Tarantino and Abrams to Do Next Trek Movie

[BillJ]

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.

Who? The TNG movies were ran by Berman and the directors had very little power. Heck, Abrams originally wanted the Kelvin to be the Enterprise, and Paramount nixed the idea. The directors had little power in the original films as well. Bennett and Meyer having to write their stories around Nimoy leaving, then wanting to come back.

It being 'R' rated is a major surrender on the part of Paramount.

 

[ralfy]

According to the same article, JJ also agreed to the R rating, and that tent-poles are usually PG-rated. Given that, it's possible that production costs will be kept low with plans to maximize revenues from sources other than box office.

 

[fireproof78]

Who? The TNG movies were ran by Berman and the directors had very little power. Heck, Abrams originally wanted the Kelvin to be the Enterprise, and Paramount nixed the idea. The directors had little power in the original films as well. Bennett and Meyer having to write their stories around Nimoy leaving, then wanting to come back.

It being 'R' rated is a major surrender on the part of Paramount.

It really isn't since that is the current trend within the industry. It might be new to Star Trek, but it is hardly a "major surrender."

 

[donners22]

It being 'R' rated is a major surrender on the part of Paramount.

It being 'R' rated is no better than a rumour at this point, and Discovery has shown us how unreliable reports are well in advance of the final product.

The movie doesn't even have a script, cast, budget, director or, for that matter, any guarantee whatsoever that it will even exist.

Worrying about the rating this far out strikes me as not just putting the cart before the horse, but trying to do so before you even HAVE a cart and horse.

 

[Malaika]

Maybe they want a big name director, and Tarantino is the only one interested? It seems desperate and counterproductive.

The r rating if true makes little sense for me because, outside of the story and tone the movie would have, they'd limit their audience rather than including more people. Either the movie would have a cheap budget or I don't know.
Like some said already, maybe in the USA people are allowed to bring their kids with them even for r rating movies (I'm european ), but in other countries you can't (not just because it's forbidden, but it's a cultural thing too. Parents are just unlikely to even WANT to bring their kids for r rated movies)
The Asian market this trek was investing into (and beyond was successful there) won't be interested either.

 

[Kor]

... maybe in the USA people are allowed to bring their kids with them even for r rating movies ...

Yes they are, and it's fairly common for parents to take their kids to an R-rated action or sci-fi movie without giving it a second thought. Kids can enter when accompanied by a parent or guardian. The most restrictive MPAA rating is NC-17; people under 17 are not allowed into those at all. And this isn't government-mandated as it is in just about every other country. It's an industry self-regulatory system that theaters agree to participate in as part of the whole distribution arrangement.

The Asian market this trek was investing into (and beyond was successful there) won't be interested either.

Considering brutal and bloody stuff like the "Vengeance" trilogy, "Battle Royale," lots of stuff by John Woo or Takashi Miike, and many other examples, I think it would do just fine in that market.

Kor

 

[trawler78]

Looking forward to this flick and the new cast

Kirk - Josh Brolin
Spock - Edward Norton
Bones - Sam Jackson

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe they want a big name director, and Tarantino is the only one interested? It seems desperate and counterproductive.

Not necessarily.

 

[donners22]

Maybe they want a big name director, and Tarantino is the only one interested? It seems desperate and counterproductive.

If the only interested big-name director is a fan and renowned auteur who has a story idea and whose mere rumoured involvement generates significant buzz, they've done well.

Taking advantage of that interest is neither desperate nor counterproductive - it's bold and entirely reasonable, especially given that they apparently couldn't get a Kelvin film off the ground.

 

[Commishsleer]

To me the director isn't as important as the story and the script.
Get that right and all you need is a competent director.
At least QT would give us some entertaining red-shirt deaths.

 

[Malaika]

If the only interested big-name director is a fan and renowned auteur who has a story idea and whose mere rumoured involvement generates significant buzz, they've done well.

Taking advantage of that interest is neither desperate nor counterproductive - it's bold and entirely reasonable, especially given that they apparently couldn't get a Kelvin film off the ground.

*Successful director =/= good choice for this trek, or trek in general.
And just because many find him talented in his genre, it doesn't mean he's a good storyteller for everyone, let alone that his style would be perfect for any kind of story, franchise etc etc.
It seems like some of you insist paint him as some kind of universal talent that can do everything, but it doesn't work like that.

*buzz around rumors that are making most of people react with a 'what?' =/= everyone will go watch it by default.
Again, next time let's hire Woody Allen? I'm sure that rumor would create buzz too. If creating buzz is everything that matters here..

*Trek fan =/= that person will make a great and successful movie.
And frankly, after listening to him and Lin I'm more than ever convinced this trek needs everything but a Tos fanboy who will pretend it's like Tos, and can't understand the narrative devices used in the reboot, let alone the differences in the characters. At the very least, who they hire needs to be someone who gets this trek and its potential, and is thus more likely to respect its integrity and make a continuation. Period.
I'm sick of this "he's a fan so he'll do good on principle" argument (and its counterargument that JJ was bad because he wasn't a tos fan)
Aside from the fact that the 'he's a fan' argument seems to assume all trek fans are the same, and like trek for the same reasons, and have amazing ideas. If you read what many self professed hardcore fans say on the internet I can just say: be careful about what you wish for..

And, again, I listened to Tarantino sharing his ideas for a movie in that old interview, and they suck for me.
For one, he tragically doesn't get it is an alternate reality and he deems the group as a hindrance. Sure, let's pretend vulcan wasn't destroyed and this is in the prime timeline. Let's eliminate Uhura, Sulu, Mccoy and Scotty. Let's eliminate the only female lead and minority characters and their dynamics (the little sulu gets anyway) because you don't get their purpose, that's so trek too. Perfect. Real. Progressive. Innovative.
It seems like, for him (and many trek fans, btw), the only thing that limited the series basically was lacking the money and technology to tell more stories about white dudes in space. Clearly, the cultural mindset of the 60s has no bearing in understanding what truly limited trek back then.

And his big idea for a movie? Lets make a remake of old episodes but with a different cast and better special effects. Groundbreaking.
Sure, those who hated 'into darkness' and label it as a 'remake' gotta love his original idea.


I have no reason, so far, to ignore all the hints I have that he'd make a movie I wouldn't be interested about. No reason to think that if he gets the job, he won't be Tarantino and make a movie according to ideas and opinions he already shared. No reason to think him pushing for the r rating, and hiring writers of his previous movies, doesn't mean he wants to alter trek to make it look like one of his movies that have nothing to do with trek and what people watch trek for.

Again, some here are truly being like the people who told Americans that Trump wouldn't be Trump once elected.
Tarantino, for some mysterious reason, won't be Tarantino. In spite of already having more hints suggesting that he will be, than the opposite.
Don't be pessimistic, have faith! Even when you have no reason to be optimistic.

Maybe he'd surprise me, I'm not saying it's 100% IMPOSSIBLE. Just that, so far, I have no reason to think he won't be Tarantino in a franchise where I don't need him to be.
I need reasons to be hopeful, and so far I have none.

 

[Commishsleer]

For one, he tragically doesn't get it is an alternate reality and he deems the group as a hindrance. Sure, let's pretend vulcan wasn't destroyed and this is in the prime timeline. Let's eliminate Uhura, Sulu, Mccoy and Scotty. Let's eliminate the only female lead and minority characters and their dynamics (the little sulu gets anyway) because you don't get their purpose, that's so trek too. Perfect. Real. Progressive. Innovative.

Did he say any of this?

I thought QT has been quite good in his treatment of minority characters and women in his films.
I haven't seen every film he's made though.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe he'd surprise me, I'm not saying it's 100% IMPOSSIBLE. Just that, so far, I have no reason to think he won't be Tarantino in a franchise where I don't need him to be.
I need reasons to be hopeful, and so far I have none.

The question will come down what will Paramount want, not Tarantino.

 

[Malaika]

Did he say any of this?

the interview was posted some pages ago if you want to listen to it. Here's the pertinent part:

"They might have trapped themselves a little bit by the simple fact they have to use all the crew now," Tarantino said of Paramount's rebooted Star Trek movie series, which consisted of 2009's Star Trek and 2013's Star Trek Into Darkness at the time of the 2015 interview. "In all the films they’ve established it so much, that you need Uhura, you need a Scotty, you need Bones, you need all that stuff going on all the time — everybody has to be represented in some big story where they all have to deal. Where I actually think it could be cool — 'cause some of those episodes are fantastic, and the only thing that limited them was their sixties budget and eight days shooting schedule, and even having said that they did a magnificent job — but you could take some of the great, classic Star Trek episodes [that focus just on just Kirk and Spock] and just easily expand them to 90 minutes or more and really do some really amazing, amazing stuff. [e.g., The City on the Edge of Forever]"​

(you can listen to the whole thing here )

I thought QT has been quite good in his treatment of minority characters and women in his films.
I haven't seen every film he's made though.

...without making some of the silly jokes I'm reading people make about what these characters would do in a movie by him, let's just say that his movies have some problematic, controversial, elements to them. He isn't exactly the kind of director anyone would imagine for trek, of all the things..

Reading the above quote by him, where he seems to basically criticize trek for its diversity and diverse cast, surely isn't encouraging for some of us (on top of noticing the irony of someone saying that about trek)

I saw some fans in other sites being happy about the possibly of him directing because they think he'd get rid of the 'politically correctness' crap they apparently 'forced' in both JJ's trek and Discovery, and would finally bring trek back to its origins 'like it should be'. Sure, I'm not saying these people are right and there is no wishful thinking from their part, but there must be a reason if they think they'd find an 'ally' in Tarantino, and they hope he's the man who will 'free' them from all the #notmytrek stuff

The question will come down what will Paramount want, not Tarantino.

at this point, it's the same thing.

if you think paramount and JJ wouldn't let him go too far and ignore the first movies, I respect that but I can't say I share your faith in the studio. I wish I did.

 

[Shalashaska]

Flankly, from the comments I read in other sites it seems for all people's preaching that there is no tos/trek spirit in JJ's trek, it's precisely the more positive and progressive elements they hate. I legit read some folks claim they love the idea of QT directing because that way this trek will finally stop to be 'politically correct' , and maybe QT will eliminate Sulu and Uhura, restore the old trio and white dudes status quo.. and show some boobs (all wishful thinking anyway because I doubt QT would really do half of the stuff they expect him to do). They seem to like the idea of him directing precisely because they expect him to dismantle everything JJ did.. but then they tell reboot fans that they have nothing to worry about and QT won't be QT once he gets the job (someone on this board said that people are acting like Trump supporters who placated nayers by saying he wouldn't be himself and keep his promises once elected..)

I don't want to generalize, and I absolutely don't think all the pro QT people are like those from the example I made. I'm just saying that a lot of the hate directed at JJ and his movies isn't completely honest, and a lot of people obviously disguise their issues as another thing.

Yeah, that sounds awful.

Depends what sites they are though. Sites like Facebook and YouTube can have absolutely cancerous comments sections.

 

[fireproof78]

at this point, it's the same thing.

if you think paramount and JJ wouldn't let him go too far and ignore the first movies, I respect that but I can't say I share your faith in the studio. I wish I did.

I guess it's faith but it is more business than anything else. Paramount and CBS know that there are certain things within the Star Trek brand that make them that money-I've studied the press kits and marketing kits. They know this.

 

[Malaika]

Yeah, that sounds awful.

Depends what sites they are though. Sites like Facebook and YouTube can have absolutely cancerous comments sections.

Yeah, I stopped to read the facebook page because I felt too much second hand embarrassment.
Comments sections of articles are even worse and you really find the worst of the worst in terms of people who represent our fandom online.

I guess it's faith but it is more business than anything else. Paramount and CBS know that there are certain things within the Star Trek brand that make them that money-I've studied the press kits and marketing kits. They know this.

I didn't see all the press and marketing kits of all the movies so I don't know what they all focused on.
I remember some from st09 and stid that indeed seemed to follow stuff, even in terms of new things, they knew critics and audiences liked, and that interviewers would want to talk about (didn't seem to be 'let's pretend it's tos' or just the nostalgia stuff)

Beyond is the one where I noticed a disconnect, and like they have lost their ability to can. Promotion was particularly weak for that movie IMO, and I got the impression some interviewers didn't even know what to ask about, nor they were given too many pics and clips to use for articles beyond the same 2-3.
It seems like they didn't release most of all the promotional material they had (and I know they have way more than what they release ... that's why I'm bitter too), there seems to be a laziness from the promo guys.
The Asian market got such a great promotion for beyond compared to the rest of us.

To be honest though, Beyond is a movie that by itself contradicts a bit the idea Paramount knows what people liked in the first movies and invests into that. Like I said before, it's a movie that in many aspects did exactly the whole 'alienating fans of the first movies to placate the minority stuck on nostalgia' thing some critics were warning about back when stid came out ( some were already saying that while some old fans would love the homages, the very audience that made the first one successful may have felt like they were losing track and wasting the potential a different reality provided to tell new stories).
I can't explain why they agreed with some things Lin&Co did. Perhaps the circumstances didn't give them enough time to plan everything better, but idek. Seeing what they allowed Lin&pegg to do, it's hard for me to believe that Tarantino wouldn't be allowed to do what he wants too.

(And, again, no offense to Urban, but Mccoy fans overrating his popularity aside, Zoe and the new dynamics with her character had always been the most talked about of this trek, the thing interviewers are the most interested about besides Chris and Zachary characters. She is the one, aside from Chris, who makes this trek get some award noms for the characters too. It makes no damn sense to replace her as third lead with Urban when his face isn't even deemed useful for promotion, and when so many had praised JJ for challenging the original status quo a bit. They went backwards with this trek and what works best for the modern audience in a manner that seemed to just listen to the nayers who were whining about her replacing Mccoy - which wasn't even true - , and then tried to cover it up a bit by using Uhura and Jaylah faces more than Mccoy and Scotty during promotion..but people aren't stupid, and they knew the actual movie was all about fanboy nostalgia and gave more screen time to the secondary male characters)

 

[fireproof78]

I can't explain why they agreed with some things Lin&Co did. Perhaps the circumstances didn't give them enough time to plan everything better, but idek. Seeing what they allowed Lin&pegg to do, it's hard for me to believe that Tarantino wouldn't be allowed to do what he wants too.

Seeing how poorly Beyond was received (not performing to expectations, even if it made money) I have a hard time believing that Paramount won't be extremely tight purse strings.

How about this? I have hope, no matter what. It may not be the Trek that I want but I have hope because Star Trek is still being produced. Call me naive, stupid, head in the clouds, ostrich, whatever. I have hope that it can be done and done well.

 

[BillJ]

The question will come down what will Paramount want, not Tarantino.

If Tarantino doesn't get what he wants, he'll simply walk away from the project. This isn't that hard to figure out.

 

[MarsWeeps]

I think it would be interesting if Tarantino did sort of a combination of The City on the Edge of Forever and Yesterday's Enterprise, and somehow fit Patrick Stewart in it.