Imagine QT making a great Trek film, but it’s not a good Kelvin Trek film. I already foresee this complaint happening, and I’m hitting my head on the desk at warp.
Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
Imagine QT making a great Trek film, but it’s not a good Kelvin Trek film. I already foresee this complaint happening, and I’m hitting my head on the desk at warp.
I did and I apologize
It's a weird line to be sure, and I doubt I can explain it well. My best way is to say how I regard TPM. It's an interesting enough film as long as it wasn't connected to Star Wars.
QT doing the whole "gangsters in space" is an interesting premise but I'm not convinced the tone will carry with it the same optimism that Star Trek is generally known for. It's kind of like asking if Michael Bay would make a good Star Trek film. It's all a matter of tone to me. It's why things like the Borg in First Contact or the bodies in Wrath of Khan sit so out of place. It's body horror that I don't associate with Star Trek.
I take those “gangsters in space” comments with a grain of salt. At least in two different podcasts where he geeked out about Trek, he seemed to have a good understanding and affinity for TOS, TNG, and ST09. He’s certainly more of a casual fan than one that pathetically knows every minutia of Trek like us. Assuming he proceeds with the film, he’ll probably have advisors to help him not contradict continuity of the three films. Even though his recent film is very much a fictional take, it carries a lot of facts and details that are true to Hollywood of 1969, and I’d like to think he’d strive to be as consistent with Kelvin, but perhaps bending a few things if it suits the story he wants to tell.
I’m willing to bet that because of the long gap between films, and presumably a considerable gap in the timeline, will allow him to take a lot of liberties one might not have been able to for a fourth film released so soon after BEYOND. Assuming the Kelvin timeline has ran concurrently with real life, Kirk and crew would have already completed their five year mission by now. So if this comes out as early as 2022, a good six years will have passed.
That’s all assuming Tarantino is somehow able to get Pine and Quinto on board, especially after their contracts expire.
I’m willing to bet that because of the long gap between films, and presumably a considerable gap in the timeline, will allow him to take a lot of liberties one might not have been able to for a fourth film released so soon after BEYOND. Assuming the Kelvin timeline has ran concurrently with real life, Kirk and crew would have already completed their five year mission by now. So if this comes out as early as 2022, a good six years will have passed.
That’s all assuming Tarantino is somehow able to get Pine and Quinto on board, especially after their contracts expire.
I'll believe it when I see it.
Star Trek has been almost everything in it's 55 years. IMO everything's fair game. You never achieve greatness in your comfort zone, and that's exactly why the next Trek movie had to be something bold and different.
(That said, I'd have personally been happy if they churned out Kelvin sequels like they do Mission: Impossible movies. But the public disagreed...)
I trust everyone to be happy when Michael Bay gets his Star Trek, as well as John Carpenter. That should be bold and different.
Regardless, it could be the greatest director of all time and I won't hand them a blank check. QT is no exception.
He is the one who wants to make a kelvin trek film, though. If he doesn't make a good kelvin trek film, fans are entitled to voice criticism.
This surely isn't like tos fans who criticize kelvin trek for not being good tos movies...
Again, you keep on making this bizarre argument that kelvin trek fans are the ones out of place here, or the weird ones with unreasonable expectations.
If his movie is marketed as being part of this trek but it doesn't make much sense with it or ruins it, it's legit and normal that the fans of the first movies can point that up. What makes zero sense is you expecting that kelvin trek fans must be happy regardless just because it's Tarantino, thus a guy you are fan of, or they should share your lack of care and concern for this trek and be willing to embrace a movie that, from a kelvin trek perspective, is a mess. That makes no sense.
And again, this pot/kettle 'freudian slip' of yours may be very telling about your ulterior motives:
It really seems like you don't like this trek and you are just here to bait its fans.
Or how else the sarcastic comment above can even make sense?
Who is resentful? I don't think it's people who like the thing they like and they express concerns when its future seems doomed. Water is wet. This fact isn't against you, but your comments keep on attacking kelvin trek fans on the basis of an unrealistic, unreasonable, expectation you have that fans basically cannot be..fans. That others shouldn't care just because you don't care.
What's the opposite of 'resentful Kelvin film gatekeepers' ? If it's being kelvin trek haters who don't care either way, then of course I can't be that. Tarantino or not Tarantino.
Yeah, not really. Either you take me too seriously or read too much into what I say, or somewhat both. I’ve made my point clear that I have zero preference for what timeline the next Star Trek is set, because a good film is a good film, and that’s nothing but a huge benefit for all of Trek. It’s because of the Kelvin films that the franchise was reinvigorated. It’s because of the Kelvin films that CBS took another interest into Trek and successfully revived it for television.
I’m thankful for the role Kelvin played, and am bummed we may never get Pine and cast to come back for another adventure. They deserved a much longer run than they ultimately got, but I’m thankful they put in as much as they could.
I’m thankful for the role Kelvin played, and am bummed we may never get Pine and cast to come back for another adventure. They deserved a much longer run than they ultimately got, but I’m thankful they put in as much as they could.
People (fans and critics) criticized both into darkness and beyond for not being, for them, very good kelvin trek movies or the sequels they expected. I don't see why it should be any different for Tarantino, or any other director people are fans of, and why he should be put on a pedestal while it was fine and allowed to criticize both JJ and Lin's work so far.
When you decide to work into an established franchise, and in this case make a sequel, you know there are expectations that wouldn't be there if you were just telling your own original story with your original characters.
Again, unless he makes his own reboot with a new cast or he explicitly establishes that it's a prime timeline movie thus not part of this verse.
But if he makes it part of it, people won't be less entitled to criticize him than they were when they criticized the previous directors. Simple like that. He isn't immune to criticism just because someone likes his other movies.
When you decide to work into an established franchise, and in this case make a sequel, you know there are expectations that wouldn't be there if you were just telling your own original story with your original characters.
Again, unless he makes his own reboot with a new cast or he explicitly establishes that it's a prime timeline movie thus not part of this verse.
But if he makes it part of it, people won't be less entitled to criticize him than they were when they criticized the previous directors. Simple like that. He isn't immune to criticism just because someone likes his other movies.
I’ve never said QT is above criticism, only that I think it’s fair to give him a chance like past Trek directors.
The only time I doubted in a director was when Roberto Orci was slated to direct the third, mainly because of his nonexistent career as a director. That was very concerning, as much as concerning as when Fox gave Simon Kinberg a directing gig for DARK PHOENIX, despite his nonexistent career as a director... and look how that turned out.
The only time I doubted in a director was when Roberto Orci was slated to direct the third, mainly because of his nonexistent career as a director. That was very concerning, as much as concerning as when Fox gave Simon Kinberg a directing gig for DARK PHOENIX, despite his nonexistent career as a director... and look how that turned out.
Well said and well thought. what you said is the objective reality.
Again I truly dont understand Malaika deslike for QT, he has not made a trek movie yet.
Also, the reason QT is so easy to support is, he knows how to take a genre and twist it but still keep the essence of the genre. infact I could even make a prediction that QT trek may become a groundbreaking science fiction movie.
People gave JJ a chance and voiced their opinions after star trek 2009 was released, its sad but true that one of the few flaws of 2009 was magnified in into darkness and JJ even admitted he made some mistakes with into darkness. Again this is JJ, who admitted he was not a trek fan. QT is a trek fan. he loves TOS, he loves Kelvin too.
Malaika , were you interested in Orci directing? now this was something not even kelvin and tos fans supported because as Makeshiftpython said, he is non existent as a director, even his screen writing credit is kind of meh, I would not give him a gig to direct a trek movie until he became more experienced as a director and his writing got better acclaim.
QT is already a legend in films, even if I was to say he is bad for trek I think between QT, JJ Abrams, Clarkson and Orci . he is the lesser of ''four bads'' and in no way did I think JJ or Clarkson is bad, JJ was great in 2009 but his directing approach to Into darkness is shallow and this a movie to me that had many poor writing choices and Orci was one of the writers in Into Darkness
He just doesn't understand the whole timeline thing. All that I have read about him doesn't inspire confidence. None, zero, zilch. And the fact that people keep treating him like he should be given the keys to Trek with no preconditions makes me all the more skeptical.
Nor would I. Let's not make this a battle of directors. I am skeptical because of what Tarantino has said and done. @Malaika has linked and quoted him all over the map, and no one is reading it. It's absurd the level of miscommunication and assumption that is in this discussion.
If you support QT Trek without question that's fine. Don't expect me to agree and don't expect others to share the exact same point of view on this director who is considered controversial. It's not "gatekeeping" to be skeptical as to whether or not a director is a good fit for telling a Star Trek story. Otherwise, let's have the horror masters jump in here too. I'm sure Sam Rami's Star Trek will be great too, with all that body horror and violence.
Sam Raimi has branched outside of the horror genre before, so I’m not sure how he makes an example of a unfit director for Trek.
Of all the past candidates, Edgar Wright had me most excited when he was up for Kelvin Trek 3, but I suspect he wouldn’t be much of a ball player for the big studio system, as he couldn’t work with Marvel. I do predict QT will struggle to get his Trek project running.
Of all the past candidates, Edgar Wright had me most excited when he was up for Kelvin Trek 3, but I suspect he wouldn’t be much of a ball player for the big studio system, as he couldn’t work with Marvel. I do predict QT will struggle to get his Trek project running.
Well no one responded to my John Carpenter suggestion so I went a little safer
Regardless, there is no director that I would hand the keys to Star Trek and say "Have fun!" The more I read about QT the more concerns I get.
YMMV and obviously does.
Carpenter would be a very left field choice because I’ve never heard ANY indication of him being a Trek fan and of course he hasn’t had a hit film for a VERY long time, and even in his prime he struggled.
I’ve known QT to be a big Trek fan as long as I’ve been aware of him, so that was always there, even in his uncredited work. If you haven’t seen CRIMSON TIDE, give that a watch. If you always liked the naval flairs in Trek it may be to your liking. He did a lot of uncredited rewriting on that film, his most obvious stuff being direct references to Trek with Denzel calling a technician his “Scotty”. If he actually went that route, we’d be getting the Trek film equivalent of “Balance of Terror”.
I’ve known QT to be a big Trek fan as long as I’ve been aware of him, so that was always there, even in his uncredited work. If you haven’t seen CRIMSON TIDE, give that a watch. If you always liked the naval flairs in Trek it may be to your liking. He did a lot of uncredited rewriting on that film, his most obvious stuff being direct references to Trek with Denzel calling a technician his “Scotty”. If he actually went that route, we’d be getting the Trek film equivalent of “Balance of Terror”.
But that's not the route he has indicated. If that were the possibility then color me a little more optimistic.
Thus far, that's not the indication. It's time travel and Shatner and not understanding time lines and being told "F*** it" by Abrams. I really want that attitude towards a property.
It’s that attitude that gave us ST09, so I think another injection of that could help.
If QT did an 09 then fine. Alternate timeline is fine by me. Again, no indication that's the case.
I mean more in the terms of “fuck it, I’m going to make this my way”, whether that conforms to a timeline or not.
Similar threads
