• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

How much stock do you put in the even/odd curse?

The even-numbered films were at least generally more ambitious and yes, I'd have to say also outright more successful. You can even tell, at least reasonably infer, that after the last even film the stars got more comfortable in and/or gained more control over the next one. The odd numbered films do tend to feel like like pretty awkward and underwhelming follow-ups to the evens (TSfS undoing TWoK death, TFF kind of redoing TVH, Generations giving an unneeded other farewell to Kirk, Insurrection being nearly nothing like FC).

I do like TFF more than TSfS or TVH (don't really get why a lot of people love TVH) but I know I'm pretty rare in that.

As for STIII, there’s nothing about it that would lend credence that it’s an inherently bad film just because it’s odd-numbered.

I think it does feel very small. Kirk realizes he has to go to Genesis, steals the ship, arrives and fights Klingons pretty briefly and leaves the planet.
That Kirk has to steal and then destroy the Enterprise are pretty much the only things that feel significant. It really depends on you already knowing and loving Spock and that TWoK already heavily damaged, practically crippled the Enterprise.

Edit:

Yeah, most of the time I tell people about the even/odd curse, it's to bring up that the theory still holds if there was a secret tenth Star Trek movie between INS and NEM.

Yes, X-Men ;)
 
Last edited:
I first heard of it in reviews of people complaining about ST V, and they unfairly retro-applied their theory to ST III and TMP as well. Now, TMP had always polarized fans, but my memories of ST III was that, in 1984, it was very well received, and seemed to slip in fans' estimations after the "odd films suck" theory gained momentum. That theory really set up expectations that "Generations" and "Insurrection" were "going to suck". And then "Nemesis" was the film that broke the theory's back.
 
I first heard of it in reviews of people complaining about ST V, and they unfairly retro-applied their theory to ST III and TMP as well. Now, TMP had always polarized fans, but my memories of ST III was that, in 1984, it was very well received, and seemed to slip in fans' estimations after the "odd films suck" theory gained momentum. That theory really set up expectations that "Generations" and "Insurrection" were "going to suck". And then "Nemesis" was the film that broke the theory's back.
im pretty sure I remember IIIs reviews as generally positive - seem to recall one review either in print or on the radio that said its not as quite as good as II but light years ahead of TMP. when you think about it thered be no reason for it to be deemed bad as it was full of action and space battles and brilliant ILM FX etc and Shatner was great in it and even the way Spock came back was well done. With IV it was pretty much thought of the best one of all and a great end to the saga. I don't recall much about it for V other than the movie was bad but it may well have started then. With VI think I remember it being abit thing as it was such an improvement and recall Meyer being asked if he was going to do VII and he said he only worked on the even ones. And definitely remember the reviews for Gen/FC/Ins being all about the 'odd/even rule' and then Nemesis was deemed bad but was shockingly an even one
 
Last edited:
I - Meh.
II - Good.
III - Good.
IV - Personal Favorite.
V - Meh.
VI - Personal Favorite.
VII - Meh.
VIII - Personal Favorite.
IX - Meh.
X - Kill it with fire.
XI - Ok.
XII - Ok.
XIII - Absolute top personal favorite.

There was a trend for a while, but it was already screwed up by TSFS and then rendered entirely irrelevant by NEM and the reboot films.
 
The Reeve-Stevens' posited a theory that there might be an actual equation behind it: odd numbered movies typically have larger budgets, after the even numbered ones before them have been successful on smaller budgets, which ironically results in the bigger budgeted odd numbered instalments sinking under the need to make back more money. The only TOS movies to buck the trend are V and VI, which both had exactly identical meager budgets, but the people behind VI were all just a lot better about using the money. First Contact vs Insurrection is another great example, as INS had a huge budget after the relatively modestly budgeted FC had been so successful, but they used the extra money badly, wasting it on costly location shoots that mostly didn't even end up in the final cut anyway, and it ironically ends up looking cheaper than it's predecessor.
 
I don't believe in the "even/odd curse" at all. I rate Search for Spock above Voyage Home, Generations above First Contact. And if we're counting the Pine/Quinto films, Beyond would rate above many "evens."
 
Let's face it, it's nonsense.
TMP was a good film but it wasn't for me a Star Trek movie.

TWOK is a good movie and had one the great performances in a villain in Trek's history and cast a large shadow till this day.

TSFS was a disappointing and quite frankly a terrible follow up to TWOK; a very boring and uninspired movie, one of the worst Trek movies I've ever seen.

TVH is one of those lightening in a bottle films which was done by a director who understood how crappy his previous work was and made one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.
TFF was... well... it had no motivation and the movie just wasn't well thought out and it showed.

TUC was a predictable murder mystery and it's saving grace was the special effects; it's hard to believe this plot was the reason why Starfleet made peace with the Klingons. It's meh in my book and has become a very overrated Star Trek movie which doesn't hold up with repeated viewings.

TNG movies odd and even were equally worthless and single handedly hurt the movie franchise; those movies were simply expanded and were poorly written TV episodes, the kind of storytelling I would find on Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery.
 
I've always liked TSFS. I'd never consider it a bad film.

It's just a matter of where it lines up for me. Limiting myself to films before Nemesis (when I think the pattern broke), TUC was my "least" favorite of the even-numbered films and TSFS was my favorite of the odd-numbered films. But I put TUC above TSFS. I like all of the original films, but I prefer TWOK, TVH, and TUC to TMP, TSFS, and TFF. But I still like TSFS a lot. I also like TFF, I don't care what anyone says.

TMP is somewhere where musically and visually, I think it's the best-looking and best-sounding Star Trek film even now. But I look at more than just that for an overall film experience. I'm more impressed with the film than I am entertained by it. So I can't group it with TWOK, TVH, and TUC.

So, like I said in my original post, I never subscribed to the idea of even = good, odd = bad. Just that I preferred the even films to the odd-numbered ones.
 
TMP was a good film but it wasn't for me a Star Trek movie.

Not a Star Trek film? Do tell us why. I think it's one of, if not the the most Star Trek-y films in the series. Right up there with TWOK for my number one spot. What a glorious, epic sci-fi movie. I wish more Trek films could have been like this one.

TWOK is a good movie and had one the great performances in a villain in Trek's history and cast a large shadow till this day.

Mostly agree with this. It's always been a great movie to me, I do think there's a lot more to it than just Montalbans terrific performance though, Kirks character arc in this is very satisfying, and despite the films age, it's still hugely exciting to watch.

TSFS was a disappointing and quite frankly a terrible follow up to TWOK; a very boring and uninspired movie, one of the worst Trek movies I've ever seen.

It's got it's faults - cheap looking sets and the ending kills the pacing of the movie, but I wouldn't call it terrible by any stretch. It has a lot to offer for me - stealing the enterprise is fantastic, as was the destruction, Kruge was a solid villain, great score and some good visuals too. I've never classed this as a bad one.

TVH is one of those lightening in a bottle films which was done by a director who understood how crappy his previous work was and made one of the best Star Trek movies ever made.
TFF was... well... it had no motivation and the movie just wasn't well thought out and it showed.

TVH is an entertaining movie for sure, but I would never put it at or near the top of my list of best trek movies personally, it's just too goofy and hasn't aged particularly well. Middle of the pack with 3 and 6. TFF has very little to recommend it outside the interactions between the cast and score. A shoddy production all round and by far the worst Trek movie in my opinion.

TUC was a predictable murder mystery and it's saving grace was the special effects; it's hard to believe this plot was the reason why Starfleet made peace with the Klingons. It's meh in my book and has become a very overrated Star Trek movie which doesn't hold up with repeated viewings.

This is a funny one. When it was released I thought it was up there with TWOK. Bar the still decent visuals, time hasn't been kind to this and it's slipped down my ratings somewhat. I still like it a lot but the flaws are so much more apparent these days. It's still a pretty slick looking production compared to some of the other entries, and does entertain still.

TNG movies odd and even were equally worthless and single handedly hurt the movie franchise; those movies were simply expanded and were poorly written TV episodes, the kind of storytelling I would find on Voyager, Enterprise, and Discovery.

If Generations had ditched the Nexus for something less problematic story-wise it would be an excellent movie - I also think it's aged better than any of the other TNG entries. FC is starting to look really corny and dated (but still very entertaining), Insurrection is just poor across the board, and Nemesis is actually one of my personal favourites, despite it's glaring flaws.
 
It's amazing how much of a contrarian I am (without any intent....!)

I find TUC and TVH to be at the bottom of the pile for TOS movies in terms of my appreciation for them. I really like TMP, TSFS and TFF much better. TWOK is a given.

So, if you look at it from that perspective, I almost lean opposite.

Even GEN, which is a crappy movie by almost all definitions, I find fairly enjoyable if you just turn your brain off and go with it. Heck, it even has some pretty good themes, and visually / soundtrack-wise, it's awesome.

The only "odd" number movie I actively dislike is INS.
 
Last edited:
I only like 2, 5, and 6. So, no stock in the curse, I suppose.
 
Not a Star Trek film? Do tell us why. I think it's one of, if not the the most Star Trek-y films in the series. Right up there with TWOK for my number one spot. What a glorious, epic sci-fi movie. I wish more Trek films could have been like this one.
I didn't say that. Some get stuck when I define certain flicks as either film or movie. TMP was definitely a film; a form of cinema which has more of the invitation of exploring ideas and an evaluation of the human condition. As I see the TOS, it was more of an action adventure piece, more in the vain of movies--you know-- popcorn flicks ala rollercoaster rides on celluloid.

Mostly agree with this. It's always been a great movie to me, I do think there's a lot more to it than just Montalbans terrific performance though, Kirks character arc in this is very satisfying, and despite the films age, it's still hugely exciting to watch.
I can add the great score done by James Horner and the little plot developments as well, but the movie is what it is, and most people gravitate on Montalban's performance because it was just that brilliant.

TSFS - It's got it's faults - cheap looking sets and the ending kills the pacing of the movie, but I wouldn't call it terrible by any stretch. It has a lot to offer for me - stealing the enterprise is fantastic, as was the destruction, Kruge was a solid villain, great score and some good visuals too. I've never classed this as a bad one.
It's a very disappointing follow up to TWOK, none of the character development from the previous was explored in that movie. Saavik, miscast IMO, was now just a female Spock losing all of the layers of personality I loved from Kirstie Alley, David is now the sole creator of the Genesis project??? Kirk is now the person chatting about the significance of Genesis??? I'm well aware Bibi Besch did not allow her footage to be replayed without payment by SAG, but I thought the subplot that Genesis didn't work just for a plot device to get Spock out of the planet in the nick of time before it explodes was weak.
I don't believe David or Saavik would be transferred to another vessel so fast, and I just don't buy Saavik leaving the Enterprise; she was Spock's successor and TWOK made her earn that position and I bought it. She is a member of the Enterprise. I thought the Klingon Enterprise battle was dull and not well thought out, I also thought it was a huge disappointment for the characters to talk jibber jabber about the Excelsior and all the cool things it can do but when the moment it was time to see what this thing can really do... it really... didn't do... anything??? I don't give a shit about Scotty's sabotage, this is a major motion picture and selling fool's gold about a super ship and don't show what it can do is not good storytelling and doesn't fulfill my expectations. Visual storytelling is to show, don't tell... something Nimoy learned and made a tremendous improvement in his later pictures like TVH and "3 Men and a Baby".
TSFS is a grasping at straws movie which never had any ideas nor be entertaining for me. It's a great disappointment; I had a similar bad taste in my mouth watching "The Matrix Reloaded" the follow up to "The Matrix".

TVH is an entertaining movie for sure, but I would never put it at or near the top of my list of best trek movies personally, it's just too goofy and hasn't aged particularly well. Middle of the pack with 3 and 6. TFF has very little to recommend it outside the interactions between the cast and score. A shoddy production all round and by far the worst Trek movie in my opinion.
I don't know when you born, but I'm guessing you were around when these movies were in cinema screens at the moment. I was born in the mid 90's and for me TVH was and felt more like TOS in tone, fun, and adventure, it reminded me of episodes like "Shore Leave", and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" moments where the situation is critical but have time to relieve the tension of the situation. TVH for me is the best Star Trek movie because it gambles on those traits and it works in spades.

TUC - This is a funny one. When it was released I thought it was up there with TWOK. Bar the still decent visuals, time hasn't been kind to this and it's slipped down my ratings somewhat. I still like it a lot but the flaws are so much more apparent these days. It's still a pretty slick looking production compared to some of the other entries, and does entertain still.
The movie only works because it has to. I'm positive that movie would be looked upon as TFF part 2 if Meyer used the same SFX co. who did TFF. Nicholas Meyer has never been a strong visual storyteller, just take a glance at his resume; it's weird too because TWOK was such a good movie. Looking at his work after Khan I thought his movies were a visual decline, falling in love with a lot of master shots and treating his movies like theatrical plays. BOOOORING.
TUC was a culmination of his decline as a director; I bet when he was asked to do it he was gunning for the chance to be relevant, but I do like it and the Scooby Doo type, Saturday Morning mystery helped the cast finally have something do and it was the last movie for them, so there's some justice to the movie's clunky tale. I still feel with Nimoy's vision that Kirk should've been sentenced to live his natural life on a Klingon planet, living and eating with the race he hates and learns these people are people and not the monsters he thought they were and there should've been a cataclysmic shift between the Klingons and the Federation as the crisis unfolds. The movie doesn't understand the magnitude of the situation and simply solves it in a matter of days instead of years. It's weak. It's weak.

If Generations had ditched the Nexus for something less problematic story-wise it would be an excellent movie - I also think it's aged better than any of the other TNG entries. FC is starting to look really corny and dated (but still very entertaining), Insurrection is just poor across the board, and Nemesis is actually one of my personal favourites, despite it's glaring flaws.
Yes, Generations would've been a lot better if it didn't spend so much time sh*tting all over a well, beloved character, and a cinematic and television icon. Viacom made the mistake by not having a movie production team handle the projects than a television production team... which was also full of brim of handling two major TV productions (DS9 & Voy) and involving in most of the outside amusement park projects which was attached with Rick Berman Productions at the time. It's not surprising Rick Berman's films, TV, and other projects felt the same and appeared quite thin.
 
I didn't say that. Some get stuck when I define certain flicks as either film or movie. TMP was definitely a film; a form of cinema which has more of the invitation of exploring ideas and an evaluation of the human condition. As I see the TOS, it was more of an action adventure piece, more in the vain of movies--you know-- popcorn flicks ala rollercoaster rides on celluloid.


I can add the great score done by James Horner and the little plot developments as well, but the movie is what it is, and most people gravitate on Montalban's performance because it was just that brilliant.


It's a very disappointing follow up to TWOK, none of the character development from the previous was explored in that movie. Saavik, miscast IMO, was now just a female Spock losing all of the layers of personality I loved from Kirstie Alley, David is now the sole creator of the Genesis project??? Kirk is now the person chatting about the significance of Genesis??? I'm well aware Bibi Besch did not allow her footage to be replayed without payment by SAG, but I thought the subplot that Genesis didn't work just for a plot device to get Spock out of the planet in the nick of time before it explodes was weak.
I don't believe David or Saavik would be transferred to another vessel so fast, and I just don't buy Saavik leaving the Enterprise; she was Spock's successor and TWOK made her earn that position and I bought it. She is a member of the Enterprise. I thought the Klingon Enterprise battle was dull and not well thought out, I also thought it was a huge disappointment for the characters to talk jibber jabber about the Excelsior and all the cool things it can do but when the moment it was time to see what this thing can really do... it really... didn't do... anything??? I don't give a shit about Scotty's sabotage, this is a major motion picture and selling fool's gold about a super ship and don't show what it can do is not good storytelling and doesn't fulfill my expectations. Visual storytelling is to show, don't tell... something Nimoy learned and made a tremendous improvement in his later pictures like TVH and "3 Men and a Baby".
TSFS is a grasping at straws movie which never had any ideas nor be entertaining for me. It's a great disappointment; I had a similar bad taste in my mouth watching "The Matrix Reloaded" the follow up to "The Matrix".


I don't know when you born, but I'm guessing you were around when these movies were in cinema screens at the moment. I was born in the mid 90's and for me TVH was and felt more like TOS in tone, fun, and adventure, it reminded me of episodes like "Shore Leave", and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" moments where the situation is critical but have time to relieve the tension of the situation. TVH for me is the best Star Trek movie because it gambles on those traits and it works in spades.


The movie only works because it has to. I'm positive that movie would be looked upon as TFF part 2 if Meyer used the same SFX co. who did TFF. Nicholas Meyer has never been a strong visual storyteller, just take a glance at his resume; it's weird too because TWOK was such a good movie. Looking at his work after Khan I thought his movies were a visual decline, falling in love with a lot of master shots and treating his movies like theatrical plays. BOOOORING.
TUC was a culmination of his decline as a director; I bet when he was asked to do it he was gunning for the chance to be relevant, but I do like it and the Scooby Doo type, Saturday Morning mystery helped the cast finally have something do and it was the last movie for them, so there's some justice to the movie's clunky tale. I still feel with Nimoy's vision that Kirk should've been sentenced to live his natural life on a Klingon planet, living and eating with the race he hates and learns these people are people and not the monsters he thought they were and there should've been a cataclysmic shift between the Klingons and the Federation as the crisis unfolds. The movie doesn't understand the magnitude of the situation and simply solves it in a matter of days instead of years. It's weak. It's weak.

Yes, Generations would've been a lot better if it didn't spend so much time sh*tting all over a well, beloved character, and a cinematic and television icon. Viacom made the mistake by not having a movie production team handle the projects than a television production team... which was also full of brim of handling two major TV productions (DS9 & Voy) and involving in most of the outside amusement park projects which was attached with Rick Berman Productions at the time. It's not surprising Rick Berman's films, TV, and other projects felt the same and appeared quite thin.

You bring up some fair points about TSFS. Robin Curtis was too cold, but that's partly because Nimoy over-directed her when she tells Kirk, "David is dead." Perhaps he wanted his character, Spock, to be the only Vulcan capable of warmth and humanity? :vulcan:
 
Last edited:
You bring up some fair points about TSFS. Robin Curtis was too cold, but that's partly because Nimoy over-directed her when she tells Kirk, "David is dead." Perhaps he wanted his character, Spock, to be the only Vulcan capable of warmth and humanity? :vulcan:

Although, if you look at the way Sarek is portrayed in Trek III, he very much displays emotions.

I think Curtis Saavik gets a bum rap. I think she did some very subtle things that showed that, while she was "maintaining control" during this whole incident, she was boiling with emotion on the inside. Examples are her voice cracking ever so slightly when she says "David is dead" or avoiding eye contact with Spock on Vulcan.
 
Last edited:
You bring up some fair points about TSFS. Robin Curtis was too cold, but that's partly because Nimoy over-directed her when she tells Kirk, "David is dead." Perhaps he wanted his character, Spock, to be the only Vulcan capable of warmth and humanity? :vulcan:
It's obvious the reason why Saavik was minimized because Spock would return and would not require a protege to share screen time. From what I know, Nimoy during and after TMP hated the experience and would only agree to do TWOK if he was killed off. So, Harve Bennett technically had carte blanche on how to handle Spock, and the idea was for him to have a successor, another Vulcan aboard the Enterprise, and why Kirstie Alley had so much screen time in that movie. I don't think Nimoy much cared for the Saavik character and handled her as such on his watch.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top