Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

I dunno if they are smarter or it might be actually that simple to understand for people who don't have a particular attachment to tos, or don't think too much about all the details. In a sense, reboots/remakes are perceived as being AU of the original by default and with that assumption already, most of the audience and casual viewers might simply think, which is the truth, that this is like any other remake with the only difference they made it canon that it's an AU.
In either case, I don't think they'd perceive it all as something that needs to get 'restored' or something.



If people really need a time travel storyline (I personally don't need it/I'm not interested), I think that what they could do - in respect of this canon and the kind of time travel devices used here - is a scenario where this crew goes back in time and creates another reality ('creates' is our definition. They'd just access to a parallel reality that 'already exists') where some things didn't happen (such as the kelvin accident or the destrouction of vulcan).
It wouldn't be a 'restoring the timeline' thing but, rather, they'd essentially find themselves doing what Spock Prime did and, like him, face the risk of being unable to get back to their own reality and thus get 'stuck' into this other.
Like Spock Prime, their reality wouldn't merge with the other one and they wouldn't replace their counterparts from another reality. They'd co-exist with that other version of the characters just like Spock Prime didn't replace kelvin Spock and he co-existed with him.
This is the only scenario that would make sense for the rules of this trek, IMO, hopefully with a twist that in the end, unlike Spock Prime, they do find a way to get back to their own reality.

 

I could see Tarantino Trek breaking $500m worldwide, assuming it's a quality film that enjoys tent-pole type marketing and strong WOM. The media buzz and free advertising hype surrounding this project would be enormous.

Ideally --and to me what's perhaps the most exciting aspect about this -- a commercially and critically successful Tarantino Trek would make the Trek franchise attractive to other renowned directors. A fun and creative installment could really reinvigorate perceptions toward the franchise in many ways. And before someone says that a certain big-name director wouldn't ever direct a Trek film, I'd say that Tarantino is one of the most unlikely choices possible so if Tarantino would, anyone could be on the table.

And as far as this project falling apart and never actually being made, that's very possible. But who would stop it? Paramount is definitely in no financial shape to reject a Tarantino project. Why would they do that? If they did, they're basically choosing to end the JJ-Trek film franchise because JJ has already given his thumbs up and Bad Robot will follow suit. So why would Paramount just choose for this Trek to die instead of taking a chance with one of the most acclaimed directors in a generation? Doesn't make sense. Tarantino could pull back of course, but it sure seems like he's expended a lot of energy and time already toward creating this concept. He likes it and wants to do it. The coupling of Trek and QT seems so unorthodox that a lot of people just assume it won't ultimately happen, but all the contextual factors surrounding the project would indicate that no one wants to stop or is in a position to stop it should Tarantino want to do it.


Bring it on. Couldn't be more excited.

 

You only have to look to Logan to see how this could be made to work.

 

Creative differences. Budget issues. Changes in management. Scheduling conflicts. You know, the usual.

Not trying to be a spoilsport here, just pointing out that nothing is definite yet. Hollywood is strange; sometimes projects come together with amazing speed, but sometimes they can get stuck in development for decades. Look at THE ALIENIST; it's only just now hitting the screen (as a TV mini-series) after being in development as a film for at least twenty-four years, nearly a quarter of a century after the book was a big bestseller.

 

It doesn't help that Paramount has suffered yet another box office flop with Downsizing.

 

As I always warn authors when their books get sold to Hollywood, "Many are optioned, but few are filmed." I've known authors to (literally) grow old and die waiting for the much-promised movie version of their book to happen. And many is the cover blurb, "Soon to Be a Major Motion Picture," that proved to be less than prophetic.

So, yeah, I take a "wait and see" attitude these days. It's encouraging that a script is being written, but . . .

 

This could be great. We could finally get a majority black cast than the usual dominant Caucasian casting if it's not a sequel to Beyond..

 

I'm optimistic about this movie, but I was thinking the other day that it still hasn't yet made it as far along as STAR TREK: PLANET OF THE TITANS or STAR TREK: THE BEGINNING did.

 

I'm still waiting for the new Blakes 7

 

Never under estimate the power of ego, unfortunately.

 

We could do an entire thread on much-hyped movie and TV projects that never materialized. Remember the RED SONJA reboot with Rose McGowan? They were giving out advance posters at Comic-Con a few years ago, but the movie never happened. Or BARBARELLA with Drew Barrymore? And wasn't James Cameron talking about remaking FANTASTIC VOYAGE at one point? Or how about THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN with Eddie Murphy? That was in the works for years before Universal let go of the rights. Then MGM was circling the property, with talk of doing a serious remake, but things have been quiet on that front for some time now.

And I'm still waiting on that STAINLESS STEEL RAT movie they've been talking about forever . . . .

 

A TV series based on Terry Pratchett's City Watch series was announced a few years ago. I'm quite sad that never eventuated.

 

Still waiting although not holding my breath on the HIGHLANDER reboot or a new MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE film. I can't even remember how many times they announced actors/writers/directors for these two projects alone... The STARSHIP TROOPERS reboot/faithful adaptation... And then there's Schwarzenegger's KING CONAN/THE LEGEND OF CONAN movie where we always were so close and yet so far away...

 

Yep. They've been dangling that one in front of us ever since the oceans sank Atlantis . . .or so it feels like anyway..

Speaking of whom, the Ridley Scott version of I AM LEGEND (starring Arnold) was actually in pre-production when Warner Bros. got cold feet and pulled that plug. That one I really thought was going to happen . . . and was surprised when it fell apart at the last minute.

 

Movies are really hard to get going. So much is about the "package" and trying to get script which will attract talent and the financing and the distribution deals. Person A is available for period B, and you get backing contingent on their involvement, and when it doesn't happen fast enough their availability window closes and now you have to go through the process again with next actor or director or what have you. I worked on a film project that almost happened but one of the two main backers failed to pony up their X-million euros when the greenlight date hit. That kind of stuff happens all the time.

 

I once made the mistake of acquiring the rights to a book because a movie was supposedly in the works and was going to start filming any day now. Long story short: I postponed the book again and again, waiting for the movie to happen, finally broke down and published a hardcover edition, then a paperback edition, which eventually went out print. In the end, I reverted the rights to author, who died several years later. Still no movie . . . .

Mind you, it was a good book which would have made a great movie.

 

Tarantino would attract talent.

 

Who?

You mean the guy in the late night lawyer commercials?

 

I don't think its about "restoring the timeline" that makes the money, I think throwing in a bunch of popular characters and making it a one time event. It seems like the films have diminishing returns, so they're taking a risk with a Tarantino movie, why not bring back old characters? Though it all comes down to what Tarantino/JJ want.

 

what about, I don't know, actually developing the many characters they already have in this trek and add some original new faces since they are at it? Clearly the audience wouldn't be interested about that...
3 movies in and honestly, we barely saw these characters getting the chance to be their own and have their own story. It seems like for some people these movies should be just a greatest hits compilation of tos homages and a means to only see the old stuff again, or give old actors a chance to make derailing cameos. It's like an accidental metaphor about how for all our collective preaching about the future and making things better, we still can't let go of the past and move on, and thus truly embrace the future, or let it be. I feel almost pity for these actors (saved for Urban because he clearly is happy to make just an impersonation) because frankly they never really got a chance.

anyway, Tarantino seems to already consider this crew and group a hindrance, I'm doubtful he'd want to bring back even more 'old characters' in the mix when according to him it's an issue to have too many characters. It would be 'something' if he keeps all the remaining group tbh.
I'm worried, along other things, he'll just turn it all in the usual, clichè, Kirk's show (where Pine is, of course, only allowed to play Shatner), essentially making him his Leo Di Caprio .. or his own Luke Skywalker.