Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

[Smellmet]

I just really want more movie trek, which, if I'm honest, is my preferred poison when it comes to trek. I've seen every episode of every series, but I've always enjoyed the movies more. I'd love to see QT do a film with the current kelvin cast.

It could be awesome.

Look how great the film 'logan' is compared to the rest of the xmen movies. It's not necessarily better, but it's really different in style, yet is the highest grossing xmen film bar DOFP. It managed to have a wide appeal whilst still respecting the source material AND being R rated. That's no mean feat for a supposed Hollywood blockbuster.

I often equate the xmen movies in the same vein as trek, in that they are more 'adult' than the marvel films in general, and have some good social commentary going on by and large.

Point being is, the star wars franchise is occupying the general popcorn sci fi/fantasy action crowd at the moment, maybe trek going more 'adult' would be a better fit for the franchise at this time?

It's a risky move in one sense in that it's taking the movie franchise into uncharted territory, but if it happens it's ballsy nonetheless. Surely a QT directed trek film will be a pretty big deal for the whole movie going public no? Or am I overstating the box office potential of this?

 

[pst]

It's a risky move in one sense in that it's taking the movie franchise into uncharted territory, but if it happens it's ballsy nonetheless. Surely a QT directed trek film will be a pretty big deal for the whole movie going public no? Or am I overstating the box office potential of this?

i think you’re right on the money to compare trek at large to the x-men franchise and a potential tarantino trek to logan, or even deadpool.

those films were giant successes especially for R rated films and were made with relatively modest budgets. tarantino’s trek will likely require a fairly high price tag simply due to the nature of the film and that will make it being a hit a bigger hurdle. attach to that the stigma of it being star trek which is not as popular as the x-men universe.

i’m still skeptical this will be made as it’s being described right now. or at all. i suspect paramount will milk the name tarantino attached as writer/producer and water it down with a safer director and PG-13 rating.

but to answer your question, i think an R rated star trek (with or without the kelvin timeline crew) directed by tarantino himself has a bigger hill to climb than logan or deadpool did.

certainly has the benefit of novelty.

 

[ralfy]

No. Not really.

Only if there's a reason other than what I mentioned.

 

[ralfy]

Not necessarily. It could just mean that they want to tell stories using the same characters and setting, without the restraints of established canon. That in no way invalidates the old films; these sit parallel to them, rather than replacing them.

Yes, but what would be a reason for going beyond the canon? Keep in mind that these projects involve large amounts of money, and investors want the best returns.

 

[fireproof78]

Yes, but what would be a reason for going beyond the canon? Keep in mind that these projects involve large amounts of money, and investors want the best returns.

Allowing the original stories to stand on their own laurels while rebooting it without having to rationalize it due to technological and industrial changes as well as changes in the demographic and storytelling.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Frakes talks QT

Frakes: Where do you fall on the Quentin Tarantino story?

RT: Oh. Well, you know, I’m open.

Frakes: Speak frankly.

RT: I’m open to have people experiment and to see what they can do with a thing. What about you? Let me throw that right back at you.

Frakes: I texted with J.J. about it to see what his take was. I wanted to see if I could get the scoop out of him, and he just said it’s going to be wild. I threw it back at him. I’m fascinated. I love the fact that Patrick Stewart played his hand so well and said, “Yeah, I’m available. Count me in.”

RT: When you look at films like Logan and Deadpool, harder is not necessarily bad, you know? We saw some pushback with Discovery dropping the f-bomb, which was a big moment for me as a longtime viewer. I think people who maybe grew up with Star Trek as part of their childhood and have always seen it as a family-oriented property —

Frakes: Yeah, and are sharing it with their family now.

RT: Yeah, and I think it may have taken some of them by surprise to see that kind of profanity.

Frakes: One can only expect more if Quentin’s in charge.


https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/star-trek-jonathan-frakes-on-directing-discovery-death-and-quentin-tarantino/

 

[Ovation]

Only if there's a reason other than what I mentioned.

There are several reasons.

1. Actors have aged out of the part.
2. A fresh creative crew wants to try a new spin on the basic premise.
3. The original (or some earlier) version has themes worth revisiting in a new context.

John Le Carré’s novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy inspired an excellent mini-series and, a generation later, an excellent film. They are not identical but each is a fine adaptation and I enjoy both.

Star Trek is no different. It can be reinterpreted in a myriad of ways and none of them invalidates the other. Not all versions will be equally well received (always a risk with art, commercial or otherwise) but that is no reason to avoid fresh approaches to the basic premise.

“Canon” and “continuity” are NOT required from one iteration to another. The producers (in the largest sense of the term) can choose to follow such parameters, but they are not obliged to do so. Some of the best versions are those unshackled by such constraints.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Star Trek is no different. It can be reinterpreted in a myriad of ways and none of them invalidates the other. Not all versions will be equally well received (always a risk with art, commercial or otherwise) but that is no reason to avoid fresh approaches to the basic premise

I really wish more people thought like this.

 

[Smellmet]

i think you’re right on the money to compare trek at large to the x-men franchise and a potential tarantino trek to logan, or even deadpool.

those films were giant successes especially for R rated films and were made with relatively modest budgets. tarantino’s trek will likely require a fairly high price tag simply due to the nature of the film and that will make it being a hit a bigger hurdle. attach to that the stigma of it being star trek which is not as popular as the x-men universe.

i’m still skeptical this will be made as it’s being described right now. or at all. i suspect paramount will milk the name tarantino attached as writer/producer and water it down with a safer director and PG-13 rating.

but to answer your question, i think an R rated star trek (with or without the kelvin timeline crew) directed by tarantino himself has a bigger hill to climb than logan or deadpool did.

certainly has the benefit of novelty.

Yeah I don't think for a second it will get anywhere near the billion club, but surely 500m plus would be achievable. STID nearly got there, and is probably around that figure in adjusted dollars.

I think it does have a large novelty factor, and the potential to secure a wider audience who are QT fans or even just curious about the project, it being a big departure from his previous work.

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek is no different. It can be reinterpreted in a myriad of ways and none of them invalidates the other. Not all versions will be equally well received (always a risk with art, commercial or otherwise) but that is no reason to avoid fresh approaches to the basic premise.

Well put.

Indeed, GR expected someone to come and bring their own take on Star Trek. The slavish adherence to canoncity and continuity has done the franchise few favors.

 

[Khan 2.0]

I often equate the xmen movies in the same vein as trek, in that they are more 'adult' than the marvel films in general, and have some good social commentary going on by and large.

XMen and JJTrek were also doing similar type box office (until DOFP onwards which was basically XMen: Yesterdays Enterprise)

 

[Danlav05]

XMen: Yesterdays Enterprise)

In reverse?

 

[gerbil]

I feel like Discovery’s tone and the possibility of a QT R-rated movie indicate the caretakers of the franchise(s) have decided to go all-in on existing adult fan base rather than attracting a new demographic. Not necessarily where I’d like them to take it—I’d prefer a Disney-like generational approach—but it’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Repeat viewings by a strong base can help movie returns stay afloat.

 

[Infern0]

What they should make is .......

"Old man sisko"

Imagine a full on QT style ben sisko going on a rampage.

Count me in

 

[F. King Daniel]

What they should make is .......

"Old man sisko"

Imagine a full on QT style ben sisko going on a rampage.

Count me in

Did you watch "The Captains"? Avery Brooks has lost his marbles.

 

[Commishsleer]

QTs premise (on the interview) is two years old.
He's probably changed his mind in two years.

Actor after actor seems keen on Star Trek 4 now that QTs allegedly involved.

 

[Malaika]

Actors want to work, news at 11 lol

I do wonder of the actors of this trek can have a say.
Zachary seems to be pretty proud of the Spock he created, with Nimoy's help too, I wonder what would happen if the next writers and director painted him in a way that is too disconnected from the rest, or they want him to do things or use a language that feels forced for Spock. Do the actors have a say or they have to shut up and accept anything done with their characters?

Frakes talks QT

Other sites also report he gave an advice to QT

"Don’t forget the heart. Before you eat it, don’t forget the heart!”


I dunno about that, I dunno what kind of heart I could expect from that writer and QT.
For me, a lot of this trek's heart is all the character dynamics - but I'm not sure these guys would keep any of those the way they were done in the first movies, if kept at all.
Just because the dudes interact and have some banter, it doesn't mean they have meaningful friendships developed. And for some reason, I think he'd rather show kirk in a sex scene with a character we don't care about, than actually having the spock/uhura relationship developed more and with integrity (I worry they'd turn Spock into a cold robot and vulcan stereotype to use him as comic relief too) I dunno if these guys see feelings, or at least those of a certain nature that in trek we see in all the dynamics, as a distraction or boring sappy stuff to write.
In terms of character arcs, it feels like it's easy to, too easy, to assume there would be revenge plots of some kind (again).

I don't know about Frakes, but I really don't know what to expect in terms of 'heart' ( or what I consider the heart of this trek anyway). So good advice, but it might be easier to say it than doing it.

 

[fireproof78]

Do the actors have a say or they have to shut up and accept anything done with their characters?

It depends. Some actors will build that in to their contract, and others just have will have a discussion with the director, i.e. Mark Hamill.

 

[lurok]

Did you watch "The Captains"? Avery Brooks has lost his marbles.

But they'll just get SLJ as Sisko

 

[Tenacity]

“Canon” and “continuity” are NOT required from one iteration to another. The producers (in the largest sense of the term) can choose to follow such parameters, but they are not obliged to do so.

And of course the audience isn't obliged to give a Star Trek movie a respectible opening weekend, or continue to buy tickets after the word of mouth gets on social media.