Red Letter Media Takes On Star Trek 2009 – And Likes It?! | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Red Letter Media Takes On Star Trek 2009 – And Likes It?! September 1, 2010

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Humor,Review,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Red Letter Media has become an Internet sensation with their lengthy detailed (and scathing) “Harry Plinkett” video reviews of the Star Wars prequels and the TNG era movies. Today they released their review of the 2009 Star Trek movie and so you would expect it got ripped to shreds right? Wrong. Watch how it works out below.

 

Red Letter Media takes on Star Trek 2009

Red Letter Media’s past reviews of the Star Wars prequels and the TNG movies have been brutally entertaining – all voiced by the curmudgeon persona of “Harry S. Plinkett” who seems to hate everything. Their 70-minute takedown of the Phantom Menace released last December was trumpeted by Star Trek’s Damon Lindelof and Simon Pegg, appeared on dozens of movie sites and has over 2 million views on YouTube. So the review of the 2009 Star Trek movie was expected to be another flame fest, however that isn’t what happened. The 67-minute review does some good nitpicking and points out how the film was made to appeal to the "stupid masses", but the entertaining review is probably the most positive of the Red Letter Media series.

Here it is in two parts (via: www.redlettermedia.com).

[Review contains adult language]

 

If you haven’t seen them yet, here are links to past Star Trek reviews from Red Letter Media:

 

Comments

1. NuFan - September 1, 2010

Well, who doesn’t like it?

That matters, I mean.

2. rm10019 - September 1, 2010

It was a good movie, that appealed to fans and new-fans. Job well done Bob and Court!

3. Hat Rick - September 1, 2010

One should never expect bad reviews of Trek movies, but instead be shocked by their existence, in my view.

4. Lore - September 1, 2010

about that stripper granddaughter of his…………….

5. Dee - September 1, 2010

HA HA HAH!…Of Course Star Trek(2009) is GREAT!!!!!

6. Vultan - September 1, 2010

“…kinda nice to see the old Enterprise again…”

Ha ha! Thanks, Red Letter, I needed a good laugh.

7. CmdrR - September 1, 2010

Who voiced this, Dr. Zoidberg?
And did I miss the explaination on why the review comes a mere year and a half after the release and nearly a year after the DVD?

8. Damian - September 1, 2010

I tend to find myself liking movies that critics hate, with a few exceptions (such as Star Trek). I do like some movies with legendary directors like Hitchcock. When it comes to Star Trek movies, I judge it on how much fun I had watching it. Does it tell a good story, does it have good special effects, and does it have good character moments. On that basis, I loved all 11 Star Trek films (though the special effects in V were lacking). Star Trek: The Motion Picture came the closest to being arty, with the long tracking shots and the general mood of the film. I really could care less what a critic thinks of any of the Star Trek films and I doubt theatre goers pay much attention. If the previews look good and if the hype is good, they’ll see it.

9. Wonderboy - September 1, 2010

Crtics that sees this kinds of movies and go oh we have some space guy fighing an alian and oh look flashy thingy dude give it arest its better then Avater OK This movie actually won an acadamy aword NO STAR TREK EVER WON AN ACADAMY AWORD BEFORE!!! Yes its gonna be differint Yes its not gonna be the same like the 60s but look at the tech that they have in the 60s Star Trek and look at us now we have pretty much transfromed our world in to the 23rd century all we are missing now is Warp Drive I am not joking miltary iss testing out shild tech we have the hypspry and many more dude Star Trek 09 is differint yes but ITS STILL STAR TREK

10. Buzz Cagney - September 1, 2010

Sorry I may be missing something here, but why a review for a movie that came out well over a year back?

11. Tony Whitehead - September 1, 2010

For those who haven’t taken the opportunity to watch some of RLM’s reviews of other films, I highly recommend doing so. With the exception of the more adult-oriented language, the reviews are pretty much spot on. So much so that I’ve had to go back and re-evaluate my personal opinions of some of the older Trek films, among others. Good stuff. Looking forward to watching these tonight.

12. Jeyl - September 1, 2010

Well, I still don’t like the movie. If you like it, you can keep it. I don’t care.

13. ngl;sdb;ga - September 1, 2010

this dude is pretty misogynistic

14. TheCap - September 1, 2010

Vultan…you fail at life.

15. Shatner_Fan_Prime - September 1, 2010

That guy’s voice is so damn annoying it makes it almost impossible to get through the review. Ugh! What is with that fool?

16. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2010

#12

You can keep your childish whining and pouting to yourself! This movie brought back the classic characters, brought back Star Trek to the mainstream, and was a whole lot of FUN!

As a matter of fact, I’ve never seen you post anything positive about anything on this site. Is there anything YOU DO LIKE? Is there anything you WILL NOT bitch about?

17. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

Wow. He actually liked something? Amazing.

18. Symar - September 1, 2010

Loved the movie. Hated all the scenes set in Engineering.

19. Commander Keen - September 1, 2010

It was certainly a well received movie all around and it is good that Star Trek is once again on top.

20. Paul B. - September 1, 2010

12 – Hey, that’s great, Jeyl. So, do you have an opinion on this REVIEW of the movie, since that’s what’s being talked about in this thread?

Or do you just go to every thread posting your dislike of Trek 09?

I love Red Letter Media’s reviews, even though it took me a while to get used to his voice and style. It’s a CHARACTER, people–he’s acting like he has all these issues and the voice, he’s playing it up for laughs. If you don’t get the joke, that’s fine, but at least be smart enough to recognize the joke.

And if you folks will LISTEN to the reviews, you’ll hear some of the best film criticism in decades. Insightful, accurate, and sometimes almost painfully in-your-face obvious stuff we all should’ve seen.

Thanks for posting the review!!

21. Taemo - September 1, 2010

Penguins

22. Captain Rickover - September 1, 2010

I’ve seen most of the Star Wars reviews of Red Letter Media. I think – beside that stuipid killer/cat/women/psycho-stuff, the reviews brought everything to the point. And I have to agree in nearly everything (despite the Dominion War thing mentioned in the second part). Star Trek was a fun movie, a good movie, but actually… it was no REAL Star Trek.

23. Vultan - September 1, 2010

#14

Oh, thanks for the personal attack. How’s the broadband connection under that bridge, troll?

24. Schultz - September 1, 2010

Nailed it! And the humor is back. His Episode 2 review was kind of a letdown.

25. Jeyl - September 1, 2010

Yeah, saying I still don’t like the film is really pouty and childish compared to calling someone’s opinion out in a mean spirited way laced with profanity.

Go ahead and like the film if you want. Love it even. Support it. Say nothing was wrong with it. I won’t complain if you do because what you like and what I like are obviously two different things. So what’s the point in making a fuss about my opinion that you don’t share?

And yes. I watched his review. I still don’t like the movie.

26. 1701A2E - September 1, 2010

Awesome review. It’s obvious tremendous effort went into the constructive supporting data. Very enlightening and entertaining!

27. Clinton - September 1, 2010

I’ve seen other videos by this critic. I find them insightful, funny and disturbing — all at the same time. They are, in many ways, better cinema critiques than most of the film reviews you get these days. His extended analysis of the Star Wars prequels is great (and, again, disturbing).

28. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2010

#25

“Yeah, saying I still don’t like the film is really pouty and childish compared to calling someone’s opinion out in a mean spirited way laced with profanity.”

Get over yourself! Nobody laced anything with profanity. I used the word “bitch” (which is definitely not profane) as an accurate term for your “trolling”. Next time, if you don’t like what the article is about, just don’t bother with it. Its just that simple.

And by the way, the writers deserve a lot of credit for doing something most of us thought impossible: Make “Star Trek” a viable multi-blockbuster film franchise. They deserve some slack. If you have a problem with that, make your own movie and show it to us!

29. Paul B. - September 1, 2010

25 – Okay, we get it, you hate the movie. Again, what’s the point of constantly saying how much you hate it? Why come into this thread and say that, instead of–I dunno–talking about the review or saying something new?

Whether you like the film or hate it, RLM does an insightful job of reviewing the good AND bad. He points out pretty much everything I hate about the film (lots of stuff).

I really wish I knew what you meant by, “saying I still don’t like the film is really pouty and childish compared to calling someone’s opinion out in a mean spirited way laced with profanity.” Um…what? No one said you’re pouty or childish (that I know of), and I don’t see where anyone’s opinion was called out with profanity, so…what are you talking about?

30. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

I think it’s sad someone has a 90 minuets of a review devoted to a movie people have already seen many times. He should do something original with all that time he has.

31. Disinvited - September 1, 2010

#13.

He can’t help it as that’s the way he’s written.

#23.

This is surreal and I’m not just talking about the review itself. It seems half the responders here don’t know (likely because they haven’t bothered to watch it) or realize the reviewing character is a work of fiction mostly done for laughs but not so much that some satirical insights can’t be found. But not even that, if they had the slightest idea what the character represents I don’t think they’d be so quick to count his approval as another feather in 2009′s cap.

Well, at t least Lindelof and Pegg get it.

32. Imrahil - September 1, 2010

#30: Many, many people don’t understand the concept of ‘persona.’ This is why Stephen Colbert got invited to a White House dinner under Bush.

33. Disinvited - September 1, 2010

#31.

Tell me about it. I keep being amazed at how many people confuse the words of Robert Smigel for actually being William Shatner’s while trying to use them to admonish others to live in the “real” world.

34. Radioactive Spock - September 1, 2010

Congrats to JJ, Orci, Kurtzman, and the rest of the Trek team. Hit another home run with the next one!

35. Imrahil - September 1, 2010

Er, mine should’ve been in response to #31 as well.

PS:
OVERDRIVE!

I hated ST09, personally, and will never watch it or its sequels. But I watched about 10 mins of that review and found it hilarious.

36. Imrahil - September 1, 2010

Never watch it again, that is. I did watch it once.

37. star trackie - September 1, 2010

Leonard Nimoy and I love the new movie. A few others do not.

I’m ok with that.

38. Disinvited - September 1, 2010

#32.

Meant #33 in reply to you but the whole numbers applecart gets overturned when some step so far over bounds that their “contributions” have to be eliminated.

39. skyjedi - September 1, 2010

He already did a shorter review where a woman was raped by star trek 2009 and had her money stolen.

I thought that was an allusion to a fool and his money shall soon be parted and JJ gets his money, and that Trek fans childhood’s were raped.

40. ensign joe - September 1, 2010

Haven’t been the biggest fan of Trek09 but I will say its better than all the TNG movies.. and I loves me some TNG..

41. Darren - September 1, 2010

Love the new movie, but I agreed with everything the crazy guy said in the video. I think the only other thing I wish was different would have been to keep the Romulan makeup consistant with how we saw them in TNG/Nemesis. I guess we can explain it away by saying they look as they did in TOS, and that there are Romulans around with the more human appearance.

42. skyjedi - September 1, 2010

I disagree ensign joe, First Contact was infinitely better than Star Trek in Name only.

43. Jeyl - September 1, 2010

“I used the word “bitch” (which is definitely not profane) as an accurate term for your “trolling”.”

A. If you’re not talking about a female dog and you’re using it as a negative towards someone else, it’s profane.
B. If being profane was not your intent, than why didn’t you just use the word trolling instead?

44. StarFuryG7 - September 1, 2010

45 seconds of the reviewer’s voice was all I could handle.

45. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

For some reason this Red whatever guy has become a cult thing. Why? Who knows?

46. ensign joe - September 1, 2010

@ 42 skyjedi

Have you seen the RedLetterMedia review of First Contact?

http://www.redlettermedia.com/first_contact.html

I pretty much agreed with everything he said there.. did you not?

47. njdss4 - September 1, 2010

This guy said in the review that he hated “Parallels”. His argument is now completely invalid. Besides, time travel in Trek is never consistent, and it doesn’t need to be. As long as the story is good, I don’t care what theory they use for time travel.

48. Spock's Wang - September 1, 2010

Red Letter Media: The greatest thing on the internet.

49. gingerly - September 1, 2010

:D

YEA!! redlettermedia totally deserved his own post.

Truly, a man of taste (for blood).

50. Steve Pinsent - September 1, 2010

48. I agree… best thing on the internet….

Most insightful movie analysis’ I have ever seen – the Episode I review is perfect. The TNG reviews are great as well. I can’t wait for the episode 3 review.

51. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

Why don’t the Romulans in the new movie look like the TNG Romulans? Because these Romulans are miners and are not part of the military.

52. dmduncan - September 1, 2010

RED LETTER’s take on First Contact was a direct hit. That movie is a clinic of plot holes. So is his take on Avatar as a simplistic formula piece.

53. Kent Butabi - September 1, 2010

Love RLM. Can’t wait for SITH review. You know it’s coming.

54. British Naval Dude - September 1, 2010

Great review.

Likes I saids afore, Starry Trek ’09 wuz’ like an olde TOS episode… it wuz’ fun!

Yeah, I knows, thar’ be things that could ruin it fur’ ye’… if ye’ think too much aboot’ it. But I never thought too much aboot’ a large black cat, a giant green hand, and a rug all a’covered in vomit. I just had me fun.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr…

55. Sebastian - September 1, 2010

I love RLM’s reviews; despite the language (which doesn’t bother me a bit) and the wonderfully perverted nature of the narrator (he needs his own animated, premium cable TV show; ASAP!), his reviews are more concise than most professional reviews.

Keep up the accurate and hilarious job! ; }

PS: I’ve first got into RLM on Youtube with his NG movies and Star Wars’ prequels (which are spot-on perfection). Their review of “Avatar” is also a must!

56. Jeff Bond - September 1, 2010

39–If you watch the entire review (which I admit takes a lot of stamina) he talks about the “rape” Trek 09 review and how it has been misinterpreted by fans.

I thought he did a great job eviscerating the biggest argument fans have about this film (other than “I hated this film because engineering looked like a brewery) which is “I hate this because they erased the ‘real’ Star Trek timeline.” Trek has played fast and loose with timelines from the very beginning and it’s only appropriate that someone would finally take the franchise’s obsession with time travel to its logical extreme.

Actually if you watch his Avatar review, most of it is about why the movie WORKS. Both Avatar and Trek ’09, for all their obvious faults, effectively tell a dramatic story, which is something a lot of the previous Trek films–and in fact MOST recent summer blockbuster films–have forgotten how to do.

57. bo - September 1, 2010

Trek 09 was a very good movie. IMO……way better than any of them, except TWOK.

58. dmduncan - September 1, 2010

54: “Actually if you watch his Avatar review, most of it is about why the movie WORKS.”

I watched the entire Avatar review. The review is about how the film works as the simplistic manipulative movie that it is. He was dead on about Avatar too.

59. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

This guy effing hates everything. He’s just another mouth breather for the haters. Avoid him.

60. Joe Atari - September 1, 2010

I love this guy’s reviews; glad to know there’s another TMP fan. Like the classical vs. rock music analogy.

I saw ST09 — once — and it was fun. I’ll see ST12 (this numbering is confusing and has to change BTW) — once — and I’m sure it’ll be fun too. But I’m content saying neither are or will be MY Trek, and that’s fine. For all its faults, Roddenberry / Bennett / Berman Trek (including TOS, the TOS movies, all the way through ENT) is MY Trek and there’s hundreds of hours of that to keep me happy forever.

61. John Trumbull - September 1, 2010

I can’t stand the voice this guy uses in this reviews. Never been able to make it through one.

62. boborci - September 1, 2010

hilarious

63. Plum - September 1, 2010

This guy’s stuff gets better each time. :)

64. Paul B. - September 1, 2010

boborci – As a 40-year-old Trekkie who loved your movie (despite my loud doubts), I’d love to see you folks fix all the bad science and timing and blahblahblah…

You know what? Give us another movie that’s as much fun, as funny, and as true to the characters as the first one, and I don’t care about the science! Sure, it’s more space fantasy now than before, but that’s fine–it worked! Even my 74-year-old mother, who almost never stays awake through a movie, loved your version of Trek.

So, yeah, fix the science and stuff, but if you have to make a choice, do what worked the first time around–entertainment and emotions over nitpicking.

And thanks for giving this old Trekkie a reason to get excited about Star Trek for the first time in 20 years.

65. boborci - September 1, 2010

64 – Kind words, thanks — and thanks to your 74 year old mother!

66. Red Dead Ryan - September 1, 2010

43

“If you’re not talking about a female dog, and you’re using it as a negative towards someone else, its profane.”

Why would a difference of context suddenly make the word “profane”?
The word “bitch” is spoken all the time and no one blinks an eye. Its merely semantics and an obsession for political correctness on your part.

“If being profane was not your intent, than why didn’t you just use the word trolling instead?”

Again, its a matter of semantics with you isn’t it?

To bitch=complaining non-stop about things that bother you. Also known as whining. To come out whining, bitching, or complaining on the internet is known as trolling. Its that simple.

67. skyjedi - September 1, 2010

Was it just me when watching the film or does Pine’s Kirk come off as more of a Han Solo cavalier type, than a Kirk-Shatner Type.

68. dmduncan - September 1, 2010

I was cracking up on the TMP part. I’d never thought of Spock penetrating V’ger as symbolic of penetrating V’giner. I’ll never see that movie the same way again.

69. John - September 1, 2010

the Remans actually caused the supernova. on purpose.

the more you know

70. John - September 1, 2010

also you didn’t like the Dominion War arc? BLASPHEMY

71. Zebonka - September 1, 2010

It was basically crap, but it was well meaning crap. Their heart was in the right place and I tend to appreciate that in modern movies because so often it’s not the case. Hopefully this sentiment will translate to a better movie next time.

72. Zebonka - September 1, 2010

The thing with movies though is that they’re basically crap or at best very silly, most of the time. Such ridiculous stuff happens in them. Even my favourite movie (Shawshank) is pretty silly at the end of the day. It doesn’t mean you’re not allowed to like them. They should be a guilty pleasure and not something we edify unnecessarily.

73. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

So, this 12th grader reviewed the new movie? Fantastic.

74. cd - September 1, 2010

67 – “But Vulcan is a peaceful planet…”
>;>}

75. Scott B. here. - September 1, 2010

Despite the quirkiness, this is the most thorough review of the movie I’ve seen (of course, clocking in at almost an hour, how could it not be!) A lot of thought went into it. No wonder it took a year to produce. Loved his turbolift comparison.

What strikes me most about it is that this review seems to be the apotheosis of the reaction I’ve heard and read from many viewers, fans and critics of Trek ’09, ie.: “this made little sense, this was dumb, they messed up here, that could have been better, I didn’t understand why they did this, what was going on here, I wish they’d done this, I wish they hadn’t done that, I hope they’ll change this in the sequel, and why in heaven’s name did they do that … but I LOVED this film!”

Scott B. out.

76. chrisfawkes.com - September 1, 2010

This was good but it differs from the reviews on the next generation movies in that it is not a better watch than the movie.

In fact it was the redletter review of Nemesis that put a silver lining on having seen that movie at all.

77. Captain Otter - September 1, 2010

I actually agree with the Plinkett review, though like #76, I found the review is less entertaining than when he hates a film.

For those complaining about the juvenile tone of the Plinkett reviews in general, all I can say is comedy is in the eye of the beholder. The concept of a b-grade suspense movie villain making on-line movie reviews is nearly as genius a move as having a janitor launched into space to watch bad movies as in MST3K. In other words, the absurdity of the premise- and in this case the crassness which replicates the b-movie atmosphere- creates a form of entertainment which transcends movie reviewing and/or riffing.

But if that ain’t your bag, fine by me.

I think I’ll make some pizza rolls and turn in for the night.

78. gingerly - September 1, 2010

boborci

One favor, for us nerds would be to expand the website to include gobs and gobs of nerdy canon details.

We’d eat that shit up.

Dossiers for minor characters (the big-eyed alien, Robau, Gaila, Madeline, and even Cupcake now have fan followings), Enterprise virtual tours, explanations of the tech… You get the idea.

It was comparatively paltry ( especially if you compare with Star Wars and Lord of the Rings) this go round.

If you have any say, please tell the marketing folks to do this.

79. Jim Nightshade - September 1, 2010

BAMBI 2???? BAMBI 2????? WTF????????

When did that come out? How cum I didnt hear about it????

Oh geez does his dad get offed this time???

HAHAHA Love it!

His reviews are really detailed and show you all the BS at the same time! AHAHAH Hilarious!!!

80. somethoughts - September 1, 2010

LOL

81. Ezytarget - September 1, 2010

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOUR FACE?!

82. Basement Blogger - September 1, 2010

Thanks TrekMovie for posting this very funny review. I agree with Mr. Plinkett (RLM’s reveiewer) that Star Trek ’09 was enjoyable but shallow, i.e. made to appeal in Plinkett’s words to the “popcorn eating dimwitted masses.”

Realize by watching this funny, satirical look at Star Trek ’09, you have a Trekker who put this review together. Check out all the video references from the world of Trek. I loved he points out that Trek “09 had a Star Wars mindset. That’s my problem with Trek ‘ 09. Not sure I was watching Star Trek. Then he points out that Star Trek was science fiction whereas Star Wars was science fantasy by pointing out that Trek had science advisors.

Okay, before I get yelled out by Trekker David that Star Wars is not fantasy and the Force is real, let me go over my Force experiments again. I tried to levitate a heavy book, “Constitutional Law” by John Nowak. It hit me in the head and really hurts. I tried an apple and that fell on my head also. So maybe this Force stuff needs more study.

Look, there’s some serious stuff to consider about the future of Star Trek. I would not want to see the franchise turned into Star Wars. Star Trek at its most cerebral could still could appeal to a mass audience. I mean people understood “The City on the Edge of Forever”, “The Doomsday Machine”, “Arena”, “Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home”, “Wrath of Khan” , ” Star Trek: First Contact” etc. Intelligent but not “2001, A Space Odyseey.” And that ‘s not a dig at Kubrick’s masterpiece.

But enough of the serious stuff. Here’s some of my favorite lines from the review.

On Star Trek: The Motion Picture. “V’Ger was a metaphor for a vagina.” (Shows an orifice of V’Ger from a movie that looks like a .. well you know.)

“Oh Wait this f#%*ing movie sucks.” (5:55, part two) Okay, this is in refererence to the convenient image of the building of the Enterprise in Iowa and the very impossible rate of travel from the shuttle bay to the bridge. It just shows Plinkett’s conflicted view of the movie.

“Poor Gene. (Roddenberry) So much for your peaceful vision of the future. Idiot. People don’t want that crap anymore. People want shooting.”

“Chris Pine was cast to appeal to the female audience and to Sulu.”

“What can be blown up next? The galaxy? The universe.?”

“Don’t forget to vulcanize your nacels.”

One thing, Mr. Plinkett. Read the graphic novel “Countdown” for a clearer view of Nero’s motivation. I understand your confusion on Nero’s reasons to destroy Federation planets. Again, this was a funny review and well researched. One tip, Mr. Plinkett. Try to be less misogynistic.

83. The Original Spock's Brain - September 1, 2010

That review is brilliant.

@bob orci I appreciate that you can laugh at yourself.

84. Phaser Guy - September 1, 2010

Is this supposed to be funny or what? I just don’t get lame Youtube videos I guess. There’s so many.

85. WannaBeatle - September 2, 2010

‘a case of the notgays’!!! ha, that’s damned funny!!

I’m watching the second video first..yeah yeah, I’m the type that reads the endings of books (on tape) first. But, I wonder if part of the joke is that, does he address the fact that both Pine and Quinto are both flamboyant homosexuals (not that there’s anything wrong with it).

I’ll probably watch it again right now–especially with the news of it finally being able to stream it on Netflix (I was just watching an X-File episode streaming on my X-Box just a moment ago)

86. Jim Nightshade - September 2, 2010

futurama also had a vger spoof this season that likened it to a v-gina-wonder if they saw this review–no cuz this is new–i admit i kinda thought tmp was about-rebirth n yes sex haha after decker merged with alia probe-reminded me of metamorphisis from tos–the first zefran cochrane–plus the product of their machine/human bonding-a new evolved life form mccoy even referenced delivering a baby—hah-and for the reviewer to admit his fave trek movie was tmp–yeh gave me impression he was a trek fan too–loved how he said he could leave in the middle of watching tmp-come back hours later n not miss anything—-haha–bloody brilliant review–even if hes funnier when he hates a movie–also sounds to me like he is looking forward to the next trek movie—outta the long list of tv/remakes/movies he listed very very few of any of those movies were very good at all–thanx to orci prime, jj and all the reboot pays homage to the original while makng an action scifi movie that works n is not inferior to its original inspiration–from land of the lost to the bewitched–theres a lot of really bad movies there–im so glad our trek wasnt one of the many lousy remakes–thanx to the jj abrams creative team–thanx bob! Tell jj n everybody we appreciate you guys n cant wait for the next movie–

87. VOODOO - September 2, 2010

Great review…Harry Plinkett is the new Roger Ebert.

If you have the time check out his review of “The Phantom Menace” it’s great stuff.

88. jerrspud - September 2, 2010

yeah the pizza roll guy is back

89. Dillypogo - September 2, 2010

I cannot BELIEVE that there are people on here who actually don’t like this review. What the HELL’S wrong with you?! It’s hilarious, do you not recognise genius comedy when you see it?

90. Anthony Thompson - September 2, 2010

85.

Pine and Quinto are gay???

91. Vger23 - September 2, 2010

This is yet another brilliant, spot-on review by RLM. Not only does it agree with my feelings on the movie almost word-for-word…but it also shows how aware of the “fans” and their hang-ups the reviewer is.

I think it’s frigging hillarious and it speaks EXACTLY to why the movie WAS good and it answers every one of the stereotypical “THIS MOVEE WAZ DA SUCKS” Trek-fan challenges thoughtfully and with purpose (without being too cruel about it). I like how he directly acknowledges that if the expectation was that you’d see something different (like TMP or a TNG movie) you are out-of-touch with reality. They’re not going to make a movie like that again. Anything that is going to be green-lit is only going to be cleared if it has mass-audience appeal. Take it or leave it, that’s the truth of it. Basically, he’s saying (and I agree): “You want more Trek? Well, this is the new world…so either drop the pretentious high-horse “MY STAR TREK” garbage or get off the wagon, because the new world ain’t going to change any time soon.”

I think the creative team played the balancing act very very well. They pleased the critics, general audiences, and majority of fans. If the next film is a little bit better…that’s all we can ask for.

I expect it’s going to be a blast…!

92. Vger23 - September 2, 2010

#89-

People don’t like the review because it disagrees with their point of view…not becuase it wasn’t well done or humorous.

I assure you…

93. ensign joe - September 2, 2010

“the new world ain’t going to change any time soon”

its always changing and will be influenced by those who wish to change it.. water over rocks my friend..

94. karnak the annoying - September 2, 2010

The most accurate review of any movie or the movie industrty I have ever read, heard or seen.

My hats off to “Harry Plinkett”.

95. Vger23 - September 2, 2010

#82 “Basement Blogger”

“That’s my problem with Trek ‘ 09. Not sure I was watching Star Trek.”

I bet people thought similarly when TNG premiered, or DS9, or even ST: TMP.

Star Trek appears in many different forms. There’s a vast portfolio to chose from. 43 years of entertainment is not going to uniformly appeal to everyone.

I for one am glad that Star Trek got back to what made it great in the first place: characters and fun.

96. NuFan - September 2, 2010

78.

Yes, keep that kind of crap separate from the movie itself. Put it on StarTrek.com if they have to have it, but don’t let it bog down the movie!

97. skyjedi - September 2, 2010

Star Trek 2009 is the only Trek film i don’t own on DVD. The only one I did not pay to see in theaters. I did not even rent it i borrowed from my Bro and watched it once. Good as a sci fi action flick movie of the week but star trek it was not.

98. Vger23 - September 2, 2010

97- So you’re now officially in charge of defining what Star Trek is and is not?

Nothing is more arrogant than someone who stands on his high-horse and tries to preach about what “real Star Trek” is all about.

Also…

Sounds like you had your mind made up WAAAAAAY in advance of actually seeing the movie.

99. skyjedi - September 2, 2010

I only watch Treks 1-6 with the original cast and the first 3 seasons but not the cgi versions.

I used to like Next generation but then i became more of a tos fan.

100. Michael - September 2, 2010

I loved parts 1 & 2! I laughed out loud several times! This reviewer is hysterical!

101. skyjedi - September 2, 2010

I also only watch the original star wars trilogy the true canon from 1977-1983. No crap cgi, jar jar binks or Hayden.

As for RedLetter media he is wrong in my opinion about Trek, but really want to see him bash Revenge of the wooden actors, or is that SITH,lol.

102. captain_neill - September 2, 2010

Not sure I want to hear his TNG movie reviews.

Its great that he loves the new movie, I love it myself.

Guess i just get annoyed at the TNG hate as First Contact is a great movie.

103. John - September 2, 2010

Phaser Guy certainly is an amusing aspie.

Great review as always, Plinkett.

104. FarStrider - September 2, 2010

@91. I totally agree. And I think a lot of the meta of this review is going to go right over the heads of the very people that it was aimed at. . . they’ll get to the point where he is pointing out all the “flaws” and think he agrees with them. . . .

@102. If you can’t take honest, brutal criticism of your sacred cows, than no, you don’t want to watch his reviews of the TNG films, because he is obviously a fan of the series, but shreds the films for the massive stupidity that most fans are willing to overlook. . .

~FS

105. skyjedi - September 2, 2010

Everyone i know jokingly refers to Star Trek 2009 as “TREKWARS”.

106. captain_neill - September 2, 2010

104

Oh if he is doing it in good fun then of course I will watch it.

Guess I am just letting the TNG bitching on this site annoy me thats all.

I do love piss takes.

107. John - September 2, 2010

He definitely is the most gracious to First Contact compared to all the TNG movies.

also he needs to do a FINAL FRONTIER REVIEW! Just imagine…

108. FarStrider - September 2, 2010

@107. He put FF squarely in the middle of the bad portion of his gradient chart. I’m not sure that he will do any of the TOS movies though. . . considering their age, there probably isn’t much new he can say about them. . . I think he did the TNG movies because he really IS a big fan of the series and felt so let down by the movies. . .

~FS

109. Phaser Guy - September 2, 2010

Yeah, cause we know that movie needs more bitching.

110. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2010

The guy hates the TNG films, no question about it. Nothing wrong with that because everyone is entitled to their own opinions. People have different tastes (and the films do have their problems). That is why I don’t take critics too seriously. It should all be taken with a grain of salt since it’s just entertainment, and critics are not experts. Neither are the audiences. Most films have flaws; its the ability of a viewer to decide if they can/cannot accept them while weighing them against the strengths of the movie they are watching.

111. John - September 2, 2010

Phaser Guy, why so mad though?

112. Justice Boy - September 2, 2010

I laughed and agreed with most of it.

“Parallels”, however, was one of my favorite episodes!

113. Vultan - September 2, 2010

Yeah, “Parallels” was a great Worf episode. Also, it was cool seeing Data with blue eyes, a Cardassian at the conn, Bajorans acting like bullies, a shaggy Captain Riker desperate to get away from the Borg—lots of great, little alternative elements.

114. captain_neill - September 2, 2010

sorry I happen to like the TNG films. But I do apologise for getting a bit passionate in my love of First Contact.

115. skyjedi - September 2, 2010

Parallels is probably one of the few episodes certain writers made that i liked.

Certain writers who were blamed for ruining Star trek.

116. Red Dead Ryan - September 2, 2010

113

Apparently, the scene featuring Data with the blue eyes was a mistake since the make-up people apparently forgot about the yellow contact lenses. But since Worf was bouncing from one reality to another before and after it really didn’t matter! The episode serendipitously allowed the “error” to pass as just another variation of realities.

117. Vultan - September 2, 2010

#114

No need to apologize, Cap.
FC is a great movie! And it’s the only Trek movie that I saw in a theater where the audience went absolutely mad for it—got a big cheer when Worf did his Ah-nuld bit, “Assimilate this!” —BOOM!!! And then another round of applause when Data broke that green warp-core/sewage pipe, “Resistance… is futile.” :D

118. Vultan - September 2, 2010

#116

Ha! I didn’t know that. Thanks, RDR. I always love a good behind-the-scenes factoid. :)

119. dmduncan - September 2, 2010

captain_neill, if you love First Contact, and you are sensitive about criticism of that film, then I suggest you stay away from his review of that movie.

Unless you are ready to have your dark-night-of-the-soul…

120. Ometiklan - September 2, 2010

Hmm, I think the first half of his review is really spot on, but that the second is less interesting/informative. Sure he points out some flaws in the plot, but most are either:

reasonably explained by more complex ideas than the style of the movie has time to cover: Delta Vega is distant from Vulcan and the mindmeld is not a literal depiction of Spock’s POV; the supernova is not a straight-up supernova that Kirk would be familiar with, but a unique phenomenon only first seen in 2389 capable of threatening the whole galaxy.

or are simply choices made by the writers/Supreme Court: Uhrua + Spock; Romulans all willing to kill the Vulcans etc.; Star Trek never being consistent about enlisted versus officers or being a military organization versus exploratory; duration of Spock’s turbolift trip is actually to make a flashy transition from engineering to the bridge; Uhura being an expert in languages.

Maybe there is some complex nested intent behind these nitpicks (like he decides to nitpick stuff that isn’t really very valid or important just to show that the movie is good because these minor errors are the most significant errors to be found). I hope this is the case, but I don’t really get it from the second half.

Ultimately the most insightful comment is that this is an origin story, focused on bringing these characters together, establishing them as a crew, and providing a fun story/movie. I personally hope that Bob Orci and the rest of the Court put a little more science, mystery, and exploration in the next movie, but I will be content if they simply provide another quality, interesting, and fun movie.

121. FarStrider - September 2, 2010

@120. Him pointing out all of the flaws is part of the Meta that I said was going to go over people’s head in comment 104. What makes this review great is the fact that he acknowledges almost every single gripe that certain fans have been complaining about since the movie came out last year, but they ultimately don’t matter because “Star Trek” had a job to do, and it wasn’t to catering to the fanbase, but be accessible to a wider audience, possibly creating new fans, while engaging most of the base at the same time, and he acknowledged that the movie did that job almost perfectly. . .

~FS

122. Chain of Command - September 2, 2010

ELECTRIFIED THEM!!!!

Funny stuff

Fun movie.

123. captain_neill - September 2, 2010

119

I don’t care about his review

I know that First Contact is better than StarTrek XI

124. John - September 2, 2010

Well that’s just like your opinion, man.

125. dmduncan - September 2, 2010

@12: Well to you it is.

126. dmduncan - September 2, 2010

@123, that is.

127. Disinvited - September 2, 2010

#120. Ometiklan observed “…the supernova is not a straight-up supernova that Kirk would be familiar with, but a unique phenomenon only first seen in 2389 capable of threatening the whole galaxy.”

Do you have any idea how long supernovae have been observable phenomena and how far back in time our astronomical observations of them go because of the speed of light? To threaten an entire galaxy its destructive effects would have to travel faster than the speed of light and faster than warp speeds – darn near instantaneous. And with no prior observation in the multitudes of galaxies observable to confirm his postulations, Spock Prime gets a whole-in-one on the first swing? The whole concept as science is preposterous.

128. Vultan - September 2, 2010

Why the constant fighting over which Trek movie is better? Just enjoy each of them for what they are—and, yes, there is something to enjoy in each one of them, even “Final Frontier” and “Nemesis.” I always like to think that I’d rather watch the worst Trek has to offer as opposed to what is supposedly the best in the current mainstream. I mean, what is the alternative right now? “Eat, Pray, Love”? Uh… no thanks… “The Expendables?” Well… okay, that I might have to see… ;)

129. dmduncan - September 2, 2010

1. I do think science in movie science fiction ought to be treated as a dramatic friend rather than as a dramatic enemy. One of the most powerful moments in ST.09 was that poor woman being sucked out into the vacuum of space. Nor did they need any sound for the space drop, and that was perfect. If you are inflexible about the science I think you can find ways to redo scenes in ways that respect the science, unless of course you are up against a deadline and don’t have the time to do that.

2. Words like “universe” and “galaxy” may be used like colloquialisms. I don’t take them literally to mean the entire galaxy or the entire universe unless the context makes a literal reading unavoidable.

Didn’t McCoy at his trial in TUC say of Gorkon that he was the last best hope in the universe or galaxy for peace? Since the Federation isn’t understood to span the whole galaxy or universe, you can’t understand McCoy to mean that literally. It’s a loose way of speaking. I’m sure that habit will still be around in the 23rd century. We like hyperbole.

3. If we assume that Romulus was very near the exploding star having been the first world to be destroyed, or that Romulus itself belonged to a binary star system where one of the stars went supernova, then it’s a plausible scenario, although it would take something like a gamma ray burst to have a devastating effect on the Federation (as WR104, 8000 light years away from earth, still poses a threat to us), and that would take a very long time to happen so that Spock would have been laboring in haste only for Romulus, and much slower for the posterity of other worlds. But a gamma ray burst won’t disintegrate a planet either, and the story wouldn’t have worked unless Romulus died instantly with Nero watching and a black hole opening up nearby to steal control of unfolding events from the characters.

130. t_mac78 - September 2, 2010

haha its amusing, this guy nailed everything perfectly…everyone bitching about 2009, see his review, its the truth, not opinion…

All geek arguments are irrelevant, this is Star Trek now.

131. Disinvited - September 2, 2010

#129. dmduncan observed “We like hyperbole.”

Perhaps…unfortunately the character chosen to voice it, Spock Prime, has been consistently written to eschew hyperbole with regards to his chosen field: science. In fact, it would not be a mischaracterization to observe that the general template for all Spocks is a tendency toward understatement rather than the overstatement of this hyperbole.

132. Chris_of_ODU - September 2, 2010

The review was pretty good – not as enjoyable when he doesn’t hate the movie in question. “So much for your peaceful vision of the future, idiot”

I wouldn’t say he likes it, at least not with some qualifiers. He states that he realizes what it is a film made to make money – basically dumbed down for the “popcorn eating dimwitted masses.” He takes some serious cracks at the characterizations (everyone’s “HYPERCHARGED”).

He does point out something that I didn’t quite catch when first watching this – that Bones is pretty useless. Sure he’s Kirk’s friend and he gets Kirk on board, but rewrite that scene (where he could simply stowaway on a shuttle), and he’s down for the count. Uhura – who I thought was largely a pain in my rear through the story (I thought Zoe Saldana was a major weak-link in the film, “HYPERCHARGED” or not).

He points out exactly what I said about the Kobayashi Maru. Each time I see this film it makes else sense. But hey, “popcorn eating dimwitted masses.” Who would have thought a scene involving WESLEY CRUSHER would be used to prove a fantastic point. Wesley’s scene induced legitimate “fear” *and* proved that he could make a tough life or death decision. Kobayashi Maru in the new film is like a simple flight simulator that could *never* produce one iota of fear in the subjects. And Kirk’s smug attitude was something I just can’t get behind. He’s simply an a$$hole in the scene – regardless of whether or not he’s right about how useless the test (as it’s presented in this film) is.

He also takes a serious crack at Parallels, which he states is the “worst episode of Star Trek ever’ – which may be a bit embellished. This is the very foundation that the writers used to create this new film’s convoluted “we’ve changed the past so these events are in a different time line” plot. That’s pretty rough.

The review’s point about branding and name recognition only serves to embolden my opinion that Star Trek (with Kirk, Spock, and everyone else) will either be rebooted again by 2019 in the theaters (if they’re able to get a third film off the ground by 2015), or will probably be rebooted for television by 2016 (with a whole new cast since many of these people will have film careers and won’t want to do television). This isn’t a criticism of Star Trek, but of Paramount and the studio executives.

Star Trek wasn’t necessarily terrible, but In my opinion it only barely was able to capture the essence of Trek at fleeting moments, and most of them were due to fantastic performances by Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban and occasionally Zachary Quinto. It was the minor things that bugged me – which is why I complain about it so much.

Generally the films that get to me most, the ones that continue to fester in my mind are the ones that I really wanted to like – and like a lot – but was let down for some reason or another. This film shares a lot with Nemesis beyond the Romulan stories) they were both films that I desperately wanted to love, but were let down. Similarly, I can’t buy into the premise of Star Trek V or Star Trek: Insurrection, so there isn’t a lot for me to complain about – they’re both range from terrible to mediocre. With that said, I can only hope that the sequel can improve on the foundations presented in this film and do something unique and new to the Star Trek universe.

133. cd - September 2, 2010

127 – They took the idea of a supernova and HYPERCHARGED IT! They took Spock Prime’s intelligence and HYPERCHARGED IT! They took some little glob of red goo and HYPERCHARGED IT! They took, oh well, you get the idea. >;>}

134. Newman - September 2, 2010

This was great. I agreed with almost everything this guy said about the movie.

135. Crispy - September 3, 2010

Ugh, really hate this guy. He’s every that’s wrong with the internet in one package. Total clown.

136. Kev - September 3, 2010

A few things, engineering was never shown, that was the water treatment plant area that was mentioned all the way back in the tng tech manual I’m reading from the 90′s and the shuttlebay in the new ship, the new warp drive area were the warp drive mixes and transpheres power to the engines was actually never shown, it was just the cores, nothing else

and crispy ffs learn to take some black humor with your reviews, he was absolutely right on all acounts with this and the undermining of the dramatic tension of the films and tng with the ds9 dominion war battle shots, it should have stayed as a casualty list like in the pale moon light rather than a shown battle for that very reason, I mean the excelsior class looked like a pushover as well in ds9 because of it.

137. VOODOO - September 3, 2010

I have to differ with a bunch of you guys who are saying that he gave the film a bad review.

I don’t think he dislikes this movie at all. As a matter of fact he says several times that he thought it was very good.

138. Disinvited - September 3, 2010

Generally, I find addressing the creation’s author, Mike Stoklasa, to be more productive that trying to get a response out of a character in his fiction.

Ultimately, Stoklasa is the only one who can definitively answer the question of whether his character, Harry Plinkett, “really” likes or dislikes anything.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703959704575453411132636080.html

139. Ometiklan - September 3, 2010

Disinvited (#127) – my point was that the “event” in Romulan space was not a normal supernova – it was a unique phenomenon that threatened the galaxy or a large part of it. Perhaps it was a detonation caused by a trilithium bomb, or a Tox Uthat, an omega particle experiment, or an explosion like on Praxis – the point is that it was a detonating star that threatened Romulus and more. Spock wasn’t around after he caused the collapse of the supernova/star so he might not have all the information necessary to determine the ultimate cause of the supernova, but regardless, he just reported it to Kirk as a supernova.

Chris_of_ODU (#132) – you reminded me of another issue I have with RLM’s review – the comment about Parallels and the multi-universe model of time travel. Boborci and the court have specifically said, and is backed up by Spock Prime’s actions in this movie, that they have thrown out the precedent of parallel timelines, that the original timeline is out there somewhere, that anyone is capable of going back and fixing the changes to restore the timeline. In their new concept of time travel there is no going back, there is only this one reality. That is why they created this whole time travel plot, to start over – that is why Spock Prime doesn’t worry about corrupting the timeline by telling Kirk about the future or giving Scotty the transwarp beaming equation – there is only here and now, and that is why what the characters do here matters because there is no alternative, no way back.

140. Disinvited - September 3, 2010

#139.

You are confused. Spock predicted the event would occur beforehand. Otherwise how do you explain that he had a cure that he “miscalculated” and delivered “too late.”

Truly unique phenomenon (What I label one-shot events, i.e. phenomena which for one reason or another could only happen once in the lifetime of a universe.) in the universe also would be very difficult for science, on which Spock relies, to handle. Its data collection and peer review rely on reproducibility which requires repeatability. My point being, Spock would be very hard pressed in that event to “know” that any action that he could take would in fact make things better as opposed to making them worse.

If he doesn’t understand the underling cause then he’d be at a loss to have a “solution”.

And lets be clear his solution is nonsensical. The end result of inducing such a star to gravitationally collapse prematurely via an artificial black hole would be to trigger a supernova – precisely what Spock was trying to prevent in the first place.

141. trekprincess - September 3, 2010

well didn’t Star Trek have good and bad in it’s 40 year history anyway I still love the movie and will keep on doing so.

142. MJ - September 3, 2010

Why even report on this bozo at Red Letter Media’s review…like I care anything that that F-bomb lobbing loser says about Trek. This is news?

143. Ometiklan - September 3, 2010

One: I don’t think I am confused. I think there is a lack of evidence in the movie to determine what happened precisely, so we have to guess. There is no indication that the supernova was predicted. The visuals and the dialog all speak of the supernova as having already exploded and that it is its continued expansion that threatens the galaxy (“consuming everything in its path”). At no point does Spock reference anything happening before the explosion of the supernova. The supernova is always spoken of in the present tense; as having already occurred and existing. They don’t say “the supernova suddenly exploded and destroyed Romulus”, they say just “the unspeakable happened; the supernova destroyed Romulus”. My take on things is that the supernova occurred earlier and was threatening the local area; I think that Spock’s goal is to stop the continued expansion of the supernova before it hits Romulus – not to stop it from occurring in the first place.

Two: Using an artificial black hole to collapse the phenomenon could be reasonable, given that you get something within the event horizon it is not coming out (with some exceptions in the Star Trek universe, but at least it seems a reasonable possibility). Sure a collapse of a star to a small size (outside of an event horizon-type limit) would probably result in a supernova (given enough mass, enough nuclear reaction energy, etc.) but that is not what is proposed here.

Three: Just because this is the first time that someone has observed something occurring doesn’t mean it is impenetrable to science. Given a solid understanding of physics, it is reasonable that the Vulcan science academy can make some conclusions about proper course of action to stop it. In fact this is precisely what happens in about every second episode of Star Trek: something unique occurs, the cause and solution is deduced and put into action. And it is just as reasonable in real life (minus our ability to produce miraculous solutions): an atomic detonation was unique on earth in 1945, but someone, say a Russian spy, could combine basic knowledge of atomic physics and observation of the event to deduce facts about the explosion and results, cause, etc.

Ultimately, the writers are not astrophysicists and this isn’t a hard science fiction property, so we are discussing that either the writers intended to describe a phenomenon that could destroy the galaxy and misused the term supernova, or that they meant an actual, normal supernova and didn’t know enough or care enough to describe actual attributes of a supernova. Frankly, either explanation is just as likely, but in the scope of what is actually presented in the movie, the supernova doesn’t act at all like a supernova (other than a star explodes in some fashion) so I think it is reasonable to assume that it wasn’t really a supernova as we know it and was just called a supernova to use a convenient term – much like a number of other corners were cut to tell the story (the travel time to Vulcan not being clearly indicated, how/why Kirk, Spock Prime, and Scotty all arrived on the same planet, the exact location of Delta Vega, etc.).

144. dmduncan - September 3, 2010

I just watched RLM’s Generations review and my eyes are still wet with tears. This stuff is funny.

145. Basement Blogger - September 3, 2010

There’s an argument that Harry Plinkett is putting down Trekkers who criticized Trek “09 (Vger 23 @ 91, @ 95) as being out of touch with reality since all new Trek is going to appeal to the masses. Okay, that’s not what his review means. Yes, he liked it but with the his “guilty pleasure” enjoyment are scathing remarks about he movie. In essence, he thinks Trek ’09 was shallow but enjoyable. That’s why he compares it to his granddaughter, the stripper. Ugh. And I liked the movie too but Trek “09 had a Star Wars mindset. Let’s go over some of the points of the review to show he also had issues with Trek ’09. .

1.”Your brain doesn’t get a whole lot out of it in terms of actual science fiction.” That’s not a compliment since Star Trek is science fiction!

2, Trek ’09 was designed to appeal to ““popcorn eating dimwitted masses.” Um, again not a compliment. In other words Trek “09 was designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. He uses a similar term again later in the reveiw.

3. “They just wanted to make a film to make a bunch of money.” Not a compliment. Yes, unless you’re making some type of avant-garde film, you want to make money. But films are a peculiar form of art. The best in film is the mixture of art and commerce. The best of Star Trek worked on many levels according to Leonard Nimoy. I like to paraphrase that in saying the best of Trek would be heart, adventure and INTELLIGENCE.

Director J.J. Abrams said it. “All my smart friends liked Star Trek.” Entertainment Weekly, 10-24-08, pg. 29. Making a movie just to make a bunch of money is not compliment, it loses the intelligence element of Star Trek.

4. Harry’s First Metphorical Review. Star Trek Rapes a Woman. You get a clip of Harry’s first reveiw of the film Star Trek “09 is symbolized by a giant movie poster. It rapes a woman. (By the way, I’m not going to link it for you because rape is not funny. I know it’s metaphor but that’s like finding a way to make the holocaust funny. If you want to see it, go to RLM’s website. ) The point? Star Trek ’09 assaults the Trek fan and in Harry’s words, has “its way with the audience.” That is not a compliment.

5. Points out the ridculous short ride of Spock on the turbolift from the shuttle bay to the bridge in the new film. Harry then compares it with the TOS episode “By Any Other Name.” In that episode you can actually see the turbolift pass floors by the lights. By the way, God bless Harry, he’s a real Trekker. There are so many relevant clips from all iterations of Trek in his review. Anyway, the minor detail in the movie is meant to show that reality is sacrificed for “fluidtiy.’ The problem? Sacrificing science for an ADHD crowd. By the way, how about the science in “By Any Other Name?” Spock and Scotty talk about exposing the anti-matter to matter. Yes, that would cause an explosion.

6. “Oh Wait, this f***ing movie sucks.” (5:55, pt 2.) Harry utters this after seeing the Enterprise being conveniently built in Iowa. This is after Harry accurately notes starships are constructed in space. Saying someting sucks is generally not a compliment.

7. Makes scathing criticism of the Kobayshi Maru Test. Harry uses clips from TNG Wesley Crusher’s starfleet exam which actually featured a scary and heartbreaking test . (Forgive me Anthony, I don’t remember the name of the episode.) Harry points out how Trek ’09 turns the test into parody because the writers and the director don’t take Kirk’s acing of the test seriously. Harry, “You got Uhura clowining around. in the background. Hey quit clowning around back three, I’m trying to experience fear.” Ha ha. Again, not complimentary.

This reminds me of the times in Trek ’09 made fun of Trek conventions. See Red Shirt die. “I’m giving her all I’ve got.” etc. I laughed but it felt more like “Galaxy Quest 2.”

8. The engine room. Okay, a lot of people had problems with the engine room, which looks like a factory. On ST: Voyager’s engine room, the review says, “Is that a giant frozen margarita dispenser?” “Where is this supposed to be? Why did the movie stop thinking for me?” LOL Harry’s view is that the engine room should be futuristic. However, in Trek ’09 to pound it into the audience we’re in an engine room it was filmed in a factory. Hary points out it looks like an engine room on a cruiser. Harry, “If they shot the unimportant sections in a real location to save money, that’s kind of horrible.”

9. Uhura-Spock- Uses clips from the old show to indicate that Uhura teased Spock but there was no real romance. Harry then says in Uhura’s head, she thinks “Crazy weird ass cracker.” LOL. But anyway points out that Uhura-Spock makes little sense. Cracks joke that Uhura was sleeping with Spock to get “ahead” and then points out the scene where Uhura talks about her demonstrating excepitonal, um “oral sensitivity.” I know Harry is doing this for laughs but come on, it’s not a compliment of the movie.

10. “Bones” nickname. Harry says that the “Bones” nickname was from saw bones, a derogatory term for doctors in the nineteenth century. But since people don’t know anything about history, he says it was simplified “for the stupid masses.” Okay, simplifying a film for the “stupid masses” is not a compliment.

11. The story. Harry first points out that the supernova that threatens the whole galaxy is farfetched. Then he says, “See they once tired to base Star Trek in actual science.” Shows a clip of Leonard Nimory talking about TNG and the use of sceince advisors. Harry then sarcastically says in terms of Trek ‘ 09 , “F**k that.” Look taking the franchise that tried to follow science and throwing that concept out is not a compliment.

Okay, he does point out if you get out of the Star Trek mindset which is science fiction and view Trek ’09 like Star Wars, a “science fantasy”, his words, then you can “kind of enjoy it.” But here’s the problem. STAR TREK IS SCIENCE FICTION.

Harry questions the science in Trek “09. How can Spock see Vulcan being destoyed unless he was on a moon. Then he shows a clip from TOS that Vulacan had no moons. Oops. He brings up the fact if a star went supernova, it would have taken years to get to Romulus. Ouch.

There’s more about the story, Harry doesn’t like. For example, the oversimplification of Romulans into mindless monsters when in the series they weren’t.

Look, I concede that Harry likes Trek ‘ 09. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t have problems with the movie, as pointed out above. I made the comment that when I watch Trek ’09 I wasn’t sure I was watching Star Trek. Vger 23 @ 95 replied, ” I bet people thought similarly when TNG premiered, or DS9, or even ST: TMP.” Vger, I never thought that when watching TNG, DS9, Voyager, Enterprise, the films Star Trek: TMP, II-VI, Generations, First Contact, Insurrection, and Nemesis. All of those productions had a Star Trek mindset. While I liked Trek ’09, I refuse to view Star Trek with a Star Wars mindset.

146. JYH3 - September 4, 2010

Yeah, that is surprising. I for one thought it was a terrible hack job of a film that sullied the ideals of Star Trek with overblown glitz and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Congrats, we as a culture, have officially gutted Trek. I hope we’re happy with ourselves.

147. Disinvited - September 4, 2010

#143.

OK, now that you’ve explained yourself, I understand the approach that you are interested in taking: you want to ignore what one half of the writing team that wrote 2009′s STAR TREK says about the phenomenon and hem it to a classical “only what appears on screen” canonical approach.

Unfortunately, I don’t think it helps you much. You have to remember that the Spock character is assigned to the Sciences section of a Starship and, to an extreme, tries to behave rationally.

Star explosions have precise categories. Just as a nova is not a supernova and vice verse, something that causes ejecta to travel faster than the speed of light just plain doesn’t fit the standard definition of a supernova. If it truly was as unique as you appear to claim then he would have coined a new and yet precisely descriptive term for what it was – such as “hypernova” or “warpnova”. Calling it a supenova to someone he knows has just completed enough academy coursework to understand completely what one is, is just a plain writing gaff for a character who is supposedly a scientist in his own right..

Apparently the meaning of the word “unique” that you are attempting to evoke is not the most common one, especially in regards to the topic at hand of science. In science, “Unique” means “there is one and only one” and NOT “occurring for the first time”.

As there is some evidence that atomic detonation has occurred naturally in the earth’s core and on its surface prior to 1945 your example is weak, but I think I get what you are trying to say in spite of the confusing choice of prior words.

I think you are forgetting that the ejecta that takes Romulus out is traveling faster than the speed of light. For the Schwarzschild radius of Spock’s artificially induced black hole to chase after and overtake it his red matter stuff would do more to totally obliterate the enter Romulus/Remus star system than the initial ejecta that hit the home world. I guess we can count Spock lucky than Nero didn’t hang around to see that before chasing after him?

148. Disinvited - September 4, 2010

#147., 143.

“…the enter Romulus/Remus…” should be “…the entire Romulus/Remus…”

149. dmduncan - September 4, 2010

Yeah, Star Trek is a sort of science fiction, I guess. Certainly not hard science fiction.

Phaser beams and photon torpedoes that move at 65 miles per hour wouldn’t even be ticketed for speeding at rush hour.

Sounds in space.

Inexplicable gravity on a starship that looks the way the Enterprise does.

Transporting anywhere without a receiving pad.

The fashion crises at Starfleet Command that demands new uniforms every year.

This is why I find complaints about what has always been bad science or just absurd inconsistencies (which RLM hilariously points out) in Star Trek so amusing. THAT stuff you can all accept, but a supernova that threatens “the galaxy” is an outrage?

The therapist who’s willing to dress up as Deanna Troi could make a fortune advertising on this site.

150. Gracian - September 4, 2010

Well, I can’t remember which episode was that one at 11:09, because I saw a woman navigator with a sleeveless dress! WTF???

151. Disinvited - September 4, 2010

#149.

You keep providing interesting distractions (For example, I would most like to find out where you think in the Trek bible we’d find the entry “This character is prone to hyperbole.) that make me stray but mostly they just serve to show me that you aren’t seeing what I’m addressing or are off on some other agenda.

First off, you are wrong, when the writers have Spock Prime classify a galaxy threatening stellar event has a supernova they aren’t engaging in hyperbole but rather its complete antithesis: overwhelming under-description(anti-hyperbole?). Such an event doesn’t fit that classification as such a phenomenon far exceeds the bounds of that genre of stellar events. If they absolutely had to use some current term that describes the most energetic stellar phenomenon known to our time the term quark-nova would be more appropriate. It has the added advantage that it is so new that it provides plenty of room for the poetic license you seek and would have left the sniggering about exactly how far off it is for the future.

The other problem I have beyond the fact that the Spock character is engaging in a wildly off-the-mark description that doesn’t fit his character’s template is the specific setting: a Spock mind-meld. Outside of the 2009 effort Spock’s mind-melds have been depicted as an extremely well-ordered and organized stage. In THE CHANGELING, Nomad doesn’t modify its description of the experience with “Except for the propensity of your Spock unit to engage in wildly off the mark poetic descriptions…” In SPECTRE OF THE GUN, Spock’s mind-meld is used to save the day precisely because it is an arena of exactitude and NOT because it is stuffed full of ambiguities. He even uses it as a precision instrument to excise memories from his best friend. There are allusions in a few episodes to the effect that if Spock could not maintain precision of thought in his mind-melds that they would more likely be lethal experiences.

I wouldn’t read and enjoy Bradbury if I didn’t think there was room in science-fiction for poetry as you assume of me.

152. Chris M - September 5, 2010

HAHAHAHA, that would have to be the funniest and definitely the best review of Star Trek (2009) I have seen! :)

153. dmduncan - September 5, 2010

@151: Dude, there IS NO template. That’s is your imagination only. There are typical behaviors that any given writer may feel free to depart from, not ironclad inviolable ones.

Spock doesn’t typically conduct painful mind melds to forcibly extract information from someone either, but he did it to Valeris in TUC, and he seemed sadistic in doing it, as well. Disturbingly atypical, but there.

Whether you take it as hyperbole is up to you. I’m not wrong. That’s my reaction, precisely the same reaction I had to McCoy saying in TUC that Gorkon was the “last, best hope in the UNIVERSE for peace.” Get that? In the U-N-I-V-E-R-S-E.

Curiously, I had the same reaction in the same movie when General Chang says to Kirk “I shall blow you out of the stars.” Of course, Kirk wasn’t IN the stars, was he? First of all, stars are widely separated, making it problematic for Kirk to be IN a series of them all at once which Chang’s plural reference suggests he would have to be, and second, stars are very hot places to be such that even if Kirk were in a series of stars, being blown out of them by Chang would be the least of his worries.

So my reaction to the overblown use of language like that is to shrug it off and enjoy the movie, to get the basic idea rather than the literal idea.

Also, Spock lives and serves with humans, and it is no stretch of the imagination on my part at least to accept that he is given to expressing himself like them every now and again in colloquial habits of human speech, especially during a mind meld experience which is ATYPICALLY EMOTIONAL for him, as evidenced by the effect of the meld on Kirk through “emotional transference,” which is precisely where the reference to the “galaxy” being threatened comes from.

But the real point of my post is the absurdity of selectively complaining about one inaccuracy while living peacefully with a host of others which you simply have to live with if you are going to be a fan of Star Trek.

154. Basement Blogger - September 6, 2010

My fellow Trekkers, check out Harry’s review of Star Trek: First Contact. Yes, he’s totally wrong because he nitpicks beyond reason. Yet, Harry is a Trekker. He uses video from all Star Trek iterations to support his position. There’s been an argument that since Harry liked Trek ’09 that Star Trek should be more like Star Wars or GI Joe. If you watch his very funny reivew, you realize he likes the “talky-gooey” Star Trek. He hates the psycopath that Picard has become versus the “enlightened” Picard in the TV series. Look, “Iron Man ” (2008) had twenty five minutes of exposition before the next big actions sequeunce, ‘Up” had five minutes of music over a heartbreaking montage. Fight for intelligence in the next Star Trek. By the way Harry doesn’t get Picard in Frist Contact. Picard is totally consumed by revenge and has to overcome it. Holy ‘Dark Knight!” This is a Trek movie that has meaning. Still, I laughed my ass off during his review. Harry stop the misogyniistic jokes. I appreciate you are trying to push the envelope, but dude, killing your wife?!

155. warp_10 - September 6, 2010

#150: Gracian:

That was “By Any Other Name”. The person at the helm in the odd “uniform” was one of the Kelvans who took over the ship. That clip was when they piloted the Enterprise past the Galactic Barrier towards Andromeda. I don’t know the name of the woman, however.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2288/2105641936_27fea0798f.jpg?v=1197462974

156. Commodore shaggy - September 7, 2010

Since ST09 appeared on Netflix the other day, I decided to give it another watching after seeing this review. I did catch a few things I hadn’t noticed before as expected. I like how Harry put it in the review – ST09 was an action flick and it really did work as such. In fact I think it has become my 2nd favorite Trek movie after Khan.

And Harry was right on with his opinions of the TNG movies – he brought up points I hadn’t thought of before and he brought them up again in this review. TNG was never a super action series but ST movies need to involve a heavy bit of action in them. And the characters in the TNG movies do seem to be a bit different than on the TV series.

157. Gracian - September 7, 2010

#155: warp_10

Thanks! I’d realized that because By Any Other Name was my re-watch TOS episode for last Sunday. :D

I had forgotten that scene anyway.

158. Disinvited - September 7, 2010

#153. dmduncan proclaimed “Dude, there IS NO template.”

So when I remind you that the founding series had a document entitled STAR TREK WRITER’S GUIDE:

http://www.stjohns-chs.org/english/STAR_TREK/contentsacredground/strekintro1.html

http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/4908498

that was maintained and updated during each season and contain entries such as:

“Although Kirk often solicits information and estimates from Spock, never does the first officer act as Kirk’s brain. Aboard the ship Capt. Kirk has only a few opportunities for anything approaching friendship, one exception being Spock, a strange friendship based upon logic.”

“Science Fiction is not Fantasy. What ever happens, no matter how
bizarre, must have some basis in fact or theory.”

You will still maintain that any pattern that I label a “template” in constructing the character “Spock” in scripts from writer to writer is totally imagined?

Or is it your contention that I have gone beyond the scope of hyperbole in my usage of the defined word “template” such that my meaning is “totally” imaginary?

159. Basement Blogger - September 10, 2010

Trekkers, I’ve watched all Harry Plinkett’s Star Trek movie reviews. They’re all hillarious though I could do without the “I’m a sick pyscho who maybe a murderer” jokes. Check them out at Red Letter Media’s website.

The reason why I’m posting here is to infrom those who think Harry wants Trek to be like Trek ’09 that they are wrong. First, Harry is a consumate Trekker. Many of his arguments are supported by clips from all iterations of Trek. Second, he prefers the “enlightened” Picard of the TNG series verus the Picard of the movies which he argues has gone crazy. Third, in his review, he uses a clip of Jonathan Frakes saying, “I think the audience wants Star Trek to be an action movie.” Harry yells “Wrong. Wrong you a##hole.” Ha, ha. Star Trek is more than just colorful action, it’s heart, adventure and INTELLIGENCE. Anyway, that portion of the “Nemesis” review is below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT7sSp-3_I&feature=related

160. Lino - October 16, 2010

It’s interesting how many people say but Parralles was good.

Yeah that’s the point. Parralles is one of the more popular TNG episodes.
It’s liked by many fans.
But it destroys the uniqueness of Star Trek. But Fans like it so the do not care (me too).
But then comes Star Trek 09 … and the same people bitch about destroying the uniqueness of Star Trek.

Thet’s the thing about Plinkett’s reviews he makes many meta or in Jokes.
His entire character is a big meta Joke.

It’s the same thing with his Star Wars Episode Rev.
Many Fans bitch about him calling Jango Fett by the name Boba Fett.
That’s the point, There is no difference between Janga and Boba.
He is only in the Story because people like Boba and it was a way getting him in.

If you watch more of his work you learn that he really likes to challenge his viewers. You can find his reviews funny by only consuming them. But if you activity watch them (more then once) you get the extras out of them.

The same way really good movies do this to you.

161. No prescription pain relief! Buy - August 8, 2011

Hm, I’m just happy with this however not entirely positive, hence i’m going to research even more.

162. Tony - January 4, 2012

HOT PLASMA COMING THROUGH.

163. Chris M - January 27, 2012

Hahaha, I havn’t seen that for quite a while!! A very entertaining review of Star Trek (2009) :-)

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.