VIDEO: Star Trek (2009)

We’re sorry...

This video is no longer available due to the shutdown of

Ursa takes a newbie’s-eye view of the 2009 Star Trek movie, and talks lens flares, Chris Pine, and how this movie relates to Jeremy Brett. No, really. This episode also includes a completely spoiler-free “review” (read: extended impressions session) of Star Trek Into Darkness. Caution: May contain Benedict Cumberbatch.

Scroll down to comment on this video...

Tag: The Star Trek Movies

You may also like...

  • Cleggster

    That…was really quite insightful. As an old school Star Trek fan who
    has seen every episode, I liked the new one. It was fun and exciting. I
    was not offended by the changes and I feel that destroying Vulcan was
    an extremely brave move. Maybe a little less lens flare though. The
    I-Enterprise was not my favorite look. But then again I am old.

    My main issue with the film was that fact that it didn’t…check it’s
    facts. It was unfortunately, stupid, when it came to science. If
    this was Star Wars I wouldn’t have minded. That is Scince Fantasy. But Star Trek was always the
    intelligent show. I understand your point about bringing ion a new
    generation of kids to enjoy it. But I think we do those younger viewers
    a disservice by presenting a stupider story. You can have you action
    and lens flare, but just go over the script once with a scientific eye.
    Stars cant destroy a galaxy!

    There are many other examples I wont bore people with here. Many other sites have already done so. But as much as I am looking forward to the next one, I really hope that somebody pulled the script aside and fact checked it. Star Trek was always defined as the though provoking Science Fiction. A large number of it’s fans are from the scientific community. The newer, younger fans are not dumb. Star Trek has never been turn you brain off and enjoy the ride. I want to leave the theater going “Hmmmm.” Otherwise why not call it Captain Kirk and his Star Rangers. I could enjoy that.

    • freddy

      Yeah, that thing with a supernova threatening the entire galaxy made absolutely zero sense. It’s hard to imagine anyone with a high school education buying that. They really should have come up with other disaster for Old Spock to try and fix.

      And if they were absolutely married to it being a supernova, a little technobabble would have actually helped sell it. Maybe the star that went supernova was in an area where blah blah spacetime was blah blah, reverse nega-chronitons blah blah, reversing the polarity of the continuum. Sound plausible enough in a Trek sort of way?

      • Jill Bearup

        The new one’s most glaring…thing…to me was that everything in space seemed suspiciously close together. “We’re going to X place! Yeah!” (five minutes later) “Well, we’ve arrived, but now this!” You are tiny, guys, and space is EFFING HUGE. You might think it’s a long way to the corner shop, but that’s peanuts compared to space, y’know. :)

        • Muthsarah

          Distance and speed in Trek has always been beholden to plot convenience and basic storytelling needs. The viewer is led to believe these ships can move at warp speed (faster-than-last) even in battle, unless they suddenly HAVE to drop out of warp before duking it out because plot. Any scene where two ships are shown at the same time always has to show them moving slowly enough to be easily seen by the viewer, even though that makes it seem as if they’re moving slower than a Sopwith Camel. One episode late in the TNG run even introduced a pointless (as far as the franchise is concerned) new Federation regulation that limited ships on non-emergency missions to a maximum speed of Warp 5 (as opposed to the more typical 9 or something), even though by Trek’s own canon on what exactly “Warp Factor” is supposed to mean, that would slow intergalactic travel by a factor of 7,000. Or the equivalent of saying “sending a rocket to the moon pollutes too much, so from now on, you have to literally crawl there”.

          The needs of the story outweighs the needs of consistency. If the story works, just let the rest go. If the story doesn’t work, pick on that first. The sheer number of inconsistencies actually gives the more obsessive fans something to gripe about, and I can already picture the crying if someone took THAT bottle away from them.

          P.S. Please consider giving Future Ursa her own show.

        • Sean Tadsen

          I was going to make a Douglas Adams reference, but I see you beat me to it.

    • Cristiona

      I dunno. Star Trek was never afraid to completely ignore reality, it just did a better job of papering over with impenetrable technobabble. That is when it wasn’t too lazy to bother (eg: inertial dampeners or my favorite, the “Heisenberg compensator”).

      Then again, I always found Voltaire’s take on it (“USS Make Shit Up”) to be a pretty accurate summation.

  • Alexa

    To be fair to Abrams Star Trek, the movie did make my little sister who was eleven at the time, a bit of a Trekkie. It was adorable how she pronounce Leonard Nimoy’s name. Also perfect assessment of how things needed to be updated, and while I liked Moffat’s Sherlock, was not crazy about Ritchie’s. But I get why they did it, and in the process gave more incentive for more people to become Sherlock Holmes fans, and that is always a good thing.

  • freddy

    Glad to hear you liked Into Darkness. I’m far from a Trekkie, though I grew up watching TNG and DS9, and I flat out loved Abrams’ reboot.

  • I love old Trek, especially TNG as it’s the one I grew up with and I adored Star Trek 09. It was different in tone than the original series, to be sure, but it was still a rockin’ good time. I cannot wait for Into Darkness. =)

    • Tone yes, in sense of theme they’re not a world apart, just one is made in the 60s on TV and one in 2009.
      I mean this would be like comparing the way the old episodes of Doctor Who were shot to today. Things change, audience expectations and what they expect in a movie changes.

  • I’ll take Future Sursum over Mirror Sofie any day!

  • David Francis White

    I think ursa is setting the woman’s movement back 40 years!!! I just lost all faith in the human race!!!

    • Alexa

      I am gonna have to disagree since because Ursa is one of many reasons why I still have faith in the human race. :)

    • Cristiona


    • CaptainCalvinCat

      And you have a reason for your very strange opinion? Or are you just trolling?

    • OMG! A woman said a guy was hot in a movie! The shameless hussy!

    • Jo Mathie

      Trolling, I think (hope). I’m saying this as a happy feminist – Ursa’s great.

  • Aaron A Aaronson

    Please do go on Mr White. I’m soooo intrigued why you think that Ursa is setting women back decades. Or I’m more interested in when you’re going to finally down everything from under your sink after losing all your faith in humanity! Take your stupid second hand trolling somewhere else!

    • david francis white

      I will become a republican when i am dead and rotting !!!

  • The_Stig

    Star Trek ’09 was a lot of things. One thing it wasn’t was Star Trek. I’m of the mind that the film is a fun ride, entertaining as hell….but it SUUUUUUCKS.

    • CaptainCalvinCat

      I can see where you are coming from.
      However – Ursa pointed it out well: If this movie had been “the Star Trek way”, it would have been a niche-movie.

    • Sean Tadsen

      I’ll admit it’s not my favorite Trek film, but it’s leagues better than Star Trek V: “Why does God need a starship?”

      What I liked was that almost all the characters got a moment to shine and demonstrate that, yes, they are good at what they do. I say “almost” because of two characters – Kirk and Uhura – got left out for some reason. Kirk spends just about every fight he’s in getting beaten up or running away, and Uhura’s moments of awesome all seem to occur off-screen. Would it have killed Abrams to show the *one* female in the principle cast doing her job?

      I also have issues with some set designs (why are there no handrails on the Romulan ship?), make-up design (what’s up with the Romulans’ heads?), the ship designs (why does a mining ship look like a pine-cone made out of spikes?) and general science fail (apparently no one in Starfleet has ever seen a black hole before).

      Still, I enjoyed it as a summer blockbuster popcorn flick.

    • The part about not Trek always bothered me. I think people making those accusations have a very distorted view of what TOS was actually like.
      They seem to think TOS was most like TNG or Ds9, when I’m sorry it really wasn’t.
      It was much more an action space adventure show than people seem to think, or want to remember.
      Now it was less of a dumb action movie type thing, because that hadn’t been invented as a genre yet, but the sense of Trek as people philosophically debating things and being slow really didn’t exist in the 60s version (which this is based on)
      If anything these are very much in the spirit of TOS, only with a modern twist on that kind of space exploring thing and amped up to 11, because hey, they’re summer blockbusters.
      I can understand why some would object to it’s pacing and making Trek so much a 21st century blockbuster thrill ride, just stop pretending the 60s show was some deeply serious hard-sci-fi thing, because it wasn’t.

      And she’s right that they made it more mass-appeal for a reason. The Trek fandom dwindled over the years (and it was never the level these movies make to begin with at it’s apex).
      I mean Trek from DS9 on (all but one of the TNG movies, Voyager, Enterprise) was both a critical and viewing number disaster.
      Not only was the thing prohibitively continuity heavy and offputting to new comers, but it was just plain bad and had run out of ideas.

      • Randolph Quazalpene

        agreed. TOS was mostly cow boy diplomacy, TNG, well some of the its most favorite episodes would sadly not fill a movie theature; voyager never got the point of being stuck in the middle of nowhere; Enterprise made treks 09 retconning look way tame (and Enterprise turned out to be perhaps non-cannon anyhow); and DS9 was lightning in a bottle spurred on by competeing w/ B5.

        But if you look at it from a strictly movie point of view; trek has had more misses than hits.
        Star Trek II, often ppls favorite movie of the bunch, when you step back and look at it, wasn’t really Trek either, it was a grindhouse revenge flick, without the massive gore or swearing. The other often favorite is First Contact, which feles like a natural ancestor of the 09 movie tbh with its action feel and camera angles.

        If, however, you want to say summer blockbusters don’t give us time to breath, b/c they’re just go go go in every frame, and that simular tropes and scripting themes is becoming a problem across movies, I’d agree. But its a symtom of the stuidos thinking multi-tasking youtube and twitter generation dont have attention spans beyond 4 seconds, not just new trek.

        Yes. in some case older trek at least had a more even pace, but only on TV, movies are not TV equals, sorry. Having 2 hours every 3-4 years to tell a story, is alot different than 12-24 episodes over a year; its not comparable, never has been, never will be.

        I really do hope that the next movie, which is kind of offiical when it really takes over TOS with its 5 year mission hook, does something a bit different. Maybe some daring exploration, and our young brash Kirk learns that cowboy diplomacy does not always work, and grows from the XP. And we can still have lens flared battle for new fans too.

  • MichaelANovelli

    It figures the Agony Booth version of a Bum Character would be better dressed. :-)

  • JamSanJose

    Love your video as always. I really liked this version of Star Trek, I am sort of a fan of the earlier stuff, but not hardcore. I am, however looking forward to the the new one. You mentioned in your video that your birthday is coming up, so is mine, it’s May 18, what is yours?

  • Randolph Quazalpene

    TY for the review!!! Its nice to see a retrospective jsut after seeing the new moive.
    AS a massive fan of TOS Trek, I have to say, I both liked, and was conflicted by this movie and Into Darkness. I totally get the rebranding of….well…a brand. Its nothing new, and Star Trek 09 did a decent job of it. Like all summer blockbusters, it has many flaws and tropes, I mean what summer blockbuster doesnt have flaws, except maybe Avengers :P J/k. The question is did Trek 09 make me angry like some rebrandings seem to do, often pushing old fans as far as way as possible. The answer is no. While I hold a candle for the old series it was by NO means perfect either, and as for rebrandings it could have gone much much much worse.

    And while I know most of the other reviewers have already done the new movie, I have to say, Into Darkness does feel like a nice upgrade, but really could of done with the “harry potter treatment” which would be to split it into two moives to allow more development of our aweseome reimagined antagonist (no spoilers), just not enough screen time and development. He seriously could have taken Trek into straight into a space horror, which be just awesome and new. And while again filled with very unneccessary and silly tropes from the past (see I do want new stuff, Im not that much of a curmudgeon), I do feel the primary cast is getting the same chemestry that TOS had long before the movies. And to get good characters, however trope filled, in a summer blockbuster is a good thing.

    • Guest

      The defense of Abram’s work as “like other summer blockbusters” just makes the point of the shallowness of his work. A lot of movies are made. Most are forgettable. Abrams said “Make it so”.