nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Next Star Trek movie discussion

starvin

http://www.slashfilm.com/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie/

Quentin Tarantino in talks about the next Star Trek movie.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

PhiloCypher

The path of the Federation is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish Ferengi and the tyranny of the Klingons. Blessed is the Captain who, in compliance with the Federation charter, shepherds the weak through Borg Space, for they are truly Starfleets finest, and the finder of new species. And we will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious diplomacy those who attempt to poison and destroy our member planets. And you will know our name is the Federation Starship Enterprise when we launch our photon Torpedos upon thee!

pixelburp

I couldn't think of a writer less compatible with Trek than Tarantino. It's all well and good having a big name at the helm, but they should at least be a good fit for the franchise. This all sounds like a horrendous idea myself; the Kurtzman/Orci scripts will suddenly seem like peak Trek in comparison.

The_Valeyard

Picturing Kirk, smoking a cigars smelling of whiskey, with a samurai sword and machine gun for a leg slicing up and shooting Klingons, blood all over the walls, with an epic quote.

Completely bizarre.

dilallio

starvin wrote: »

http://www.slashfilm.com/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-movie/

Quentin Tarantino in talks about the next Star Trek movie.

They're going to need another 50 science-officers ...

TherapyBoy

At least the soundtrack will be awesome.

DivingDuck

This is like when you hear about pregnant women eating burgers with ice cream on them or something: I love both of those things, but the prospect of putting them together seems really wrong.

That said, I don't give a toss about the future of the Kelvin timeline, so I would actually find this hilarious and I'd be curious enough to give it a watch.

degrassinoel

TherapyBoy wrote: »

At least the soundtrack will be awesome.

just thinking that myself, but yeah, this sounds like an awful, awful idea.

What's the bets Uma Thurman will be in it?

TherapyBoy

degrassinoel wrote: »

What's the bets Uma Thurman will be in it?

Barefoot no doubt!

Slydice

Mr Blonde and Policeman Nash at Tanagra :eek:

murpho999

Joking aside, is it really a bad idea?

Last film was awful and very non-Star Trek.

Tarantino is an intelligent writer and has shown in the past that he is capable of directing different genres from War, Martial Arts and Westerns and not really doing bad at all.

There would be certain things he'd have to conform too and I think he could produce a better story line with better dialogue.

sheesh

did you see sign outside my house that said dead klingon storage Worf?

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Joking aside, is it really a bad idea?

His voice & approach to narratives is all wrong for the franchise; you say he has turned his hand to different genres, and ostensibly that's true, but you'd never mistake The Hateful Eight for anything other than a Tarantino movie. His dialogue has a very specific ear of that hyper-exaggerated 'realistic' style you find in all his films. That just wouldn't work in a suite of films that swing between glorified submarine thrillers (Which to be fair, does remind me that Crimson Tide showed Tarantino can write for action), or just big blockbuster thrill rides that typify the latterday series. Indeed, Tarantino's films are full of tropes & idiosyncrasies - from the soundtrack choices, the foot fetishes etc - and none of those would sit within the world of the Federation.

You might as well suggest David Lynch direct a Trek movie for all the sense it makes; yes it's a bizarre, heady mix that's kinda enticing in its own way, but in reality they don't gel together.

Now, Denis Villeneuve directing a Star Trek; yes please. There's a director with a unique vision and set of creative sensibilities that work in many genres, but doesn't let those overwhelm the story on-screen. But as I said when he was rumoured to direct for Star Wars, that'd mean he had to abandon the Dune adaptation, and I'd much prefer that.

murpho999 wrote: »

Last film was awful and very non-Star Trek..

Disagree 100%: it had some big plot holes, choppy action sequences & a rushed last act, but '...Beyond' was the most blatant example of an episode of Star Trek TV transplanted to the cinema since 'Star Trek: Insurrection' - only this time being actually fun & enjoyable. I genuinely don't get the hate for it: it was the first of the rebooted franchise that actually remembered to have its crew explore strange new worlds and maintain a utopian vision of the future.

Mickeroo

t's a strange matchup but I think he's more versatile than his own films let on. Would be very interested to see how he handles an existing franchise with a few more constraints to deal with.

Didn't he write Crimson Tide? The most acclaimed Trek film was basically a submarine movie so who knows....

murpho999

pixelburp wrote: »

His voice & approach to narratives is all wrong for the franchise; you say he has turned his hand to different genres, and ostensibly that's true, but you'd never mistake The Hateful Eight for anything other than a Tarantino movie. His dialogue has a very specific ear of that hyper-exaggerated 'realistic' style you find in all his films. That just wouldn't work in a suite of films that swing between glorified submarine thrillers (Which to be fair, does remind me that Crimson Tide showed Tarantino can write for action), or just big blockbuster thrill rides that typify the latterday series. Indeed, Tarantino's films are full of tropes & idiosyncrasies - from the soundtrack choices, the foot fetishes etc - and none of those would sit within the world of the Federation.

Don't you think Tarantino is intelligent enough to realise that too? I'm sure he knows what he can and can't do.
Also, I'd say the script would be written with a team of writers for balance.

You might as well suggest David Lynch direct a Trek movie for all the sense it makes; yes it's a bizarre, heady mix that's kinda enticing in its own way, but in reality they don't gel together.

I think Lynch and Tarantino are completely different ideas.

Now, Denis Villeneuve directing a Star Trek; yes please. There's a director with a unique vision and set of creative sensibilities that work in many genres, but doesn't let those overwhelm the story on-screen. But as I said when he was rumoured to direct for Star Wars, that'd mean he had to abandon the Dune adaptation, and I'd much prefer that.

Agree about Villeneuve. I really liked Blade Runner 2049 and Arrival.

Disagree 100%: it had some big plot holes, choppy action sequences & a rushed last act, but '...Beyond' was the most blatant example of an episode of Star Trek TV transplanted to the cinema since 'Star Trek: Insurrection' - only this time being actually fun & enjoyable. I genuinely don't get the hate for it: it was the first of the rebooted franchise that actually remembered to have its crew explore strange new worlds and maintain a utopian vision of the future.

Well this is all down to opinion but I didn't enjoy the last one as it was far too action based for me and didn't really stick to the idea of Star Trek of encountering new life and worlds.

pixelburp

murpho999 wrote: »

Don't you think Tarantino is intelligent enough to realise that too? I'm sure he knows what he can and can't do.
Also, I'd say the script would be written with a team of writers for balance.

I get what you're saying, but honestly? I'd kinda think he may not know what he can't do; I have a feeling Tarantino kinda believes his own hype, seems surrounded by Yes Men like Eli Roth, and his output becoming increasingly self-indulgent. A little steering of his work would go a long way, as when you watch something like Jackie Brown and compare it with Inglorious Basterds, I genuinely think his work has gone backwards.

Anyway...
The original article said Abrams was going to set up a writers room, so presumably how much involvement Tarantino will have depends on the approach of that environment; if he's just an ideas man and takes a backseat to the actual writing, he may just be on the 'executive producer' level of production. Even if he's actively writing there's space for subtly, but the article suggests he may direct too, which is where I have my concerns that Tarantino's vision clashes with Trek's.

murpho999 wrote: »

Well this is all down to opinion but I didn't enjoy the last one as it was far too action based for me and didn't really stick to the idea of Star Trek of encountering new life and worlds.

Sure, but you say that like the previous 2 films were more in keeping with Trek, whereas to me '...Beyond' felt like a conscious attempt to address the imbalance caused by the splashy, blockbuster-blammo of 2009 & Into Darkness. Little moments like Kirk/McCoy's whiskey with Kirk's late-father felt like something more akin to the Shatner films; the stuff on the alien planet a bit of a mess, but more aligned with the Away Team adventures of ToS.

Like you said, all opinion, but Beyond seemed like a course correction than a total dive off the cliff

Goodshape

So apparently this is moving fast; the writer of The Revenant is likely to get the screenwriting job, Paramount have agreed to an R rating, and Tarantino eager to direct.

http://deadline.com/2017/12/quentin-tarantino-star-trek-r-rating-mark-l-smith-the-revenant-drew-pearce-lindsay-beer-jj-abrams-1202222161/

I'm... not holding my breath on this. But I am paying attention :eek:

Evade

I can see it now. Kirk and Spock held captive by a couple of unsavoury Romulans and one says to the other "bring out the Reman gimp."

pixelburp

The writer of The Revenant? An R-rated Trek film? This story is getting weirder and weirder; I'm simultaneously fascinated but at the same time utterly against this enterprise (pun may have been intended).

In all seriousness, where should / could the films go at this stage? They've been retrofitted as this big blockbuster franchise, and with the best will in the world I can't see Tarantino wanting to direct a blockbuster in the mould they exist now. Apart from Beyond, they've also been quite wedded to brainlessly mining franchise nostalgia, so surely narratively that'd be the first thing to change.

Thinking back on the series from the 80s, IIRC Wrath of Khan was made for a 1/3 of the budget of the previous film, a relative B-movie by all accounts yet look what that yielded. To my mind, the path to success for the cinematic Trek franchise may be to do the same: pare back the budget and make some modest, mid-tier adventure films without any of the bloat (in general nobody wants to make mid-tier budget blockbusters anymore -it's quite bizarre).

In that respect, someone like Tarantino, a clearly creative mind who gets much out of relatively modest budgets, would excel.

Blazer

Quarantino would be awful for Star Trek.
In fact I think the last 3 films should be written out of history and the original timeline restored.
Who should really be given a shot is McFarlane. He’s doing a fantastic job with the Orville and is the closest I’ve seen to Star Trek since Enterprise. I do enjoy Discovery despite my doubts about it but the 3 movies need to be gone.
Discovery could still fit into the original timeline somehow and there’s plenty of centuries to cover the Federation or even a spin off dealing with the Romulans and the Vulcans etc.

Goodshape

I'm not sure Tarantino would be a natural fit but I'm not opposed to the idea of an auteur-driven, "R-rated" if need be, Trek film.

It's a big universe and all that. There's room for different styles and stand-alone films. I think it's been reclassified as PG since but I always remember Wrath of Khan being a 15 (equivalent to an R, though maybe not a Hard-R) and it did no harm there!

You've also got recent franchise films like Logan and Deadpool to show that not every film in a series needs to cater for the same audience.

Tarantino's recent films have been so self indulgent though. Not sure I really want to sit through ~3 hours of Trek in that style, but maybe he'll pull it out of the bag. Certainly more interesting than another Kurtzman/Orci/Abrams adventure.

Blazer wrote: »

Who should really be given a shot is McFarlane. He’s doing a fantastic job with the Orville and is the closest I’ve seen to Star Trek since Enterprise.

Oh, god, come on. No. Enterprise wasn't good. We're not going to recapture that TNG magic again. We had that, it was great, it's there to watch and enjoy forever. I think we can try something new now.

I enjoy the Orville a lot but that's, at least partially, because it's not Star Trek. It's able to twist those expectations a bit and make something familiar, yet definitely new.

Blazer

I only refer to Enterprise since it was the last series featuring the original timeline

I love Tarantino films except for the hateful 8 which was awful rubbish and a movie would be interesting but not a tv series by him.

You might be right about the Orville. It’s different but familiar and you can see that McFarlane is a huge Trekkie at heart. I never even realized he’d been in a few episodes before on Enterprise.

Evade

Will this film have the JJverse Enterprise crew or new characters? Or has that not been confirmed yet?

SterlingArcher

Frankly the old startrek was bizarre.the way William Shatner spoke in dramatic pause .. I was under the illusion that's how it got it's cult following. no?

What you might get here is something magnificent. A brilliant new take to rival star wars? If I was to guess the business thinking behind the decision.

All in all you may get Something that can transform being a star trek fan as something that isn't sneered at by anyone who isn't a virgin.

The last part is tongue in cheek. Put the bat'leths down.

starvin

https://trekmovie.com/2017/12/08/patrick-stewart-would-play-picard-for-tarantinos-star-trek/

Apparently Mark Smith (The Revenant) is going to be writing the first draft, and a Trek icon is very supportive of the idea

Agent Coulson

Patrick Stewart has said he would play Pickard again if it meant a chance to work with Tarantino.

eyerer

Samuel L Jackson as Spock. Mother****er.

Justin Credible Darts

https://gazomg.deviantart.com/art/Quentin-Tarantino-Star-Trek-Original-Series-718932814

Kirby

eyerer wrote: »

Samuel L Jackson as Spock. Mother****er.

The needs of the many.....can go f*ck themselves!

degrassinoel

Klingon Muthaf**ker, do you speak it?

AMKC

murpho999 wrote: »

Joking aside, is it really a bad idea?

Last film was awful and very non-Star Trek.

Not at the last film was very enjoyable and as another poster said the most like Star Trek TOS or even Insurrection.

Tarantino is an intelligent writer and has shown in the past that he is capable of directing different genres from War, Martial Arts and Westerns and not really doing bad at all.

There would be certain things he'd have to conform too and I think he could produce a better story line with better dialogue.

I am not keen on him directing a Trek movie I think there is better directors out there that could and hopefully would do a good job. Saying that if he does get it and Patrick Stewart comes back I would go see it.

pixelburp wrote: »

His voice & approach to narratives is all wrong for the franchise; you say he has turned his hand to different genres, and ostensibly that's true, but you'd never mistake The Hateful Eight for anything other than a Tarantino movie. His dialogue has a very specific ear of that hyper-exaggerated 'realistic' style you find in all his films. That just wouldn't work in a suite of films that swing between glorified submarine thrillers (Which to be fair, does remind me that Crimson Tide showed Tarantino can write for action), or just big blockbuster thrill rides that typify the latterday series. Indeed, Tarantino's films are full of tropes & idiosyncrasies - from the soundtrack choices, the foot fetishes etc - and none of those would sit within the world of the Federation.

You might as well suggest David Lynch direct a Trek movie for all the sense it makes; yes it's a bizarre, heady mix that's kinda enticing in its own way, but in reality they don't gel together.

Now, Denis Villeneuve directing a Star Trek; yes please. There's a director with a unique vision and set of creative sensibilities that work in many genres, but doesn't let those overwhelm the story on-screen. But as I said when he was rumoured to direct for Star Wars, that'd mean he had to abandon the Dune adaptation, and I'd much prefer that.

I think I would prefer Christopher Nolan or Rian Johnson to direct one.

Disagree 100%: it had some big plot holes, choppy action sequences & a rushed last act, but '...Beyond' was the most blatant example of an episode of Star Trek TV transplanted to the cinema since 'Star Trek: Insurrection' - only this time being actually fun & enjoyable. I genuinely don't get the hate for it: it was the first of the rebooted franchise that actually remembered to have its crew explore strange new worlds and maintain a utopian vision of the future.

Agree totally and it had heart as well and emotion especially in the way it payed its respects to two great actors to the franchise that died that year.
It certainly done it far better than the new Star Wars film has for Carrie Fisher.

Evade wrote: »

Will this film have the JJverse Enterprise crew or new characters? Or has that not been confirmed yet?

Not confirmed yet most of it is just rumours at the moment.

I think Rian Johnson would do great at directing a Star Trek movie and that's what he was thinking of when directing the latest Star Wars movie.