Star Trek (’09)

Part 1:

Part 2:

  • You know what’s crazy? If they keep making sequels, Die Hard will feature a 65 year old man trying to be Bruce Willis.

  • Nobody

    How is this not a prequel? It’s set in the beginning when Spock and Kirk first meet, and it has the same Spock from the series…Oh, but they changed the time line so I guess that makes it a remake. But it’s a prequel that resets the timeline…no, wait. My brain is collapsing in on itself

  • What about brown people?

  • Joe
  • Sugoi Beats



  • anonymous

    Girls DIG boring, creepy assholes, Mr. Plinkett!

  • anonymous

    btw. the prime directive applies to pre-warp civilisations

  • I didn’t see a creepy message from his wife in the “Magic Eye” pic. I saw a flock of penguins.

  • D-Man

    It wasn’t erased. Older Spock comes from the “original” timeline, remember? He just entered into a newer, older one that functions as a new universe. It all still happened. It’s just a fictional television series. F***ing relax.

  • Apparently Patrick Stewart is rumoured to be in it as Russian General!?

  • the original star trek motion picture looks suspiciously like the fifth elements plot. think 5th element stole it? and added that annoying dude from rush hour

  • George Superman

    No one cares dude

    also I hope this is trolling because a studio using the orygilal star trek characters people over enterprise people is just such an obvious choice it cannot be described.

  • George Superman

    Also: better to erase everything and start from the beggining than let the star trek die I think

  • George Superman

    I dont get your problem – when and where did the crew get scattered in this movie ?

    Kirk was just a guy before he got captains hat from spock so he could do lots of stuff since he did not have a post, yeah I get that he did not really have to get to that super-powerful ship at the end but hes 1)young 2)active character so I guess he could make such a mistake.

    sulu was the only guy with advanced hand-to-hand combat abilities for some reason so he could do action stuff, the ship was screwed if they didnt succed so he wasnt really needed at the bridge

    spock was at his post all the time untill he lost it to kirk except when he tried to save the elders which was good decision for his character since 1)his family was there and he has feelings for them even if he does not admitt it 2)he was the same race as the elders and known to them so when he said ‘planets gonna die – move!’ they believed him

    bones …. well bones should be at med bay yes, but wasnt it destroyed ?

    uhura was at her post ;P all the time ;P possibly to excercise her exceptional oral abilities when needed by the captain or something ;P

    russian guy was at his post except when they needed his help with the teleportation device (nice little scene by the way)

    and so on

    oh and I bet the next trek will be like a normal episode.

    You see this was basicly episode 1 of a franchise in which the characters get to know each other and have to learn to work with each other despite their diffriances.

    Ultimate Threat to Everyone is an easy way to make that happen and make everything interesting for the audience

    next episode I think will be designed as ‘let the audience learn more about the characters’ and will be people oriented not threat oriented. Sure – there will be some kind of a threat but it wont be as big to you know the universe. Possibly very big for one or more characters personally but thats about it.
    You know Uhura breakes up with Spock or Spock breakes up with Uhura and than she sleeps with Kirk which threatenes their friendship or something like that. Plus some kind of threat in the background for the action scenes but nothing too big.

    Also I can bet my left ball that most or all the characters will be at their posts. Maybe one will be somewhere else and that position will help him/her help the crew at a crucial point and than come back to his/her oryginal post but thats about it. It is possible that one or more of the characters will leave his/her post AT THE END of the 2nd movie because of some personal story delopement and than come back in the third movie.

    Than the 3rd will be once again about an Ultimate Threat since well know the characters pretty good and the audience will want more action.

  • George Superman

    this has nothing to do with a classic comment its a generic 21st centurey whiny piece of shit response like 99% comments given out nowdays

  • 1234

    lets say theres another nero here and shes the other neros wife not his. So basicly for the insane nero his wife is still dead

  • 1234

    Yeah it would be better to have shitty effects, sets and costumes for the movie and cut out this 5 second product placement. Sure

  • MrGuy

    Can you really watch turbolift scenes from the old series and follow the ship map like that? That’s some detailed writing.

  • P Burn

    And the zoo…you just shit my pants

  • Stew

    Wrong, unless you’re calling the Klingon Empire ‘pre-warp’.

  • Calvin Coolidge

    I feel like an apple.

  • I think I’ll just mention that Uhura said “aural sensetivity” not “oral sensetivity”.
    Also, as always, love the review.

  • Dan-B

    Red Letter Media University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

  • Ichael333

    You guys completely missed the infuriating fact that Scotty’s accent in this is completely wrong, in TOS he had a more Edinburgh accent whereas in the film Simon Pegg portrayed him with a Glasgow accent, Somon Pegg is a terrible Scotty

  • chen

    I have never watched any of the original Star Treck shows or movies, I generally agree with what was said, but I have one problem. Stop pretending the old Star Treck or your average Star Treck fan are superior in technical details. For example, just having an anti-matter reactor in your ship doesn’t guarantee you anything other than explosions. You need to somehow generate electricity from the reaction, which we currently don’t even have a theoretical solution other than heat engines (like steam turbines). Then you have to make warp drives work, which requires exotic matter on top of ginormous amounts of energy. Exotic matter is different from anti-matter and there is no evidence for their existence. What that means is having warp drives is just as scientific as having light sabers. And of course, running all those weapons and drives will generate heat, but the Enterprise doesn’t seem to have any way of cooling it self, it’s even painted white just to further reduce its radiation cooling capabilities. Remember I haven’t even started talking about the weapons and battles, how do shields work? why are you able to see lasers in space? How do laser weapons work? How does beaming work?
    Star Treck is not hard core science fiction to begin with, I don’t see a problem with just being honest about it, instead of making up so many sciencey sounding non-sense.

  • TheSchaef

    As brilliant as Plinkett’s breakdowns are, I’m a little surprised at his critique of the turbolift ride.

    It’s true that Spock’s trip to the bridge is truncated for the sake of pacing, and I’m actually surprised at the attention to detail in tracking the movement of the turbolift between shafts, but that fact notwithstanding, there is exactly one calculus used to determine the amount of time it takes for a turbolift to reach its destination: the exact amount of time required to film a scene of dialogue.

    This is the same reason that in Wrath of Khan, Kirk and Saavik just happened to be getting on the same lift, were in the turbolift exactly long enough to show Kirk trying to flirt with a newly-commissioned lieutenant when he’s 50, and then she exits right as he’s wrapping up, and she’s traveling to the same level where Bones needs to hop on.

    Bonus drama: “Who’s been holding up the damn elevator?” on a show where I don’t remember a character ever having to wait more than 1.5 seconds for a turbolift to appear.

  • nobodycares

    My cat was aroused by that comment.

  • nobodycares

    So if they don’t care about that comment, then they don’t care about star trek in general? Whaaaaaaat the fuuuuuu….

  • nobodycares

    People will always consider it a reboot when they start making sequels and it boils down. That’s kinda what this whole review is saying.

  • nobodycares

    I think that figure was actually 96%. 96% of movies are remakes or reboots or something.

  • nobodycares

    The sequel will be made by michael bay, wherein we get to see the universe explode in blue-orange lens.

  • Daniel Lee

    So where is the bald guy? Hey this aint really Star Trek,ive been duped!

  • Jonesy

    So, with all of this said where do you think John Harrison will take us? I suppose he will be the king of the tribbles?

  • Brian

    This was an ingenious way to make a buttload of sequels using the Star Trek Universe, it’s most beloved characters, and new, young actors who can actually do all the actiony things needed to make all these sequels for the next two or three decades. And they justified it by erasing the previous timeline. It’s brilliant…in a very sinister and manipulative sort of way.

  • ShakingMyHead

    Bad dog?

  • Dan

    There’s no fact there, only theory… It’s just exhausting to get into it on anything more than a basic level since we know little about it. That’s what makes Star Trek good. It stays in reality and only gives some possibilities. No point going deeper on that stuff. Stick to what we can see as the future, technology.

  • Dan

    The amount of things that can happen isn’t infinite unless you count the fact that the same things can happen in slight time differentiation. In the end, even counting that, the differences will eventually only be that: time. No matter what way you arrange each event there is limits to what can happen. It’s not like numbers where you can just tack another thing on board. Yes, there can be worlds where there are more people born, but eventually that timeline would get so different that you can’t even consider it parallel to ours.

  • Dan

    It’s just wrong. Like teaching Christianity without Christ. I only accept that this movie exists because it’s not Star Trek.
    And Next Gen is damn good. Even the bad episodes I’d take over most shit on TV these days.

  • Dan

    I think the point is using time travel to rewrite history is a bit of a no. Not when destruction is happening right in front of them…

  • Dan

    How do you know the nature of time? Time isn’t even as much a fact as a concept.

  • Robby

    Annoying dude? You’re gonna have to be more specific.

  • chris something. the other black comedian named chris that isnt chris rock

  • montechristo88

    not to forget, this is a big picture and no series.

  • deerstop

    The movie was good. Honestly, guys. As much as I adore the original show, I don’t believe it’s possible to actually recreate it.

  • ickatarzo

    Dude, these fucking Wyoming ads will not go away. I am never gonna go there because of how terribly annoying they are. I just want to watch Mr. Plinkett tear some crappy movies apart with his incisive analysis and commentary.

  • Preeeeeetty cool ^^

  • Rick Berman

    …I guess that movie, which involved lazy ass white people, being saved by Picard, wasn’t attractive… That’s it! It’s time to roll out the cameras, for Star Trek: His Erection…

  • Jim

    Bambi 2. What the fuck??

  • Ryan

    News just broke as I was watching this that JJ Abrams is directing Star Wars Episode VII. I found that to be ironic. lol

  • Parallels was great, its basic quantum physics and was used in many seminal scifi works.does not de-value destiny as each timeline is distinct and whole regardless of other possible (relative from within each as perspective) realities…think bigger man…how can you rip the others apart so easily and yet give this turd such a nice review…are you a viral shill for abrahms???


  • AnalogyShark

    Well, you called it. J.J. Abrams is on board for the next Star Wars films.

  • Are you retarded? It wasn’t discarded because *gasp* IT HAPPENED BEFORE THE ALTERATIONS TO THE TIMELINE! Idiot.

  • So, the review has been changed. From what I’m seeing, primarily to rationalize your perspective and address the complaints made by people like me.
    Is the original version available anywhere or are you pulling a Lucas?

    In the original version you admitted to being more of a Star Wars fan than a Star Trek fan and that this film represents what the Star Wars prequels should have been. You removed that, among many other things. Fucking BOOO!

    I am more of a Star Trek fan than a Star Wars fan. I love your reviews of the prequels, and the Bermanized Trek films. I don’t like this review. You keep commenting that they did it for the money, but that’s the same reason they fucked everything else up. If that’s your bypass for excepting shit, then you should be far more accepting of all of the other films you’ve reviewed. In fact, all films in general.
    You don’t like cop dog. Well they made it to make money, so that apparently excuses all that is wrong with this film and every other film, because that is why they make all movies. If that is the excuse for shit, then what is the point in pointing out the shit. Quit reviewing films.

    p.s. thanks for making us create bs accounts to post a comment.

  • Jermund Ottermo

    Crazy that we know now that JJ Abrams will actually in fact direct the next Star Wars/Disney movie, we all heard it here first!!! (approx at 21:40)

  • Truth

    ’cause he works for abrahms…how was he kind to this and so hard on the others..pfft

  • Truth

    Damn right!

  • EvilLeaper

    Yeah, it is basic string theory! Totally used as sci-fi cannon too!

  • Quinn Mallory and John Titor

    Whats worse than a series of movies with plot holes?
    -A series of biased (albeit amusing) reviews that have an obvious endgame-right here. if you can’t see it you’re dumb! So, Blatant a change from the others to this review and too many holes skipped in Abrahmatrek.

  • tobidy

    “På vei hjem med bussen”, you’re not norwegian mr. Plinkett?

  • Game

    JJ Abrams is directing the new Star Wars movies. Are you happy now?

  • I just realized plinkett might be able to see the future with Abrahms possibly directing the next star wars…

  • nautonnier

    What seems to have been missed by everyone (I only noticed it this week myself) was the inclusion of money in this film. I think this is a pretty big deal. Both the shows and the movies state there is no money in the future. Roddenberry himself states this a crucial point to his vision of the future of our planet: that all people started to work together not for profit but for the betterment of all mankind. Cut to:
    1) an ad placement for Nokia in the car that young Kirk steals.

    2) Kirk states that the drinks are on him and Uhuhrahaha refuses and infers she’ll buy the drinks.

    3) Uhruhhhhaa asks for a Budweiser. Another ad placement.

    4) McCoy says his wife took everything in the divorce “leaving nothing but his bones,” inferring that he was forced to join Starfleet because he was broke.

    I know this is an action movie and I hate it when people speak for the dead but I think Roddenberry’s corpse probably threw up a little in his mouth when this movie came out. Star Trek has always been stories about people and their universal problems and emotions but at its core was the idea that humans could evolve past the obsessive quest for a buck. That is until Deep Space 9 when not just Ferengi but humans also placed monetary value on latinum.

    Fuck you, Rick Berman!

  • deerstop

    My opinion on Spock/Uhura. Unlike TOS Spock, who is cool, reserved, but basically kind, “new” Spock is tense and angry, he offends people all the time and generally acts like an evil robot. We’d probably hate him if not for romantic sub-plot (at least we see him act humanly towards Uhura).

    There’s a TOS episode called ‘Balance of Terror’ (amazing episode by the way), in which Enterpise fights the Romulan starship. The Enterprise crew see Romulans for the first time, and – whoah! they look just like Vulcans! One of the bridge officers, who has extremely bad memories about the previous Romulan war, stares at Spock with disgust. He starts dropping offensive comments, calls Spock “the Vulcan” and speaks in a very insulting manner. In the end Spock saves this officer’s life. Officer thanks him and tries to apologize: “Mister Spock saved me even after I…” Spock interrupts him with something like “Never mind. You are a good officer, and I harbour no bad feelings towards you.” It’s obvious that Spock has forgiven the bastard already. I cannot imagine “new Spock” saying the same and, most importantly, feeling the same. Therefore they had to add the romance to show kindness and humanity in him.

  • famguy210

    the key to this movie, for me, is to look at it as an action movie, NOT a star trek movie, and in that way I enjoy it

  • CWalois

    Watch the scene again. Saavik halts the elevator so they had longer to talk. Your point is invalid. Good day sir.

  • TheSchaef


    She is on the opposite side of the lift from the control panel, and the turbolift sound never stops for the duration of their scene.

  • CWalois

    The editor screwed up on that alternate take. You’ll notice Kirk hitting the “resume” button at 0:44 but they accidentally omitted Saavik’s initial “stop” and thus also forgot to turn off the turbolift sound effect. Watch the original cut here (skip to 2:38):

  • LOL, it’s funny rewatching this review and hearing Plinkett making a comment/joke about J.J.Abrams directing the prequels… The irony.

  • Miasdj

    In case you were wondering. The magic eye was of penguins by the pool

  • Atmos_Duality

    Double irony, actually.
    Because even with Abrams at the helm, the new Star Wars films are not going to have an ounce of depth to them, or the excellent tone and pacing as the originals.

    Lucas shat out three awful prequels and made an incredible sum of money by exploiting them; that is precisely what what the next set of Star Wars films will do.
    I’d bet anything on it.

    The Lowest Common Denominator rules the box office and it was ironically Star Wars that first demonstrated just how powerful LCD filmmaking is by giving us the first true blockbuster movie (and the ultimate irony of George Lucas is realized; he hated the Hollywood studio system so much that he accidentally revolutionized it).

    In this, I realized that it does not matter at all whether it’s Lucas, Abrams or anyone else directing. Star Wars is going to succeed regardless of who helms it because it’s fucking Star Wars.

    We sling a lot of shit at the prequels now, but when those films were still in theaters, they were critically acclaimed, and well received by the public.
    It took YEARS for dissenting opinion to make its presence known, and only really via the internet.

  • Guest

    Oh I agree wholeheartedly, And I remember people liking the prequels
    when they came out too (and I know people who still do to this day in
    fact), I think a lot of people wanted to like them so bad they deluded
    themselves into liking them not matter how bad they were. They had been
    waiting for soooo long for new movies and invested so much of themselves
    into the hype that having no reward for their patience and efforts was
    basically unfathomable. But delusion can only last you for so long…
    Hence the now general consensus that they were in fact terrible movies.
    Other people however were born in the CGI galore and dumbed down movie
    content era and will therefore never understand our sentiment of

    As for the upcoming movies, I do not have high hopes
    for them at all. Sure, Lucas isn’t at the helm, but it’s still pretty
    clear that they are being made for the big bucks at the end of the line,
    regardless of the quality of the films, and that’s where the
    fundamental flaw lies… The original movie was not made with the
    mindset of making a ton of money, or even being a hit at all in fact. It
    was just pure movie-making for the sake of telling a story, a story a
    guy really wanted to tell, and in his own way. The storytelling was
    genuine and that struck a chord with the viewers back then. And yes, the
    irony of Lucas becoming the very thing he hated in the end is just too
    precious… And who could forget the irony of… “Special effects are
    just tool, a mean to tell a story. Special effects without a story is a
    pretty boring thing” – You said it brother… wait, YOU SAID THAT?

  • Oh I agree wholeheartedly. And I remember people liking the prequels when they came out too (and I know people who still do to this day in fact). I think a lot of people wanted to like them so bad they deluded themselves into liking them not matter how bad they were. They had been
    waiting for soooo long for new movies and invested so much of themselves into the hype that having no reward for their patience and efforts was basically unfathomable. But delusion can only last you for so long… Hence the now general consensus that they were in fact terrible movies. Other people however were born in the CGI galore and dumbed down movie content era and will therefore never understand our sentiment of betrayal…

    As for the upcoming movies, I do not have high hopes for them at all. Sure, Lucas isn’t at the helm, but it’s still pretty clear that they are being made for the big bucks at the end of the line, regardless of the quality of the films, and that’s where the fundamental flaw lies… The original movie was not made with the mindset of making a ton of money, or even being a hit at all in fact. It was just pure movie-making for the sake of telling a story, a story a guy really wanted to tell, and in his own way. The storytelling was genuine and that struck a chord with the viewers back then. And yes, the irony of Lucas becoming the very thing he hated in the end is just too precious… And who could forget the irony of… “Special effects are just tool, a mean to tell a story. Special effects without a story is a pretty boring thing” – You said it brother… wait, YOU SAID THAT?

  • Atmos_Duality

    Crap CGI. Crap script. Flat characters and boring dialog…
    Critically acclaimed.

    I remember. In fact, I can remember all three screenings for the prequels. (I actually had the opportunity to see a pre-screening a week in advance of the public and critical press. Twas very weird seeing people’s reactions a week later; it was like I had watched a completely different film.)

    Plinkett points the finger at Lucas’ incompetence, but I think all of those things are symptoms of the greatest sickness in the heart of Star Wars: Merchandising.

    It’s the only part of Star Wars and the prequels that genuinely had real effort put into it. That’s why the sets are crap, the non-action scenes are crap, and the writing/plot is boring and crap.

    There are entire segments of Ep II and Ep III that serve no absolutely purpose…except as a basis for toys and games.

    Lucas sat in his chair, sipped his coffee and ordered his computer wizkids to make his movie for him without a thought spared to quality filmmaking. Why? Because he knew he didn’t have to try to succeed.

    Star Wars is the ORIGINAL blockbuster franchise and a cultural milestone. It’s an infallible money-maker, and the prequels prove it.

    Mark my words: The new Abrams-directed Star Wars will suck as stories, suck as films and still succeed wildly as the merch-peddling cultural juggernaut it is.
    In this, he is the PERFECT director for the new trilogy. Star Trek 09′ sucked without most people realizing it because it sucked while being entertaining.

  • there were tribbles in the movie. scotty has them on his desk.

  • Simon Pegg is the fucking hottest dude in existence.

  • decora

    Plinkett 2009 — J.J. Abrams should have directed the Star Wars prequels

    Lucas 2013 — J.J. Abrams will direct Star Wars episode VII

  • Bentos13

    You gotta be loving the fact that JJ is on the new Star Wars…

  • “In fact, J.J. Abrams should have directed the prequels..:”

    Oh no! The timeline’s changing again!

  • TOS never said anything about not having money. In fact, there are numerous references to money in TOS. It wasn’t until TNG that Roddenberry decided the future had no money, though he never addressed the logistics of that. But even then they were inconsistent about it.

    Also, the previous Trek movies also had product placement. Star Trek IV had the characters drinking Michelob, Scotty used a Mac, and Star Trek V had Levis & Jack Daniels.

  • nautonnier

    I nerdily agree and beg to disagree. Star Trek IV came out prior to TNG and said there was no money in the future. So, true, maybe no mention in TOS. However, I still think the concept, while introduced later and slightly nebulous, can be considered “canon.” Also, I seem to remember some interviews with actors who had mentioned that the idea of no money was an important facet of Roddenberry’s worldview.

    About product placement, yes it is there in Star Trek IV but that’s because it took place on Earth in the 80s not Earth of the future that had no money. And uhh I’m not going to argue about anything concerning Star Trek V. 🙂

  • Bambi has a really cute chest crevice……

  • funny since the actor who played Spock is actually gay lol

  • Megan

    I actually really like this movie, but there is one little thing I noticed on repeat viewing…

    When Geezer Spock is explaining what happened, he said he deliberately decided to open a black hole using red matter, to absorb the super nova.

    Okay, that makes sense. A black hole his just a giant, collapsing pit of condensed matter. But then a minute or so later, he says that he and Nero got sucked INTO the “black hole”.

    Wait, what?

    Which would make it NOT a black hole, but a WORM hole. Which begs the question: was Spock, a former science officer, aware that this “black hole” he was making might connect to a former time, and that he might inadvertently suck the supernova (and any debris or blast resulting) into another time and place where it could endanger somebody else?

    Just a thought. The fact that I only thought about it on repeat viewing though, says something about how black holes are typically handled in the movies.

  • Ashotjan

    Great flick!

  • Now I Get It

    Plinkett’s criterion isn’t for evaluating the film’s quality but for explaining it. As he promised (~3:40), he’s out to explain how the world works, and he “ain’t talkin’ about plate tectonics.” Except that in a way he is, as his review does just what geography does. It answers “How did this thing in the landscape come to be here?” Sure, he’s talking about the cultural landscape, but still.

  • The Basterd

    If anybody can liken Star Trek ’09 to other Star Trek movies and series of the like… is a moron… everyone in that film was just a caricature of the original character…

  • ColinJ

    “Study my ass”

    I nearly missed that. I’m glad I didn’t because it’s one of the biggest laughs of the video.

  • That Guy

    Butt… the magic eye thing is a bunch of penguins…

  • That Guy

    ummm… I meant “but”. I think.

  • I can not wait for your review of Star Trek Into Darkness. This was so good it’s scary. I too love Pizza Rolls

  • Chris Sims

    I agree. For the longest time, ever since I was a kid, I always wanted to love TMNT 3 because it had the turtles in it. But over the years, I realized I was only lying to myself and heard the opinions of others to allow myself to voice my own honest opinion.

    That’s what I think happened with the sequels, as you said…

  • Fres

    Boy would i like to know what soundtrack starts at 15:50

  • Chris Sims

    I nearly died after “Bambi II? WHAT THE FUCK?!!!”

    Pretty much my reaction after I first heard about it…

  • TheForgottenKing22 .

    “[In the TNG movies we had] a 65-year-old man trying to be Bruce Willis”
    … funny, thinking that in the last two “Die Hard”-movies we had an
    almost-60-year-old Bruce Willis trying to be Bruce Willis…

  • Swill

    Saw Into Darkness last night; you made some very accurate calls in regards to potential content towards the end of this review, good calls.

  • Michael

    Good????? OMG was it bad

  • It’s funny that he says JJ Abrams should direct Star Wars cuz he WILL be directing Star Wars VII Lol

  • Steve

    You missed an important point about the second ride with Uhura. Uhura STOPS the elevator.

  • kebman

    Yes it was good, but… my God I HATED Star Trek Into Darkness! Why, oh, why, oh whyyyyyy? Please tell me, Mr. Plinkett! I cannot put it in words, because I’m choking on my popcorn.

  • SecondUnitTamino

    “Into Darkness” had Tribbles and Klingons and Ja Ja Abrahms will direct Star Wars. Mr Plinkett knew the future! And I also think that “Into Darkness” was pretty lame and in the end even stupid. Didn’t like this one either though, the new stuff is just not for the Trekkies I guess. As always, this review is beyond perfect, seriously, I love you Mike! What was that issue with the case of the not-gays…

  • Or Paramount and Abrams could just come up with this story, slap the name “Star Trek” on it and make a shit load of money. This is a business after all.

  • phlowerchild

    Well his vision was dumb as shit. Simply based on the way that human minds think, you will never convince billions or trillions of people to commit all their actions to the betterment of mankind. Someone will always be trying to get ahead. Besides, how then is it decided how much everyone else’s aid is worth. Such as in the bar, if the beer is not bought with money than who is supplying it for the betterment of mankind? Do all of the worlds farmers give up their food to the world and get nothing in return? Why would they continue to do their jobs? Are the grocery store workers going about a boring job everyday just so that everyone else can buy their groceries? What about the truck drivers (or whatever vehicle they would be driving at this point)? Deliver service? There are only a few people in the entire world so selfless as to commit to the majorly important things in life completely with no reward for themselves. Expecting an entire galaxy to commit to that principle is absurd. Someone will realize they can get all of the same benefits without doing any work because there’s no money, and 1/2 the galaxy would quickly retire. There would then be a crises, and money would be reinstated. This is why communism sounds so great on paper but ultimately fails when applied to large countries. You simply cannot convince that many people to work together in perfect harmony. You might be able to stop wars (maybe) but you can’t convince everyone in a galaxy to devote their entire lives to helping people they do not know.

    Also for this new action movie, J.J. Abrams isn’t going for a Utopian vision, he wants there to be asskicking, because that’s what’s gonna make the big bucks.

  • Kronon

    My issue with ST:09 is the fact that it’s just “another universe”. I was talking to a friend earlier about this. I dislike the fact that all prior ST movies have been in the primary universe and this comes along and we’re told it’s ST…. but not the real Star Trek. Just pretend it’s somewhere else. If I’m watching a Star Trek movie/Show, unless it’s specifically alludes to it that this is alternative and should be disregarded because the timeline/reality continues (ala DS9) It seems to based on a timeline that supercedes the original. It just boils my piss that a fan fiction turned holtwood blockbuster can shit on 50 years of Star Trek.

    Besides that, I liked it for its take on certain characters and a new take on the show. Cheesy but i was entertained if i ignored the rest.

  • JVince

    It has been theorized by cosmologists and quantum mechanics professors that black holes may in fact lead to other places in space-time. This is called wormhole theory and is the only conceivable way a wormhole can be created. So, in essence, a black hole IS a wormhole.

  • Into Darkness not only failed as a trek film, but also as a film itself. I really can not wait for Mike to fucking rip it apart.

  • I enjoyed most of what “Into Darkness” offered. It’s certainly not perfect but I feel it’s a better film than #1. The characters feel more familiar and the story moves at a better pace. The mission at the beginning was fun and it was nice to see a planet that was actually alien. Some of the references and gags in the film were very enjoyable. That being said however I think the MAJOR references to a previous film got overdone at times. One of the characters shouted a line that’s become a cultural meme and should not have been in the film. I’m still not decided on the reversed homage to the classic film. Cool fan service or blatant rip-off?

    Is “Into Darkness” a smart film? No. At times it’s a lot more intelligent than #1 but unfortunately I kept questioning the actions of high ranking officers in this movie. Kirk is still an idiot and ill-equipped to command a starship. He’s definitely smarter than Archer though (and UGH, according to these Abram’s films Star Trek: Enterprise is the only canon in this alternate universe!). The writers think the audience is stupid! (Or maybe the writers are just simpletons?) Kirk and co. are rushed off on a risky and illicit mission to murder a man without giving him a trial while using untested and suspicious weapons. Allegory much? I hope people in charge of starships and the organization running them aren’t so daft in the 23rd century. Where’s Captain Picard to put on the brakes and think about the situation?

    Ah well, still a mostly enjoyable film. The Trek fan in me was often questioning the logic in this movie and in terms of the whole Trek canon but as a sci-fi action film, and especially big summer movie, I enjoyed it and was smiling plenty during the film.

  • dollar store cashier wife

    please make a review like this for into darkness.

  • Not a Sci Fi fan

    Love that the prediction for “what is the next ST movie (i.e. into darkness) going to be about” was absolutely spot on. Or, wait, I don’t love it. I hate it.

  • Spork

    Ya, bad line for Spock, shoulda said: how to act under fear or stress.

  • Spork

    Maybe she said Aural sensitivity, Idon’tknow…

  • …wow in all these years I thought you HAD to go through the academy to get into Starfleet.

  • I have no problem with a 65 year old action hero

  • Who paused the vid and did the magic eye?

  • Martin

    Me! Spoiler. Its penguins.

  • haaaaaaaaaaa cool

  • James T Birk

    why do I get adds for diapers? is Mr Plinket trying to tell me something?

  • stolliosis

    Plinkett should demolish the warp core depiction in Star Trek Into Darkness. Shit was so dumb.

  • Ian

    I think he meant the review was good.

  • proghead777

    Mr. Plinkett probably just got your cat pregnant. He does that sometimes. Don’t worry, since it’s half cat, half human, you can either opt for diapers OR a litter box. I just sold mine to the chinese restaurant down the street, problem solved.

  • Andrew

    What’s the deal with these blip fucking ads that don’t work and force us to sit through a minute of fucking boredom?

  • Vasid

    Wow… Fucking blip pop up adds that re appear every couple of seconds if I close them blocking part of the picture even in full screen mode…

    That’s fucked up guys. Can you do something about this? Like… It’s literally interfering with my watching at this point. I HAVE FUCKING ADD, I CAN’T HANDLE THIS SHIT!

  • Charon

    “Richard the Cat” is the most pandering, brainless, and sensationalized thing to ever exist.

    Fuck The Home Depot.

  • PegasusFantasy

    hey a**hole, where is STIDs review???

  • Morri

    …. I love this review. And I loved the movie.

  • August

    I’m a huge Trekkie, I loved Star Trek Into Darkness, not so much as a Star Trek film, but as a great well directed action adventure film. 🙂

  • jnorris441

    I think one of the writers said they built the Enterprise in Iowa to honor Kirk’s dad.

    RE: Romulus, I think the Prime Directive doesn’t apply to warp-capable civilizations

  • Andrew

    It’s funny cus Klingons and Tribbles are in Into Darkness

  • jsmith0552

    It’s pretty amazing how close he nailed what the sequel would entail, and shows just how little imagination the new team is putting into these new stories. Wouldn’t it be cool to be totally surprised by something original, and not “oh look what they changed from the original.”?

  • Nmaster

    black hole that allows ships to move through time – then by the films own logic, the ‘hole’ would also send the supernova explosion back in time…

  • Cpt. Oblivious

    Like; they’re getting a mission to help with the resettling of the surviving Romulan population or whatever and they get sucked into fluidic space where they run into species 8472, and things get exiting as they don’t stand a single chance as the scramble to find a way back to earth and close fluidic space again. You could also maybe get Spock or Kirk be wounded so the other has to run things and notice how much they’ve come to rely on the support and skills of their friend, balancing their own shorcomings.

    That way it’s new, yet familiar. Or something. This would at least be exiting, and it took me 5 minutes. Wow I should go work in Hollywood.

  • Cpt. Oblivious

    I love how the federation went from a political union between dozens of warp-capable species in an attempt to promote peace and justice and form a united front against powerful militaristic empires like Klingon and Romulus to a ‘peace-keeping armada’, like what STARFLEET is supposed to be. That line annoys me more than a box of tribbles.

  • Mike Jakermen

    It kinda reminds me of the Title for the never made Spaceballs Sequel. “Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money.” Frankly i will take most of the original 6 films over J.J. Generic Action Crap. But have to say as Star Wars movies they probably better then the prequels.


    SEIZURE WARNING flashing epileptic lights at certain points

    Press up so people can see!

  • Francisco Delmar Kurpiel

    It’s understandable they have reasons to make “pop” star trek (the reason starts with “$”). It still wrong, and I like to say why. Personally, what I like the most about this franchise is new generation series, than the motion picture and finally voyager. They’re all very cerebral, about difficult situations and facing the unknown and so on. This defines star trek. If it’s not like that, it’s not star trek. The reboot is violent and misguided. In my opinion, a rape of Roddenberry’s ideals. I believe it’s so empty, it will be forgotten very fast (I think it was already for most people). Why is Spok a red neck??? It’s so hard to put together an interesting plot for star trek about something mysterious on the space, including difficult decision or facing unstoppable forces? Not just for one movie. This new star trek is a rap version of the Beethoven’s nineth, a open smile version of Monalisa, a sensored version of the Sistine Chapel. It’s nothing but a very well made “star just give me you money trek”.

  • nautonnier

    First off, while I may disagree with someone’s ideas, I would never consider someone’s hope for a better place for everybody to be “dumb as shit.”

    Secondly, whether you agree with it or not, it is clearly a part of the world of Star Trek.

    Thirdly, it was just the Federation that had this system. It was taken as read that other empires like the Klingons, Romulans, etc. did not operate this way so it wasn’t “the whole galaxy.”

    Finally, this idea is a very real idea (look up Venus Project or the Zeitgeist Movement). In fact most early cultures had this sort of egalitarian system and it completely worked for them. The problem with your thinking is you think money or competition is the only motivator to do anything but that’s crazy backwards to how humans actually work (and in the grand scheme of things is a very recent notion). I actually know people whose sole dream is to farm. They *love* it. There are lots of things that people love to do that are an integral part of a working society. Those jobs which no one wants to do can most often be automated or at least assisted. If you knew that you could get food, clothes, and other necessities produced by either automated processes or people who enjoy doing that, then why *wouldn’t* you want to do what you love doing? When the oppressing need for money disappears I think what you’ll find is your incentives change altogether. Humans are not inherently lazy. Quite the opposite. We are nothing if not an industrious species. The lazy people I know hate their lives. The busiest people I’ve ever known are ones who love what they do.

    What’s dumb as shit is thinking our current system of perpetual growth (the fundamental principal our economic system) will last forever. Nothing grows forever–that’s just physics.

    Gene believed in a better way to live together and so do I.

  • killa

    im using firefox with no adblock and still can’t watch the wonderful advertisements, on any plinkertton review! is it just a thing where moziilla likes to fuck with people, or is Redlettermedia gettin shafted by the man in some other way?

    hopefully it’s just me with this affliction.

  • killa69dp101

    so i forgot for a minute that the antagonist is named nero, and now need to look at the timeline/multiverse graph again. and I realize that star trek ’09 mocks and schools george lucas for the prequels, down to space-jesus references that are (barely) more nuanced.

  • dvdaxkillax10169

    i meant to say, “purposely humiliates and schools george lucas…”.

    and obviously this is filmed in a parallel universe (likely, the one where Riker has the castro beard, and the federation is crumbling), thus any inconsistency is meaningless.

  • Alex Lee

    I guess, but unfortunately never stated, that if he went to warn Romulus about the threat of the supernova, no one would listen to him. He probably just made this assumption and decided that the destruction of Romulus is inevitable, but Vulcan’s could (and was) his doing. If he had a bit of Cassandra’s annoyance to his character, it might have helped flesh him out, but he never says this sort of thing at all.

    Also, he comes back 200 years before the birth of himself and his wife, so there’s no one for him to save. The best he can do is find his and her ancestors and act as a guardian angel, which may also fiddle with the timeline and may cause a grandfather paradox.*

    *He doesn’t actually have to kill his ancestors, but accidentally cause them to not meet up in the right way, which can affect his and/or her birth and unbringing.

  • Alex Lee

    I guess the brig was full of wounded or something. At any rate, no command decisions in this movie make any sense, such as infiltrating Nero’s ship with the two ranking officers with no security.

  • Emperor Ovaltine

    Soooo, he hates First Contact for being a “Dumbed down, dumb action movie”, but has nothing but good things to say about this, which, let’s be honest here, is also a dumbed down action film. I guess Plinkett might’ve had one stroke too many….


    Nothing but good things? Didn’t listen very well, did you?

  • Alex Lee

    The reason why most people don’t pick up on the 9/11 Allegory in “Into Darkness” is that Khan isn’t really Bin Laden/suicide bomber type of person. Bin Laden’s motivations have to do with a fundamentalist understanding of Islam, where anyone not worshipping Allah lives in a Dar al Harb (House of War). Khan’s motivations don’t have that religious context and he certainly doesn’t want to die for his 72 “virgins.”

    Khan conspiring with the Federation doesn’t even feed into the 9/11 Truth belief because Section 31 didn’t count on Khan blowing up the headquarters, even though the 9/11 Truthers allege that Bin Laden and the U.S. were in cahoots with each other. The inciting incident in Into Darkness is not a clear allegory of the Twin Towers. Likewise, Khan’s end is completely different from Bin Laden’s, so I don’t think Khan is really an allegory of a real life terrorist; he’s only a terrorist in the context of the story.

    The use of the Predator torpedoes is the clearest indication of an allegory, but it gets muddled up by placing people in them. If we accept the premise that Khan is an allegory of Bin Laden, the torpedoes represent his desire for paradise (72 virgins/supermen), but is also the Federation’s means of asserting dominance over other countries? An allegory has to represent one concept, as we see in the Allegory of the Cave (sunlight=Truth, shadows=falsehoods, chains=ignorance, etc.) for it to be clear. At best, it’s symbolic, but that gets really nebulous.

    The torpedoes’ symbolism is also hampered by the existence of the transwarp beaming device, which is the means for an even better kind of predator drone allegory. it can strike anywhere to terrorize other nations more effectively than using a ship to transport the torpedoes and potentially get discovered.

    And magic blood makes Kirk Jesus, but to what literary end? I really can’t think of why the writers would do that outside of Deus Ex Machina.

    At best, I can see references to current political issues, but it doesn’t really have much to say about it. And while this movie got me to think more than the typical action movie (at all), it’s directed in the wrong direction. A good allegory gets the audience to consider its points and shows new insight, but given how the HiTB review reacts to it, the symbolism is far too absorbed in its own universe to clearly apply to ours, and it’s really more along the lines of references, not allegories.

  • Alex Lee

    Old Spock was probably hoping that the time that was chosen was uninhabited with sentient lifeforms and wouldn’t adversely affect the lifeforms present near the black hole/supernova phenomenon.

    Nope, Old Spock’s actions still don’t make much sense.

  • GotChewZ

    It’s so amazing: After watching Star Trek: Into Darkness, I was immediately thinking about Plinketts Star Trek review and how right he was.

    The what’s next for Star Trek was spot on. It’s exactly what Abrams introduced in the sequel.

    And Abrams is also directing the next Star Wars movie.

  • GotChewZ

    Yeah, I mean communism was all about no property, no money, everything working for the great good and look how that turned out.

  • Alex Lee

    Course, when he made it, he thought the Klingons would be the primary villains in the sequel. Instead, they’re crash-test dummies, which is far worse.

  • Emperor Ovaltine

    I did, I’m just still surprised how he criticized the TNG movies for being too action-heavy, but didn’t complain too much about this one (which also has a lot of action). Ah well, I guess a Star Trek movie with a slow-moving plot and minimal action is like Coke in green glass bottles: they don’t make it anymore.

  • Taft you FUCK

    You really missed the point…

    The TNG movies were panned because they were a complete reversal from the characters and situations seven years of the show introduced. TNG went from cerebral, classy, heady, space adventures with complicated stories and rich characters, to dumbed-down action schlock.

    Whereas the ’09 ST movie was an action movie reboot to appeal to the dumb masses………… this point is illustrated quite well throughout the entirety of the above review.

  • Emperor Ovaltine

    Ah, I see. Apologies for that mis-informed statement above.

  • xbox361

    i want this man as president
    at least i would enjoy the press conferences

  • xbox361

    and i want a cloaked Romulan warbird

  • Guest

    I’m beginning to notice a pattern here, not just with this, but also with the “Dark Knight” trilogy. First film of the re-boot has a villain that’s either new or lesser known (Nero/Scarecrow), and then the second film plays it safe and brings out a widely known villain (The Joker/Khan). Also..the performances of the villains in the second film are the best part of the whole film.

  • Alex Lee

    The performances are so good that it papers over the flaws of the second movie. Although, in TDK’s case, it’s flaws are minor, which is why it’s considered a fantastic movie, and probably will stand the test of time. Into Darkness has massive story flaws, but is considered to be above average and probably will be forgotten as soon as Cumberbatch is in another, better-written movie.

  • salaamender

    I just discovered this by accident. I thought that the only thing Plinkett did for this movie was the short film. This is the greatest birthday present ever and it’s not even my birthday.

  • Puhcard

    Was I the only one laughing my ass off during the part where Spock’s flying that tiny ship towards the Romulan ship, and then Nero screams “Fire everything!!!”?

  • Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

    Hmm… someone (Disney) must have seen this review, because news are spreading of J.J. Abrams directing the next Star Wars film. Let’s hope for some fun… I miss fun!

  • Zach McDonald

    Cumberbatch’s character is no where near as interesting as Ledger’s, though. All Khan did in Into Darkness was punch people.

  • Alex Lee

    And had a tear run down his face on command once (but even then I think it’s more like hollywood tear effects over the actor’s ability to cry).

  • Alex Lee

    I’m actually surprised he puts Star Trek VI on the More Boring side of the chart. I thought the action in it was appropriate and each phaser and torpedo hit changed the nature of the situation. It’s a lot like Power Play in a lot of respects, especially in how the action is executed.

  • Culture Vulture

    “J.J. Abrams should have directed the prequel movies…” And Mr. Plinkett kind of predicts the future…

  • Lee Erickson

    I’ve seen this review and the movie a bunch of times, and just noticed Kirk said “Klingon warbird” during the Kobayashi-Maru test

  • Roddy P. Carbonell

    I like the new Star Trek, but yes, it was more of an action movie than anything else

  • Alex Lee

    That was the real weakness with this movie, a bad villain whose only emotion is angry. Fortunately, this movie’s focus is on the set-up of characters, which is why this movie worked. It’s essentially a super-hero type movie, where the origin story is more interesting than the second half.

  • Tommy Wiseau

    Ahaha, wow, thanks Mr. Plinkett. what a great story

  • Billy Nunez
  • Thanatos2k

    It’s kind of scary how Plinkett predicted what would be in the next movie, even down to the inclusion of a tribble.

  • gareth2w

    I hated the new film, because I just felt the whole film was trying to hustle me, it had no content so instead just tried to keep moving along at a fast pace, yet without content I could not immerse myself or believe it, even transformers worked better as a movie.
    The coincidences were lazy plot writing, the trans warping across solar systems dooms the follow ups to a world with too much magic, and the whole science of it was ridiculous.
    Ambushing 1 billion miles away from earth and then fighting on earth maybe believable if they were moving fast, but at the same time we have to believe that they are manually driving a starship and dodging objects just a few meters away… And the federation builds mighty warships and then crews them with teenagers, yeah right.
    Overall, it made the transformer movies look good, and they were drivel.

  • Alex Lee

    Could you have put this in the Into Darkness review or the Half in the Bag episode on the subject?

  • gareth2w

    I was commenting only on the first film so thought here was appropiate, I’ve not seen the new one and probably will not bother.

    While Plinkett does make a good point about the intended (low brow 🙂 ) audience for this film I think this goes beyond not being too techie. There are just too many dumb moments in the film, its nothing to do with being a trekkie either. Take for example kicking Kirk off the bridge, instead of the brig they teleport him down onto a icebound planet with no supplies (death sentence), where he is promptly attacked by killer wild life – what sort of organisation is this? That sequence there was mind numbingly stupid, in fact it makes the first three star wars films look well thought out, those failures in storytelling and immersion are unforgiveable.

  • Alex Lee

    Oh, sorry. It’s just that the sequel also has a portable transwarp beaming device.that also wrecks the plot of the movie and the intelligence of all the characters because they still use ships, even though the transwarp beaming is clearly the superior technology. You can pretty much copy and paste this comment and stick it into those reviews and it wouldn’t be out of place.

    I have to agree that there were some profoundly dumb moments in this movie. Even if they didn’t have a brig (which I doubt), they can always stick him into a closet and lock the door. Problem solved. And then, there was young Kirk driving a classic car off a cliff. That was the dumbest moment in the movie because the goal of that scene was done far more effectively in the bar fight scene. It was 3 minutes of a scene that didn’t really do anything for the character.

  • gareth2w

    Ah no problem, it sounds like the two movies are equally dumb 🙂
    I forgot about that scene with the classic car, again really dumb, despite him destroying a car there were no consequences to doing so, a common theme where resources do no matter which leads the (thinking) audience to just wonder if they could replace anything in a instant.

    Its a good point with the transwarp technology, it does make ships with warp drives pointless (why not transwarp them around accurately?)

    But I was thinking more about th story telling implications, when they establish that people can teleport onto ships anywhere then it does make it almost impossible to create a coherent plot, not a worry for J Abrams though I suspect! Actually I’m almost as disappointed by the Pinkett review, yes the film was perfectly tailored to the chosen audience (he pictured them 🙂 ), but it still deserves to be thoroughly panned.

  • gareth2w

    Just re-read and realised the new transwarp device is portable…. words fail me for how dumb an idea plotwise that is!

  • Alex Lee

    To be fair, the portable transwarp beaming device is fairly big (it’s about twice the size of a duffel bag), but seeing as how Scotty was carrying it around to show to Kirk and Spock, it’s probably not that heavy. But yeah, If I were Marcus, I’d have sent a commando team there with copies of the device on their backs to kill Khan, rather than order a captain known for disregarding orders to bombard a planet.

  • Alex Lee

    I also forgot Nero’s actions in this movie because…well, he’s such a terrible villain. Seeing as how he traveled back in time, it would have made more sense for him to find his and his wife’s ancestors and move them to a safe place, but he doesn’t do anything like that even though he’s had 25 years to work with; he’d rather float around with a bunch of dude instead.

  • gareth2w

    Yep, the plot is even less coherent then the phantom menace, at least that one was sort of vague, whereas this one is so simple it just makes me go “huh?”. Hopefully the director will be picked up by the Transformers franchise, and the star wars/star trek films he’s made are quietly forgotten.
    And yep, I’m expecting his star trek films to be worse than the prequels, my guess would be a poor plot + ridiculous science and a desire to shove previous references in everywhere will be bad enough, and then there will be the lens flare…

  • Josh Sinclair

    When Kirk was kicked of the ship, in the pod it told him to stay inside and wait for near by star fleet assistance so yea spoke didn’t expect him to die.

  • J.J. Abrams SHOULD have directed the prequels. Thank god he made it for Episode 7. It might suck, it might be awesome, but it won’t be the prequels and you were the first people to say it. Thanks RedLetterMedia.

  • This review also reminds me how good Deep Space Nine was, at least tangentially.

  • shouji

    the star trek tv series wasn’t low budget, it was one of the, if not the, most expensive show on at the time.

  • LOL 5:21 is that plinketts cat?!?!?!?!?!?!? XD

  • Alex Lee

    DS9 really should be the kind of direction the new movies should go. It had action, but only to move the plot along. It can be dark and gritty so it doesn’t need to be so positive. And most importantly, it wasn’t that stupid.

  • Anthony D.

    To be fair, though, he did say the “performance of the villain” not “how well the villain was written.” The Joker was both written and performed well. Khan was performed well but not written well.

  • huehuehue

    lolwut? I just read the wikipedia for the tv series, nothing there indicates that……..

  • bruce wayne

    Holy crap, I figured out what it was about this plot that’s been bothering me since the stupid plot of this movie was revealed. Please watch SFDebris review of Futures End Part 1, they already did this plot in Star Trek. That idiot Brackston who has a time ship then says, “no time,” when asked to explain what happened. This is the exact same problem with Nero, finding himself in the future and attacking instead of trying to find a way to deal with the problem centuries away. JJ and the writers made an original script my ass.

  • bruce wayne

    Why are you the one LOL’ing? You looked for “facts” on Wikipedia and you’re laughing at someone else? Okaaaay. Whether it says so or not shouji is correct. Listen to any of the interviews with Gene Rodenberry, Majel Rodenberry or just about anyone else involved in the production TOS. The high budget for the show and it’s low viewer numbers is one fo the reasons it was canceled.

  • huehuehue

    Why are you acting like such a cuntsucker? Instead of shitting on me for not being a Trekkie (r u fuckin joking?) and telling me some shows it was more expensive then, you just act like an american. Failtard disgusting piece of shit.

  • huehuehue

    You just figured this out? Such a smart boy. Real quick on the uptake.

  • bruce wayne

    Huehue, AWWW sowwy hue hue did debating your nonsense about wikipedia give you a case of the red azz? Sowwnds wike somewne needs a nap.

  • bruce wayne

    Huh, so non Americans are petty, foul mouthed children who get pissy when someone points out that laughing at someone else’s statement while using information that is incorrect and from a source that every child knows can be altered by anyone on the internet? Is that what you non Americans act like? And by the way, if you’re not a Trekkie, then again why do you care if shouji’s statement was wrong? Don’t tell me you don’t give a damn or you were just joking because by your logic here is what you’ve done. You sought out a review of a movie, a Star Trek movie at that, and put in your condescending two cents on a subject you claim not to care about? Gotta tell you ace you are painting Americans in pretty sweet light here Hue hue. What ou are proving is that whatever country you claim to be from is the land of the douche nozzles, with your lack of common sense, simple minded attempts to refute someone on a subject you claim not to care about, and your inability to communicate without sounding like a pre-adolescent who learned some “cool new cuss words.” Also, use of phrases like failtard is a give away that you get your catch phrases and insults from American trolls so ya know “fail on your part there little buddy.”

  • siggyfrend

    “Let’s Dance,” “Thru Bein’ Cool,” “Hollywood Swingers,” Part 2 has the best music

  • Robin McConnell

    Great review! Hilarious and perceptive, as always. Does anyone know the name of the song at the end (during the Reference to Star Trek bit)?

  • cinemageddon


  • staphinfection

    I see them too… around a little ice hole with one in the middle. At first I thought they were little poops, or Florida.

  • badbada

    I’m more interested/excited to watch a super-detailed review of star wars episode 7, than I am to actually see Star Wars episode 7. Whether the movie is great, okay, or the 3,821st worst movie ever made.

  • pootietang

    I’m not even a real Star Trek fan and even I noticed all these silly mistakes with the technology and plot. I’m pretty worried about Star Wars 7. It’ll be better than the prequels, but who cares. I could film me taking a dump and it might be better than the prequels, depending on what I ate that day.

  • Comatose

    It’s the ‘Love Theme’ from Star Trek The Motion Picture

  • Ingvar

    “lolwut” is often used to indicate surprise by itself. It’s an incorrect usage, but a common one. The LOL here is not significant.

  • bruce wayne

    You clearly missed the point of the rebuttal ace.

  • Guest

    You should do a Mr. Plinkett review of Willow (1988). I loved it as a kid but it would be fun to see it nitpicked by today’s standards. For starters it has George Lucas’s name on it, and probably rips things off of Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Just don’t forget to mention the good things about it, like James Horner’s score, and Val Kilmer’s badassery, like you did with Star Trek the Star Trek!

  • Bhazor

    He also missed out “Kirk shouting KHANNNNNNN!” in the cultural osmosis section.

  • Jaymz08

    Hah, at least the worse it is, the better the review will be to make up for it.

  • Thomas Hunt

    That movie is heavily derivative of every story ever told ever. However, because of that, it’s actually a really good film for an English teacher to play to illustrate Joseph Campbell’s heroic cycle.

  • tlr124

    Gave nimoy too much cred.. One look at his IMDB shows he doesn’t really have a discerning eye for roles.

  • superultramegaa

    You must love that J.J. Abrams is going to direct the new Star Wars movies then.

  • Mark Basnight

    The film that was the next-to-last nail in the Star Trek coffin. Way to kill a great fictional world with another rip off of Batman horse manure.

  • Doctor Lewis Zimmerman

    You need to re-watch the review. Please understand that this point doesn’t matter! It doesn’t matter that Kilngon space is nowhere near Vulcan, or that a black-hole wouldn’t swallow a planet from one-side first…

    This movie wasn’t made to be a continuation of the legacy of Gene Rodenberry. It was made to be an extension of Rodenberry’s profitablility to the owners of the copyrights for his creations. It was made so the audience could swallow their popped quadrotriticale in a way that will enable them to avoid thinking about how that void in their lives will never be filled with food…

  • Doctor Lewis Zimmerman

    “The Prime Directive, also known as General Order 1, or the non-interference directive was (…) one of Starfleet’s most important ethical principles: non-interference with other cultures and civilizations” … “At its core was the philosophical concept that covered personnel should refrain from interfering in the natural, unassisted, development of societies” …

    “A complicated order, the Primer Directive had 47 sub-orders by the latter part of the 24th Century” … “The prime directive did not apply equally to all societies on all planets at all times… The scope of the Prime Directive varied depending on many factors… (For example, interference in purely internal affairs by Starfleet was not permitted in the Klingon Civil War) … The result was a spectrum of applications: the more closely the civilization was tied to the Federation, the greater the amount of interference in that civilization that as tolerated by the Prime Directive”.

    The above is quoted from Memory Alpha, a sort of Wikipedia for Star Trek.

    Wikipedia says this, however:

    “The Prime Directive was indicated to apply not only to just pre-warp civilizations, but also, indeed, to any culture with whom Starfleet comes into contact. In such situations, the Prime Directive forbids any involvement with a civilization without the expressed consent or invitation of the lawful leaders of that society, and absolutely forbids any involvement whatsoever in the internal politics of a civilization. This understanding of the Prime Directive resembles the concept of Westphalian sovereignty in political science.”

    So, unless the Romulans expressedly asked Ambassador Spock’s help with the supernova problem, then taking the initiative would’ve been a violation of the Prime Directive. Not the first one, to be sure, but still…

  • jnorris441

    I believe Spock offered to do it.

    So I think my point is fuck Bob Orci

  • Billy Nunez

    the “masses”

  • Dean McIntosh

    All of that is understood (the mass appeal madness I mean). Pleasing the “nerds” is one thing. But… Plinky, baby, when you shoot a spacey film, there are two things you kind of need to do to make it good.

    1) Let the audience see what the fukk is going on.

    2) Let. The. Audience. See. What. The. Fukk. Is. Going. On.

    Abums did not do this. I could have made a more coherent-looking film simply by shoving the camera up my arse and crawling around on all fours. That is why Abums even being attached to a film fills me with utter. fukking. dread..

  • Dean McIntosh

    Oh, and Plinkett, Star Trek’s science is actually worse than Wars’. Seriously. Look up the first rule of engineering (simplest design that accomplishes the same task is the winner, in case you are too lazy). Every time Trek has tried to explain science concepts, engineering concepts, and Human anything, it has not merely failed. It has gone in the exact opposite direction of right.

  • agff2

    The Romulans are a post-Warp society that actually requested Federation help in saving their planet. The part of the prime directive that disallowed the Enterprise from saving that girl and her planet does not apply to the Romulans. It’s the same reason why Picard was able to participate in the Klingon Rite of Succession.

  • Earth

    It’s funny how, as the years have gone by, how my opinion of this movie has changed. At first I liked it, but as I’ve become more and more interested in Star Trek I’ve really grown to hate it for the dumb masses-pandering movie that it is. They’re as Plinkett said “Space Adventure Films set in the Future of Space”. While movies like Star Trek V and the TNG films were bad, at least they tried to come up with original stuff, these new Star Trek movies can’t even do that.

  • AgentBeefTightend

    I loved the trubolift scene, actually. It made it seem super-futurey. Sure, the whole point of the turbolift scenes in TOS were for conversation/exposition — but, heck, awesome as fuck to see it race over.

  • the corpse of Andrew Thompson.

    i had the notgays till i saw Rich Evans.

  • Ampoliros

    Agree 100%. And as much as SW 7 is just space fantasy, I’m expecting it to be the same dumb masses movie that ignores the original canon.

  • Shakes_McQueen

    I love the harder science fiction of shows like ST:TNG, but like Mike, I can also appreciate this movie for what it was – Star Trek by way of Star Wars. However, that feeling doesn’t extend to “Star Trek Into Darkness”, which strayed too far into dumb schlock for me.

    From the wholesale theft of things from Wrath of Khan, to the cashing-in of the as-yet-unearned friendship between Spock/Kirk, to the giant secret Federation death-ship, to using TOS Spock as a convenient deus ex machina (again!), to the more blatant and impossible-to-ignore violations of basic science and physics.

    Compared to Into Darkness, things like cheating on the length of turbolift trips look almost quaint. I think my favourite (to hate) new thing in Into Darkness, were the trails of blue pixie dust left behind after ships jumped to warp.

    This all fills me with hope that Abrams will be a good choice for the new Star Wars, because Abrams is a good director of action – but clearly doesn’t give a shit about the “science” in “science fiction”.

  • Shakes_McQueen

    My understanding of the Prime Directive was also that it doesn’t really apply to Federation member planets. Like if a cosmic event was threatening to destroy Earth or Vulcan, the Prime Directive wouldn’t mandate that the Federation stand by and let it happen, because “that’s the cosmic plan”. If it did, you might as well claim that modern medicine interferes with the “cosmic plan” too.

    I thought it generally applied to less technologically advanced species/planets, as a principle to prevent the Federation from meddling in the affairs and destinies of non-member planets. But once a civilization had achieved FTL space flight, and joined the intergalactic community, all bets were off.

  • agff2

    Nope, they clearly state in numerous next generation episodes that the prime directive prevents them from interfering in internal affairs (except with permission from the legal government) even among highly advanced societies like the Klingons and Romulans. So the prime directive is much stricter when dealing with pre-warp societies, but there are still rules that apply to post-warp ones.

  • agff2

    Star Wars’ science is non-existent. We’re arguing bad/pseudo science vs non-existent science.

  • Shakes_McQueen

    Well okay, but I meant more in the specific terms Mike was outlining in this review – the part about not interfering in the “cosmic plan” of the universe. It may also outline how they can or can’t interfere with non-Federation space faring races, but that isn’t what Mike was talking about, since the Romulans allegedly requested the Vulcans’ help.

    In fact, in the film it’s not even clear to me whether this was a Federation mission, or just one undertaken by the Vulcan Science Academy, in which case I don’t think the “Prime Directive” necessarily applies at all.

    My ultimate point is that the Prime Directive isn’t some sort of suicide pact. Ignoring the preposterous science and physics about a “nearby” supernova destroying Romulus – if the planet were Vulcan instead, it’s not like the Vulcans would be forced to do nothing because that’s the “cosmic plan” for their planet.

    It’s about not polluting the development and evolution of primitive cultures and civilizations, because of the potential unforeseen circumstances (like the TNG episode where they are seen as gods). But if Earth were threatened by a supernova, and the Federation had some technology to deal with it, it’s not like the Prime Directive tells them they can’t.


  • agff2

    “It’s about not polluting the development and evolution of primitive cultures and civilizations”

    That’s what’s probably the most common and often harshest invocation of the prime directive, interference with primitives. My point was that the prime directive is actually about interference with all non-federation alien species, not just pre-warp ones. It’s just that it tends to be used more strictly with pre-warp ones.

  • Dean McIntosh

    Star Wars does not preen itself around, dancing like a bad stripper, proclaiming itself to have “better science” or to be “more scientific” than others. In that sense, it admits to what it is, a cowboys and Indians cum medieval fantasy set in outer space.

    I will admit to getting this from a third-hand source, but Trek even has at least one scene in one series where someone, possibly even an engineer, proclaims this or that engine or teleporter design to be better because it is more complex.

    Not trying is not worse than failing so completely.

  • Megan

    Did you just call TNG “hard science fiction”? It’s Star Trek- it uses technobabble charts, not much real science. ST has always been more of a science fiction serial used to tackle philosophical or moral issues, or just tell adventure or people stories. But Star Trek has never used any more actual science than Star Wars. It’s just that in Star Trek space exploration and encountering alien life are often the subject of the stories, as opposed to Star Wars where that stuff is just the backdrop for them. “Hard” science fiction is sci-fi that utilizes as much as possible established science and technology. I don’t really think Star Trek OR Star Wars really does that.

  • Shakes_McQueen

    As a person who has read a book called “The Physics of Star Trek” by astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, who goes into detail about how a lot of the technology on the show is theoretically possible, and addresses actual issues presented by things like quantum physics – I’m gonna have to disagree with you. Especially when you say it doesn’t use any more actual science than Star Wars.

    Some of Star Trek is technobabble, and some of it is conveniently made up technology (inertial dampeners, dilithium crystals, etc.), but it’s made-up technology to address actual physics problems.

    And I called it “harder” science fiction – as in, harder than the science fiction in the Abrams Star Trek films, which I’d think is beyond question.

  • Jeff Thompson

    Hey, 6:54 is my local movie theater! They play all kinds of indie/non-megastudio movies and are independently run. They have great beer, too. Definitely one of the better theaters out there and definitely a bad choice of theater for the point he is making at that point in the review.

  • bruce wayne

    Huh, I just watched the Yesterdays Enterprise episode, and I realized one of the biggest complaints most people have about this movie gets a pass in the TNG universe. As Plinket points out with the alternate time line thing, what most people missed or ignored about TNG is that “everything after yesterday’s Enterprise is in an alternate universe from where TNG started out. Lt. Yar’s resurrection and the birth of Seela should never have occurred. This means that the whole thing with the Klingon civil war should never have happened. I guess Guinans Spidey sense didn’t get the message that something was still “not right” with their time line. But maybe it’s like that episode of the Simpsons where Homer keeps going back to fix things and in the end there was just one small out of place detail that he then shrugs off and says: “meh, close enough.”

  • TheRealMark

    I actually have the opposite opinion. I’m way more into Star Wars than Star Trek and admittedly upset about dropping almost all of the extended universe, BUT I’m confident that SW7 will be an enjoyable film. It may still be Space Adventure Film in the Future of Space but set in the Star Wars universe but I really don’t mind. I’m just happy to have something that’s not EXPLICITLY designed for kids (Clone Wars series) or just general crap (Prequels) back in theatres.

    Forgot part of my point: I enjoyed the Star Trek movie because it felt familiar to me (SW influence) but I can understand why Star Trek fans felt betrayed if they went in expecting a fully Star Trek movie. I’m not expecting the new SW to be a fully SW feeling movie but I think I’ll still enjoy it.

  • I totally agree and understand your ranking gradient of Star Trek films from more/less boring good to bad. I don’t hate generations nearly as much as you do Mr Plinkett but the rest are pretty much exactly where I would put them as well. 😉

  • agff2

    Read the The Physics of Star Trek by world renown physicist Lawrence Krauss. They get a lot of stuff wrong, but they get a lot right too and certainly more than Star Wars gets right (which is practically nothing as it’s space fantasy not scifi).

    Seriously, if it’s good enough for Lawrence Krauss, it’s good enough for us mostly lay people.

  • Dean McIntosh

    agff, please let me clarify. Some of what Trek gets wrong is literally so bad that no amount of right can make up for it. Implication that it is better because of how complex it is would be a great example, but it is far from the only one.

    Any engineer can tell you the simplest design that accomplishes the same goal is the best one. The automobile industry literally thrives on that. Yet oh-so-valid Trek seemed to not get that memo.

    I find that hard to reconcile with statements like what you are telling me. If Trek is good enough for Krauss, that lowers my opinion of Krauss, not heightens my opinion of Trek.

    And you are right about the space fantasy thing. Which is what bugs me about people making this comparison all the time. One tries and often inobviously but glaringly fails, the other does something entirely different. But sci-fi authors like Heinlein, Dick, et al, do not write so much about warp engines or the physicalities of alien peoples so much as they explore what it means to be Human in context of an advanced society. The prequels would have been immeasurably improved by trying to do the same in context of The Force. What does it mean to be a sentient person when you can make certain people think the things you want them to think? But Lucas is nowhere near the calibre of anything required to seriously explore such ideas.

    Guess what I am saying is both suck, but they go about it in different ways.

  • agff2

    > Trek gets wrong is literally so bad that no amount of right can make up for it.

    I disagree if only because if it took no liberties it wouldn’t be an interesting show. A hard scifi star trek where everything is 100% possible, and where every bit of jargon is carefully and meticulously fact checked and presented to the viewer via careful mathematical proof would be not only awful, but an awful waste of time. It’s a TV show that has a bit of science, some of which it gets right and some of which it gets very wrong. I don’t think the show ever claimed it was 100% scientifically accurate, so what it does get right is more a bonus than anything else. Hell I wouldn’t even call Star Trek hard science fiction. It’s pretty casual in its intent and presentation, but that still puts it leaps and bounds ahead of Star Wars in that category. You’re absolutely right that Star Wars and Star Trek shouldn’t be compared beyond having similar names and taking place in space.

    As far as lowering your opinion of Lawrence Krauss, maybe rather than prejudging him based on a 10 word description of the book you should actually read it before casting judgment.

  • Steve Donahue

    So with the part where you mention the turbolift time, I actually had a funny opposite discovery on DS9. See, the turbolift is just a device for exposition most of the time. Deep Space Nine had a peculiar moment in the episode “One Little Ship” where the Gamma Quadrant Jem’hadar is telling Sisko about his back story. It’s a significant info dump, explaining how the new Jem’hadar bred in the Alpha Quadrant are different and this and that. I didn’t notice it for several viewings, but suddenly it dawned on me… um, isn’t the Defiant only 5 decks tall? How are they not there yet?! I think the turbolift is powered by plot power, so that’s why sometimes its fast.

  • Ah or maybe these things were always part of this timeline and weren’t yet revealed. Star Trek universe usually functions with the time premise of what will be has already happened for example Data’s head in Time’s Arrow / Mark Twains time was obviously always there in that cave only the events never caught up yet. Same as with Star Trek IV Kirk gives the glasses to the antique guy so they can be a present for him again, as well as teaching the engineer about transparent aluminum thus creating a paradox. So Yar’s daughter always existed we just never saw her until season 4… yeah right 😉

  • Norm Hull

    I actually felt Into Darkness was “deeper” than Trek ’09. The villain had a clear motivation that made sense, and they had a slight debate as to what the Federation was all about, military vs exploring, the prime directive, and the idea of letting your friends go for the greater good. It also backtracked a bit to explain why starfleet was different and more militaristic in this timeline from the original
    Benedict, though a good actor, was NOT Khan. That was the dumbest thing ever, as was the role reversal Wrath of Khan ending and the Spock cameo that ruined what should have been his farewell in 09, promising to “let the new Spock figure out his own life” and passing the torch for real. If John Harrison was just a pissed off Starfleet agent or even another Augment, it would have worked. But they played it safe and made him Khan for no damn reason but to appeal to people who knew that villain. It would have been so much better for him to be another augment as we never really got to know the other Botany Bay crew, and most of them would be close to as formidable as Khan. They could even freeze him at the end and put him next to Khansicle as a good foreshadowing cliffhanger for the masses to go “ohhhhhhh” at the end of the film/closing credits.

  • Angie


  • Kyle McDaniel

    Even being a Star Trek fan I really enjoyed this movie, all it really needed was a better script.

  • Tommy

    The devil’s in the details, my lovelies, and we’re taking a trip to hell!

  • Chris

    Star Wars is so bad in terms of science it confused a unit of distance – a parsec – with a unit of time. Star Trek is better by comparison. Let’s not forget that Starfleet is a government run operation and as Doctor McCoy once said, “Bureaucratic mentality is the one constant in the universe.” And it’s that same bureaucratic mentality that allowed for a thermal exhaust port, which was directly connected to the Death Star’s main reactor.

  • DarkFluffy

    I like TNG “Parallels” quite alot. It was about Worfs daily life, his friends and had some horror elements in it, too.

  • Lost in the Morridor

    I like how Worf’s daily life, or a typical Worf day consists of an unending nightmare of existential horrors. Timelines and batliff trophies and paintings from Data.

  • NerdilyDone

    I have to disagree with you on the warp core statement, Plinkett. Changing the warp core into a conglomerate of giant metal structure is not easier to understand, but harder. Thing is, most people see the whole structure as random metal, without taking in any of the details or caring what it does. The warp core, by being a simple, brightly colored cylinder, was easy to understand. It’s big, powerful, and treated with respect. That’s much more simple than the apparent interior of a brewery.

  • Alex
  • BenignViewer

    I agree with you. Well said and supported.

  • BenignViewer

    That is all.

  • KL

    You may be thinking on too high a level. That there is a warp core or any sort of energy source is irrelevant. It’s just that engineering is industrial in appearance. Seeing a warp core or understanding anything about the room is irrelevant. It think it simply tailors itself around Scotty. He’s in an industrial place, I guess he’s an engineer.
    “Thing is, most people see the whole structure as random metal, without taking in any of the details or caring what it does.”
    I think that alone is all that matters.

  • Earth

    I miss “adventure movies”. Star Trek 4 is about the crew going back in time to rescue some whales. I’m not sure there are any proper “explosions” in the whole movie. Certainly very little action. Everything’s an action movie now.

    It’s actually funny comparing these reboots and remakes to the originals. Man of Steel compared to Superman (’78), Jurassic Park compared to Jurassic World, the Hobbit movies compared to The Lord of the Rings. The funniest is watching the Harry Potter movies, and watching these fun children’s adventures about a boy going to wizard school turning into action movies about fighting big laser battles where everything blows up.

    Somewhere around the mid-2000s, something went wrong, and I’m not entirely sure what it was. maybe it’s as simple as,

    “I think what people really want is Star Trek to be an action movie”
    -depressingly clueless Jonathan Frakes. What he said may not be true, but that seems to be the real mentality now in Hollywood.

  • Paul Richards

    I hated this movie. Despite the good points Plinkett makes. JJ Abrahms is a shitty director and this movie is just a shit stained money grab

  • ILoveVerdi

    I dont want to be pedantic and this may have certainly been some sort of acrobatics to explain the mistake, but in the official cannon the kessel run isnt a timed race. Its a smuggling run from point a to point b with a variety of paths through it- some much shorter and much riskier. You have to have both an excellent ship and some brass ones to take the shorter routes, which is why they brag in terms of distance. Like i said, maybe they came up with it after the fact but i think its much cooler this way anyway.

  • Chris

    The explanation is indeed Lucas acrobatics. Lucas admitted he made the mistake and then later came up with that explanation to excuse it. I agree it is a rather creative solution. I’m still plagued though how the Millennium Falcon can cross the galaxy with only 0.5 past light speed or how it got from Hoth to Cloud City without a functioning hyperdrive. I guess Luke spent a bit more time on Dagobah then most people think.

  • Fo Real

    Back in the 1960’s the education system was better so Uhura being a communications expert was possible. But after gangster rap and ebonics, young African Americans can’t even speak English. Gene really had high hopes from young African Americans in the 60’s. Don’t get me wrong, if you want to burn down a city like Los Angeles, Ferguson, Baltimore, then they are your go to race. But they have no future in space.

    That’s why Star Wars The Force Awakens is ruined. Yeah, the black guy in the trailer dressed as a stormtrooper makes no sense. Unless he raps, beats ho’s, smokes weed and burns cities, it’s just doesn’t make sense.

  • Hiroshi_Mishima

    This is a particularly jarring review, because after watching Plinkett nerd out during the TNG films, having him suddenly go “it needs to be more like Star Wars where you turn off your brain and enjoy the action” made me audibly go WTF.

    I love Star Wars (the original trilogy, and begrudgingly the new one, too), they are true science fantasy and that’s what makes them great. Like he says, it’s all about the story and the characters. However! That’s not to say that Star Trek isn’t about these same things, they just tell their stories in a different way.

    The more detailed, grounded (to a degree) science of Star Trek is absolutely a large part of that franchise’s appeal. Just as a huge draw to Star Wars is its mystical qualities. You see, another reviewer called Confused Matthew pointed it out while reviewing Generations and the Prequels years ago… Star Wars is fantasy orientated, with “magic” and lasers and lightsabre duels and so forth. Star Trek has always been about logic and science (even if it’s made up), going into tremendous detail about things like alien races or how their technology works.

    When you take that away, it -stops- being Star Trek. I can’t decide if Plinkett was avoiding that issue or not, but he certainly blurts it out with “Space Adventure Film”. Even though I really enjoyed Into Darkness a lot more, that’s clearly what the rebooted Trek is with a lot of what made Trek “Trek” essentially lost.

    Really, it’s no different than what Michael Bay does to our childhood, except Abrams’ films are actually pretty good if you can look past those glaring flaws. So in that respect, I can totally see how/why you can watch ST ’09 and think it’s a great film. It is exactly the kind of mindless, explodey, popcorn munching Summer blockbuster we’ve come to expect from modern Science Fiction.

    Unfortunately, as SF Debris (a guy I have great respect for) says, so long as we continue to confine science fiction to these specific requirements the genre will just stagnate and fail to grow. Plinkett says it won’t appeal to the masses, and perhaps it won’t, but you know what it WOULD do? Be a good fucking movie that would find an audience that truly appreciates it.

    The way Star Trek worked its way into both the hearts and minds of the world, by being a nerdy series that places emphasis on technology and science.

  • Martin Brody

    longest comment ever. congrats.

  • bryan augustus

    Long and making Plinkett’s point which is: You can’t satisfy nerds. You’re like a guy in the 40s complain about how talkies are worse than silent films their not as honest or some dumb shit. Change comes to all thing, accept it or don’t either way just shut up

  • CM Chunk

    I wish the second film had been about Klingons and Tribbles…

  • Savaralyn 0

    Only nitpicking point in the review is the part about the prime directive, as, even in that episode, they say that if the victim(s) in that kind of situation ASK for help, then it’s not going against the directive to help them.

    Plus I think the prime directive only applies to non-space faring worlds, or just in general, worlds that haven’t contacted or been contacted by any kind of space faring race.

  • William N.

    I’ve always viewed star trek as having a sort of “warp club” where either you’ve achieved warp, or you haven’t. It doesn’t really matter HOW you get warp, the ferengi purchased their first warp drive and reverse engineered it, just that you have it. Where I’m going with this is that I’ve always interpreted the prime directive as a code of conduct for how starfleet handles possible encounters with pre-warp civilizations.

  • lambchowder

    This is ridiculous. First of all, no, going back into the past doesn’t guarantee greater recognizably. What do you remember from the 20s? The Iron Mask? Who has fond memories of Charlie Chaplin and Errol Flynn? Secondly nothing is being remade here. This is a homage that has official recognition. There’s no such thing as a reboot without the creators permission. Anyone who pains their cortex with the question of authenticity is wasting time and emotional exertion. This silly argument would suggest that we’re going to get “reboots” of TNG (or Enterprise from the ‘timeline’ in the show) onward. We’re not.

  • Coot

    u mad bro?


Back to Top