Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?

[Greg Cox]

Between safe and Tarantino there is a galaxy of other options tho. Serioustly, why not hire Dario Argento then? If anyone can...

Dario Argento? No offense to Argento, but he's a 78-year-old cult horror director whose glory days were decades ago. No way does he have the marquee value or bankability of Tarantino, and I'm not even a big Tarantino fan. A Tarantino movie is a big deal and would make audiences and critics sit up and take notice. Argento's last movie went pretty much went straight to DVD.

That's like saying, "Well, we can't get James Cameron, so how about Roger Corman?"

 

[fireproof78]

IF QT makes this movie he's making a ST movie not Kelvin Trek.

Kelvin Trek films are Star Trek films.

but I desire to see a quality ST film.

I do too. That's why I'm hesitant that QT's style will be a good ST film. But, it will be quality...so, profits?

I have no idea. QT's comments have made me highly skeptical of QT's ambitions with Star Trek.

Also, are there Star Trek fans out there who don't want a quality film?

 

[Malaika]

Dario Argento? No offense to Argento, but he's a 78-year-old cult horror director whose glory days were decades ago. No way does he have the marquee value or bankability of Tarantino, and I'm not even a big Tarantino fan. A Tarantino movie is a big deal and would make audiences and critics sit up and take notice. Argento's last movie went pretty much went straight to DVD.

That's like saying, "Well, we can't get James Cameron, so how about Roger Corman?"

That was a joke (difference is my joke is actually one, Paramount's one with Tarantino here is not..) You are derailing my quite obvious sarcasm.
Again, you all are deflecting but the point doesn't change.

I'm no more a fan of Dario than I'm of Tarantino, which means I'm no fan of them at all. Their stuff isn't my cuppa.
I used Dario Argento, as well as Woody Allen and Almodóvar - I could've named Lars von Trier too - as an over the top ridiculous example because they are directors well known in their genre, and since some people are making the argument that Tarantino must make a trek movie only because he is Tarantino, regardless of the fact he makes no sense with trek, then I ask if, using the same logic, ANYONE should be allowed to make a trek movie then, and get default-praised and given a pass, just because they are a big name director (in their own genre).
Nothing makes Tarantino more a logical choice here than the other directors I proposed, they all are nonsense. Tarantino isn't a God, no one is.

And again, the guy said that his movie is pulp fiction and gangsters in space. How can you serioustly expect everyone to be excited about that and not worry? Especially fans of this trek who really just want a decent continuation for the characters?

Frankly, elsewhere I'm reading fans of Tarantino who don't even care about trek but they are sympathizing with trek fans who are worried, and they are being more reasonable about this by admitting that he makes no sense for something like trek and his comments ARE worrying.




Anyway, speculations (?) about the merger make me wonder if the studio is, at this point, just using Tarantino to get a better deal under the illusion that their trek is still a thing for the near future.
But then again, I also think the studio has no integrity and no vision for trek so it's quite possible they are that desperate they'd give the job to anyone, including Dario Argento, Woody Allen and Almodóvar

 

[Kirk Prime]

I'm not sure if making "Pulp Fiction in Space" is completely getting it, but I could be wrong.

In fairness, we don't know what that means.

He is right about one thing: Pegg (and the others) shouldn't pretend to know things that he doesn't know. That is annoying for fans too because actors usually really are the least to know what's the story. In this case it's kind of funny because Pegg was trying to reassure us and maybe himself by making that assumption, but he still created the illusion of knowing things he didn't know. That adds perspective to his other comments too as I remember he pretended to know about Orci's script too but that wasn't true either.

Let's also not forget that Pegg is known to have flat out lied to the fans before. Just like he said, "this wouldn't be Pulp Fiction in space," he also famously said, "Cumberbatch is NOT Khan."

Had jj or others said what he said, everyone would collectively lose their sh*t, lol. After all the hate jj gets from fans who claim he doesn't get 'trek values' it's beyond comical to see them defend Tarantino's 'pulp fiction in space' now.

His movies haven't had a Trekkish feel to them, but they tend to be very good, and in fairness, he's normally original. Here, he would be playing in someone else's sandbox, and would be confined a bit. Can he do that? His knowledge of Trek seems to suggest that he could.

But again, I honestly don't know. I approached Abrams with a lot of hope and an open mind. Overall, I was let down. I have no issue with Tarantino getting a look. But I can't get excited without knowing his plans, and there is literally nothing.

How is that different than the same feeling among many other dedicated fans? Sorry to break it to you, but to a large number of people (and not just the fans) Shatner is Kirk.

And Kirk is Star Trek to the general audience.

If anything, being a fan of Shatner is a positive thing--something that has been missing for a long time.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

Kelvin Trek films are Star Trek films.

I do too. That's why I'm hesitant that QT's style will be a good ST film. But, it will be quality...so, profits?

I have no idea. QT's comments have made me highly skeptical of QT's ambitions with Star Trek.

Also, are there Star Trek fans out there who don't want a quality film?

Agree KT films,are ST films. My point was his movie likely won't be set in the Kelvin timeline.

As far as are there fans who don't want a quality film, reading through the thread there are some who are defending KT with every word typed. MWV.....

 

[fireproof78]

As far as are there fans who don't want a quality film, reading through the thread there are some who are defending KT with every word typed. MWV.....

I will always defend KT, largely because I think they are closer to TOS Star Trek than they will ever be given credit for.
So, I'm biased there. But, if we are discussing quality then I would say they are at least mid-level quality films, with 09 being the best of the bunch.

If QT is planning on making a mob movie in space, you'll forgive me if my expectations of quality are highly limited.

 

[Malaika]

If anything, being a fan of Shatner is a positive thing--something that has been missing for a long time.

How is that a positive thing? What does Shatner have to do with kelvin trek?
Something that was 'missing'? Like what? More nostalgia? Pandering to the old cast making them the stars of a trek where the rightful stars are other actors? As if the actual cast wasn't big already. ..

Frankly, if Tarantino brings in Shatner and other old and new characters just to serve his own fannish desire to have his fav actors no matter what, he is hypocritical again since, according to him, JJ having the whole crew was 'too many characters' and forced.
After bringing Thor Kirk back from the dead just because the actor is popular now, I cannot think about anything more forced than having Shatner and Kirk Prime in kelvin trek.

As far as are there fans who don't want a quality film, reading through the thread there are some who are defending KT with every word typed. MWV.....

I'm not sure people not being on board with 'trek by Tarantino', or being worried about his comments = not wanting a quality film.
Beyond being patronizing, this certaintly isn't a 'quality' argument to make.

I'm also not sure it should be THAT surprising or unconventional to find people who like kelvin trek defend or like it..into a fanboard about it!

Actually, I might point up that some people's apparent dislike, or lack of interest for kelvin trek, may add some layers to their defense of Tarantino and thus their comments here.
If one doesn't like this trek, they probably don't care about its demise, or someone ruining it for their fans, either way. And it's fine, I don't expect them to care. I just wish those who don't like these movies can respect those who liked them instead, or at the very least they do not attempt to lecture them about 'quality movies' and why Tarantino must be our lord and savior if we express concerns.

 

[Tenacity]

Tarantino isn't a God

When the studio goes to the banks and to the Chinese for the money to make the next movie, yes Tarantino is god.

What does Shatner have to do with kelvin trek?

It isn't a matter of "Kelvin Trek," it's Trek as a whole. Shatner is a major touch stone in the Trek universe.

rightful stars

Who would these people be in your eyes?

 

[ISS Enterprise]

How is that a positive thing? What does Shatner have to do with kelvin trek?
Something that was 'missing'? Like what? More nostalgia? Pandering to the old cast making them the stars of a trek where the rightful stars are other actors? As if the actual cast wasn't big already. ..

Frankly, if Tarantino brings in Shatner and other old and new characters just to serve his own fannish desire to have his fav actors no matter what, he is hypocritical again since, according to him, JJ having the whole crew was 'too many characters' and forced.
After bringing Thor Kirk back from the dead just because the actor is popular now, I cannot think about anything more forced than having Shatner and Kirk Prime in kelvin trek.




I'm not sure people not being on board with 'trek by Tarantino', or being worried about his comments = not wanting a quality film.
Beyond being patronizing, this certaintly isn't a 'quality' argument to make.

I'm also not sure it should be THAT surprising or unconventional to find people who like kelvin trek defend or like it..into a fanboard about it!

Actually, I might point up that some people's apparent dislike, or lack of interest for kelvin trek, may add some layers to their defense of Tarantino and thus their comments here.
If one doesn't like this trek, they probably don't care about its demise, or someone ruining it for their fans, either way. And it's fine, I don't expect them to care. I just wish those who don't like these movies can respect those who liked them instead, or at the very least they do not attempt to lecture them about 'quality movies' and why Tarantino must be our lord and savior if we express concerns.

It's a two way street - respect those who are open to a new take also. I am open to QT Trek, but don't want to see pup fiction in space (Pulp Fiction a great movie, IMO) I enjoyed Kelvin Trek with 09 n Beyond my favs. I am NOT here to bash it, just point out that QT's POSSIBLE movie would be taken into a new direction n universe likely - even with same actors/crew. Doesn't take away from what Kelvin Trek brought us, namely ST when it looked DOA

Enjoy KT, I did. Quality ST can take place in any universe, which is all I am pointing out. It doesn't HAVE to be limited to KT. So I am not fighting/defending it be so like yourself it would seem.

With the Recent CBS n Viacom.potential merger news Trek would be reunified. Allowing for any iteration of Trek - Cannon, JJ'S prime, whatever Discovery is etc.

Edit - I do NOT think QT is the savior. I like SOME of his movies others I can leave be
Excited to see Trek get fresh life and by a potential new team other than JJ n crew. To see what body comes next

 

[Malaika]

All this playing oblivious about the reasons why people have concerns now is funny since those are the same reasons that originally made his fans say that no, don't worry! he won't do pulp fiction in space. Now that he is confirming the nayers were indeed right from the beginning, his defenders deflect.

Those who express doubts about Tarantino trek are consistent with their reasons; it's his defenders that keep changing their narrative to give him a pass and, frankly, be on denial.

Now reading this:
https://comicbook.com/startrek/amp/...quentin-tarantino-chris-pine-kelvin-timeline/

“Well, it’s an idea then we got together and talked it out and then we hired Mark Smith, who did [The] Revenant to write the script,” Tarantino explains. “I don’t know how much I can say. The one thing I can say is it would deal with the Chris Pine timeline. Now, I still don’t quite understand, and JJ [Abrams] can’t explain it to me, and my editor has tried to explain it to me and I still don’t get it...about something happened in the first movie that now kind of wiped the slate clean. I don’t buy that. I don’t like it. I don’t appreciate it. I don’t — f*** that...I want the whole series to have happened, it just hasn’t happened yet. No, Benedict Cumberbatch or whatever his name is is not Khan, alright? Khan is Khan. And I told JJ, like, ‘I don’t understand this. I don’t like it.’ And then he was like, ‘Ignore it! Nobody likes it. I don’t understand it. Just do whatever you want. If you want it to happen the exact way it happens on the series it can.’”

“The reason I was actually intrigued by the JJ Abrams version of it is because I thought Chris Pine did a fantastic job not just playing Capt. Kirk but playing William Shatner’s captain — he is William Shatner,” Tarantino says. “He’s not just another guy, he’s William Shatner’s Capt. Kirk. And it’s literally, Zachary Quinto is literally Leonard Nimoy’s — because they both have the same scene together — he’s his Spock. They f******* nail it. They just nail it.”
​

(Chris isn't playing Shatner. The poor guy isn't playing Shatner. I wouldn't like him much if he were really playing the same character. )

Only those who don't like kelvin trek can be happy about what this guy is saying and still try to give him a pass. This is disaster of epic proportions, he is completely clueless he doesn't even get this is another reality. Everything of what he is saying is silly commentary of the worst kind. He has no clue, and the worst part is that if you believe him, it seems no one wants to explain anything to him nor he has any intention to try to understand the basics of this trek. He doesn't care.


So you have pulp fiction and gangsters in space directed by a guy who has no idea about the basic premise and foundation of this franchise, and he believes the first movie deleted tos and the new actors are replacements who must be the same characters their tos counterparts were.

 

[Smellmet]

Nobody knows what pulp fiction in space actually means do they? Until we see something more concrete it's a vague, pretty meaningless description at best.

 

[F. King Daniel]

I think "Pulp Fiction in Trek form" refers to a nonlinear story structure rather than gimp suits and whatnot.

 

[nutshell]

I’m a huge Trek fan. I’m a huge Tarantino fan. I’d love to see this happen and don’t worry much about canon or timelines, etc. Why not let Tarantino make his pulp fiction trek and (hopefully) enjoy it for what it is? It’s not like his gangsters in space will become the be-all end-all of Trek. It would be refreshing, and afterwards we can all go back to watching TWOK for the hundredth time.

 

[Smellmet]

I think "Pulp Fiction in Trek form" refers to a nonlinear story structure rather than gimp suits and whatnot.

Which I'm sure would be fine by most people.

 

[Malaika]

Are you guys actually reading what this man is saying?
If pulp fiction in space wasn't enough to make me worry, he is now pretty much saying that he wants to rewrite the whole trilogy just because he f.king doesn't 'get it', or more like he is so full of himself and that HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET IT so he just, like, ignores it. Great, professional, behavior. So much integrity and respect for the audience.

If you don't care either way because you don't care about this trek good for you. But if they still present this as a sequel and thus part of the same continuity it's a damn joke for someone like me who actually likes these movies.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Are you guys actually reading what this man is saying?
If pulp fiction in space wasn't enough to make me worry, he is now pretty much saying that he wants to rewrite the whole trilogy just because he f.king doesn't 'get it', or more like he is so full of himself and that HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET IT so he just, like, ignores it. Great, professional, behavior. So much integrity and respect for the audience.

If you don't care either way because you don't care about this trek good for you. But if they still present this as a sequel and thus part of the same continuity it's a damn joke for someone like me who actually likes these movies.

Hey, I love the X-Men movies and I loved Logan ("about a third of it happened... and not like that.") too. Nothing Tarantino can do in his Star Trek movie will diminish the existing Kelvin trilogy, even if he takes the characters in crazy new directions.

 

[Ovation]

Are you guys actually reading what this man is saying?
If pulp fiction in space wasn't enough to make me worry, he is now pretty much saying that he wants to rewrite the whole trilogy just because he f.king doesn't 'get it', or more like he is so full of himself and that HE DOESN'T WANT TO GET IT so he just, like, ignores it. Great, professional, behavior. So much integrity and respect for the audience.

If you don't care either way because you don't care about this trek good for you. But if they still present this as a sequel and thus part of the same continuity it's a damn joke for someone like me who actually likes these movies.

I love the Kelvin movies (09 and Into Darkness are my two favourite of the Trek films overall--and I've been watching Trek since 1973). While I'm happy to see Trek on TV these days, I'm far more interested in seeing more Kelvinverse movies (or TV with those actors--though that obviously won't happen).

I am also a HUGE Tarantino fan and have wanted him to do a Trek film since before the Kelvin movies were even an idea, let alone an actual trilogy of completed films. So which neat little box does that put me in? How much of my "real fan of Kelvinverse" credentials do I now have to renounce?

I get that a Tarantino movie would not be to everyone's taste--none of his movies are. The reality is, at this point, Kelvinverse is deeply dormant, if not dead. Moreover, a Tarantino movie would very likely be like an "Elsewords" DC project--outside any particular continuity. Even if not--so what? Either it will be good, or it won't. It's unlikely to be dull. And nothing Tarantino does, with that cast or any other, will alter the Kelvinverse movies anyway. Might even bring in enough buzz and money to fund a further Kelvinverse adventure. In the meantime, no one is required to watch a Tarantino film if it does not appeal to one's preferences. C'est la vie.

 

[F. King Daniel]

The reality is, at this point, Kelvinverse is deeply dormant, if not dead

While irrelevant to this discussion, remember when everyone (myself included) was saying that about The Next Generation? This past week reminded me to never say never.

 

[Malaika]

I love the Kelvin movies (09 and Into Darkness are my two favourite of the Trek films overall--and I've been watching Trek since 1973). While I'm happy to see Trek on TV these days, I'm far more interested in seeing more Kelvinverse movies (or TV with those actors--though that obviously won't happen).

I fail to understand how Tarantino's trek will give us more kelvin trek by...not making a kelvin trek movie.
That's a contradiction.

This guy won't save this trek. He wants to alter trek to fit his preferred genre and also ditch the trilogy just because he doesn't get it is another reality.
Who knows, maybe Paramount wants to kill kelvin trek and pretend it's a retcon of tos, now. Integrity level 300%.

Excuse me if I'm not expressing JOY and excitement here.

I am also a HUGE Tarantino fan and have wanted him to do a Trek film since before the Kelvin movies were even an idea, let alone an actual trilogy of completed films. So which neat little box does that put me in? How much of my "real fan of Kelvinverse" credentials do I now have to renounce?

Tarantino is the one making the two mutually exclusive, not me. See above.
I love that people want to ignore his own comments now but I don't think it's a good idea to still pretend he won't make the movie he is telling us that he'll make.
People were right (and realistic) worrying about him from the start.

Like I said before, I don't find some of you Tarantino fans are being objective and honest with those who don't share this bias for Tarantino and aren't so willing to bend over backwards to pretend everything makes sense.

I too like many directors in genres different from trek, this, however, doesn't mean I want them to direct trek or I believe they are good for it on principle. But that's me.

I get that a Tarantino movie would not be to everyone's taste--none of his movies are. The reality is, at this point, Kelvinverse is deeply dormant, if not dead.

It's doomed anyway at this point and especially if he does the next movie and further alienates the little remaining fanbase these movies might have after Beyond.

Besides, if what he is saying is true the problem isn't just him. It's obvious from paramount&co's behavior that they have no love, inspiration and respect for this thing they own. From the sound of it, it seems they are agreeing with the haters and seem to think 'no one ' likes this reboot. If that isn't disappointing for the fans I don't know what it is.

In the meantime, no one is required to watch a Tarantino film if it does not appeal to one's preferences. C'est la vie.

I always stop watching things I don't like. I tried watching his movies but I realized they weren't my cuppa and moved on. I certainly never went to his fanboards to share my negative opinions with his fans, though.
I never expected to find myself in the alternate reality where he is making a trek movie either.

 

[PixelMagic]

Tarantino's film is in the Kelvin Timeline. Straight from the horse's mouth.

https://comicbook.com/startrek/2019/07/22/star-trek-quentin-tarantino-chris-pine-kelvin-timeline/