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

Jump to Last Post 1-6 of 6 discussions (23 posts)
  1. Stevennix2001 profile image89
    Stevennix2001posted 6 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?

    1. kerryg profile image86
      kerrygposted 6 years agoin reply to this

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

      1. Stacie L profile image88
        Stacie Lposted 6 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

    2. dungeonraider profile image91
      dungeonraiderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Spock would fail to see any logic in your theory.

      1. manlypoetryman profile image75
        manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        This is true...lol !

      2. Stevennix2001 profile image89
        Stevennix2001posted 6 years agoin reply to this

        What theory would that be?

        1. dungeonraider profile image91
          dungeonraiderposted 6 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.

          1. Stevennix2001 profile image89
            Stevennix2001posted 6 years agoin reply to this

            You obviously misuderstood the original OP then.. hmm  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."

            1. dungeonraider profile image91
              dungeonraiderposted 6 years agoin reply to this

              You had me at "binary anominally"...

              1. Stevennix2001 profile image89
                Stevennix2001posted 6 years agoin reply to this

                lol  Good to know.  Thanks.  lol

    3. Garlonuss profile image78
      Garlonussposted 6 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.

      1. Garlonuss profile image78
        Garlonussposted 6 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.

  2. Trekkiemelissa profile image75
    Trekkiemelissaposted 6 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.

  3. manlypoetryman profile image75
    manlypoetrymanposted 6 years ago

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

    1. Stacie L profile image88
      Stacie Lposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      yeah i agree!

  4. Anti-Valentine profile image95
    Anti-Valentineposted 6 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.

    1. manlypoetryman profile image75
      manlypoetrymanposted 6 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!?)

      1. Anti-Valentine profile image95
        Anti-Valentineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

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

        1. manlypoetryman profile image75
          manlypoetrymanposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          lol Not fair!

          1. Anti-Valentine profile image95
            Anti-Valentineposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I know. :'(

  5. A Troubled Man profile image60
    A Troubled Manposted 6 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.

  6. Melissa McClain profile image67
    Melissa McClainposted 6 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.

    1. Melissa McClain profile image67
      Melissa McClainposted 6 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.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)