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.
love this movie, abrams rocks. Yay, first.
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. :)
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.
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.
Before going through the entire thing, was it positive or negative review?
does the hour time reference include the commercial in front of each video segment?;)
Was the narrator supposed to be funny…..cuz he wasn’t.
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.
@ #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.
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)?
“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!
@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.
@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?
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.
@12
You obviously care somewhat. You are here.
Yea, but then there is procrastination from doing my real work and boredom that enter into the equation as to why I am here. :-)
# 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.
Wait, the movie came out about 2.5 years ago, not almost four. Check that.
@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?
:-)
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.
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).
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?
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.
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.
@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
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.
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…
MJ, I’ll take that as a call for help and will do my best at intervention.
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…
@27. LOL Thanks!
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?
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.
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…
@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.
@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.
He’s very long winded in his criticisms. It’s funny for a while but then it gets old.
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
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.
@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?
uhm.. You mean the movie came out almost 3 years ago, right? Because, I have not lived in Portland for four years…
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.
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.”
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.
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.)
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
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.
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.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Get to the point, sir. Random babbling is not a review. And no you cant have any money.
@ 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.
I bet Chuck is laughing his a** off reading some of the above (and below) opinions on his work and himself… :)