Khan isn't even the antagonist.
Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
Khan isn't even the antagonist.
I truly believe the actual villain of the movie was Carol's dad. I also consider him more responsible for Kirk's death (and thus the damage the ship endured that forced him to sacrifice himself) than Khan.
I have to say, the warp battle scene with the USS Vengeance following the Enterprise is spectacular. Even the sounds of that massive ship arriving just adds to the terrifying. Though, I don't know if it can beat the scene from the first movie where the Narada appears, and then the one when the Enterprise gets to Vulcan and it is surrounded by debris of all the other ships.
I have to say, the warp battle scene with the USS Vengeance following the Enterprise is spectacular. Even the sounds of that massive ship arriving just adds to the terrifying. Though, I don't know if it can beat the scene from the first movie where the Narada appears, and then the one when the Enterprise gets to Vulcan and it is surrounded by debris of all the other ships.
Tarantino directing or even writing the dialogue for a Star Trek movie would be odd. But if Tarantino can being Samuel L. Jackson into the Star Trek movie, then i am all for it. Maybe Jackson could perhaps play as a Starfleet Admiral or as an expletive spewing Klingon Commander.
He should be some Redshirt computer technician who's send to some part of the ship to fix some electrical situation.
Did I mention the Gorn invaded the ship?
Admiral Marcus is clearly the villain in the piece. Khan does not attack until provoked. Khan’s not exactly a good guy in the story and certainly kills a lot of people and does major property damage in the end. But he is played as a pawn in all of this to start a war. The mastermind of which is Admiral Marcus.
Last edited:
One of my favourite scenes in all three of the movies. I just wish it was a little longer though, it seemed to be over too quickly.
Indeed. Khan was a piece in Admiral Marcus's game. Not quite a pawn, but a piece nonetheless.
Kor
Tarantino is arguably one of the best directors working today. He is a brilliant story teller. His movies are masterfully made. I’m not a person that sits around watching his movies religiously, but if you can’t admit any of these things and consider yourself a film fan...I just don’t know what to tell you.
From QT's interview:
"Quentin Tarantino admits to really liking the original J.J. Abrams Star Trek but say the sequel, Star Trek Into Darkness didn't work for him nearly as well because he felt that changing Original Series characters like Khan from Ricardo Montalban to Benedict Cumberbatch (whose name Tarantino seemingly never gets right) was wrong. He would have preferred to see the new timeline progress closer to the original one, and he sees the reboot as an opportunity to expand on those old stories, rather than change them"
Call me evil or deluded, or maybe yours was sarcasm, but it sounds more like he perceives this trek as merely a prequel of tos and he wants it to be like tos and not 'change' stuff.
he doesn't seem to get the alternate reality either.
His issue with stid seems to be, ironically, that it isn't enough similar to original khan, and not enough a remake of the episode.
"The director specifically mentions "City on the Edge of Forever" as an episode that would make a great movie. It's one of the great Trek classics, but as Quentin Tarantino pointed out, the episode really only focuses on our main three of Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and the rest of the crew would be virtually non-existent. That wouldn't really work for a modern film adaptation. You've got to find something for Zoe Saldana and John Cho to do."
He also said that the group is a hindrance... he seems to think it's ridiculous to have to give something to do to Uhura, Scotty, Bones etc etc. It's bizarre that a guy who makes such ensemble movies thinks that trek should basically be like... Star Wars.
I mean... I appreciate your attempt to placate me and those who liked the reboot for its changes and new stuff too, and who don't want it to go backwards to nostalgia forever(TM) like beyond in part already did, but just like with Pegg back then when he said he couldn't 'write for women', and it was obvious he was partial to the bros, I wish some of you wouldn't tell people they have nothing to worry about... it sounds like a joke, especially when you do that with a condescending derisive tone.
Reading what QT said, btw, I honestly don't see how those who dislike stid for being a 'remake' and unoriginal movie for its homages can even expect him to be their lord and savior. Read what he said. His amazing ideas are remakes of old episodes.
Again, it seems like he's a good choice by default to some only because he's a successful director and people like him. I love a lot of directors and their movies, doesn't mean I'd lobby for them to direct trek.
I wonder if the studio thinks that the nostalgia flavoring is what is needed though? Honestly, look at the reactions to DISCO, and the Beyond trailer, and the like, and thinking "Well, maybe we need to do more closely to TOS." Which, Tarantino fits the bill for.
Abrams I at least trust to try something new and want to see the ensemble cast together.
Provided you don't count all the stuff where he killed 42 people with a bomb and then attacked a conference room full of people. By his own words, all that had happened to that point was that Khan was discovered trying to sneak his people away and then he ran. Suspecting that Marcus would maybe kill his people, he decided to "respond in kind". Which in his mind means murdering innocent people.
Doesn't seem to me that nostalgia and catering to tos elitists helped Beyond being the successful, big, movie they wanted it to be. The opposite.
Discovery, on the other hand, is doing more than fine. Its success (and that of other franchises), if anything, should encourage them to be bold and continue what the first movie started, not go backwards to placate certain old fans. I might argue that some things, discovery included, may have taken inspiration from jj's trek success too ... it would be a pity if the 'muse' is the one that ends up being the most limited by its past, and the most conservative in some aspects.
In short, I don't get how the studio can believe that making something even more nostalgia is a good idea, unless they truly give to a vocal minority (the same that declares stid a 'flop' and the worst movie) of fans online all this power. It doesn't make sense, especially with all the evidence already showing it's counterproductive.
There are different kinds of nostalgia, though. The issue isn't nostalgia by itself, because if you are able to balance it (and the first movie did) it isn't - actually - a bad thing, and sometimes it's needed ( the new Star Wars trilogy is full of nostalgia for example). The issue is when nostalgia translates into the creative team placating old fans to the extent they go backwards, and essentially turn the original thing and the homages into a hindrance. A cage where to put characters and never allow them to get out of it, advance, or do anything that would make some of the old fans angry ...in spite of you just doing everything that should be expected from a modern reboot.
You shouldn't have people claim that, say, the creative team will never make Spock and Uhura have a kid, or show the characters do x thing, because they wouldn't have the 'guts' to piss off some of the vocal old fans online.
When people start to say these things, and deem as 'impossible' stuff that shouldn't be that outrageous or out of this world, and wouldn't be for any other reboot, it's a bad sign. No one should believe your thing is that....doomed. That limited by its fan base, or part of it.
For all the hate some have for JJ, I think his reboot while bold was as safe as it could get for old fans. He created, literally, another reality.. but it still isn't enough to some. They still see it all as a 'threat' to a series that no one changed (or really, discovery is doing that more than JJ with his trek. This trek isn't retconning tos. Now more than ever, some of the complains people had for the reboot come across as inconsistent and over the top)
Last edited:
I feel the same way. But, I've watched the fandom reaction to Abrams' Trek for the past 8 years and it has never made sense to me. So, regardless of what "makes sense" nostalgia in all forms can be blinding, even to studios, who might take the negative backlash as majority opinion.
Imagine beginning the movie with the kelvin next gen crew, and instead of the enterprise c coming through the time loop it’s Chris pines enterprise a
Well shit, Malaika, I guess we're screwed. If only they had let the screenwriting genius Roberto Orci have his way. Instead, Beyond had a lesser audience turnout not because of poor advertising or because of the more lukewarm reception of STID, but because audiences are somehow able to look at it and think "oh, this is too much like TOS, I want more reboot", whatever the hell that means.
Similar threads
