Talk:Star Trek movie curse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Should this be merged with Star_Trek_Curse? Maguirer 04:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek Curse talks more about the series. Someone could probably edit the Curse article and pass the movie info here, and add a See Also in each page.--201.218.122.120 00:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

-- This is the most stpd page in Wikipedia ever seen -- You can rate the cash incoming at 1st year of the movie but not the worldwide DVD releases. Also you cannot rate neither the general audience feelings about this movies nor the trekkie community arround the world. The people who could attend to ST-TMP premiere I'm sure found it amazing but with the years it means nothing for the young ones that have benn grown up with ST-TNG or DSN for example.

Sometimes happens, with curses and blessings, that people *Wants to Believe on them* so much that they just can see what they want to see.

It's better to talk about curses by explaining when they come from: a magazine review, a web page or a fan club or something. This curse did not appear as a natural result of a "curse being true because it is true" you know. 195.212.199.56 15:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Mathmatical Equation

Back in high school calculus, I came up with a Theory of a Mathematical Equation for Movie Sequels. It stated that: "Every movie sequel is a derivative of the film that preceded it." Most derivatives eventually become a constant, which means the next try will be a total zero. That happens so often. Godzilla or James Bond films, on the other hand, being character based episodes, were explained by ex, whose derivative is also ex. Yes, technically, you're watching the same movie over again.

So I got to Star Trek and figured that the equation had to be some form of sin(x), because that starts at 0, the derivative is cos(x)=1, followed by -sin(x), and this would go a long way toward explaining the bad movie, good movie pattern of the series.

Yeah, I know-- No Original Research. MMetro 20:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World Gross Data

Is the World Gross value corrected for inflation? Should it be? --Mdwyer 21:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bogus

This has got to be by far the most ridiculous Wikipedia article I've seen. It would be better to fuse this with a general page on the films or franchise (as a footnote). -TheHande (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes total cr*p. And in the main article. It should be deleted. The refernence used doesn't even mention the word curse. I remember watching Star Trek I in the cinema and being delighted, because of course 10 minutes of orbiting the Enterprise in Drydock was exciting (at the time) because there'd be no Star Trek for years, let alone as a movie. It was only when I rewatch it that I realize its not very good. And Star Trek III was fairly entertaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivertownshend (talk • contribs) 05:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It frankly doesn't matter. There's a perception that this is true, and that's all that's important, repeated in several sources. Now, the genuine problem this article has is the title - I've never heard it called a "curse" either, but that's where the article was, so whatever. If somebody else has a better title for "even numbered films are good, odd bad," then go for it and move the page. SnowFire (talk) 06:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no Bigfoot, but there's an article about Bigfoot. Happywaffle (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, we've got cr*p item's galore, and the fact that we have them means we can have more! Olivertownshend (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Deletion?

Good grief. Someone wants to delete the article? Okay, the article could be more informative. So let's stub it. The name is misleading? So let's rename it. The basic quantitative fFacts are pretty good. We could merge it to another, larger, existing article, perhaps. But deletion? Deleting an article should be used to say "This knowledge is entirely bogus without redeeming value or truth." The chart states clear information with precise data, and the text outlines the basic premise and foundation of the article. It is plain to me this article is not without some level of value or truth. It just happens to be a very small level of value or truth, at the moment. So let's identify what needs to change fFor this to be a better article, or a better section of a different article. I'll start: Skotte (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Who first identified the relationship of movie and iteration?
  • Was there a first person, or did it simply become apparent at some point?
  • Has the "curse" been mentioned in some media outlet? for example, has Roger Ebert referenced the phenomenon?
  • Have any star trek personel (actors, directors, etc.) stated any opinions on the 'curse' ?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Skotte (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

  • This "curse" is an original synthesis based on a selective interpretation of cited sources. Citations that don't support the conclusion are called outliers. The odd movie syndrome has been a well-known concept in Trek fandom since the 1990s, but that doesn't mean we can make a serious encyclopedic article about it. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • With concerns above stated, if you think this article can be salvaged, then the Prod tag should come off and we can attempt a constructive solution, like a rewrite or a merge. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the PROD tag. and will clarify that the existing citation is from the Chicago Sun Times, which seems a suitably reliable source to me. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)