Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?

[fireproof78]

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

Then I want nothing to with him. It's absurdity to treat a man as a god, I don't care who it is.

whatever Discovery is etc.

Prime.

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.

Yeah...that's highly concerning.

Why not let Tarantino make his pulp fiction trek and (hopefully) enjoy it for what it is?

Because QT is not being encouraging that he actually understands the material. Not every director is appropriate for every franchise.

watching TWOK for the hundredth time.

No, thank you. Terrible film.

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

Count me out of most then.

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

I get this. But I get tired of concerns over whether or not QT is a good fit getting glossed over. I'm sure the same could be said for Abrams but not everyone likes his Star Trek. It's the same here. Why dismiss concerns over one director and not another?

It's double standards like these that drive me nuts.

 

[Ovation]

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.

While the subsequent post to yours suggests Tarantino's film is intended to be in the Kelvinverse, so my earlier point may be moot, I was suggesting that a financially successful "one-off" from Tarantino could lead to the studio pursuing more Kelvinverse films (as Tarantino won't do more than one AND Kelvinverse is what they own). Much like a non-continuity "Dark Knight Returns" led to a spike of in-continuity Batman comics sales back in the 80s.

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.

"Save Trek"? Not really on him (or any other director, for that matter). As for what he wants to do, well, he's shown he can play "within the lines" in the past, in something not really in his usual wheelhouse, with CSI. As for "doesn't get it's another reality"--most of the people I know who have seen the Kelvinverse movies don't get that either unless pointed out to them (and even then, half refuse to accept it). However, if the studio thinks it's important enough, they'll explain it to him. If they don't, well, clearly Paramount is ready to move on. I wouldn't be happy about it (as I said, I am a big fan of the Kelvinverse). But I'd rather a Tarantino Trek film than zero Trek films going forward.

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.

Maybe they do. Not my preferred option. But also, NOT. MY. FRANCHISE. As the owners, they can do as they wish. And nowhere did I suggest you should be "expressing JOY and excitement". But excuse me for not sharing your pessimism at the possibility of a Tarantino Trek film. Goes both ways.

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.

Really? Tarantino is the one who is suggesting someone is not being a proper fan of Kelvinverse films because he or she might like to see him make a Trek film? You can be disappointed in the possibility--that is fine. You do NOT get to label someone, implicitly or explicitly, a "lesser fan" because he or she does not share your "worrying about" Tarantino. Also, be careful of lumping all people who might want to see such a film into the same pot. I've NEVER told anyone to ignore what Tarantino has said he might want to do, nor do I have any particular expectations about what he would do. Jackie Brown, The Hateful Eight and Pulp Fiction are hardly carbon copies of each other.

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.

What does this even mean? I'm a fan of Tarantino--what does objectivity have to do with it? Or honesty? You're not a fan and you don't want him to make a Trek movie--how is that any more objective than the opposite opinion?

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.

Good for you, I guess. Hardly a persuasive general rebuttal to wanting a particular director to make a Trek movie, though.

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.

Whereas I never imagined I'd be fortunate enough to have a chance to see him make one. C'est la vie.

 

[Ovation]

But I get tired of concerns over whether or not QT is a good fit getting glossed over. I'm sure the same could be said for Abrams but not everyone likes his Star Trek. It's the same here. Why dismiss concerns over one director and not another?

What exactly do you want acknowledged, then? You don't want a Tarantino film. I (and others) do. Until it gets made, it's all hypothetical anyway--what would be the point of endlessly arguing? Besides, the same has been said, over and over, of Abrams (though not by me--the two Abrams directed movies are my two favourite Trek movies).

My main beef is the suggestion that if I want a Tarantino movie, it implies I don't sufficiently "love" the Kelvinverse films or want more of them. That smacks of another trying to define whether or not I am a "true fan" of something (in this case, Kelvinverse Trek). I will NEVER let such an implication (about Trek or anything else) go without comment--I get to decide if I'm a fan. No one else does. I fully understand Tarantino is not everyone's favourite. I also understand he'll push boundaries, if he ever does a Trek film. That's precisely why I WANT a Tarantino film--it won't be like anything else in Trek. But again, no one is required to like it, or even see it.

 

[Malaika]

I literally was the first one who posted his latest interview, so nice knowing you guys reply to me but apparently don't bother reading integral parts of the points I'm making. And I actually QUOTED that interview too.


And Ovation, I'm not putting you in the kelvin trek haters box , but if the main argument used by some here, including you, is that kelvin trek fans should be default happy about him making a movie if they want more kelvin trek, I have to question the logic of said argument since it's apparent the guy won't give us a new, actual, kelvin trek movie. I don't see why, as a kelvin trek fan, I should consider this as him giving this trek a future when is the opposite. Again, how can he give me more kelvin trek when he wants to ignore/ditch kelvin trek?
Someone in the other page implied that not liking these news means wanting kelvin trek to be dead... But how when Tarantino might be the one killing it? and with the studio blessings!


The narrative of his defenders keeps changing but the point remains the same. The concerns are consistent and well motivated by Tarantino's own words, thus the facts. I cannot be on denial, nor I want to.

 

[fireproof78]

What exactly do you want acknowledged, then?

I want acknowledgement...period. That mine (and others) concerns are legitimate, based upon Tarantino's own words. That, just because Tarantino is much sought after director doesn't make him the best fit for Star Trek. That his quotes (that @Malaika keeps quoting!) are not the encouragement for all.

Acknowledgment, and understanding. That's what I want. What has been received? Argumentation and rationalization.

You don't want a Tarantino film. I (and others) do.

I am highly skeptical of a Tarantino film. I hope it gets produced and I hope you get your film.

That's precisely why I WANT a Tarantino film--it won't be like anything else in Trek.

And you don't see why that doesn't give people pause? Why that might create some level of discomfort or anxiety?

It's frustrating to me, and this is my thing. I will never throw in carte blanche with any director, no matter the name. James Cameron wants to make Star Trek? I'm skeptical. Lucas wants to make Star Trek? I'm cautious. Nolan's Star Trek...? Highly reserved.

It's the blank check level attitude towards QT, that he can do no wrong, that concerns me the most. For me, I cannot abide this attitude. I will object to it at every level with cautiousness and skepticism.

YMMV, and all that jazz.

 

[mos6507]

When Tarantino says it's in the Kelvin timeline, he doesn't mean it the way hardcore fans do. All he means is that he would use the Kelvinverse actors (and perhaps existing assets) but that his intention is to do a prime-Trek kind of story, since his touchstone is TOS, not Kelvin where events did not unfold the way he liked them to. So his film would still have an intact Vulcan, a more stoic Spock, Kirk not having lost his father, probably Spock and Uhura not having hooked up, etc...

It's clear from the interview that his dream would have been to direct a TOS movie with the TOS actors in their prime, but since he can't do that, he'll use the Kelvin cast as stand-ins. I don't agree that Pine and Quinto did impersonations, especially Quinto who was way too emotional. Only Karl Urban really nailed his predecessor, despite not having the correct physique.

Just as Discovery was promoted as prime-trek but stylistically is Kelvin, I fear that Tarantino's Trek would also inhabit a canonical no-man's land where it alienates Kelvin-fans because it's warping Kelvin to be more of an imitation of actual TOS and alienates purists because it's still carrying over Kelvin-isms.

Because of this, I think it would have been better had Tarantino floated his idea directly with Paramount rather than feeling as though Bad Robot had to be the custodians of the franchise. Since Kelvin is on the way out anyway, it would have been far better for Tarantino to tell Paramount that his film would have been a blank slate, hire unknowns to portray Kirk/Spock/McCoy, and let it be a true one-off elseworlds thing instead of this hybrid blended with Kelvin.

 

[fireproof78]

Just as Discovery was promoted as prime-trek but stylistically is Kelvin, I fear that Tarantino's Trek would also inhabit a canonical no-man's land where it alienates Kelvin-fans because it's warping Kelvin to be more of an imitation of actual TOS and alienates purists because it's still carrying over Kelvin-isms.

A movie that doesn't please anyone? Sounds like a Star Trek movie!

 

[ISS Enterprise]

I still believe it won't be Kelvin universe as in the interview he explained he doesn't get it and stated Abrams told him to ignore it, nobody likes it. JJ doesn't get it. If he wanted to make the movie like it was in the series he can, etc

See quote below from Comicbook.com

IF, A big ? Still, this gets made guessing QT will place it in a universe of his choosing. He using TOS characters. Most likely not the KT versions of them. Ship, sets, costumes all would change too I would think, but who the Hell knows. I'm guessing same as everyone else here

...."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.’”

 

[Ovation]

And you don't see why that doesn't give people pause? Why that might create some level of discomfort or anxiety?

Frankly, I don’t care. It’s a movie, not a vital social programme. If, instead of Tarantino, the rumours were about Uwe Boll, I’d say, nope...not for me. But that’s it. What I would not do is wring my hands, gnash my teeth, and demand “acknowledgement of my concerns”. I’m not really entitled to such consideration, particularly as I don’t own the franchise. I’m owed NOTHING by Trek. The owners and producers are free to do as they wish and my personal feelings on the matter are (and should be) irrelevant to them. So while I am aware some Trek fans don’t want a Tarantino movie, I don’t owe them anything. Nor does the studio.

 

[fireproof78]

Frankly, I don’t care. It’s a movie, not a vital social programme. If, instead of Tarantino, the rumours were about Uwe Boll, I’d say, nope...not for me. But that’s it. What I would not do is wring my hands, gnash my teeth, and demand “acknowledgement of my concerns”. I’m not really entitled to such consideration, particularly as I don’t own the franchise. I’m owed NOTHING by Trek. The owners and producers are free to do as they wish and my personal feelings on the matter are (and should be) irrelevant to them. So while I am aware some Trek fans don’t want a Tarantino movie, I don’t owe them anything. Nor does the studio.

Thank you for that. I wasn't aware I was expressing being "owed" attitude regarding Star Trek...

This is the attitude that I am referring to. Instead of acknowledgment of concerns and having a discussion around them, there is dismissal and almost a belittling attitude of people who might be concerned.

Who is wringing their hands? Gnashing teeth? Certainly not I. I am engaging in the art of discussion, and self-expression, something I feel is perfectly acceptable.

No, I don't expect my concerns to change a blasted thing at Paramount. I don't care, frankly. I enjoy conversations around Star Trek.

If you want my true wishes, I wish Star Trek never existed. But, no one wants to actually discuss it. So here we stand.

 

[Ovation]

I want acknowledgement...period. That mine (and others) concerns are legitimate, based upon Tarantino's own words. That, just because Tarantino is much sought after director doesn't make him the best fit for Star Trek

Thank you for that. I wasn't aware I was expressing being "owed" attitude regarding Star Trek...

The above is the very epitome of entitlement regarding entertainment. You demand your concerns be considered legitimate. Ok. They are. To you. They are irrelevant to me. Again, it’s just a movie—and a hypothetical one at that.

If you want my true wishes, I wish Star Trek never existed. But, no one wants to actually discuss it. So here we stand.

Then why do you give it any attention whatsoever? There are plenty of “entertainments” that I consider a total waste of time, resources, even oxygen. I spend exactly zero seconds having “concerns” about them, much less demand acknowledgement of my disdain.

 

[fireproof78]

The above is the very epitome of entitlement regarding entertainment. You demand your concerns be considered legitimate. Ok. They are. To you. They are irrelevant to me. Again, it’s just a movie—and a hypothetical one at that.

I thought this was an exchange of ideas...a "discussion" if you will. I can freely acknowledge to have a Tarantino Star Trek film. I can engage with that idea, and hopefully share my own.

Instead, any concerns are swept away as hypothetical and irrelevant. Thank you. I do appreciate your honesty.

Then why do you give it any attention whatsoever? There are plenty of “entertainments” that I consider a total waste of time, resources, even oxygen. I spend exactly zero seconds having “concerns” about them, much less demand acknowledgement of my disdain.

I'm happy for you.

Star Trek, for good or ill, is a part of my life. So, since it exists, I shall acknowledge it. It would be illogical to ignore its impact upon me.

Wishing something never existing doesn't mean I'm wasting time. It just means I acknowledge it as something I would prefer hadn't been in my life. That is all.

 

[Smellmet]

Count me out of most then.

What reason have you got to object to a non linear story? It's not unique to QT and is a popular way to tell stories in films. Of all the criticism of QT being a fit for trek - and they are very legitimate (violence, language etc) this doesn't strike me as one of them.

 

[nutshell]

I find Tarantino’s words encouraging. I think a one-off in his style could be immensely entertaining.

 

[Spot261]

I find Tarantino’s words encouraging. I think a one-off in his style could be immensely entertaining.

What was that strange word you used?

Entaraining or something?

Isn't that the thing they used to make TV shows and movies for before we had the Holy Writ of Canon?

Please get with the program, you aren't supposed to enjoy Star Trek, you are supposed to find the inherent faults in new iterations to demonstrate your understanding of the classics and thus your status within the Holy Order of Roddenberry.

Please learn to take this seriously and give it the gravitas it deserves, not make a mockery of it.

 

[F. King Daniel]

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/

Sounds like he wants to pick up from the first movie but ignore some elements of it and the sequels. Like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is sort-of a sequel to Ghost Rider but has flashbacks that directly contradict how parts of the first film happened.

I would love to have a talk with him and try and explain how the timelines work

 

[Malaika]

His movie will be the kelvin timeline but he doesn't get it. No one is saying it's prime, he's saying it's Pine Kirk's timeline but he doesn't want to get it and the studio apparently lets him be incompetent and silly.
I dunno how he can even like the first movie as I get the feeling if he were to understand it's another reality, he wouldn't be able to like it since he likes his own fantasy that Pine and Quinto are just playing Shatner and Nimoy.

This is pure, utter, nonsense. From the sound of it, he either has to pretend all the differences never happened (which is just idiotic and a disservice to fans), or he has to pretend it was prime from the start but basically vulcan got destroyed, s/u are in love, Ananda died, George Kirk died etc etc. In short, retcon tos ..which is the thing this trek was never meant to do.
Ignoring British Khan doesn't resolve his issues because he needs to ignore. ..everything. and if he does then he cannot claim his movie is a sequel of this trek and the same continuity.

Look, the fact there are fans who still don't get the kelvin timeline isn't an excuse to give Tarantino a pass on his own incompetence and stupidity. Those fans aren't hired to make a sequel of it.
Fans may not necessarily need to get every aspect of these movies, but the director must understand the source material, especially something as important as WHAT these movies are, or he can't get the job. This is abc.
I serioustly hope that his claims about JJ are bs and him being over the top about it because I cannot believe the guys who created this trek don't 'get it' either. Worse, if they really claim that no one likes this reboot this is very concerning for me and beyond disrespectful to those who are liking these movies since years and even defended the creative team.
Even if Tarantino won't make his movie, I won't be able to have any hope for this franchise regardless, now, if the ones who own it have this attitude.


Frankly, I'm giving him more credit by saying that he doesn't want to get some things and he is being deliberately obtuse because he is that arrogant and childish, but he pretty much is painting himself as a clueless idiot who cannot even understand the basic premise of these movies and that they simply are another reality. They explained it to him but he doesn't get it. I don't think this is something to be proud of, but this is your 'genius', not mine.

 

[Spot261]

His movie will be the kelvin timeline but he doesn't get it. No one is saying it's prime, he's saying it's Pine Kirk's timeline but he doesn't want to get it and the studio apparently lets him be incompetent and silly.
I dunno how he can even like the first movie as I get the feeling if he were to understand it's another reality, he wouldn't be able to like it since he likes his own fantasy that Pine and Quinto are just playing Shatner and Nimoy.

This is pure, utter, nonsense. From the sound of it, he either has to pretend all the differences never happened (which is just idiotic and a disservice to fans), or he has to pretend it was prime from the start but basically vulcan got destroyed, s/u are in love, Ananda died, George Kirk died etc etc. In short, retcon tos ..which is the thing this trek was never meant to do.
Ignoring British Khan doesn't resolve his issues because he needs to ignore. ..everything. and if he does then he cannot claim his movie is a sequel of this trek and the same continuity.

Look, the fact there are fans who still don't get the kelvin timeline isn't an excuse to give Tarantino a pass on his own incompetence and stupidity. Those fans aren't hired to make a sequel of it.
Fans may not necessarily need to get every aspect of these movies, but the director must understand the source material, especially something as important as WHAT these movies are, or he can't get the job. This is abc.
I serioustly hope that his claims about JJ are bs and him being over the top about it because I cannot believe the guys who created this trek don't 'get it' either. Worse, if they really claim that no one likes this reboot this is very concerning for me and beyond disrespectful to those who are liking these movies since years and even defended the creative team.
Even if Tarantino won't make his movie, I won't be able to have any hope for this franchise regardless, now, if the ones who own it have this attitude.


Frankly, I'm giving him more credit by saying that he doesn't want to get some things and he is being deliberately obtuse because he is that arrogant and childish, but he pretty much is painting himself as a clueless idiot who cannot even understand the basic premise of these movies and that they simply are another reality. They explained it to him but he doesn't get it. I don't think this is something to be proud of, but this is your 'genius', not mine.

I move to have the case dismissed....

 

[Khan 2.0]

Sounds like he wants to pick up from the first movie but ignore some elements of it and the sequels. Like Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is sort-of a sequel to Ghost Rider but has flashbacks that directly contradict how parts of the first film happened.

I would love to have a talk with him and try and explain how the timelines work

also to a lesser extent The Incredible Hulk (retaining some elements of 2003 Hulk) and even Superman Returns (using Superman I&II as vague continuity) and then there was last years Halloween of course.. and theres been all the others that retcond previous continuities to varying degrees in a 'who cares' way (even if time travel was involved) - XMen, Terminator, Highlander, Fury Road, Evil Dead, and even Alien was going to try it

but these latest comments from QT about ignoring the kelvinverse are pretty huge in their implications! sounds like he wants to make Star Trek 'VII'... think a trekkie script doctor is going to have to fine tune the story abit lol

 

[Kirk Prime]

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. ..

Shatner hasn't been used in 25 years. So using him would hardly be pandering at this point. And Shatner will ALWAYS be the rightful star of Star Trek. Without Shatner, there is no Star Trek. Pine is just a replacement solely because Shatner got older.

Kelvin Trek hasn't been that popular either. So yeah, taking advantage of a major asset in Shatner, even in a small role, would be something terrific that long time fans and the mainstream public could appreciate.

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.

That wouldn't be the worst thing in the world depending on what he does. Abrams ignored plenty of major Star Trek rules to make his little effects laden movies. His take on time travel is irreconcilable with how Star Trek treated it for decades. It's like he never watched an actual episode with Scotty and only saw the character from SNL parodies. He pulled that Spock and Uhura romance from nothing. And so on. I don't know what Tarantino wants to do. It could be great. It could be horrible. With no information, it's hard to speculate.