Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
Tarantino can have it in theatres by April 2018 if he gets the green light in January.
As long as it isn’t a repeat of Logan, old and dying Picard. Maybe Admiral?
^Agreed. I still haven't gotten around to watching Logan because I know how painful it will be to watch Stewart play that roll. I know I'll love the film, but I'm just not ready.
Become? Hell, it was that in the late '90s if not earlier. when they were churning out 50+ episodes a year plus films with mediocre budgets, stuff-all advertising and bland concepts, just assuming that fans will turn up.
Your post would have fit in perfectly in that era, complaining about Voyager being TNG-lite and DS9 being not true to Trek. Trek is ever-changing, but fan complaints are a constant.
I'll take bold approaches like Discovery and Tarantino over products from the generic Trek trope factory any day.
Last edited:
Trek is a mainstream media product. Of course it's a cash generator for a corporation. What else could it possibly be? 
This isn't some elitist, arcane indie arthouse cinema project that only six people know about, and immediately loses its credibility the moment somebody from Hollywood notices it. This is for mass audiences.
Kor
This isn't some elitist, arcane indie arthouse cinema project that only six people know about, and immediately loses its credibility the moment somebody from Hollywood notices it. This is for mass audiences.
Kor
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.
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.
It's a little known fact that Desilu was founded for just that purpose!
And NBC gave them a hour of prime-time programming every week purely out of the goodness of their hearts.
Although let's be clear, STAR TREK was never intended for the masses, only for the enlightened few. God forbid that STAR TREK should ever compromise its sacred mission by being (gasp!) popular or accessible. Everyone knows Trek is only for the "true" fans, not the general audience.
Exactly. Tarantino doesn't fit "the mold" of what a Star Trek director should be? Can someone tell me what that looks like? Perhaps Nicholas Meyer, who hadn't watched a frame until he was brought on board and still didn't watch it afterwards? Can't be Abrams since he's "not a fan" and "doesn't get Star Trek."
Seriously? What does this even mean? It's not like Paramount is going to write Tarantino and Abrams a blank check and be like "Good luck, boys! Let us know if you need more money!" This is a calculated effort, based upon Abrams' success and Tarantino's popularity. It may not be a winner, but it's a risk. Something that Paramount needs to do.
The only thing that is giving me pause is the whole Trek being R-rated with the violence and profanity of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction. I don't mind the occasional cuss word, but I never pictured Trek as this gory bloodbath or insanely vulger. Now if they did something the likes of Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Bastards or Jamie Foxx in Django Unchained, I think that could be really cool.
One of the things Tarentino does is give Star Trek legitament response of all the Star Wars hype that is thrown in our faces every year. They have this corporate franchise (And Star Wars feels Corporate at this point), we have Terentino, one of the best filmmakers and directors in the last 20 years.
One of the things Tarentino does is give Star Trek legitament response of all the Star Wars hype that is thrown in our faces every year. They have this corporate franchise (And Star Wars feels Corporate at this point), we have Terentino, one of the best filmmakers and directors in the last 20 years.
People think of Star Trek as geeky and esoteric and Star Wars as fun and action-packed. Trek has to push back against that thinking a little in order to make a decent profit at the box office.
However, that doesn't mean this move is a bid to turn ST into SW. People also see Star Trek as more mature and adult-oriented while Star Wars is more targeted toward children.
This move to hire Tarantino reinforces that view (that Star Trek, in contrast to Star Wars, is adult entertainment) while still promoting the idea that there will be action and excitement. So Trek gets to keep its own niche apart from Star Wars while still expanding its appeal at the box office.
Deadpool/Logan was a great comparison to make. Both big successes, both adult-oriented alternatives to the standard Marvel superhero flick.
True.It's a little known fact that Desilu was founded for just that purpose!
And NBC gave them a hour of prime-time programming every week purely out of the goodness of their hearts.
Although let's be clear, STAR TREK was never intended for the masses, only for the enlightened few. God forbid that STAR TREK should ever compromise its sacred mission by being (gasp!) popular or accessible. Everyone knows Trek is only for the "true" fans, not the general audience.
I'm a little surprised you actually release your novels Greg. What about if someone..er, 'unworthy' reads them ?
I think I am unfairly pilloried above! Somewhere recently I said I like the QT idea in theory because at least it's a guy with a vision and not a brand name in search of more product.
And of course people like money for their art. As do I.
But I don't think Trek was an idea hatched by Lucy, and then she cast about for some producer to make some eps. I am no GR subaltern, but it began with a guy, who, yep, wanted to make money, but wanted a vehicle in which to tell stories. And in the Berman era (and yes, it sure got rote towards the end) there was also a guy (fairly dull from the sounds) who had a vision and got others to create stuff within that framework.
For better or worse there was an IS-ness to Berman Trek, and it's not to hard to perceive an overall IS-ness to TOS+Berman Trek. You don't want to read a post that long, but you know what I mean. (I hope.)
I LIKE DSC. I stay up past my wee bedtime on Sundays to stream it. But it's hard to deny it is pretty far afield from any established IS-ness of "Star Trek." So my poorly made point was that if it's just a title with a (very) few common elements (ships, "federation," certain races), what would I care if such a meaningless brand name has new adherents?
Again, though I probably won't like his product, I wrote somewhere (this thread?) that I have hope for QT Trek: A) there is a person behind it and not just a corporation with a vague idea to resurrect some brand name and make something the chumps will pay money for; and B) he might make a product that is more Trekky at the core of its being, though with lots of gore. I think that's possible.
And of course people like money for their art. As do I.
But I don't think Trek was an idea hatched by Lucy, and then she cast about for some producer to make some eps. I am no GR subaltern, but it began with a guy, who, yep, wanted to make money, but wanted a vehicle in which to tell stories. And in the Berman era (and yes, it sure got rote towards the end) there was also a guy (fairly dull from the sounds) who had a vision and got others to create stuff within that framework.
For better or worse there was an IS-ness to Berman Trek, and it's not to hard to perceive an overall IS-ness to TOS+Berman Trek. You don't want to read a post that long, but you know what I mean. (I hope.)
I LIKE DSC. I stay up past my wee bedtime on Sundays to stream it. But it's hard to deny it is pretty far afield from any established IS-ness of "Star Trek." So my poorly made point was that if it's just a title with a (very) few common elements (ships, "federation," certain races), what would I care if such a meaningless brand name has new adherents?
Again, though I probably won't like his product, I wrote somewhere (this thread?) that I have hope for QT Trek: A) there is a person behind it and not just a corporation with a vague idea to resurrect some brand name and make something the chumps will pay money for; and B) he might make a product that is more Trekky at the core of its being, though with lots of gore. I think that's possible.
So...never try to be a consistently massive financial success? Have a critical hit-rate greater than 1/2? Be widely loved in general? Redefine major aspects of filmmaking as both a business and an art form?
(Yes, I know - prequels, Jar Jar, nostalgia goggles, bad, blah blah blah. Still a steady stream of giant audience, financial and critical (except AOTC) successes.)
And of course, there’s that pesky little nugget that all the Trek movies (and arguably, the entire post-TOS franchise) are the result of ‘trying to be Star Wars.’ Turns out that no matter how cleverly you sneak up on the mirror, your reflection always looks you straight in the eye!
Last edited:
That reminds me of JJ Abrams, who stated in the past that he's not a Trek but a Star Wars fan.
Chances are it'll never be made, but man, if this does happen, I hope he makes the weirdest, craziest, wildest shit imaginable.
Last edited:
And yet made two of the best Trek movies ever.
While I’m a huge Tarantino fan, I don’t care one whit about his degree of “fan-ness”. That’s NOT a criterion for selecting a director.
Similar threads
