Why is it that all the odd numbered star trek films stink?

1. 0

   Stevennix2001posted 12 years ago

   Before J.J. Abrams' reboot, there used to a common pattern with "Star Trek" films where majority of fans would say that all the odd numbered ones sucked, while the even number ones were arguably the best.  However, why is that though?  Is there some sort of binary anominally associated with these movies?  Or is it just one giant coincidence?  Or do you believe that this all blown out of proportion, and that all the Trek films were equally as good.  What are your thoughts on this?

   replyreport
   1. 85

      kerrygposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      LOL, I've wondered the same thing myself. Hopefully, the reboot broke the curse.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         Stacie Lposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         yes the first one was a stinker...maybe the second ones were better 'cause they learned from their mistakes ,,,lol

         replyreport
   2. 84

      dungeonraiderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Spock would fail to see any logic in your theory.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is true... !

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         What theory would that be?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            dungeonraiderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Okay, let's see what might happen if you told Spock what you're going on about here.
            
            You:  All odd-numbered editions of the Star Trek movies suck.
            
            Spock:  Shatner co-produced those, I co-produced the even numbered ones.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You obviously misuderstood the original OP then..   I never stated what my actual opinions were on each Trek film, as I merely stated that "majority of fans would say that all the odd numbered ones sucked, while the even number ones were arguably the best."

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  dungeonraiderposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You had me at "binary anominally"...

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Stevennix2001posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                       Good to know.  Thanks. 

                     replyreport
   3. 78

      Garlonussposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That's a very complicated question, actually.
      Movie 1: The studio was preparing a new TV series called Star Trek Phase II. They decided to make a movie instead and took one of the scripts for the show and padded it out to make a 2 hour movie. That meant the story went ohhhhh so slooooow and made the thing pretty boring.
      Movie 2: Producer Harve Bennett approached Paramount and asked for  the chance to prove that Trek could be better than The Motion Picture. He was given a budget dramatically lower than the first one, in case he failed, and he brought in Nicholas Meyer to direct and help on the script.
      Movie 3: This was Nimoy's directorial debut and as such suffers (in my opinion) only minor problems with pacing and such, but the story is solid.
      Movie 4: Afraid of the tendency for movie sequels to get progressively worse, they increase the budget. Nimoy, who had cut his teeth in the previous movie, says on to direct this new one and Nick Meyer is brought on again to help with the script.
      Movie 5: Shatner wants to direct and it's his first movie. That's not the problem in my opinion. The issue is that (1) the usual special effects company--ILM--is busy working on "Ghostbusters II" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade". (2) The studio keeps cutting the budget in the middle of production. The ending in the script (which is far superior in my opinion) becomes impossible to do with the slashed budget, and a weak ending can hurt an otherwise passable movie. (3) The story would have fit in with the TV series just fine, but was simply a bad choice for a feature film.
      Movie 6: Nick Meyer is brought back to work on the script and direct. Enough said there.
      Movie 7: The film makers were given a laundry list of things that had to happen in this movie. Some were things that the studio wanted, others were things that just had to happen to make the transition to the big screen. They had to destroy the Enterprise D because that model was designed to look good on the proportions and scale of the TV screen. The studio wanted them to do an actual "passing of the torch" and use cast from both eras. Kirk had to be given a final farewell. And so forth. Writing a script to fit a laundry list is not usually a recipe for greatness. I think they did fine under the circumstances.
      Movie 8: With free reign, Jonathan Frakes comes in to direct, with a firm knowledge of how Trek works from directing several episodes. The writers are also free to write about anything they want, and they decide to make a zombie movie. Frakes watches films like "Jaws", "Aliens", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Blade Runner" to develop the right style for the movie and it works superbly.
      Movie 9: A conscious decision was made to lighten the story after the dark tone of the previous one. In the opinion of some, they may have gone a bit too far, but that doesn't mean the decision was wrong. The story itself fits easily in with many other episodes of the show. The movie just lacked the grand scope we want out of a movie.
      Movie 10: The studio decided to pull out all stops for what they were already planning to be the last movie with that cast. That included bringing in Stuart Baird, a film editor with only 2 directorial outings under his belt ("U.S. Marshals" and "Executive Decision") and who knew nothing about Star Trek. He reportedly reveled in his lack of knowledge of Trek and made little to no effort to fit his movie with what had come before.
      Movie 11: After several years without a new Trek in theaters, and several aborted attempts to make a new movie, the studio brings on a group of promising (relative) newcomers: J.J. Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. Between them, they run the gamut from serious fan, to casual acquaintance, to relative neophyte. That means they can know going in most of the problems that the audience will have with understanding and enjoying whatever they make.

      replyreport
      1. 78

         Garlonussposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Of course that's probably more answer than you were after. Let's just say that my answer was ... there's a magical gnome living on the Paramount lot who simply doesn't like the numbers 1,3,5 and 7, and thinks 9 is okay but not up to the same level as numbers 2, 6, and 8.

         replyreport
2. 65

   Trekkiemelissaposted 12 years ago

   I am a trekkie here and I don't think any of the Star Trek Movies stink.  They each have their merits.  Granted the first one may not have been the best, but with each movie I think they got better.

   replyreport
3. 81

   manlypoetrymanposted 12 years ago

   The "Wrath of Khan"...was the best one (Star Trek Movie) of them all...IMHO.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      Stacie Lposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      yeah i agree!

      replyreport
4. 74

   Anti-Valentineposted 12 years ago

   It's funny this topic should come up. On TV over here they only ever show Star Trek II and IV... over and over again.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hey AV...Ok then...that's just plain not fair...how do you ever get to know why Spock is back in IV...if you never get to see III? (Hope I didn't just give anything away!?)

      replyreport
      1. 74

         Anti-Valentineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I don't MPM. I just plain don't.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            manlypoetrymanposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Not fair!

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Anti-Valentineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I know. :'(

               replyreport
5. 58

   A Troubled Manposted 12 years ago

   It would seem that any particular guest actor made the Trekkie movie, so to speak.
   
   Ricardo Montalban made the second movie good, Christopher Lloyd made the third one sort of okay and Christopher Plummer made the sixth one bearable. None of the other movies had any notably good guest actors and for the most part stunk as a result.

   replyreport
6. 70

   Melissa McClainposted 12 years ago

   Let's see...
   1. Bad 2. Good 3. Meh 4. Good 5. Bad 6. Very Good 7. Ok 8. Good 9. Bad 10. Also not so good
   
   For me I'd say that even/odd observation rings true (except for Nemesis which I didn't really like that much).  I guess the Star Trek inspiration follows a cyclic pattern of some sort.  Maybe it's a matter of a self fulfilling prophesy? After the first four movies they realized that there was a pattern developing and so they started to expect less of themselves for the odd movies and really pulled out all the creative juices for the even ones.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Melissa McClainposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'd like to point out though that my rating of the movies as good or bad is a comparison among ST movies themselves. I still think even the worst ST movie is better than most other movies out there.

      replyreport