• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

and it's not the R rating alone, it's what R rating means with Tarantino too. After what he had already said. After looking at his movies and trying to make sense of how they can fit with trek, or this trek for that matter. It's the fact he'd be altering an existing franchise to fit his own liking and the movies he finds easier to make, instead of him truly trying to challenge himself with something different, and thus make a respectful continuation of something that may not be the kind of narrative he gratitates the most to. It's the fact that he would no doubt alienate a good part of the audience of these movies for reasons that, frankly, are unnecessary and just not worth it for me. He can still do his thing in other movies, he doesn't need this trek.

That's a totally valid way to feel, but another way to look at it is: What if this approach draws NEW fans into the franchise and revitalizes the movie-verse? If nothing else, it will grab interest, grab headlines, and get people talking about Star Trek again.
 
That's a totally valid way to feel, but another way to look at it is: What if this approach draws NEW fans into the franchise and revitalizes the movie-verse? If nothing else, it will grab interest, grab headlines, and get people talking about Star Trek again.

And at this point, that's exactly what we need.
 
No disrespect to you or anyone else that's belaboring the case against QT directing this movie, but all we have to go on is a two-year-old 7-minute excerpt from The Nerdist, and two reports. The amount of conjecture and pre-reviewing a movie that's not even written yet is smothering the baby before it even gets out of the womb. No one knows what's gonna happen in this movie, how the characters will be treated, what the tone will be like, or how QT will direct it. Perhaps wait until we know more than just a week's worth of preliminary reports before talking about "what this means." We really know nothing worth writing reams and reams of speculation over.

it's a fair point, but it's not like people have nothing here. It's only natural that when a director is hired (or thought for the job in this case) for a project, people look at his other works in order to compare and contrast and thus try to understand what kind of director he is, the stuff he likes and if he's a logical choice for the current project, or his genre is too different. Or if he doesn't seem to have the qualities or interests that might be required for this other genre. If the rumor was that Woody Allen wanted to make a trek movie, it would be understandable for people to be like 'what?' because he isn't exactly the kind of director you'd even imagine being interested about making a trek movie.

some directors like to challenge themselves with completely different things that are out of their comfort zone, and I'm all for giving them a chance when it's the case.
Is it the case with this guy, though? I don't think so. From the stuff Tarantino said, and the rumors about the writers possibly getting hired for the script, and him being adamant it should be R-rating, and with the reputation his stories have already in terms of that rating, it's legit to get the vibe that this guy might be trying to turn this trek into just another of his movies, and thus alter it to do so uncaring of what came before and its integrity.
A bit of trepidation for people who like these movies isn't out of this world, even with the little we have so far. There are reasons to be concerned and think this is a terrible idea.


I think changing the style wouldn't really be a big deal at all. Star Trek Beyond was already out of whack with the first two.

Kor

not sure it's a good example since Beyond is the least successful of the 3, and in part it's precisely because it was 'out of whack with the first two' and alienated some of the audience already, including and especially people who had loved the first two.
I dunno how doing that all the worse is a good idea..

at this point, if you are going to change everything, or alter it so foundamentally it feels completely disconnected from the rest.. why make it a sequel of the other movies? Just reboot trek again, or make a spin off with new characters and a new cast.


That's a totally valid way to feel, but another way to look at it is: What if this approach draws NEW fans into the franchise and revitalizes the movie-verse? If nothing else, it will grab interest, grab headlines, and get people talking about Star Trek again.

I don't find it wise to try to draw new fans, in this case those who like Tarantino, by taking the huge risk of alienating the fans of this trek you already have and when you are already struggling to keep them still interested. After all, it's still supposed to be a continuation. I think it would be as bad as Beyond trying to get reboot haters on board, but alienating a lot of reboot fans in the process.. and you know how that went. (*ironically, now they seem to want to alienate not only the fans of the first movies, but even those tos fans/reboot haters who like Beyond for looking more like a trek movie. LOL)

I, for one, perceive these recent developments, if true, as just another hint of this trek being wasted because it's in the hands of a studio that clearly doesn't even know what they want it to be.

Hiring Tarantino and the R rating seem desperate and just another illusion they are creating for themselves, that will backfire (again), to try to make more money. Back with Beyond, you had people like Pegg talk about paramount wanting to replicate the feel of gotg because it was the most recent hit, and they wanted to make the same money. Now they are thinking about a R rated movie because of, I guess, a recent influx of successful blockbusters being R rated.
They are just trying to follow the trends, they are not really thinking about what's the best way to continue this trek organically. They hadn't learned a thing from their past mistakes, they just keep painting themselves into a corner.
It's a pity for me that they don't seem to be able to truly see the value of this thing they have, especially with how successful these movies were.
 
Last edited:
I can see why ppl wouldn't be on board this idea, but I sure as hell am. The idea that Tarantino would make a blood-gore cowboy movie out of Star Trek seems irrational to me. I doubt a filmmaker with his talent would be completely incapable of stepping out of his own personal style to direct an existing property that he clearly has a lot of respect for. He has a lot of knowledge of many styles and adapts them to his personal preferences. That knowledge could translate into something great for Star Trek.

And...!

https://www.avclub.com/patrick-stewart-would-play-picard-again-but-only-for-t-1821123223

Patrick Stewart and QT need to have a sit down! Set this movie in the prime universe with an aged Picard, dealing with some head-heavy Star Trek-y and you have a winner in my book.
 
not sure it's a good example since Beyond is the least successful of the 3, and in part it's precisely because it was 'out of whack with the first two' and alienated some of the audience already, including and especially people who had loved the first two.

How many loved the first two movies? In my mind, it's pretty clear the reason Beyond tanked is essentially because Into Darkness was so damn awful that many people who watched it refused to go back for more punishment.

I, for one, perceive these recent developments, if true, as just another hint of this trek being wasted because it's in the hands of a studio that clearly doesn't even know what they want it to be.

Agreed.

It's a pity for me that they don't seem to be able to truly see the value of this thing they have, especially with how successful these movies were.

What do you believe the value of Trek to be? It's only worth what people will pay for it. Statements about the perceived value of Star Trek are in extreme danger of over egging the pudding.

The movies were successful. Really? Not by any modern standards, they wernt. Star Trek 2009 just about broke even, Darkness didn't make the industry standard break even point of 2.5 times it's budget, and Beyond is supposed to have made Paramount a loss in the tens of millions.

The TNG Blurays didn't sell, and if, despite all of CBS's grandstanding, people are paying to watch Discovery in enough numbers to make the show viable, then I'm the Pope. I can't think of any show in the history of television with such poor pre transmission publicity and public negativity that has been successful.
 
No disrespect to you or anyone else that's belaboring the case against QT directing this movie, but all we have to go on is a two-year-old 7-minute excerpt from The Nerdist, and two reports. The amount of conjecture and pre-reviewing a movie that's not even written yet is smothering the baby before it even gets out of the womb. No one knows what's gonna happen in this movie, how the characters will be treated, what the tone will be like, or how QT will direct it. Perhaps wait until we know more than just a week's worth of preliminary reports before talking about "what this means." We really know nothing worth writing reams and reams of speculation over.

Amen. Why rush to judgment on a project that's barely in development yet? Why do any of us even need to have an opinion on the subject at this point? Let alone declare it a failure in advance?

I'll believe it when I see it . . . and hope for the best if it happens.
 
I can see why ppl wouldn't be on board this idea, but I sure as hell am. The idea that Tarantino would make a blood-gore cowboy movie out of Star Trek seems irrational to me. I doubt a filmmaker with his talent would be completely incapable of stepping out of his own personal style to direct an existing property that he clearly has a lot of respect for. He has a lot of knowledge of many styles and adapts them to his personal preferences. That knowledge could translate into something great for Star Trek.

Tarantino directed an episode of the original CSI some years ago. It was very good. Entitled Grave Danger, if memory serves. He's a competent director as long has he's not allowed to indulge himself, particularly with his own material.
 
How do any of us even know? And, just for reference, the various TV shows have death tolls in the billions.
Well that is certainly true but it never felt like the shows were about that. An R-Rated movie is rated R specifically because the movie employs enough graphic content to warrant the rating. Usually when there is that match graphic content the graphic content is part of the selling point and it likely disheartens a lot of Trek fans that graphic content will be part of the selling point.

"You've seen the Edith Keeler story but you've never experienced it when she's naked, covered in blood, and shouting mother fucker at the top of her lungs" - The first trailer (maybe.......)
 
Let’s face it,the franchise is a cash cow that has been producing for over fifty years now.Tarantino will be given latitude but only so much.No way will he be allowed to turn out a gore fest.

One thing I do look forward to is his casting choices.Tarantino stuffed Django with a lot of old western character actors,I hope to see some old sci-fi stalwarts in this new movie.
 
The critical flaw of Beyond was that no one went to see it. QT as director of nextTrek is brilliant, because it loops in Trek fans, QT fans... and anyone remotely curious to see what such a mash-up would produce. I'd buy my ticket to see that today.
If Tarantino is a real Trek fan he won't come up with a gore-fest because he knows gore =/= Trek. :D
 
How many loved the first two movies? In my mind, .

how many loved them? These movies are quite successful, it's not hard to tell 'how many loved' them. Not so hard to tell it's many people.
are you trying to say these movies aren't successful or don't have fans who might want to watch the next movie?

it's pretty clear the reason Beyond tanked is essentially because Into Darkness was so damn awful that many people who watched it refused to go back for more punishment

this is conjectures based on nothing but what a vocal minority of haters says online, the same people who are spreading the narrative that stid was a flop since years, in spite of that being contradicted by facts (that are accessible to anyone's research) Stid was obvioustly more loved than hated, and it still is a more successful and critically praised movie than Beyond is, so blaming the first for the failure of the latter doesn't make much sense. Even taking into consideration the stid haters, and thus assuming they all refused to watch Beyond no matter what its fans were saying (which is by itself a big assumption to make already since there are many people who didn't like stid, but liked Beyond. So it means a lot of them STILL watched and contributed to Beyond's success or lack of), those people would still be such a minority in the grand scheme of things that they wouldn't be able, alone, to make Beyond fail.
Both movies have their haters and fans, but some people seem to now want to pretend that stid only has haters while Beyond only has fans.

I, for one, believe Beyond, and thus the new team, had enough issues that one doesn't need to blame other movies if many simply didn't care enough about it, or even hated it.
 
I, for one, believe Beyond, and thus the new team, had enough issues that one doesn't need to blame other movies if many simply didn't care enough about it, or even hated it.
I think the problem was that despite claiming it was more 'authentically Trek', it was pretty indistinguishable in style to the first two.

And not very good.
 
That's a totally valid way to feel, but another way to look at it is: What if this approach draws NEW fans into the franchise and revitalizes the movie-verse? If nothing else, it will grab interest, grab headlines, and get people talking about Star Trek again.

Goodness knows we could use more and better fans than we have at the moment.
 
Last edited:
I don't care if more people become fans of an entertainment franchise which has itself become a rudderless cash generator for a corporation. Basically a two-word name that can look or feel any way at all so long as it has "star ships," "federation," ray guns, and military uniforms.

I will say this for QT, he is a person who seems to have a vision rather than someone who doesn't really care for trek, but was chosen to make money-making popcorn films for a corporation's shareholders. I'm actually talking myself into the idea, though I wouldn't like this particular finished product, if it is ever made.
 
what is QT's vision? making remakes of old tos episodes that look like one of his own previous movies?

let's hire Roman Polansk then, it surely would be something to see Uhura giving birth to evil's baby, while Kirk and McCoy use the guardian of forever to get back in time and prevent S/U from having sex that one time when Spock looked possessed but they all assumed it was just pon farr.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top