Sequel to Nemesis?

[RookieBatman]

Okay, so there's a discussion going on in another thread where one poster very vociferously insists that STXI should be considered a sequel to Nemesis (at this point, I don't even remember how we got on that line of discussion). I find the suggestion dubious at best, so I wanted to just take it straight to a poll to see if anyone else feels that way.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I went with YES. Even though I think NEMESIS is a terrible movie, and makes V look like Hamlet, I do consider it a sequel to Nemesis since Spock/Nero both spring from the other universe.

I really consider XI a backdoor pilot to a new movie series...but..yes...it is a sequel because of Spock mainly...IMO..

Rob

 

[Mach5]

Nero and Spock Prime come from the prime universe 2387, ergo YES.

 

[JarodRussell]

It's more a sequel to TOS than anything else.

But I'd say it's a mirror universe spin off. If anything. Actually, it's a reboot, BSG-style. Nimoy playing Spock is just a coincidence.

 

[RobertScorpio]

I see your point...but I think the producers said that it wasn't really a reboot, but a sideverse created by the alteration of time. So I take that to say that Spock came from the TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT-THREES COMPANY universe..maybe even the LOST universe, considering last week's episode.

Rob

 

[Broccoli]

XI is really no more a sequel to NEM than GEN was a sequel to TUC. It is the next film in the series (hell, most of us refer to it as Star Trek XI, not Star Trek I), but it doesn't directly follow on from the events in NEM.

 

[RobertScorpio]

XI is really no more a sequel to NEM than GEN was a sequel to TUC. It is the next film in the series (hell, most of us refer to it as Star Trek XI, not Star Trek I), but it doesn't directly follow on from the events in NEM.

mmmm...yeah, but it is connected, if we assume Spock is the Spock we've known since TOS. 007 movies are the same thing. Even though a few of them refer to older movies in the series, some don't..but I think Connery through Brosnan are all considered the same series...at least..thats what it seems..

Rob

 

[Tom]

It is a sequel in a way as it provides the canon events of Romulas blowing up (etc..) taking place after Nemisis.

 

[Ryan8bit]

I'm gonna say that it's a prequel (and maybe even partially a reboot) because it starts off in the past, and it stays in the past. Sure, Spock and Nero come from after Nemesis, but their time period is not really the focus.

 

[MvRojo]

Sure, why not?

 

[RobertScorpio]

I'm gonna say that it's a prequel (and maybe even partially a reboot) because it starts off in the past, and it stays in the past. Sure, Spock and Nero come from after Nemesis, but their time period is not really the focus.

It may have started "in the past", but the ship arrived from the future of Universe Prime. And in Spock's mind-meld with young Kirk, he explains the whole story. Both Spock and Nero are from the same different future....

Rob

 

[Ryan8bit]

I'm gonna say that it's a prequel (and maybe even partially a reboot) because it starts off in the past, and it stays in the past. Sure, Spock and Nero come from after Nemesis, but their time period is not really the focus.

It may have started "in the past", but the ship arrived from the future of Universe Prime. And in Spock's mind-meld with young Kirk, he explains the whole story. Both Spock and Nero are from the same different future....

Rob

I know, but that flashback makes up like a few minutes of the whole movie. Plus, the movie isn't about future Spock and Nero, it's about young Kirk and Spock. The emphasis is on the past.

It's one of those things with time travel that the line between sequel and prequel is blurred.

 

[Set Harth]

Plus, the movie isn't about future Spock and Nero, it's about young Kirk and Spock.

Here we go again... Can a film be "about" more than one thing? If not, who decides what a film is "about" and where are this person's intentions indicated?

It's one of those things with time travel that the line between sequel and prequel is blurred.

It's not a prequel at all, since none of the previous films or TV episodes follow from it chronologically. See: Star Wars. Was First Contact considered a prequel?

And in Spock's mind-meld with young Kirk, he explains the whole story.

Apparently, if you don't do that at the beginning of the film, you get kicked out of the "sequel" club. Oh well... we'll always have the Nimoy hologram. I wonder what effect that was intended to have on the audience... complete indifference, perhaps?

 

[Guartho]

Is there anything in TrekXI that references anything in Nemesis? If not, there's no reason to necessarily believe that Spock and Nero are from the same universe in which Nemesis took place. They could be from the universe in which only the good movies and episodes actually took place.

 

[doubleohfive]

I read the "Countdown" prequel comic to "Star Trek" about a week before the film was released. In retrospect, I still think a really neat thing to do -- a nice small wink to the fans of the other Trek series and films -- would have been during Spock Prime's exposition to Younger Kirk, to show Picard, Spock and Geordi on the Jellyfish and later Data and the Enterprise. Something akin to silent, impressionistic flashbacks, perhaps even live action versions of stills from the graphic novel.

I'm not sure about the timing of when the graphic novel was written or illustrated as compared to when the film itself was lensed, and I'm well aware of the Herculean effort it would have required in terms of scheduling, budget and such ... but in a perfect world it would have been a neat thing for die-hard fans to pick up on during the movie.


As for the debate about whether or not the 2009 film is in fact a sequel to "Nemesis" I would have to say YES AND NO.

Yes in the regard that elements from the "prime universe" as established by the preceding five television series and ten feature films are referenced, included, and do in fact play a major role in the progression of the 2009 film's plot. In this respect, the film is a sequel of sorts in my opinion.

That said, the film is also NOT a direct sequel to Nemesis, at least not in the strictest sense. Though I'm not surprised it's a bunch of bickering Star Trek nerds who found a way to niggle away even at this most minute of points, the fact remains that while the 2009 film is most definitely a continuation of the series of films in the franchise, it is by no means a traditional or direct sequel to the events depicted in Nemesis.

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!

Sit back and enjoy the picture.

 

[Set Harth]

and later Data and the Enterprise.

Along with a caption that reads "B4 is now called Data".

 

[startrekrcks]

no it doesn't have any references to Nemesis the most darkest of the TNG movies. Star Trek 09 is set in a altered timeline did you know

 

[Withers]

If XI was a sequel to anything wouldn't it be Enterprise? 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. There's nothing to say there's anything there anymore. By virtue of the events of this film and everything that happens after the time line forks, there's nothing to say that the original prime time line continues on unimpeded.

I know. It's unsettling and I'm not a big fan of that interpretation of events either but there's no evidence to the contrary.

So that being said the only thing this movie could really be a sequel to is Enterprise since that's the only thing we've seen on screen that wouldn't have been altered by appearance of Spock and Nero. The only wrench, in that case, would be the episodes in which anybody after Archer time travels.

-Withers-​

 

[Ryan8bit]

Can a film be "about" more than one thing? If not, who decides what a film is "about" and where are this person's intentions indicated?

I decide when I voice my opinion. And yes, it can be about more than one thing, but the primary focus is on the young crew, particularly Kirk and Spock. Nero and old Spock are secondary.

It's not a prequel at all, since none of the previous films or TV episodes follow from it chronologically.

Must a prequel always be sequential? Or can it just be the same characters and setting at an earlier time? If not, maybe it could be called an alternate history.

If we can't call it a prequel, it's not much of a sequel either, at least not to Nemesis. There are no characters or settings in common between the two.

 

[Set Harth]

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. There's nothing to say there's anything there anymore.

Just the explicit intention of the writers, Star Trek Online, and the fact that it is nonsensical to assume the entire Prime universe winks out of existence simply because someone enters a wormhole. Furthermore, since Nero entered before Spock, why wasn't Spock erased when Nero went through?

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

Forgetting Romulus already?

I decide when I voice my opinion.

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

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?

the primary focus is on the young crew, particularly Kirk and Spock. Nero and old Spock are secondary.

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?