Paramount Confirms TWO Star Trek films currently in the works!

If it's a new continuity, though, then he could use the TOS characters but reinvent them in radically new ways. Using the same characters doesn't require limiting yourself to the details of how they were originally depicted. See Moore's Galactica. See Sherlock and Elementary. Originality isn't in where a concept or character comes from, it's in where you take it from there.

 

I gotcha and it’s quite possible he could do just that. But that’s exactly what JJ did with the kelvinverse and now they’re doing it on Discovery, and people aren’t that happy about it. I’d hope Tarantino would realize that.
And dont get me wrong I LOVE the kelvinverse and Discovery, I just doubt he would want to associate with any of that

 

Not at all. The conceit of the Kelvin films is that they're an alternate timeline of the same overall reality, so the characters are supposed to be essentially the same people even if their life experiences are different. So that constrains the degree to which they and their universe can be reimagined. A true reboot would be freer to reinvent the characters more radically, e.g. by changing their sex or ethnicity or giving them distinctly different personalities. It wouldn't even need to keep the same setting or ground rules of the universe. (For instance, if I could reboot Trek from scratch, I'd set it a couple of thousand years in the future and have humanoid aliens be descended from human colonists who genetically engineered themselves to suit their new environments. Spock would still be a Terran-Vulcan hybrid, with the same general personality and the same relationships with Kirk and McCoy, but in a way that makes more biological sense because both species are genus Homo. I'd also gender- and race-swap some characters, and probably do some composite characters or mixing and matching of characters from different series and eras -- like how the X-Men movies made Iceman a contemporary of Kitty Pryde rather than a member of the previous generation of X-Men, or how the Arrowverse has made Dinah Drake the second Black Canary (or third, to hear Cisco tell it) instead of the first. The advantage of a new continuity is you get to distill the best bits and put them together in fresh ways.

They aren't doing anything of the sort. The show is meant to be in the exact same continuity as TOS through ENT, just with some updating of the visual design. Art direction is not story continuity. Admittedly, one can quibble with how they've chosen to interpret certain characters (like Harry Mudd) and technologies (like the speed of warp drive), but that's just the kind of inconsistency that can crop up when the same characters or elements are viewed by different storytellers. A lot of people think that Janeway's character was written inconsistently in later seasons of Voyager, but that doesn't mean the show was split into alternate universes, it just means that writers don't always see a character the same way, that the pretense of a unified continuity requires glossing over discrepancies in interpretation.

Some people aren't happy about it. Every new Trek incarnation for the past 40 years has provoked protests from a segment of fans that condemned it as wrong and unacceptable, but they've always turned out to be a disproportionately loud minority whose resistance had no impact in the grand scheme of things. From online commentary, you could get the impression that the Kelvin films are widely hated, but in fact they're just about the most successful and profitable Trek films ever made. Most people are happy about the Kelvin films, which is why they're making a fourth one.

You really think a director as idiosyncratic as Tarantino would color within the lines? Hell, what would Paramount get out of signing a director with such a well-defined and eccentric style if he was just going to do some generic Trek movie like everyone else? The simple fact is, the name "Quentin Tarantino" carries more cachet in the movie industry and with film critics than the name "Star Trek," so it's obvious which of those is going to take precedence in shaping the film. They don't want Tarantino to conform to the Trek house style, they want him to turn Trek into a Tarantino film. Or he wants to do it that way and they're indulging him because he's famous.

Anyway, they've already announced that it's out of continuity, so clearly they're not planning on doing something that can easily be reconciled with existing versions of Trek.

Of course not. I presume he's going to do it his way, which will be unlike anyone else's.

 

Some people aren't happy with what Abrams did.

Most people don't watch STD.

 

But a Yesterday's Enterprise scenario with Kirk et. al. would essentially be the exact same idea as ST '09. The movie would flop for being a too-soon remake.

This^ is exactly what I've thought since the film was announced.

 

I honestly don't know a single person in real life who watches Star Trek other than my wife and father.

 

Which is really different than in the early 1990s.

My kids were all in elementary school and we attended a lot of social functions with other parents...my brief association with one of the shows was something that a surprising number of adults would ask me about. Folks watched TNG as families on Saturdays, it seems - one of the reasons that Paramount was so damned excited about the property at that time. It may not have been the most visible or high-profit "franchise" - to the extent those existed then - in Hollywood, but the studio realized that it had unique elements that they were both proud of and determined to leverage however they could.

 

That's a good thing to keep in mind. A Quentin Tarantino Star Trek film is going to attract a lot of Tarantino fans who don't know a Klingon from a Wookiee. So there's no way it's just going to be made for Trek continuity purists.

 

Well, in full disclosure I only know 9 people. 5 of those are my parents, wife, and her parents.

But even if I reach deep into my past when I knew more people, they didn't watch it either.

 

This all all great news,but what if it too confusing for us the fans having 2 completely different star trek movies,paramount might only b seeing $$$ signs and wont or care about the fans

 

Trek fans had 2 shows running at once and switched over a couple of times to a new series. If that wasn't confusing then two movies won't be either.

 

I hung out with nerds. So most of my friends watched. :lo:

 

Sherlock Holmes fans are able to parse Sherlock, Elementary, and the Robert Downey movies existing at the same time. Plenty of Batman fans simultaneously enjoy the Burton movies and Batman: The Animated Series, or the Adam West series and the Nolan films, or Batman: The Brave and the Bold and the comics, or all of the above. Godzilla fans are currently on their ninth continuity. Unless you believe that Star Trek fans are intrinsically stupider than fans of other franchises, you have no reason to assume we'd be "confused" by the simple fact that there can be more than one version of a fictional universe.

 

Well, there is some circumstantial evidence...

 

I wonder if Tarantino's Trek might be along the lines of Logan, using the already established actors in the roles but in it's own version of the continuity where things unfolded somewhat differently. And then they go back to that differently afterwards and keep making movies.

 

I hope you're right because I think Star Trek needs this in order to grow. Being reliant on Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise is limiting. Surely there's other ships in the Starfleet with great characters who are having great adventures. Lets see their stories.

That said, Tarantino loves nostalgia. He loves Shatner. He loved ST09. His idea for a movie was to take an old episode and extrapolate from it. So I don't think he's going to have new characters and ships ect.

 

Honestly, that's what worries me. Giving a noted director free rein to indulge his fannish nostalgia for a beloved franchise in a big-budget movie? The last time that happened, we got Superman Returns.

 

I share your concern but Tarantino is one of the few directors I would trust in this scenario. He's a true auteur with good instincts.

I'm more concerned about the gratuitous voilence and vulgarity he might bring to it. That's NOT what I want for Star Trek.

On the other hand, his fun dialog heavy style, and colorful characters would be interesting and work well in the context of a Trek movie I think.

 

I share this concern. Nostalgia driven directors struggle with "killing their darlings" as is necessary in film projects, among others.

 

Lots of people say this but he has proven repeatedly that he can work outside of that context. I actually wonder if the backlash would be worse if he didn't bring gratuitous violence to Trek and the Tarantino fanbase got mad that he wasn't doing 'Tarantino' movies anymore.