Sequel to Nemesis?

[Ryan8bit]

You have to stop editing your posts, or I might not address all your points.

Not your original ( seemingly abandoned ) point about settings.

My original point wasn't that a setting in itself is all that's necessary for a sequel, that's just what you reduced my argument to. Setting alone does not make something a sequel. Characters and events are necessary too.

The idea that nothing matters except what matters to you? In your fantasies, perhaps.

It doesn't have anything to do with what matters to me, but how the movie is framed. And that context is the 23rd century with little attention to what happened before.

Furthermore, to say that a root cause is "inconsequential" is contradictory on its face.

Then you don't understand cause and effect.

 

[Withers]

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.

This brings up yet another excellent point; the way this movie was sold to the public. They went out of their way to distance this film from everything that came before it with slogans like "Not Your Father's Trek." If it were a sequel to Nemesis in any capacity at all whatsoever you'd think they would have avoided putting so much distance between XI and previously seen Star Trek outings.

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.

That, in no way, addresses what I said. Obviously they took things from canon from many parts in the time line of the STU. Obviously. In the loosest sense of the word this movie is a sequel to the Star Trek Franchise itself I guess (though a more commonly accepted term would be addition) but that doesn't make it, specifically, a sequel to Nemesis. My original point was that If XI is a sequel to Nemesis, then Nemesis should be a prequel to XI and it isn't. For further musings on this subject see the original posts you seem to have skipped.

-Withers-​

 

[Wowbagger]

Depends what you mean by "sequel." Yes and no.

 

[Set Harth]

If it were a sequel to Nemesis in any capacity at all whatsoever you'd think they would have avoided putting so much distance between XI and previously seen Star Trek outings.

You mean like when they insisted on Nimoy and indicated that they wouldn't do the film without him? Or when they referenced The Wrath of Khan, Yesteryear, Journey To Babel, Unification, The Undiscovered Country, and so forth? But then again, "any capacity at all whatsoever" is just more carelessly inaccurate hyperbole, isn't it?

In the loosest sense of the word this movie is a sequel to the Star Trek Franchise itself I guess (though a more commonly accepted term would be addition)

Apparently so.

And it is totally relevant to the point.

To what point? The one that's irrelevant to the definition of a sequel?

Characters and events are necessary too.

So you continue to insist, but that doesn't make it true.

Then you don't understand cause and effect.

No, it looks more like you don't understand the definition of "inconsequential".

My original point wasn't that a setting in itself is all that's necessary for a sequel, that's just what you reduced my argument to.

I merely contradicted your original assertion that the films had no settings in common.

It doesn't have anything to do with what matters to me, but how the movie is framed.

Only the result of the Focus() function matters to you.

In a sense it was both.

Wrong. It was set in the preexisting continuity.

If anyone involved had called it a sequel, your claim would have more credence.

Yeah, it's not like I posted this in another thread or anything:

We looked at the movie as a sequel

 

[Withers]

If anyone involved had called it a sequel, your claim would have more credence.

Yeah, it's not like I posted this in another thread or anything:

We looked at the movie as a sequel

Unless the words that complete that sentence are 'to Nemesis' then you don't have a point.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

Unless the words that complete that sentence are 'to Nemesis' then you don't have a point.

It was alleged that the film was never called a sequel at all, and the words "to Nemesis" didn't appear then. My point was in response to that. I'm just playing by the apparent rules that say a concept, no matter how self-evident, cannot be deemed acceptable unless the writers have spoon-fed everyone a permission slip.

For further musings on this subject see the original posts you seem to have skipped.

You can try and accuse me of "skipping" posts, but you seem to have skipped the thread which prompted this poll, in which I never used the phrase "to Nemesis".
The "To Nemesis" thing is a game in the first place, as evidenced by your paragraph which links a sequel "to Nemesis" with supposed distance from previous Trek offerings plural. It's just a goalpost-moving exercise.

 

[Withers]

No. The only one playing a game here is you. You think if you contort this in enough different directions we'll lose track of whats going on and just eventually capitulate out of exasperation. Well, not me.

The way I see it this boils down to three major arguments that, so far, you've answered only with small bursts of practically inexplicable rhetoric or the old chestnut "that's your opinion and it doesn't make it true the way my opinion/interpretation makes things true." So the valid statements that have remained in limbo (so far as I can discern them), are as follows:

1.) If XI is a Sequel to Nemesis then Nemesis should be a prequel to XI. It isn't. In absolutely no stretch of the imagination is anything clarified in XI by watching Nemesis. XI does just fine all by itself without the events of Nemesis. If you watched XI and then watched Nemesis with no knowledge of Star Trek at all whatsoever outside those two movies it wouldn't be that hard to convince you that you were looking at two entirely different things that just so happened have the same place in them- and for all intents and purposes, they would be.

2.) The creators of this movie went out of their way to distance it from Trek of the past. It was billed as something new and in spite of the fact that we call it Star Trek XI they just called it Star Trek. While it might be fair to say that (through stretching of terms) XI is a sequel/successor to the Trek Franchise it wouldn't be fair to say, specifically, it was a sequel to Nemesis.

3.) There isn't a logical reason to think that the two movies were linked so emphatically because there's no logical reason anyone involved in creating XI would want them to be. There isn't a single cast member from Nemesis in XI. There isn't a single reference to events that took place in Nemesis. There isn't a mention of Enterprise-E or any of her crew in XI. XI isn't called Star Trek: Nemesis II (Thank the Gods!) and just about the only two things the movies actually share are the planet Romulus. And why would anybody want there to be a link between the two? Nemesis is reviled. What would the motive be to link a new, shinny movie to that old POS? There isn't one!


So, from where I stand, that's it broken down. You can wriggle the language and focus on minutiae, side step, obfuscate and maneuver this entire conversation into the Hundred Acre Wood to your hearts content but until those things can be addressed in a serious fashion, you're going to have a hard time convincing me (or anybody else) that Star Trek is the sequel to Nemesis.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

No. The only one playing a game here is you.

Translation: I know you are but what am I? You'll have to do better than that.

or the old chestnut "that's your opinion and it doesn't make it true the way my opinion/interpretation makes things true."

See above. You seem to have missed the point about reducing all reality to a matter of "opinion". Because it's only my opinion that such a thing would be a problem, right? And thus the word opinion becomes a convenient all-purpose battering ram which eliminates any unpleasant realities. ( Or not. ) I have more than opinion on my side, but feel free to ignore that too.

1.) If XI is a Sequel to Nemesis then Nemesis should be a prequel to XI.

You're still playing the same old game, and it's a strawman. If I state for the third or fourth time that Nemesis is not a standalone film, you simply deflect that. Once again, since you refuse to read the posts that gave rise to the poll in the first place, you fail to understand that the goalposts have been moved.

you're going to have a hard time convincing me (or anybody else) that Star Trek[ is the sequel to Nemesis.

More of the same.

2.) The creators of this movie went out of their way to distance it from Trek of the past.

Still didn't happen. By the way, what's all this about "Trek of the past"? I thought only Nemesis was relevant here.

 

[Withers]

1.) If XI is a Sequel to Nemesis then Nemesis should be a prequel to XI. It isn't. In absolutely no stretch of the imagination is anything clarified in XI by watching Nemesis. XI does just fine all by itself without the events of Nemesis. If you watched XI and then watched Nemesis with no knowledge of Star Trek at all whatsoever outside those two movies it wouldn't be that hard to convince you that you were looking at two entirely different things that just so happened have the same place in them- and for all intents and purposes, they would be.

Your response?

and it's a strawman.

No. It isn't. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man). I have made a completely valid statement in that if you're going to call Star Trek a sequel to Nemesis one should be able to call Nemesis a prequel to Star Trek and it is very plain for anyone to see that it isn't. Your "goal" is to convince me that Star Trek is a sequel to Nemesis. That post hasn't moved.

2.) The creators of this movie went out of their way to distance it from Trek of the past. It was billed as something new and in spite of the fact that we call it Star Trek XI they just called it Star Trek. While it might be fair to say that (through stretching of terms) XI is a sequel/successor to the Trek Franchise it wouldn't be fair to say, specifically, it was a sequel to Nemesis

Your response?

Still didn't happen.

What didn't happen? They didn't make this "Not (my) fathers Star Trek?" Well, gee, I think there are some people who might disagree with that. They did distance this film from the others at least enough to discredit the notion of it as a sequel to, specifically, Nemesis. As to

what's all this about "Trek of the past"? I thought only Nemesis was relevant here.

You understand that Nemesis would be included in "Trek of the past" when one is speaking about XI, right? That XI comes after X and that I-X are all before XI right? I can probably draw up a diagram in MS paint if that isn't clear somehow...

3.) There isn't a logical reason to think that the two movies were linked so emphatically because there's no logical reason anyone involved in creating XI would want them to be. There isn't a single cast member from Nemesis in XI. There isn't a single reference to events that took place in Nemesis. There isn't a mention of Enterprise-E or any of her crew in XI. XI isn't called Star Trek: Nemesis II (Thank the Gods!) and just about the only two things the movies actually share are the planet Romulus. And why would anybody want there to be a link between the two? Nemesis is reviled. What would the motive be to link a new, shinny movie to that old POS? There isn't one!

Your response?

...

Nothing (as of the time this was written, though you could have easily added something I won't get to in the interim.)

So, we have exactly what we started with exactly one post ago; nothing. Your goal post is at convincing me or just rationally selling the idea that XI is a sequel to Nemesis and so far you haven't made it past the 10 yard line.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

What didn't happen? They didn't make this "Not (my) fathers Star Trek?" Well, gee, I think there are some people who might disagree with that.

And as I'm sure we all know by now, their opinion dictates reality.

 

[Ryan8bit]

So you continue to insist, but that doesn't make it true.

Oh, so a movie can be a sequel if it only has a setting in common according to you? Then this movie is a sequel to Star Wars because they both contain the setting space.

Do you not see how ridiculous this is?

Romulus doesn't really count as the same setting because it's far too generic.

Yeah, it's not like I posted this in another thread or anything:

We looked at the movie as a sequel

I already said I didn't read the other thread. But it's nice to quote things in their entirety, not just in context:

"We looked at the movie as a sequel to the surviving member of the Starship Enterprise, who was Spock Prime, as we called him in the script."

The question in the original post was if it was a sequel to Nemesis, not a sequel to Spock the character.

 

[Set Harth]

Romulus doesn't really count as the same setting because it's far too generic.

Yes, that is indeed ridiculous.

The question in the original post was if it was a sequel to Nemesis, not a sequel to Spock the character.

You win against the strawman.

Your "goal" is to convince me that Star Trek is a sequel to Nemesis.

Since you insist on ignoring the posts that gave rise to the poll, I repeat: the phrase "to Nemesis" didn't appear there. But have fun playing your game.

No. It isn't.

If only it were, then "your response?" would be revealed as nothing more than asking a question that's already been answered. If only...

You understand that Nemesis would be included in "Trek of the past" when one is speaking about XI, right?

I also understand that when you talk about previous Trek offerings plural, with an s, you're referring to more than Nemesis.

 

[Withers]

I wrote the thread where the posts you're referring to were posted. Not only that I jumped on the Moderator on your behalf during the very conversation you started there (you're welcome.) Of course I read it.

Since you insist on ignoring the posts that gave rise to the poll, I repeat: the phrase "to Nemesis" didn't appear there.

So, since you can't answer any of the 3 major points in my case with anything more substantive than a bite of cotton candy, are you retracting the idea that Star Trek was a sequel to Nemesis and instead positing that it was just a sequel?

PS: Take your time writing a full post. This isn't a race and responding to posts that are edited half a dozen times is annoying.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

I wrote the thread where the posts you're referring to were posted. Not only that I jumped on the Moderator on your behalf during the very conversation you started there (you're welcome.) Of course I read it.

You need to read it again, so you can clear up your confusion.

are you retracting the idea that Star Trek was a sequel to Nemesis and instead positing that it was just a sequel?

Retracting whose idea? One more time: Since you insist on ignoring the posts that gave rise to the poll, I repeat: the phrase "to Nemesis" didn't appear there.

 

[Withers]

You need to read it again.

Done. Nothing changed. What is it you're expecting me to get out of reading exactly what you've posted here, there?

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

since you can answer any of the 3 major points in my case with anything more substantive than a bite of cotton candy

What 3 major points? You mean the fabricated #2 which is contradicted by reality, and the #1 and #3 which are just the same old game?

What is it you're expecting me to get out of reading exactly what you've posted here, there?

One more time: Since you insist on ignoring the posts that gave rise to the poll, I repeat: the phrase "to Nemesis" didn't appear there.

So what, in fact, was actually being debated there? Do you know? Did you read it?

 

[Withers]

Will you post in TNZ so I can use the language that is appropriate right now but would almost certainly get me banned were I to say it here?

What 3 major points? You mean the fabricated #2 which is contradicted by reality, and the #1 and #3 which are just the same old game?

This is what I'm saying. You can't argue anything. You haven't argued anything. All you've done is obfuscate and skirt around things by calling them invalid, opinion based, fanciful, or "the same old game" (whatever the hell that means.) Until you can debate as opposed to dodge this conversation isn't ever going to go anywhere.

It depicts a chain of events which began after Nemesis.

http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=114972&page=36

After blocking with a bunch of semantics and completely ignoring blocks upon blocks of text in the other thread you said that. How else is one to interpret your ever changing opinion if not that you think XI is a sequel to Nemesis? If that isn't your opinion then what are you doing in a thread entitled Sequel to Nemesis?

What is your point if not that?

-Withers-​

 

[Ryan8bit]

The question in the original post was if it was a sequel to Nemesis, not a sequel to Spock the character.

You win against the strawman.

What strawman? I dunno, maybe you're just having an argument with yourself, but I was debating the original question in this thread. I've already said that I didn't read any other thread, just this one here. I don't care what you were arguing about in another thread because that doesn't even apply to this one apparently.

And with that we have a delicious parallel. Just like with Nemesis and Star Trek '09, I don't have to read whatever thread that was to make a post in this one.

If you wanna discuss the context of this thread and not some weird idea in your head, get back to me.

 

[startrekrcks]

isn't the film not a prequel to TOS that thought just popped up in my head any thoughts?

 

[Devon]

I don't consider the 11th film to be a sequel, but I do think of it as a regular installment to the franchise. I don't consider it a prequel either.