EXCLUSIVE: Sony moved Roland Emmerich’s Singularity from May 17th, 2013, to Nov 1, 2013. So now Paramount is grabbing that primo pre-Memorial Weekend date of May 17, 2013 for its much anticipated writer/director J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek sequel (which is really No. 12 among the Captain Kirk/Mr Spock star fleet movies). No title yet. But this one is being co-written by Abrams with Lost‘s Damon Lindelof, plus Alex Kurtzman & Roberto Orci. But JJ is going to be making the movie in 3D. The first of Abram’s rebooted franchise opened May 8, 2009 for a $79M weekend and ultimate did $258M in North America and $130M international at the box office. The pic is being produced by all those writers and Bryan Burk, who is JJ’s Bad Robot production partner. It is anticipated that David Ellison’s Skydance will be co-financing the film with Paramount. All key cast members will be returning, like Chris Pine and Zach Quinto and Zoe Saldana.
Paramount took a real risk rebooting what many thought was a tired franchise played out but the studio wound up with another potent franchise. That’s because Abrams’ reboot widened well beyond Star Trek‘s rabid but older fanbase and attracted a new and younger audience. (Paramount marketed the movie as “not your father’s Star Trek”.) And the critical reviews were 96% positive. The goal of the new pic was to finally attract more filmgoers overseas since the franchise had never done $100M international before.
As for the sequel, Abrams had to finish Super 8 so there was no way he could make the June 29, 2012 release date that Paramount initially had carved out for the film. (The studio gave that slot to its other sequel G.I. Joe: Retaliation.) Abrams had been hunkering down with writers Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof to work on the Star Trek script. The studio exercised its option on the cast and they would be ready when Abrams was.
How much more are they gonna beat this dead horse of the original series offshoot.. :deadhorse:
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"
So Star Trek 2 Alt Timeline is coming out. I have feelings for this film which I shall not discuss here"
May this thread remain forever peaceful ;)
How much more are they gonna beat this dead horse of the original series offshoot.. :deadhorse:
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"
I don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"
Both those loonies have left haven't they?
No Way! ;DI don't mean any disrespect, but I believe this forum needs to stop talking about any opinions regarding Star Trek 2009...or any "new trek" for that matter. From now on, I propose that all our Star Trek 2009 related discussions inlcude the phrase: "I have feelings for this film of which I shall not discuss here"
Both those loonies have left haven't they?
I don't know. I am just worn out and tired of any fighting. I guess I was trying to make a satirical observation that since we are going to re-live another star trek movie can we please be peaceful with our opinions?
please
I'll see it in theatres, but I most likely won't spring for 3D.
As long as they stop with this "First look" shit by then. I hate that so much. But, I loved Star Trek(2009), I don't care if it was less like Trek and more like Star Wars, it was more like the original Star Wars movies, and that's alright with me.I'll see it in theatres, but I most likely won't spring for 3D.I'll see it in theatres and in 3D, but I won't get popcorn! Okay, someone else add to this!
I just hope they have a more compelling villian.Benicio Del Toro.... as Khan? Can you imagine him playing anyone else?
I would rather they make up a new villian actually.When it comes to Star Trek, writers are better off sticking with what's familiar. What's most important is the addition of other elements.
Nah Some new aspect of the star trek world would be more fun to see than a take on something already deeply familiar.Well, we'll see what they do. I'm sure it's going to kick ass... because this will be an even-numbered trek film, and there's never been a Trek film that was even numbered that SUCKED before........... ;D
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before.Very true. and this isn't related to the dubious "Odd-numbered curse". However, as SF debris pointed out, it's always a very bad sign whenever a character or characters sing in a Star Trek movie. That is except for of course The Motion Picture, because the singing would distract from the boredom.
Technically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before.
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :PTechnically there has never been an even numbered film with shatner and nimoy that has sucked before.
Can I play? Um, there's never been a feature-length Star Trek musical with David Hasselhoff and the supporting cast of "Becker" that's sucked before!
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :PNo, Kim Kardassian would make a perfect Kardashian.
The Hoff would make a perfect Cardassian :PNo, Kim Kardassian would make a perfect Kardashian.
As in fun to take on long rides? or are you referring more to putting a bridle on her?If a bridle will shut her up, I'd take a long ride on her :rimshot:
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.:D :D
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
She's the female equivalent of a bad boy. You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
She's the female equivalent of a bad boy. You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
She's the female equivalent of a bad boy. You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
She's the female equivalent of a bad boy. You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.
I guess you're a better man than I then, Ronin. Though, I guess I've never actually heard her speak ever, so I can't make a judgement call on her personality at all. Ehn, doesn't matter. I'll admire her tremendous bottom anyway.
Ugh, anyone who is willing to put their member into Kim Kardasian has serious issues.
Unless by "member" you mean knife and by "into her" you mean anyplace where she would die of the wound.
Ok, maybe that was harsh, but I am pretty positive the world would be a better place without her
She's the female equivalent of a bad boy. You know she's bad for you, and you feel guilty for even liking her, but at some point, you have to acknowledge there's a small part of you that really just wants her, preferably not talking, but wants her nevertheless.
I acknowledge no such thing. Her alleged attractiveness is so generic hollow and lifeless that it does nothing but repulse me. She and her whole family really need to quietly disappear.
I guess you're a better man than I then, Ronin. Though, I guess I've never actually heard her speak ever, so I can't make a judgement call on her personality at all. Ehn, doesn't matter. I'll admire her tremendous bottom anyway.
I still think She is probably smarter than her persona shows.Are we talking about Cardassian Women or Kardashian women? heh heh. Get it? I'm totally running a joke into the ground, GET IT?! Haw haw haw haw!
That is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B)The Satellite of love has a cameo.bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo
Oh you. :PThat is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B):DThe Satellite of love has a cameo.bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo
Snape Enterprise with Capt. bunny and his kitten bridge crew ;DOh you. :PThat is pretty damn awesome. The only way this movie could possibly get better is if A) It has an epic story, and B):DThe Satellite of love has a cameo.bunnies, kittens, and Snape riding a unicorn had a cameo
The sequel to the successful reboot of Star Trek has been a long-in-development priority for Paramount and director J.J. Abrams, and the Enterprise is currently scheduled to lift off again this January, when shooting on the untitled next installment will begin. Sadly, there's one high-profile star whom Abrams didn't manage to beam up: Benicio Del Toro, who entered into talks last month to play the sequel's new villain. Insiders tell Vulture that the deal actually went asunder last Wednesday after parties couldn't come to terms over monetary issues.
Abrams will now have to move quickly to fill the role, but which villain from Star Trek lore has he made the focal point of the new film? When Del Toro's name was first linked to the project, speculation ran rampant that he might play Khan, immortalized once before on the big screen by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. On Friday, the site Latino Review claimed to have confirmed that choice of villain, though Abrams promptly replied to Hitfix that the report was "not true." Still, the famously secretive director was probably trying to keep the cat in the interstellar bag for a little while longer, as Vulture hears from a highly placed source that Khan is indeed the film's baddie. Perhaps Abrams was taking his cues from Man of Steel director Zack Snyder, who strongly denied to the press last year that General Zod would be the villain in his Superman reboot ... then cast Michael Shannon as Zod a few months later.
I'm about to cloud up and rain all over this parade.Just go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)
Benicio Del Toro Won’t Make Star Trek Sequel (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2011/12/benicio-del-toro-star-trek-sequel-khan.html)QuoteThe sequel to the successful reboot of Star Trek has been a long-in-development priority for Paramount and director J.J. Abrams, and the Enterprise is currently scheduled to lift off again this January, when shooting on the untitled next installment will begin. Sadly, there's one high-profile star whom Abrams didn't manage to beam up: Benicio Del Toro, who entered into talks last month to play the sequel's new villain. Insiders tell Vulture that the deal actually went asunder last Wednesday after parties couldn't come to terms over monetary issues.
Abrams will now have to move quickly to fill the role, but which villain from Star Trek lore has he made the focal point of the new film? When Del Toro's name was first linked to the project, speculation ran rampant that he might play Khan, immortalized once before on the big screen by Ricardo Montalban in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. On Friday, the site Latino Review claimed to have confirmed that choice of villain, though Abrams promptly replied to Hitfix that the report was "not true." Still, the famously secretive director was probably trying to keep the cat in the interstellar bag for a little while longer, as Vulture hears from a highly placed source that Khan is indeed the film's baddie. Perhaps Abrams was taking his cues from Man of Steel director Zack Snyder, who strongly denied to the press last year that General Zod would be the villain in his Superman reboot ... then cast Michael Shannon as Zod a few months later.
Just go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)I don't know how you could do a Star Trek movie with Q as the main antagonist.
That's all he ever did was antagonize so it'd be a perfect fit ;DJust go with John De Lancie as "Q" 8)I don't know how you could do a Star Trek movie with Q as the main antagonist.
q as a villian would be awesome on so many levels. maybe follow the the Next Generation - Q Continuum: novel storyline only with kirk.See, now That would make me go see this in a theater ;D
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
I guess watching a good bit of Star Trek TNG lately and then googleing some recent pics kinda shocked me a bit :-\Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too. I mean, he was never a pretty boy
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too. I mean, he was never a pretty boy
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too. I mean, he was never a pretty boy
:D :D :DOnly problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked okay in Torchwood. I mean he's older but he doesn't look bad.
Hey looked pretty good in Breaking Bad too. I mean, he was never a pretty boy
Speak for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/v/Fd4IUnD0Sbc
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
omg, he became an animated character! Damn you! You Blew it up! Damn you! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!!!!
Only problem: Age has taken it's toll on him based on recent pics :o
He looked a bit horse faced in his last TV appearance.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEF3Cl_DcYg
But director wouldn't give up too many details about the film due May 2013.
When it comes to getting the gory details about the "Star Trek" sequel, J.J. Abrams is a master of a few words and not revealing anything too juicy. Nevertheless, when MTV News encountered the writer/director/producer at the premiere of "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" recently, we came armed with questions, the first of which was when we'll find out whether Khan will be in the picture.
"It's a little early to be talking about 'Star Trek,' but I will say that they wrote — the three writers, Damon [Lindelof], Bob [Orci] and Alex [Kurtzman] — they wrote the most amazing script, and I'm thrilled to get a chance to direct it," he said. "It's totally mine to screw up, so if you don't like it, it's completely on me. Our sets are almost done, so we're going to go back and start shooting next month."
Abrams, being the perfectionist that he is, went on to say that he hopes to improve upon a few things in the first film, but didn't mention what those fixes or improvements may be.
"I'm sure, like many people, you see what you do and you go, 'I really could have done that one better, I should have done that, that was a mistake, more of this, less of that.' You always do that," he said. "I'm hoping that as we do the next one, all the mistakes that I've made that I've hopefully learned from, I can bring to this one and hope make it better."
A master of no information, Abrams is. We did manage to get him to talk about whether "Trek 2" will be shot in 3-D and/or IMAX, however.
"We're shooting on film, 2-D, and then we'll do a good high-end conversion like the 'Harry Potter' movie and all that. Luckily, with our release date now we have the months needed to do it right because if you rush it, it never looks good.
"We were talking about [shooting in IMAX] and I would love to do it. IMAX is my favorite format; I'm a huge fan," he added.
And finally, because we decided to go for the goods while we had him, we asked Abrams for an update on the long-discussed "Cloverfield" sequel. "I wish I could give you an update," he said. "We would love to do it if there was an idea that is worth your time. We're playing with some ideas, but we haven't found the one that you go, 'That's the reason to do it.' "
Hmm. I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted. Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
I could take it or leave it, honestly. I care more about story quality than flashy gimmicks.Hmm. I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted. Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
I could take it or leave it, honestly. I care more about story quality than flashy gimmicks.Hmm. I don't really have much of an opinion either way on 3d at the moment, but if you're going to show it in 3d, I'd rather you shot it in 3d, rather than have it be converted. Have the 3d mean something other than just be a gimmick.3D gives me a headache. That is my take on it :(
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end.
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end.
(http://files.sharenator.com/darth_vader_Darth_Vader-s500x636-136995-580.jpg)
They need a villain who can repeatedly kick the shit out of Kirk and the Enterprise, with a decent motive, only for things to come good at the end.
(http://files.sharenator.com/darth_vader_Darth_Vader-s500x636-136995-580.jpg)
Sorry, Christensen and Lucas have sucked so much of the badass out of this guy, I'll just never be able to look at him the same way I used to.
Sorry, Christensen and Lucas have sucked so much of the badass out of this guy, I'll just never be able to look at him the same way I used to.I live in my own little world where the prequels don't exist. I personally consider them to be completely apocryphal. I see the prequels much the same way Atheists see creationism. I cannot begin to describe the world of irony contained in that statement.
Vader never had a good motive, other than "the Emperor told me to." And frankly, from the neck down, he looks a little silly.
Vader never had a good motive, other than "the Emperor told me to."That's the fault of the prequels.
No it wasn't. What about in RoTJ where Vader says: "I must obey my master."
No it wasn't. What about in RoTJ where Vader says: "I must obey my master."So when was it that you had to obey Optimus Prime? :o
No it wasn't. What about in RoTJ where Vader says: "I must obey my master."
Although, I have to say that, "I must obey my master" is much better than what the prequels basically added to that sentence. Which is, "I must obey my master because he promised to help me keep my wife from dying...but she died anyway.
Must every thread degenerate into a discussion of why the prequels sucked?
so how about that STAR TREK movie huh?1-10 will still be better than this turd ;D
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?
STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?
I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?
That was YOU?! Get him!!!!STAR TREK 2013.......NOW WITH MORE LENSE FLARES!!Yeah I know it's almost as bad as movies with robots pissing and robot nutsacks... HUH SIDESWIPE?
I think my point is dear friends, if the words "lens flare" didn't exist, would you even care?
Yes, as the sole person responsible for the entire production of all three Transfomer movies, I am ashamed of myself.
Yes, as the sole person responsible for the entire production of all three Transfomer movies, I am ashamed of myself.:o .... I never said you were the sole person responsible for their entire production. Why does everybody keep making assumptions about my posts? Huh, oh well. :D
My things were an honor student at Hayden Christensen Middle School...i disagree.
wait.. what were we talking about again?
Oh yea... that Star Wars was a house of cards from day one that only became weaker with each additional film... Well, except for maybe Empire... I suppose that was good... a fucking muppet was turned into a convincing dramatic character for cryin out loud.... but really... the whole Star Wars thing is really only 200 or so minutes of good movies surrounded by incalculable amounts of horseshit.
As far as Trek... that shit had bottomed out. The Next Generation / DS9 / Voyager / lameasswhateverelse was a cul de sac... only option was a reboot with Kirk and Spock and Bones while those characters still had some cache... and I thought it generally worked... in spite of annoying lens flare and the lame villain.
I agree with your disagreement.CIRCLE GETS THE SQUARE!! :o
I agree with your disagreement.You should see me edam cheese.
The star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.
Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.
Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.
The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.
Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.
'Star Trek' Sequel Nabs 'War Horse' Actor Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch-war-horse-278143)not the nercomancer!QuoteThe star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.
Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.
Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.
The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.
Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.
'Star Trek' Sequel Nabs 'War Horse' Actor Benedict Cumberbatch (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-benedict-cumberbatch-war-horse-278143)QuoteThe star of the BBC’s “Sherlock” will likely play the main villain in J.J. Abrams' film for Paramount.
Benedict Cumberbatch, who can currently be seen in theaters in Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, has nabbed a major role in J.J. Abrams’ upcoming Star Trek sequel for Paramount.
Although sources would not comment on the character and Abrams keeping story details close to the vest, it is believed that Cumberbatch will play the movie’s villain.
The cast of the 2009 Trek movie (including Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana and Zachary Quinto) is returning for the sequel, which will be shot in 3D and released by Paramount. The script is written by Abrams, Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci.
Cumberbatch is clearly having a moment. The actor, who stars as Sherlock Holmes in BBC’s Sherlock, is also on screens with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and is voicing the characters of Smaug the dragon and the Nercomancer in Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit.
Oh hell yeah. I'll take the Batch over Benicio any day. This could be awesome.
BATCH!!!
This is great news! He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
This is great news! He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.Fabric softener bear?This is great news! He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.Fabric softener bear?This is great news! He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?Don't remember Downy the...? oh wait, that was snuggles. My bad.Fabric softener bear?This is great news! He was amazing in Sherlock and it is great to see him getting more mainstream work.I quite agree. The BBC Sherlock Holmes is FAR more credible and more interesting to watch than the shitty-ass Robert Downey the fabric softener bear movies.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?Normally I wouldn't say this, but they practically marketed both of those as Juvenile sex comedies. That is NOT Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has more to do with Sherlock Holmes being a very complicated person whom you can never figure out and the mystery. That is what Sherlock Holmes is about, it's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator. I could tolerate it in the Transformers movies because hey, the concept doesn't really have much of an intellectual element to it, but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.
what are your problems with the american sherlock holmes movies?Normally I wouldn't say this, but they practically marketed both of those as Juvenile sex comedies. That is NOT Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Holmes has more to do with Sherlock Holmes being a very complicated person whom you can never figure out and the mystery. That is what Sherlock Holmes is about, it's not about pandering to the lowest common denominator. I could tolerate it in the Transformers movies because hey, the concept doesn't really have much of an intellectual element to it, but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.
but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.
basically. he had to bring him back after the wrestle with moriarty above the waterfalls because the public wanted more, he initially killed off holmes so he could focus on his historical books.but when it comes to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I honestly think he'd be disgusted by what Hollywood did, and proud of what the BBC did.
If the tales are true, Doyle didn't actually give a crap about the Holmes character as anything other than a paycheck generator.
Must yet another innocent Star Trek thread get derailed by toxic Sherlock Holmes posts?!?
Must yet another innocent Star Trek thread get derailed by toxic Sherlock Holmes posts?!?
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?
When we're talking reboots of any kind, for the next ten years, the immediate answer to Who Should Play the Lead Character? is always going to be Hugh Jackman. Always. TNG = Hugh Jackman. Tomb Raider = Hugh Jackman. James Bond = Hugh Jackman. He-Man = Hugh Jackman. Dirty Dancing = Hugh Jackman. Indiana Jones = Hugh Jackman. Erin Brockovich = Hugh Jackman. Etc. and so on and so forth and ampersand and ampersand.
so who do you think will play picard in the inevitable tng movie reboot?
When we're talking reboots of any kind, for the next ten years, the immediate answer to Who Should Play the Lead Character? is always going to be Hugh Jackman. Always. TNG = Hugh Jackman. Tomb Raider = Hugh Jackman. James Bond = Hugh Jackman. He-Man = Hugh Jackman. Dirty Dancing = Hugh Jackman. Indiana Jones = Hugh Jackman. Erin Brockovich = Hugh Jackman. Etc. and so on and so forth and ampersand and ampersand.
Hugh Jackman IS Shaft! John Shaft!
As far as issues with the last Star Trek movie go, I had several. oddly enough, the villain wasn't one of them. However, Spock and Uhura making out in an elevator? Kirk going from cadet straight to Captain on his first assignment? Beaming across the galaxy onto a moving ship? So many inconsistencies that cannot be explained away by an altered timeline. I had no problems with creating an alternate timeline for the story to progress on it's own. I had no issues with them remaking the series, but there are certain things that should never be changed. After all (going back to my first point), one of the primary impulses that drive Spock (if you could call it that, for a Vulcan), is his attempts to suppress any trace of his humanity. Making kissy-face with Uhura doesn't qualify as suppressing his humanity. It completely changes his character. Of course, it didn't help that all I could see was Sylar, instead of Spock.ill give you the transporting across a large space while the ship is at warp speed., but the other two are explainable. this spock has become more emotionally unstable than the original spock, getting more in touch with his human side, hence the make out session. i dont like it, but thats the movie, as for the other one, there are numerous instances of a lower rank gaining the captaincy after the debilitation of a former captain if that person acts meritoriously and goes above and beyond the call of duty in the Star trek universe. and Kirk was going to a special section of starfleet academy in the first place for a command position.
You're right about the transporter! There's no way that imaginary technology would work that way! And making things work in ways they were never designed to work is completely inconsistent with the original Star Trek.they explain it in the movie as an equation would allow them to transport to the ship, but the inconsistency lies in the fact that during kirk's era, transporter tech was still fairly new. even in the TNG and DS9 eras, transporting over so large a distance would degrade the image too much. so the ship must have been fairly close in warp still.
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise? Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise? Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?yes but they were still working the kinks out of it. and transporting at warp, i have no problem with, it's the distance that makes me wonder how they did it.
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise? Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?yes but they were still working the kinks out of it. and transporting at warp, i have no problem with, it's the distance that makes me wonder how they did it.
I am quite pleased with the new cast thus far. But as history has shown us... cast is hardly anything. Peter Weller was in the 5th Season of Dexter and he didn't help that show much at all. Of course, Peter Weller was also in a couple episodes of the last season of Enterprise... and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I really like that they've hired the REAL Sherlock Holmes to be who knows who in the movie. If he's the villain... damn I expect one hell of a son of a bitch of a performance.
I doubt it will be about Khan at this point... unless they're keeping things really well hidden about the cast. I think like the last movie they need to keep the fanbase excited and interested yet keep the mainstream audience happy too. It's a shame that when you try to please a mainstream audience that you normally end up pissing off the fanbase. Seems like everybody in the Trek fanbase hates new Trek except me and maybe a couple hundred other people.
loved the movie as wellI am quite pleased with the new cast thus far. But as history has shown us... cast is hardly anything. Peter Weller was in the 5th Season of Dexter and he didn't help that show much at all. Of course, Peter Weller was also in a couple episodes of the last season of Enterprise... and I don't know if that's good or bad. But I really like that they've hired the REAL Sherlock Holmes to be who knows who in the movie. If he's the villain... damn I expect one hell of a son of a bitch of a performance.
I doubt it will be about Khan at this point... unless they're keeping things really well hidden about the cast. I think like the last movie they need to keep the fanbase excited and interested yet keep the mainstream audience happy too. It's a shame that when you try to please a mainstream audience that you normally end up pissing off the fanbase. Seems like everybody in the Trek fanbase hates new Trek except me and maybe a couple hundred other people.
Count me as another person who loved the new movie. Except for the scene in the bar. It looked to much like a modern day bar for my taste,to me it didn't look like it belonged in the Star Trek universe.
I also loved:D A woman once told me she'd love to climb Chris's Pine.Chris Pine Shirtlessthis fine Trek film
Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise? Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
Yeah and in TNG and DS9 They transport at warp speed all the time. In those two series they do say that it is harder then a normal transport but it is the Spock from that timeline who sets it up and just like in those series it doesn't work perfectly so I don't have a problem with it.
this spock has become more emotionally unstable than the original spock, getting more in touch with his human side, hence the make out session.
[/quote]Yeah but hadn't they started transporting live subjects in Enterprise? Which was, what, 80 years beforehand?
Yeah and in TNG and DS9 They transport at warp speed all the time. In those two series they do say that it is harder then a normal transport but it is the Spock from that timeline who sets it up and just like in those series it doesn't work perfectly so I don't have a problem with it.
So again why not just film the tech Shatner reading the tech manual. You know before TNG they couldn't transport at warp period so TNG changed the rules too. Heck Starfleet didn't even exist in the first season of Star Trek. Star Trek season one took place in the 2100s and the Enterprise answered to the United Earth Space probe agency,season two on it was in the 2200s and part of the United Federation of Planets,James R Kirk was changed to James T Kirk for no reason,Romulans flew Klingon ships in the third season,Spock can from Vulcania at one point and his mother wasn't human. Face it Star Trek has never been well written. If the load of crap being produced right now offends you because it is not in line with the crap you think is important all I can say is avoid the movie. i don't think there is anything else to say.
dont worry about it, that's doc.... and a few other people on the forum as well. dont take it personal. technically you're not a fully fledged poster on this forum until he and at least two others have said that you should be raped to death by wolves. this is a popular venting forum i think.So again why not just film the tech Shatner reading the tech manual. You know before TNG they couldn't transport at warp period so TNG changed the rules too. Heck Starfleet didn't even exist in the first season of Star Trek. Star Trek season one took place in the 2100s and the Enterprise answered to the United Earth Space probe agency,season two on it was in the 2200s and part of the United Federation of Planets,James R Kirk was changed to James T Kirk for no reason,Romulans flew Klingon ships in the third season,Spock can from Vulcania at one point and his mother wasn't human. Face it Star Trek has never been well written. If the load of crap being produced right now offends you because it is not in line with the crap you think is important all I can say is avoid the movie. i don't think there is anything else to say.
Sheesh, what crawled up your backside? Any reason you're getting so testy about my post?
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details). This was merely one of them. I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed. While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details). This was merely one of them. I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed. While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.
The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time. In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy. Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that. In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners. Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners. In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.
Of course I can use pilots. Characters are always at the mercy of the writers. They are fictional characters. Always open to interpretation.
Are you kidding. Nemesis and Insurrection got tons of shit thrown at it. Even though they probably have less plot holes and and aren't built around a string of improbable coincedences thatn 2009 had.I can live with improbable coincidences, especially since two is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I am presuming the two coincidences You are referring to are 1) Kirk finding Spock on Vulcan's moon, which honestly isn't that much of a coincidence since a) both of them were headed to the same Federation outpost, and b) They were both in a cave, the most logical and obvious place a person would go for cover; and 2) Kirk being in the academy at the same time Nero captures Spock Prime. Also, Nemesis has received something of an re-evaluation lately from the Trek fan base. I am surprised at how many "fans" say "Nemesis good! Star Trek open bracket 2009 close bracket bad!" yet I have never heard people complain about Insurrection or Nemesis as much as they do about Star Trek '09 Sideswipe.
i never had a problem with the trek movies. even whenAre you kidding. Nemesis and Insurrection got tons of shit thrown at it. Even though they probably have less plot holes and and aren't built around a string of improbable coincedences thatn 2009 had.I can live with improbable coincidences, especially since two is a coincidence, three times is a pattern. I am presuming the two coincidences You are referring to are 1) Kirk finding Spock on Vulcan's moon, which honestly isn't that much of a coincidence since a) both of them were headed to the same Federation outpost, and b) They were both in a cave, the most logical and obvious place a person would go for cover; and 2) Kirk being in the academy at the same time Nero captures Spock Prime. Also, Nemesis has received something of an re-evaluation lately from the Trek fan base. I am surprised at how many "fans" say "Nemesis good! Star Trek open bracket 2009 close bracket bad!" yet I have never heard people complain about Insurrection or Nemesis as much as they do about Star Trek '09 Sideswipe.
Also, as far as Nero goes... he has an excuse for his incompetence. He's a mining captain! He's not a Tactical genius like Shinzon, he is never purported to be one at all. I'm guessing Nero probably rode the short bus to Romulan academy every day. Now that might sound like a cop-out, but Nero being a great villain or not isn't the point of the story. Nero's just a psycho who got screwed over by circumstance. You know what else? We live in a world where idiots shove chainsaws down their pants in an attempt to steal them, don't even tell me that an inverse lack of logic doesn't apply to an Alien race... especially when said Alien's planet is destroyed.
i never had a problem with the trek movies. even whenYes, that's all in countdown, and yes I will admit that had they added plot elements and detail from that series, it would have tightened the movie up quite a bit... well, there's always the possibility of a director's cut.Spoiler (click to show/hide)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The only time I start picking apart a movie, is when I am frustrated by it and not enjoying it. If I am having a good time watching a movie, I really don't care about plot points and inconsistencies.
When I watched Star Trek '09 I had a good time. I know, take me out, whip me, spit apon me, nail me to a tree. I'm sorry, I enjoyed the damn thing. Much more than the other ST movies. Lens flare and all.
In my opinion, they broke several rules (both in character development and in technical details). This was merely one of them. I already covered part of the character development problems I had with it, too. Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? This isn't just about one technical detail, it's about multiple problems that simply altering the timeline shouldn't have changed. While I understand the need to suspend disbelief for a movie (yes, i realize that transporters do not actually exist), the movie should still follow the rules of the fictional world it takes place in, which were set by the TV series and movies that preceded it.
The point is, Star Trek breaks its own rules all the time. In TNG, no one in the Federation except the El Aurians had heard of the Borg until Q sent the Enterprise to their sector of the galaxy. Then subsequent series said that the Federation had encountered the Borg numerous times before that. In Star Trek II, Kirk claims the Klingons don't take prisoners. Then in Star Trek III, the Klingon commander executes his gunner for accidentally destroying the U.S.S. Grissom, saying that he wanted prisoners. In Star Trek 6, Uhura, the communications officer, who presumably got that post because of her skill with languages, needs a Klingon-to-English dictionary.
Yeah the fact is(and I say this as a life long Star Trek fan)how the tech works and character back story has always been whatever the writers want it to be on a week to week basis in Star Trek. For some reason this movie is the only time some of the fan chose to notice it. Again if the movie wasn't your cup of tea I am not sure what else to say other then just don't see the new one. I hated the movie Sherlock Holmes but you don't see me complaining about the sequel in it's thread,I just avoid it and I am happy.
New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother. What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.
I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.
and romulus ends up destroyed. anybody want to bet what next major planet they're gonna destroy? bajor? Cardassia Prime?.... Qo'Nos?!I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING!Exactly my feelings, too. I think that's a large part of why they did it, too. It really brings a tension, as Gunflyer said, to it.
New production teams like to try new things and it doesn't bother. What does bother me is one the same people stay in control too long and you end up with a show like Voyager that is 90% reused scripts from TNG.I agree. It was a bold move to Start from the very beginning of TOS, but even bolder when I saw Vulcan being destroyed. I was sitting there and I was like no way... this can't happen... and then when Vulcan disappeared it honestly chilled me to the bone because I thought Holy shit, if they can do that they can do anything.. ANYTHING! The hardcore fans need to put aside their personal feelings(mostly because this is an ALTERNATE universe... it's okay to change things!) and see the potential for unique and new stories in this alternate universe with the TOS characters.
Star Trek has always been about second chances. Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong. Vulcan's fucked, oh well. Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him. So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series. Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave. As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)Star Trek has always been about second chances. Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong. Vulcan's fucked, oh well. Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him. So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series. Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave. As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong. the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea. if you can handle the transition from MST3K to Rifftrax and still love it, you can handle the new Star trek Movie(s)Star Trek has always been about second chances. Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong. Vulcan's fucked, oh well. Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him. So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series. Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave. As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong. the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
Star Trek has always been about second chances. Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong. Vulcan's fucked, oh well. Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him. So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series. Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave. As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong. the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
No, I think Doc understood your point. Going back to stop Vulcan from being destroyed would have been even more of a copout than the rest of the movie. Almost as bad as having old Spock wake up at the end and say "I just had a really weird dream!"i think this new timeline has a great deal of potential, just as the mirror universe does. that's why im happily anticipating this movie. i like where it's going.
No, I think Doc understood your point. Going back to stop Vulcan from being destroyed would have been even more of a copout than the rest of the movie. Almost as bad as having old Spock wake up at the end and say "I just had a really weird dream!"
why the bloody hell cant people just appreciate the varying incarnations of a great franchise/idea.Star Trek has always been about second chances. Far more than just giving up when shit goes wrong. Vulcan's fucked, oh well. Let's not even try and figure out how the bad guy went back in time and try and stop him. So Star Trek 4 should have been the shortest movie in the series. Kirk should have given up and flew away when the President told him to leave. As Spock says, "There are always possibilities."
See that is what was wrong with Star Trek,the producers were catering to the hard core fans who want the rest button pushed every forty five minutes and there never being any danger of anything going wrong. the trouble is that is not good drama and there are only about 100 people in the world who watch a movie to see a much of people in jump suits be in no danger what so ever.
Don't worry IU am sure some day your idea of the greatest film of all time will be made,Shatner reading the Star Trek Wiki.
Because some of those incarnations blow, and blow big time. For example, I appreciate the Star Wars franchise on the whole, but I don't appreciate anything about the prequels. Plenty of folks love the Transformers franchise, yet hate the Bay movies with the burning intensity of a thousand suns. I don't see why people should have to appreciate every single embodiment of a franchise simply because it bears its name and likeness.I try to have a fair point of view about things. For example, while I liked the Transformers films, I can't argue when a person says they suck balls big time, because I can see where they are coming from. I'm not insane enough to say Oh those are great films. While I enjoy them, I cannot rightfully disagree with the complaints about them. Fair's fair, right?
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever takingYour wish is granted.
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking
If you dont likemy poststhe movies than ignore them. Nodoby gun to your head forcing you toread all the postswatch every sequel, prequel or remake. Will you die of a brain tumur if you stopreading the threadwatching them? If not thanleave and dont come backskip them. If you want to see naked pictures of people, than you should go to a pornography site.
Ugh....can I see a picture of Chris Pine sans shirt? This conversation is sooooooooooooooooooo long and forever taking
If you dont like my posts than ignore them. Nodoby gun to your head forcing you too read all the posts. I don't have anythnig to say to a person who is bored with the thread. Will you die of a brain tumur if you stop reading the thread? If not than leave and dont come back. If you want to see naked pictures of peeple, than you shuld go to a pornografy site.
...are you joking Barnes? :(I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.
...are you joking Barnes? :(I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.
...are you joking Barnes? :(I'm sure he is, I can't imagine the real Barnes talking like that.
I'm actually a bit insulted by the question. ???
Then why wouldn't you think he was joking?
THE BATCH IS ON THE SET!!!
My prediction for who he is:Spoiler (click to show/hide)
At one point in its coverage, the CNN posse on the ground in NYC rounded up Leonard Nimoy for a quick discussion about the vehicle's arrival. Throughout the piece, the CNN gang could barely control their Geekitude. In their final moments of discussion with Mr. Nimoy...unable to restrain themselves any longer...they went there...trumpeting the "new" STAR TREK movie (presumably referring to J.J. Abrams' 2009 picture), and asking if we'd see him "in another STAR TREK movie?"
Without missing a beat, Nimoy replied with the briefest "Umm..." and in no uncertain terms said "We're talking. We're talking."
I'm confused. What is the current prevailing opinion of the 2009 Star Trek movie? I remember back then that there was some apprehension that it would suck in the months leading up to it. Then it came out and everyone loved it. Has it cycled back to the "it's a remake of something classic so it has to suck" status yet?