Am I alone in preferring the odd numbered TOS films?

[Commander Kielbasa]

I tend to prefer watching the odd numbered TOS films over the even numbered ones, and I'll give a few reasons why:

1) Each of the 3 odd numbered films feel like they could've been TOS episodes on the big screen. Each in some way attempts to have a grand scope and truly feel like space adventures, rather than adventures that happen to be set in space.

2) The plotlines of I, III, and V reflect themes found in the original TV series. I being about the unknown; III about friendship coming above rules, regulations and anything else; V about man and the divine - it is similar to the episode where the crew meets Apollo in a sense.

3) The cast and crew all look great for some reason in the odd numbered films. Shatner in particular is perhaps in the best shape of his life in TMP. His perm in III is not embarrassing as it is in II. He is not obviously chubby or puffy and drenched in makeup in I, III or V as he is in IV. The rest of the crew look generally good in the odd numbered films.

4) They feel more space westerns rather than Melville inspired revenge stories or political thrillers, or the sadly dated 80s comedy of IV.

5) They all have a certain campy, goofyness about them that makes TOS appealing.

6) There is a level of emotion between the characters in those films that isn't truly present in the other films. I is about the characters discovering themselves and re-discovering each other; III being about going against rules, codes, and traditions to save a friend; V is the only film to show chase the banter between the Trio that made TOS so endearing.

7) I and V feel less like milkruns and more like independent voyages by the crew to confront some threat. II is an adventure the crew happens to get caught up in, and IV is a time travel episode (which outside of City on the Edge of Forever I never liked in TOS)

8) There's more world-building in I, III and V. The living machine creature introduced in I; the Starfleet nightlife scene in III (seedy bar and all) as well as the Genesis planet; Paradise City and all its TOS' banality (including a three breasted alien babe) in V as well as Sha-Ka-Re and the existence of what could be called "demonic" entities in the ST universe.

By contrast, II is a much more human centric affair - it's man against man. IV is a preachy film about saving whales. VI while a GREAT film is essentially a Cold War thriller with Star Trek thrown in. Also, each of the even numbered films focuses on the theme of James Kirk getting old in some way or another and it's depressing to see your hero's age being hammered over and over again. II with the whole Kirk becoming a relic theme. IV with the glasses bit. VI with Kirk being closeminded due to age and becoming, politically, a dinosaur as a new 'galatic' order emerges around him that he doesn't like. I don't like seeing Jim Kirk as a bitter older man - I like seeing him be daring, be in command, doing cool space stuff. Not ruminating over turning 50 or how he can't exist in this new Underdiscovered Country.

For me, I, III and V capture the STAR in Star Trek. They feel like voyages and adventures. The other films are better films all around, but they lack a certain something.

Am I alone in this assessment?

 

[StarCruiser]

Well - I do like TMP and ST3 but, I'm afraid that ST5 was just too much of a mess to love.

There are some touching moments in ST5 that help redeem it a bit but otherwise, it's pretty bad.

 

[Pauln6]

I am more of a fan of I -IV than I am V-VI but largely because I felt that in the latter two, the dynamic of all these people still on assignment in their old roles felt forced, the humour did not feel as natural, and the conclusions were hammy and not particularly clever.

 

[Qonundrum]

Both odd and even have their strengths and weaknesses. Some zeitgeisty gestalt thing decided "odd is bad, even is good" - and in terms of direction that's certainly the case. But not always the writing, but ratings often are made by how glossy it looks.

And of 1, 3, and 5, only 1 feels derivative and a little stolid. Both 3 and 5 feel like fresh entries with TOS' themes. 5 feels like a 60s TV episode as a "funnier" outing but with a bigger budget. But 3 somehow blends big screen epic plotting with still feeling like TOS TV yet not feeling like a throwback or derivative.

4) They feel more space westerns rather than Melville inspired revenge stories or political thrillers, or the sadly dated 80s comedy of IV.

Great point. Especially for IV, which has simply not dated well. Mostly because it hinged on 1986's events and was the most "of its time" episode out there.

Revenge was still a great place for II. to go and use. Especially 15 years later. Especially given the unique position Trek was in at the time. Indeed, when "Nemesis" was written, what kept them from looking at season 1, 2, or 3 stories? Were there no villains or situations deemed worthy? (Well, Data has yet another clone but even Lore wasn't ever as badly handled to begin with and they already did a Data clone. So what do they do instead? A highly contrived Picard clone, which was doomed to fail from the get-go given all of those contrivances. The only other problem is, what early-TNG episodes had such a strong villain? Not just a villain with an open ending but a strong one? Khan was strong. TNG had nothing. Except the Borg but even "First Contact"'s plot is more easily shredable than a piece of used kleenex is. )

5) They all have a certain campy, goofyness about them that makes TOS appealing.

I was the most serious. III had a balance that felt right. V was lobbing whatever it could at the fourth wall, partly because Paramount wanted more of that comedy thanks to IV's success at the time. Big mistake, especially with what Shatner wanted to do not being a very comedic but very epic scale. How many epics exist in the comedy genre? Apart from "Airplane!" but even that seems more coincidental...

6) There is a level of emotion between the characters in those films that isn't truly present in the other films. I is about the characters discovering themselves and re-discovering each other; III being about going against rules, codes, and traditions to save a friend; V is the only film to show chase the banter between the Trio that made TOS so endearing.

I - especially Spock
III - still all about Spock
V - bingo. V largely fails because it doesn't fit into the (unintentional?) arc of II-IV, VI). Tone down the comedy and it would fit into any TOS season reasonably well.

7) I and V feel less like milkruns and more like independent voyages by the crew to confront some threat. II is an adventure the crew happens to get caught up in, and IV is a time travel episode (which outside of City on the Edge of Forever I never liked in TOS)

Which is both good and bad. IV-IV, VI have a nice ongoing arc. V bucks the trend and feels out of place in that regard. But what could V otherwise do to have it both its own way as well as fitting into the ongoing adventure of life-death-life as such? Had VI not been made, as it was interesting to see Valaris, Cartwright, and others be so different yet sincere in what they felt they were doing given the extreme nature of the events.

8) There's more world-building in I, III and V. The living machine creature introduced in I; the Starfleet nightlife scene in III (seedy bar and all) as well as the Genesis planet; Paradise City and all its TOS' banality (including a three breasted alien babe) in V as well as Sha-Ka-Re and the existence of what could be called "demonic" entities in the ST universe.

What is most interesting about V is that, while Roddenberry wanted less fantasy (despite all the incorporeal beings that look like balls of light), STV shows that what calls itself "God" is just a big powerful alien imprisoned somewhere that's managed to lure acolytes and Sybok was the only one able to get anywhere with the plan of escape.

And Kirk had a rather good point, confidently acted by Shatner: What would God need with a starship?

STV honestly was one rough draft away from greatness. And if Paramount didn't demand "The Star Trek Comedy Hour" (to ride on STIV's coattails) as well as whittling down the budget all the time. Everyone blamed Shatner to the point of pure scapegoating, which was unfair to him.

 

[Phoenix219]

The Jack Marshall episodic cut of Final Frontier is absolute genius, and makes for an amazing "tv pilot" of sorts.

 

[thribs]

I still have a sore spot for 5. I know the majority hate it but I could watch it on a loop without getting bored.

 

[Vger23]

I still have a sore spot for 5. I know the majority hate it but I could watch it on a loop without getting bored.

I love it!

 

[C.E. Evans]

I tend to like all of the Star Trek movies, but I have a particular fondness for Star Trek III because it not only had Kirk & the gang go against the axiom of "The needs of the many..." but it also gave us our first really good sense of Starfleet as a big organization. Star Trek V has its faults, but I love it as far as the crew interaction goes and showing the bonds between them. Aside from its nostalgia value of seeing the TOS characters again, TMP was visually awesome on the big screen, but it tends to lose quite a bit of that the small screen, IMO.

 

[pfontaine2]

I'm in agreement with you. I really like the first 5 Star Trek films but really enjoy those odd-numbered films. ST:TMP remains my favorite of them all. ST:TSFS is an excellent continuation of ST:TWOK. I've always had a soft spot in my heart for ST:TFF because it feels like a big-screen episode to me, fun, exciting, some interesting ideas and places to explore though I agree that the humor is forced and ultimately deters from some really interesting moments. After ST:TFF, my opinions of all the Star Trek movies goes down, odd numbered films or not. My dislike for ST:TUC (an even-numbered film) is covered elsewhere. ST:Generations at #7 and ST:Insurrection at #9 are definitely not high on my list of favorite Star Trek films.

 

[Greg Cox]

I always thought TSFS was unfairly tarried with the "odd-numbered films suck" thing. I like to joke that that it's the Jan Brady of TREK movies, overlooked only because it's tucked between its two more popular sisters.

 

[Kor]

TMP is the greatest movie in the history of the franchise.

TSFS added significantly to the Trek mythos.

Kor

 

[Lord Garth]

I don't prefer the odd-numbered films but I think they're underrated, except for Insurrection.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I always thought TSFS was unfairly tarried with the "odd-numbered films suck" thing. I like to joke that that it's the Jan Brady of TREK movies, overlooked only because it's tucked between its two more popular sisters.

III is an 'odd' one in so far as pretty sure at the time it was considered a great Trek movie (although not as good as II but way better than TMP) then IV was considered best ever Trek movie at the time, but it mustn't have been until V or VI or maybe VII that III was lumped in with the odd/bad even/good rule (for a while II and III were seen as the action packed Trek films)

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

I do prefer TSFS to TVH.

TMP definitely makes a statement and as I get older I appreciate it more.

TFF is still pretty bad though.

 

[Smellmet]

There's only TFF and INS out of the odd numbered films that I consider to be actually bad, TFF in particular.

 

[Kor]

III is an 'odd' one in so far as pretty sure at the time it was considered a great Trek movie (although not as good as II but way better than TMP) then IV was considered best ever Trek movie at the time, but it mustn't have been until V or VI or maybe VII that III was lumped in with the odd/bad even/good rule (for a while II and III were seen as the action packed Trek films)

Roger Ebert gave TSFS three stars out of four; the same rating he gave TWOK, though in the text of the TSFS review, he said that TWOK was "the best one so far" (source).

The Los Angeles Times' reviewer Kevin Thomas also had good things to say about TSFS, though he felt it wasn't quite as good as TWOK (source).

Kor

 

[Damian]

TMP is my favorite Star Trek film, as I noted a couple times. I consider it the purest Star Trek film in the science fiction sense and in what it's essence is supposed to be. In a way it's an anti Star Wars film (not that I don't enjoy Star Wars but it's not Star Trek and I never thought Star Trek should try to be like Star Wars).

TSFS is lumped in with the odd movie curse sometimes, but at the same time most consider it one of the stronger entries in the franchise. Not quite as popular among the masses as TWOK or TVH maybe, but it's still a crucial part of the 'trilogy' and can't be ignored. I liked it and thought it was a good, solid Star Trek film.

TFF is IMHO the weakest of all the films. Mind you I don't hate it. I just watched it a few weeks ago in fact. I still think it has some great character moments, Laurence Luckingbill did a great job I thought, even if I didn't care for Sybok being a never before seen brother, and the score was one of the best of the series, as is usually the case when Goldsmith is at the helm. I still think if Paramount were to fork over some money to fix the special effects, that could go a long way to making it a better film. Not great but at least respectable.

I agree with some others that TVH is a bit dated these days, probably mostly due to it's 1980's setting so it can't be helped. But it's an entertaining film nonetheless. The humor there is more organic and natural, unlike the forced affair in TFF. It's a popcorn flick, but in a good way. It still is an intelligent film, but after the more serious TWOK and TSFS it was a much needed fun movie. I loved TWOK and TUC too, but TWOK did have some plot holes a mile wide. But Montalban did a phenomenal job with his role and making Khan believable. It's sort of a popcorn flick too, and not nearly as intelligent as TMP, but I thought it still came together nicely. Just don't try to look at it too deeply or it can come apart. TUC had great pacing and an overall good plot, though I didn't care for some of the characterizations of the crew. They seemed overly hostile to the potential for peace. I can understand skepticism but they seemed outright hostile.

 

[Greg Cox]

Roger Ebert gave TSFS three stars out of four; the same rating he gave TWOK, though in the text of the TSFS review, he said that TWOK was "the best one so far" (source).

The Los Angeles Times' reviewer Kevin Thomas also had good things to say about TSFS, though he felt it wasn't quite as good as TWOK (source).

Kor

As I recall, The Seattle Times (my old hometown paper) loved TSFS and declared it the best Trek film yet, praising Nimoy in particular for finally getting it right.

 

[Roundabout]

TMP is Star Trek at its finest. It is an epic in every sense -- high production value, excellent music, great scifi story, and Kirk's fly-by inspection of the Enterprise -- you can't get any better than that.

TSFS was a good solid TOS movie. But it was a sequel to TWOK, which was much superior to TSFS imho. TSFS depended on TWOK to a certain degree. The "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one" story element started with TWOK. TSFS played off of that but opposite -- the sacrifice of the many for Spock.

TSFS did have one of my favorite TOS movie dialogue. After Kirk sprung McCoy from the lunatic asylum, he gave the signal to the rest of the gang, "The Kobayashi Maru has set sail for the promised land."
McCoy: "You're taking me to the promised land?"
Kirk: "What are friends for?"

That dialogue was so much more clever than the contrived buddy buddy buddy campground scenes in TFF, which was a bad movie. TSFS was just as much about friendship as TFF, but it was done in a much better way. It didn't have to shove the friendship theme in your face like TFF did.

 

[Vger23]

I prefer TMP, TSFS and TFF to TVH and TUC...so I'm totally bought in.