Plus the last time Singer tried to jam something into established continuity we got Superman Returns which, regardless of how you feel about it as a film, was a nightmare trying to make it fit into the Superman/Superman 2 timeline. Things were ignored, characters de-aged while others aged too much (hi Jimmy!), some…

Shut up Jamie Foxx. Please, shut the fuck up.

God, shut up Jamie Foxx. Just please shut up.

Absolutely right. I feel this Trek movie will have even less to do with original Trek than the last one (in terms of tone, not content). I understand the need to glossy things up, but there's a fundamental reason Trek has survived nearly 50 years - there's a strong philosophical and moral center to the series which I…

Ummmmmm, no. The problem with the Hobbit and say, Phantom Menace, has little to do with expectations and more to do with the fact that they're not very good films. All the mixed (mixed, not 100% negative) reviews I've read about the Hobbit focus on the length and the obvious padding of the first hour, not the fact…

If that is the case, then do what they did with Liam Neeson in Batman Begins. Announce he's playing character x from the get-go and then reveal he's actually character y in the movie. But the trick is to downplay the first announcement and not draw attention to it. That's all Abrams is doing, is drawing way too much…

"make up something new" are words that Hollywood studios don't understand and, more importantly, refuse to spend money on

Superheros are not crap. Bad writers/directors/producers are crap.

no.

The original costume was designed with aesthetics in mind. That's why it's so visually pleasing. The new one was designed in a desperate attempt to be "edgy" and "modern" with no regard at all to how it would look aesthetically. That's the problem. It works for Batman because he has darker colours and is usually…

Catwoman? Who is this Catwoman you speak of? I don't remember a character by that name in the movie. I believe Anne Hathaway played Selina something or other, not "Catwoman." Christopher Nolan would never stoop so low as to name one of HIS characters after a comic.

Yeah but in the case of Star Trek it made sense (although I don't like it). Abrams was dealing with 40+ years of screen continuity and was actively relaunching old, beloved characters (associated with very specific actors) with new actors. His solution was somewhat extreme but I understand where it came from - and…

True, but really when you think of it, most Trek villains do things for a reason that go beyond just being evil. It's a pretty common factor in the franchise stretching all the way back to the original pilot(s). So really they're not breaking new ground here.

I always love when they ask a producer/director/actor/writer/caterer about the movie they're working on and they say, "wow! it's going to be great!" and people think that's news. What else is Nolan going to say? "Actually, I think Zack Snyder is shit and he was WB's choice not mine. I really hate Superman - if it were…

Amen - he is an idiot, regardless of his Electro knowledge. Jamie Foxx in? I'm out.

That's in line with most of the Moffat era, though, which makes little sense.