Next Star Trek movie discussion

Evade · 04-04-2018 1:12pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Anthology series, TV or Film, are a very tough needle to thread & more often than not don't work out - especially Film series where any major success or failure tends to destroy the whole idea (see the Halloween franchise & its infamous third film, that tried & failed to make the series an anthological one).

A traditional film release might not work for it but maybe the future of Star Trek films would be more suited to Netflix or something similar. I'd be happy if every couple of years we got a BSG reboot length Star Trek mini series on Netflix instead of a feature film.

garbo speaks · 06-04-2018 9:22am

Villeneuve would be perfect for a real thought provoking, high-concept Star Trek film. Just consider how refreshing and intelligent Blade Runner 2049 turned out to be. Sadly though, it did commercially poor, so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

AMKC · 06-04-2018 11:08pm

garbo speaks wrote: »

Villeneuve would be perfect for a real thought provoking, high-concept Star Trek film. Just consider how refreshing and intelligent Blade Runner 2049 turned out to be. Sadly though, it did commercially poor, so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

I do not believe that at all.

I think the film just needs to be promoted swell and if that means not letting critics in to see it before it is released so be it. Promote the film well show some action not all of it a little humour but not fake or forced like what was in some of the new films. There is plenty of humour in Star Trek from Data to Worf to Picard or Riker they could all be funny and had funny moments at times it just need to be done well and right.

I would love to see the Breen in a film. Not sure how. Maybe a starfleet ship gets lost in Breen space or attacked by rogue Breen or something. Anyone else any ideas how it could be done?

Evade · 06-04-2018 11:35pm

AMKC wrote: »

I would love to see the Breen in a film. Not sure how. Maybe a starfleet ship gets lost in Breen space or attacked by rogue Breen or something. Anyone else any ideas how it could be done?

After a disastrous first contact (to fill the big Hollywood action quota) with the Breen Confederacy a ship is dispatched to open formal diplomatic relations and negotiate the release of any survivors. Maybe one, or a group, of the released survivors want a little payback and almost drag the Federation into an all out war with the Breen. Throw in the diplomatic ship having to work with the Breen to track down the renegades like in TNG's the Wounded But that would probably involve a previously unseen ship and crew and I don't see a film introducing a new crew as the main cast.

TheIrishGrover · 09-04-2018 10:39am

Have the Enterprise destroyed by sabotage in first 10 mins (For the trailer) and have them all stranded on an Earth-like planet trying to figure out how it happened and who is responsible (This conspiracy could lead to a multi-movie arc). Get Shane Black to write and direct (Which will mean that it will have to have Robert Downey Junior in it and it will have to be set at Christmas of course). Have it a character-driven piece instead of spectacle.

The only problem is is that Sci-Fi fans can be a crazy bunch, prone to bouts of toxic fandom. Any deviation of the norm is often met with the most vocal and repugnant hostility: Witness the hostility and negative spamming that the last Star Wars movie received. Look at the horrific racist and sexist abuse the women of the (very entertaining) Ghostbusters remake received.

So who would want to direct that? "Strand them on a planet? Where is the "Trek" in that you **%$$% hom$"££" piece of $£""%&^*. That director knows NOTHING about Trek. He's a %"%"$£% $%$%"""£*

And god help us if a WOMAN should direct. So I think the issue is that they are not going to rock the boat too much because, ironically, of the "fans"

garbo speaks · 09-04-2018 11:39am

AMKC wrote: »

so from Hollywood's point of view in order to be successful, any big-budget sci-fi movies need to be mindless action-filled nonsense, populated by characters who make witty jokes every 30 seconds.

I do not believe that at all.

The highest grossing films in Hollywood support my claim.

pixelburp · 09-04-2018 11:50am

Blade Runner 2049 turned a profit though (albeit a small one that scarcely allowed execs to retire on), and anyone who seriously believed the film might be a giant blockbuster hit was ... foolish, to be charitable. It was a wonder Villeneuve managed to blag $150 million from the studio in the first place, just so he could make a sequel to a niche, cult film from 1982 (and let's be honest here, it has always remained thus, despite its sky-high reputation).

If the metric of discussion is that a new Trek film needs to compete in the stratosphere with all the other blockbuster behemoths - then Trek will always fail, and this was my argument a few posts back.

There's plenty of scope & room for intelligent, mid-budget sci-fi to exist in the mainstream; hell, the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise proves that even medium budgeted blockbusters can compete handsomely - if treated with a modicum of care, and respects the audiences' intelligence. Just off the top of my head there are films such as Arrival, Annihilation, Ex Machina, Edge of Tomorrow, The Martian, Under the Skin (though I personally didn't like this film), Looper, District 9, Moon, Snowpiercer - all proving that there's space for 'intelligence' in successful sci-fi.

Paramount just need some balls to admit that Trek is NOT blockbuster fodder and retrofit the franchise to suit.

TheIrishGrover · 09-04-2018 12:49pm

It certainly does seem strange that Trek has not capitalised as much on the current resurgence of interest Sci-Fi has received. Sure, the vast majority are Super Hero movies but Star Wars films raking in 1.3 - 1.7 billion? Why are they not achieving anything near that? It may be that Trek is just that step too far into Sci-Fi for the mainstream. Certainly, talking to co-workers of mine, that seems to be the consensus: They will happily go to a Marvel movie and can't wait for each Star Wars movie but when I asked them about Star Trek: "Did you see the latest movie, or do you watch Discovery?" the answer is usually "Nah, that's a bit too nerdy for me" (That was a direct quote from two people).

I mean, the Trek fandom is, by a country mile, the most known (And ridiculed). It is the most visible and loyal: Is there a term for a Star Wars fan? Or a Marvel fan? I don't know. I wonder....... I wonder could it actually be to the detriment of the franchise financially. I wonder would the Paramount bean counters actually think "Y'know, the fans are great but maybe if they dialed it back a little bit we might get a larger audience"

Please note, I am not slagging the fans at all here. But, too the mainstream, they are certainly considered the "nerdiest" and a film needs to have a huge mainstream audience to really rake in the cash

Evade · 09-04-2018 12:57pm

TheIrishGrover wrote: »

I wonder would the Paramount bean counters actually think "Y'know, the fans are great but maybe if they dialed it back a little bit we might get a larger audience"

Isn't that what they did with the JJverse?

TheIrishGrover · 09-04-2018 1:01pm

Evade wrote: »

Isn't that what they did with the JJverse?

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

)

Gbear · 09-04-2018 1:23pm

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 · 09-04-2018 1:30pm

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 · 26-04-2018 10:57am

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 · 26-04-2018 11:15pm

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 · 26-04-2018 11:31pm

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 · 26-04-2018 11:35pm

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

pixelburp · 27-04-2018 9:41am

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 · 27-04-2018 9:41am

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 · 27-04-2018 11:06am

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

AMKC · 27-04-2018 12:14pm

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 · 27-04-2018 12:27pm

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 · 27-04-2018 1:51pm

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 · 27-04-2018 10:18pm

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 · 27-04-2018 11:26pm

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 · 17-05-2018 8:50pm

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 · 17-05-2018 9:01pm

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 · 17-05-2018 9:53pm

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 · 17-05-2018 11:21pm

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 · 11-08-2018 11:58am

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 · 11-08-2018 12:04pm

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 · 11-08-2018 12:14pm

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 · 02-05-2019 2:28pm

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 · 02-05-2019 3:19pm

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 · 02-05-2019 3:25pm

So who is Samuel L Jackson going to play?

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

Rawr · 03-05-2019 12:04pm

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 · 03-05-2019 12:10pm

Justin Credible Darts · 06-05-2019 6:34pm

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 · 06-05-2019 7:11pm

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 · 07-05-2019 2:02am

Quentin Tarantino?

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

Kirby · 10-05-2019 6:11am

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.

pixelburp · 23-07-2019 2:19pm

Tarantino popped up in a podcast to shed some light on the story of this phantom film: seems like the timelines may yet get even more tangled; Tarantino seems to hate the 2009 reboot, but more interestingly he apparently spoke to Abrams, who in turn disowned that deviation. So in case you didn't already hate the "John Harrison" nonsense, even those who came up with it don't have the backbone to own it.

Well, it’s an idea then we got together and talked it out and then we hired Mark Smith, who did [The] Revenant to write the script. I don’t know how much I can say. The one thing I can say is it would deal with the Chris Pine timeline. Now, I still don’t quite understand, and J.J. [Abrams] can’t explain it to me, and my editor has tried to explain it to me and I still don’t get it...about something happened in the first movie that now kind of wiped the slate clean. I don’t buy that. I don’t like it. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t — f*** that...I want the whole series to have happened, it just hasn’t happened yet. No, Benedict Cumberbatch or whatever his name is is not Khan, alright? Khan is Khan. And I told J.J., like, ‘I don’t understand this. I don’t like it.’ And then he was like, ‘Ignore it! Nobody likes it. I don’t understand it. Just do whatever you want. If you want it to happen the exact way it happens on the series it can.

Rawr · 23-07-2019 2:26pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Tarantino popped up in a podcast to shed some light on the story of this phantom film: seems like the timelines may yet get even more tangled; Tarantino seems to hate the 2009 reboot, but more interestingly he apparently spoke to Abrams, who in turn disowned that deviation. So in case you didn't already hate the "John Harrison" nonsense, even those who came up with it don't have the backbone to own it.

Based on that quote, it seems that he wants to do another Prequel, but one that is in line with the established universe of Trek (not JJ-verse).

I'm kind of very sick of prequels at this stage. If he really does go ahead and make a movie I'd hope he'd move the story forward. Maybe he doesn't want to re-hash Kirk & Co. and instead wants to do his own thing that just happens to be set within the Star Trek universe?

FutureGuy · 24-07-2019 10:29am

John Harrison was an absolutely fantastic character. Until he became Khan. All went to horse-**** at that point.

There were snippets in trailers that heard him saying “your commanders have committed a crime that I cannot forgive”

I still believe that a decision was made during filming to turn Harrison into Khan and some reshoots were done.

AMKC · 24-07-2019 6:36pm

FutureGuy wrote: »

John Harrison was an absolutely fantastic character. Until he became Khan. All went to horse-**** at that point.

There were snippets in trailers that heard him saying “your commanders have committed a crime that I cannot forgive”

I still believe that a decision was made during filming to turn Harrison into Khan and some reshoots were done.

John Harrison was an absolutely fantastic character. Until he became Khan. All went to horse-**** at that point.

I also agree with that and have said it here before too. The beginning of Into Darkness is not bad and there is some good parts to the film but it was utterly ruined by trying to do Khan again. They should have left him as Harrison and he could have been another augment maybe one that was also around at the same time as Khan or even a clone maybe that the bad Admiral had made.

I also agree there must have been reshoots done.

pixelburp · 19-12-2019 10:12am

In a recent interview, Tarantino looks to be already backing out of his Trek project:

So, what’s next? Are you really going to stick to the 10 films?

Yeah, that’s the idea.

Is Star Trek going to be part of that?

I think I’m steering away from Star Trek, but I haven’t had an official conversation with those guys yet. [...]

To me, it sounds like he's not really invested in the production at all, so methinks if this happens at all it'll be without active involvement from Tarantino - with the script doubtlessly edited far beyond his original treatment;

https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/12/filmmaker-of-the-year-quentin-tarantino/2/

ManOfMystery · 19-12-2019 10:49am

Part of me is hugely intrigued by the thought of a Tarantino ST movie, but another part of me thinks that his unique signature way of storytelling and film making just wouldn't work with that kind of property. Like handing production of a Scorcese flick over to Michael Bay, or asking Christopher Nolan to do a short comedy. Some directors have certain sensibilities and are better suited to certain works.

But what do I know. Spielberg's name was synonymous with 80s family friendly fare for a long time, then along came Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

AMKC · 19-12-2019 10:34pm

pixelburp wrote: »

In a recent interview, Tarantino looks to be already backing out of his Trek project:

To me, it sounds like he's not really invested in the production at all, so methinks if this happens at all it'll be without active involvement from Tarantino - with the script doubtlessly edited far beyond his original treatment;

https://consequenceofsound.net/2019/12/filmmaker-of-the-year-quentin-tarantino/2/

Part of me thinks good as I do not think he would do it right but if he did do it right maybe it would be great for Star Trek as being Tarantino 10th and last film could make it a huge hit at the box office.

ManOfMystery wrote: »

Part of me is hugely intrigued by the thought of a Tarantino ST movie, but another part of me thinks that his unique signature way of storytelling and film making just wouldn't work with that kind of property. Like handing production of a Scorcese flick over to Michael Bay, or asking Christopher Nolan to do a short comedy. Some directors have certain sensibilities and are better suited to certain works.

But what do I know. Spielberg's name was synonymous with 80s family friendly fare for a long time, then along came Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

I always thought Star Trek is better when it is a mature, intelligent movie aimed at adults and people who want to think and question what is happening in the movie unlike say a Marvel or a Star Wars film. If Tarantino could make a Star Trek movie like that then great I am all for it but if its just guts, swearing and violence then no thanks.

TheIrishGrover · 20-12-2019 10:50am

I do like Tarantino when he is good (He is quite hit-and-miss in my opinion). But even at his best I don't think his tone would suit Trek at all. What, we gonna have "Photon Torpedoes - when you positively absolutely kill every motherf*ckin' Klingon in the room, accept no substitute"

If they want to go down the celebrity director route then offer it to someone like Christopher Nolan or Denis Villneuve or someone similar if you want cerebral, interesting and visually stunning Trek. Give it to Katheryn Bigelow if you want visceral action Trek. Give it to Ben Affleck or Steve McQueen if you want Thriller Trek..... Hell, give it to Taiki Waititi if ya want mental Trek. I believe each of those directors would bring a more interesting take on Trek that Tarantino ever would (With the exception of Waititi. I love the guy's stuff but I don't want him to direct EVERYTHING and he was just there for a joke really). I always thought Tarantino was a poor choice. And let's face it: Did anyone really think it was ever go into production?

odyssey06 · 20-12-2019 10:53am

I don't think Tarantino was a good fit for Trek, certainly not for Starfleet, maybe for a film that focuses on the Orion Syndicate

Would like to see what he would do in a more general scifi\futuristic setting.

Rawr · 20-12-2019 11:28am

odyssey06 wrote: »

I don't think Tarantino was a good fit for Trek, certainly not for Starfleet, maybe for a film that focuses on the Orion Syndicate

Would like to see what he would do in a more general scifi\futuristic setting.

That's the thing, I have often felt that a movie about something / someone else in the Trek universe might be really interesting, especially if we're talking about a one-off story and not a weekly Trek show following a Starfleet crew. I'm a sucker for good world building, and I have enjoyed it when Trek would occasionally give us a view of non-Starfleet life in the 23rd Century.

If I were to make such a story myself I keep imagining a short war thriller set during the Dominion Occupation of Betazed. It would be a sort of Micheal Collins style story following Betaziod resistence fighters being forced to take up arms against the Jem Hadar and the Vorta. I know there was an Extended Universe Book about this (which I haven't read), but I fell like stuff like this could make for a good film if done right.

Next Star Trek movie discussion

Comments