Has Star Trek XI Broken the Odd Number Curse?

I voted no. IMO, the odd/even thing only applies to the old ST movies, this new movie is not a part of that sequence, even if some peoplestill insist on referring to it as VI.

Some folks say that the curse applies to TNG movies too, saying that Generations and Insurrection were weak and not as popular, but then again Nemesis, a even numbered movie bombed so maybe the curse was broken then.

^^^ You're probably right. Then again, I was referring to the alleged 'curse' applying only to the previous run of ten ST movies - TOS and TNG. I really don't count Abramsverse as part of that franchise. It's become something rather different now.

I suppose you mean XI instead of VI.



Abramsverse? This movie IS real Star Trek.

Ooops! My bad, but I think you got my meaning anyway!




In some respects yes, in others definitely not. It depends on the point of view of each individual fan, and I don't count thid movie as a continuation of the past 40 years which, as a free thinking person, is my perogative.

Again I don't agree. It's not up to the fans to say what gets the lable of Star Trek and what not. If it were the case, I would add Forbidden Planet and a lot of the Star Trek comics by DC to the Star Trek continuity and remove both TMP and TVH from it. But that's not up to us. It's up to Paramount to decide what is Star Trek and what isn't. And we must follow their rules. We DO have the right to like, not like or even hate some of the things that are labled Star Trek and we do have the right to stop watching. But that's about all.

No matter the website, forum, or the topic, it doesnt seem that Jules and Capt Berns will ever agree on much of anything. I am really waiting on the Bluray of the New Star Trek to come out to see the deleted scenes and watch the whole movie with those in mind to make the final verdict on how i like this movie. If paramount can keep the momentum going on this franchise, i think that there can be at least 6 movies including this one based on Abrams vision and perhaps at least one series down the pike.

I've never bought into this odd number movies thing. The Search For Spock is one of my favorite Star Trek films, I think it is highly underrated. So no, this hasn't broken any curse.

I voted no, since the movie itself (story- and characterwise) has been by far the worst of the 11 films. The story has been filled with plotholes, coincidence, forced action scenes, bad sometimes silly and embarrissing humor, cliche characters.
It went probably against everything Star Trek stands for. It had no message, no theme. The characters were unsympathetic (Kirk was too arrogant for example).

But I never believed in the curse since I liked both GENERATIONS and INSURRECTION, too.
And NEMESIS rocked.

The first ten movies were all good, in their own way. I think that i liked them all, some more than others. The movie that i disliked the most was Nemesis, but the newest movie may take that honor. Looking forward to watching it again next week and seeing the special features, then i will render my official verdict.

Well, not to take sides but I do agree with Berns This is Star Trek and the Star Trek I grew up with. I've actually considered starting a thread asking the question, when did ST get so serious because of what I've been reading.

So you contradicted yourself in the space of one paragraph!

At the end of the day, the relationship between Paramount and the fanbase feeds off each other. Paramount won't get far if the fans won't buy its product. If the fanbase and the general public had given Abrams' movie the cold-shoulder, there wouldn't be any more 'Star Trek' movies and no more opportunity for the studio to try and make any 'rules'. The rules only work if the fans want to follow them, or some fans want to slavishly demand that there are rules to be followed because they like being dictated to. I guess that a lot of the more engaged Trek fans will see the Abrams'verse and Prime Universe as two different Treks that have strong links, but not as the same thing, quite simply because the renewed franchise wasn't designed to be that in the first place. If you are seeing Prime Universe and Abrams'verse as one amoprhous mass of 'Star Trek', then Abrams has failed in his endeavour.

To explain: for whatever reason, Prime Universe Trek wasn't drawing in the crowds, so the studio went back to basics with the characters, ships, uniforms and basic premise repackaged for the mainstream audience. Past canon was ditched in an effort to reintroduce the crew and launch a new series of adventures without being "hampered" by the old continuity. Whether the studio can create genuinely new adventures without revisiting old movies and old scenarios remains to be seen.

In point of fact, it isn't actually Paramount who defines what 'Star Trek' is beyond marketing the label and endeavouring to try and officially state what can be regarded as canon and what isn't. However, I've been a trekker long enough to know that individual fans make up their own minds up on that and often have a greater idea of continuity than any Trek writer has.

Actually, as long as the audience keeps watching, I don't think Paramount, Abrams, or anybody else has a view on whether somebody like me decides to regard Abrams'verse as a separate entity - which is my choice. I don't regard this new movie as part of any of the previous 40 years of the Trek that I have enjoyed. Besides, it doesn't work with the original canon, it conflicts with TOS canon and you obviously haven't been paying attention because this movie isn't supposed to be viewed as a continuation or a part of the last 40 years - which is why you see Chekov on the bridge and Vulcan destroyed. It was deliberately designed not to be viewed in the same terms as Prime Universe Trek. In the end I honoured that concept and I enjoyed the new movie, but it's not part of that previous continuity for me, and it is missing some of the things that I have enjoyed in the previous 40 years in terms of depth and meaning. Whether that comes in later remains to be seen.

But I think you understood my point anyway. And if you don't, you have the choice whether you make an issue out of it, or get over it.

I agree completely.

If you regard it as 'Star Trek' then great, but it ain't the one you grew up with! It may share many similarities to the TOS of the 1960s, but I seem to recall that the TOS I grew up with had wobbly sets, polystyrene rocks, and Spock had both parents still alive.

If you feel that it is the same Trek in essence then that is for you to decide.



It didn't become serious, it always was because some people like to think a little more deeply than others.

Berns does agree with me really, he just won't admit it!



Sensible option! There were a lot of deleted scenes. I thinkt he cuts were made because the mainstream gets ants in its pants if it's required to hold its attention span for longer than two hours. In a way, this movie suffered from the same death of a thousand cuts that Nemesis did because there are some loose ends hanging.




I wouldn't bank on a TV series. It strikes me that expensive, FX heavy, TV shows are unpopular with studio execs when reality TV shows are much cheaper to make. It was one of the reasons that Enterprise was axed - too expensive to make for the relatively small audience it attracted.

We know that a 3-movie package was in the offing. I hope that now the characters have all been reintroduced, that the next movie will inject some depth into the proceedings.

I remember all the hullabaloo when TMP came out. My brother was probably a bigger fan of Star Trek then I at the time. But I remember going to see the movie, and afterward discussing it with the family and most everyone agreed except my brother that it really wasn't a great movie.

Sure it's fun to watch again every now and then, but it usually ranks pretty low on most fans list of best Trek Movies.

I'm still not sure where this one will rank, and maybe it's to early to make any kind of judgment, but it doen't "feel" as bad as some of the movies we've gotten. I think my main problem is there's just nothing in this movie to make me care! I've seen it all before and I don't find it original in any way whatsoever!

In that regard, I think TMP might have actually been better then the new movie.

Anyhow... I'm not sure Bernes did contradict himself?he only gave the hypothetical "If" on that paragraph Jules quoted...

No it wasn't and only a few years later I read that some Trekkers were actually referring to it as "The Stop-Motion Picture" referring to its lack of pace. I was surprised, in fact, that it did as well as it did and I honestly didn't expect to see another Trek movie hit the screen. I think at the time a lot of people viewed TMP in much the same light as this newer movie - as an opportunity to ride the wave of Abrams' popularity (in 1979 it was the popularity of "Star Wars") and rehash an old intellectual property. I think that many Trekkers enjoyed the experience of seeing the crew and theEnterprise on the big screen for the first time, but otherwise the movie couldn't have been more long-winded and pompous if Jean-Luc Picard himself had written the script!!



I have all ten on DVD and I have never bothered to watch TMP again, I don't have that much trouble sleeping!!



I had trouble empathising with Nero, and I think he was a very weak villain. His motives were both too trite and too transparent to be interesting.



Oh, no....surely not!!



Berns only deals in absolutes, he doesn't do hypothetical.....such as, he absolutely hates TNG!

I remember sitting in the theater in 1979 thinking,"why did they change the uniforms?" I have never been crazy about the STTMP uniforms, although i think Spocks uniform looks good on him and the Admiral Uniform on Kirk looks good, but Uhuras and many of the others look awful in my opinion.
I recently rewatched STTMP on bluray and enjoyed it the most i have in years, maybe it was the brilliant colors that have apparently been restored or maybe its the theatrical version of the film that hasnt been released in years that did it for me, i am not sure, but it was nice to see it looking good as i dont remember seeing it look like in a long time, if ever.



I actually stayed awake through the bluray version, it may be worth buying to see how much better it looks!




I agree with you on this. Even with the deleted scenes it doesnt really do much to flesh out Nero to be able to understand him that well. I did realize while watching the bluray that since he is a miner instead of a warrior romulan commander that may explain why he is so impulsive and rediculously emotional, he is not a trained military mind or tactitioner, he is trained to mine for dilithium or whatever they mine for. It strikes me that his crew are some cultic group, since they have the shaved, tattooed heads and seem to have no honor or semblance to the Military Romulans we have seen before. I realize that Nero may have gone mad when he realized his wife had died when Romulus was destroyed and later on when when he was detained and tortured by the Klingons, but we just havent gotten enough fleshing out to make him look anything other than like a buffoon with a tattoo.

The Countdown Comic explains the tattoos, and the other details about Nero and his gangs back story. It would have been nice if more of these details were included in the film, Like how the Narada was heavily modified by the Talshair with captured Borg technology, but it would have slowed it down. All of the back story in "Countdown" is factored into the events leading up to where the new Star Trek Massive Online Role Playing Game will kick of, in the year 2409.

Star Trek TMP is actually one of my favorite of the Star Trek films. Very deep and thought provoking story that causes one to think about big ideas.

Yes but, you can't rely upon the majority of the audience being nerdy enough to read a series of comics before they get into the theatres so that they know all about Nero. This is in part the same mistake that Baird made with Nemesis in relying upon previous knowledge to make his carved-up movie makes sense without key information.

I think we can all agree that Nemesis relied heavily upon a thorough working knowledge of TNG lore, else it's almost incomprehensible - especially Picard's reactions to the situation he finds himself in. Thanks to Tom Hardy's brilliant peformance as Shinzon, I could exptrapolate his motives (but it took me a while to a thorough analysis), however, Bana's lacklustre showing gave the audience little clues as to his character. We about his dead wife and child, but beyond that his status as a Base-born Romulan doesn't come through. Even then there's a problem because Romulans and Vulcans come from the same genetic stock and therefore the average Romulan is going to be as intelligent as the average Vulcan, however, Nero is simply a grunt with little real idea of what his plan actually is beyond targeting young Spock. In fact, Nero's sidekick has more screen presence than the main villain and actually provides Pine with the one true great Kirk movie moment ..."I've. Got. Your. Gun!" Classic!

I think they could have explored Nero's past a little better in the movie itself. I agree with VF's "cultic" depiction of these Romulans, but visual cues such as the head tattoos need to be explained to the audience, otherwise they just look like contemporary, trendy tattoos at attract the more edgy, young filmgoer.

I don't actually have Blu-Ray yet. We're waiting for the digital switch-over in our area next year and then we'll do a massive upgrade of TV and DVD hardware. I haven't really been able to appreciate HD or Blu-Ray in terms of watching movies yet, but it sounds a whole lot better!