Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?

[Khan 2.0]

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.

aboslutly. using Shatner would legitimise the whole thing (similar to Nimoy in ST09) and create extra interest (Tarantino AND Shatner?!) . id bet even non fans with only the vaguest memories/awareness of TOS or an old Trek movie would be intrigued

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.

yes.even if established stuff is ignored/contradicted fans can usually figure it out in terms of making it work continuity wise (providing it isn't too contradictory)

 

[Dales]

Well I guess some people will have to deal and others won't.

Tarantino's Trek sounds like a green-lit go. I am excited about it than the possibility of no trek at all.

I say bring it on..again.

if people are not interested they can respectfully not just watch it in cinema or read reviews or discuss it.

 

[mos6507]

The above is the very epitome of entitlement regarding entertainment.

This is a fan discussion forum. What's the point of being here if not to offer our opinions about entertainment? And frankly, as thin as the egos of Hollywood may be, I think they would prefer to hear from the rabble rather than for us all to merely vote with the blunt instrument of our wallets and leave them wanting an explanation.

 

[fireproof78]

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.

One, wow, how wrong those statements are about Abrams and Trek.

Two, we have Tarantino's own quotes in terms of his attitude towards Star Trek, specifically his love of Shatner and that the thought Pine did a perfect Shatner impression. So, while we are speculating (obviously) there is information to speculate about.

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.

Nonlinear has never appealed to be as a storytelling device. It's one of those tools that feels like it is being too clever and deliberately trying to frustrate the audience rather than engage.

 

[PixelMagic]

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.

That's exactly what he's doing. Watch this interview of him saying that digital cinema isn't really filmmaking because it's not celluloid. He says film is magical because it's 24 still pictures per second giving the illusion of motion and that digital cinema can never be that because it's just 'really good video'. Guess what, digital cinema is also 24fps. He's talking utter nonsense here.

I trust him to make a good film, but he certainly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about sometimes.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Malaika]

One, wow, how wrong those statements are about Abrams and Trek.

Two, we have Tarantino's own quotes in terms of his attitude towards Star Trek, specifically his love of Shatner and that the thought Pine did a perfect Shatner impression. So, while we are speculating (obviously) there is information to speculate about.

I'm reading some comments in other sites too and what I can say? When (to the surprise of no one) those who are the most happy about his comments are the hardcore kelvin trek haters and online bullies, as they believe he is going to 'kill' jj's trek and that the studio is 'admitting that no one likes these movies and they aren't real trek', it just says a lot. They already hope for him to find a way to 'kill' Kurtzman and all his TV series too.

Congrats, I guess.

 

[aaronbossig]

I'm sorry, but I still don't see this happening, and I find the stories that it's "Green Lit" to go against everything we know about Paramount. The last few years have shown that the JJ movies (which in their own right were experimental) have been a modest success, whereas the TV shows have been a runaway hit, critically and financially. Paramount&CBS have to see that the future of Trek is in TV shows that are more grounded in the traditional universe and not broad re-imaginings... much less the broad re-imaginings of a very controversial filmmaker.

Bottom line: Trek is again working as a business, after a decade and a half of uncertainty. From here on out, the Franchise is going to want calculated risks, not Russian Roulette.

 

[Spot261]

I can see a one off Trek movie exploring a much more adult aspect of the franchise being potentially fantastic in Tarantinos' hands. Let's not forget the man is a genuine Star Trek fan and is more than capable of modulating the violence when it suits. What he would be able to play well would be to really explore the nastier aspects of Klingon culture which we've tended to see played down, or the fringes of the Federation and the colonies.

I'd love to see a truly adult Trek movie and couldn't give two hoots about where it fits into any continuity so long as it really explores aspects of that universe which have been glossed over and does so in an intelligent way. If there's anyone out there who's consistently able to make films which tick all those boxes and do so in a way which generates revenue then it's Tarantino.

I have to admit to having misgivings about some of the revelations regarding his conduct in the past and I'm not going to gloss over them, but it's hard to think of anyone out there better placed or suited to this project if he's given artistic freedom. Frankly he loves the franchise already and doesn't need us to tell him what we want. He needs to be allowed to do what he's done so well so often before in so many other fictional and semi fictional settings.

 

[mos6507]

"I'm sorry, but I still don't see this happening"

I've learned not to take TrekBBS industry predictions seriously. For instance, almost everyone here said Trek wasn't going to come back to TV before it happened. Everyone had elaborate rationalizations which presumed to understand the brains of the bean-counters--and they were all wrong. Nobody here really has a good handle on where the industry is going. It's pure spit-balling.

 

[fireproof78]

discuss it.

We are discussing it.

 

[Ovation]

This is a fan discussion forum. What's the point of being here if not to offer our opinions about entertainment? And frankly, as thin as the egos of Hollywood may be, I think they would prefer to hear from the rabble rather than for us all to merely vote with the blunt instrument of our wallets and leave them wanting an explanation.

You're free to offer any opinion you want about entertainment. You are NOT entitled that any and all opinions, including yours, will be given equal consideration or viewed as relevant. Same goes for the entertainment itself--it owes you NOTHING by way of satisfaction. The only thing you are owed is the entertainment itself, in exchange for an agreed upon price (ranging from free to whatever upper dollar threshold applies to you). Satisfaction, and "consideration of your concerns" beforehand is NOT (nor should ever be) required.

 

[fireproof78]

You're free to offer any opinion you want about entertainment. You are NOT entitled that any and all opinions, including yours, will be given equal consideration or viewed as relevant. Same goes for the entertainment itself--it owes you NOTHING by way of satisfaction. The only thing you are owed is the entertainment itself, in exchange for an agreed upon price (ranging from free to whatever upper dollar threshold applies to you). Satisfaction, and "consideration of your concerns" beforehand is NOT (nor should ever be) required.

In a discussion should not points be considered and acknowledged? Nobody is asking Paramount to consider our opinions here. These are opinions expressed here to be discussed by individuals here.

There seems to be the mistaken assumption that because I (and others but I won't speak for them) am voicing concerns and asking for consideration in this discussion format that some how extends to Paramount. It does not.

Paramount will do whatever the hell it wants and doesn't owe me a damn thing. However, in the exchange of ideas I would like to think all ideas can be discussed. I would like to think that on a discussion board that would be apparent.

I could be wrong...

 

[Ovation]

In a discussion should not points be considered and acknowledged? Nobody is asking Paramount to consider our opinions here. These are opinions expressed here to be discussed by individuals here.

There seems to be the mistaken assumption that because I (and others but I won't speak for them) am voicing concerns and asking for consideration in this discussion format that some how extends to Paramount. It does not.

Paramount will do whatever the hell it wants and doesn't owe me a damn thing. However, in the exchange of ideas I would like to think all ideas can be discussed. I would like to think that on a discussion board that would be apparent.

I could be wrong...

You can voice the concerns. You cannot demand that others consider them relevant. That is for each and every individual participant in the thread to decide for themselves. Clearly the concerns are expressed (repeatedly). That others don't share them, or see them as relevant, is, well...life. I fail to see what more "consideration" you desire.

 

[fireproof78]

You can voice the concerns. You cannot demand that others consider them relevant. That is for each and every individual participant in the thread to decide for themselves. Clearly the concerns are expressed (repeatedly). That others don't share them, or see them as relevant, is, well...life. I fail to see what more "consideration" you desire.

If they are dismissed out of hand then I will repeat them. The fact that QT is attached to the project is sufficient for many. They will hand out carte blanche for whatever he wants.

I would hope for a more considerate discussion but that's about it, but apparently not. That's all the consideration I can expect, I guess.

 

[mos6507]

You're free to offer any opinion you want about entertainment. You are NOT entitled that any and all opinions, including yours, will be given equal consideration

The industry can ignore feedback as they see fit. It tends not to work well in the long-run, but they can. But I don't see why you, personally, feel the need to keep harping on this other than as a veiled way to shut down dissent.

 

[Dales]

HMMMM

His trek will be set in the kelvin verse but we dont know if he will use this current cast.

 

[Ovation]

If they are dismissed out of hand then I will repeat them. The fact that QT is attached to the project is sufficient for many. They will hand out carte blanche for whatever he wants.

And? It's a serious question.

I'm a fan of Ella Fitzgerald. I don't have a complete collection of her recordings, as some have been lost since before I was born 50 years ago. However, I have a sizeable collection and if something I don't have becomes available (at a price I can afford), I buy it. She has "carte blanche" from me. I also have a large Hitchcock film collection. He is my favourite director. I have everything he made that is commercially available (several in duplicate, a few in triplicate, for the extras that come with the film). He also has "carte blanche" from me and, were he still alive and making films, you bet your ass I'd want to see him try a Trek film. For the same reasons as I want a Tarantino one--it would be different from anything else in Trek (that's a feature, not a bug).

I buy music from favourite bands before I hear it, because some bands have earned a "carte blanche" status. I especially like it if these bands leave their comfort zones and try something very different (say a prog rock musician who puts out a big band album, or a classical violinist who tries her hand at bluegrass). Obviously others would feel differently. That much is fine. But I owe them no "consideration for their concerns" if Alison Krauss decides to put out an album of Bach solo pieces for violin when she usually performs bluegrass and country.

I would hope for a more considerate discussion but that's about it, but apparently not. That's all the consideration I can expect, I guess.

So, what then. You want all of us who would like a Tarantino film to temper our excitement for such a prospect by proffering a "I hear ya, Tarantino might not make something to your taste, and it's unfortunate the next Trek movie might not be for you--I feel your pain"? Really? I get that you (and others) are not excited by the prospect, but I'm not going to apologize for my enthusiasm just because it isn't universal.

 

[Ovation]

The industry can ignore feedback as they see fit. It tends not to work well in the long-run, but they can. But I don't see why you, personally, feel the need to keep harping on this other than as a veiled way to shut down dissent.

The goal is not to shut down dissent. I dissent enough on my own about a whole host of things. However, I recognize that I do not own another's creative endevour, nor am I owed satisfaction from experiencing that creative endeavour. In other words, I'm not entitled to be "listened to". I find it abhorrent that anyone should want, let alone expect, an artistic producer (in whatever field--painting, music, film, theatre, literature) to "listen to the fans". Artists should be free to put out whatever they want. Conversely, no artist is owed support or appreciation--that must be earned.

Art, like academic inquiry, should be as little beholden to prior expectations as possible. Artistic and academic freedom are cornerstones of a free society more generally--so when I see anything that suggests otherwise, I argue against such limitations.

What is especially irksome, beyond unearned entitlement, is the notion that any one "fan" can presume to speak for others (or, even more problematically, presume to decide who is a "true fan" of something). So, by all means, criticize, complain, even ridicule a creative endeavour that does not meet your expectations. But do not presume to suggest it is a universal point of view. Nor should anyone demand their complaints, etc. are owed "consideration" or "respect". We are all entitled to opinions. We are NOT entitled to have those opinions shared or validated.

 

[pst]

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/

i am heartened and confused by this.

 

[fireproof78]

So, what then. You want all of us who would like a Tarantino film to temper our excitement for such a prospect by proffering a "I hear ya, Tarantino might not make something to your taste, and it's unfortunate the next Trek movie might not be for you--I feel your pain"? Really? I get that you (and others) are not excited by the prospect, but I'm not going to apologize for my enthusiasm just because it isn't universal.

Simple acknowledgement would suffice. No one has asked you to do anything or apologize for your enthusiasm. Yes, really. Empathy goes a long way in human discourse.

Not sure how acknowledging other people's concerns tempers your excitement, but if that is what you think is being asked then I apologize profusely. All I wanted was acknowledgement that there are concerns, especially based upon what QT has said, for some. A different point of view, if you will.

I have done my best to try and acknowledge the possibility that he might make a film I might enjoy. I have acknowledged that you (and many others) are enthused and excited by the possibility and have celebrated it thusly. But, like you, I will not temper my opinions just because.

And? It's a serious question.

And no one has earned carte blanche from me. I am truly glad there are those that have from you. But, if I may be so bold, this is a case of another point of view that is just as valid as any other. Carte blanche is too big of a risk for me.

But do not presume to suggest it is a universal point of view.

Who is doing this in this thread? I don't there is a universal point of view on much of anything. Art, being highly subjective, the least likely to have it.

Art, like academic inquiry, should be as little beholden to prior expectations as possible. Artistic and academic freedom are cornerstones of a free society more generally--so when I see anything that suggests otherwise, I argue against such limitations.

Is someone arguing to limit art here? What?