Last edited by a moderator:
What Amazes Me
- Thread starter Withers
- Start date
- Status
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Personally, I don't see how this movie could be considered a sequel. If anything, it's a prequel. But, not. It's not really a prequel because it doesn't deal with the same characters from the original universe. However, it uses an actor who starred in the original universe. Or so we are led to believe. I must agree with RookieBatman in that I am not quite certain that OldSpock is the Spock that we have known for 40+ years. Nor do I believe that when Spock and Nero came through the wormhole, where they emerged was still the original universe that we know. If Spock and Nero were from the original universe, I believe that when they emerged from the wormhole, they actually came out in a parallel universe similar to what happened to the Defiant in "In A Mirror, Darkly". Either way, I don't see STXI as a sequel. It was not told from OldSpock's POV, and he only had a small part. I'm more inclined to consider the movie a "spinoff" of sorts. It certainly doesn't fit into the original timeline or continuity. However, it does use characters, names, places, and events based on that original universe. Therefore, calling it a spinoff would seem to be more fitting, in my opinion. But sequel? No.
It doesn't matter.
According to STO, the original continuity is lacking a Spock and a Romulus around 2387 or so...
...but I take it all back, because I just realized that Kirk couldn't drive in A Piece of the Action, which shows that STXI's Prime cannot possibly be the same universe.
Damn you, Abrams.
*shakes fist*
Last edited:
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Yes it does.
True. Romulus, Spock, and Nero are gone from that timeline after 2387-ish after they went through the wormhole thingy. That has no bearing on the fact that the events of STXI don't fit within the original continuity of the known Star Trek universe. Oh, BTW, I don't think STO is canon anyway. AFAIK, none of the comics, novels, games, etc. are considered canon. Not that it really matters anyway.
...but I take it all back, because I just realized that Kirk couldn't drive in A Piece of the Action, which shows that STXI's Prime cannot possibly be the same universe.
Damn you, Abrams.
Yes. Once again, more evidence that the Abramsverse is not simply a "branch" off the original timeline but a completely separate parallel universe in and of itself (and yes, I got the sarcasm. I just didn't feel like sinking to that level and returning it).
Last edited:
Not in other film series, and not in this one either ( see: Generations ). When was this supposed definition of sequel ever made official? How can the definition of a sequel be dependent upon your personal acquiescence in any event?
Contradictory nonsense.
The phrase you used - that timeline - is the original continuity. Since STXI is the result of time travel from that timeline, it's also a part of the same continuity.
You didn't hear about the Federation public-service ad campaign "IF YOU DON'T LEARN TO DRIVE, THE ROMULAN SUPERSHIPS WIN"?
Last edited:
I-Am-Zim
Captain
STXI isn't a sequel. It's a reboot/prequel set in an alternate universe. It's not that hard to understand.
Maybe. I don't think so. But that's my opinion. YMMV.
It depicts a chain of events which began after Nemesis. It's a sequel from Spock's POV, a concept which shouldn't be hard to understand. However, apparently the nature of a "prequel" is hard to understand, because this isn't a prequel to any previous Trek material ( and if it were, that would put it in the original continuity ). Vulcan isn't going to reconstitute itself.
It's clearly the intent of the Star Trek Online material that it is set in the future of the preexisting continuity ( for example, the references to Worf and Martok in the 2388 link ).
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Once again, the movie wasn't told from OldSpock's POV. He was a minor player in this movie.
However, the average moviegoer (the one that JJA was aiming for, BTW) wouldn't know anything at all about Nemesis or the original timeline that Spock came from. To them, this was a time travel sci-fi movie where the bad guy goes back in time and screws up history. The only difference is that things don't get fixed this time. As far as the "prequel" goes, I also added "reboot" in there too in order to cover the bases, especially since the movie was originally billed as a prequel by JJA et al before all the pictures came out and the story changed to alternate timeline. By definition it can't be a true prequel because the events don't take place in the original timeline. But it's not a sequel either because there is no frame of reference for the audience to associate it with. To the average moviegoer, this is a stand alone movie. The beginning of a new franchise. Not a continuation of the old. There is no reference to Nemesis in this movie. So there is no frame of reference to that movie to associate STXI with it as a sequel. At least, I don't see it that way. Again, my opinion. YMMV as usual.
By that logic, no sequel is actually a sequel, if we are forced to assume that the all-important "average moviegoer" walks into the theater with zero knowledge of previous offerings. And how realistic is that approach in any case? How many moviegoers had never seen another ST film or an episode of any of the shows? How many were blissfully unaware that these things even existed? And why should we act as if the film was made solely for the tabula rasa set, when there is evidence to the contrary?
Let me posit a hypothetical scenario. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that someone decided to - and I know it's far-fetched, but bear with me - make a Star Trek film which tied in to previous continuity.
How would they go about explaining this to the audience?
Apparently Star Trek Online's out. Not canon. Check. Same goes for the comics. Check. That leaves us with the film itself, and public statements by the creators.
But wait - they wouldn't ever be able to explain it conclusively in the film itself.
( An exception being that famous scene in The Two Towers where Frodo holds up a DVD of The Fellowship of the Ring, looks at the camera, and says "That guy? That's me. Same continuity, in case anyone was wondering." )
So that leaves us with public statements by the creators. Assuming those are to be thrown out as well, we have determined the following: a Star Trek film conclusively tied in to previous continuity cannot be made.
However, there are references to The Wrath of Khan and Unification.
Once again, it doesn't matter, because this kind of thing has happened before in the same film series, and it was never held up as a desperate excuse to remove the film in question from continuity. The POV function and the magic screentime percentage are criteria invented only recently, for the express purpose of tearing down STXI.
Last edited:
Thank you, reasonable person.
Anybody want to start a poll in the STXI forum asking simply whether people consider this a sequel to Nemesis? Because I can guess what the outcome will be (at least, among those people who aren't desperate to prove that everyone who disliked the movie is an idiot).
No offense meant, but I'm almost certain that most people are not as fascinated with the taxonomy of popcorn movies as you seem to be. Arguing about arbitrary terms used in fiction as if they were logical axioms is an endeavor that is self-evidently doomed to failure.
Heck, I'd settle for just agreeing that they're arbitrary. If we can just agree that one man's sequel is another man's spin-off (and one man's Prime Spock is another man's AU Spock), that would be just fine with me.
Heh.
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.My position is that they're unimportant.
The author of this movie didn't come up with the definition of the word "sequel."
My position is that they're unimportant.
I don't disagree with you at all. But if what didn't discuss unimportant topics here, what on earth would we talk about?
I-Am-Zim
Captain
Okay. According to Miriam-Webster, this is the definition of a sequel.
Main Entry: se·quel
Pronunciation: \ˈsē-kwəl also -ˌkwel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sequele, from Latin sequela, from sequi to follow — more at sue
Date: 15th century
1 : consequence, result
2 a : subsequent development b : the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one
So, if one were seriously desperate to grasp at straws for a reason to call this movie a sequel, it could conceivably be done. Technically, it doesn't fall within the definition in that it doesn't continue the course of the story begun in Nemesis. In fact, there's no reference to Nemesis at all in the movie. Except, again a gigantic reach, the incorrect "startate" of 2387 for the Jellyfish's manufacturing origin. There is no mention of any of the events of Nemesis. None of the Enterprise-E, Picard, Data, the assasination of the Romulan senate, Shinzon, etc. etc. et al. Original Spock wasn't even in Nemesis to begin with. So it is really a moot point to call this movie a sequel to anything.
However, if one were desperate to reach for any possible excuse to call it a sequel, then it could be argued that since OldSpock came from the timeframe of around 2387, then he came from post-Nemesis. Therefore, in the losest sense of the word, his experiences in the alternate universe's past could, vaguely, be considered a sequel to his experiences in the universe he came from, since they did happen to him after 2387 from his POV.
However, once again, the movie wasn't told from OldSpock's POV. Therefore, it makes the sequel argument completely pointless in that the movie is not a sequel but a alternate universe origin story based upon Star Trek. The story was told from the perspective of the alt universe's characters, not OldSpock. In essence, OldSpock was no more than an extra who had a few lines. He was just there for the "passing of the torch" effect. That's it. At least from my POV anyway.
Main Entry: se·quel
Pronunciation: \ˈsē-kwəl also -ˌkwel\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French sequele, from Latin sequela, from sequi to follow — more at sue
Date: 15th century
1 : consequence, result
2 a : subsequent development b : the next installment (as of a speech or story); especially : a literary, cinematic, or televised work continuing the course of a story begun in a preceding one
So, if one were seriously desperate to grasp at straws for a reason to call this movie a sequel, it could conceivably be done. Technically, it doesn't fall within the definition in that it doesn't continue the course of the story begun in Nemesis. In fact, there's no reference to Nemesis at all in the movie. Except, again a gigantic reach, the incorrect "startate" of 2387 for the Jellyfish's manufacturing origin. There is no mention of any of the events of Nemesis. None of the Enterprise-E, Picard, Data, the assasination of the Romulan senate, Shinzon, etc. etc. et al. Original Spock wasn't even in Nemesis to begin with. So it is really a moot point to call this movie a sequel to anything.
However, if one were desperate to reach for any possible excuse to call it a sequel, then it could be argued that since OldSpock came from the timeframe of around 2387, then he came from post-Nemesis. Therefore, in the losest sense of the word, his experiences in the alternate universe's past could, vaguely, be considered a sequel to his experiences in the universe he came from, since they did happen to him after 2387 from his POV.
However, once again, the movie wasn't told from OldSpock's POV. Therefore, it makes the sequel argument completely pointless in that the movie is not a sequel but a alternate universe origin story based upon Star Trek. The story was told from the perspective of the alt universe's characters, not OldSpock. In essence, OldSpock was no more than an extra who had a few lines. He was just there for the "passing of the torch" effect. That's it. At least from my POV anyway.
It still doesn't matter. None of these movies are "told" in first person anyway. The mind meld is from his POV.
Think of the other installments which are thrown out by this criterion.
If there's one thing the Star Trek films needed, it was more Shinzon. And cowbell.
There's nothing "vague" about it, nor is it in any way "desperate" or an "excuse". It's no more than the sequence of events as indicated by the film. Look at the definition you posted: subsequent development. In case you intend to suggest that the "average moviegoer" wouldn't have gotten that, all I can say is... I got it. Does that make me above average?
Last edited:
I-Am-Zim
Captain
"There's nothing "vague" about it, nor is it in any way "desperate" or an "excuse". It's no more than the sequence of events as indicated by the film. Look at the definition you posted: subsequent development. In case you intend to suggest that the "average moviegoer" wouldn't have gotten that, all I can say is... I got it. Does that make me above average?"
No. The "average moviegoer" wouldn't have gotten that. The average moviegoer would not have the working knowledge of Star Trek that a fan does. The average moviegoer probably didn't see Nemesis. Therefore, the average moviegoer would not have seen "Star Trek" as a sequel to "Nemesis", much less anything else for that matter. So to answer your question, no, that does not make you above average. It just makes you a Star Trek fan.
There's nothing "vague" about it, nor is it in any way "desperate" or an "excuse". It's no more than the sequence of events as indicated by the film. Look at the definition you posted: subsequent development. In case you intend to suggest that the "average moviegoer" wouldn't have gotten that, all I can say is... I got it. Does that make me above average?"No. The "average moviegoer" wouldn't have gotten that. The average moviegoer would not have the working knowledge of Star Trek that a fan does. The average moviegoer probably didn't see Nemesis. Therefore, the average moviegoer would not have seen "Star Trek" as a sequel to "Nemesis", much less anything else for that matter. So to answer your question, no, that does not make you above average. It just makes you a Star Trek fan.
startrekrcks
Fleet Captain
Do you think my opinions about Star Trek is wrong?
- Status
Similar threads
