Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

[Malaika]

I predict that this will never happen. Somewhere along the way there will be "artistic differences" and Tarantino will leave the project. Sooner probably than later.

I hope you are right ... honestly I have no hope and such a bad feeling about this. My gut feeling tends to be more right than I'd like to sometimes.

 

[Danlav05]

I guess J.D. Payne & Patrick McKay have been shafted for a second time?! I am intrigued by this surprise development!

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

Let's hope it's more Tarantino and Abrams, he is a fan of the franchise.

 

[Romulan_spy]

Isn't Tarantino knows for movies with a lot of blood and gore? That makes me nervous. I don't want a lot of blood and gore in my Star Trek!

 

[Mudd]

This couldn't hurt and may be a huge shot in the arm for the franchise.

 

[Campe]

Isn't Tarantino knows for movies with a lot of blood and gore? That makes me nervous. I don't want a lot of blood and gore in my Star Trek!

Sigh.

There’s not going to be a lot of blood and gore in a Star Trek movie. Tarantino is writing the story and may direct. He has long suggested that he will only direct ten films in his career (with Kill Bill’s two parts counting as one). His ninth is in the works. I sincerely doubt that he will direct a franchise film for his last (if he really even does stick to that plan of ten films).

Regardless, he has written many films and stories that have not included gore and violence. Trek fans need to relax, look at the entirety of the man’s work, and consider the idea that a top Hollywood filmmaker is actually interested in doing something with a franchise that has had far too much stagnation to it for decades. This is good news. If it happens, of course.

 

[DS9ers]

I love this idea!

Like some others, I don't believe he will actually direct the movie.

They will write a script off of his pitch. Paramount gets to throw both QT and JJ names around as executive producers. "A new star trek film brought to you by the minds that created.."

This will create a ton of publicity for the franchise.

Hopefully, they can find a really strong director to bring it to the screen!

 

[Romulan_spy]

Sigh.

There’s not going to be a lot of blood and gore in a Star Trek movie. Tarantino is writing the story and may direct. He has long suggested that he will only direct ten films in his career (with Kill Bill’s two parts counting as one). His ninth is in the works. I sincerely doubt that he will direct a franchise film for his last (if he really even does stick to that plan of ten films).

Regardless, he has written many films and stories that have not included gore and violence. Trek fans need to relax, look at the entirety of the man’s work, and consider the idea that a top Hollywood filmmaker is actually interested in doing something with a franchise that has had far too much stagnation to it for decades. This is good news. If it happens, of course.

All I am saying is that I don't want Star Trek to feel like a Kill Bill "sequel". Hopefully, it won't be. The interview where he talks about the Guardian of Forever is encouraging.

 

[Campe]

All I am saying is that I don't want Star Trek to feel like a Kill Bill "sequel". Hopefully, it won't be. The interview where he talks about the Guardian of Forever is encouraging.

And all I’m saying is I believe that your fears are unfounded. QT is a Trek fan. CBS and Paramount are very protective of Star Trek. If the story he’s pitched isn’t up to the Trek Standard, I sincerely doubt this news would have leaked. (At the very least, leaked so positively.)

 

[Kor]

Isn't Tarantino knows for movies with a lot of blood and gore? That makes me nervous. I don't want a lot of blood and gore in my Star Trek!

See @PixelMagic's post earlier in the thread.

Kor

 

[Saul]

I hope he directs, not just writes. He likes to work on his own schedule so he's not likely to just write the script under the time limit of the studio, he didn't like the time limit he had on polishing Crimson Tide. In any case this would be massive publicity for Star Trek, this is what Star Trek needs. Modern audiences need to realize that Star Trek (and it's fans) are as cool as Star Wars and Marvel.

The only problem I see is that this would not just be a Star Trek movie but "The Final Movie of Tarantino" and the weight of that might be a problem for the studio and it's brand and desire to keep the monkey running.

 

[Lord Garth]

I was wondering why things had been so quiet on the "Star Trek 4" Front. I thought it was because of DSC, and making sure it had its own time in the spotlight, and that seems like it was probably part of it, but... this is interesting. Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies. Bar none. I consider both parts to be one long movie. Pulp Fiction is up there too.

Quintin Tarantino writes great dialogue. I don't think they'll make an R-rated Star Trek movie because PG-13 seems like it's the place to be... so the violence and profanity will be toned down quite a bit and it wouldn't be too different from what we've already seen. But choreography would be a lot better and the dialogue will take a massive quantum leap. We might even get some philosophy.

Plus, we'll have a more interesting villain. The villains have been weakest part of the Kelvin films.

 

[fireproof78]

Here is my thought on this. It could be awesome...it could be terrible.

However, if I was just going to play the optimist, look at it this way. J.J. Abrams has an amazing visual eye and directing style, but frankly, his storytelling is mediocre at best and kinda sucks at worst. Tarantino on the other hand has an amazing visual eye, and amazing story telling talent. His scripts are tight and full of interesting dialogue and Star Trek is at its best with interesting dialogue.

Also, the people who can't think past their noses are already talking about how a Tarantino movie would be bloody, full of f-bombs and have racist characters using the n-word. But just think about that for a minute and realize how silly that argument is. Directors are creative people and therefore can branch out into different ways of doing things.

Remember when everyone said that Justin Lin was going to turn Star Trek Beyond into Fast and Furious in space? Now we know he didn't. Many fans, myself among them, think Beyond is the closest in feel to TOS. Yes, there is that one motorbike scene, but it's complimented with scifi in the form of holograms and crystallizing gas.

Look, I have faith Tarantino can tell what is appropriate for Trek and what is not, and use that judgement to not put his style on it TOO much. With him coming up with most of the story/dialogue, and Abrams lending his talents as a visual eye...we could be in for a treat. Or a disaster. Who knows?

This. Tarantino is a talented director and can work in a variety of genres and formats. It's ridiculous that a franchise based upon optimism immediately pigeonholes directors based upon a genre they happen to enjoy making. They work for studios who expect certain products.

Regardless, I'm excited by this. I think it offers the possibly of something different, and I hope this comes to pass in some way.

"Risk is part of the game, if you want to sit in that chair."

 

[Syd Shanshala]

I seriously can’t believe people here are already saying this is a bad idea. Literally NOTHING will ever satisfy them

 

[Malaika]

And yet, aside from fans of his movies saying he's a good director, I see no good argument being made about how he'd be good for this trek. Some are asking people to think he'd be good on principle, and disputing legit concerns that some might have due to his previous works and the lack of hints he could do sci-fi, let alone make sense as a choice for trek. And I read his ideas before, and they suck for me. He wants to ditch the group dynamic, do a remake of old episodes and he, ironically, dislikes stid. He doesn't even get the science behind this trek and it being an alternate reality.

Concerns aren't unreasonable or people being hard to please.
At this point hire Woody Allen too? Or what's the name of the one who did la la land. I dunno, if any director of successful movies is automatically good for the trek on principle, then anyone could get the job.

 

[Danlav05]

I was wondering why things had been so quiet on the "Star Trek 4" Front. I thought it was because of DSC, and making sure it had its own time in the spotlight, and that seems like it was probably part of it, but... this is interesting. Kill Bill is one of my favorite movies. Bar none. I consider both parts to be one long movie. Pulp Fiction is up there too.

Quintin Tarantino writes great dialogue. I don't think they'll make an R-rated Star Trek movie because PG-13 seems like it's the place to be... so the violence and profanity will be toned down quite a bit and it wouldn't be too different from what we've already seen. But choreography would be a lot better and the dialogue will take a massive quantum leap. We might even get some philosophy.

Plus, we'll have a more interesting villain. The villains have been weakest part of the Kelvin films.

It's a pity because this probably means McKay and Payne have had their work dumped for a second time

 

[fireproof78]

And yet, aside from fans of his movies saying he's a good director, I see no good argument being made about how he'd be good for this trek. Some are asking people to think he'd be good on principle, and disputing legit concerns that some might have due to his previous works and the lack of hints he could do sci-fi, let alone make sense as a choice for trek. And I read his ideas before, and they suck for me. He wants to ditch the group dynamic, do a remake of old episodes and he, ironically, dislikes stid. He doesn't even get the science behind this trek and it being an alternate reality.

Concerns aren't unreasonable or people being hard to please.
At this point hire Woody Allen too? Or what's the name of the one who did la la land. I dunno, if any director of successful movies is automatically good for the trek on principle, then anyone could get the job.

He has to function within the parameters that that Paramount sets. So, yes, I do feel it is premature to cry failure when it's barely been announced.

 

[Lord Garth]

And yet, aside from fans of his movies saying he's a good director, I see no good argument being made about how he'd be good for this trek. Some are asking people to think he'd be good on principle, and disputing legit concerns that some might have due to his previous works and the lack of hints he could do sci-fi, let alone make sense as a choice for trek.

This is fair. Back in 2000, I thought John Logan would be a great choice for Star Trek: Nemesis. Then, two years later, we all saw how that turned out. I think a Tarantino Star Trek movie could be good and would be something I'd like to see. Might I be wrong if it happens? Sure.

 

[Campe]

One can be concerned. That’s fine. But some of the concerns, like the thought that this will be some sort of a bloodbath of a movie with racial epitaphs and f-bombs every twelve seconds, are a little ridiculous.

My thought is this: We know next to nothing about the potential film yet. We don’t know if this is even going to happen. There are plenty of projects that never get out of the planning stages. It’s premature to get out of sorts and claim this is the end of Star Trek until we know more. What QT said in an interview about what he would like to do doesn’t mean that’s what he’s pitched to Paramount. They’re not going to throw everything out the door.

This is a chance to be bold, to take risks, to boldly go where no Trek has gone before. It may be amazing. It may suck. But just have an open mind about it.

Just my $0.02.

 

[Galileo7]

Star Trek has been going through positive changes to keep the franchise alive with J.J.'s film trilogy and the Discovery series...QT might be the right move for ST4 film.