Originally Posted by SNR (Post 9697690)

Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows was not a good movie.

I still liked it.

In this case, the movie was an adaptation of a universe based on a set of stories, which had been re-imagined, remade, retold, and revamped dozens of times on film and television. There is no "hardcare" Sherlock Holmes fan (at least I have yet to meet one) that complained that those movies are hardly at all in the TRUE spirit of Sherlock Holmes, because the character and the setting has been done dozens of different ways.

Not so for Star Trek. Like it or not, there IS a standard that should at least be considered when doing these movies. You can recast it. Fine. You can change the course of events in the timeline. Uhh... okay, sure, why not? You can apply different roles and functions for each character and element. Excellent, that's exactly what you should be doing.

But you should NOT try to make a Frankenstein's monster of different lines and references all while uncreatively inversing the roles instead of changing them and creating something NEW.

That's the problem I have with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't fun and entertaining. But it doesn't mean it's a good movie.

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 9706971)

He'd better not be. Or rather, only if that sick girl from the opening scene is. But, yeah, the world is ostensibly without death, a fact that will be completely forgotten about in the next one.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9707044)

This is something that seems to be lost here. Entertaining and good are mutually exclusive concepts. People are treating star trek like it's supposed to be high art or something. It's a summer popcorn movie. That's all. If it was high art, odds are not many of us would have seen it and this thread would be reaper talking to himself.

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9707316)

Smart Marketing 101: HBO (owned by Time-Warner, which owns Warner Brothers) is bombarding its channels with the 1978 Superman this month and into next.

Paramount? Not so much.

Originally Posted by underEJ (Post 9694734)

Par. is a marketing wasteland these days. They can't open a film domestically, meeting expectations, to save their lives. It is really strange.

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9707316)

Smart Marketing 101: HBO (owned by Time-Warner, which owns Warner Brothers) is bombarding its channels with the 1978 Superman this month and into next.

Paramount? Not so much.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9707470)

They've also saturated us with Trailers and TV ads. That movie's going to be huge I think.

(early word is that it's also very, very good)

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9708610)

TNT is showing The Watchmen right now. Getting as much Zach Snyder publicity out there as they can.

I know Watchmen has its critics, but I loved the movie. Even edited for mainstream cable, the movie is good, and the visuals are fantastic.

Very stoked to see what he can do with the Supes story...

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9708620)

Snyder is absolutely amazing with visuals, so Man of Steel should be a treat. And since he didn't write the script, I'd imagine it will be a very good film as well.

I've heard the movie is excellent but I've done my absolute best to make sure I'm not spoiled in any way.

Originally Posted by Bowser (Post 9708627)

Yeah, me too. I've avoided spoiler talk and websites as much as I possibly can, and made a decision to not watch any more trailers after the last one that was posted. Move just looks fan-freaking-tastic. I really really hope it lives up to expectations.

And you're right about Snyder - his visuals work alone made Sucker Punch worth watching. Well, that and the bevvy of hotness of his actresses.....

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9708629)

Well, that is, if J.J. Abrams doesn't **** it up beforehand.

Originally Posted by DoucheMcCloud (Post 9708615)

My post was more to the point about Paramount's poor marketing (which I mentioned earlier in the thread). Paramount should have had the 2009 Star Trek movie on constantly airing on Showtime for 4-6 week prior to the release of Into Darkness in addition to channels like Spike TV, FX, etc.

Warner Brothers is doing it right: Paramount did not.

As to my box office receipt projections, Into Darkness was off by 56% from Friday to Friday, which is even more than my "optimistic" projection. It'll be interesting to see where they are on Monday night.

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9708651)

I know, I was agreeing with you.

Originally Posted by Branden Albert's Huge Balls (Post 9708649)

I don't see how Abrams can screw up Star Wars.

It's really well suited for his style, and the bar was set low with the prequels.