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?)

No. Keep enjoying the version in your head.

I think it was as true to the original as at least the last two serials, if not three.

That could be, but I didn't watch more than a dozen episodes of any of them, because they didn't appeal to me either. For different reasons -- actually, I think I stuck with Voyager the longest (maybe half a season) because it was such an unbelievable trainwreck. The others bored me in different ways.

I'm not particularly attached to the franchise as a franchise. Maybe that's the sticking point. I liked that one show, even though it was cheesy. Hell, because it was cheesy. Making a shiny cool version of it is like, "Come see the reanimated corpse we built! It kind of looks like your friend if you squint!" It doesn't fill me with fuzzy feelings; it creeps me out.

Star Trek with sexy hotties and rebellious punks and fight scenes sounds like TOS to me.

Yeah, but the rebellious punks weren't the heroes. And the fight scenes were the resolution, not the plot.

I mean, even Wrath of Khan is not remotely an action-adventure story. The spaceship battles are sure fun, but both of them combined make up, what, 10 minutes of a 2 hour movie? The rest of it is people talking about aging and death and ethics and responsibility.

Kirk was a rebellious punk. He was just in charge.

And making it an action movie is where that genre went. It could have been a sci fi movie more like Sunshine, but I think that would have been even less Trekkie.

Heroes. Saving the day. Getting the girl. Looking good. Sometimes with a fight. In space. Roddenberry might turn in his grave, but I didn't get his peace among all peoples message until TNG because Kirk was busy being such a pompous ass (space cowboy segue from rebellious punk) interfering with all time and space.

Whoa, Kirk is not a rebellious punk. He's a company man! What's he rebelling against?

...You don't like Kirk? I'm surprisingly discombobulated by that.

And unrelated but more on topic: I'm with Glamcookie on Black Snake Moan. It's surprisingly sweet. Maybe a little too pat at the end, but yeah, I liked it a lot.

No. Keep enjoying the version in your head.

For the love of all that's holy, this.