An Auspicious Year

[Nardpuncher]

1969: Star Trek was cancelled
1979: Star Trek:The Motion Picture
1989: The last time a Trek film 'dared' to open in the summer
1999: Deep Space Nine ended
2009: Star Trek

I know it's easy to play with numbers, but it looks like the 9s have been importanat in Trek.

 

[indranee]

important, maybe, but auspicious? no.

 

[urbandk]

you guys remember the interview in advance of nemesis in which it was promoted as an even-numbered film? that's how confident we are folks. forget insurrection. this one is even-numbered. that's playing numbers.

 

[indranee]

forget everything you know.

 

[RAMA]

forget everything you know.

I'm probably going to get some eye rolls but the even-odd movie thing is silly. STIII was actually very good, and Nemesis in my opinion is underrated. ST 2009, according to most reviews I have seen, should definitely put an end to it once and for all.

RAMA

 

[Pat]

STIII was actually very good

Agree, an excellent and most enjoyable film all round - I have never understood why it's regarded as a "lesser" entry in the Trek movie fold by many.

 

[Ovation]

STIII was actually very good

Agree, an excellent and most enjoyable film all round - I have never understood why it's regarded as a "lesser" entry in the Trek movie fold by many.

The middle part of any trilogy (though it wasn't necessarily conceived as such) usually suffers in public opinion. Also, it is sandwiched between the most popularly and critically acclaimed of the TOS crew movies.

 

[Augustus]

STIII was actually very good

Agree, an excellent and most enjoyable film all round - I have never understood why it's regarded as a "lesser" entry in the Trek movie fold by many.

In my opinion because it looks so cheap. It is a bare bones movie more so than Khan or any other film. I know it is because of the story, but the film hardly requires extras.

But I like it too

 

[miraclefan]

STIII was actually very good

Agree, an excellent and most enjoyable film all round - I have never understood why it's regarded as a "lesser" entry in the Trek movie fold by many.

In my opinion because it looks so cheap. It is a bare bones movie more so than Khan or any other film. I know it is because of the story, but the film hardly requires extras.

But I like it too

I didn't think ST3 looked ''cheap'' at all! you want cheap look at ST2! that was cheap!(by the way I liked st3 better then st2)

 

[The Wormhole]

This seems like a good time to bring up the Pattern of Nine

 

[SalvorHardin]

This seems like a good time to bring up the Pattern of Nine

It's never a good time for that...

 

[indranee]

forget everything you know.

I'm probably going to get some eye rolls but the even-odd movie thing is silly. STIII was actually very good, and Nemesis in my opinion is underrated. ST 2009, according to most reviews I have seen, should definitely put an end to it once and for all.

RAMA

agreed. TSFS was pretty good and I liked Nemesis way better than Generations and Insurrection. but as movies go... *shrug*

 

[Nardpuncher]

It was Star Trek III that made me a fan in the first place!

I never saw anything cheap about it. They had SpaceDock, the BoP and the Excelsior...oh yeah, and the Grissom too. I'm not going to check but I'll wager Paramount spent more on it than they did on TWOK.

 

[Eddie Roth]

If all goes as all hope and ST09 takes off at the box-office, thereby allowing more films (and maybe a new TV show someday) to be made, 2009 will follow the years 1966, 1979, 1987 and 1993 as the only years in which Star Trek really took a significant new direction.