Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?

Fair point. Your fan status of Kelvin Trek is safe

We can have Tarantino Trek. I just don't see it being Kelvin Trek with his statements. But, this is all tired argumentation at this point.

 

Well, as with most art, I usually judge the final product rather than pay much attention to statements of intent made in the earliest stages of a project (while I don’t know any famous people in the arts, I do know a fair number of people who write novels, screenplays, plays, and music—their early statements of intent rarely resemble their final output).

 

Since I'm not a fan of QT's art there is little for me to hang my hat on, so to speak.

 

Totally fair.

 

I'm really tired of not hearing anything concrete about this movie. Let's get this show on the road one way or another. If it's happening, let's do it. If it's not, quit stringing us along.

Honestly, right now is a boring time to be a ST fan. I don't like DSC that much, and I couldn't give a shit about Picard, Lower Decks, or Section 31. I need something in the future to be excited about with this franchise.

 

Yeah, it's frustrating either way.

Tbh, Qt is trolling a bit at this point. Now he is saying his last movie might be a horror. ..or it's kill bill 3. Honestly, I cannot imagine why he'd choose trek over other options. He isn't enough into the franchise or the genre.

With the talks about the merger, who knows what will happen to kelvin trek btw. They could either let it die for good or cbs finally takes advantage of the thing current TV trek is imitating anyway. If the latter happens, I'd think that if they are willing to put more money into kelvin trek stuff they'd surely want to hire people who understand the material and most important, they are likely to follow the (their) rules.

 

It would be interesting to see what he does with it. The guy's a master film maker obviously, but he's got a well defined style and it'll be fun to see how he incorporates that into such a well defined universe (either timeline).

 

QT wouldn’t consider Trek his 10th film, as he’d regard it as his “franchise film”. That’s also why he’s talking up KILL BILL 3 because he’d just lump that with the other two.

In my opinion, I don’t take his ten film thing very seriously. If he decides to break that then I don’t think anyone would complain. He’s welcome to do what he wants with his career.

 

yeh hes probably going to do Trek and KillBill 3 as non inclusives (hes already played around with his number of films by counting KillBill 1 and 2 as one film and pretty sure there something else that dosnt quite fit either). then as his '10th' movie - maybe a horror film he talked about doing recently (I can imagine him doing something like The Shining was to Kubrick)

 

I don’t get Malaika’s argument that he’s not fit for the sci-fi genre when his whole career has been about expanding to different genres. First film he was involved in after doing two consecutive crime thrillers? FROM DUSK TIL DAWN.

 

What is to get? He has never done sci-fi before nor he seems to be inspired by it or have a genuine, nerdy, interest in space etc. I'm ok about being proved wrong if that will be the case but, so far, the assumption he can be great in this genre is more baseless than the opposite supposition.
The fact he doesn't even get what these movies are about (eg quantum mechanics) is, again, concerning because it might indicate a laziness and a default clueless, shallow approach to the genre that a wannabe director of these movies cannot really afford. And I'm not even mentioning the fact he seems very far away from everything that makes trek ..trek, in terms of themes and positiveness, inclusiveness etc.

I think some people really underestimate the sci-fi genre; it isn't for everyone.
It isn't just a matter of experience, if you aren't really into it and very inspired by it, a lot of aspects you have to care about in this kind of movie might become like. ..utter torture. Boring. Exhausting.
Even starting from the basics...I can't rationally imagine him having fun working with the special effects guys, or having to care about how the ship looks or whether the warp effect is realistic.. having to consult with experts, just the simple fact you have these characters who are supposed to work in space into a reality where humans are not and cannot be the only 'people' ..it isn't simple. You gotta be really into it and this guy doesn't seem to like the genre, in general.
It's easier to imagine him altering trek to fit his preferred genre (as he's already suggesting with his comments) than him genuinely wanting to embrace the big challenge of directing a movie that is outside his comfort zone and his patterns.
Besides, this isn't an original movie.. he'd need to work into an established franchise. Not so easy for his ego.

Honestly, I think Lin was uninspired too and he was new to the genre as well. The fact he chose to destroy the ship asap and have only two scenes in space might, maybe, suggest an attempt from his part to 'escape' from those aspects of the genre that directors with more experience would embrace more because they feel genuine excitement about them. I think even among fans, not all of us would genuinely love to make one of these movies. Watching them isn't the same as working on them.

 

Honestly, it just sounds like you’re looking for reasons to call him unfit at this point. I mean, you’re actually concerned of the screen time of being set in space and you’re assuming Tarantino can’t handle that for some reason? And you’re guessing that was Lin’s issue? Trek has done a ton of adventures where the primary location was on an alien planet as opposed to just them traveling in a space ship.

I will concede that Tarantino seems to have far more investment in the character work than really far out sci-fi stuff, but that could work to his advantage if the character stuff is compelling enough. After all, most people fell in love with Trek through the characters. Without strong characters, all you have is milquetoast like ENTERPRISE.

 

It seems you are looking for reasons to call him a good fit, instead. And yet, his own comments about this movie, as well as his curriculum, should be considered enough to make someone like me pause and think he is unfit.

I'm making examples to convey a wider point. The point being that sci-fi doesn't seem to be his comfort zone and something he is very into. He doesn't even make the effort to understand the material. I don't want to repeat the same argument again (weren't you tired of reading me? Yet, you bait me into the same argument again lol), but I don't see any evidence from his comments that he truly wants to do something very different and adapt himself to this franchise. I only get the sense he wants to make the usual Tarantino movie with some trek in it, and this doesn't make me particularly interested, nor I consider it wise for paramount&co now.

Part of my point is also taking this genre and the kind of work directors put into this kind of movies.. very serioustly. I have a feeling many understimate it.


Anyway, with the merger being official now I have no idea what will happen to the film side of trek.
Some assume they will do away with the kelvin timeline either way and give all control to Kurtzman&co, others believe that a new tos reboot (thus a prime timeline prequel movie with kirk&co) would be too soon and conflict with the continuity of current TV trek in a way kelvin trek cannot (and it already shares a link with the Picard series). It might be considered way more convenient to have a movie reboot of kirk&co into a different continuity and keep trek as an expanded multi-verse.
I believe cbs recognized the success of the movies, had the merger happened years ago I'm not too sure current TV trek would still be all about prime.

Honestly, as a fan of this trilogy it's frustrating from all sides either way, right now. Uncertain future, only some teasing about Tarantino who doesn't even get this trek so even if his movie is made, I wouldn't get what I want that is a continuation.

 

The only reason the Kelvin timeline exists was so Abrams could do whatever he wanted without having to tip toe continuity of past Trek, and that gave the filmmakers a lot of creative freedom. I don’t think there was THAT much interest in creating a whole new timeline to rival the longevity of Prime, as it would have only lasted as long as the Pine cast went on to make films. After that, who knows? Only QT seems interested and that’s only because he wants to use Chris Pine and the cast, as he sees them as a mere variation of TOS as opposed to a fully independent thing. Given where BEYOND left the crew, they certainly don’t feel as different from TOS as they were in 2009.

 

Having more freedom without messing up with established canon isn't half bad and I think even now, this is a more safe reboot of the tos characters, with far more potential, than having to make a prequel of tos where you are forced to retcon things to follow the same continuity of the TV shows.
I don't think discovery is more valid just because they claim it's prime. It's as AU as the movies are, the latter are just more honest about that fact.
Spock especially will never make sense to me as a prequel of Nimoy's Spock, unless he will lose his memory at one point and thus regress. Both discovery and kelvin trek ultimately position their Spock as the guy he became in the movies, not really the one we see in tos. This is OK for kelvin Spock because he is allowed to evolve sooner and differently. Not so logical for discoSpock, though, who can't solve his conflict decades earlier.
Spock is a great example of those characters that can be loved yet misuranderstood at the same time by people who either romanticize his delusions in tos( and pretend that perfect, resolved, in character Spock is the guy who tries to pass for a Vulcan only and pretends he has no feelings).. or they simply forget how he was in tos (the flawed beginning of his journey as a character) and only remember the movies (the end of that journey when he finally accepts himself more).

Either way, the idea everything can fit with one continuity just because you put the prime timeline label on it is, well, an illusion in either case. Modern trek iterations cannot and will never create new things all the while trying to still make sense with a TV show made in the 60s.

I beg to differ. Even if one were to only watch beyond, only if you never watched tos you'd think the characters are the same.
I don't think ignoring the characters stories is good writing. Things happened in these movies that have everlasting consequences and not just on the characters. There is no point in making more movies with this cast if you are going to completely dismiss their stories and pretend the first movies are pointless. Tarantino's movie would be, then, all the more useless in his standalone contribution to a franchise that desperately tries to stay relevant and have a future.

I think, after the merger, now more than ever those who own trek cannot afford to hire creative teams that don't know the material or don't want to follow the different continuity, especially if they want TV and film trek to make sense together and not conflict with each other. Especially if they want their thing to have some sort of integrity. Tarantino retconning the prime timeline that Discovery already retconned isn't a good idea.

Be careful about what you wish for, anyway. Tarantino is known for being someone who loves to rewrite history and change things. I don't think he has issues about rewriting tos even in big ways. Those who assume that if he pretends kelvin trek is a prequel of prime then everything will be restored to tos and be like the old thing, might be wrong.
Tarantino loved the first movie, he only dislikes the actor who plays Khan in stid. Outside of that, he doesn't seem to have issues with jj destroying vulcan and other differences (or really he wouldn't enjoy the first movie much). I think Tarantino more than anyone isn't a guy who will care about canon like tos purists who hate kelvin trek do. Those who hated JJ should be more worried than ever...

 

Huh? Where was it confirmed he wants to use the kelvin cast?

 

As I’ve said, I just want a story so good that whether it takes place in Kelvin or Prime is irrelevant. It would be kind of interesting to see him use the Kelvin cast but blend both timelines together in some way, as if to suggest what timeline it takes place is less important the story being told. Call it purely a standalone feature that’s supposed to serve as a tip of the hat to all Trek.

Well now, time for you to play catch up.

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/0...-movie-will-be-set-in-the-chris-pine-timeline

 

That doesn't say he wants to use the Kelvin cast, just the kelvin universe. (And maybe the cast could show up in it, but Tarantino made no comment about that at all.)

It certainly doesn't say the Kelvin cast is the only reason he wants to do Star Trek or the only reason he wants it be Kelvin universe.

ETA: I found a different article which more fully quoted him and the parts the above article omitted do make this idea sound more plausible, but his speaking style is still so vague and confused it's hard for me to say for sure. Maybe he really wants to work with them as Kirk and Spock or maybe he's just really enthusiastic about how good a job they did before but his movie doesn't actually require them.

 

I think the cast are probably the least of Tarantino's worries - they're all pretty good, for my money.

Although I do find funny the idea that he's going to recast with all his 'regulars'. Harvey Keitel as Bones anyone?

 

Tarantino has a reputation for a foot fetish so it got a chuckle.

At least worth a quick grin, nearly a laugh.