Star Trek Reviews

            

            



flattr this!

'
  • Pingback: Mike Stoklasa et al. talk about Star Wars | tri.astraatmadja.org

  • Pingback: Star Trek Movie Beatdown – Part One: Nemesis | The Scope

  • Pingback: Star Trek’s Inability to Handle Gender or Orientation Properly « Verbose Vomit

  • Pingback: How Many Movies Are There? | HTMLGIANT

  • creativejamieCOM

    star trek 5 – please!

    • khusem

      He wants us to pay for it.. lolz

      • jroldo

        no he doesn’t, hes promoting a site that RLM has something to do with.

        and if he did, WERE ON THE INTERNET

        • jroldo

          why RLM, why dont you have an edit function like youtube D=

          we’re

      • Mike Newman

        Mike getting paid = more Plinkett reviews. Buy it.

  • Captain Nog circa 2422

    Star Trek: Enterprise. It’s the most disliked Star Trek series, and when I ask people why they don’t like it, they can’t articulate any reason. A review could really help those inarticulate trekkies.

    • Jerlys

      We can’t come up with a reason. This is true. I think it has more to do with the intro than anything XD

    • Murderin Murphy

      - Unimaginative stories
      - Unrelatable/Unlikable cast
      - Not throwback enough (i.e. TNG Klingons instead of TOS)
      - That retched intro song
      - AND THAT FUCKING HACK: RICK BERMAN!!

      • tysonatthemovies1984

        - New and interesting alien races such as the Xindi and Denobulans.
        - Awesome story arcs (in the 4th season).
        - Captain Archer and his dog.
        - Andorians and Tellarites (finally giving them their due as they are FOUNDING members of the Federation).
        - Bringing back more focus to Vulcans and their unique, interesting philosophy and culture.
        - The beginnings of the Romulan War (cool Trek history).
        - The temporal cold war, helping to explain why Trek chronology is never 100% consistent.
        - Human vs. Vulcan drama.
        - Appearance of the GORN!
        - Seth MacFarlane’s brief guest appearances.
        - TNG crossover finale (it is actually neat and great they fit them in).
        - Rick Berman? That Hack that created DS9? That Hack that kept Trek alive for 20 years after the death of Roddenberry? Who managed TNG during its greatest years? Oh yeah, that guy.
        - Mirror Universe episodes.

        Yeah, Enterprise really isn’t that bad afterall is it?

        It is that fucking bull shit Star Trek ’09 that sucks.

        • Murderin Murphy

          (Sound of throat being cleared…)

          “NNNEEEEERRRRRRDD!!!!!!!”

          • tysonatthemovies1984

            You sir, are a hypocrite.

          • Murderin Murphy

            Yes. That was the joke.

        • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.wilson.9041 Joshua Wilson

          A response to your points. Long I admit, but so was yours.

          - The Xindi murder 7 million people on earth, in one blow, and in 25+ years of Trek TV, there is no mention of it or their species. The season (3) itself was the beginning of the end of Enterprise.

          - “Awesome story arcs (in the 4th season” And only season 4. The writing changed drastically because it was realized they sunk the series with season 3s Xindi nonsense. In season 4, homage was actually paid to Treks history OFTEN (And not shamelessly, with silly Ferengi/BORG episodes that were tossed in). Thats one of the reasons why it was superior. It didnt just shit on the timline for the sake of itself. The vulcan arc and how more episodes focused on Vulcan/Vulcans. The Andorians, Vulcans & Tellarites coming together (which I admit was dealt with prior to season 4, but not well. Except Shran. He was always good.) Arik Soongs augments paying homage to TOS’s “Eugenics wars”. The episode where Archer has a decent speech about empathy etc, when the incorporeal aliens watch the crews response to deadly infection. The Klingon smooth forehead explanation. Far more Romulan action. Admittedly, all these were last ditch efforts to revive the show, but at least an effort was made. The entire Enterprise era was supposed to be filled with Romulan & Klingon wars etc. Yet we all we got was… ENT… Season 3s only decent episode was “Similitude”. I still watch the show and believe it isnt truly appalling, but in the face of the others series its an embarrassment. In fact many of your points reference season 4 and nothing else.

          - Captain Archer? I spend a lot of time in Star Trek broadcasts and he is at the bottom of the captain pole 90%+ of the time. I dont expect him to be Patrick Stewart or anything, but he was bland at best.

          - “Andorian/Tellarite involvment” A point I’ll agree with. But… Anything important that happened, again, in season 4. After a drastic change in writing was made because the series prior to that sucked balls. -_-

          - “Vulcan focus” That was payed at least some respect in the early seasons. Soval etc. Of course more so in 4.. again. See above

          -Romulan war. They danced around it as much as possible without actually doing any of the work involved in writing it out. Its obvious the writes wanted to avoid the war as long as possible. Total laziness and not much of a salute to the timeline.

          - “The temporal cold war, helping to explain why Trek chronology is never 100% consistent.” The worst point by far. This is a HALLMARK of terrible science fiction. No consequences respected & the easiest way out imaginable. I dont mean any form of time travel is bad. In my initial Trek days, temporal episodes were always my favorite. But misuse is VERY easy. The lack of consistency is very common in poorly written fiction. Writers : “Cant’t think of way out. Time travel will fix it.” Childrens science fiction. Enterprise KILLED trek in its television form and only led to Star Trek 09. Bravo -_-…

          - Human vs Vulcan drama. This was good. I would have preferred to see more Vulcans aside from Tpol and Soval and not the cookie cutter Vulcans sprinkled here and there. Pretty lazy writing overall.

          - Appearance of the Gorn. That was cool lol

          - Seth McFarlane? (creator of Family Guy) I know hes a big Trek fan and I enjoy some of his humor. An interesting, unimportant touch lol

          - TNG crossover finale. I’m on the fence on this. I feel the show was so lacking they had to do some crazy cross over shenanigans. At the time of its release I heard that Tpols actress (Jolene Blalock) was upset that the show wasnt aloud to stand on its own feet and have its OWN finale. If this is true, I understand her point. Everyone knew the show was too weak to risk a pure ENT finale. Sad really.

          - OPs quote ” AND THAT FUCKING HACK: RICK BERMAN!!”

          Your Quote “Rick Berman? That Hack that created DS9? That Hack that kept Trek alive for 20 years after the death of Roddenberry? Who managed TNG during its greatest years? Oh yeah, that guy.”

          My quote. I think you should learn the difference between Rick Berman & Brannon Braga. Berman, left unchecked, was destructive.

          - Mirror Universe eps. Season 4 *cough.

          - “Yeah, Enterprise really isn’t that bad afterall is it?” Yes, of course it is lol. A common counter-point to my statements is something like “Why you take it so serious bro D:?! Cant we just have fun and watch” Star trek had comedic moments pre-Enterprise and didnt always take itself as “serious business”, and that was fine. But (old Trek) at its core touched on SO MANY serious issues that I wouldnt want to start listing them. Think of some of the great TNG eps. Theres too many. Politics, ideals, right to life, capital punishment, world wars… See I’m tempted to try and list them. In comparison to even Voyager, ENT is dumbied down and shallow overall. And not one character stood out. If anything, Phlox had the most potential and he was barely utilized. (Sure, Trip was charming at times) If you wanted to watch something you didnt have to think about, but could still enjoy, you should have watched SG1 or something. I’ll say it again. Enterprise led to the lack of real trek now and the creation of Star Trek 09. (And Nemesis didnt help either)

          Live long and Prosper

          • tysonatthemovies1984

            - Just because the Xindi were not mentioned “on screen” does not mean that the characters did not talk about the incident off-screen. It was simply just not relevant to any episodes or movies.
            - Your next paragraph seems to agree with me so there is not much to dispute regarding the excellent season 4 (which is better than anything Voyager put out in my opinion due to the nostalgia Trek history factor alone).
            - I agree, there has been WAY TOO MUCH TIME TRAVEL in Trek, especially Enterprise and the whole time travel concept is lazy science fiction. But, hey it still logically works as a fan-boy explanation for inconsistencies.
            - Agreed. More Vulcans would have been better.
            - I do know the difference between Braga and Berman, one is a genuine writer who’s episodes weren’t always the best Trek had to offer but a staple nonetheless. Berman was handpicked by Roddenberry and able to be the single factor continually responsible for Trek’s success 1991 – 2005. While his approach eventually did not pan out, still, he deserves credit for putting together a great team – especially for Deep Space 9.
            - I do ultimately and regrettably agree that Voyager and then Enterprise were a lot less apt to touch on real life social issues, but still way better than the action shit that is the ’09 Abrams series.

            PEACE AND LONG LIFE!

          • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.wilson.9041 Joshua Wilson

            - I only care about your first point, really. The Xindi. You mentioned later a phrase. “Fanboy excuse”. The Xindi were lame through and through. The fact that such a conflict occurred and didnt garner an event mention or at least some hint of the species. I can “kind of” accept it, but its still stupid.

            - You didnt really address that this time period was loaded with intense Romulan and Klingon conflict. Not just the minor espionage on ENT. Lame lazy shit.

            - You admitted my time travel point and I used it to back another point of mine. The thing is, I dont think there is too much time travel in “Trek”. ENT just took time travel and roads its ass til it died. Kid fiction etc

            - You response to my Berman/Braga rant still didnt negate my point. Berman HELPED make Trek what it is. But as I said earlier, unchecked & on his own as it were, all he did was fuck up IMO. You make him sound like Trek Jesus and carried the show on his back. I think this is obviously not true.

            I enjoy Trek talk. Sorry if Ive come off as a prick at times lol. Youve either conceded a lot of my points overall (or partially), or you negated to respond to some points. But there are some spots where you cant argue opinion really, I guess -_-

          • tysonatthemovies1984

            Agree to disagree I suppose. Enterprises’ timeframe was really only spoken about a few times in the Original Series from what I recall. While Berman is certainly no Trek Jesus, he looks like a fuckin’ genious for his Trek choices in my opinion compared to the action shit churned out by J.J. I still like ENT more than VOY. My order goes TNG, TOS, DS9, ENT, VOY.

          • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.wilson.9041 Joshua Wilson

            “he looks like a fuckin’ genius for his Trek choices in my opinion compared to the action shit churned out by J.J” Sure. And urine smells a lot more tolerable then fecal matter for the most part. I still dont want to smell piss all day.

            There are specific times where, Picard for example, mentions contact with Klingons. And MANY random Romulan references. Ive become really anal I suppose -_-

          • tysonatthemovies1984

            ha ha ha so TNG and DS9 are urine? and JJ’s films are fecal matter? So what is TOS?

            What Picard references specifically contradict Enterprise? Which Romulan references contradict Enterprise? Perhaps one of us is simply mistaken…

          • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.wilson.9041 Joshua Wilson

            No, I’m comparing ENT and JJs stuff. I’ll get back to you on the references later today.

          • Guest

            I will say about the Romulan/Klingon point; they wrote as LITTLE as possible about it while still keeping it in the realm of tolerable. I completely stand by my point about the Xindi killing the whole franchise. The way it was executed AND the fact that it was just some random storyline injected into the franchise IN a time period specifically laid out with other events (from ENTs predecessors). Vile

        • http://onedaybeard.com/ Dmitri F.

          When I watched the first ep of Enterprise, I can still remember the bitter taste in my mouth when time travel was revealed. I couldn’t believe they actually decided on that plot for the first ep of the series.
          I think that’s where everything went down hill, right up until the start of season 4…

          • tysonatthemovies1984

            Time travel has been a staple of many Star Trek stories. I don’t see what the big deal is, though I do agree it is over used.

          • http://onedaybeard.com/ Dmitri F.

            It’s a pretty big deal when the entire series revolves around time travel…

            If it was just a few eposides here and there, but the entire premise of the series up to and including the Xindi plot, is the temporal cold war. Overused doesn’t quite cover it.
            You could argue that it’s not in every episode, but it does punctuate every season.

          • Yukons

            I agree. Time travel is very acceptable. It’s just hard for writers to get right. The true consequences are often ignored.

      • Yukons

        That song! Oh my god, that song. I knew it we were in trouble when I first heard it. I can’t believe they never changed it in 4 years.

    • http://twitter.com/SnookyTLC SnookyTLC

      I watched every episode. I liked T’Pol and I adored Trip. I hated, HATED Captain Archer. For some reason, Scott Bakula always seemed like he was acting — or, rather, over-acting — and not in a fun Kirk way. He was horrid in that role, though he was fine in Quantum Leap. It was weird. Anyway, I still like the show for Trip’s sake. He was great!

    • Bongo

      Rather than looking for reasons why it was bad, I say list the reasons it was good. It’ll be a shorter process. Porthos…..that is all.

    • beavobeave

      I was actually sad when it was cancelled because it FINALLY started getting interesting that last season.

      • http://onedaybeard.com/ Dmitri F.

        Most of Enterprise doth suck, but, season 4 was a brilliant season almost all the way. I too was sad when it was cancelled.

        But that last episode… blergh!
        To me, the Terra Prime episode will always be the last one, I just loved Trip and T’Pals romance plot and Enterprise trying to tackle social issues, as Star Trek should.

        What’s the deal with dressing Riker and Troi in Enterprise D era uniforms? Why didn’t they just give them Enterprise E era uniforms and portray them on the Enterprise E or some other ship of that timeframe.

        Neither of the two can pull off that “young” makeup they had them wear… Especially not if you recently watched an episode of TNG, the contrasts are stark indeed.

        • Alex Lee

          Yeah, it could have had them on the Titan. At least they could look their age.

    • Yukons

      I never like Enterprise either. I tried, but it never felt right. They keep trying to go back to the TOS days, like those were good ‘ol days or something.

      Although, some people really like that show. I can respect that. There’s lots of Trek to go ’round.

  • Stfu

    Stfu

  • fuck
  • AnimationWorksNL

    These are great! But I’m surpised Mr. Plinkett never uses Galaxy Quest footage in his reviews. I mean it’s a great parody of the Star Trek cliches, so I would think it’s great material to use in the edits. But it’s also a very loving homage, in may ways illustrating what’s missing from some of the newer ST movies. I’m curious what Mr. P’s thoughts are on this film?

  • tysonatthemovies1984

    Plinkett,

    Just got through the Insurrection review. It was very good, as expected. I knew there were several reasons this film disappointed me as a youngster that I just couldn’t put my finger on. Your review now has made my fourteen-year-old self feel much better.

    In Rick Berman’s defense though, Paramount never gave him a budget worthy of a block-buster feature film. But, filming it in California is still the lazy move of the 1960s show.

  • tysonatthemovies1984

    Agreed. Lost is overrated weak shit.

  • Martin

    Into Darkness! Please review this awful squeal.

    • Connor

      Into Darkness was even better than the last one.

      • Martin

        I’ve seen many people with that opinion, and I respectfully and utterly disagree. I went in expecting more fresh ideas and storylines, and instead got a sub-par Wrath of Kahn remake. I was not impressed.

        • Connor

          Just because it has Khan in it and similar events go down, doesn’t make it a remake.

          • http://twitter.com/rengerz David Ben

            Oh, no you just didn’t, Connor. Better than WoK…That’s just tribble crap, right there.

          • SecondUnitTamino

            Well said :-)

    • SecondUnitTamino

      Absolutely. Of course everyone is waiting for this one now, who knows if Mike actually does it. I didn’t like both films although they were a little better than the TNG ones. Probably people would understand the problems with “Into Darkness” better, if he reviews it.

  • lucas

    space adventure film 2 was ok but Abrams kept shoving in star trek references for some reason kinda took me out of. Yea we get it wrath of Kahn was awesome this movie fails at every level to recapture that greatness. It makes no sense and its not well paced, and to all the people who like it because “you don’t have to be a star trek fan to enjoy it.” Then just go fuck off and watch bad boys 2 you don’t need to ruin star trek for the people who keept it alive all these years

  • Thomas

    Obviously, we’re going to see a Half In The Bag on Into Darkness.

    The ending of the ’09 Star Trek reboot left me under the impression that Star Trek was, y’know, rebooted to go on their own adventures.

    Now we have two movies that pay tribute and homage to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. I’ve seen Wrath of Khan and I love it just like the rest of you, however, this is getting old and tiresome. It doesn’t need to be like Wrath of Khan in order to get both Non-Trekkie and Trekkie approval. There’s a lot of potential with this revived franchise and they are wasting it by dressing up what we’ve already seen, making it shinier, but not any better.

    It is entirely possible to make a good, even great Star Trek movie without relying so much on Wrath of Khan. First Contact, Voyage Home, and Undiscovered Country anyone? Voyage Home raked in the biggest box office numbers. It was a risk that paid off! ’09 Star Trek was a risk that paid off, now they’re just playing it safe. I know they have another great Star Trek movie in them. Please EXPLORE other concepts.

    Having said all that, I thought Into Darkness is a slightly above-average sci-fi action flick that is elevated by its visuals (still as dazzling as ever) the performances, most notable being Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and Benedict Cumberbatch. I also thought this is one of the funnier Star Treks, though Voyage Home still has the chair for the ultimate honor of funniest.

  • Punchgroin

    … C’mon.

    There was a lot of stuff to like about Into Darkness. There was also a bunch of dumb stuff. Just like every Star Trek movie. The cast is fantastic, the visual style is stunning, the acting is spectacular…

    To call ID a Wrath of Khan remake is ridiculous. The movies are completely and utterly different. To me, it was an affirmation of what is really appealing about Star Trek. It’s the peaceful and refined destiny of humanity, and the clear message of humanity and decency over fear and xenophobia that makes Trek so seductive.

    Truthfully, I want Abrams to move onto Star Wars and put the new Trek franchise into the hands of someone a little more cerebral and methodical. (Brad Bird comes to mind) There is plenty of silly shit to bitch about, but at the end of the day, it’s still a massively enjoyable flick. What level of nerddom is required to *really* not be enjoying such a well put together, action packed, emotionally charged film? Comparing ID to WOK is not only unfair to both movies, it’s really not the comparison you should be making. Compare ID to Transformers for God’s sake.

    And if you *really* want to be so high and mighty about Trek’s legacy…. Rose tinted glasses. There were maybe 20 or so *really* memorable episodes of the original show. Maybe twice that for TNG. 3 or 4 of the movies are at least decent. 2 are pretty damn good. I would definitely rate ID over Trek 09′. There was *way* less really bothersome, distractingly bad science and Deus Ex Machina. (Although there still was plenty)

    I actually expect Mike and Jay to give a somewhat reserved recommendation for the movie. I’m honestly not sure what the fanboys were really expecting from these movies. My expectations were massively exceeded.

    • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

      “Comparing ID to WOK is not only unfair to both movies, it’s really not the comparison you should be making.”

      How is it unfair to compare the movies when the movie itself was basically shoving the comparison in our face? And it’s disingenuous to say that there’s always been dumb stuff in Star Trek. True, there have been flaws, but in the past the people working on these films at least respected the material they were working with. This last movie just made a mockery of it.

      And don’t get me wrong, I went in expecting to enjoy the film. I wasn’t expecting a masterpiece, but I figured it would be entertaining. I thought the last one had a few problems, but I thought it was a solid film. And this one seemed like it was actually going to be really good, and it had my attention and my interest….up until about 2/3 of the way through. Then the whole thing turned into STAR TREK REFERENCE: THE MOVIE!

      I’m getting tired of this tendency of remakes and reboots doing this in general. It’s like they don’t even really stand as movies in their own right. They’re just built entirely around references to the original that are just supposed to evoke some cheap thrill of recognition in the audience, like tiny little sugar pellets bursting in the pleasure center of the brain that make you “Hey!” for half a second. The Total Recall remake from last summer was full of that crap. They just shove shit in with both fists regardless of whether it makes sense and call it a movie, and there’s really NOTHING to these movies beyond that.

      And now it’s the same with this new Star Trek movie. They just kept throwing references at the screen regardless of continuity, of story structure, or even basic logic. They mocked and defaced one of the most memorable scenes in all of Star Trek just to release another little sugar pellet and to pat themselves on the back for what I can only guess that they imagine was cleverness. Is that what we want movies to become? Just a brainless experience of sitting there and going, “Hey, I remember that. Ahhhhhhhh!”?

      • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

        And I should add too that I realize that there were plenty of references in the first Star Trek reboot but 1.) It was a prequel that was establishing things and characters that we’re all familiar with, so it was inevitable that there would be SOME references and the ones that were there at least made SENSE for being there. 2.) Most of them were quick throwaway gags and not integral to the plot. It’s one thing to have McCoy say “I’m a doctor not a….”, and another to reproduce a scene almost line for line as the climax of your story.

        And I have no problem with them making new Star Trek movies. I have no problem even with them not being quite up to the standards of the old movies. But if they’re going to make new Star Trek then make NEW Star Trek. Stop picking over the carcass of old Star Trek. In this new movie they didn’t just have references out of necessity because the logic of doing a prequel demanded it. The whole movie became a PURSUIT of references where they absolutely did not rightfully belong at all. There’s a HUGE difference between going “Hey, they’re building the Enterprise, the ship we’ve all come to know and love.” and going, “Well of course they had to work Khan into this movie because we all know him, right?” And if you don’t know what the difference is, then what can I say? Enjoy your Brave New Star Trek.

        • Neal Harris

          Some astute observations, intelligently put.

        • Yukons

          Great points. It’s like JJ and his writing team just look at some demographics and try to do some math. “Everyone likes Wrath, so we’ll reference it for no raisen.” It’s cheap and empty.

          The same goes for 2009′s jokes about Star Trek. “Red shirts die, check. Kirk sleeps with green women, check. Scotty says, ‘I’m givin er all she’s got’, check. Bones says, ‘I’m a doctor, not a blah blah blah’, check.” It’s like pop-culture’s view of trek, that’s it.

          If you’re a Trek fan, know that they’re laughing in your face while they take your money. They think you’re stupid.

          • Alex Lee

            The irritating thing about ’09′s red shirt death is that there were other scenes where that would have made sense, such as when they decided to board Nero’s ship. Instead, they send the two ranking officers BY THEMSELVES into a firefight.

    • Neal Harris

      It’s funny that you should invite the comparison between Into Darkness and the Transformers films, considering they were all written by the same persons. I agree for the most part however that the new Trek films are above-average action films, but it’s certainly not due to the writing and I’ve no idea from where in the reboots you’re drawing an affirmation of the appeal of Roddenberry’s peaceful and refined vision of humanity. If anything, these films blatantly defile that peace. ;) As I’ve noted to others lately: they’re passable action film scripts dressed up in Star Trek visuals that have had the hell directed out of them. They’re basically Star Trek porn; everything that’s superficially cool or just plain fun about Trek is amplified to an almost absurd but extremely entertaining degree.

      • Alex Lee

        “Blatantly defile that peace!” Good one.

        • GoodLarry

          Someone needs to make a porn series called “Blatantly Defile That Piece.”

          Get to it, internet.

    • Yukons

      Good post. Into Darkness is not a remake of Wrath, it just tries to call back to it with cheap and pointless references.

      Brad Bird is great choice, he’s a current favorite of mine. His films just feel smarter and he has a good sense of humor.

      Your evaluation of Trek movies is accurate. We forget how much cheese is forgiven. Truth is: the expectation of fanboys is so low that its easy to get excited about JJ’s textbook action sequences. And yes, even though I don’t like the JJ Treks, I would take them any day over Transformers or a Mikey Bay movie. Ugh, my IQ dropped 5 points just saying his name.

  • Miss.Plinkett

    I like theyr review alot, but i find funny how the argument of tng movies is it suck cos it is a dumb action movie… and the new star trek 09 argument of be good is it isnt star trek it is a good action sci fi movie.
    i dont understand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/Dark.Reaper.and.Galactimus.Zero Marvin Choi

      because it doesn’t make sense for Patrick Stewart to be an action star, but it makes sense for the new Kirk.

      TNG was much less rough-and-tumble than TOS, specifically because Picard was a pacifist while Kirk was more than willing to get into a lot of fights.

      The stories were also much, much dumber in the TNG films than the reboot.

      • Neal Harris

        Eh, I can’t really agree that the stories in the TNG films were dumber, per se. They were just as poorly written in their own ways, but they also aspired to involve mature thematic content; however comprised by directorial mishandling and the shoehorning-in of action elements not suited to the age of their cast. The TNG films served to dilute the Star Trek brand, but they didn’t involve quite the same level of thickheaded, arbitrary plotting found in Trek ’09 and Into Darkness. The latter were intended to be visceral, flashy entertainment which they accomplish successfully only by the grace of JJ Abrams’ direction.

        • http://www.facebook.com/Dark.Reaper.and.Galactimus.Zero Marvin Choi

          The reboot film has a story that was engaging and kept you wanting to know how stuff will be resolved next.

          The TNG films made you not give a shit about them at all.

          • Yukons

            You two are both right. The TNG movies and New Trek movies have serious flaws, but for different reasons. I found TNG movies embarrassing for the reasons that plinkett points out. A lot of Trek fans approved of the 2009 film simply because a Trek movie FINALLY did well at the box office. But at what price?

            The weird thing about JJ movies is you leave the theater with a smile, but then with subsequent viewings, the film starts falling apart. I end up feeling tricked. Buyer’s remorse. It should be the other way around, it should get better with more views.

            I think it would be wise to stop treating Star Trek movies like summer block-busters. Stop making them action movies. Why not slow it down to a more serious sci-fi. Give us time to think, stop distracting us with flashing lights (‘splosions and lensflare). You can have quick flashes of action but it not be an ‘action movie’. I’d rather have a smart movie. A good example is Ghost in the Shell, a science fiction with some action here and there. I think action works better when it’s quick, not drawn out in lengthy, exaggerated fist-fights.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Alejandro-Alonso/100000593481067 Alejandro Alonso

            Ghost in the Shell is anime. You want them to make a new Star Trek movie as anime?

            I mean, I know what you’re talking about, but in order to slow them down and make them “smart”, they’d have to make it into a psychological thriller or a mystery of some kind. It’s not going to go over well to just make it a two-part episode of TOS or TNG, and there’s no current manifestation of the TV show for anyone to relate to anyway.

            Old guard fans want a movie tailored specifically to their pre-existing relationships with the characters, but that’s just not going to happen. The characters need to be introduced to new audiences for them to make profits, and that means that development has to occur on screen, and if nothing major is at stake, no one is going to care.

            You can’t just make a Star Trek movie that’s anything like the old TV show. Just think about what that would be like. What movie is even like that?

          • Yukons

            Of course it shouldn’t be anime. I was pointing to the style of action. You know what I meant.

            I think TOS is awful by today’s standards. It’s so old it would never work. So no, I don’t want an episode of that. Or any series for that matter. That’s one of my major problems with new Trek. Why are we bothering with these ancient characters? Dig this….

            Imagine a Star Trek movie that doesn’t have a crew from the show. That’s right, a new crew!!! Oh my god. Think of how free the writers would be. You could have cameos, Admiral Riker or some crap like that. That would at least show the old characters moving on to different roles. But the main point is that a new crew would save the movie from the Wrath of Trekkers.

            And I don’t care about summer blockbuster profits. Get a director who knows how to do more with less. Take for instance the District 9. !! I don’t want District 9!!! I’m just pointing out what someone is capable of doing with a relatively small budget.

          • Neal Harris

            Because money.

      • Miss.Plinkett

        Okay my nigs, dig this.
        Number 1: A time travel story that the alternate time line keep going if they solve the situation is kind of dump and lame for make something new.
        Number 2: The new Kirk, Spooky and others dont feel as the TOS ones from the show or Movies.
        Number 3: Why they need to make more money from Star Trek or re introduce it for dumb audiences?
        Number 4: Gene would never like the direction star trek took after his death, period.
        Number 5: JJ movies will only get more stupid.
        Number 6: Star Trek should be about life lesons, evolution of man kind and Sci Fi, not about dumb action, any Star Trek.

        Number99999: thanks for the reply realy, im just making a “funny” character parody, those are kind of how i feel about the new movies yes but im here most to rip off… i mean pay a homenage to Plinkett ;) I didnt ment my first comment neither this one as a real critic ;)

        • wikiality

          The TNG films were Star Trek films for Star Trek fans. They’re fanservice that crossed over into deviantart fan fiction. Star Trek: Just Star Trek and Into Darkness are big blockbuster hits for the dumb masses. They have nothing to do with Star Trek.

          TOS is a low budget cheesy sci-fi show about racial diversity. 1-7 fall in line with this concept fairly well. Punch enemies for being enemies, not for being black-I mean Klingon. 2009 and Into Darkness kind of accomplishes this. TNG was a mid-budget serious sci-fi show about respecting every thinking and living creature as a “person” and treating it how you expect to be treated. The TNG films have nothing to do with this whatsoever.

          Star Trek fans hate the new Star Trek movies for not being Star Trek, not for being bad movies. Star Trek fans love the TNG movies for being silly fanservice, not for being good movies. It’s opposite sides of the same coin. Just different marketed audience and demographic.

  • Yukons

    Since there will probably be a full-length plinkett review for ‘into darkness’ and a comparison to Wrath, I wanted to make sure you watch the disc 2 special features interviews of Wrath.

    The old guard was worried about the militarization of star fleet (navy-esk uniforms and procedures, 15 men to load a torpedo, submarine-like battles). At the time, some people thought it wasn’t true to trek, that it didn’t make scientific sense. But those movies (1,2,3,4 & 6) ended up defining the next generation of shows (after some tweeking and flushing-out, of course).

    I’m personally not a fan of New Trek. Please, tear it up! I think it plays to the lowest common denominator while Trek should do the opposite. But I just wanted to be fair and point out how the old guard resists the inevitable changes Trek has to make to stay relevant, especially in the motion picture medium. I think these changes must take place, but disagree with what I’m actually seeing. I worry about the future of Trek and the possibility of ever getting another substantive, intelligent show.

    • jjME

      An individual at work has described it as a “wink wink” to the audience. “hey yeah, it’s ST because it has tribbels and Kahn.” I really have to agree with you, I’m not a fan of where the series is headed. It seems like the current generation is oblivious and is just eating it up though.

      • Alex Lee

        Into Darkness really had that potential, or at the very least, allow the writers to come up with their own universe, which was the point of the canon wipe. Instead, they…don’t.

  • Kyle

    Plinket really really really needs to do Star Trek: The Final Frontier. It has got to be the worst of all of them.

  • caribou

    MATRIX RELOADED or MATRIX REVELATIONS

  • Glacier

    Mr. Plinkett should review some of the horrible schlock on television right now. Shows like The Following and Revolution are some of the greatest unintentional comedies of our time.

  • Holy Ghost

    If you review the Twilight Saga, I solemnly swear right now on my mother’s grave that I will film myself jerking off to each new video. That is how much I would love to see it done.

    • guest

      Well thanks. Now they’ll never do it.

      • TapewormBike

        They never would.

    • bruce wayne

      LOL, JEEZ dude!

  • ProTarello

    MATRIX! It NEEDS to be DONE! Shine the great Plinkett light on the Wachowskis please.

  • Alex Lee

    I think Plinkett would just say, “Starship Troopers 2 is so awful, I have to review Aliens instead to avoid killing myself.”

  • FearAndSlothing
    • The Willard

      Five

  • Pissernacht

    Uh…I think he’s already done them.

    You know, as a side-effect of the TNG movies…

'

Back to Top