inconsequential. Again, they're there to serve the story of the present, it's not about their time any more than it was about the Vorgons' time or Captain Braxton's time.

This is just another fictional criterion, defined by you alone and invented on the fly, which doesn't factor into the definition of a sequel.

No, I used examples from stories that are not sequels to demonstrate why I think that's a valid assumption. And that isn't my sole criterion, which should be obvious by my previous post.

Why is it a poll? Let's see... because right after I cited argumentum ad populum, someone decided to make a poll in response?

I didn't read that thread, but it seems to me that if a definition of something is unclear that it starts to come down to opinion on how to define it. This movie is pretty clearly ambiguous in how to classify it.

Since anyone can make a poll about anything, do you think this somehow proves that any undesirable fact can be neutralized by reducing it to a matter of opinion?

There is no fact here though. And being "undesirable" has nothing to do with my points here, except for maybe to you. Somehow if it's not a sequel you perceive it as an attack on the movie, which is sort of absurd. I don't care what term describes it so long as it makes sense. A sequel to Nemesis makes no sense at all.

 

[Set Harth]

No, not specifically.

Unless one happens to be a Romulan senator, and gets blowed up real good.
But you ignore the overarching point. Nemesis is not regarded as a standalone film.

And that isn't my sole criterion, which should be obvious by my previous post.

It's not a necessary criterion at all.

The effect is the only thing that matters and the cause is inconsequential.

Ridiculous. According to who? Where is this established anywhere?

Again, they're there to serve the story of the present, it's not about their time any more than it was about the Vorgons' time or Captain Braxton's time.

Again, the you-defined About() function is irrelevant.

There is no fact here though.

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

[Withers]

I think once someone resorts to use of emoticons to emphasize a point the conversation/debate is over.

So, to advance this beyond... whatever that was, let me throw this out there.

Given that Nemesis was almost universally considered a bad movie, by the general movie-going audience, film critics and fans of Trek alike due in no small way to the impression that the film went out of its way to downplay the pomp and circumstance of the TNG casts' final voyage- why would anyone want to link XI to it?

Of course, I don't think it is a sequel, but even if I did I wouldn't want to do so. Unless the goal is to give Nemesis some sort of retroactive coat tail greatness from XI then I can't imagine what the point of being emphatic that XI was a sequel to X might be.

Which brings up something else I'll toss out there for the sake of veering this out of a realm approaching a time travel episode of Voyager-

If XI is a sequel to X then wouldn't it be logical to say that X is a prequel to XI? Meaning if you saw XI and hadn't seen X you could, in the event that XI was truly a sequel to X, be instructed to watch X to get an idea of the back story (as you could with any other film example of this; if you saw The Matrix: Reloaded but hadn't seen the Matrix someone might tell you to watch the Matrix to get a better idea of what was going on.)

That isn't the case here. Watching Nemesis would clarify absolutely nothing about XI except that Romulans did in fact exist and there was a place called Romulus established in canon before the events of XI. That's it. Everything else comes from something besides Nemesis. XI doesn't feature a single cast member, image, sound/visual effect, plot device or character from Nemesis. Nothing about XI would make more sense if you watched Nemesis.


So, there, chew on that.

-Withers-​

 

[Ryan8bit]

Unless one happens to be a Romulan senator, and gets blowed up real good.

Irrelevant to my point. While destruction of Romulus would set that into play, the movie is not about said Romulan senator. It was also not about the Romulan senate, which Nemesis partly was.

Sharing the same planet does not make it a sequel.

But you ignore the overarching point. Nemesis is not regarded as a standalone film.

It's obviously not standalone, but nor is it really a strict sequel to anything. It's just another movie in a series of movies based on TNG.

It's not a necessary criterion at all.

That's an opinion. Hopefully you see the irony there.

Ridiculous. According to who? Where is this established anywhere?

It's a pretty standard literary device. Back story (cause) is only a means of highlighting what is happening (effect) in the current story. It's what gives reason to a story currently in motion, but the focus of the story is how the characters deal with the effects of that. This is quite apparent in the movie given the order in which events play out. It gives Nero and Spock their reasoning, while still acknowledging what is at the forefront of the story.

I'll take that as a "yes".

I purposefully didn't answer yes or no because it refers to the status of this movie as a sequel to Nemesis as a fact, when I don't recall anybody affiliated with Paramount saying that it was. The movie was not billed anywhere as "the sequel to Nemesis" for so many reasons. 1, it is not a sequel to Nemesis. 2, they wanted this production to be a success by not referring to Nemesis, which was a terrible flop. 3, they wanted this movie to stand on its own, which is evident by its title.

The question also assumed too many things about people answering the poll, while ignoring that any label for this movie is questionable.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Withers, I absolutely agree on all that you say. An excellent post.

And I like this point (even though it's unrelated to the rest of the conversation):

I think once someone resorts to use of emoticons to emphasize a point the conversation/debate is over.

 

[Set Harth]

wouldn't it be logical to say that X is a prequel to XI?

The story I heard was that it was all the previous material taken as a whole. Or as someone once said: Nemesis is not regarded as a standalone film.

the movie is not about said Romulan senator.

The About() function is still irrelevant. But, you know, when you find a thread entitled What's this movie about?, knock yourself out.

Irrelevant to my point.

Not your original ( seemingly abandoned ) point about settings.

It's a pretty standard literary device.

The idea that nothing matters except what matters to you? In your fantasies, perhaps. Furthermore, to say that a root cause is "inconsequential" is contradictory on its face.

That's an opinion. Hopefully you see the irony there.

You're the one adding your own inventions to the definition of a sequel. Feel free to prove otherwise through some means other than mere insistence. But if all concepts are just matters of opinion, no fact - including that one - need be admitted, right? All you're proving is that you continue to think you can escape any undesirable reality by labeling everything an "opinion".

It's just another movie in a series of movies based on TNG.

The same TNG that Spock was in? Was this "TNG" a reboot itself, or did it draw upon an earlier continuity?

The movie was not billed anywhere as "the sequel to Nemesis" for so many reasons. 1, it is not a sequel to Nemesis.

That was pretty slick, slipping the "assume as fact what you intend to prove" thing by me like that.

 

[Ryan8bit]

The About() function is still irrelevant.

Why do you keep speaking in terms of programming? A helpful tip for communication is speaking in English, not C++.

And it is totally relevant to the point. You think this movie is a sequel to Nemesis strictly because both contain Romulus, and I already pointed out several posts ago why that makes absolutely no sense, yet you dwell on minutiae.

Was this "TNG" a reboot itself, or did it draw upon an earlier continuity?

In a sense it was both. What's your point?

That was pretty slick, slipping the "assume as fact what you intend to prove" thing by me like that.

That's not what I did. What I said is that it was not labeled as a sequel by anyone involved with the movie because it isn't one. If anyone involved had called it a sequel, your claim would have more credence. In fact, in many media outlets, they all call it a prequel, even though that term is mostly insufficient.