Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

[Malaika]

Talk about gore and graphic deaths and those clips, honestly I can barely watch the scenes from beyond where Krall eats the life of those crew members, or later when he kills ensign Syl (...and no one cares, but Uhura and Sulu would probably need psychological help after seeing their crew mates dying like that.)
Khan killing Marcus in stid, or Nero torturing Pike were no joke either.

Sometimes it's the idea of something that is terrifying even without really seeing everything in detail, you don't need to.

But I digress, it's true that people react differently to these things..
for me, Tarantino's movies are too much but he makes sense in his genre, if you watch his movies you know in advance what you are doing. Just like you don't go watching IT expecting Mary Poppins.
I think Trek has enough of that violence 'realness' tho, and while it can be strong for some people's sensibility or taste, it's not so much it prevents them from watching.

The point is not the other movies are without violence, but I don't think Trek specifically needs to be more. I don't get the necessity, especially knowing it will inevitably alienate, thus lose by default, a lot of the audience that doesn't go watching Tarantino's movies but had watched and enjoyed trek , guardians of the galaxy, Star Wars and so on. It's counterproductive. What does Tarantino need to have in the next trek story that the current rating isn't enough?

 

[Shalashaska]

People don't watch Tarantino films for the violence, that's beside the point. They watch them for the story, characters and entertainment value.

Tarantino's one of the best filmmakers around, I'm sure he's capable of adapting to the almighty Star Trek.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

I'm just glad that, with Quentin Tarantino, they're trying something different.

There was a period where I was wondering if The JJ Way would be The Only Way from here on out. Yeah, JJ Abrams revived Star Trek but that was almost 10 years ago. Now we'll have some experimentation.

I'm also glad that, between this and Discovery, they're committing to skewing older. Star Trek is never going to be a Star Wars or a Transformers, it's never going to have that same level of kid appeal and it shouldn't have to.

'The JJ Way' made Star Trek the most biggest successful franchise of the early 21st century and late 2000's/early 2010's, recovering it from what abyss Berman & Braga had taken it down in the early 2000's (and Tarantino loves the 2009 movie.) Where did you get this blinding flash of insight from?

As well, most of the people in the military who fight wars or just do peacetime things are young people like the 'younger MTV generation' that you like to accuse the cast of the Abrams movies of being; are they supposed to be put on the back burner because you're no longer young?

As I said above to somebody else, maybe you should stick to watching the previous shows and movies if you're going to have this attitude. But know this; the younger generations you decry Abrams for appealing to are the ones who're going to keep the franchise afloat, not anybody older.

 

[Mr Pointy Ears]

I liked tarantino movies,but not sure about him writing/directing a star trek movie,i had a hard time adjusting to the Abrams version of trek,it could b huge hit or a major bomb

 

[Lord Garth]

'The JJ Way' made Star Trek the most biggest successful franchise of the early 21st century and late 2000's/early 2010's, recovering it from what abyss Berman & Braga had taken it down in the early 2000's (and Tarantino loves the 2009 movie.) Where did you get this blinding flash of insight from?

As well, most of the people in the military who fight wars or just do peacetime things are young people like the 'younger MTV generation' that you like to accuse the cast of the Abrams movies of being; are they supposed to be put on the back burner because you're no longer young?

As I said above to somebody else, maybe you should stick to watching the previous shows and movies if you're going to have this attitude. But know this; the younger generations you decry Abrams for appealing to are the ones who're going to keep the franchise afloat, not anybody older.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Tone it the fuck down. I like the 2009 film and I like Beyond. And I'm in my 30s. I'm not some Baby Boomer (no offense to Baby Boomers). Look at my avatar. That's me. I am young. Well maybe more young-ish. But I'm not middle-aged.

Now, take a moment, relax... and listen to what I said and not what you thought I said. There's a difference whether you want to believe it or not. Ready? Good.

One more time. I like the Abrams films. Got it? Good. What I'm saying is, I'm glad that we can see other visions of films as well. There's room for other approaches. Like Quentin Tarantino for instance.

EDIT: When I said "kid appeal" I meant kid. Meaning "Ages 12 & Under". In other words "Child". Star Wars has a huge child market. Transformers has a huge child market. Star Trek doesn't and it doesn't necessarily need to have one or cater to them.

Compared to someone who's 12, 25 is "older". 18 is "older". Hell, 14 is "older" (people can forget how big the difference between 12 and 14 is). I hope that clears up what I meant.

 

[Lord Garth]

And by the way, I graduated from high school in 1997. I am The MTV Generation. I've never complained about the age of the cast (other people might've but I never did) and I'd never say "Oh! It's the MTV Generation!" In fact, I once defended it when someone else was complaining about it at the time the promos for the 2009 film were coming out.

So, it helps when you're responding to someone to not make broad generalizations about them. You never know when you might be wrong.

And I have friends who were in Afghanistan. Some with PTSD, some not. We have some pretty major political differences (they're on the right, I'm on the left) but we're still friends nonetheless. I never served but I have great respect for those who did, and who are.

But back to our regularly scheduled programming... Quentin Tarantino for the win!

 

[ralfy]

I've seen the screaming NuSpock, so I'm ready for anything.

 

[M'Sharak]

[ ... ]

This is a drama with human beings in it, and human beings go through shit with their spouses/lovers occasionally. You and others like you have been affected by the passionless crap 'characterization' that was on TNG for way, way too long in which characters had no conflict because all of it was external, but you forget one this; this is TOS, where people do have conflicts with each other. Just having Uhura be nothing but a butt-kicker diminishes her and makes her one dimensional, as if she can be nothing but an action princess. Perhaps you should stick to TNG and Voyager.

[ ... ]

As well, most of the people in the military who fight wars or just do peacetime things are young people like the 'younger MTV generation' that you like to accuse the cast of the Abrams movies of being; are they supposed to be put on the back burner because you're no longer young?

As I said above to somebody else, maybe you should stick to watching the previous shows and movies if you're going to have this attitude. But know this; the younger generations you decry Abrams for appealing to are the ones who're going to keep the franchise afloat, not anybody older.

Time to relax, @Shaka Zulu .

I know we've gone over this before (more than once or twice, I'm quite sure); you know you're not supposed to be making it personal. Taking it to Garth over things he never said isn't a very good look, either; if you have to invent something about which to confront someone, you're probably better off just skipping it.

And lose the angry and dismissive, regardless. It adds nothing of value.

 

[Malaika]

People don't watch Tarantino films for the violence, that's beside the point. They watch them for the story, characters and entertainment value.

Tarantino's one of the best filmmakers around, I'm sure he's capable of adapting to the almighty Star Trek.

No, they don't watch them for the violence. But they know it's there and thus know what to expect from his movies, and they make sense in his own genre and the purpose his movies have.

It's hard to reconcile his style with trek though. His movies kind of are the opposite of what trek is known for...

From the news and rumors we got, I honestly don't get the vibe he's adapting himself to trek. It rather seems the other way around, and thus him adapting Trek to his own style. I find it hard to believe we'd get a movie that isn't completely different from the others of this series, and the trek franchise as a whole. Different sometimes is good (see JJ's movies) but it does need balance, and shouldn't be so different that the audience that usually loves trek movies, will pass the new one because it has nothing of what they watch Trek for. Genres exist for a reason... otherwise, again, lets hire Woody Allen too...

TBH, I struggle to understand how people who hate JJ and his trek for not being enough tos spirit can now pretend Tarantino is a good idea. It makes no sense. For the complains I read about JJ's movies, QT should be much much worse for those people since his movies are literally the anti-trek (it isn't a critique, they just have a different purpose narrative-wise that isn't showing a positive future for humanity..)
Even those who hate stid for being too violent and gritty, and a 'remake' now are happy about QT basically sharing ideas that consist in making remakes of old episodes with a r rating. Like wtf? It really puts a lot of the hate JJ got these years and makes it so.. so.. disingenuous. What people hated JJ for?

Flankly, from the comments I read in other sites it seems for all people's preaching that there is no tos/trek spirit in JJ's trek, it's precisely the more positive and progressive elements they hate. I legit read some folks claim they love the idea of QT directing because that way this trek will finally stop to be 'politically correct' , and maybe QT will eliminate Sulu and Uhura, restore the old trio and white dudes status quo.. and show some boobs (all wishful thinking anyway because I doubt QT would really do half of the stuff they expect him to do). They seem to like the idea of him directing precisely because they expect him to dismantle everything JJ did.. but then they tell reboot fans that they have nothing to worry about and QT won't be QT once he gets the job (someone on this board said that people are acting like Trump supporters who placated nayers by saying he wouldn't be himself and keep his promises once elected..)

I don't want to generalize, and I absolutely don't think all the pro QT people are like those from the example I made. I'm just saying that a lot of the hate directed at JJ and his movies isn't completely honest, and a lot of people obviously disguise their issues as another thing.

 

[fireproof78]

Now that my browser stopped eating my post...

It's be funny of Tarantino's Trek has one or no deaths at all.

Bad guy dies quietly in his sleep!

I'd watch that.

INTO DARKNESS and BEYOND essentially end the same way as the first, with Kirk's crew warping off to the next adventure with no serious repercussions to the crew dynamic.

Only in broad strokes. Both Kirk and Spock were markedly different in their tone by the next film.

...and no one cares, but Uhura and Sulu would probably need psychological help after seeing their crew mates dying like that.)

"No one cares?"

People don't watch Tarantino films for the violence, that's beside the point. They watch them for the story, characters and entertainment value.

Tarantino's one of the best filmmakers around, I'm sure he's capable of adapting to the almighty Star Trek.

Exactly. His resume is as varied as I have seen in Hollywood, and includes writing, acting, producing and directing. He has been involved in everything from his own projects to "The Muppets" and "Golden Girls." To pigeonhole him in to just the "violent" category is superficial at best.

TBH, I struggle to understand how people who hate JJ and his trek for not being enough tos spirit can now pretend Tarantino is a good idea. It makes no sense. For the complains I read about JJ's movies, QT should be much much worse for those people since his movies are literally the anti-trek (it isn't a critique, they just have a different purpose narrative-wise that isn't showing a positive future for humanity..)
Even those who hate stid for being too violent and gritty, and a 'remake' now are happy about QT basically sharing ideas that consist in making remakes of old episodes with a r rating. Like wtf? It really puts a lot of the hate JJ got these years and makes it so.. so.. disingenuous. What people hated JJ for?

Because JJ didn't like Star Trek and liked Star Wars. That alone was enough to mock him for eternity.

Also, QT is a capable director and writer who can work with a studio for what they want. I highly doubt they would give him carte blanche to just "R" up TOS or whatnot. QT is a professional and is capable of adapting.

 

[Malaika]

"No one cares?"

well, I never see people talk about that aspect, and the movie doesn't seem to care about it either. I praise John for adding some nuance in the scene, for example, where he tells Spock they had taken Uhura. Just looking at the expression on Sulu's face, you know his feelings and what he's thinking about, even without him telling Spock. Kudos to Zoe and John for their work and possibly adding to the characters more than the script or director did.

To be fair, I'm not exactly happy about how they handled Spock's PTSD and survivor guilt after the first movie. There is a lot to mine from these characters in certain situations, but it's hard to focus, however little, on that in the movies. (and when the characters have feelings, specifically Uhura, some fans complain it's 'inappropriate' because apparently she is only supposed to kick ass and do her job. Full stop. It's like some want to watch a documentary about the nasa, and I bet even there you'd still see human people being, well, humans)

Because JJ didn't like Star Trek and liked Star Wars. That alone was enough to mock him for eternity.

the funny thing is that JJ didn't even really hate trek or something. He had a lot of respect for it and the lore, he just said that AS A KID, star wars was more his thing and, AS A KID, he didn't get trek at the time and came to appreciate it more when he got offered to make a reboot. And I'll always say this: his trek was as safe as it could get even for the most conservative trek fans because even its changes are well motivated by it being another reality. He doesn't retcon tos (that's what Discovery is doing).
Frankly, I found it far more annoying when Lin kept on talking about how he watched trek as a kid and was more a trek fan than a star wars fan. Because it came across as him trying too hard to tell trek fans that he was different from JJ, and he was repetitive. I was interested about what he had to say of this trek and his movie, I could care less, at one point, about him watching trek as a kid etc etc. Just because you are a trek fan, it doesn't mean you'll do a good job by default.

I'd rather have someone inspired to do more with these characters and continue their story, not placate a side of the trek fandom online that wants everything to stay like tos. A disingenuos side of the trek fandom that, like I said before, isn't even reliable, honest and coherent about what they claim to dislike about new trek, and what they like about old trek.

 

[Commishsleer]

I'd rather have someone inspired to do more with these characters and continue their story, not placate a side of the trek fandom online that wants everything to stay like tos. A disingenuos side of the trek fandom that, like I said before, isn't even reliable, honest and coherent about what they claim to dislike about new trek, and what they like about old trek.

No the "trek fandom" you refer to doesn't want nuTrek to be more like TOS. They want nuTrek and Discovery to be more like Berman Trek or maybe "The Orville"

Also, QT is a capable director and writer who can work with a studio for what they want. I highly doubt they would give him carte blanche to just "R" up TOS or whatnot. QT is a professional and is capable of adapting.

Exactly, And we'll want his spin on it of course. That doesn't mean he'll turn it into Kill Bill 3.

 

[Lord Garth]

I think QT Star Trek would be closer in tone to Discovery than the Kelvin films we've had so far. Considering Discovery is my favorite Star Trek since DS9 ended, I'm for this.

As much as I enjoyed seeing the 2009 film and Beyond (we won't talk about Into Darkness), I don't feel a need to revisit them and haven't. I go to the theater, I see them, I have a good time, and that's about as far as it's gone for me. When the moment passes, it passes. It did what it set out to do and that's about it. A Quentin Tarantino Star Trek, depending upon what's put into it, is something I'd want to revisit.

Kill Bill, as I mentioned before, is one of my favorite pair of movies. Not necessarily because of the violence (though it's pretty imaginative and I've never once said I had a problem with violence, TOS itself is full of it) but because of the drama of what The Bride has to endure.

Pulp Fiction is just fun and the dialogue drives the whole movie. Just for the dialogue alone, the film is worth rewatching every now and then. Plus, inside there, is a deep theological/philosophical discussion about Divine Intervention and deep personal growth within Jules that shows to me Quentin Tarantino can deliver the Star Trek Goods. Talking about issues, the human condition, the deeper meaning of life, and all that.

The Kelvin films deal very well with Coping With Loss: the destruction of Vulcan, the death of Pike, the death of Spock Prime, and Kirk growing up without his father, so that's been a major theme in the last three films. Which is an exploration of an important facet of the human condition, so I don't want to say the Kelvin films haven't explored the human condition, they have*... but Quentin Tarantino can do it too.

* And for tackling Issues of the Day:

1. Arguably (note I said arguably) Krall wanting to Make Earth Great Again is an analogue for Trump. Or, if the script for Beyond was written before he announced his candidacy, represents sentiments of the base he tapped into. The 22nd Century, when Earth and Starfleet was "great" would be an analogue for The Gilded Age.

2. Having the destruction of Vulcan becoming an analogue for 9/11 where "it changed everything" leading Starfleet wanting to seek out Khan in Into Darkness.

Both of those are beside the point of this thread, but I do recognize them trying to address social issues and, as I said earlier, that they do explore the human condition. These films are Star Trek. Just one of several different approaches of which it's not the first or the last.

 

[fireproof78]

1. Arguably (note I said arguably) Krall wanting to Make Earth Great Again is an analogue for Trump. Or, if the script for Beyond was written before he announced his candidacy, represents sentiments of the base he tapped into. The 22nd Century, when Earth and Starfleet was "great" would be an analogue for The Gilded Age.

2. Having the destruction of Vulcan becoming an analogue for 9/11 where "it changed everything" leading Starfleet wanting to seek out Khan in Into Darkness.

Both of those are beside the point of this thread, but I do recognize them trying to address social issues and, as I said earlier, that they do explore the human condition. These films are Star Trek. Just one of several different approaches of which it's not the first or last.

While I don't agree with the first point (thank you for putting the "arguable" as a qualifier ) I do appreciate that the strong sense of national pride that Krall felt abandoned in favor of something else.

The second part I completely agree with and feel is glossed over for the sake of bashing Kelvin Trek.

The final point cannot be understated, in my opinion: These films are Star Trek. They have both elements that GR put forth in the initial concept of TOS and build upon it from there.

well, I never see people talk about that aspect, and the movie doesn't seem to care about it either. I praise John for adding some nuance in the scene, for example, where he tells Spock they had taken Uhura. Just looking at the expression on Sulu's face, you know his feelings and what he's thinking about, even without him telling Spock. Kudos to Zoe and John for their work and possibly adding to the characters more than the script or director did.

To be fair, I'm not exactly happy about how they handled Spock's PTSD and survivor guilt after the first movie. There is a lot to mine from these characters in certain situations, but it's hard to focus, however little, on that in the movies. (and when the characters have feelings, specifically Uhura, some fans complain it's 'inappropriate' because apparently she is only supposed to kick ass and do her job. Full stop. It's like some want to watch a documentary about the nasa, and I bet even there you'd still see human people being, well, humans)

I think they did OK with mining the PTSD and trauma that Spock was going through. Could they have done more? Absolutely, but I was appreciative of the fact that it was still a thread that kept recurring with the character, rather than dropped after 2009.

This is why I like Kelvin Trek-whether the film addresses it out loud, there is a ton of nuance given by the actors in their performances, from John and Zoe to Pine in his visible pain of not knowing his dad in 09, or Quinto really bring to the fore Nimoy's idea that Spock was someone constantly reining in his extreme emotions.

These films are made by the fact that the actors are taking these characters through some deeply difficult emotions and are not shying away from the consequences.

the funny thing is that JJ didn't even really hate trek or something. He had a lot of respect for it and the lore, he just said that AS A KID, star wars was more his thing and, AS A KID, he didn't get trek at the time and came to appreciate it more when he got offered to make a reboot. And I'll always say this: his trek was as safe as it could get even for the most conservative trek fans because even its changes are well motivated by it being another reality. He doesn't retcon tos (that's what Discovery is doing).
Frankly, I found it far more annoying when Lin kept on talking about how he watched trek as a kid and was more a trek fan than a star wars fan. Because it came across as him trying too hard to tell trek fans that he was different from JJ, and he was repetitive. I was interested about what he had to say of this trek and his movie, I could care less, at one point, about him watching trek as a kid etc etc. Just because you are a trek fan, it doesn't mean you'll do a good job by default.

I'd rather have someone inspired to do more with these characters and continue their story, not placate a side of the trek fandom online that wants everything to stay like tos. A disingenuos side of the trek fandom that, like I said before, isn't even reliable, honest and coherent about what they claim to dislike about new trek, and what they like about old trek.

I agree with this overall point that a fan doesn't mean automatically a good film will be made. But, regardless of what Abrams said the Internet believed he had dissed on sacred group and therefore could not make a good film. The rest are just details and get in the way of beating on Abrams.

 

[Boomstick]

I don't understand why this needs to be discussed. Anyone who has been paying attention can see that we have finally arrived at the logical time to make a Trek film that is a 160 minute long pastiche of blaxploitation films.

 

[Ovation]

Admiral Pam Grier and Captain Samuel L. Jackson agree.

 

[Malaika]

Honestly, the R rating and Tarantino's other movies, and his style, are just the icy on the cake but not even the point. These aspects aren't my main issue with him, but rather more stuff that is execerbating my existing worries about him and making me feel like my 'gut feeling' was right from the start.

It seems people are derailing the point a bit now and pandering to the nayers. The R rating isn't the only problem, and neither is the possibility of changing some things.
My main concern is that I already got hints that he might completely ruin everything a lot of people, myself included, like about the kelvin timeline movies.

For instance, I was listening to his own interview

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

just to see if there was more to what he said and context.
Well, listening to him was worse than reading his words from the articles that transcribed them. I was shaking my head so damn much.

1) He doesn't understand that these movies are a different timeline
(the guys from that interview literally had to explain him it's another reality and he still doesn't get it)
Yes, he likes the first movie.. but why? With the issue he has for stid, he should hate the first one too. He seems to think that Zachary and Chris are just playing Nimoy and Shatner, and this is a prequel of tos where everything is still like tos.
I swear, I don't get how people can't understand that simple fact this is a different reality. I have non-trek fans friends who instantly understood it when they watched the first movie. People who never watched tos, and they understood it! The first movie even has an explanation about that IN TEXT when Spock and Uhura call it an alternate reality.
But really, doesn't take a genius: vulcan blew up, Kirk's dad died, Amanda died, Spock and Uhura are in love and so on. Did he think those things happened in TOS too? If so, I have to question if he actually watched TOS at all.

2) he complaints about the crew dynamic in the reboot and considers it a hindrance.
For a start, while tos was the Kirk show - all these other characters already existed and are iconic in pop culture, and they all were in the old movies too. It's not like JJ came and decided to add all these secondary characters for the sake of complicating matters.
QT may prefer trek to star wars in theory, but it seems to me he's critizing this trek for not using the 'Luke Skywalker' formula of star wars.
If he really, as it seems, has an issue with the fact JJ made it so that you need McCoy, Uhura and so on besides Kirk, then he really doesn't understand not only kelvin trek, but trek in general.
For one, even before the reboot came out, a lot of fans considered the 'Kirk's show' the actual hindrance of old trek in terms of being something that limited the possibility of truly doing something with other characters too. Hell, even Nimoy wasn't happy because even as the dude who was playing Spock he got the short end of the stick, at times, because the old writers were obsessed about Shatner.
When the reboot came out, and still today, a lot of people were saying they like the group dynamic and wish to see MORE of the other characters besides Kirk, not less.
So it definitely is a matter of perspective. Maybe to some, like Tarantino, the other characters are a hindrance to the Kirk's show. For others, it's the other way around and they'd actually love to see more of the group dynamic, more nuance, something different from the usual hollywood's formula of having a story revolve around one 'hero' only and his sidekicks friends.

3) ties into the previous point, it's concerning for me that it really feels like the only thing a modern iteration of trek could do was having a bigger budget and special effects to do 'remakes' of old episodes, but they should get rid of the only pre-existing diversity of this cast; that's really sad and bad for me.
That's honestly just like some trek fans who preach about 'trek spirit' but only care about the white dudes status quo and deem Uhura, Sulu etc etc as 'politically correct' shit.
It seems contradictory, for me, that someone who loves trek doesn't get the importance of some things.. doesn't get what makes trek different, to many, compared to other franchises in the same genre.

I don't need a trek fan. I need someone who understands the reboot and understands even the changes JJ made and the structure of this trek. I need someone who understands, also, why some thought this trek is more contemporany and why that is important to them. Because it's not the 60s anymore, some things needed to change and expecting trek, of all the things, to be stuck in the past and be the most conservative franchise of nowadays cinema is almost comical in its absurdity (<-- this has nothing to do with the R rating. Your movie can be conservative still even if it has more violence, sex and so on than previous ones)


So the main point is: for people like me, if he doesn't get the reboot in its most foundamental elements, then he shouldn't be working on the 4th movie at all. Who cares if he's a talented director (I find him overrated, but it's besides the point) and his name would attract some people if only because Tarantino+Trek is a crazy combo. You can't continue something you have zero understanding of, and when you think its more modern, inclusive elements are a hindrance rathan than an inspiration to do better.


His movies are basically anti-trek, let's be honest they are. Even when JJ's trek gets 'dark', in the end there is still hope and they are still trek. But Tarantino is mostly the hopeless and dark, with little light.
Reboot fans have all the reasons to be worried right now. Stop making it seems people are exagerating or complaining for the sake of complaining. It isn't the R rating, it's a combination of things.
It's a bit silly to act as if he'll magically see the light, change his mind or not do what you expect from a Tarantino movie when there is already some clue about him going in that direction with the R rating and the writer possibly hired for the script. Again, it seems he is not challeging himself and adapting his style to trek, but rather he seems to just want to turn trek into one of his movies no matter if it makes sense for the integrity of this franchise or not.

I, for one, hope he isn't hired to make a continuation of this trek so that I won't even need to care about what he does.

 

[Satron]

What's concerning to me is people who manage to drag every conversation down into he gutters by making thinly veiled accusations of racism against everyone and their cats.

 

[Malaika]

yeah, when you can't reply to the actual discussion, or dispute several points that are being made, by making the effort to share your own opinions too, just try to derail it all with straw-man, twitter format, passive aggressive comments where you are accusing people of doing things they aren't even doing.

It seems some people registered in this site only for that purpose.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

QT n team can change the characters n timeline/reality/universe however they choose. He might not even stay with the current actors from what earlier posters wrote.

The Kevin time line was created by writers n did NOT exist prior to 2009. So I'm quite sure they can create a story in any timeline/universe going forward n honestly most of audiences wouldn't even realize lol and start over or a new however they feel best fits their ST story. The goal should be a GREAT ST movie, not how we fit the current iterations of these characters into their story

JJ being on board has zero weight to how QT does things

Now what is his vision, no one is quite sure, but I'm interested. I can see great dislogue, and gasp a plot, darker, grittier granular ST down to ship, aesthetics, etc.