I’m not saying that your wrong, but this is Quentin Tarantino and Star Trek we are talking about. They are both much bigger properties than some of the names you have citied. Also, I think it’s a great sign that this film seems to have been fast tracked.
Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
I’m not saying that your wrong, but this is Quentin Tarantino and Star Trek we are talking about. They are both much bigger properties than some of the names you have citied. Also, I think it’s a great sign that this film seems to have been fast tracked.
I would love to be wrong, but it's not about how big the property is. It's that the best-laid plans of mice and Hollywood sometimes go astray. And, honestly, Tim Burton's SUPERMAN, Ridley Scott's I AM LEGEND (with Arnold Schwarzenegger), George Miller's JUSTICE LEAGUE, and James Cameron's SPIDER-MAN were equally high-profile projects that fell apart for one reason or another. For that matter, Eddie Murphy comedies were a pretty big deal at the time THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN reboot was in the works.
Heck, the JUSTICE LEAGUE movie was already cast and ready to start shooting when the financing fell part.
None of this is new, btw. By coincidence, I spent the afternoon reading a (fascinating) biography of a now-forgotten silent movie star and, yeah, you had projects falling through or not getting released due to creative differences, legal battles between producers, distribution deals falling apart, etc. Been part of the business since Day One.
Last edited:
Exactly the various negativity is abit baffling. QT rejuvenates various cult or forgotten genres and makes them a big deal again (or for the first time) in the pop culture/box office and remember what he did for the careers of the various stars like Travolta, most of the Res Dogs, SLJ, Waltz etc .. they were either in the doldrums or looking for a break.. well after Beyonds underperformance (and it could be argued STIDs various controversies which may or may not have affected anticipation for Beyond - not imo) Trek needs QT much like Travolta did (although he must've had some reservations about doing some of the stuff he had to do in Pulp Fiction but it paid off)... damnit it needs him... badly
Last edited:
All of these are well known and spoken about to this day. With Burton's Superman Lives and Cameron's Spider-Man in particular there is so much material one could almost believe in a tiny pocket of the imagination they exist! Designs, scripts, casting ideas etc are all out there a Google search away without the actual finished product.
Same can be said even here in Trek, with PHASE II being an idea that still refuses to lay down and die despite TMP and TNG - James Cawley brought ideas into his fan film and even adapted a few scripts, there's the Reeves-Stevens book, there was a comic story in Waypoint with Xon, fan art etc...
I think Tarantino COULD rejuvenate Star Trek and bring in some new viewers. The only thing that's still somewhat bothering me is how to distiguish this project enough from previous Treks for parents to know what they are dealing with.
The brand name Star Trek is widely recognized for its all-age, family-friendly content. And unlike European movie certificates, the R-Rating allows for parents to take their kids. And it is increasingly done that way. Otherwise Deadpool or IT would have never made the numbers they did.
But with these movies, parents knew EXACTLY what they and their kids were up for. This time it might happen that some parents mistake this for generic Star Trek only with a couple of R-Rated features such as profanity, brief nudity or one or two bloody kills, while it MIGHT feature a lot more.
The brand name Star Trek is widely recognized for its all-age, family-friendly content. And unlike European movie certificates, the R-Rating allows for parents to take their kids. And it is increasingly done that way. Otherwise Deadpool or IT would have never made the numbers they did.
But with these movies, parents knew EXACTLY what they and their kids were up for. This time it might happen that some parents mistake this for generic Star Trek only with a couple of R-Rated features such as profanity, brief nudity or one or two bloody kills, while it MIGHT feature a lot more.
Discovery would probably be the way to do that.
The "negativity" are coming from personal concerns that QT usual tone and style isn't consistent with Star Trek's.
A
Amaris
Guest
I just read about this today (sorry, I'm way behind). My initial reaction was "what?!" but the more I think about it, the more it intrigues me. I am not a fan of blood and gore at all, yet I do like a number of Tarantino films. He's a damn good director, and his scripts are always crackling with great dialogue. I have enjoyed all three of the Abrams films, so I'm curious to see where this goes.
Also, it's better than my idea for a Star Trek film:
Me: "So, what do you think of the script?"
Executive: "Mr. Amaris, your script was... interesting."
Me: "So you like it?"
Executive: "Well... there were a number of problems in the original treatment."
Me: "Problems? Okay, we can work through them, what are they?"
Executive: "Well, sir, the biggest issue we found was your lack of dialogue."
Me: "I write decent dialogue, what's wrong with it? Too much exposition?"
Executive: "No... it's..."
Me: "Was the dialogue unnatural, and stilted?"
Executive: "Well, no..."
Me: "Then what is it?"
Executive: "Mr. Amaris, the concern is that you have used too little dialogue. Your script involves Kirk and Spock engaging in a makeout session for 45 minutes, followed by a Spock and Uhura makeout session for another 45 minutes."
Me: "I prefer the show not tell method."
Executive: "I'm aware of that, Mr. Amaris, however, that doesn't negate a necessity for dialogue."
Me: "I made allowances for heavy breathing."
I still think it would make for a great film.
Also, it's better than my idea for a Star Trek film:
Me: "So, what do you think of the script?"
Executive: "Mr. Amaris, your script was... interesting."
Me: "So you like it?"
Executive: "Well... there were a number of problems in the original treatment."
Me: "Problems? Okay, we can work through them, what are they?"
Executive: "Well, sir, the biggest issue we found was your lack of dialogue."
Me: "I write decent dialogue, what's wrong with it? Too much exposition?"
Executive: "No... it's..."
Me: "Was the dialogue unnatural, and stilted?"
Executive: "Well, no..."
Me: "Then what is it?"
Executive: "Mr. Amaris, the concern is that you have used too little dialogue. Your script involves Kirk and Spock engaging in a makeout session for 45 minutes, followed by a Spock and Uhura makeout session for another 45 minutes."
Me: "I prefer the show not tell method."
Executive: "I'm aware of that, Mr. Amaris, however, that doesn't negate a necessity for dialogue."
Me: "I made allowances for heavy breathing."
I still think it would make for a great film.
The last 2 Kelvin movies have been pretty underwhelming. In fact, Into Darkness was really a shameless WOK remake. Maybe Tarantino can breath life into a dying film series.
I'm sorry, since this really isn't on topic, but it really wasn't.
Are you the "on topic" police? I didn't think expressing side opinions that help explain my position on the link in the OP would be such a significant violation.
Since I was apologizing for myself, I don't see the "on topic police" comment as necessary or constructive.
You mean to say that apology was sincere? I had no idea.
It's rare on the Internet but I'm trying to bring it back.
One scene was remade, otherwise the movies were totally different. One was about a madman desperate for revenge at all costs, the other a crooked Starfleet admiral trying to incite war with the Klingons.
Khan's in both, but his motivations are completely different. It's like saying Man of Steel was a remake of Superman II, or The Dark Knight was a remake of the 1989 Batman movie, because they had the same baddie (although in Into Darkness, Khan isn't even the real baddie!)
It is just too funny, still, because Tarantino's main issue with stid is that it wasn't a remake ENOUGH. His ideas for a movie were, at least in that interview for nerdist, remakes of Tos or tng episodes...
Just... no.
Yep, Into Darkness wasn't remotely a KHAN remake, unless I missed the part with Ceti Alpha V, Saavik, the Genesis Device, the Mutara Nebula, Khan blaming Kirk for the death of his wife, Kirk's long-lost son, etc.
Saying that INTO DARKNESS is a remake of WRATH is like saying that THE DARK KNIGHT was a remake of Tim Burton's BATMAN because they both featured the Joker as the villain.
I don't see how that is really important (whether you would prefer to consider it a "remake" or a "reboot"). My real point was that it wasn't very good.
I understand Tarantino's point, because if they had managed to recapture the "magic" (so to speak) of WOK, I obviously wouldn't be complaining. I just think they fell way short of that mark. They borrowed from WOK to make an inferior product (in my eyes).
Last edited:
Similar threads
