here is my problem with people who tore down the newest star trek movie. The point of this movie was not just a "love letter" to the character of kirk (though was not happy with the spock and Uhura romance. The big piece that all the writers wanted to include was Gene Roddenberry's original concept and character (which was rejected) of Christopher Pike, and to tie that into the formation of TOS's crew. They did that, though they should not have killed spock's mom an used the time theory.
Is this SF debris' review of star trek 2009? Sorry, I know to many this must be an incredibly stupid question but I have actually just discovered his website. (Yes, I seem to be new to the internet. Laugh it up, guys.) On his website the reviews seem to stop at Star trek 10. Am I just blind or has he just not gotten around to do it, yet?
I like Final Frontier, you can pretend it never existed. Generations...ick, there's no getting rid of that shit. Enterprise will stay dead, Kirk will always have that shitty death, out of the 11 movies, Generations is the biggest disservice to Star Trek
YOU PEOPLE ARE ASSWHIPES! I've been a Trek fan since my mother watched the original series while she was pregnant with me. The new STAR TREK movie is just fine. It is certainly way better than the first, third, fifth and all the TNG films combined. As far as Nero's motives? Has it ever dawned on anyone that people as radical as Nero don't need a rational motive. He obviously already hated the Federation before Romulus was toasted, he said his motives were to have a future without the Federation.
So that now there would be no one to even _try_ to save his planet.....riiiight. That Nero is a dumbass/insane villain is fine, and honestly that's the only way you can really believe him as a character.
But then there's his crew...you'd think there'd be someone who would stand up to him and say "Hey you're an insane dumbass, I"m mutinying on your skinhead biker ass."
A good villain needs development...and Nero didn't have that. V'ger was a better character, honestly.
Yes, it is. Honestly it's worse than Generations. Generations you can at least fall asleep to while watching. Final Frontier is just so disjointed and spasmic that you can't even properly be bored with it.
I absolutely loved this movie, the only problem I had with it was Spock Prime's ship. I mean come on, The Jellyfish? He was from the 24th century at that point and the best name they could come up with was The Jellyfish?
@donfolstar I meant that maybe since they're going to continue the story for the sequels they're saving the character development for those sequels. I didn't say it was a reasonable justification. It was a guess. A speculation. A mere suggestion. Observe the "....?" at the end of my comment.
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape! We can escape the earth with a constant thrust, not a thrust over 10ms-1, just a thrust, and though it would take time, the Enterprise would escape. Blowing the engines would fail as it acts like jumping on Earth.
@pw8987 yes, but you are studying astrophysics. If you look at any science fiction movie, your real world astrophysics brain is going to bump against the whole fiction part, of science fiction. While a black hole is something well defined, and mathematical. To everyone else it's a dark, evil spot in the universe that sucks everything up so it makes perfect sense.
It's the choice between writing a movie for everyone or for astrophysicists which would be like watching someone read a text book.
@pw8987 But how much structural strength would such an engine and the ship housing this engine need to survive within the gravity well of the black hole? It's been established that no race in the Star Trek universe has yet developed materials strong enough to withstand that kind of gravity.
@Zidana123 if it's a case of structural stability, the Enterprise would have been destroyed or not destroyed depending on its distance from the Black Hole. Remember, the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, and our Galaxy as a whole all have 'gravity wells', but gravity is ALWAYS countered better by a constant force than a projectile force. I was saying that blowing up the engines will be far less effective than using them properly - especially as they're designed to (in their nature) escape a black hole!
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape! We can escape the earth with a constant thrust, not a thrust over 10ms-1, just a thrust, and though it would take time, the Enterprise would escape. Blowing the engines would fail as it acts like jumping on Earth.
Perhaps the "Red Matter" is only stable in a large block, as it's only seen to react when both out of (I'm going to call it) stasis (for ease) and when it's in smaller blobs.
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and hence know that a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape, whereas a wave wouldn't!
I'm surprised to hear sfdebris (a year ago mind you) give this movie a 7. Especially for your own reasons, such as a disconnected storyline (no plot, just *events*) and Kirk's status as eternal punk-ass (no character growth), these things are all the bane of your previous reviews. Have viewings since altered your opinion, I wonder...?
Since we are one year hence: The Black Hole thing: A theory was put out about a month ago (and mathematically verified as plausible) that black holes may actually be portals to other universes. So in this sense the movie can be defended as scientifically plausible. However, time would slow down infinitely, so the closer you get to the "portal", the slower and slower time would get, you'd never reach the other side (until we invent a do-hicky to bubble =P). Just thought I'd chip that in
If there was no story, it was just a bunch of stuff strung together into a two hour film....why are you giving it 7 or 8 out of 10? A feeling that there's love for the characters? Are you kidding?
The whole story just felt like a plot device to excuse that the film had new actors playing iconic characters. It seemed like JJ actually was afraid of the rabid Trekkers that wanted no one than Shatner to play Kirk, so he told the viewers that this is a alternative universe. This also gives JJ and the writers the opportunity to say 'F#ck you cannon.'
There was fun humour and nice visuals but the sorry excuse for a story left me empty or 'raped' as Redlettermedia would put it.
I'll tell you what separates Star Trek from other standard sci-fi fare. The Enterprise and the inexperienced crew are severely over-matched and have to use other resources other than muscle to overcome Nero. That is in my opinion always a plus. I also think in showing respect for Spock towards the end of the film they are showing that he is growing as a character a little. I just think anything more might have been cramming too much narrative into this perfectly paced film.
I would have hated it if in the last minute of the film Kirk changes into a nice guy. That would be like "Avatar" where a non-caring soldier who can't even speak whole sentences turns into an environmentalist with a totally different speech-pattern even after 3 months!!!! This movie is like a pilot in a series and the centre is how the crew meets. The consequences of the events will be shown in the 2. part. And the prospect that all ST shows and movies belong now to another reality is bold.
I totally agree about the idiotic Nero-story. But I disagree in regard of character development. Kirk is an asshole in the beginning, he didn' t change at the academy, but a lot of people don't seem to grow up while attending schools, universities, etc. And I think this is a common theme especially in US cinema and TV. The event that takes place during most of the film lasts one or two days. It is shocking but the idea that someone changes his character completely after that is cinema thinking.
How had he matured? You never ever saw the progression of his maturity. He seemed like a brat that was just determined to get in the captain's chair no matter what. By the end he had achieved that
I'd like to point out that Jim was different by the end of the film. He had matured throughout the course of it. Evident was when he was offering mercy to Nero. That's a sign of maturity.
Also in reguards to the red matter, Spock was going to destroy a sun. It took a drop to destroy Vulcan, but it obviously suppose to take more of the red matter to destroy the giant red sun of Romulus.
Technically a wormhole is a blackhole that takes you somewhere else in time and space. And there are theories that blackholes form their own universe within themselves (since the idea of a blackhole is almost the same idea as a big bang in reverse). The problem is that we have no idea what happens inside a blackhole for sure (since nothing can escape it).
Hey I was just wondering: how can Captain Kirk (the dad) set his ship to engage on a collision course, if it's on "manual operation only"??? If he could set his ship on a specific course, then he could have set it to,i dunno, go on automatic pilot? I wonder if he realized this as he was being thrown by the impact into a burning and hellish death.
intresting point. wasnt the auto pilot offline? i think that was the point to why he remained on the ship. but why was he in the captain's chair and not the helm?
I've looked it up and apparently some people theorize that when a blackhole from point a is connected to another blackhole from point b they create a tunnel,which can transport you from one place or time to another.
that would be a wormhole. a blackhole is not going anywhere it just sucks everything it. basicly like our sun's (or even Earth's) gravity. the only difference is is that its so powerful you will be torn apart.
One Thing I love about Confused Matthew and Stdebris is they judge films on their "film quality" merits and not on the Canon/lack of it That trekkies uselessly and shamedly bitch about, The trek community makes me ashamed most of the time to be a trek lover, because for sci fi fans, theyre the most close minded group of all.
I agree, film quality wise, is was ok. However I genuinely disown people who try to remake something by appealing to the "younger audience". That spells "Dick" so clearly its aggravating that there are casual movie goers out there, that do not care.
"Yeah so what Star Trek is full of action? The shows where boring anyway. Thank God they took notes from Star Wars."
If I were the captain of a Romulan mining ship, I would love Spock for TRYING to save my family. A better story would have been if Spock had a choice to save either Vulcan or Romulus, and he chooses Vulcan. THAT would justifiably piss him off enough to do what he did.
@GreenTeaGarlic I found the villain to be the weakest aspect of the film. I really don't understand his motives. Now, if Spock had accidentally destroyed Romulus with the black hole, then that would make a lot more sense. But to spend 25 years plotting revenge just because Spock didn't get there in time?!? In my opinion, this makes Nero seem incredibly stupid rather than threatening
I'm so sick of hearing so many fellow Trekkers bash the film.
It was FUN.
It wasn't really a strong story, but it wasn't supposed to be- it was supposed to be us watching Kirk and Spock and crew come together.
I liked every member of the crew, and saw each of them as in their role- I felt Spock was a younger, rougher Spock, Kirk a very rough and brash Kirk, Chekov even more eager and greener, McCoy was... fantastic... and so on.
It was a GOOD movie for Trek, and XII will be better.
Although the movie was entertaining to watch, it had so many plot and logic holes in it as to make it a sci fi hunk of swiss cheese. Basically alternative universes or timelines just show me a lack of talent on the part of the writers as they are totally incapable of incorporating cannon into their script... so they just throw it all out and take a dump on the franchise. Was i the only one to be annoyed by the length of time it took kirk's dad to die? Almost had time to see him graduate college
Yeah, I totally agree. The movie was good, if you didn't know TOS. Because when I first saw it, I was fairly new to trekdom. All I had watched was Enterprise and the occasional NG episode, and I though it was the freaking best movie ever. Now that I've actually watched most of TOS, I relilize how badly the characters were butchered and the whole story recked.
I figure that the warp core only allows the ship to move at warp speed. So by detonating it and being pushed away safely from the black hole, it just meant they could only move at normal speed.
Oh yes, of course. What I'm saying is that at one point someone yells; "Go to warp!" to which someone else replies; "We're already at warp", establishing that though they appear to be stationary, they're actually only just managing to keep up with the growth of the black hole. (Imagine being in a truck driving away from the edge of a collapsing cliff). What they effectively did was rip out their fuel tank and chuck it over the cliff.
Now, I'm no expert of cars, but if you've no source of power..
Yeah, I mean I really need to brush up on my Star Trek guide! One thing I THINK we can assume is that by releasing the core, it pushed them away. Now, if you're right and they didn't have any power, how they got back to Earth is beyond me.
logic, makes sense. But 7 out of 10 come on. I gave new star trek a 2, -2. What "sale outs!"
My review of this movie is much better "Pixel Super Show: Star Trek review," on the "groundonevideo" Channel. At lest I blast new trek, and don't go soft on it! "Sale-outs!"
whoa easy there lastnerd, I disliked the movie too, but a 2/10 is still overly harsh, sure it was a mediocre film, but then it's a summer blockbuster, and you should never expect too much from them. I gave 5/10, (6/10 seems too generous), but I do agree that nemesis had much better story, but poorly executed.
well it was a pretty damn tepid movie, but I know of one film worse than this; battlefield earth with john travolta. I don't think this is the worse film ever made, but for a trek flick, it's a new low. And I don't understand why Nemesis is catching so much flack for being the 'worse' trek film ever made, I thought it quite good, minus some plot holes.
No I have not, and judging by your reaction I'm sure I should thank the lord that I haven't and never will. But yeah, star trek 09' was quite a bit of a disappointment.
We could have had George Kirk saved by him setting the ship on manual control, setting course to ram the romulan ship, and then running down to transporter control and beam over to the shuttles...
I know there was the whole auto pilot offline, but you can still make a car drive by putting a brick on the pedal
well, here's how I chose to deal with Abrams' star trek; it didn't happen, it never existed. I consciously told myself that this is a different movie, that it isn't trek at all(which is not that difficult to do by the way). To me, this simply wasn't a part of trek lore and therefore isn't trek at all.
solar system sized amoebas, stealing a brain and then putting it back, the time spock could mind meld through stone, at least half the stuff involving time travel, a good 90% of the stuff involving the transporter, (good kirk/evil kirk anyone?) and any time they tried to explain something.
The thing I loved most about the movie was that on the things it did explain something about, it did so correctly. If it couldn't explain it, it didn't. That's how TOS worked. It is Trek, old Trek
if you think that all old trek is just about science then you don't understand real star trek at all. if you're talking about what really makes star trek what it is then science is the wrong thing to talk about, it's about people.
4th...transwarp transport...wtf!! well they took something that fiction and disregarded COMMENSENCE....UR ON A PLANET N U MANAGE TO TRANSPORT 2 A SHIP THATS GOIN WARP....OH ALMOST 4GOT....THEY DONT EVEN KNO ENTERPRISES POSITION IN SPACE( I HEARD SUMWERE THAT SPACE IS HUGE AFTER SEEING THIS MAGIC TRICK I DONT THINK ITS TRUE) AHH FUUUCCCKKK!! and lastly besides kirk being flung on a planet, meetin old spock,meetin scoty...LAZY.....anyway pay no attention 2 da sci,they didnt,ur forced 2 like it!
3rd.its already been established in 20th century science that black holes r not time travelin machines,they just tear apart n suck everything in or just smear everthing.....listen folks its star trek,they make up shit all da time,like DILITHIUM CRYSTALS,TRANSPORTIN,WARP 10 AROUND THE SUN MEANS TIME TRAVEL,ill even accept red matter at this point,it just means sum things havent been discovered yet,its ok,i wud hav accepted another tempral votex,or since its a singularity,....A FUCKIN WORMHOLE!!
3rd.its already been established in 20th century science that black holes r not time travelin machines,they just tear apart n suck everything in or just smear everthing.....listen folks its star trek,they make up shit all da time,like DILITHIUM CRYSTALS,TRANSPORTIN,WARP 10 AROUND THE SUN MEANS TIME TRAVEL,ill even accept red matter at this point,it just means sum things havent been discovered yet,its ok,i wud hav accepted another tempral votex,or since its a singularity,....A FUCKIN WORMHOLE!!
the singularity in the movie is created using red matter yes... but id doubt its a black hole... black hole wouldnt just swallow up a planet and then go away...
2nd if da star is da Romulas sun, a black hole wud still eventually destroy the planet within hrs or days (im not too sure of da science with this,i guess it depends onda size of da black hole n how far da planet is,but i am sure it wud take longer 4 da planet to b sucked up,way after it becomes uninhabitable n unstable) anyway it wud hav 2 b evacuated rather quickly after all was said n done, and if it was Romulas sun they had months leadin up 2 it 2 evacuate it...ok 3rd
I know star trek 4 all its "its a science show" ,was really off on its science in EVERY MOVIE....but this one forced us 2 believe in or disreagard alot more.1st off wer is this star that explode,no matter wer it is,it wud take years for da exploding matter to reach a nearest star,now gammer rays that travel at da speed of light,much faster than da matter, WUD TAKE LIGHT YEARS TO REACH ITS NEAREST STAR,PLENTY OF FUCKIN TIME,havent we establised this science in da 20th century,uhggg
I do like this movie,this may sound insane (but i think most of u will agree) i wish this wasent a star trek movie,it wud hav been awsome....i think most of us r justed dazzeled by the action,explotions n some brief character interactions of the origanal crew,it does give a sense of nastaglia to us long time fans,thats it nothing more.Iv read sum other reviews n came across sum interesting points
sorry to both you guys if I've been a pushy jerk about this movie...but I hate..hate...hate...it daily!...im obsessed with giving it the old mst-3k fishfry!
I'm a Trekker, and I have to say guys: I loved this movie, and I really think that you guys (when I say that I don't mean Confused Matthew or SFdebris, you'll see who I mean in a second) are being a bit childish, really.
The two reasons I've heard any Trekker criticize this film (and really, the Trekkers, the reasonably hard-core to DEFINITELY hard-core fans, are the only ones I've heard really heavily criticize this film) are:
in some video here on youtube it was said that this movie was great because it didnt bore the audience with long discussions about interplanetary politics like the previous films. to my mind this is an essential part of star trek. the slow pace really allows you to think and use your imagination.whats behind that door? all that is gone, the actors run past the door , and its only visible for a brief second. no time for thinking no time for fantasy
I disliked this movie, but I think i can contribute to the understanding of the time travel:
To my knowledge, the reason they traveled in time is the combo of the Romulan Star messing up (was it collapsing or Nova'ing?, whatever) AND the Red Matter creating a black whole, the combo of the two in the same solar system is what created the Time Travel... so in the context of the movie, that's how hey tried to explain the time travel.
i guess the door could be well open now for sfdebris to review a few TOS episodes.the door's already open on all the other series but after this i wouldn't be surprised if he had a go at one or two.
star trek #11 the afterbirth sucks dogshit!...it is a very poorly written movie without concern for the dignity of star trek-tos or a sapient understanding of science...it is pure spacejunk comic book crap...and I will never spend my money$ on a dogshit eating remake again!
In response to what was said about not seeing character development in Kirk, that he was the same going out as he was going in, that's not completely true.
The point about Kirk wasn't that he needed to change character; but to apply it to what mattered. Captain Pike said his leap-without-looking attitude was something more captains needed. He didn't need to become Kirk, he just needed to be Kirk on the bridge and not in someone's car going off a clif.
One day, I'm going to develop a device that shoots people who utter anything sycophantic. I strongly suspect I will, in short order, become the greatest mass murderer in human history.
Giving Independence Day a bad review in comparison to high level Sci-Fi would be the equivalent of giving NOFX a bad review in comparison to Mozart. It's called *context*.
Comparing Star Trek to Independence Day is like comparing Seinfeld to the Eleven O'clock News. Fundamentally, one is no better or worse than the other; they're just different.
That's because Independence Day isn't the same caliber of movie as Star Trek or Star Wars. Trek is designed to make you think about the Human condition etc. Independence Day is just designed to entertain, its supposed to be a waste of time, but one that you can enjoy. You could argue the same for movies like Die Hard, its just for entertainment, just 2 hours of pure, non stop explosions and gun battles.
Nero has the ability to travel through time and stop the supernaova but still doesn't just go forward from the past in time to the a few months before Hobus supernovas and stops it form doing so or warns the Romulans about it. His hatred for Spock makes no sense even after reading the prequel comics, Spock was trying to help you.
It was a horrible, mindless film. Maybe if a person has ADHD and a room temperature IQ it's watchable. No character development, just stupid nonsensical scenes.
star trek V was not a piece of crap it had some plot floors but its awesome, the story , the music, the fx, the only problem is maybe shatner was too ambitious
My faith is totally shattered. 7 or 8? Did JJ Abrams pay off sfdebris? Scotty was flowing through water pipes for heaven's sake! I half expected Oompa Loompahs to jump out and sing a cautionary song about transwarp beaming.
I'm very curious now that you've watched STAR TREK is wether or not you're going to watch TERMINATOR SALVATION. I just watched it Memorial Day with my dad, my brother and a friend. And I really liked it all in the end. I watch most of the summer blockbusters in the theater when I can, watched Wolverine, Star Trek, and Angels and Demons and I hold it so far as an early contender for best summer film, until PIXAR does it's next Oscar potential off the assembly line: UP
It was undeniably flawed. There were points that had me going "Why did or didn't they do that." At least I got over some of them. I remember you and Stan talking about T4 in a conversation about how we have a mindset about characters that would never be satisified in film. In my perspective, I thought that's a dilema that Connor went through. He's only a standard commander ridiculed by the head of command by him being a "prophet" and asking himself "Am I reaching my destiny I was foretold of?"
Visually, it's got to be one of the grandest post-apocalypse settings I've seen. The large scenes were grand. Though in innovation, it doesn't have anything grand it can do. We're in the 21st century and the first 2 were done in the time of developement of what we see in all films with visuals. But it took great opportunities in it's action scenes, each with a handful of creative ideas. And, hope I'm not spoiling, the most amazing CGI face implant I've seen in my life with T-800 looking ARNIE.
As for the story and characters, what you and SFDebris said how a lot of films misinterprut how to deliver story and characters right. T4 suffers that too, but to a lesser extent I thought. Marcus Wright was actually stealing the show from John Connor in this duo character role. They rushed at times to get the story down in 2 hours. I've heard that McG has 30 - 40 minutes of deleted scenes. Maybe he'll have a extended cut like Cameron did with T2 and The Abyss. Overall I give it a 7/10.
Did it bother you that Vulcan was destroyed? It really bothered me, because that is a planet that has been there from the beginning, and it seems to me that it should be off limits. As you said later in this review, I appreciate them having the guts to do something like this, and not have a reset button, because that would have made the film really annoying to me. It is an interesting concept of this whole parallel universe, I just wish they hadn't chose Vulcan as the planet to be destroyed.
Furthermore, after Nero attacked/destroyed Vulcan and was going after Earth, I felt no urgency. You know that they are never, ever, ever going to destroy Earth. If the writers of this film wanted to have a huge plot twist, they should of had Nero destroy Earth instead of Vulcan. This would be genuinely shocking and would have had a huge effect on the timeline and the characters. I really don;t want any planets to be gone, but this would have made for a more interesting and real universe.
matt why don't you condense this into one video and put some images or something... the commentary is half as long as the movie. this is a little self indulgent for me and this is coming from someone who has watched all your videos
Matthew, on the subject of the red matter, I've said it before and I'll say it again, think of the 'plot triggered grenades' from your Spider-man 3 review.
Well the ability to transport people from one place to another without moving through space is a clear and direct violation of Heisenberg principle of uncertainty because it states that it is extremely unlikely to predict the future position and velocity of a particle accurately enough to determined your prediction. And transporting people in the star trek universe has been their since the beginning of star trek, but yet neither of you are bashing star trek: TOS for employing bad science
Actually, the uncertainty principle does not say that it is "unlikely" that we can know the future position and velocity of a particle accurately. The principle says we can never know at all. To know one is to not know the other.
At the very least this was said to have been solved by the "Heisenberg Compensator" which is both ridiculous and asinine; but at least its an explanation.
This film cannot be bothered to explain it's "Bad science" at all.
He has done plenty of other reviews that weren't star trek and it doesn't look like he's going to do any more star trek reviews so I don't really get your complaining.
Well I'm sure after this he won't be doing anymore videos on this film, besides I can see why they've done this. Fans of sfdebris have been wanting to know his opinion of the new star trek movie and I'm sure there have been other fans that have wanted sfdebris and confused matthew to do some sort of crossover so this seemed like a good opportunity to do both.
Thanks for hitting on the biggest problem the film had, SFDebris - there really ISN'T a story to this film. It's Lost Syndrome - random disjointed story elements, tossed together in the hope they'll work or they'll dazzle people.
And of course this is better than Nemesis - that's cinematic sedative.
Rewatching this to compare it with SFDebris's upcoming real review. :)
Dilandau3000 1 month ago
here is my problem with people who tore down the newest star trek movie. The point of this movie was not just a "love letter" to the character of kirk (though was not happy with the spock and Uhura romance. The big piece that all the writers wanted to include was Gene Roddenberry's original concept and character (which was rejected) of Christopher Pike, and to tie that into the formation of TOS's crew. They did that, though they should not have killed spock's mom an used the time theory.
danceoutnow 1 month ago
StarTrek was never meant to be a movie
Picard is disappointed.
/thread
AliTubelog 1 month ago
@AliTubelog
"Star Trek II: The wrath of Khan" is evidence to the contrary.
gameboxfreak 1 month ago
Is this SF debris' review of star trek 2009? Sorry, I know to many this must be an incredibly stupid question but I have actually just discovered his website. (Yes, I seem to be new to the internet. Laugh it up, guys.) On his website the reviews seem to stop at Star trek 10. Am I just blind or has he just not gotten around to do it, yet?
tuschman168 1 month ago
@tuschman168 SFDebris's official Star Trek 2009 review will be released on the 31st of December.
Dilandau3000 1 month ago
@Dilandau3000 Thank you!
tuschman168 1 month ago
This movie spent most of its time establishing the characters and the universe. So I'm ok with the story sicken a Fay one.
davideshafer 3 months ago
I like Final Frontier, you can pretend it never existed. Generations...ick, there's no getting rid of that shit. Enterprise will stay dead, Kirk will always have that shitty death, out of the 11 movies, Generations is the biggest disservice to Star Trek
ltflak 4 months ago
YOU PEOPLE ARE ASSWHIPES! I've been a Trek fan since my mother watched the original series while she was pregnant with me. The new STAR TREK movie is just fine. It is certainly way better than the first, third, fifth and all the TNG films combined. As far as Nero's motives? Has it ever dawned on anyone that people as radical as Nero don't need a rational motive. He obviously already hated the Federation before Romulus was toasted, he said his motives were to have a future without the Federation.
SciMasterGeneral 5 months ago
@SciMasterGeneral
So that now there would be no one to even _try_ to save his planet.....riiiight. That Nero is a dumbass/insane villain is fine, and honestly that's the only way you can really believe him as a character.
But then there's his crew...you'd think there'd be someone who would stand up to him and say "Hey you're an insane dumbass, I"m mutinying on your skinhead biker ass."
A good villain needs development...and Nero didn't have that. V'ger was a better character, honestly.
Eldeecue 5 months ago in playlist Confused Matthew Conversations
@jessemaurais Yes. Yes it is. Everything was average except for the writing.The Writing was pure crap.
KmorrisonNCC1701 9 months ago
I hated the new Star Trek because it had action,it was fast paced, and people who don't know much about Star Trek could follow it.
Leatherbubba 9 months ago
I've still never seen Star Trek 5. Is it really that bad?
jessemaurais 10 months ago
@jessemaurais
Yes, it is. Honestly it's worse than Generations. Generations you can at least fall asleep to while watching. Final Frontier is just so disjointed and spasmic that you can't even properly be bored with it.
Eldeecue 5 months ago in playlist Confused Matthew Conversations
I absolutely loved this movie, the only problem I had with it was Spock Prime's ship. I mean come on, The Jellyfish? He was from the 24th century at that point and the best name they could come up with was The Jellyfish?
thisisrumorcontrol 11 months ago
I hated this movie because it just didn't make any god damned sense.
StewieSwan 11 months ago 2
Perhaps the reason there was no character development is because they're planning to make sequels....?
Spizazzle19 1 year ago
@Spizazzle19
How is that a reasonable justification?
donfolstar 1 year ago
@donfolstar I meant that maybe since they're going to continue the story for the sequels they're saving the character development for those sequels. I didn't say it was a reasonable justification. It was a guess. A speculation. A mere suggestion. Observe the "....?" at the end of my comment.
Spizazzle19 1 year ago
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape! We can escape the earth with a constant thrust, not a thrust over 10ms-1, just a thrust, and though it would take time, the Enterprise would escape. Blowing the engines would fail as it acts like jumping on Earth.
pw8987 1 year ago
@pw8987 yes, but you are studying astrophysics. If you look at any science fiction movie, your real world astrophysics brain is going to bump against the whole fiction part, of science fiction. While a black hole is something well defined, and mathematical. To everyone else it's a dark, evil spot in the universe that sucks everything up so it makes perfect sense.
It's the choice between writing a movie for everyone or for astrophysicists which would be like watching someone read a text book.
mikdatv 1 year ago
@pw8987 But how much structural strength would such an engine and the ship housing this engine need to survive within the gravity well of the black hole? It's been established that no race in the Star Trek universe has yet developed materials strong enough to withstand that kind of gravity.
Zidana123 1 year ago
@Zidana123 if it's a case of structural stability, the Enterprise would have been destroyed or not destroyed depending on its distance from the Black Hole. Remember, the Earth, Moon, Jupiter, and our Galaxy as a whole all have 'gravity wells', but gravity is ALWAYS countered better by a constant force than a projectile force. I was saying that blowing up the engines will be far less effective than using them properly - especially as they're designed to (in their nature) escape a black hole!
pw8987 1 year ago
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape! We can escape the earth with a constant thrust, not a thrust over 10ms-1, just a thrust, and though it would take time, the Enterprise would escape. Blowing the engines would fail as it acts like jumping on Earth.
pw8987 1 year ago
Perhaps the "Red Matter" is only stable in a large block, as it's only seen to react when both out of (I'm going to call it) stasis (for ease) and when it's in smaller blobs.
I have a large issue with the Black Hole. I study Astrophysics, and hence know that a black hole is nothing more than gravity on earth needing a certain initial velocity with which to escape, and that is faster than light. ANY engine, capable of working in a black hole would allow you to escape, whereas a wave wouldn't!
pw8987 1 year ago
I'm surprised to hear sfdebris (a year ago mind you) give this movie a 7. Especially for your own reasons, such as a disconnected storyline (no plot, just *events*) and Kirk's status as eternal punk-ass (no character growth), these things are all the bane of your previous reviews. Have viewings since altered your opinion, I wonder...?
TsumiESM 1 year ago 2
Since we are one year hence: The Black Hole thing: A theory was put out about a month ago (and mathematically verified as plausible) that black holes may actually be portals to other universes. So in this sense the movie can be defended as scientifically plausible. However, time would slow down infinitely, so the closer you get to the "portal", the slower and slower time would get, you'd never reach the other side (until we invent a do-hicky to bubble =P). Just thought I'd chip that in
xSeerux 1 year ago
If there was no story, it was just a bunch of stuff strung together into a two hour film....why are you giving it 7 or 8 out of 10? A feeling that there's love for the characters? Are you kidding?
chromethink 1 year ago
The whole story just felt like a plot device to excuse that the film had new actors playing iconic characters. It seemed like JJ actually was afraid of the rabid Trekkers that wanted no one than Shatner to play Kirk, so he told the viewers that this is a alternative universe. This also gives JJ and the writers the opportunity to say 'F#ck you cannon.'
There was fun humour and nice visuals but the sorry excuse for a story left me empty or 'raped' as Redlettermedia would put it.
MissMael 1 year ago 3
I'll tell you what separates Star Trek from other standard sci-fi fare. The Enterprise and the inexperienced crew are severely over-matched and have to use other resources other than muscle to overcome Nero. That is in my opinion always a plus. I also think in showing respect for Spock towards the end of the film they are showing that he is growing as a character a little. I just think anything more might have been cramming too much narrative into this perfectly paced film.
garamonde 1 year ago
LOL these two are great... Glad to see these two together...
unytcommsys 1 year ago
I would have hated it if in the last minute of the film Kirk changes into a nice guy. That would be like "Avatar" where a non-caring soldier who can't even speak whole sentences turns into an environmentalist with a totally different speech-pattern even after 3 months!!!! This movie is like a pilot in a series and the centre is how the crew meets. The consequences of the events will be shown in the 2. part. And the prospect that all ST shows and movies belong now to another reality is bold.
Meretneith 1 year ago
I totally agree about the idiotic Nero-story. But I disagree in regard of character development. Kirk is an asshole in the beginning, he didn' t change at the academy, but a lot of people don't seem to grow up while attending schools, universities, etc. And I think this is a common theme especially in US cinema and TV. The event that takes place during most of the film lasts one or two days. It is shocking but the idea that someone changes his character completely after that is cinema thinking.
Meretneith 1 year ago
I can't wait for the sequel. JJ's done his love letter to Star Trek, he's introduced the characters, now let's get rolling!
KevServo 1 year ago
It seemed a lot more like the pilot of a TV show to me...
blueantenna 1 year ago
Star Trek 5 was great
thundersnake1 1 year ago
@thundersnake1 People who like StarTrek 5 should drink my cum.
szfski 1 year ago
How had he matured? You never ever saw the progression of his maturity. He seemed like a brat that was just determined to get in the captain's chair no matter what. By the end he had achieved that
Jack1981ish 1 year ago
I'd like to point out that Jim was different by the end of the film. He had matured throughout the course of it. Evident was when he was offering mercy to Nero. That's a sign of maturity.
SuperSaiyaMan 1 year ago
Also in reguards to the red matter, Spock was going to destroy a sun. It took a drop to destroy Vulcan, but it obviously suppose to take more of the red matter to destroy the giant red sun of Romulus.
Degobunny 1 year ago
I thought the story of the film was Kirk and Spocks relationship and how they became friends.
Degobunny 1 year ago
Technically a wormhole is a blackhole that takes you somewhere else in time and space. And there are theories that blackholes form their own universe within themselves (since the idea of a blackhole is almost the same idea as a big bang in reverse). The problem is that we have no idea what happens inside a blackhole for sure (since nothing can escape it).
Golkarian 2 years ago
Hey I was just wondering: how can Captain Kirk (the dad) set his ship to engage on a collision course, if it's on "manual operation only"??? If he could set his ship on a specific course, then he could have set it to,i dunno, go on automatic pilot? I wonder if he realized this as he was being thrown by the impact into a burning and hellish death.
machiavelli666 2 years ago
intresting point. wasnt the auto pilot offline? i think that was the point to why he remained on the ship. but why was he in the captain's chair and not the helm?
okay lets add this one to the list :P
henkman00 2 years ago
I've looked it up and apparently some people theorize that when a blackhole from point a is connected to another blackhole from point b they create a tunnel,which can transport you from one place or time to another.
Invincible5972 2 years ago
that would be a wormhole. a blackhole is not going anywhere it just sucks everything it. basicly like our sun's (or even Earth's) gravity. the only difference is is that its so powerful you will be torn apart.
henkman00 2 years ago
I thought I said it was a wormhole.Guess I didn't.
Invincible5972 2 years ago
oh okay.
henkman00 2 years ago
Remember in Star Trek the Motion Picture, Voyage 6 (V'Ger) got lost by going through a Blackhole. So why split hairs now?
MegaVolcano 2 years ago
In interviews J.J Abrams main goal was to make this a fun and exciting movie.I hear in the sequel he's going to focus more on story and characters.
Invincible5972 2 years ago
One Thing I love about Confused Matthew and Stdebris is they judge films on their "film quality" merits and not on the Canon/lack of it That trekkies uselessly and shamedly bitch about, The trek community makes me ashamed most of the time to be a trek lover, because for sci fi fans, theyre the most close minded group of all.
chooch99 2 years ago 3
I agree, film quality wise, is was ok. However I genuinely disown people who try to remake something by appealing to the "younger audience". That spells "Dick" so clearly its aggravating that there are casual movie goers out there, that do not care.
"Yeah so what Star Trek is full of action? The shows where boring anyway. Thank God they took notes from Star Wars."
Star Wars?! STAR WARS? Yeah, I rest my case.
Christtnot 2 years ago
If I were the captain of a Romulan mining ship, I would love Spock for TRYING to save my family. A better story would have been if Spock had a choice to save either Vulcan or Romulus, and he chooses Vulcan. THAT would justifiably piss him off enough to do what he did.
GreenTeaGarlic 2 years ago 25
@GreenTeaGarlic I found the villain to be the weakest aspect of the film. I really don't understand his motives. Now, if Spock had accidentally destroyed Romulus with the black hole, then that would make a lot more sense. But to spend 25 years plotting revenge just because Spock didn't get there in time?!? In my opinion, this makes Nero seem incredibly stupid rather than threatening
fecxor 1 year ago 3
Comment removed
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
@GreenTeaGarlic
Why weren't you the screenwriter? That would have been a fantastic idea to do!
TheDarkFrontier 10 months ago
I'm so sick of hearing so many fellow Trekkers bash the film.
It was FUN.
It wasn't really a strong story, but it wasn't supposed to be- it was supposed to be us watching Kirk and Spock and crew come together.
I liked every member of the crew, and saw each of them as in their role- I felt Spock was a younger, rougher Spock, Kirk a very rough and brash Kirk, Chekov even more eager and greener, McCoy was... fantastic... and so on.
It was a GOOD movie for Trek, and XII will be better.
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago
Although the movie was entertaining to watch, it had so many plot and logic holes in it as to make it a sci fi hunk of swiss cheese. Basically alternative universes or timelines just show me a lack of talent on the part of the writers as they are totally incapable of incorporating cannon into their script... so they just throw it all out and take a dump on the franchise. Was i the only one to be annoyed by the length of time it took kirk's dad to die? Almost had time to see him graduate college
snowboredsnj 2 years ago
Yeah, I totally agree. The movie was good, if you didn't know TOS. Because when I first saw it, I was fairly new to trekdom. All I had watched was Enterprise and the occasional NG episode, and I though it was the freaking best movie ever. Now that I've actually watched most of TOS, I relilize how badly the characters were butchered and the whole story recked.
theluckynames 2 years ago 3
Right.
It pushed them away.
Without blowing them up.
Even though for all we know they have no power source for their sheilds.
I take it back, this isn't even treknobabble. This is just lazy writing.
Williamsfan 2 years ago 6
Anyone else notice that detonating the warp core to propel the enterprise out of the maw of a black hole is rank treknobabble?
Wasn't it the only thing moving the ship and powering it's shields?
Williamsfan 2 years ago
I figure that the warp core only allows the ship to move at warp speed. So by detonating it and being pushed away safely from the black hole, it just meant they could only move at normal speed.
drlee2 2 years ago
Oh yes, of course. What I'm saying is that at one point someone yells; "Go to warp!" to which someone else replies; "We're already at warp", establishing that though they appear to be stationary, they're actually only just managing to keep up with the growth of the black hole. (Imagine being in a truck driving away from the edge of a collapsing cliff). What they effectively did was rip out their fuel tank and chuck it over the cliff.
Now, I'm no expert of cars, but if you've no source of power..
Williamsfan 2 years ago
Yeah, I mean I really need to brush up on my Star Trek guide! One thing I THINK we can assume is that by releasing the core, it pushed them away. Now, if you're right and they didn't have any power, how they got back to Earth is beyond me.
drlee2 2 years ago
logic, makes sense. But 7 out of 10 come on. I gave new star trek a 2, -2. What "sale outs!"
My review of this movie is much better "Pixel Super Show: Star Trek review," on the "groundonevideo" Channel. At lest I blast new trek, and don't go soft on it! "Sale-outs!"
Lastnerdonearth 2 years ago
whoa easy there lastnerd, I disliked the movie too, but a 2/10 is still overly harsh, sure it was a mediocre film, but then it's a summer blockbuster, and you should never expect too much from them. I gave 5/10, (6/10 seems too generous), but I do agree that nemesis had much better story, but poorly executed.
pacsouljah00 2 years ago
I give it zero stars. I consider it the worse movie ever made. It's garbage on all levels.
Acrocanthosaurus 2 years ago 3
well it was a pretty damn tepid movie, but I know of one film worse than this; battlefield earth with john travolta. I don't think this is the worse film ever made, but for a trek flick, it's a new low. And I don't understand why Nemesis is catching so much flack for being the 'worse' trek film ever made, I thought it quite good, minus some plot holes.
pacsouljah00 2 years ago 3
@pacsouljah00 worst movie? have you ever seen santa v the martions?
Trek001 2 years ago
or SantaPaws
PhoenixIreland 2 years ago
No I have not, and judging by your reaction I'm sure I should thank the lord that I haven't and never will. But yeah, star trek 09' was quite a bit of a disappointment.
pacsouljah00 2 years ago 2
We could have had George Kirk saved by him setting the ship on manual control, setting course to ram the romulan ship, and then running down to transporter control and beam over to the shuttles...
I know there was the whole auto pilot offline, but you can still make a car drive by putting a brick on the pedal
Trek001 2 years ago
well, here's how I chose to deal with Abrams' star trek; it didn't happen, it never existed. I consciously told myself that this is a different movie, that it isn't trek at all(which is not that difficult to do by the way). To me, this simply wasn't a part of trek lore and therefore isn't trek at all.
pacsouljah00 2 years ago 4
@pacsouljah00 I agree! I don't even consider this horrible excuse for a sci-fi film a part of Star Trek.
Actionguy1 1 year ago
At least Santa had the excuse of a miserable budget for it's making.
Densaku 1 year ago
You're confusing good and enjoyable.
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago 2
what people don't understand...this movie is NOT about Kirk. He is the B story. This movie is about Spock
Prime781 2 years ago
I just want to say that Star Trek has never been exactly 'scientifically accurate'.
vp21ct 2 years ago
But it was never complete fucking bullshit until after TNG.
leewolfgang 2 years ago
Oh, right.
solar system sized amoebas, stealing a brain and then putting it back, the time spock could mind meld through stone, at least half the stuff involving time travel, a good 90% of the stuff involving the transporter, (good kirk/evil kirk anyone?) and any time they tried to explain something.
The thing I loved most about the movie was that on the things it did explain something about, it did so correctly. If it couldn't explain it, it didn't. That's how TOS worked. It is Trek, old Trek
vp21ct 2 years ago
if you think that all old trek is just about science then you don't understand real star trek at all. if you're talking about what really makes star trek what it is then science is the wrong thing to talk about, it's about people.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
That is what I was trying to explain to our friend leewolfgang here.
vp21ct 2 years ago
4 ALL u Scifi buffs out ther, i highly recommend the movie SUNSHINE.....
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
4th...transwarp transport...wtf!! well they took something that fiction and disregarded COMMENSENCE....UR ON A PLANET N U MANAGE TO TRANSPORT 2 A SHIP THATS GOIN WARP....OH ALMOST 4GOT....THEY DONT EVEN KNO ENTERPRISES POSITION IN SPACE( I HEARD SUMWERE THAT SPACE IS HUGE AFTER SEEING THIS MAGIC TRICK I DONT THINK ITS TRUE) AHH FUUUCCCKKK!! and lastly besides kirk being flung on a planet, meetin old spock,meetin scoty...LAZY.....anyway pay no attention 2 da sci,they didnt,ur forced 2 like it!
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
3rd.its already been established in 20th century science that black holes r not time travelin machines,they just tear apart n suck everything in or just smear everthing.....listen folks its star trek,they make up shit all da time,like DILITHIUM CRYSTALS,TRANSPORTIN,WARP 10 AROUND THE SUN MEANS TIME TRAVEL,ill even accept red matter at this point,it just means sum things havent been discovered yet,its ok,i wud hav accepted another tempral votex,or since its a singularity,....A FUCKIN WORMHOLE!!
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
3rd.its already been established in 20th century science that black holes r not time travelin machines,they just tear apart n suck everything in or just smear everthing.....listen folks its star trek,they make up shit all da time,like DILITHIUM CRYSTALS,TRANSPORTIN,WARP 10 AROUND THE SUN MEANS TIME TRAVEL,ill even accept red matter at this point,it just means sum things havent been discovered yet,its ok,i wud hav accepted another tempral votex,or since its a singularity,....A FUCKIN WORMHOLE!!
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
the singularity in the movie is created using red matter yes... but id doubt its a black hole... black hole wouldnt just swallow up a planet and then go away...
petrino 2 years ago
2nd if da star is da Romulas sun, a black hole wud still eventually destroy the planet within hrs or days (im not too sure of da science with this,i guess it depends onda size of da black hole n how far da planet is,but i am sure it wud take longer 4 da planet to b sucked up,way after it becomes uninhabitable n unstable) anyway it wud hav 2 b evacuated rather quickly after all was said n done, and if it was Romulas sun they had months leadin up 2 it 2 evacuate it...ok 3rd
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
I know star trek 4 all its "its a science show" ,was really off on its science in EVERY MOVIE....but this one forced us 2 believe in or disreagard alot more.1st off wer is this star that explode,no matter wer it is,it wud take years for da exploding matter to reach a nearest star,now gammer rays that travel at da speed of light,much faster than da matter, WUD TAKE LIGHT YEARS TO REACH ITS NEAREST STAR,PLENTY OF FUCKIN TIME,havent we establised this science in da 20th century,uhggg
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
I do like this movie,this may sound insane (but i think most of u will agree) i wish this wasent a star trek movie,it wud hav been awsome....i think most of us r justed dazzeled by the action,explotions n some brief character interactions of the origanal crew,it does give a sense of nastaglia to us long time fans,thats it nothing more.Iv read sum other reviews n came across sum interesting points
GSCIGLIA 2 years ago
sorry to both you guys if I've been a pushy jerk about this movie...but I hate..hate...hate...it daily!...im obsessed with giving it the old mst-3k fishfry!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago
I'm a Trekker, and I have to say guys: I loved this movie, and I really think that you guys (when I say that I don't mean Confused Matthew or SFdebris, you'll see who I mean in a second) are being a bit childish, really.
The two reasons I've heard any Trekker criticize this film (and really, the Trekkers, the reasonably hard-core to DEFINITELY hard-core fans, are the only ones I've heard really heavily criticize this film) are:
-Bad Story/Characters
-Science
Why that's wrong......
obiwanobiwan13 2 years ago
I think we are living in times where people are not patient anymore with stories! They just want fights, fights, fights!
brav0wing 2 years ago
your comletely right.
in some video here on youtube it was said that this movie was great because it didnt bore the audience with long discussions about interplanetary politics like the previous films. to my mind this is an essential part of star trek. the slow pace really allows you to think and use your imagination.whats behind that door? all that is gone, the actors run past the door , and its only visible for a brief second. no time for thinking no time for fantasy
GublyGubly 2 years ago
I disliked this movie, but I think i can contribute to the understanding of the time travel:
To my knowledge, the reason they traveled in time is the combo of the Romulan Star messing up (was it collapsing or Nova'ing?, whatever) AND the Red Matter creating a black whole, the combo of the two in the same solar system is what created the Time Travel... so in the context of the movie, that's how hey tried to explain the time travel.
Checker222 2 years ago
i guess the door could be well open now for sfdebris to review a few TOS episodes.the door's already open on all the other series but after this i wouldn't be surprised if he had a go at one or two.
elwalsho 2 years ago
star trek #11 the afterbirth sucks dogshit!...it is a very poorly written movie without concern for the dignity of star trek-tos or a sapient understanding of science...it is pure spacejunk comic book crap...and I will never spend my money$ on a dogshit eating remake again!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago
thankyou for teaming up I love both you guys in a hetrosexual straight non-homo way!
rocketshipstud 2 years ago
In response to what was said about not seeing character development in Kirk, that he was the same going out as he was going in, that's not completely true.
The point about Kirk wasn't that he needed to change character; but to apply it to what mattered. Captain Pike said his leap-without-looking attitude was something more captains needed. He didn't need to become Kirk, he just needed to be Kirk on the bridge and not in someone's car going off a clif.
KingHauken 2 years ago
CM, Ive loved your reviews but the fact that you dis this but love Independece Day has ruined your credibly.
PrinceBishop3 2 years ago
Did you even watch the reviews?
Kaulen777 2 years ago 2
One day, I'm going to develop a device that shoots people who utter anything sycophantic. I strongly suspect I will, in short order, become the greatest mass murderer in human history.
NecrosisOfLight 2 years ago
Can you make it kill people who can't take time to spell and use proper grammar? I'd like that.
Kaulen777 2 years ago
Giving Independence Day a bad review in comparison to high level Sci-Fi would be the equivalent of giving NOFX a bad review in comparison to Mozart. It's called *context*.
DarianHarman 2 years ago
Comparing Star Trek to Independence Day is like comparing Seinfeld to the Eleven O'clock News. Fundamentally, one is no better or worse than the other; they're just different.
confusedmatthew 2 years ago 9
@PrinceBishop3
That's because Independence Day isn't the same caliber of movie as Star Trek or Star Wars. Trek is designed to make you think about the Human condition etc. Independence Day is just designed to entertain, its supposed to be a waste of time, but one that you can enjoy. You could argue the same for movies like Die Hard, its just for entertainment, just 2 hours of pure, non stop explosions and gun battles.
TheDarkFrontier 1 year ago
The plot ruins every other series to come.
ob1benji1 2 years ago
The plot isn't Star Trek.
ShadowconLM14 2 years ago
I greatly enjoyed this. I could do my chores and just listen, like a radio interview. You two are awesome!
StargazerSkyscraper 2 years ago 2
Star Trek is awesome
ob1benji1 2 years ago 3
Nero has the ability to travel through time and stop the supernaova but still doesn't just go forward from the past in time to the a few months before Hobus supernovas and stops it form doing so or warns the Romulans about it. His hatred for Spock makes no sense even after reading the prequel comics, Spock was trying to help you.
Traininghopper 2 years ago
Kirk had to b. In other Trek shows and films it is shown that people because they want to. Hehad to be dared into joining Starfleet academy.
Like beaming through the sheilds you cannot beam onto a ship while it is at warp, (even Voyager accepted that for a while).
Scotty being lost in the plumbing?
Spock and Uhura a couple?
Oneliners to appeal to the Baywatch/ Sun reader audience, (Eg: Either we're going done or they are").
And a massive Enterprise bigger then the 1701 D.
Traininghopper 2 years ago
It was a horrible, mindless film. Maybe if a person has ADHD and a room temperature IQ it's watchable. No character development, just stupid nonsensical scenes.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
That is an insult to all of us with ADHD.
Traininghopper 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
GOOD. You deserve to be insulted. You "people" have been ruining life for the rest of us for long enough. Go watch cartoons or something.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
No we do not there are some of us that are academically able.
Traininghopper 2 years ago 4
As long as you're drugged up and getting attention. Disgusting.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
Do you even know anything specific about ADHD except that stupid sterotype you typed? Google it and learn something
Traininghopper 2 years ago 2
I know it's an excuse for children and adults who are too lazy to focus.
Kaulen777 2 years ago
It's not and thatis the last I will say on this subject.
Traininghopper 2 years ago 2
I would say in the Movie the Enterprise just looks that big. compared to the 1701 D it actually still is a tough "little" ship.
TOK150 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yeah you already did a review for this film.
Doing it again so you can interview sfdebris (whose reviews I also really enjoy) is kind of like listening to two trekkies review it.
Maybe I'm too used to listening you guys rubbish whatever you are reviewing at the time - which is really the only reason I check out these posts
pronto355 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I... just can't watch this. I normally like the stuff both of you do, but I just can't get past the terrible sound quality and blank screen.
RestamSalucard 2 years ago
Need some explosions or something to keep you occupied? Shallow dude.
Alfrunk 2 years ago
Fuck you.
All this video is is unintelligible mumbling through heavy static while looking at a title screen.
If I wanted to watch that, I would hook up my old NES and play a game without pressing start. At least that would have entertaining music.
RestamSalucard 2 years ago
ConfusedMatthew and SF Debris in the same video????? Too cool!!!!!
bobsmith960 2 years ago 11
You guys rock.
RobLoach 2 years ago 4
I've been waiting for both of these guys to do something together, I'm glad they finally did, I love both their stuff! Nice one guys!
abstract37 2 years ago 7
star trek V was not a piece of crap it had some plot floors but its awesome, the story , the music, the fx, the only problem is maybe shatner was too ambitious
TURBODORK2 2 years ago
My faith is totally shattered. 7 or 8? Did JJ Abrams pay off sfdebris? Scotty was flowing through water pipes for heaven's sake! I half expected Oompa Loompahs to jump out and sing a cautionary song about transwarp beaming.
acr08807 2 years ago 4
That pipe goes to the marshmallow room!
pooperuber 2 years ago 4
I love the visual you just created. =-D
TravisCG 2 years ago
tl;dr
Gourry334 2 years ago
in star trek countdown they describe that u have to combine nuclear matter with that "red" matter
movieman6456 2 years ago
I'm very curious now that you've watched STAR TREK is wether or not you're going to watch TERMINATOR SALVATION. I just watched it Memorial Day with my dad, my brother and a friend. And I really liked it all in the end. I watch most of the summer blockbusters in the theater when I can, watched Wolverine, Star Trek, and Angels and Demons and I hold it so far as an early contender for best summer film, until PIXAR does it's next Oscar potential off the assembly line: UP
AspergianMind 2 years ago
It was undeniably flawed. There were points that had me going "Why did or didn't they do that." At least I got over some of them. I remember you and Stan talking about T4 in a conversation about how we have a mindset about characters that would never be satisified in film. In my perspective, I thought that's a dilema that Connor went through. He's only a standard commander ridiculed by the head of command by him being a "prophet" and asking himself "Am I reaching my destiny I was foretold of?"
AspergianMind 2 years ago
Visually, it's got to be one of the grandest post-apocalypse settings I've seen. The large scenes were grand. Though in innovation, it doesn't have anything grand it can do. We're in the 21st century and the first 2 were done in the time of developement of what we see in all films with visuals. But it took great opportunities in it's action scenes, each with a handful of creative ideas. And, hope I'm not spoiling, the most amazing CGI face implant I've seen in my life with T-800 looking ARNIE.
AspergianMind 2 years ago
As for the story and characters, what you and SFDebris said how a lot of films misinterprut how to deliver story and characters right. T4 suffers that too, but to a lesser extent I thought. Marcus Wright was actually stealing the show from John Connor in this duo character role. They rushed at times to get the story down in 2 hours. I've heard that McG has 30 - 40 minutes of deleted scenes. Maybe he'll have a extended cut like Cameron did with T2 and The Abyss. Overall I give it a 7/10.
AspergianMind 2 years ago
Comment removed
ohsdererggg206 2 years ago
Did it bother you that Vulcan was destroyed? It really bothered me, because that is a planet that has been there from the beginning, and it seems to me that it should be off limits. As you said later in this review, I appreciate them having the guts to do something like this, and not have a reset button, because that would have made the film really annoying to me. It is an interesting concept of this whole parallel universe, I just wish they hadn't chose Vulcan as the planet to be destroyed.
ohsdererggg206 2 years ago
Furthermore, after Nero attacked/destroyed Vulcan and was going after Earth, I felt no urgency. You know that they are never, ever, ever going to destroy Earth. If the writers of this film wanted to have a huge plot twist, they should of had Nero destroy Earth instead of Vulcan. This would be genuinely shocking and would have had a huge effect on the timeline and the characters. I really don;t want any planets to be gone, but this would have made for a more interesting and real universe.
ohsdererggg206 2 years ago
Comment removed
ohsdererggg206 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
enough star trek... please move the fuck on, sorry but I can't wait to see your upcoming reviews!!!
SaucisseMerguez 2 years ago
matt why don't you condense this into one video and put some images or something... the commentary is half as long as the movie. this is a little self indulgent for me and this is coming from someone who has watched all your videos
RudyRobelez 2 years ago
The reason I can't condense it into one video is because of the time restrictions on YouTube videos.
If you're lucky, you might be able to get away with eleven minutes around here.
confusedmatthew 2 years ago
What is better Wrath of Khan or the Search for Spock?
8T2 2 years ago
wrath of khan hands down.
jaguarmannfl 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
holy fuck debris is a windbag
xtheshame 2 years ago
If you could condense this, great. I'm just not interesting in listening to 50 minutes of it.
SarcasticTribble 2 years ago
Never heard of SFDebris. I'll have to check out his site!
vintagevideogamegeek 2 years ago
Where is his solo review of the Star Trek film?
Treknologist 2 years ago
Go to the playlist labeled "General Reviews"
confusedmatthew 2 years ago
The Black hole downt put you in another place, but you do go back in time.
I have not seen the movie, but you dont go in to the black hole to go back to the past.
danxtur 2 years ago
Matthew, on the subject of the red matter, I've said it before and I'll say it again, think of the 'plot triggered grenades' from your Spider-man 3 review.
Killermike2178 2 years ago
Well the ability to transport people from one place to another without moving through space is a clear and direct violation of Heisenberg principle of uncertainty because it states that it is extremely unlikely to predict the future position and velocity of a particle accurately enough to determined your prediction. And transporting people in the star trek universe has been their since the beginning of star trek, but yet neither of you are bashing star trek: TOS for employing bad science
Pentazoid111 2 years ago
Actually, the uncertainty principle does not say that it is "unlikely" that we can know the future position and velocity of a particle accurately. The principle says we can never know at all. To know one is to not know the other.
At the very least this was said to have been solved by the "Heisenberg Compensator" which is both ridiculous and asinine; but at least its an explanation.
This film cannot be bothered to explain it's "Bad science" at all.
confusedmatthew 2 years ago
brilliant , my 2 favourite reviewers come together. this will be good
u2atomicbomb 2 years ago 2
Thanks for giving credit to the actors. They deserve it.
tbcboocock 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I hope this is youre final star trek review, it is really starting to get annoying.
Hubbleknarf 2 years ago
Nothing is stopping you from not watching this.
CaptainPositron 2 years ago
Youre right but that's not really what I meant. I prefer he does a review of something different because I like his reviews.
Hubbleknarf 2 years ago
He has done plenty of other reviews that weren't star trek and it doesn't look like he's going to do any more star trek reviews so I don't really get your complaining.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
I know he did, but seriously, how long can someone talk about the same film! wtf!
Hubbleknarf 2 years ago
Well I'm sure after this he won't be doing anymore videos on this film, besides I can see why they've done this. Fans of sfdebris have been wanting to know his opinion of the new star trek movie and I'm sure there have been other fans that have wanted sfdebris and confused matthew to do some sort of crossover so this seemed like a good opportunity to do both.
mummra4ever 2 years ago
Thanks for hitting on the biggest problem the film had, SFDebris - there really ISN'T a story to this film. It's Lost Syndrome - random disjointed story elements, tossed together in the hope they'll work or they'll dazzle people.
And of course this is better than Nemesis - that's cinematic sedative.
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago
Wow, SFDebris and confused matthew - DREAM TEAM! All we need is shedninja warbling.
Out of interest, was this over the phone?
ProphetTenebrae 2 years ago 2
Deat diary.....JACKPOT!
webly17 2 years ago
Great stuff.
MikeRyu 2 years ago
"Here's 40 gallons of this stuff in case you need to blow up another galaxy on the way back..."
LMFAO. Man I wish I had that quick wit you have, SFDebris.
KincardNaushadi 2 years ago
It's an old theory that a supermassive black hole could in theory break a hole in space and time to create a wormhole of sorts.
Ze8us 2 years ago
omg! O.o meet of the startrek review giants lol awesome
happosai27 2 years ago
Wow, two of my fav trek reviewers team up! Sweet!
JMMFilm 2 years ago 3