Watch: SF Debris 1 Hour+ Video Review Of Star Trek (2009) | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Watch: SF Debris 1 Hour+ Video Review Of Star Trek (2009) January 3, 2012

by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Review,Star Trek (2009 film),Viral Video/Mashup/Images , trackback

The movie came out almost three years ago, but people are still talking about it and apparently making lengthy video reviews as well. The popular video review series from "SF Debris" has just taken on the 2009 Star Trek movie with over an hour of detailed video analysis. See below to watch the whole thing.

 

SF Debris Review of Star Trek (2009)

While not as famous as Red Letter Media’s "Mr. Plinkett", The SF Debris Opinionated Reviews have been taking a look at various Star Trek episodes and movies (and other sci-fi TV and films) for years, with a loyal following. And for New Years, SF Debris has finally tackled the 2009 Star Trek movie with a very detailed look at the film from a fan perspective. You may not agree with everything, but it is thorough. Watch the intro and four parts below (all in all its over an hour).

More SF Debris Opinionated Reviews of Star Trek and other scifi stuff at http://sfdebris.com.

Comments

1. henny - January 3, 2012

love this movie, abrams rocks. Yay, first.

2. davidfuchs - January 3, 2012

The great thing about SF Debris is not that I agree with him. I often disagree completely. But he definitely backs up his opinion with evidence for why it’s so, and wraps it all up in humor. Can’t argue with that presentation. :)

3. Gorandius - January 3, 2012

I enjoy SFdebris’ reviews. While I may not always agree 100% with his opinions, he is thoughtful and makes you think as he states in the intro to his review. It is good to see someone like him get recognition on a site like this. He is truly deserving of praise.

4. Diego - January 3, 2012

I’m a big fan of SF Debris’ work and I think he was spot on with this review. But as davidfuchs pointed out the best part of SF Debris’ reviews is that he makes a reasoned, well thought out case for his opinions and invites the viewers to assess his arguments on their own terms.

5. Ran - January 3, 2012

Before going through the entire thing, was it positive or negative review?

6. Captain Karl - January 3, 2012

does the hour time reference include the commercial in front of each video segment?;)

7. Ted C - January 3, 2012

Was the narrator supposed to be funny…..cuz he wasn’t.

8. MJ - January 3, 2012

Never heard of these wannabe reviewers at “SF Debris.” LOL Like I am suppose to take this seriously? This is 60 minutes of this guy trying to make us believe how clever and smart he is…that is all I got out of this bloated mess.

Just cause it is on the internet folks, it doesn’t mean we need to take it seriously.

9. njdss4 - January 3, 2012

@ #7: Just like your comment? SFDebris is a well-spoken, level-headed reviewer. He puts serious effort into his reviews and his opinions aren’t baseless. I’ve been subbed to his YouTube channel for a long, long time and I enjoy all his Trek reviews.

10. MJ - January 3, 2012

Davidfuchs is the only regular trekmovie.com post I am seeing here so far. For the rest of you guys who seem to like this reviewer, I respect the fact that you are probably fans of this SFDebris site that I have never heard of, but again, I found the review to be pompous and self-serving — this guy, who I have never heard of, thinks he is a serious film critic.

Sorry, but I am not buying it…anyone can set up a web site and claim they are an expert. What are this guys qualifications? I am willing to be convinced otherwise if you can prove to me why I should respect this guys reviews/web site (i.e. beyond the fact that you subjectively like him)?

11. MJ - January 3, 2012

“Opinionated Trek Film Guide is now complete as we look at Abrams introduction to the franchise. An actual Romulan challenges Shinzon’s claim as worst villain, Kirk is shown to be an ass-hole, and Spock and Spock must help him save the world. All filmed inside of the Apple Store, I think.”

I mean, come on, what an a-hole!

12. Gray Ghost - January 3, 2012

@9

So in order for someone’s opinion to matter to you it has to be from someone you’ve heard of? Huh, that’s an interesting thing to say–on an anonymous internet comment board.

13. MJ - January 3, 2012

@11 For movie reviews, sure, yes. Or at least someone who I know/respect and/or has some demonstrated qualifications. This guy just seems like a smart-ass to me — that is what I get from this supposed “review” of Trek 09.

Who is he? Why should I care about his review? Why should I take him seriously?

14. MJ - January 3, 2012

FYI. Real reviewers don’t need to depend on Paypal donations for their services — newspapers, television, magazine and major media websites ACTUALLY PAY THEM for their professional reviews. And they hire them based on their actual real-world qualifications, such as film school, journalism degree, etc.

15. Gray Ghost - January 3, 2012

@12

You obviously care somewhat. You are here.

16. MJ - January 3, 2012

Yea, but then there is procrastination from doing my real work and boredom that enter into the equation as to why I am here. :-)

17. Captain Rickover - January 3, 2012

# 12 MJ
I have the feeling you just speak out of personal anger and not because of well made thoughts of yourself, sir. Perhaps you should calm down.

It is not necessary that this man is known by the entire world. His critics are absolutly great. Okay, his humor is a bit lame, but he nailed every single plothole of the new movie and the lack of science and reason a SCIENCE-fiction-movie.

18. VZX - January 3, 2012

Wait, the movie came out about 2.5 years ago, not almost four. Check that.

19. MJ - January 3, 2012

@16 “I have the feeling you just speak out of personal anger and not because of well made thoughts of yourself, sir. Perhaps you should calm down.”

Ah, perhaps you have a point there. You know, given my behavior that you have outlined here, perhaps I should apply for a reviewer position at SF Debris, as it seems I would fit in perfectly there based on your critique of me?

:-)

20. NCM - January 3, 2012

TM Staff, thanks for this article.

Trek 2009 was an accomplishment – even as a 7 out of 10 by SF D’s accounting, but the review and ubiquitous criticisms of Trek fans argue strongly that Trek needs to raise credibility standards just a bit; to meet us want-to-be believers half-way. There’s always a way to tell the story a writer wants to tell and to do so with a respectable degree of authenticity–and a commitment to the latter makes for better writing. Want cadet Kirk to be Capt. Kirk? SF D’s proposed ending would have been eloquent and believable.

21. MJ - January 3, 2012

NCM, I do agree that I would like some more serious SF in Trek, but I will continue to agree completely with the continued questioning of the promotion of Kirk to Captain at the end of the movie. I think you’ve seen my posts in the other thread on this topic, so I will just summarize them here again:

1. Kirk saved the lives of 10 trillion+ people — all the major Federation worlds would have been black-hole nuked in short order if it wasn’t for Kirk’s action. Kirk’s actions in this regards, as the leader of this, would be have been “front page news” on every Federation world, which would have resulted in significant public sentiment and pressure on the Federation leadership to put pressure on Starfleet to give Kirk the Enterprise.

2. Spock Prime, as shown in his viewing above the commendation ceremony at the end of the film, obviously recommended to Starfleet and the Federation leadership to put Spock in the Captains chair. Spock would have likely hinted to the Starfleet/Federation leadership of the importance that having Kirk in the Captain’s chair and how it would benefit the Federation (and remember, Spock mind-melded with nuKirk, so Spock could assess better than anyone on whether Kirk was ready to lead).

22. NCM - January 3, 2012

MJ, so glad you’re sticking to your New Year’s resolution (as will I:). In fact, if you like, I’ll be your coach (if that’s the term?) until you go on a real binge.

As far as I know, the guy doesn’t offer his credentials. He offers and supports his arguments. You may agree or disagree with him. Don’t know that he needs an Ivy League degree in Sci Fi Review/Criticism to espouse his views to whomever chooses to listen.

I think he makes solid criticisms; points many others have made; and that the future of Trek forebodes better if the writers will heed some criticism and put a little more energy into plugging the holes before the next ship sails–what harm in encouraging them to do so?

23. MJ - January 3, 2012

I also thought that Nero’s character, and the portrayal of Nero by Eric Banya, was one of the highlights of the film for me. This no-name reviewer on SF Hubris…whoops, I mean SF Debris…made fun of the character and the performance…and yes, I completely disagree with that, and it shows to me a lack of perception on a good performance that I would expect from a top-flight movie reviewer.

24. NCM - January 3, 2012

MJ, I was posting while you were posting. I think you can make the argument you make, but I still think it more likely Starfleet would have to test Kirk further–put him under command of an experienced capt.

I doubt elder Spock would attempt to meddle too much with the fate of this new universe. While I can see him suggesting to Fleet the potential of Kirk…, even so, I think Fleet would see no harm in a permanent, publicized promotion from cadet to commander, for example. Not how we’d all like the story to go, necessarily, but the reviewer’s suggestion would allow for a credible advance of the story to a point for the next film to take off.

25. MJ - January 3, 2012

@21 “MJ, so glad you’re sticking to your New Year’s resolution (as will I:). In fact, if you like, I’ll be your coach (if that’s the term?) until you go on a real binge.”

Thanks NCM. It is hard, but I am trying. I sometimes feel like Captain Terrell, with Khan telling me to do the wrong thing, but Kirk urging me to do the right thing, and me not knowing where to point the phaser. Although hopefully this will not end for me the same way as Terrell. LOL

26. NCM - January 3, 2012

MJ, posting squared, again. I also liked Nero and thought Bana did a swell job; even though I thought him drawn a bit like a cartoon villain.

27. CC - January 3, 2012

Spot on review! Trek of the TOS and TNG is dead. They were made for thinking adults, but now it’s been re-imagined for teeagers and dumbed down at the same time. Too bad, it was a great franchise…

28. NCM - January 3, 2012

MJ, I’ll take that as a call for help and will do my best at intervention.

29. MJ - January 3, 2012

I am concerned here that we may have some sock-puppets posting on this story? I am seeing a lot of new people here (who I don’t recall seeing on posts here before) with what it looks like are quickly made-up names, who all seem to be posting on behalf on SF Debris. ???

Just saying…

30. MJ - January 3, 2012

@27. LOL Thanks!

31. Red Dead Ryan - January 3, 2012

People are still hung up over Kirk’s rapid promotion? Seriously? We’ve gone over this a MILLION TIMES. Here’s why his promotion made sense:

1. He saved Earth. He made quick command decisions, while risking his own life. He destroyed the drill platform, stopping (albeit too late) the Narada’s drilling into the surface of Vulcan and also rescued Sulu after he fell off the drill platform.

2. Starfleet lost a lot of command personnel and ships at the hands of Nero.

3. The writers wanted to allow the audience to see Kirk get promoted to captain at the end of the movie, after all of his trials and tribulations and adversity he had to go through. They wanted to go the “Batman Begins” and “Casino Royale” route, cutting to the chase quickly and effeciently, as opposed to the “Star Wars” trilogy, where George Lucas took three films to tell the tale of Anakin Skywalker’s downfall and transformation into Darth Vader.

4. It’s only a movie.

Now, how hard is it to understand?

32. "Check the Circuit!" - January 3, 2012

Love the Red Letter Media reviews of the Trek and Wars films. Mr. Plinkett’s extensive reviews of the Star Wars prequels are brave, insightful, twisted and funny. Worth the time. And you just might learn a thing or two about good (and horrendously bad) storytelling.

33. Jim Nightshade - January 3, 2012

Hmmmm all videos are unavailable…trek 09 like most movies had great aspects and soso aspects…i aagree trek has been slightly dumbed down and detailed nerdy removed…i didnt mind cuz it was obvious they are trying to make the myth n legend more accessible and in so doing the myth…my trek was more visually epic…faster paced and yes…fun….
Jj roberto et al knew what they were doing…i didnt even mind the beery engine area since its reasonable for a huge ship to have a huge water pfocessing area etc…we didnt see much of actual engine room…for my fsve frsnchise to thrive it will have to be reinterptreted from time to time…
The characters were there..actors all excellent and trek is there in fact many fun details for fans….i luv all trek this nutrek is just as good as the others…hell in many ways better than most…n had nimoy as a guest star to help usher in newtrek….i fell for it hooklinensinker…it was also great to see the favorable movie reviews too…

34. davidfuchs - January 3, 2012

@MJ

If it changes your opinion any, SF Debris is one of the best and longer-running Trek reviewers out there. He’s the one who coined the name “Future Guy” for said character on Enterprise. He’s been doing this a while, in text and video.

35. MJ - January 3, 2012

@33. David, actually that does help me a bit — thanks.

I guess it irritated me significantly that someone on the web would put out a pretty negative review of Trek 09 NEARLY 3 FRACKING YEARS after it came out. And most of what he mentions has been brought up by others, so it does come across a bit lazy to me for him to essentially wait 3 years and then essentially compile others’ criticisms to make his review. If he had come up with this during the time of the original release, I would certainly respect it more and believe that more original thought ans work went into it.

36. Tony - January 3, 2012

He’s very long winded in his criticisms. It’s funny for a while but then it gets old.

37. Jim Nightshade - January 3, 2012

Gotta admit tho he knows his trek….yu have to be heavy into trek to know the background details as well as he does..i havent listened to all of it yet…wonder what roberto thinks…he knew how to correctly pronounce orci heheh

38. chrisfawkes.net - January 3, 2012

That was pretty lame.

Red Letter Media is so much better and raises so many good points even when paying out on a film i love. His Nemesis review actually made the pain of sitting though that film worth it.

This guy on the other hand is pretty boring right off the bat.

39. Red Shirt Diaries - January 4, 2012

@38. Agreed, this review is lame and boring. This review also masks itself as supposedly giving Trek 2009 an OK review, when it is painfully obvious that the reviewer couldn’t stand the film. The review thus comes across as insincere, as we have to listen for a full hour of this pompous guy’s diatribes and pot-shots on the film.

I also question the 3 year wait to put this out by this reviewer. Just now, as the new movie is suppose to start filming, we get this bloated 1 hour negative review of the first film. And not only that, this guy is asking for “donations” on his web site to try to make a buck off of this. Since when do movie reviewers ask for donations?

It is is a red flag in my book that an anonymous internet reviewer would ask for money from fans? What is up with that? At least tell us who you are if you want our money? Why the anonymity?

40. Byron D. - January 4, 2012

uhm.. You mean the movie came out almost 3 years ago, right? Because, I have not lived in Portland for four years…

41. Taranaich - January 4, 2012

I’ve read plenty of reviews of the new Trek film, and grit my teeth. Everyone enjoyed it, I hated it – but I figure to live and let live. Obviously my finger isn’t on the pulse. Then, when someone makes a review of the film that conforms closer to my reception, we get ad-hominem attacks. “Oh, he isn’t a real reviewer that gets paid, that invalidates his criticisms somehow” “he’s asking for donations, that invalidates his criticisms somehow,” “oh, he’s relying on old arguments, that invalidates his criticisms somehow” “oh, he waited 3 years to review it, which is apparently bad since you’re only allowed to review films a certain amount of time after it came out.”

Can we really not agree to disagree here, people? Yes, the 2009 film was a success, and plenty of people, both long-time Trekkies and newcomers, loved the hell out of it. At the same time, plenty of long-time Trekkies and newcomers didn’t like it at all. I don’t think people who enjoyed the new film are easily-distracted shallow-brained morons, so I think it would be nice if people didn’t treat those who didn’t enjoy the new film as pompous pseudo-intellectuals.

I recommend people check out SFDebris’ positive reviews, especially “Wrath of Khan.” He’s insightful and fair, and brings up excellent points.

42. Exverlobter - January 4, 2012

Why is everybody complaining that SFDEBRIS made the reviews almost 3 years after the release of the film? Mr. /Plinkett did the same. His review came about 2 years after the release. If you want a review, that was recorded exactly 1 hour after the film, you should watch the review from “Confused Matthew.”

43. Clinton - January 4, 2012

Based on his intro, his review would give the film a “so so” rating. No reason for me to not watch. However, I just couldn’t get into his style. Using reviews of another J.J. film was fairly childish. “Look what I did there? Pretty clever, huh?” And he droned on and on in the intro about people who liked the film and those who didn’t and…ugh. Bailed at the end of part 1.

44. Nony - January 4, 2012

Random open question re: the nuKirk being promoted to captain thing…didn’t Barnett call him Pike’s ‘relief’? (‘report to Admiral Pike, USS Enterprise, for duty as his relief’) Could that imply a temporary state and mean that once Pike is recovered, he could technically resume his captaining duties and Kirk would have to hand the chair over?

(Of course that wouldn’t happen, because, y’know, Captain Kirk, USS Enterprise, etc.)

45. Jeyl - January 4, 2012

I love watching his reviews. And while I would certainly give Trek09 a rating much lower than what he gave it, I respect his rating and the reasons behind it. He’s not the kind of guy who simply goes “JJ did wonderful work” and leaves it at that. He actually goes into why he feels that JJ did wonderful work amongst all the other Treks.

Probably the biggest compliment I can give him is that he sees and understands BOTH POINTS OF VIEW from those who loved the movie and those who hated it. He doesn’t take his positive opinions of it and writes off other opinions that disagree by posting a link to the Onion video to label trek fans as folks who don’t enjoy good entertainment in general. He seems very hopeful on what this new take on Star Trek will offer, while at the same hopes that the next one won’t take so many liberties in going from point a to point b.

Plus, his comment on the absence of technobabble was perfect. The real problems with technobabble are still there. It’s just if you don’t put any effort to explaining it no matter how far fetched it is, it comes off as sheer randomness. Red Matter creates a black hole that sucks things into it with no problem like the Narada, but it’s destroying it near the end. Transwarp equation, once entered into a computer terminal, VIOLATES EVERY SINGLE TRANSPORTER RULE that writers self
Impose on themselves as to not make this convenient device TOO convenient. Now this new take is stuck with transporter technology that can be used to solve any problem anywhere that involves moving something. You gotta be a little more realistic than that

46. Mike - January 4, 2012

Hmmm. He’s pretty good in bits, but I really wish someone would tell him not to yell into the mike for long periods of time. It just sounds creepy and unstable to me.

It’s ok to get upset about totally unimportant crap, but you have to do it in a kind of tounge in cheek way that lets everyone know you’re not actually a complete nutjob. That part where he kept yelling about what he imagined Nero felt was so uncomfortable I almost turned it off right there.

Not bad. No Red Letter Media though.

47. VZX - January 4, 2012

44: Good Point. It would be cool if Kirk’s captaincy at the end of Trek09 was a temporary thing. It would explain a lot. Of couse, by the time of the sequal, Kirk would have to be a full captain. So it’s kind of a moot point.

BUT, if one of the powers-that-be could give an offical explanation about Kirk being the “relief” and therefore temporary captain, well that would just make the world right.

48. Adolescent Nightmare - January 4, 2012

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Get to the point, sir. Random babbling is not a review. And no you cant have any money.

49. Exverlobter - January 4, 2012

@ Mike
“NO Red Letter Media”

Of course. Because Mr. Plinkett from Red Letter Media needs 6 months to complete a review. SfDebris puts on a review about twice a week!! Reviews on his channel are not a rare occasion. OK, Reviews from Plinkett are well-produced, but if you have months to make them, it is not surprising that they might seem better. And BTW, Plinketts review of Trek 2009 contradicts his earlier statements why he hated the TNG-films. SFDBRIS review is much more consistent.

50. Pah Wraith - January 4, 2012

I bet Chuck is laughing his a** off reading some of the above (and below) opinions on his work and himself… :)

51. alec - January 4, 2012

I also give the film 7/10. I agree that the main flaw is that there is no story: it’s get persons a-g from the Academy to the bridge in the most action packed way possible. It doesn’t matter if you go from Cadet to Captain. It doesn’t matter how many utterly remarkable coincidences there are…just get it to the right place in 2 hours or so….

Well, it does matter.

Also, the engineering set is awful and takes you out of the film: it makes it difficult to suspend disbelief. The music is too repetitive . The science is doggy….It felt too much like saved by the bell in space.

That’s why its nowhere near TWOK or TVH or TUC. It’s probably my 4th favourite. I hope that the next film improves on all these mistakes and is great!

52. Mike - January 4, 2012

#49 Ah, maybe so. I have seen all the Plinkett reviews and I don’t recall that he contradicts himself in any substantial way, but that may be the case. I agree that the Plinkett reviews have a lot of work put into them, and that it shows in the quality of the production. I also agree that sfdebris is pretty good, I will probably watch more.

I really mean it as more constructive commentary, as someone who has some experience in audio production and radio personality-ism. Yelling into the mic makes you sound like a crazy person. Some people can pull it off, but not many.

53. Exverlobter - January 4, 2012

#52
What, SFDebris sounds like a crazy person?
And Plinkett? He regularly makes jokes about abuse, rape, and murder. Last time he even made a pedophile joke. Who is the crazy person then?

54. MJ - January 4, 2012

@36 “He’s very long winded in his criticisms.”

That is the understatement of the year — agreed!

@43 “However, I just couldn’t get into his style. Using reviews of another J.J. film was fairly childish. “Look what I did there? Pretty clever, huh?” And he droned on and on in the intro about people who liked the film and those who didn’t and…ugh. Bailed at the end of part 1.”

Well said!

@46. “It’s ok to get upset about totally unimportant crap, but you have to do it in a kind of tounge in cheek way that lets everyone know you’re not actually a complete nutjob. That part where he kept yelling about what he imagined Nero felt was so uncomfortable I almost turned it off right there.”

Agreed!

@48 “Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Get to the point, sir. Random babbling is not a review. And no you cant have any money.”

Yea, I think it is hilarious that this guy asks for money to do sf reviews on his web site. What an ego!

@49 “SfDebris puts on a review about twice a week!! Reviews on his channel are not a rare occasion.”

If that is so, then why wait three years until the sequel is about to start production to do this negative review on the Trek 2009. A skeptical person might conclude that the timing of this is designed to maximize “donations” to this guy’s coffers.

@50 “@46. “It’s ok to get upset about totally unimportant crap, but you have to do it in a kind of tounge in cheek way that lets everyone know you’re not actually a complete nutjob. That part where he kept yelling about what he imagined Nero felt was so uncomfortable I almost turned it off right there.”

Well if that is the way he feels about criticism of his reviews, than that would seem to confirm the impression by several of us here that he is not doing these reviews for the right reasons. I.e. a skeptical person might conclude that his website seems to be ego- and financially- driven.

55. MJ - January 4, 2012

correction at the end of my post above — last two paragraphs should be as follows:

@50 “I bet Chuck is laughing his a** off reading some of the above (and below) opinions on his work and himself… :)”

Well if that is the way he feels about criticism of his reviews, than that would seem to confirm the impression by several of us here that he is not doing these reviews for the right reasons. I.e. a skeptical person might conclude that his website seems to be ego- and financially- driven.

56. Exverlobter - January 4, 2012

@MJ

Wow, it is obviously clear, that you have never seen a review by SFDEBRIS. Stating that he is primarily interested in the money of his fans is totally ridicolous. BTW Mr. Plinkett also makes money, with his reviews. He uses his popularity to sell T-shirts and other stuff.

57. The Man - January 4, 2012

To everybody who currently doesn’t like SFDebris:
Please do not base your opinion of him on just one review. Watch several to get a good idea. He does not just do movies, he does all Star Trek series (and more!!!) I disagree with some of his reviews yet I do not allow some of our disagreements to cloud my judgment of his reviews.

To those who ask what gives him the right to review: He is a human being and every person has the right to give their own views about television shows, movies, and any other form of art.

Why wait so long to do the review? He had to do the other 10 reviews first, not to mention he has other reviews. Also, so the review date wasn’t so close to premiere date. Also, just happens to be that way. It has nothing to do with the Star Trek sequel.

Why does he act for money? He needs help with his website, and friends help out friends. In return he allows us to ask for an episode for him to review–in other words, an episode that might not get reviewed for some time despite the fact that some people may want it to be reviewed sooner. Fair enough deal, and if you don’t want to contribute money, by all means, don’t!

As for his “ramblings”, that’s called a review. He talks about what he likes and doesn’t like and gives detailed information supporting his opinion. Every reviewer gives their likes and dislikes about stuff like this.

For those who want my opinion, I think people don’t like him because his opinion is not the same as theirs or even the same as the general population. So what? That makes him unique, and unique is not bad.

58. MJ - January 4, 2012

@56. Are you the reviewer on SF Debris?

59. MJ - January 4, 2012

It sounds like several of his regulars, and possibly the reviewer himself, have taken it upon themselves to post in force here in response to most of regulars on this site who don’t agree with the review and/or have questions/concerns considering the quality of the reviewer?’ I don’t recognize many of the posters here defending SF Debris as regulars on this site, and so it makes me suspicious that “a campaign” is underway here.

60. Exverlobter - January 4, 2012

I am just subscribed to his channel. As well as to RLMs Channel and many others.

61. "Check the Circuit!" - January 4, 2012

Ugh. Tried way too hard to be funny. Good intro. Balanced POV. But Mr Plinkett he ain’t.

62. KN - January 4, 2012

So people defending him is an organized campaign.

That’s not skeptical, that’s looking for a conspiracy~

(Side note: A lot of people ask for money. That’s not even evidence of anything.)

63. The Man - January 4, 2012

I don’t mind people disagreeing with SFDebris–I do mind people thinking that SFDebris is a bad reviewer since his opinions are not the same as yours–whoever you may be. I also do have a problem with people who judge SFDebris based on 1 review. Disagree with his opinions for all I care! No campaign–just setting the record straight.

64. MJ - January 4, 2012

KN and The Man, I have never seen either of you post here before.

65. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 4, 2012

Why should I want to spend an hour watching a review of a film that was screened in cinemas 30 months ago? That’s half the length of the movie, for goodness sake…Sheesh. Not only that I got the two DVD set six months later and have watched the movie many times since then.

I have already read a number of different reviews over time and all the “plot holes”, “inconsistencies”, “budgineering”, “bad characterization”, “bad science” etc etc have been picked at, pulled apart, dissected, discussed, flamed over and sworn about, ridiculed, mocked, hated, understood, liked, loved, defended…you name it. These various debates, arguments and opinions – reviews? – can probably all be found on this site and definitely on the IMDb Star Trek (2009) message board.

Frankly, I do not know what SF Debris could possibly tell me that I have not read and heard before, on countless occasions. I mean – honestly? really?

What’s with the name “Debris” anyway, as in – “a. The scattered remains of something broken or destroyed; rubble or wreckage. b. Carelessly discarded refuse; litter. …”? The name does not seem to bode well for any science-fiction film or literature when it comes to this person’s review of it.

I have not watched the video of the review as I have only so much broadband allowance for a month and I do not wish to waste it on a review which should only take about 10-15 minutes video time to do or better still, just be the written word on a screen. Obviously, there will be no donation.

66. Red Shirt Diaries - January 4, 2012

Agree with your post, Keachick. Perhaps though the most unforgivable thing about this review was that this guy made fun of and laughed about Leonard Nimoy, and seemed overjoyed and so impressed with himself concerning his jokes about Nimoy’s age. That is when I checked out on watching this.

Classless!

67. Jim Nightshade - January 5, 2012

Well my fave reviewer is jason Roesetl of examiner.com
Hes an admitted trekker and his reviews are always well thought out entertaining to read and not an hour of ranting hehehe

I think this is his review of Star Trek 09 one of my fave reviews

http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-national/movie-review-star-trek

68. Jim Nightshade - January 5, 2012

opps his last name is roestel—stupid typos…

69. MJ - January 5, 2012

@67. Yep, that’s a quality and fair Trek review there Jim, from a named professional, without self-aggrandizing humor, published in a timely manner, concise and to the point, and he didn’t beg me for $$.

Thanks!

70. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 5, 2012

#66 Yeah, there you go. I do not need to hear some twerp joking about Leonard Nimoy’s age…

71. Exverlobter - January 5, 2012

If you all prefer reviewers who post their review directly after the film has been released, you should stick to Roger Ebert. And his Trek reviews always sucked.

AVGN, Plinkett; Confused Matthew, SFDEBRIS and countless more reviewers always make reviews about films that are a few years old. What’s your problem?

72. Jim Nightshade - January 5, 2012

Welcome mj—i have also met jason r…hes a cool guy and has a similar luv for trek n scifi as i do…he borrowed a copy of tron from me before the sequel came out they were rare and hard to find…his review of the transformers movies are funny too .

73. The Man - January 5, 2012

To MJ >>> Everybody has to begin posting some time. It just so happens that recently was when I started posting.

To Keachick >>> Particularly with Star Trek movies, it is possible that others have also reviewed it. However, what makes SFDebris unique is that he reviews Star Trek episodes, such as those that no one else has reviewed. This is just one review, and it would be totally unfair to say he reviews stuff that others have reviewed. For the most part, I don’t know of anyone else who has reviewed the episodes he has reviewed. Come on, point me to the person who has reviewed the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode Pen Pals or the episode Conspiracy. [Yes, in this particular review, he may tell you everything you already know, but as I have previously mentioned, there are episodes [and movies] that hardly anyone else [if anyone else] has reviewed and therefore you might learn something about his opinion].

To Red Shirt Diaries >>> I have seen his Star Trek (2009) review but have yet found where he laughed about Leonard Nimoy’s age.

74. KN - January 5, 2012

Neither have I..as to first posting here, I followed a link.

75. Tuskin38 - January 5, 2012

I’ve been following him for a couple years
This review is actually a redo of one he did earlier, but he had to remove them from youtube because CBS or paramount for some reason didn’t like him doing it

He actually rates this movie pretty high 7/10 compared to all the other movies.

76. Red Shirt Diaries - January 5, 2012

@71 “If you all prefer reviewers who post their review directly after the film has been released, you should stick to Roger Ebert. And his Trek reviews always sucked.”

How about just WITHIN A FREAKING YEAR, OK? LOL I mean this is not like USC film school did some professional analysis on the film and needed some additional time; this is some ego-driven guy who enjoys his own jokes too much deciding to drop a bomb on the Trek world as the new movie starts, and BTW, send him $$.

It is definitely suspect that this review is coming out now, just when production is starting on the new movie. I don’t think that is coincidental.

77. Red Shirt Diaries - January 5, 2012

@73 “To Red Shirt Diaries >>> I have seen his Star Trek (2009) review but have yet found where he laughed about Leonard Nimoy’s age.”

See the part where he covers Kirk first meeting Spock Prime. He has some great old fun about Nimoy being “140 years old.”

78. Pah Wraith - January 5, 2012

@55
Well if that is the way he feels about criticism of his reviews, than that would seem to confirm the impression by several of us here that he is not doing these reviews for the right reasons.

Since Gene Roddenberry created ‘Star Trek’ for cash, I guess you and ‘several people’ from this site should also judge him harshly for doing itfor the wrong reasons. It is really sad, when one person is passing judgement on another without careful consideration.

All the best…

PS You can check me – you’ll find me infrequent, but fairly settled visitor to the website. Obviously this would be pathethic move, but since you are convinced there is a conspiracy against you…

79. nothri - January 5, 2012

“Davidfuchs is the only regular trekmovie.com post I am seeing here so far. For the rest of you guys who seem to like this reviewer, I respect the fact that you are probably fans of this SFDebris site that I have never heard of, but again, I found the review to be pompous and self-serving — this guy, who I have never heard of, thinks he is a serious film critic.”

Just a viewer with an opinion, actually. No more no less. Its a running theme in his reviews that his opinion is just that. Your choice whether you want to take it or not.

“Sorry, but I am not buying it…anyone can set up a web site and claim they are an expert. What are this guys qualifications? I am willing to be convinced otherwise if you can prove to me why I should respect this guys reviews/web site (i.e. beyond the fact that you subjectively like him)?”

Do your own legwork. If you want to give the guy an honest chance, feel free to do the research and see who he is. TV tropes has a pretty good rundown of him and his history, if you wanna look. To be honest, though, I’m not exactly invested in convincing one random guy on one random website of anything. You saying “I won’t believe this unless you dance around trying to convince me” strikes me as far, far more pompous and arrogant than anything Chuck said.

80. Anthony Pascale - January 5, 2012

let’s not berate people for being first time posters. Remember that less than 1% of visitors bother posting so de-lurking should be welcomed.

Thank you,

The Management

81. nothri - January 5, 2012

“How about just WITHIN A FREAKING YEAR, OK? LOL I mean this is not like USC film school did some professional analysis on the film and needed some additional time; this is some ego-driven guy who enjoys his own jokes too much deciding to drop a bomb on the Trek world as the new movie starts, and BTW, send him $$.”

“ego driven’, ‘deciding to drop a bomb on the Trek world’…excuse me, Red Shirt, would you mind stepping back a second and taking the time to divide actual facts from your own false assumptions. I realize you aren’t familiar with Chuck or his work, and that’s fine, but you seem fond of taking your random suspicions and dressing them up as facts. That’s getting a little old, especially when a little research would prove you wrong.

“It is definitely suspect that this review is coming out now, just when production is starting on the new movie. I don’t think that is coincidental.”

And maybe it isn’t, but it isn’t what you think. See, a year or two ago Chuck started reviewing the trek films. He’s been going in order. He set out to finish all 11 movies by the end of this year, possibly because he knew they were going to start filming in 2012. So there’s the solution to the mystery over the timing- last to be filmed, last to be reviewed. Hope that helps.

82. Keachick - rose pinenut - January 5, 2012

#73 I guess I am just not interested in reading some person’s opinion of an episode(s) made on a television series many years ago or a movie released nearly three years ago. As I said, I have only so much broadband allocated and it is actually costing ME to watch anything on video etc. Get it.

I don’t need to see or read someone else’s opinion of something in order to form my own. I do like reading other people’s opinions or reviews as I often find them interesting and thought provoking as well as some being downright annoying and stupid but it is not absolutely necessary for me.

Have a good one.

83. MJ - January 5, 2012

Nothri, you need to watch the full review again. He obviously hates the movie, yet at the end he tries to pass himself off as thinking it is pretty good, 7/10, as if that will give him a free pass for all his insults and self-aggrandizing humor throughout the tedious, bloated review. Not to mention taking pot-shots at Leonard Nimoy.

And the thing that is truly annoying is the continuing sense from his voice of the condescending smart-ass tone of his jokes against the cast, characters and writers. And he sounds just so damn impressed with his jokes, may of which are not funny, but a lot of which are mean-spirited pot-shots. I don’t know the guy, but he certainly comes across as a know-it-all wannabe who thinks he can do Trek better than the pros. The final insult is that he wants me to $$ subsidize his dribble….are you fracking kidding me, dude?

84. Exverlobter - January 5, 2012

@MJ
As if SFDebris is a paysite! Nobody forces you to donate.
Relax, man. In every post you are complaining about this issue. BTW, i know many other reviewers who ask for donation, for example “Confused Matthew”. ANd the guys from Redlettermeda use their popoularity to sell T-shirts.

85. nothri - January 5, 2012

MJ, few things.

1. Sounds to me like your confusing snark for insults and genuine contempt. I realize you haven’t watched his other reviews, so you have no frame of reference for this, but trust me….if Chuck thinks something is shit, he will call it shit. He doesn’t feel any need to pull his punches when it comes to scoring an episode or a movie. In other words, that 7/10 is his honest opinion on where the movie ranks amongst the others in the franchise

2. This is Chuck’s style- half serious analysis and half snark. That doesn’t sound like its to your taste, and that’s fine. I’d just leave out all the assumptions your attaching to his motivations….you’ve been off-base about a lot of them.

3. Everyone wants to bring up the donation thing. And now as then I have to ask……why? I mean….its a brief text crawl at the end of the review. Its there for the people who enjoyed the review and would like to commission their own episode to be reviewed. Now I realize this review is a little different; usually the audience is folks who went to his website or blip account and watched it (e.g.- folks who already like his stuff or people who were curious about what he had to say). This time the review also popped up on this site. Rather than you going out looking for it a third party came and brought it over. So I can kinda sorta see where your coming from in part…..but honestly? You don’t need to pay any money if you don’t want to. The idea that it offends anyone….well, let’s just say there are bigger and better things to be offended by and leave it at that.

86. The Man - January 5, 2012

All scores are relative to the series. Take Star Trek: Deep Space 9 and Star Trek: Voyager. He may dislike a Voyager episode and give it a 6/10 yet like a Deep Space 9 and give it a 6/10, so maybe in his opinion, for the movies, 7/10 still warrants some criticism. [I would also like to point out that in his review of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, he pointed out a few criticisms yet gave it is a 9/10. In the Star Trek: Voyager review of an episode called Dark Frontier, he said that the episode had flaws yet gave it a 10/10. He gave hardly any criticisms to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode called Indiscretion but gave it a 5/10. This is nothing unique.]
Some jokes about the writers are warranted. The thing about jokes is that some may not laugh out loud at them but that doesn’t mean they are not warranted.

87. KN - January 5, 2012

While you can choose to find the reviews not your cup of tea (after all, that is your opinion), I think it’s a mite of a stretch to say he’s ego driven…

88. NCM - January 5, 2012

Welcome new posters–you seem like a reasonable, civil bunch; so why are you here? JK. This board would benefit from an influx of tempered new blood. Be steadfastly determined to get past the lengthy period of disenchantment ahead and you’ll find there’s fun to be had here.

89. MJ - January 6, 2012

We’ll I’ll say this, all of you defenders of SF Debris seemed so convince in their overall product, that I will try to keep an open mind and go back there in the future to see some other Trek reviews. I do hope though that he takes the sequel a little more seriously than he did Trek 09. You know, if he cut the number of his “so clever” jokes by 50% (filter out the lame dumbass ones), he would likely end up with a good 45 minute review that was both funny (i.e. highlighting his best humor) and not as ridiculously long.

Anyway, I am trying to be positive here guys — I will give the site another shot at some point.

90. NCM - January 6, 2012

Way to go, MJ!

91. KN - January 6, 2012

I will say something like his review of DS9 – Duet is what I find pretty good. You may want to see if you like that.

92. Jack - January 8, 2012

Qualifications, schmaul… okay, I can”t spell that. Arguments, and how they’re made, matter.

Trek 09 focused a bit more on nature over nuture, we were getting into destiny and birthright territory — Kirk had all these innate abilities (aptitude tests, genetics from his dad [his poor mom never gets mentioned and was apparently unable to raise him properly without a man around, which was easy writing]) and we hear about them all but don”t see anything. His one great contribution to the plot is gut instinct (that there”s a connection between a lightening storm in space and an overheard conversation between his hook-up and her roommate). But, maybe he wowed ‘em in accomplishments behind the scenes,

93. Whatyoudonotknowandmustnowbetold - January 8, 2012

I’m surprised that this reviewer isn’t smarter than the two teenaged boys that sat in front of me when I saw this film in the theater. When Uhura says to Spock, “…haven’t I demonstrated exceptional aural sensitivity?” The two Einsteins in front of me did a Beavis and Butthead, “She said oral. Huh huh..” when she really said “aural”.
au·ral/ˈôrəl/
Adjective:
Of or relating to the ear or the sense of hearing.
Synonyms:
auricular – auditory – acoustic – otic

94. dasilva - January 9, 2012

I think he was a bit lenient on this movie.

THe basic plot of this movie is that Nero wants to destroy the Federation, Kirk stops Nero by demonstrating his captaincy skills and become a hero and becomes the captain of the enterprise.

When Kirk took over from Spock decided to pursue Nero, I was thinking what great plan he has up his sleaves to take on Nero.

This is his moment to show that he is the great Captain.

It turns out his plan was this
Chekov: “Based on the Nerada’s course from Vulcan I have projected that Nero will travel pass Saturn. Like you said we need to stay invisible to Nero or he’ll destroy us.
If Mr. Scott can get us to warp factor 4 and if we drop out of warp behind one of Saturn’s moons, say Titan. The magnetic distortion from the planet’s rings… will make us invisible to Nero’s sensors. From there, as long as the drill is not activated we can beam aboard the enemy ship.

Spock: Mr. Chekov is correct. I can confirm his telemetry. If Mr. Sulu is able to maneuver us into position I can beam aboard Nero’s ship, steal back the black hole device and if possible bring back captain Pike.

Kirk didn’t save the day. Spock and Chekov did. Kirk had absolutely no idea how to take on Nero.

It’s not good leadership to suggest the Enterprise to attack head on against a ship with superior weapons. It’s actually bad leadership as most of the time it is suicidal. It’s only good leadership if you find a way to make it work.

The only thing the movie demonstrated was that Spock should have been captain. Yes he was emotionally compromised from the Vulcan getting destroyed but once he recovered from it, he ended up saving Earth (he’s the one that destroyed NEro’s ship). Now Kirk deserves some credit in forcing Spock to confront his emotional turmoil but that doesn’t make you a good captain. The only thing that should be awarded for that, is a pardon for academic misconduct.

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