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

Gbear

I kinda don't see what the point of Star Trek films are anymore.

1 ST film is good, 2 or 3 are ok. The rest are, let's be quite honest, fairly ****e.
The bar isn't that high, so I don't think there's any element of betrayal if they want to keep shoveling out passable action-adventure guff.

If they want to explore more intelligent sci-fi stories, that's another matter.

Starships have been the focus of the series, but maybe if it wants to stay relevant, it needs to take a step back from that. Most of the worldbuilding that's gone on has been in space and the institutions that govern it, across various species. That's a tiny area to look at, when most of the entities living in the ST universe are living on planets that have barely been explored.

Maybe they need to reexamine the utopia itself and see whether that really stands up to scrutiny as an idea.
There might be something relatable to our own fears about automation, having a sense of worth in a post-work society, how people actually behave in a world of post-scarcity.

They adapted that Altered Carbon show for Netflix and it was a bit more Blade Runnery in it's outlook, but it was interesting looking at the effects of that society on even the most wealthy and powerful and how they lose their humanity when faced with immortality and post-scarcity.

Star Trek has tended towards villains that are evil aliens trying to destroy the Federation, or fascists within, and that happens again and again in all the TV series and the films.
Maybe they need to have a closer look at the "good guys" and see if they really are that.

Evade

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

Well, by "they" I meant the fans. Certainly the studio were looking for a more mainstream audience but I was just suggesting that, to the general public, Trek is still considered a bridge too far into Sci-Fi (Lightweights )

Sorry, I misread that part I quoted.

I don't think Star Trek fans stand out in the way you described, just look at the reaction to the Last Jedi. As for nerdiest, is there a Star Trek version of the 501st/Rebel Legion? Because they're pretty nerdy.

pixelburp

So to echo what was already mentioned in the general thread, the CEO of Paramount announced that there are 2 new Trek films in the works. No more details than that, but considering Trek's movie future was effectively in limbo in the wake of '...Beyond', at least until the Tarantino rumours popped up, that's quite the sudden turnaround.

I guess there's little chance of them appearing this side of 2020 at this rate, but one can only hope that Paramount gets its act together

pixelburp

Star Trek 4 has a director... SJ Clarkson. Never heard of her tbh, and mostly a TV director, which is not immediately exciting news, but it at least confirms it's happening for real; and a TV based career probably points to a certain efficiency and ability to work around tight budgets / schedules.

https://news.avclub.com/jessica-jones-s-j-clarkson-set-to-become-first-female-1825581585

Pauliedragon

Space, the final frontier. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of the evil Romulans.........................

Evade

Marvel's had a decent amount of success with directors that have mostly done TV before.

pixelburp

Marvel don't really look for any kind of directorial vision in their films though; like 'em or loath em, the franchise has a distinct, consistent approach from film to film, and part of that has involved hiring directors with a minimal cinematic footprint or vision. Now they all do fine, professional jobs but they sure as hell don't stand out from each other - bar perhaps the few films directed by genuinely creative, established directors (such as James Gunn or more recently with Taika Waititi).

I'm not pretending to be an expert on the psychology of studio executives, but my impression of hiring TV directors tends to that there's a belief they're professionals who'll get the job done with a minimum of fuss & within budget, and part of that usually implies a lack of ... creative fussiness or vision that might inform other directors - such as the David Finchers of this world. The really cynical point of view is that TV directors (or as is equally often, the first-time indie directors) who get propelled into a big Hollywood job tend to be easier to control and manipulate too. *

On balance it's probably a good decision tbh; Trek 4 probably needs to be a runaway success at this stage, and I'd suspect Paramount are keen to keep the budget down; if Clarkson is another one of these frugal TV directors then she'll be part of the strategy for a cheaper Trek vs. good box office - and hey, it worked for Wrath of Khan, with a slashed budget and (relatively) newcomer at the helm.

[*] Not that it always works mind you: Josh Trank & the Fantastic Four reboot is a cautionary tale of putting a Hollywood franchise in the hands of what the studios thought was a starry-eyed newcomer.

Sleepy

Lets be honest, modern Television often trumps modern movies in terms of quality and the money going into large scale HBO / Netflix series has lead to many directors prefering to work in that medium. Many talented directors, e.g. Neil Marshall who has done amazing work on Game of Thrones are happy working with both mediums.

Evade

I was thinking of the Russos, Cap 2 was very good.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

Star Trek 4 has a director... SJ Clarkson. Never heard of her tbh, and mostly a TV director, which is not immediately exciting news, but it at least confirms it's happening for real; and a TV based career probably points to a certain efficiency and ability to work around tight budgets / schedules.

https://news.avclub.com/jessica-jones-s-j-clarkson-set-to-become-first-female-1825581585

I think that is great. Hopefully she is a Star Trek and Sci-Fi fan as well. Hopefully she gets a decent budget it does not have to be huge just enough so she can make a great film and with a good advertising promoting budget as well as that was one of the biggest failings of Beyond. It was badly promoted.
What does that mean for Quentin Tarantino do? Does it mean he will direct the one after this one or they will be making two side by side? Interesting times ahead for Star Trek and at Paramount.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sleepy wrote: »

Lets be honest, modern Television often trumps modern movies in terms of quality and the money going into large scale HBO / Netflix series has lead to many directors prefering to work in that medium. Many talented directors, e.g. Neil Marshall who has done amazing work on Game of Thrones are happy working with both mediums.

Yes absolutely. Movies are now mostly throwaway pap for maximum return, whilst a lot of TV series on netflix are amazing in terms of quality. I loved Altered Carbon.
As an aside, I always found that ST TV incarnations and films bucked that trend.
Many of the TV episodes of any incarnation of ST are more thoughtful, philosophical and rely less on action and explosions than the movies. Just watch a few old episodes of TNG with non-Trekkies and watch them sit there with a look of utter puzzlement on their face as they wait for spaceship battles and laser firefights.
ST movies 1-6, whilst uneven, are a mixed bag between philosophical ST and action movies, but later have turned to pure action, to cater for people with irreversible brain damage from about 23728364 Fast and Furious movies.
Fair play for making the same movie 7 times and still selling it to the people, but it had an unhealthy effect on everything else.
Cinema is pumping out the same product in different packaging for as often as people are willing to leave their brain at the door and cough up the money.
Star Trek to me is TOS, TNG, VOY and DS9 and maybe the movies I to VI. The rest is kind of a tribute band and has nothing to do with true Star Trek, so it's kind of irrelevant what they do.

pixelburp

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Yes absolutely. Movies are now mostly throwaway pap for maximum return, whilst a lot of TV series on netflix are amazing in terms of quality. I loved Altered Carbon.

I agree broadly with what you're saying ... buuuuuut TV is just as guilty as cynical shallowness as movies. Netflix is in a desperate race to be King of the TV Streaming Hill, green-lighting a host of shows that are open attempts to get its next 'viral' sensation ala House of Cards or Stranger Things.

Material like Altered Carbon also betrays a general tactic among channels, openly attempting to copy the 'Game of Thrones' shape of a vaguely high-concept setting, with lots of unrated sex, nudity and violence. Maybe TV isn't as prone towards set-piece rollercoasters ala Hollywood, but it sure is guilty of ramping up the tits & gore at the drop of a hat. Altered Carbon was a show that never took off for me; 10 episodes of scene-setting, interspersed with leering excuses for flexible morality and sexual violence.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Many of the TV episodes of any incarnation of ST are more thoughtful, philosophical and rely less on action and explosions than the movies. Just watch a few old episodes of TNG with non-Trekkies and watch them sit there with a look of utter puzzlement on their face as they wait for spaceship battles and laser firefights.

To be fair, TNG has not aged well, and it has nothing to do with attention spans or laser fights; intellectualism and spaceship battles are not mutually exclusive concepts, but a lot of TNG's back catalogue was a blend of bad scripts, flimsy characterisation, and muddled resolutions. When it hit the gold standard, we got 'Chain of Command', when it didn't ... we got 'Sub Rosa'. As for contemporary shows, look at The Expanse: it doesn't possess the same steer towards philosophising as Trek tried to, but it's a smart, mature show set in space - complete with epic space battles.

The Black Oil

Never heard of Clarkson before this. Her TV background doesn't bother me. I mean, they were going to hand the previous one to that Orci eejit who hasn't directed a damn thing.

AMKC

So it looks like the Tarantino Star Trek movie will not be set in the JJ Verse but maybe in the Prime Universe which would be good.

https://screenrant.com/star-trek-tarantino-movie-timeline/

AMKC

According to Simon Pegg now both these movies are being developed simultaneously.

https://www.cinemablend.com/news/2420941/why-two-star-trek-movies-are-being-simultaneously-developed-according-to-simon-pegg

Hopefully a bit of something for everyone. So maybe both JJ Verse and Prime Universe.

pixelburp

One's surely going to get made over the other; given the perceived underperformance of Beyond, I can't see Paramount fully green lighting 2 separate Trek films...

... unless one got dropped on Netflix or something. The Kelvinverse one playing in cinemas, with the Prime universe one going to streaming. I dunno, it all seems a bit odd to me.

Justin Credible Darts

with the movie right being held by one company, and the tv rights held by another is it any wonder the recent trek incarnations have being manky-as-****.

Look at the state of the klingons in discovery due to copyright issues with the original klingon look.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

One's surely going to get made over the other; given the perceived underperformance of Beyond, I can't see Paramount fully green lighting 2 separate Trek films...

... unless one got dropped on Netflix or something. The Kelvinverse one playing in cinemas, with the Prime universe one going to streaming. I dunno, it all seems a bit odd to me.

It is a strange one but I do not mind at all. You would think doing the JJ Verse one first and then the other one would make more sense. I do however think that getting another JJ Verse film to do well is going to be a lot tougher than when any of the last 3 films.
If the do decide to make a film just to go straight onto Netflix or whatever I do not have a problem with that.
We will just have to wait a see but at least we have something to speculate and talk about until we do get official confirmation of what is happening and the name then of the film or film's.

AMKC

Well it looks like Paramount Pictures and Skydance Media have hit a stumbling block on the new 4th jj verse movie as both Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth have walked out of talks over it as both are demanding more money. Chris Hemsworth I can understand as he most definitely is an A-list actor but Chris Pine to me is still only a B-list actor. Paramount insist it is still a top priority and that will it go ahead. Maybe it is time for Paramount to rethink or revamp the movies.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-4-chris-pine-chris-hemsworth-talks-fall-1133802

pixelburp

I had read it wasn't 'more' money, but they want the same money the original contracts agreed from the 2009 reboot. Paramount are obviously on a cost-cutting purge given the relative failure of rebranding Trek into an action franchise lasted about 1 movie, with both Chrises are sticking to their guns. I could see Hemsworth walking considering he was only a bit-player and it's not impossible to recast George Kirk; Chris Pine will probably get what he's looking for.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

I had read it wasn't 'more' money, but they want the same money the original contracts agreed from the 2009 reboot.https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-4-chris-pine-chris-hemsworth-talks-fall-1133802, with both Chrises are sticking to their guns. I could see Hemsworth walking considering he was only a bit-player and it's not impossible to recast George Kirk; Chris Pine will probably get what he's looking for.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-trek-4-chris-pine-chris-hemsworth-talks-fall-1133802

Id say it lasted about 2 movies but that's where they blew it and lost a lot of fans. Fans and new trekkies went to see the second movie because there was so much hype for it but came out angry and disappointed. The sad part is it started of good but then went downhill. There was potential for a good movie in it if they had of had a new villian and not one that was done before.

I could see Hemsworth walking considering he was only a bit-player and it's not impossible to recast George Kirk.

Maybe they will decide not to do that and instead do a different story and maybe it would be for the better as we all know how head wrecking and messy time travel movies can be and how easy it can be to make a mess of it if they get it wrong.

pixelburp

Not really much of an update, but Tarantino did mention his Trek script in a recent interview for SlashFilm:

I feel like I have to ask this even though I don’t know if you’ll want to answer. But are you going to make a Star Trek movie? Is there any truth to that?

It’s a very big possibility. I haven’t been dealing with those guys for a while cause I’ve been making my movie. But we’ve talked about a story and a script. The script has been written and when I emerge my head like Punxsutawney Phil, post-Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, we’ll pick up talking about it again.

https://www.slashfilm.com/hateful-eight-netflix-miniseries/

So there you go; the script is written as far as Tarantino knows, but there has been zero movement. Yeah, I suspect Movie Trek is a dead duck.

AMKC

pixelburp wrote: »

Not really much of an update, but Tarantino did mention his Trek script in a recent interview for SlashFilm:

https://www.slashfilm.com/hateful-eight-netflix-miniseries/

So there you go; the script is written as far as Tarantino knows, but there has been zero movement. Yeah, I suspect Movie Trek is a dead duck.

I would say fir the moment yes its a dead duck. It could come back in the future do. They just need the right time, right moment and the right person to direct it.

I was never to keen on a Tarantino Star Trek film and I have seen plenty on facebook say the same. Saying that I might have given it a chance if it was at least respectful to the franchise and not like the JJ films which I think did more harm than good as they were just made to get a quick buck and were short sighted. They also did no favour by leaving it so long between the 2009 film and ''Into Darkness'' and then trying to do a vilan that was done already in ''Into Darkness''. As I said before they should have came up with a new villan and the film might have been better as it did have potential but I prefer to forget about it now. If they had of went from the 2009 film and then to the ''Beyond'' film 2 years later it would have been better and then a film after that.

Not really much of an update, but Tarantino did mention his Trek script in a recent interview for SlashFilm:

He mentioned it somewhere else too.

ManOfMystery

So who is Samuel L Jackson going to play?

"I have had it with these motherf**king Klingons on this motherf**king starship!!"

Rawr

ManOfMystery wrote: »

So who is Samuel L Jackson going to play?

"I have had it with these motherf**king Klingons on this motherf**king starship!!"

"The path of the righteous Starfleet Officer is beset on all sides by the inequities of the Ferengi and the tyranny of Cardassians. Blessed is he who, in the name of the Prime Directive and good will, shepherds the weak through the Neutral Zone, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost starships.

And I will strike down upon thee with great phasers and furious torpedoes those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is The Emissary when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Goodshape

Justin Credible Darts

ManOfMystery wrote: »

So who is Samuel L Jackson going to play?

"I have had it with these motherf**king Klingons on this motherf**king starship!!"

https://www.deviantart.com/gazomg/art/Samuel-L-Jackson-in-Celebrity-Star-Trek-522573080

Rawr

Justin Credible Darts wrote: »

https://www.deviantart.com/gazomg/art/Samuel-L-Jackson-in-Celebrity-Star-Trek-522573080

Seeing that, now I'm just imagining how awesome some of Sisko's more bad-ass moments would have been like with Jackson in the role

Anteayer

Quentin Tarantino?

It'll be all about the Emperor from Discovery then! She's the only one close to a Tarantino character.

Kirby

I can see it now. A redshirt is tied to a chair as a Klingon takes a bat'leth to his ear.....while Klingon opera plays.