Sequel to Nemesis?

[Set Harth]

How else is one to interpret your ever changing opinion if not that you think XI is a sequel to Nemesis?

My position isn't changing. We seem to have different ideas of what is connoted by that phrase. Interestingly, however, you also seem to assert that the position "it depicts a chain of events which began after Nemesis" implies the result "XI is a sequel to Nemesis", when the first is merely a statement of fact.

Until you can debate as opposed to dodge this conversation isn't ever going to go anywhere.

I'm not dodging anything. The presumption of "distance" is invalid, and the other "points" are predicated on a mischaracterization of my position.

If that isn't your opinion then what are you doing in a thread entitled Sequel to Nemesis?

Ask the other people in the same thread who are expressing the same position.

I don't care what you were arguing about in another thread because that doesn't even apply to this one apparently.

If you say so. This appears to be just another expression of the "in the moment" philosophy which pretends that the backstory is irrelevant and of no consequence so that it can be conveniently ignored. However, we got here by way of a thread in which people had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the concession that STXI could be viewed as a sequel in any way at all.

 

[BillJ]

A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.

Seems like a sequel to me. But what do I know?

 

[di_mar]

Since Roman Numerals confuse me, I'm going to assume that XI is the 2009 movie. For me, it was not a sequel, nor a prequel, as the movie takes place in an alternate reality... and it tells the tale of a completely different crew.
Besides, I was not fond of Nemisis because [SPOILER] of what happened to Data!

 

[CaptainStoner]

No, XI is not in any way a sequel to NEM. There are no threads that continue from NEM-XI, no characters that continue. There's no way to call it a sequel.

 

[Withers]

If that isn't your opinion then what are you doing in a thread entitled Sequel to Nemesis?

Ask the other people in the same thread who are expressing the same position.

So, essentially, to figure out what your stance/opinion/purpose for being in this thread at all is, I have to repetitively re-read a different thread, make sense of your circular statements, and then ask other people? I'd say that brings an end to our debate.

When the prosecution shows up in court they don't make the jury, the judge and the defense guess at who they're trying to prosecute or what it is they've supposedly done. This can't work if half the debate can't decide what its position is (assuming it even has one.)


What are you trying to say? Do you think XI is a sequel to Nemesis or not? It's a yes or no question not a 'refer to my previous statements/other threads/other people' question- yes or no? What is your point? If you can't answer that, in your own words, then there's no point to my continuing on as I could just as easily have the same conversation with a brick wall.

-Withers-​

 

[RookieBatman]

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!

Gather 'round, everybody! We have a winner for Most Out of Context Quotation of the Year. I have just one question, Set Harth: Did you even read the rest of the paragraph, or did you just scan over it real quick until you found something you thought would be real juicy? You talk about logical fallacies like "moving the goalposts," but I'd say this fairly eclipses them all. This is cheap and sophomoric argumentation at it's most obvious.

I'm guessing Set Harth doesn't care what the rest of the paragraph says, since it doesn't serve his purpose of villifying people who dislike the movie, but for those of you who are interested in seeing what people actually said, here's the context from which he drew that. See if you can find it buried in there amongst all the stuff that's completely not in opposition to the movie:

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.

See, I have to conclude at this point that it's not even so important to him to defend the movie (which would be completely unnecessary), as it is to attack people who didn't like it. At least, I can see no other reason why he would so desperately ignore the reality here. (Not the reality of whether or not it's a sequel, but of whether or not this is an attack. Because, to pointlessly reiterate, it's not and never was.)

 

[RookieBatman]

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

I think he's already proven repeatedly that that is not his intention.

I swear, this has gone beyond of the point of being annoying, back around to being morbidly entertaining.

 

[startrekrcks]

So it the film is neither sequel or prequel just wondering.

 

[JarodRussell]

So it the film is neither sequel or prequel just wondering.

It's not. It's a reboot. It is to any previous Star Trek what Superman Returns is to the Christopher Reeves movies. Although Marlon Brando appeared as Superman's father and John William's original music was used, it is NOT a sequel.

 

[BillJ]

So it the film is neither sequel or prequel just wondering.

It's not. It's a reboot. It is to any previous Star Trek what Superman Returns is to the Christopher Reeves movies. Although Marlon Brando appeared as Superman's father and John William's original music was used, it is NOT a sequel.

Disagree.

Star Trek 2009 is a direct continuation of Star Trek: Countdown, which picks up the toys after Star Trek: Nemesis.

At the very least... it is an indirect sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

 

[JarodRussell]

Disagree.

Star Trek 2009 is a direct continuation of Star Trek: Countdown, which picks up the toys after Star Trek: Nemesis.

At the very least... it is an indirect sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

The comic is not canon.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/

Especially since most of the movie is totally inconsistent with the comic.

 

[BillJ]

Disagree.

Star Trek 2009 is a direct continuation of Star Trek: Countdown, which picks up the toys after Star Trek: Nemesis.

At the very least... it is an indirect sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

The comic is not canon.

http://trekmovie.com/2009/05/22/orci-and-kurtzman-reveal-star-trek-details-in-trekmovie-fan-qa/

Especially since most of the movie is totally inconsistent with the comic.

I'm not really sure that this would be defined as a "canon" argument. Simple fact of the matter is that one story picks up from another.

A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.

A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors, or (perhaps improper usage) any narrative that has a preceding narrative of its own

By either definition you don't even need Star Trek: Countdown to consider Star Trek 2009 a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

 

[JarodRussell]

A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.

A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors, or (perhaps improper usage) any narrative that has a preceding narrative of its own

By either definition you don't even need Star Trek: Countdown to consider Star Trek 2009 a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

So the next Nolan-Batman movie will be a sequel to 1989 Batman?

 

[BillJ]

A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.

A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors, or (perhaps improper usage) any narrative that has a preceding narrative of its own

By either definition you don't even need Star Trek: Countdown to consider Star Trek 2009 a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

So the next Nolan-Batman movie will be a sequel to 1989 Batman?

That isn't even in the same league and you know it. Disappointing.

If a character from the far future of the 1989 Batman universe were to go back in time and be the cause of the Nolan universe, then that would be a sequel. By introducing Spock Prime and events from the Prime universe they went from re-boot to sequel. Sorry.

 

[JarodRussell]

By either definition you don't even need Star Trek: Countdown to consider Star Trek 2009 a sequel to Star Trek: Nemesis.

So the next Nolan-Batman movie will be a sequel to 1989 Batman?

That isn't even in the same league and you know it. Disappointing.

If a character from the far future of the 1989 Batman universe were to go back in time and be the cause of the Nolan universe, then that would be a sequel. By introducing Spock Prime and events from the Prime universe they went from re-boot to sequel. Sorry.

Would you say the same had Spock Prime not been played by Nimoy (but with the rest of the movie staying the same)?

 

[BillJ]

So the next Nolan-Batman movie will be a sequel to 1989 Batman?

That isn't even in the same league and you know it. Disappointing.

If a character from the far future of the 1989 Batman universe were to go back in time and be the cause of the Nolan universe, then that would be a sequel. By introducing Spock Prime and events from the Prime universe they went from re-boot to sequel. Sorry.

Would you say the same had Spock Prime not been played by Nimoy (but with the rest of the movie staying the same)?

Yes. Because the story hinges on an action in the Prime universe being the cause of the state of the new universe.

 

[JarodRussell]

That isn't even in the same league and you know it. Disappointing.

If a character from the far future of the 1989 Batman universe were to go back in time and be the cause of the Nolan universe, then that would be a sequel. By introducing Spock Prime and events from the Prime universe they went from re-boot to sequel. Sorry.

Would you say the same had Spock Prime not been played by Nimoy (but with the rest of the movie staying the same)?

Yes. Because the story hinges on an action in the Prime universe being the cause of the state of the new universe.

What in this movie tells you that the Old Spock character comes from the same universe as Nemesis, TNG: Unification, TWOK or TUC?

 

[BillJ]

Would you say the same had Spock Prime not been played by Nimoy (but with the rest of the movie staying the same)?

Yes. Because the story hinges on an action in the Prime universe being the cause of the state of the new universe.

What in this movie tells you that the Old Spock character comes from the same universe as Nemesis, TNG: Unification, TWOK or TUC?

I would have to go with writer intent here via Star Trek: Countdown. Even though Spock Prime doesn't have clear memories of the Prime timeline, as we saw in the movie.

 

[JarodRussell]

I would have to go with writer intent here via Star Trek: Countdown. Even though Spock Prime doesn't have clear memories of the Prime timeline, as we saw in the movie.

So the movie itself can't say if it's a sequel (I myself don't care about bonus features, as a movie has to make sense all on its own).

By the definitions you quoted... if in the next Batman movie the ONLY reference to the previous story is Bruce Wayne saying "The Joker has been my toughest enemy until now", then it could very well be considered to be a sequel to the 1989 Batman. Which is interesting. Maybe a less exaggerated example is James Bond. Is Licence to Kill a sequel to On Her Majesty's Secret Service?

 

[BillJ]

I would have to go with writer intent here via Star Trek: Countdown. Even though Spock Prime doesn't have clear memories of the Prime timeline, as we saw in the movie.

So the movie itself can't say if it's a sequel (I myself don't care about bonus features, as a movie has to make sense all on its own).

By the definitions you quoted... if in the next Batman movie the ONLY reference to the previous story is Bruce Wayne saying "The Joker has been my toughest enemy until now", then it could very well be considered to be a sequel to the 1989 Batman.

The only answer that really matters here is the one that makes you happy.

But we do have a Paramount approved game Star Trek Online, apparently in the Prime timeline, set in the year 2409 with no Romulus.

At the end of the day, if you want to consider The Dark Knight a sequel to Tim Burton's Batman more power to you. Even though they are two distinct tellings of the Batman material. The writers' of Star Trek 2009 purposely linked their story to the previous universe. Why else is the character referred to as "Spock Prime" in the script? When Spock One/Spock Two or Old Spock/Young Spock would have just as easily done the job.