Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie
- Thread starter Maurice
- Start date
Sure, because new Vulcan is the only different thing that makes this another reality...
Are you serious?
I dunno how it isn't a problem if someone hired to make a continuation of this trek (assuming so) doesn't get basic, but fundamental, narrative devices of this series that affect.. everything.
He'd have to ignore far more than what happened to Vulcan (which by itself is HUGE and can't get ignored without basically deleting 90% of spock's character arc and story in these movies) in order to turn this into a prequel of prime trek and fit his vision. And by doing that, he'd just make a movie that has nothing to do with the previous 3. Like, why?? What's even the point? Make another reboot then with a different cast.
I suppose if a director thinks this looks like mary poppins we gotta hire him and let him turn it all into mary poppins instead of, I don't know, said director maybe needing to make an effort to at least understand the thing he'll work into?
Tarantino is a professional film maker, I think he'll (and the writers) do his homework. But, not every movie has to revolve around the destruction of Vulcan. We can take a break from it without abandoning the story elements for future films.
One of the things I liked about the original Star Trek, is its ability to mix things up. Spock's hybrid nature was important to the development of the character, but it wasn't in every single episode.
Agree QT n team will have quality writers, plot, etc. They don't have stay within the Kevin universe or stick to every nuance JJ threw out there.
ST was always able to move into other plots/stories n keep what happened previously in place n in stride
The current iterations of these characters can and probably will change a bit. Which is fine IMO. They were on a TOS arc in Beyond - gelling together after 3 years into 5 year mission, etc. Maturing as professional's starting with James T. Frat Boy lol
For me, nuTrek refers to a new timeline plus tent-pole features for the international market. We're seeing similar in other franchises, like Mad Max and Alien.
My understanding is that a reboot restarts the franchise, which means all new features or shows will follow only the new timeline. The old one is ignored.
With an AU, however, all new features or shows will follow one timeline or the other.
except we aren't talking about nuances and silly details here. It's the story, its integrity and its continuity. It's what would give some sense and purpose to a SEQUEL if you call a movie as such and you put it into an established series.
And tell it to Zachary Quinto that it's a good idea for the sequel to ignore 90% of his arc and essentially turn him into a parody of Tos Spock, or pretend that he's playing Nimoy's Spock when he had worked hard with the other writers, even with Nimoy encouraging and helping him, make this his own Spock.
Just because Urban can't make the effort to play his Mccoy as anything more than an impersonation of DeForest, and he thinks he has no purpose in the story if things aren't exactly like Tos, it doesn't mean the rest of the cast should do the same now.
Listen Quinto's interviews, he - no less than a lot of fans and critics after beyond - wants and expects to see the story of his character to continue and expand on what was created already. He understandably won't be happy if QT ignores it all to turn this into Tos. Yet, listening to some of you, it seems like that expectation, and that of the many fans who expect a normal sequel, is silly because, apparently, now we should expect a reboot of the reboot and a movie that makes no sense with the rest but why? To placate QT's failure to respect the integrity of this thing?
I don't see the need, QT can perfectly make his own reboot with a different cast and let beyond be the end of the kelvin timeline films.
I don't get the excuses made here. It's pretty simple: either something is a continuation of the kelvin timeline films or it isn't. And the thing in between isn't turning this into Tos just because QT fails to understand its another reality.
This doesn't mean every movie needs to address the Vulcan diaspora, but don't be disingenuous please.
I understand your points. My point of a TOS arc means they are becoming the team, family, professional group we saw. The different events of the KT have altered the characters for sure. It's natural.
The crew in 09 n STID was still finding their way, in Beyond 3 years into the mission they moved close to their TOS versions while still being effected/molded by the events of this timeline.
That said events in a character''s life aren't shown in every scene. It's part of that character and the audience can understand n feel that with their responses, motivations, interactions. They aren't omnipresent. Just like events from my life have shaped who I am, but aren't the soundtrack of my life - playing loudly at every turn, constantly reminding those closest to me. Same for events from your life n other posters. They help to form n effect and help to define us for certain. Those closest to u's know, understand, n hopefully accept that as facts as we move forward.
Also, we don't know if it will be a continuation of the KT, if he using the current crew, etc. If he is, which is fine by me, the tone of the movie and the characters will reflect QT vision n interpretation.
I like Urban''s McCoy personally. Yes he does DeForest but makes it his also.
what made them close to their tos versions, specifically? Let's make examples?
McCoy is more or less the same 60s stereotype of the southern man who is scared of all things different, and who doesn't even realize it when he's being problematic and too prejudiced, but Spock, Kirk, Uhura, Sulu, Scotty, Chekov? They are all different people, and the fact they are a group and family now, with the same job of the old characters, doesn't mean they are closer to the tos characters or moving closer to them.
Even the Spock/McCoy dynamic is quite different here (aside from the fact that this Spock had that tos love/hate conflicting relationship with this Kirk in the first movies. THAT'S WHY the original trio dynamic with McCoy was redundant when the K/S dynamic was different and Kirk wasn't the only protagonist - thus the center of the symbolic trio - anymore). There is no real banter between them. You get the sense this McCoy is by default annoyed about all things Spock.. but Spock? He doesn't seem to be annoyed by McCoy, doesn't seem to dislike him...doesn't, frankly, seem to truly give McCoy that much a reason to be annoyed and dislike him, specifically. Or lecturize him about all things human.
And no wonder why: new Spock is a much more contemporary version of the mixed child original Spock was an allegory of. As such, and to reflect the reality of mixed people nowadays compared to the 60s, this Spock isn't passing for a vulcan and he doesn't really deny his human side. He doesn't need to do that to have conflict. He might still be confused and conflicted about some things like you expect from him (which may cause occasional issues e.g., his initial inability to understand Uhura and Kirk's feelings in stid and why he hurt them), but he isn't that oblivious about humans and feelings. it makes more sense anyway, to me.
He doesn't deny his feelings (not only the human ones, but also the vulcan ones that this Spock knows vulcans are capable of having e.g., the confession by his father in the first movie that he loved Amanda).
McCoy's prejudice towards him is not truly motivated by something real here. Can this McCoy, for example, think of Spock as unfeeling when he should have all this evidence, already, invalidating that idea? The man lost his home planet and mother, he had survivor guilt and ptsd (and the ship's doctor, after his girlfriend, should be one of the first people there noticing the signs), he has a girlfriend.
Of course, we didn't really see all the time in between movies but still, I honestly have no idea why McCoy would necessarily need Beyond's events to see the light and understand that maybe, just maybe, Spock isn't a bad guy and he cares about people. Perhaps, instead of insisting using the characters as a homage to placate tos fans, or insist wanting to give to the characters and conflict a pseudo symbolic depth at any cost, the writers could simply own the fact that while they all might be like a family now, and they make a great group of co-workers, not all these people are supposed to be friends, and it's perfectly acceptable and normal if some of them get along with some more than others.
But really, back to the main point, more than ever the Spock Beyond showed is a mellow, emotional, caring, dude who is hard to reconcile with how hard tos Spock was at the beginning. If anything, he's closer to Spock Prime, thus the guy Spock became in the old movies many years after the series, than the tos Spock some expect him to become. His character development was already accelerated, he cannot go backwards with it now. And neither can the others.
He isn't the only one different. Uhura is a much more defined character than original Uhura was and you see more of her and her personal life that you ever saw in tos (she even has a passion for languages that old Uhura didn't have, in canon). Sulu has a family with a man. Chekov and Scotty might as well be different people who only share the same name. And Kirk, even if Pine does a good job making us remember Shatner in some points, truly is just aos Kirk with his own journey.
I absolutely consider the tos characters a separate thing compared to their reboot version and I could never, in a million of years, picture them as the same people in my mind (which, again, I consider a successful thing. Because I don't think they ever were meant to be the same people). They are like their grandparents, from which they inherited some interesting similarities but they are absolutely their own people. At best, I see them as a 'what if' of the original characters.
They are one but not the same, and it's the fascinating thing for me.
Honestly, it's hard for them to become like the tos versions anyway because the tos versions were underdeveloped for the most part in spite of the old thing being a series. Spock hardly got so much space for his personal life, let alone the other characters. It was first foremost the Kirk show. And the fanon, when trying to give the characters a dimension, doesn't help that much either for me when some insist the guys must have 'symbolic' roles for the sake of not invalidating their headcanon that x must be x, y must be y, and z must be z.
I would never want them all to get back to tos and how things were developed there because it would mean getting back to how limited a lot of things in the 60s were, and back to a trek it took them 50 years to at least attempt to improve in some aspects, and add a bit of modern nuance where there wasn't any because it couldn't be there.
I love the show just like everyone here but I'm also often annoyed about how romanticized and, yes, overrated in some aspects it is. The least thing this trek needs to do is getting back to tos because, in more than one aspect, that would mean going backwards. I don't want that.
Last edited:
We probably know more about Spock as a character than any other in the franchise. Even Kirk. Spock was the breakout character and everyone knew it. So much so, that they gave Nimoy a raise rather than replace him due to a contract dispute.
That's correct. Ask Phil Lord and Chris Miller how much of a final say they had in the Han Solo film.
Who?
I imagine Tarantino will have a bit more leeway than you're average Trek director.
Want to know what I'm absolutely sick of hearing?
"________ just doesn't feel like the Trek I know/am used to/grew up with."
Who cares?
They've spend so many wasted years trying to please a lot of people with a wide variety of opinions that diverge, converge, criss-cross, and parallel. Trek has become the "Superman" of science fiction. Everyone has an opinion on what it should be, everyone can tell you why whatever last installment sucked, but nobody can tell you how to do it right.
The criteria needs to be whether the most fans enjoy it. That's it. Discovery is a success. NuTrek has been a success for the most part. They stumbled with the last one and if QT has an idea to get it back on track, I don't see why one of the most successful directors can't be given a shot.
"________ just doesn't feel like the Trek I know/am used to/grew up with."
Who cares?
They've spend so many wasted years trying to please a lot of people with a wide variety of opinions that diverge, converge, criss-cross, and parallel. Trek has become the "Superman" of science fiction. Everyone has an opinion on what it should be, everyone can tell you why whatever last installment sucked, but nobody can tell you how to do it right.
The criteria needs to be whether the most fans enjoy it. That's it. Discovery is a success. NuTrek has been a success for the most part. They stumbled with the last one and if QT has an idea to get it back on track, I don't see why one of the most successful directors can't be given a shot.
Little ot, I read about Disney buying 20th Century Fox
Can they buy trek too? lol
He's iconic, but in Tos we hardly knew that much about him and his life outside the ship, before he met the crew and after when they worked together for years. That's why people retcon his story by adding siblings we never know existed. It never really conflicts with canon because even Kirk, in canon, didn't know things about him that friends would know by default. That's why novels expand on some things.
Sure, we know more about him than most of them. Just pointing up that Tos never truly expanded the characters beyond the surface, and there are surely many things I wish to know about them still from an outside their work perspective. Nichelle once said that had the show gone past the third season, it was Roddenberry's plan to do more episodes exploring the characters lives.
Can they buy trek too? lol
He's iconic, but in Tos we hardly knew that much about him and his life outside the ship, before he met the crew and after when they worked together for years. That's why people retcon his story by adding siblings we never know existed. It never really conflicts with canon because even Kirk, in canon, didn't know things about him that friends would know by default. That's why novels expand on some things.
Sure, we know more about him than most of them. Just pointing up that Tos never truly expanded the characters beyond the surface, and there are surely many things I wish to know about them still from an outside their work perspective. Nichelle once said that had the show gone past the third season, it was Roddenberry's plan to do more episodes exploring the characters lives.
Lord and Miller were the original directors on the Han Solo film, before they were removed and replaced by Ron Howard.
No, he probably won't.
Without leeway, there's no way he'd waste his time on Star Trek.
He'll have some, but I doubt he will be granted any more freedom than Abrams or other Trek directors before.
Sounds like he already has if the movie is going to be rated "R".
http://deadline.com/2017/12/quentin...rew-pearce-lindsay-beer-jj-abrams-1202222161/
I have a feeling that if other Trek directors requested it, they may have gotten it. So, no I don't think he will get more leeway than most Star Trek directors.
Similar threads
