Sequel to Nemesis?

[CaptainStoner]

I haven't seen the comic, so I'm missing something there. But XI certainly doesn't seem to follow NEM in any meaningful way. It's almost like saying a random episode of DS9 (excluding the tribble one) is a sequel to a random episode of TOS. It may fit some lawyer-esque definition of "sequel", but where it matters: not so much.

 

[Withers]

I haven't seen the comic, so I'm missing something there. But XI certainly doesn't seem to follow NEM in any meaningful way. It's almost like saying a random episode of DS9 (excluding the tribble one) is a sequel to a random episode of TOS. It may fit some lawyer-esque definition of "sequel", but where it matters: not so much.

This is exactly how I feel. One might be able to contort the language to make the word "sequel" apply in this case but that won't ever change the fact that no one will consider that to be the case in any meaningful sense.

"Hey Jim, lets watch Star Trek."
"You mean the Original Series or the Sequel to Nemesis?"


That's just never going to happen.

-Withers-​

 

[Set Harth]

What are you trying to say? Do you think XI is a sequel to Nemesis or not? It's a yes or no question

No, it's a game. Observe my posts, or keep playing your game.

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 didn't mean literally ask other people. The point was that you expressed incredulity at my being in the thread at all, when others are expressing the same viewpoint. And you should only need to read the earlier thread once. If you don't feel like doing that, I summarized what went on there in my previous post. To clue you in a bit more, it's not just a "what", it's also a "who"...

Gather 'round, everybody! We have a winner for Most Out of Context Quotation of the Year.

We have a winner indeed: "Out of context!!!" as the Most Divorced From Reality Knee-Jerk Dodge Attempt. Take a bow, "Out of context!!!", you've earned it.
( But watch out for the definition of "context"... it's gonna get ya. )

You talk about logical fallacies like "moving the goalposts," but I'd say this fairly eclipses them all.

Says the one who moved the goalposts. But don't worry: no one noticed. It's outweighed by my failure to grasp the complete absence of any connection between your stance and your dislike of the film.

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

No. The next Nolan-Batman movie will be a sequel to The Dark Knight. As I'm sure we all know, what irrevocably divides the Nolanverse continuity from 1989's Batman is the fact that Batman's parents were killed by the Joker in the 1989 film and by Joe Chill in Batman Begins.

 

[RookieBatman]

We have a winner indeed: "Out of context!!!" as the Most Divorced From Reality Knee-Jerk Dodge Attempt. Take a bow, "Out of context!!!", you've earned it.
( But watch out for the definition of "context"... it's gonna get ya. )

Again with the "replies" that have nothing to do with the quote he claims to be replying to. Does anyone else here think he's just having his own private discussion in his own mind?

Says the one who moved the goalposts. But don't worry: no one noticed. It's outweighed by my failure to grasp the complete absence of any connection between your stance and your dislike of the film.

Yes, yes it is. Glad you're finally starting to understand.

Oh, by the way, did you read the part about how this wasn't an attack? Just curious.

 

[Ryan8bit]

Does anyone else here think he's just having his own private discussion in his own mind?

Pretty much.

And his last statement pretty much solidified that nothing is open for discussion if he perceives it as a threat to the quality of the movie. That's kinda sad.

 

[Withers]

What are you trying to say? Do you think XI is a sequel to Nemesis or not? It's a yes or no question

No, it's a game. Observe my posts, or keep playing your game.

You can't even answer the plain and simple question posed by the thread title. What then would be the point in reading anything else you have to say other than out of curiosity (the sort people have for freak shows at carnivals)? It isn't a game it is a question- one that, so far, you can't answer, no doubt for the daunting tasking saying either one would be due to your prior statements and how each and every one of them has been debunked by more than two or three posters.

Do you think XI was a sequel to Nemesis or don't you? If you have no interest in answering that question then what are you doing here?

-Withers-​

 

[I-Am-Zim]

Wow. I think this thread just died.

 

[startrekrcks]

No I don't think in the film it has anything to do with the events of Nemesis so no I don't

 

[Withers]

Wow. I think this thread just died.

And not short enough it was.

-Withers-​

 

[ProwlAlpha]

Yes, it is a sequel to Nemesis (it doesn't matter that it sucked) because Nemesis carried the Trek Canon (as per Paramount's guidelines) storyline to the year 2379. This movie mentioned that Spock Prime, Nero and the Narada, and the Jellyfish are from at least 2387 of the Trek Canon storyline.

Why would the writers, makers, director, Paramount, God, the Fates, the little man in the corner, and Homer Simpson introduce a Spock who is essentially the same as the character of TOS Spock, but make him from a completely different timeline from each universe, and still say or imply or cast into granite or do whatever they it is necessary to communicate that this Spock is the exact same Spock from the regular Trek universe. Well, if it makes you feel better at night with warm fuzzy feelings in your stomach and thoughts of Kirk and Spock racing through your head than have at it.

 

[RobertScorpio]

No I don't think in the film it has anything to do with the events of Nemesis so no I don't

you could make that same argument with any james bond movie that didn't mention events that came before. But all of them from Connery to Brosnan are considered sequels to Dr. No..

Rob

 

[Withers]

Electra isn't the sequel to Daredevil. Voyager isn't the sequel to The Next Generation. Angel isn't the sequel to Buffy.

Telling a story in the same universe as something else at a later point in the time line doesn't make that thing a sequel, it makes it a continuation. You can contort the meaning and say "continuation and sequel mean the same thing" but they don't. A sequel in any meaningful sense of that word is Back to the Future followed by Back to the Future II. They need to share more than the same universe and Nemesis and Star Trek share nothing but that.

-Withers-​

 

[JarodRussell]

DS9 and VOY are spin offs of TNG, and TNG is a spin off to TOS. And in some ways, they are sequels. The DS9 pilot clearly continues Best of Both Worlds and other TNG episodes featuring Cardassians and Bajorans. With Worf's appearance, the 4th season turned into a sequel to Generations. With the Defiant and Worf appearing in First Contact, the movie became a direct sequel to DS9, and when the attack of the Borg was mentioned again in one of the episodes, DS9 became a sequel to First Contact. Same goes for Voyager. There are many intersections between the shows.
And when Scotty in his uniform from Star Trek 6 walked onto the bridge from TOS, or when Sisko met Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise, when Tuvok had a flashback of his time aboard the Excelsior, and when Picard buried Kirk, both the TOS movie era and the TV show were officially recognized as prequels to the TNG/DS9/VOY story.

All these shows are clearly in the same universe, telling the same ongoing story. I am using "sequel" as an equivalent to "continuation", though.

But there's no such connection in the new movie, neither to TOS nor to TNG. Spock Prime might come from the Mirror Universe from all we know. He might come from a universe where the Enterprise looked exactly like she looked in the new alternate universe (which she clearly didn't: Scotty in TNG on the TOS bridge, and Sisko & Co walking through the Enterprise's corridors in DS9 are the fictional evidence of that). He might also come from a universe where Kirk became Captain right after the Academy (which is why he is surprised about how Kirk was not Captain of the Enterprise).

 

[Set Harth]

Again with the "replies" that have nothing to do with the quote he claims to be replying to.

That's right... something's out of context when you say it is, not when it's actually out of context. You know what they say: when you're accused of doing something... do it again.

That'll show 'em!

Glad you're finally starting to understand.

Yes, the Jedi mind trick worked. Move along.

You can't even answer the plain and simple question posed by the thread title.

What a surprise... you're still just playing the same stupid game. My position is explained in my posts. Allow me to intrude on your somewhat amusing alternate reality. I "can't answer" the plain and simple question posed by the thread title... the thread being based on a poll?

Think about it.

Spock Prime might come from the Mirror Universe from all we know.

I guess he decided to get rid of the goatee.

All these shows are clearly in the same universe, telling the same ongoing story. I am using "sequel" as an equivalent to "continuation", though.

But there's no such connection in the new movie, neither to TOS nor to TNG.

This film is clearly telling the "same ongoing story" as TNG with regard to its Prime universe content. For those who choose to assume otherwise, we have confirmation of this explicit intent from the creators. There is no more basis for excluding this film from the previous continuity than there would be for throwing out The Final Frontier or separating TNG from the TOS continuity.

 

[I-Am-Zim]

I've been considering things that begin with the letter "M"...moron...mutiny...malice......

 

[JarodRussell]

I guess he decided to get rid of the goatee.

I guess the different stardate system doesn't mean anything then.

For those who choose to assume otherwise, we have confirmation of this explicit intent from the creators.

If you're watching a comedy (because the creators confirmed it is one), but it is not funny in any way, is it still a comedy?

 

[Set Harth]

I guess the different stardate system doesn't mean anything then.

That's funny - I thought it was all about the average moviegoer, as opposed to stardate experts. I guess it's always all about the average moviegoer... except when it isn't.

If you're watching a comedy (because the creators confirmed it is one), but it is not funny in any way, is it still a comedy?

When you eat an apple, does it taste like an orange? What happens if someone else thought it was funny? Who deified your opinion?

With the Defiant and Worf appearing in First Contact, the movie became a direct sequel to DS9, and when the attack of the Borg was mentioned again in one of the episodes, DS9 became a sequel to First Contact.

Then the same logic should apply to Ambassador Spock.

 

[JarodRussell]

I guess the different stardate system doesn't mean anything then.

That's funny - I thought it was all about the average moviegoer, as opposed to stardate experts. I guess it's always all about the average moviegoer... except when it isn't.

I think the average movie goer thing is in the other thread. I didn't argue with that.

 

[Set Harth]

I've been considering things that begin with the letter "M"...moron

Don't be so hard on yourself. I mean, you did famously say the Mirror Universe was not canon, but that seems more like intellectual dishonesty than anything indicative of "moron" status.

 

[CaptainStoner]

This film is clearly telling the "same ongoing story" as TNG with regard to its Prime universe content. For those who choose to assume otherwise, we have confirmation of this explicit intent from the creators. There is no more basis for excluding this film from the previous continuity than there would be for throwing out The Final Frontier or separating TNG from the TOS continuity.

That XI is a part of the Trek multiverse is not being disputed. What is being disputed is calling it a sequel to NEM.
Ultimately this is just a disagreement about what "sequel" means. If one considers, say, TNG's "Tapestry" a sequel to TOS's "Doomsday Machine", there is a way to interpret it as such. For most people, XI is not a sequel to NEM, but it doesn't feel like an issue of having to prove one side or the other right or wrong.
I voted "no" because there is no discernable thread from NEM to XI. The stories do not link. Others can feel free to call it what they will. As Kirk said with a bridge laying on top of him (in the sequel to The Cage ) it was...fun.