Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek XIV?

[Andrew NDB]

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/quentin-tarantino.jpg

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/quentin-tarantino-jj-abrams-team-up-star-trek-movie-1064206

And here's an older article from a couple of months ago where he talks about his wish to take "City on the Edge of Forever" and make it feature length, within the Abramsverse (yet remarking that TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise" is his favorite so ever) : https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1703249/what-kind-of-star-trek-movie-quentin-tarantino-would-like-to-make

I dunno... and Abrams still aboard as producer? Why?

[Cure]

I just want another one of those movies. I love them so much.

[TigerClaw]

Weren't they gonna do the 4th Star Trek movie, with Kirk meeting his father? who was played by Chris Hemsworth in the first one.

[Andrew NDB]

Weren't they gonna do the 4th Star Trek movie, with Kirk meeting his father?

That was before Beyond bombed. It was always just talk, probably to tantalize people into getting that "treat" if they turned up to see Beyond... they didn't.

[TigerClaw]

I wonder what Quentin Tarantino pitched for the new Star Trek movie, he normally doesn't do these type of movies, he's always done his own stuff, so far he's done two Westerns, and we never seen him tackle Scifi movies, but this would be a first if he does.

[Andrew NDB]

I wonder what Quentin Tarantino pitched for the new Star Trek movie

If the interview from two months ago is to be believed, a feature length Abramsverse version of the TOS episode "City at the Edge of Forever" probably. But maybe not.

Here's where I am on this, I think.

Pros:

* It will almost undoubtedly be a great movie and highly witty and entertaining.
* Tarantino is a huge Trek fan, and of the right kind of Trek. His favorite episode of Trek is TNG's "Yesterday's Enterprise."
* It would probably be -- storytelling-wise -- a great bit of course correction from the Abrams flavor of storytelling (explosions! more action! more explosions!). It would show that Trek can work on the big screen in ways other than the Abrams movies.

Cons:

* From an interview two months ago it sounds like Tarantino wants to pitch a feature-length "City on the Edge of Forever" set in the Abramsverse. In other words... another remake/prequel.
* It'll probably be the Abramsverse.
* If it's Abramsverse, further cementing that as "modern day Trek," that makes it even less likely that non-Abramsverse/prequel/connections-to-Kirk-and-Spock TV shows will be greenlit. So get ready for a lot more stuff like STD.
* While it may be a great done-in-one kind of film, I'm not sure we can put a lot of faith in whoever/whatever follows it will follow suit in kind or do any kind of quality control after Tarantino drops the mic and is done with the film. I mean, he's not going to do the sequel, or helm a TV show afterward. It'll just fall back to Abrams and his cronies.

[CyberCubed]

How do you know it's going to be in the same movie verse and not be something totally new or different?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I like Tarantino.

But no. Not for any reason.

If somebody wants to do great Star Trek, bring Ronald D Moore back.

[Andrew NDB]

How do you know it's going to be in the same movie verse and not be something totally new or different?

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/1703249/what-kind-of-star-trek-movie-quentin-tarantino-would-like-to-make

Because he specifically mentioned a couple of months ago that he'd need to "find something for Zoe Saldana and John Cho to do" in his "City on the Edge of Forever" movie and that he "sees the reboot (Abramsverse) as an opportunity."

It doesn't mean at the end of the day his actual Star Trek movie pitch will be that, or even for sure Abramsverse-based, but it does show where his head is at with it.

[CyberCubed]

For some reason I feel like the new Star Trek reboot movies needs to make 6 movies to match the 6 movies the original Star Trek crew got. We're only 3 movies down, so we should get another 3 to go.

Especially before the current actors get too old. Chris Pine is nearly 40.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

For some reason I feel like the new Star Trek reboot movies needs to make 6 movies to match the 6 movies the original Star Trek crew got. We're only 3 movies down, so we should get another 3 to go.

Especially before the current actors get too old. Chris Pine is nearly 40.

No.

We don't need a "Benedict Cumberbatch is NOT playing General Chang" in "The Undiscovered Remix."

[Andrew NDB]

For some reason I feel like the new Star Trek reboot movies needs to make 6 movies to match the 6 movies the original Star Trek crew got.

Nah, f*** that crew. The TNG crew only got 4 movies.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Nah, f*** that crew. The TNG crew only got 4 movies.

Worst TNG movie in your opinion?

I'll go first... Insurrection.

[Andrew NDB]

Worst TNG movie in your opinion?

I'll go first... Insurrection.

"Nemesis" by a landslide for me. It was upsetting how bad that was and WoK-rip-offy that was. Who knew that only two movies later they'd do an even more blatant WoK rip-off. "Nemesis" also began the "The big bad guy in a BIG BLACK SHIP we need to FIGHT!" thing that would be in 3 back-to-back Star Trek movies.

"Insurrection" isn't bad but it never should have been a movie. It should have been a two part episode on the show though even then, it would have been a forgettable one.

[Prowler]

I wonder how he'll fit in the word ninja in this movie...

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

"Nemesis" by a landslide for me. It was upsetting how bad that was and WoK-rip-offy that was. Who knew that only two movies later they'd do an even more blatant WoK rip-off. "Nemesis" also began the "The big bad guy in a BIG BLACK SHIP we need to FIGHT!" thing that would be in 3 back-to-back Star Trek movies.

"Insurrection" isn't bad but it never should have been a movie. It should have been a two part episode on the show though even then, it would have been a forgettable one.

Yeah, but I'll take a Trek-lite movie with Picard and Data starring again over "fountain of youth two-parter" crap. :tlol:

[newfan]

Insurrection was my least favorite. TNG

I like 2, 4, 6 and 8.

Cubed, Pine is 37, the original crew were way past that by 6 :) well actually past it by the 1st movie.

[Andrew NDB]

I'd probably rate them...

2
4
6
1
8
13
7
3
5
11
9
10
12

[newfan]

I need to think about my order for all of them, forgot to add the new ones.

I was just remembering years ago when the Simpsons made fun of Star Trek with the 'Star Trek 10, We're tired' (something like that) that was before there were 10, now we have 13

[TigerClaw]

Everyone knows that the even number Star Trek movies were the best ones.

[CyberCubed]

I nearly fell asleep watching the first Trek movie, even on 1.5x speed it was too slow.

[Candy Kappa]

Tarantino's Star Trek? At this point sure, why not, it'll be entertaining and maybe Tarantino's homage take on 60's sci-fi. I don't have a horse in the new Trek movie universe anyway.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I nearly fell asleep watching the first Trek movie, even on 1.5x speed it was too slow.

Only real Star Trek movie I've never bothered to watch. The novelization did a better job of telling the story... with some odd input from Gene Roddenberry himself, if I remember correctly.

[Andrew NDB]

Everyone knows that the even number Star Trek movies were the best ones.

Wasn't true of 10 and it sure wasn't true of 12.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Two, four, six, and 8 I'll give him though. 10 is a big "MAAAYBE".... Three and seven were pretty good.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Wasn't true of 10 and it sure wasn't true of 12.

Two, four, six, and 8 I'll give him though. 10 is a big "MAAAYBE".... Three and seven were pretty good.

11, 12, and 13 aren't Prime Trek, they're Kelvin Trek. I wouldn't bother ranking them together with the Prime 10 even if I did like them.

10 kinda limped, but I still like it. Loved Tom Hardy. I think it would have been better if Stewart, Frakes, McFadden, Sirtis, et al didn't look so old... Nemesis was an action movie with a geriatric cast, and it was just a little unconvincing.

[Andrew NDB]

10 is a big "MAAAYBE"

10 is a great big "F*** no." Embarrassingly bad. I never thought I'd feel as horrible leaving the theater until Into Darkness years later.

.... Three and seven were pretty good.

3 hasn't aged quite as well as 2, but I do dig it. 7 gets a lot of crap from people but I generally really enjoy it. It's not all it could be but it works for what it is.

[Andrew NDB]

10 kinda limped, but I still like it. Loved Tom Hardy. I think it would have been better if Stewart, Frakes, McFadden, Sirtis, et al didn't look so old... Nemesis was an action movie with a geriatric cast, and it was just a little unconvincing.

I agree with Plinkett on every point:

8ZjkHUrEuHc

CoWfTq8dYos

5DT7sSp-3_I

Oi5mj6-CUiY

[biganimefan]

I definitely wouldn't be opposed to a Star Trek movie by Tarantino. Bring it on, as far as I'm concerned!

But seriously though, it was a pretty big mistake to reboot the franchise like this in the first place. We had nearly a decade and a half in the Prime Universe's 24th Century. Should have placed movies and tv shows AFTER that point. Also...retcon the 29th and 31st Centuries stupid obsession with time travel. You cannot tell me that the Federation became more time focused than space focused. Unless they have a presence everywhere in the Universe at that point which I highly doubt!

[Andrew NDB]

But seriously though, it was a pretty big mistake to reboot the franchise like this in the first place. We had nearly a decade and a half in the Prime Universe's 24th Century.

Should have placed movies and tv shows AFTER that point.

Yeah, let's see the 25th. What's going on with the Federation then? With the Romulans, after Romulus blew up? With the Klingons? Plus we can get the occasional guest spot from the TNG, DS9, or VOY crews.

Or...

Also...retcon the 29th and 31st Centuries stupid obsession with time travel. You cannot tell me that the Federation became more time focused than space focused. Unless they have a presence everywhere in the Universe at that point which I highly doubt!

Retcon that away? That's a horrible idea. The Starfleet of the 29th century onward is fascinating and we know so little about how it operates. A Star Trek show set within that timeframe on a ship that is as much tasked with policing time as it is exploration and politics could be awesome. I'd kind of like to see that show over even a 25th century show (plus if you're doing a straight up Star Trek time travel show, TOS and TNG could be revisited).

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Yeah, let's see the 25th. What's going on with the Federation then? With the Romulans, after Romulus blew up? With the Klingons? Plus we can get the occasional guest spot from the TNG, DS9, or VOY crews.

Or...

Retcon that away? That's a horrible idea. The Starfleet of the 29th century onward is fascinating and we know so little about how it operates. A Star Trek show set within that timeframe on a ship that is as much tasked with policing time as it is exploration and politics could be awesome. I'd kind of like to see that show over even a 25th century show (plus if you're doing a straight up Star Trek time travel show, TOS and TNG could be revisited).

Absolutely. Prequels are easy sells to Hollywood, but most times end up horrible or forgettable or just inferior.

Go 25th century; show us the Romulans and Dominion as allies, and scary new threats from outside the Milky Way.

Or go to the 29th century, and show us the USS Relativity taking orders from the 31st century as they fight on the front lines of the Temporal Cold War.

Or go back to the 22nd century and show us the founding of the Federation, if you must, and explore the time period halfway between ENT and TOS.

But 10 years before TOS? Come on... :trolleye:

[newfan]

Everyone knows that the even number Star Trek movies were the best ones.

I do remember someone saying that years go but that was before 10 came out I think.

Well, this thread has put me in the mood for a Star Trek movie this eve.

I think I was so caught up in the original characters coming back and seeing their enterprise design again etc that I just didn't hate the new movies like most on here. I was also very happy to see Leonard Nimoy, Spock is my favourite ST character.

Anyway, back on the thread topic, I'd be curious to see what he'd do.

[TigerClaw]

Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek is going to be the 1st R rated movie for this franchise, and Paramount is all for it.
https://deadline.com/2017/12/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-r-rating-mark-l-smith-the-revenant-drew-pearce-lindsay-beer-jj-abrams-1202222161/

[newfan]

..... but does ST need an R rating? Holding off criticism here btw, I'm just interested to see what you guys think of that.

Will it still be the re-booted Kirk and Spock or totally new incarnation?

[Candy Kappa]

Oh sure. Making Kirk a reckless hard copy of Maverick in Top Gun wasn't enough. He needs to be gun totin' as well, phasers set to XTREME annihilation.

Or the R rating comes from Internet Space Rapist Kirk finally makes his cinematic debut...

[TigerClaw]

Oh sure. Making Kirk a reckless hard copy of Maverick in Top Gun wasn't enough. He needs to be gun totin' as well, phasers set to XTREME annihilation.

Or the R rating comes from Internet Space Rapist Kirk finally makes his cinematic debut...
Or the Enterprise crew will be dropping F bombs left and right.

[plastroncafe]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've never been very impressed with Tarantino's work. I find I have more fun quoting the movie after the fact than I do actually watching it.

[Prowler]

Or the Enterprise crew will be dropping F bombs left and right.

I do wonder how what the Americans euphemistically call "the n-word" will fit in the Star Trek universe.


I know I'm in the minority here, but I've never been very impressed with Tarantino's work. I find I have more fun quoting the movie after the fact than I do actually watching it.

I've only truly see Inglorious Basterds. It was alright, but the trailer was misleading. There were times in the movie where I forgot about the existence of the "basterds". Shoshanna felt more like the main character of the movie to me.

I'm not familiarised with the rest of his work. Only seen clips of pulp Fiction and Django Unchained on youtube. The man either loves rap music or thinks he is a black man in a white man's body :lol:

[CyberCubed]

I've seen all his movies, Kill Bill 1 and 2, Pulp Fiction, Django Unchained, Hateful Eight, etc. are some of his best.

[Andrew NDB]

I haven't seen a Tarantino movie I haven't loved. Maybe Jackie Brown... I don't remember much about it now aside from Robert De Niro screwing Bridget Fonda at one point and Samuel L. Jackson being super scary. I've also found that Django Unchained doesn't hold up super well on a second watching. The rest? All aces. Every single one, even "Death Proof."

[CyberCubed]

Jackie Brown is slow to start but picks up as it goes along. Michael Keaton is also a cop in it, I was surprised when he showed up as I forgot he was even in it. It came out in 1997 yet Keaton barely looked any different than he was as Batman. He aged horribly once the 2000's started though.

[ProphetofGanja]

He's got some pretty good stuff. Resevoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds, and From Dusk Till Dawn are films I really like (he distracted direct that last one but he did write,produce, and play a role in it)

I never saw Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill movies though

[TigerClaw]

I haven't seen any of Quentin Tarantino's movies, they are mostly ultra violent, gratuitous, bloody, self indulging, and filled with lots of language.

[Prowler]

I never saw Pulp Fiction or the Kill Bill movies though
Good. I'm not the only person on the planet who has not. Good to know :lol:

In all seriousness, I don't really watch movies that often. It's never been a big habit of mine. Not that I have a problem with movies... it just doesn't happen often. So there's a ton of big movies I haven't seen yet.

[TigerClaw]

I'm not a hardcore movie watcher either, I only see the movies that come out in the theaters that interest me, I'm not one of those types that watch every movie that comes out.

[Prowler]

I haven't seen any of Quentin Tarantino's movies, they are mostly ultra violent, gratuitous, bloody, self indulging, and filled with lots of language.
Doesn't Tarantino use lots of Asian movies as references?

I'm not a hardcore movie watcher either, I only see the movies that come out in the theaters that interest me, I'm not one of those types that watch every movie that comes out.
Yeah tbh a ton of the popular movies don't appeal me much. I have zero interest in superhero movies and those have been coming out constantly lately.

[TigerClaw]

Doesn't Tarantino use lots of Asian movies as references?


Yeah tbh a ton of the popular movies don't appeal me much. I have zero interest in superhero movies and those have been coming out constantly lately.
Superhero movies interest me a lot, as well as scifi movie and fantasy, but its mostly the franchises that I'm familiar with that interest me, I'm not into watching a Drama or Comedy movie, most movies I seen had a comedic tone, so there's no point in watching a straight up comedy movie, unless scifi and superheroes were involved.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

So it'll be R-rated. :trolleye:

This disinterests me as much as JJ Abrams' take on Star Trek.

[Andrew NDB]

So it'll be R-rated. :trolleye:

Highly unlikely.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Just once I'd like to see a Trek character drop an f-bomb. Just sayin....

[Andrew NDB]

Just once I'd like to see a Trek character drop an f-bomb. Just sayin....

Did you miss that episode of STD?

uTw6xPVNE4Q

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Have not watched any of it. Not paying a streaming service for one show.... Orville seems more fun in any case.

[TigerClaw]

Have not watched any of it. Not paying a streaming service for one show.... Orville seems more fun in any case.
Given that Discovery is a show aimed at adults, The Orville is more family friendly.

[plastroncafe]

Given that Discovery is a show aimed at adults, The Orville is more family friendly.

Family Friendly like Married with Children was Family Friendly, maybe.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Yeeaaaah, I'm'a say no, Bob. It has a lot of humor and references that are WAAAAY over the heads of kids. They even had an on-screen "sex scene" between their doctor and a gelatinous blob crewman. And officers playing juvenile pranks on one of the other officers by swiping a piece of said blob character and putting it into the food of the officer (an alien crew member) so that he ate it. This is not kid-friendly fare. Unless we want to be explaining what the blob was doing covering the medical chief's body, or any of the other adult situations.

[Andrew NDB]

Patrick Stewart says "Make it so!"

http://www.darkhorizons.com/stewart-open-to-picard-return-for-tarantino/

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Did you miss that episode of STD?

uTw6xPVNE4Q

Say what we will about Discovery, I loved that.

[Andrew NDB]

https://www.cbr.com/tarantino-star-trek-abrams-cast/

Abramsverse? Nooooo... nevermind, go away.

[newfan]

https://www.cbr.com/tarantino-star-trek-abrams-cast/

Abramsverse? Nooooo... nevermind, go away.

So do you think we take this to mean there will not be a 4th Abrahams and Separate Tarantino's maybe?

[Andrew NDB]

So do you think we take this to mean there will not be a 4th Abrahams and Separate Tarantino's maybe?

It sounds like both the Abrams 4th movie and the Tarantino movie will be new Abramsverse stuff.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

It sounds like both the Abrams 4th movie and the Tarantino movie will be new Abramsverse stuff.

Dammit, Quentin... :tgrumble:

[newfan]

It sounds like both the Abrams 4th movie and the Tarantino movie will be new Abramsverse stuff.

Oh, that seems a little odd, no? I mean I get it more if there was no 4th Abrahams, you know, change them up a bit in a new take but 2 in the same verse? Is anything looking definite or are these both still up in the air?

[Andrew NDB]

The only hope is that Quinto misunderstood "how it was presented."

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

The only hope is that Quinto misunderstood "how it was presented."

Yeah.

I dunno, I'd like to think Quentin would want a fresh start... but then, I'm not sold on him doing ANY version of Star Trek, so there's that. :tlol:

[Andrew NDB]

I don't think Quentin would want a fresh start at all. The opposite. As much of a Trekkie as he is, I'd imagine he'd want to dip into what already is and somehow play with those toys.

Though maybe it's like... as he mentions Yesterday's Enterprise from TNG is his favorite episode... it's something like the Abramsverse colliding with the real universe. Maybe it's even the repair everything movie.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I don't think Quentin would want a fresh start at all. The opposite. As much of a Trekkie as he is, I'd imagine he'd want to dip into what already is and somehow play with those toys.

Though maybe it's like... as he mentions Yesterday's Enterprise from TNG is his favorite episode... it's something like the Abramsverse colliding with the real universe. Maybe it's even the repair everything movie.

I don't think there is any repairing everything. The only option I think exists is pretending it never happened, not trying to patch it together with real Star Trek.

[Cure]

Aw, gay. I thought the movie he was working was the fourth one of the new ones. Sucks if it's a different thing.

[NinjaPug]

The cast is the best part of the Abrams movies so I'm cool with QT using them for his ST movie.....although I think there is less than a 10% chance he ends up doing this movie at all.

[Andrew NDB]

Aw, gay. I thought the movie he was working was the fourth one of the new ones. Sucks if it's a different thing.

The previous news was that Tarantino will be directing a Star Trek movie -- some kind of Star Trek movie, with who knows what cast -- eventually (after his Once Upon a Time in Hollywood movie), while Paramount is making a fourth Abramsverse movie simultaneously.

The current news is that the Tarantino movie was "presented" as involving all of the Abramsverse cast. So basically Star Trek 4 and 5 of the Abramsverse are being made, with Tarantino doing part 5.

Lame!

The cast is the best part of the Abrams movies so I'm cool with QT using them for his ST movie.....although I think there is less than a 10% chance he ends up doing this movie at all.

I'd give it 90% odds it happens. Tarantino hasn't ever lobbied to do a franchise movie ever until now. Must mean he's serious.

[newfan]

I wonder if it would be best to do one first and see how it goes seen as they are going down this route. I like this cast so I'd take another movie with them but I was happy to also have something separate also, as prev planned.

Can I ask, did discovery flop? I know people on here didn't like it but was that a wide spread thing? Just wondering why they might be apprehensive for something different?

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

I wonder if it would be best to do one first and see how it goes seen as they are going down this route. I like this cast so I'd take another movie with them but I was happy to also have something separate also, as prev planned.

Can I ask, did discovery flop? I know people on here didn't like it but was that a wide spread thing? Just wondering why they might be apprehensive for something different?

I wouldn't say it's a flop OR a raging success.

But Kurtzmann's contract has been expanded into, like, up to five different Star Trek series. And Stewart's showing interest. And Discovery's getting a second season.

Not sure yet if CBS All Access will be a success, but they're damn sure gonna go big or go home... IF all of this materializes.

[NinjaPug]

The previous news was that Tarantino will be directing a Star Trek movie -- some kind of Star Trek movie, with who knows what cast -- eventually (after his Once Upon a Time in Hollywood movie), while Paramount is making a fourth Abramsverse movie simultaneously.

The current news is that the the Tarantino movie was "presented" as involving all of the Abramsverse cast. So basically Star Trek 4 and 5 of the Abramsverse are being made, with Tarantino doing part 5.

Lame!



I'd give it 90% odds it happens. Tarantino hasn't ever lobbied to do a franchise movie ever until now. Must mean he's serious.

90%? That seems way too optimistic. I hope he does but I'm very skeptical.

Has QT even ever directed anything he hasn't also written?

[Andrew NDB]

Said to "probably not happen for five or six years" because he's doing Once Upon a Time in Hollywood now.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantinos-star-trek-is-still-years-away/

Which doesn't make any sense. That movie will already be released less than a year from now... why would he be occupied for another 4 or 5 years on top of that because of it?

[newfan]

What? :lol: Not that eager to do it then.
Might it also be because the other movie is coming first? If that one is still happening that is.

[plastroncafe]

I'll be over here hoping for that 10% result then.

[Andrew NDB]

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantinos-star-trek-aims-for-r-rating/

Karl Urban confirms that Tarantino wants to work with the Abramsverse cast in his movie.

200% less interested now.

[Andrew NDB]

So even if Tarantino wants to work with the Abrams cast, it will 100% NOT be in the Abramsverse:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantinos-star-trek-to-ignore-abrams-timeline/

That's good news. So it could actually be Chris Pine, etc., aboard the real 1701.

[newfan]

So even if Tarantino wants to work with the Abrams cast, it will 100% NOT be in the Abramsverse:

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantinos-star-trek-to-ignore-abrams-timeline/

That's good news. So it could actually be Chris Pine, etc., aboard the real 1701.

I'd wondered if this ST had been dropped too. I'll take them writing off the time-line change from the others but keeping the crew/actors, if that's what happens or was meant there.

[Andrew NDB]

Crud, it sounds like he's "steering away" from Star Trek. Probably because they're moving forward with that other milquetoast Star Trek movie at the same time.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantino-ditching-trek-for-smaller-final-film/

[Leo656]

I think it's kinda hilarious that anyone really expected this to happen.

I mean, come ON. "R-Rated Star Trek Movie directed by Quentin Tarantino"? That's a pitch-perfect set-up for a bad SNL skit, but not something that ever really had a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.

We will never, ever see Bones exclaim, "God DAMN it, Jim, you motherf***er, I'm a doctor, not a motherf***ing (insert Noun), for f*ck's sake!" And I think it's kind of silly that anyone would think otherwise.

[Andrew NDB]

Doesn't think he's going to direct it, wants to consult and give notes.

https://www.darkhorizons.com/tarantino-wont-direct-may-consult-on-trek/

[Leogeddon]

Now if he took the mantle entirely, I think we would have a wickedly awesome new movie. I've never been a huge Star Trek fan, politics bore me and series based more on the diplomatic approach just doesn't click well but I don't want mindless violence. This may be the first Star Trek movie I'll go see in theaters if it goes well with him as the right hand man

[Leo656]

I like Tarantino, and I appreciate Star Trek, but aside from most peoples' dissatisfaction with the Abrams movies, I'm not sure exactly why this prospect was so appealing. I've seen nothing from Quentin that suggests he'd be a good fit for Trek.

It might be... "interesting", but again, I feel like most of the excitement was simply people being upset about the "Kelvin" films and being welcome to just about anything that wasn't that, whether it made sense or not. Frankly, I think he's as "wrong" for Trek as Abrams was, just from a totally different direction. Just like Tim Burton and Abrams were both completely wrong for Superman, but for totally different reasons.

I think of Tarantino, I think stylized ultra-violence, tons of F-bombs (with the occasional N-bomb for extra "street cred"), looooooooong scenes of dialog that has little to nothing to do with the plot aside from establishing a character's particular "attitude", and close-ups of chicks' feet. NONE of that has a place in Star Trek, so what would he bring to the table, exactly?

I feel like "real Trek" fans are just so starved for something NOT "Kelvin" they'd be open to anything. But frankly, as a fan of Tarantino (mostly), I don't see how this ever could have worked. I'll be honest, from the day it was first discussed, I'm thinking, "Yeah... this isn't gonna happen." And it doesn't sound like it ever really got very far past a few very casual conversations.

[Andrew NDB]

It might be... "interesting"

That's more than you can say about any Star Trek show or movie has been for like 20 years.

[Leo656]

Point taken, but I'm still not sure it would be a good approach.

I mean, wasn't the main gripe everyone had with Abrams's Trek that it was pretty much just "Star Wars with Trek characters"? And I agree with that criticism, by the way; I didn't hate the first Abrams Trek flick (second was eh, skipped the third) and I kind of feel like it was a "necessary" thing to do in order to start getting some attention on the franchise again, but having watched the older films and a string of the original series episodes not long ago, I agree with those who say that what Abrams presented wasn't "really" Star Trek. So while I got more enjoyment out of the first Abrams flick than some - I might like it less if I watched it again tomorrow - whenever anyone shreds it, I don't argue because I feel most of their points are perfectly valid.

I just feel like a Tarantino Trek movie wouldn't ultimately be much different. Like, sure, in style and tone it would be very different; less lens flares and more quotable dialog, probably. Less Beastie Boys and more Stealers Wheel, I guess. But in the end, it STILL wouldn't be "authentic" Star Trek; it would just be another "auteur" playing with their Trek dolls. It would simply be an "auteur" who hipsters have collectively decided shares more of their stylistic principles than Abrams does.

"I like way more Tarantino movies than Abrams movies, therefore I want to see Tarantino direct a Star Trek movie." That's pretty much the entire conversation, it seems. And it ignores the fact that Tarantino has exactly the same "credentials" to direct a Trek movie as, say, Rob Zombie or Tim Burton.

Their respective Trek films might also be "interesting", but I don't think Trek fans are in the mood for an "experiment". Not that I presume to speak for them. I just think that most of them are hoping for something more substantial than, "Well, we've run out of other ideas and that one's just crazy enough to work!"

"Quentin Tarantino doing an R-Rated Star Trek movie" sounds like a Mad-Lib, or a Family Guy/Robot Chicken cutaway gag, not something that would ever actually exist. I think that, much like with what Burton tried to do with Superman, people are in love with or fascinated with the "idea" of the movie, because it's such an outrageous idea on its face, while in fact they'd be pretty unhappy with the actual result if it ever happened.

I mean, I guess anything's possible. I just don't see it. Literally nothing in his entire catalog says to me, "THIS GUY can fix Star Trek."

I DO think, however, that he could pull off a really gritty and realistic "Speed Racer" movie, were he inclined, based on his work in "Death Proof". But that's an entirely different conversation.

[Andrew NDB]

There's a huge difference you're ignoring. Tarantino is a lifelong Star Trek fans. He loved TOS. He LOVED TNG. His favorite episode of anything is "Yesterday's Enterprise." He has an encyclopedic knowledge and love of all things Trek, when Trek was still Trek. That he knows how to make wildly inventive and entertaining movies is a huge bonus.

Now, Abrams? Look it up, from around 2009. "I was never a Star Trek fan, until I got offered this. Then I kind of... eh... glanced at some stuff. But look, I'm big into Star Wars!"

[Leo656]

Which is great, BUT, would Tarantino be able to take himself out of his work to an effective degree for the sake of the larger project? Can he adapt to "blockbuster"-style, studio-driven filmmaking? Would he be willing to make the necessary compromises to even get the thing made? Fan or not, making a Trek movie would be a totally different filmmaking experience than anything he's personally experienced. I'm not sure he'd be up for it, and even if he struggled through it I'm not sure the results would ultimately be satisfying.

"I'm a fan!" frankly doesn't count for much, especially if the "fans" buying tickets decide that they don't like what you're selling. Case in point: Zack Snyder is the only comic book director who's even looked inside of a comic book, and is also a "huge fan", but his style wasn't able to hit a happy medium where it appealed to anyone besides people like me who get everything he references from the books. He knew his material better than the "fans" did, but he was crucified by them (despite most of them not even reading comics in the first place) because he couldn't compromise his own sensibilities enough to create a more populist piece of work that could appeal to neophytes (or "casuals") and small children. The only people who "get" his movies are people who've read a million comics, but that's a very, very, VERY small portion of the movie ticket-buying audience. The vast majority who don't read comics simply yelled that the movies weren't more like a cartoon, even though that wasn't the material he was drawing from to begin with. But it ultimately doesn't matter. He's more of a "real fan" of the material than the people who criticize his work without any framing context, BUT he's not the one buying tickets, and they are. The ticket-buyers don't care about fidelity or "fan-cred", and they'll tell you so out loud; they only care about being entertained.

Therefore, Zack can shout "I'm a huge DC comic book fan" until he turns blue; he's never going to make another DC movie. The producers and ticket buyers alike completely don't care if the filmmaker is a "fan", they ONLY care about whether or not they can make a non-offensive, crowd-pleasing movie with cross-over appeal. If anything, being a "fan" is a detriment, when the current flavor of the moment is "fresh new takes" on things and hard 180-degree turns away from what's established and familiar. That's why Snyder, a devout comic book fanatic, isn't "allowed" to make comic book movies anymore, while Taika Waititi, who has never read a comic in his life, gets to make as many as he wants until the end of time. That's the nature of the business of making films.

Likewise, it wouldn't matter how much of a "real Trek fan" Tarantino is if he can't come up with a product that is acceptable to the producers and the 90% of the current movie audience who's barely ever thought about Trek in their entire lives. Doesn't matter if he can quote every episode of the original series, chapter and verse. As we've seen, Those Things amount for very little in the grand scheme of things.

Studios don't want a "fan" to make these things, because they make decisions that aren't 100% based on selling toys or getting more women into the theater. They want someone who's willing to "play the game" and do it their way. "Fans" - people like Tarantino and Snyder - don't have the ability studios demand from them to compromise. That's exactly why their respective movies have passionate fans and supporters, BUT also why they tend to not do very well when forced to work under a studio microscope and constantly make changes for arbitrary, focus group-based decisions.

If Quentin loves "real Trek", then that's great for him. But it's actually one more reason why he'd never get the job in the first place. OR why he'd just quit in frustration when some suit tries to strong-arm him into making Kirk a chick or Bones into a black guy. For all we know, stuff like that is why the whole thing stalled out as it is. I mean, let's be real; we're VERY close to a studio-mandated reboot with the entire original series cast being played by chicks. I can't see him having the patience for that kind of nonsense, BECAUSE he's a fan. He'd rather let someone else "ruin" Trek if that's what they're hellbent on doing.

I don't know, man. Great filmmaker, I just don't see it. I can't even picture him doing a "bigger" movie in the first place; his whole deal is smaller, more intimate stories. Trek is grand and operatic; I just don't think it plays to his strengths. Hell, I'm the biggest He-Man fan around, and I can spin a decent yarn, but I don't think that qualifies me to write or direct a He-Man movie. I'm fanatical about the material but actually executing it myself wouldn't exactly play to my personal strengths. Nah'mean?

I'm not "ignoring" that he's apparently a big fan. I'm just very pragmatic and feel like that kind of thing ultimately works against him in the Hollywood climate, both in general but especially right now. And also, it's just not his kind of movie, he's never made anything like that at all. It would be an "experiment", and I don't see the studio giving up a $200 million budget for an "experiment".

It's fun to theorize and speculate. But I'm pretty sure that aside from a few casual talks over lunch, this was never even close to actually happening. Just... nothing about it makes any sense, like at all.

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Man, I've got nothing to say. Leo said it all. :tlol:

Can't wait for close-ups on green Orion feet, though. :trolleye:

[Sumac]

Chicks feet fit everywhere!
Even Star Trek. :P

[CylonsKlingonsDaleksOhMy]

Chicks feet fit everywhere!
Even Star Trek. :P

We need foot equality in movies. Why no close-ups on dude's feet?

Somebody should boycott Tarantino over the MALE FOOT GAZE.

[Andrew NDB]

The way I look at it, maybe we get Orion chicks' feet and maybe a Starfleet officer says "F*** this!" at some point in it... so what? Tarantino knows how to make amazing cinema and is a bonafide fan of it, so that's good enough for me. After 15+ years of watching (I can't even say "slowly") Star Trek being warped to suit the lowest common denominator -- whether it's as brain-dead Summer tentpole actioners or SJW drivel on TV -- I think it'd be the potentially biggest and best thing for Star Trek since as far back as I can remember.

And the red carpet was rolled out for Tarantino, bigtime. They were amenable to whatever he wanted to do (and it doesn't hurt that while all of this is going on, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" comes out and is a big critical and box office hit). It just sounds like at some point this, "My 10th movie really is my last!" thing weighed too heavily on him, particularly when he decided, "OK, I'm not going to cop out and say it doesn't... so if I do Star Trek next, that counts as the 10th!" Because Star Trek was never going to be his last film. Plus I think I read that he's taking the next year and a half off of filmmaking, which Paramount might not be too keen about.

[Egon1982]

What if Paul Verhoeven did Star Wars movie?

[Andrew NDB]

So maybe it'll be a mini-series:

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2022/12/0uv2sf1q6h9050qns9ckxpc96pdusn?fbclid=IwAR0q8-i7_zUorQw4dW0tDkNOaGe1f0yz_I3Zhmf7m3r_wxslDKoakLFe 9PQ