Tom bombadil is where I permanently stopped reading.

No, just a difference in people's perceptions of what is and what isn't sacrosanct when turning text into film. Some people's untouchable institutions are other people's streamlining, or fodder for updating. Can't please everybody.

Can't please everybody.

"So you might as well please yourself." Sorry. Refuse to get that earworm without sharing.

So I actually want to see a movie or two. This is unheard of. One is Up in the Air because of a bit of trailer monologue I saw that just got me. And Invictus just because.

Huh. I might even spring for a ticket (since I doubt I can find my dvd player easily...)

One is Up in the Air because of a bit of trailer monologue I saw that just got me.

I really liked it. I think the buzz it's been getting is a little over-the-top, but it is a good movie.

It's not that I think the source material isn't being treated with the proper reverence. Private Life is affectionate, but it's definitely irreverent. But with Trek & SH, it seems like the only point of even referencing the source material is to simplify marketing.

Why do a whole movie in which the plot is an elaborate justification to free yourself from everything that went before? Why not just start fresh? And if you want to do a goofy Victorian buddy-action-comedy, do that, but why call it Sherlock Holmes? There's the rote complaint about how something is "X with the serial number filed off" -- with these, the serial number is the only thing left.

I mean, I understand the value of name recognition from the studio's point of view. But I'm not sure why I should be interested just because of that.

I'm not opposed to reboots & rethinking classic characters and all that. But there needs to be some thinking in order for there to be rethinking, and both of these movies just look fundamentally empty-headed to me. I mean, the marketing for Holmes feels like, "Hey, it's Sherlock Holmes, but he's kind of grubby and sleazy and punches people and isn't that CRAZY? Because it's Sherlock Holmes! Man, we are just out of control over here!" And then the Star Trek marketing emphasized that there were many sexy hotties and rebellious punks and romance and big action sequences, which pretty much read to me as "So don't worry, because this is nothing like Star Trek!"

I dunno, maybe it's just the marketing because Trek felt like Trek - TOS and Wrath of Khan in that it was both serious and fun (the first movie took itself way too seriously). More like Wrath of Khan because the special effects were better, but, really, not that much better.

Star Trek was full of touches for the serious fan, without being snooty to the casual fan.

Star Trek with sexy hotties and rebellious punks and fight scenes sounds like TOS to me. I totally hear what you're saying about Sherlock Holmes. From the marketing they're shorthanding to 'brilliant detective' and some assumptions about the relationship and time period. I just don't feel proprietarily towards the brand.

ST, on the other hand, I would, if I'd felt more than update. The scale didn't have to stay in the 60s, and the overriding Rodenberry ethos had left the franchise a while back. I think it was as true to the original as at least the last two serials, if not three. And I loved DS9.

And if you want to do a goofy Victorian buddy-action-comedy, do that,

YES, PLEASE. DO THAT. Make lots of movies like that. Bonus points will be awarded for mad scientists and occultists. Many many bonus points will be awarded for vampires.

(Wait. This kind of means I want League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but without it being really bad. Should I eventually watch that movie and get it over with?)