Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

Your analysis is interesting and I appreciate how well written it is.

However, as with most things, my concerns with QT are outweighed by the fact that the studio still has final say. Not saying that QT doesn't have an established style but directors and writers in Hollywood also have to, have to, conform to studio expectations. If it doesn't fit, there's the door. Paramount has all the leverage here and not QT.

Depends on the role that JJ has, as well as the weight JJ has with Paramount.

 

Paramout is in totally unharted territory. No one would've believed Tarantino would ever be a part of star trek before. Thefact that paramount is bringing him in (with an r rating) automatically calls into question whether they want the franchise to remain recognizable in the first place. They may be looking for a radical shift that would make trek a phenomenon again - and doing so by hiring Quentin Tarantino to do exactly what he's known for doing.

Now - maybe they aren't. There is no definitive proof yet either way. But 'trust in Paramount' is a meaningless argument when we have no real idea what Paramount actually wants, beyond money.

 

I know what Paramount wants-money. Pure and simple. They understand that, far better than any of us will and what drives that brand. I'm not saying so much "Trust Paramount" as I'm saying "QT isn't the final say in the matter."

The fact that Abrams is involved also gives me some measure of guarded optimism.

I simply am not willing to jump to any conclusions at this point.

 

after the rather boring buzz free Beyond cant blame Paramount for turning to Tarantino to get some interest going again. the 50th ann movie should've been an absolute buzzathon of a movie. the biggest Trek movie of all time (something like Dr Who 50th meets the Bring Back Kirk video. Orci was probably on the right track) . instead they quickly cobbled together a quirky homage to TOS/Gold Key meets Guardians type thing, with the Ent destruction (again) to create buzz. so now its time to do something drastic

 

yeah, but even in that regard I have no faith in Paramount. In fact, they are or might be the actual problem here, not really QT or anyone hired to make more movies.
My impression is that they have no plan for this trek and they don't know what they want it to be, which might sadly translate into them doing whether they find is the 'trendy' thing of the moment that seems to be successful and making money (back for beyond they wanted to imitate GOTG's success. Now they look at successful franchises that tried the R rating). They seem to not really care about the integrity of this thing they have, let alone want to encourage anyone in doing really more with its potential like you'd expect any studio would do with how successful this trek was.

In short, wouldn't surprise me they are willing to let new creative teams do everything they want, as long as they give them the illusion of making money.

pretty much

just because they can, it doesn't mean it's a good idea or they should, though.
this, of course, if they are still making a continuation of these movies. If it's not that, who cares (at least not me)

at this point, I hope that's what he's doing.

I probably won't watch it.
I mean, I honestly have no intention investing myself into another reboot of tos with these characters, not when I'm still so bitter about them not doing enough with one I already like.
sure, I might be interested about a spin off, but that depends on many things too. I'd be hoping I don't like it too much though, lol, because Paramount is too unreliable.

 

Yes, but they do know what makes them money with Star Trek. Regardless of their plan, they will be careful when it comes to money.

 

Except they haven't been making as much money as they wanted lately. I have no idea if they have any faith at all in the Trek brand, anymore.

 

I can't speak for them, but I think they do see money in it. So, maybe that's my different take. I don't have "faith" in Paramount as much as I think they have more information than I do and can make decisions appropriately.

Again, I'm not willing to be concerned about this decision.

 

Tarantino is all about shaking things up, pushing hard on the borders of precedents and skillfully achieving something that touches nerves, while achieving great entertainment. He tends to create very visceral and dark productions, a direction that was not typical of Star Trek but JJ Abrams has been turning things that way. After all, "Into Darkness". Every one of his movies features the hero starship being pushed through the proverbial meat grinder, or being completely destroyed.

Do we want to see Kirk appear in front of a bunch of baddies wearing a combat uniform jacket lined with a dozen hand phasers and start vaporizing beings left and right, while growling with a teeth clenched snarl? Maybe Tarantino could return to his roots and do a Pulp-Fiction meets Star Trek. If he does get the gig, I hope he backs off the prolific gratuitous violence and instead focuses more on the psychological struggles of characters. To see the sides of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy that we never saw in TOS. But enough of the hideously dark and overtly violent movies. I'm very, very tired of them. Especially with the lens flares. Damned Discovery for stealing Abrams' movie trademark.

 

Actually, it wouldn't be a bad idea. Paramount's had success with that in the past with the Mission: Impossible series (Brian de Palma, John Woo, J.J. Abrams, Brad Bird and Christopher McQuarrie).

 

I'm truly worried about Quention Tarantino taking on an R-Rated Star Trek movie. I've got no issues with R-Rated genre movies in general. Movies like the Alien series, The Matrix or Blade Runner are pure gold. I'm also not that squeamish about a health dosage of violence, even within an all-age franchise like Star Trek, because after all, some blood is more honest and less belittling than the often toned-down violence in PG-13 movies, that can often be as morally ambigous as in R-Rated stuff but sells it as something cool. So yes, an R-Rated Trek may be the right call, given the success of the likes of IT, Logan or Deadpool, even if I prefer my Trek PG-13 for youth protection issues.

That said, I'm still worried that QT is the wrong guy for the job. If it was people like Ridley Scott, The Wachowskis, James Cameron or Guillermo DelToro we were talking about, I would be a lot less worried but QT?

His trademark is the regular outburst of gratuitous, insanely over-the-top and often pointless violence that does little for the story and is stylistically inadequat for the Star Trek franchise. While I love watching certain R-Rated movies and TV-MA shows, I have never really enjoyed a Tarantino movie from start to finish. Yes, he is undeniably talented, he's great with dialogue, music and pacing, but he lacks the creative cohesiveness and leaves some viewers, who arent't his hardcore fanbase, often baffled and appalled. Lots of my buddies think his movies are utterly tasteless for all the meaningless gore and splatter. Entrusting him with this franchise feels like too big a gamble which could hurt the reputation of Star Trek significantly.

Also, from a business POV, this decision feels uneven. The R-Rating may allow for American parents to bring their kids if they deem it suitable, but this is not the case for most of the rest of the world. Not in the UK, not in Germany, and not in the pivotal China market that had helped BEYOND to avoid some serious losses. The R-Rating may be very well suited for the American market, but if Paramount wants to increase Trek's global revenue, it is not the best choice.

So all in all, I'm truly worried this might be a questionable decision and I'm also a bit worried this might contribute to the rapidly changing viewing habits of today's youngsters who certainly cannot be prevented from watching this due to factual unlimited access via the internet. Youth protection may be a long-lost battle anyway, but it is a different beast seeing Star Trek contributing to this development at full warp speed.

 

In addition I'd like to mention that QT has proven time and again he isn't fully capable of adapting to a genre's individual standards. His original gangster movies may have been perfect fits for his style, but his later efforts, the war and western movies didn't really work.

Yes, both war films and westerns also demand for a certain amount of honest violence, but the scenarios he cooked up for those felt uneven and out of place. His outrageous cameo in DU, in which he blew himself up, is just one example.

It's not the fact people die a bloody death in certain R-Rated stories that bothers me, but the way these deaths are depicted. Tarantino's unique style is often dunnaged with a weird sort of nihilism and cynicism and could take away some of Star Trek's inherent dignity.

Tarantino has been often emulated: Deadpool, Kick-Ass or Kingsman's church scene come to my mind. He may very well be considered his own genre. But non of this is compatible with the values and sensibilities of Trek. Just imagine one of Star Trek's most iconic scenes ever: the bar brawl in The Trouble With Tribbles, done Tarantino-style! Who honestly wants to see THAT in Star Trek?

 

According to this source:

The implication is that a reboot is not the same an alternate reality. Of course, the latter can be verified for this franchise if at some point writers decide to come up with a segment in a feature or show depicting nuKirk meeting Kirk, etc., or if Tarantino or others are allowed to continue working on projects for the original timeline. Otherwise, what we are seeing is a reboot.

 

That has always been the case. If any, that's the main reason why we now have nuTrek.

 

That's what GR wanted as well. So, this is not new to Star Trek.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive and I see no reason why this can't be a reboot set in another reality.
In a sense, all remakes and reboots can be perceived as AU to each other, the difference is that in our case that difference is made canon.

In either case, it's beside the point here because this trek IS an alternate reality and that's not up to debate. Not only the writers explained it, but it's written in the story itself.
And there is no reason, for me, why Tarantino or others fail to get what seems to be a rather easy story element to understand. I doubt it's because people ignore canon because they ostensibly want to apply a generic definition of reboot to this trek. The obsession with concepts like 'restoring the timeline' by some might also, actually, suggest they are ignoring the concept of reboot you posted.

Perhaps, JJ&co made a concession to old fans by making it a canon AU.
However, it's true a reboot, even when not AU in canon, will always change things so the response this one got from some haters complaining it's not like tos is, well, a huge nonsense. It's like our fandom is incapable of accepting or understanding something that isn't even up to debate when it comes to other remakes. And this all the while tptb still made it 'easier' by creating another reality and essentially reassure old fans that the other still exist, and that it can get explored again.

They know?
I dunno, sometimes it feels like they forget how successful the first movies were, and act as if they were flops to 'fix' just because some guys on the internet say so. It's weird and disconnected from the reality. Instead of investing more on the audience who liked the first movies, and who would be the first to be interested about a sequel if only you gave them some hope it's worth it, they seem to keep doing the opposite.

In terms of general audience, they don't seem to understand what is working for other franchises, and thus get a clue or two about how catering to a selective audience may be counterproductive.

Honestly, I lost interest for MI after the first ones.

That's a bit apples and oranges as a comparison. I'd compare MI to bond but not franchises like this one.
I think they might have more casual 'here for one movie' fans who don't care if the new movie is disconnected from others.

This trek is a bit more like the gotg movies, Star Wars etc etc, IMO. People are likely to want to see a follow up to the existing stories and main character dynamics established in other movies, and in ways they don't care that much when it comes to Cruise's mainly solo movies.
That's why we get comics that act as a 'sequel' in between movies made for people who want to see more of these characters and their stories.

For me, it's dangerous to make false equivalences between franchises as a means to seek profit. It backfires.
I expect a studio to know the difference between different products they have, and thus what makes sense to do when continuing them. They aren't and can't be all put in the same box and use each other as a guide to be successful.

 

Yes, they know. Perhaps not in the way that fans "know" but they have their numbers and calculations and the like.

Also, Hollywood is always "weird and disconnected" from reality.

 

I don't see this as a hindrance, at all, and I'm a fan of the Abrams movies and the new timeline. All he has to do is not go to Vulcan and things can pretty well fit into the Abrams universe.

 

Or not have a CGI Ricardo Montalban as a main character like a more flamboyant Peter Cushing in Rogue One.