Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?

[Malaika]

Nor would I. Let's not make this a battle of directors. I am skeptical because of what Tarantino has said and done. @Malaika has linked and quoted him all over the map, and no one is reading it. It's absurd the level of miscommunication and assumption that is in this discussion.

Miscommunication might be inevitable when some want to reply to people whose comments they don't really read.
Case in point, the person you are replying to was apparently replying to me too but, as usual, it's obvious they didn't bother reading my comments at all:
1) they still ask me to write the reasons why I'm against Tarantino directing when I have made my points clear, and supported them with facts (eg his own interviews).
2) they (still) ask me if/why I support Orci directing instead of Tarantino when I never said that. In fact , I dunno why Orci was even mentioned here (and when they did, I already said that I wasn't sure about him directing either and I totally agree he was too inexperienced. Case closed). A straw man argument and, again, an attempt to derail the point? Highly possible.
Someone can be wrong once and therefore misinterpret you, but when they persist on replying to points you never made, and ignore the ones you really made, the agenda might be a tad too obvious.

If you support QT Trek without question that's fine. Don't expect me to agree and don't expect others to share the exact same point of view on this director who is considered controversial. It's not "gatekeeping" to be skeptical as to whether or not a director is a good fit for telling a Star Trek story. Otherwise, let's have the horror masters jump in here too. I'm sure Sam Rami's Star Trek will be great too, with all that body horror and violence.

why not Lars von Trier? Dogville is genius. (Tarantino loved it too!)
Surely a trek movie by him wouldn't need a big budget, and people wouldn't complain the bridge looks like an apple store...
Still voting for Almodóvar though. You know he would love to bring Kirk's dad back from the death (though maybe he'd rather bring Spock's mother back).

Honestly, I don't want to be right about Tarantino but the thing is, my gut feeling turned out to be right when I was worried about Lindelof, Orci and Lin. (slightly trek-unrelated, but I also had a feeling I wouldn't like JJ's star wars like I liked his trek and I was right )
And I had less evidence against them than I have against Tarantino now.
I don't have 'fun' being worried, I'd rather be excited.. but I don't like being on denial either.

 

[fireproof78]

why not Lars von Trier? Dogville is genius. (Tarantino loved it too!)
Surely a trek movie by him wouldn't need a big budget, and people wouldn't complain the bridge looks like an apple store...
Still voting for Almodóvar though. You know he would love to bring Kirk's dad back from the death (though maybe he'd rather bring Spock's mother back).

von Trier is a great choice. I think he could make a very artistic Star Trek film. Still want Michael Bay though.

Honestly, I don't want to be right about Tarantino but the thing is, my gut feeling turned out to be right when I was worried about Lindelof, Orci and Lin. (slightly trek-unrelated, but I also had a feeling I wouldn't like JJ's star wars like I liked his trek and I was right )
And I had less evidence against them than I have against Tarantino now.
I don't have 'fun' being worried, I'd rather be excited.. but I don't like being on denial either.

Yeah, this isn't fun for me either. But, I'm not going to pretend I'm OK with the choices and want to discuss them.

What would be nice is for individuals to argue what they want Tarantino to bring to Star Trek. So far the argument seems to be "he's a fan" and "he is a genius filmmaker" neither which tells me anything around what he would bring to Star Trek.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Errr pass on Michael Bay Trekspolsions isn't what the fans want is it?

 

[fireproof78]

Errr pass on Michael Bay Trekspolsions isn't what the fans want is it?

A director should be allowed to make Trek however they want, no questions asked.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What would be nice is for individuals to argue what they want Tarantino to bring to Star Trek. So far the argument seems to be "he's a fan" and "he is a genius filmmaker" neither which tells me anything around what he would bring to Star Trek.

I thought I had earlier, but I might as well reiterate.

The qualities that I look most forward to with Tarantino’s involvement is his knack for cracking dialogue. Not only that, but he’s proven to be able pull off scenes with a lot of tension by just having two people talk in a quiet room for ten minutes. It’s a quality I feel most of the films have lacked when compared to their TV counterparts. Take for instance the dinner scene with Khan in TOS, where it’s Kirk essentially trying to size up Khan under the guise of civility, and Khan sees right through it but only after having an outburst.

I think my favorite moments like that from Tarantino were in INGLOURIOUS BASRERDS, particularly with two scenes: the very first one that introduces Hans Landa, and the tavern with the Allied spies trying to avert suspicion. To me, those scenes are far more exciting than any explosion sequences. It’s a quality I wish more blockbuster films could implement. To me, that’s part of what makes Tarantino a valid choice.

As for Von Treir, I get you guys are being sarcastic, but I don’t think Tarantino is a comparable example to him. Most importantly, Von Trier has never expressed interest in Trek, unlike Tarantino.

 

[fireproof78]

Most importantly, Von Trier has never expressed interest in Trek, unlike Tarantino.

I don't feel this is a good qualifier for a director. If so, we would not get TWOK.

To me, those scenes are far more exciting than any explosion sequences. It’s a quality I wish more blockbuster films could implement. To me, that’s part of what makes Tarantino a valid choice.

If it were only that then fine. It won't be.

 

[Ovation]

A director should be allowed to make Trek however they want, no questions asked.

I know you didn’t mean it that way but you are exactly right. At least, no “artistic” questions. (Incidentally, this is true of all films, not just Trek.) Let the audience decide whether it appreciates the final result. However, the audience has NO right to prior approval.

 

[fireproof78]

I know you didn’t mean it that way but you are exactly right. At least, no “artistic” questions. (Incidentally, this is true of all films, not just Trek.) Let the audience decide whether it appreciates the final result.

I hope this same attitude will be extended to Discovery, Picard and all the new Trek .

To be blunt, I'll believe when I see it.

 

[Ovation]

I hope this same attitude will be extended to Discovery, Picard and all the new Trek .

To be blunt, I'll believe when I see it.

I extend that attitude to all forms of art, commercial or otherwise. Always have.

 

[fireproof78]

I extend that attitude to all forms of art, commercial or otherwise. Always have.

You are quite unique in that regard.

 

[Ovation]

You are quite unique in that regard.

I don’t think so. It’s not that I don’t have preferences, or hopes that a new film, novel, album, etc. will be satisfying. It’s simply that I accept I’m owed nothing by way of satisfaction. Moreover (and more importantly) I have no right to circumscribe what the artist wants to make. He or she or they can make whatever they want. However, I don’t owe them approval. They must earn it—AFTER the fact. But it’s certainly not my job to dictate to (or even attempt to persuade) them what and how to make their film, book, etc.

 

[fireproof78]

I don’t think so. It’s not that I don’t have preferences, or hopes that a new film, novel, album, etc. will be satisfying. It’s simply that I accept I’m owed nothing by way of satisfaction. Moreover (and more importantly) I have no right to circumscribe what the artist wants to make. He or she or they can make whatever they want. However, I don’t owe them approval. They must earn it—AFTER the fact. But it’s certainly not my job to dictate to (or even attempt to persuade) them what and how to make their film, book, etc.

Still think you're unique. I've heard this before but it's been years and that podcast is no longer going.

Regardless, I don't think I can prescribe anything. But I won't be quiet about my concerns, even if I know it matters precisely zero in production of the product.

The same could be argued about reviews. What will my complaining change about the produced films?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't feel this is a good qualifier for a director. If so, we would not get TWOK.

My point being Tarantino becomes a more obvious choice than Von Trier in that he’s among a number of filmmakers that have expressed interest in getting the gig.

If it were only that then fine. It won't be.

Quite right, another thing that would make me encouraged in his qualification is that he could easily create a more compelling and interesting antagonist, something Trek has seriously struggled with for way too long. I would prefer Trek to take a break from an antagonist altogether for a film or two, but one penned by Tarantino is one I’m very open to.

 

[fireproof78]

My point being Tarantino becomes a more obvious choice than Von Trier in that he’s among a number of filmmakers that have expressed interest in getting the gig.

Fair enough, I guess.

Quite right, another thing that would make me encouraged in his qualification is that he could easily create a more compelling and interesting antagonist, something Trek has seriously struggled with for way too long. I would prefer Trek to take a break from an antagonist altogether for a film or two, but one penned by Tarantino is one I’m very open to.

I like Nero, so I don't mind the antagonists even on Discovery when they are very mixed.

 

[donners22]

My point being Tarantino becomes a more obvious choice than Von Trier in that he’s among a number of filmmakers that have expressed interest in getting the gig.

Exactly. There's a bit in The Fifty Year Mission about how Patrick Stewart wanted them to get a "name" director for Insurrection. Nobody was interested, and that came as absolutely no surprise to Berman.

To have an auteur actually willing to do Trek is remarkable, and it'd be such a shame if it amounted to nothing.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Was Bryan Singer ever in consideration? He made a cameo in NEMESIS, but I do think he would have made a good fit for Trek as a director, especially if it was a TNG installment. DAYS OF FUTURE PAST really hit it home for me, where the point being made was that preventing an assassination of a known butcher of mutants in the past would actually change the timeline to something more hopeful. That speaks to the optimism at least.

Of course there’s no way in hell Singer will be getting that gig today. That train is gone and the tracks are dismantled.

 

[Malaika]

I'm starting to think I'm one of the few who are actually following these Tarantino news and reading articles. .but anyways, Tarantino doesn't want to write the script, in fact they hired another guy for that who, presumably, wrote what Tarantino wanted. A guy who is mainly known because he wrote the boring movie that made DiCaprio win an Oscar for fighting against a bear (out of all the movies where he got a nom, IMO that was the less deserving of the award. I was only happy he finally got one because it had became a funny meme that he never did)
That's old news.

The script writer is another reason why I'm concerned because he too has no experience in the genre (most of his stuff seems to be horror). The fact Tarantino has that guy writing the script instead of, at least, asking for someone who has more experience in the genre and can thus balance him a bit and help him respect the integrity of the franchise, is another hint for me that he has no interest making a star trek movie. He just wants to make a Tarantino movie with a bit of trek in it.

So yeah, the issue for me is that from everything I'm reading about his movie, there is no hint he even respects trek let alone this trek. No hint he'll make a movie I can enjoy.
I'd be more willing to give him a chance if I got a hint that he truly wanted to challenge himself with something different, but this isn't the case.
He indeed wants to make pulp fiction in space. He said it. He also said his movie has a gangsters vibe. And he admits he doesn't get what this trek is about, and thus the basic alternate reality premise, but he doesn't seem to give hint he wants to get it. .rather, he seems to think he's too good for trek and he'll simply ignore the source material all the while wanting to make a movie that is part of kelvin trek. If that isn't arrogance and incompetence I don't know what it is. If anyone but Tarantino had said that, the Internet would attack them now (JJ and Lin were attacked by trek fans for much less).

Furthermore, he also said that be prefers trek over star wars only because he liked Shatner. And he likes the cast of kelvin trek, but he doesn't seem to respect their work or he wouldn't claim that Pine and Quinto were playing Shatner and Nimoy when even my mom knows that they never did that, and it simply wasn't the purpose of this trek.

Oh and there is that other comment by him, that many seem to ignore as well, where he basically said that JJ was silly for keeping the whole crew because it's terribly annoying you have to give Mccoy, Uhura, Scotty and the others something to do.
So once again, I get no clue he wants to make a movie I will enjoy. I'm only getting clues of the opposite. I only keep getting reasons to be worried.

Tarantino seems to be waaaaay too clueless and unwilling to know the most basic stuff about this trek, and this combined with the fact he IS a bad fit already, because his movies are the opposite of the stuff you expect to see in trek, it's all very concerning for me.

It seems the only reason Tarantino trek is even a thing is because it's so crazy and controversial, and makes people talk about it, not really because his movie would be amazing and give this trek a future. It's shallow and heartless for the most part and those who are optimistic seem to mainly make assumptions that require one has to ignore his own interviews. And I can't do that.

As a fan of this trek I have no reason, so far, to support him and get excited.
I'd rather get no more movies than see him ruin the thing I like and put its future even more in jeopardy. I do want more movies, but I'm not that desperate...it has to make a bit of sense and I want actual sequels, a continuation of the thing, not random directors from other genres using the kelvin trek characters to 'experiment' whether their movies can have a bit of trek in them. I want a director who cares a bit about these characters and is really inspired to continue this trek that has so much potential.
Tarantino simply doesn't seem to be that.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

My understanding of the writing stages is that because Tarantino was putting all of his energy onto ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, Mark L. Smith was hired to write a draft based on notes by Tarantino. Once Tarantino is finished promoting his film, he'll go back to what Smith laid out on the drafts and start doing his own passes to calibrate it to his liking. Also, I suspect Smith's hiring on writing the drafts had less to do with THE REVENANT and much more to do with the fact that he just came off of OVERLORD, which was a Bad Robot production. So he's in this because Abrams liked working with him and wanted to have him in on the process. Makes sense to me.

 

[Khan 2.0]

Dont think Malaika is too keen on QT Trek

 

[F. King Daniel]

My understanding of the writing stages is that because Tarantino was putting all of his energy onto ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, Mark L. Smith was hired to write a draft based on notes by Tarantino. Once Tarantino is finished promoting his film, he'll go back to what Smith laid out on the drafts and start doing his own passes to calibrate it to his liking. Also, I suspect Smith's hiring on writing the drafts had less to do with THE REVENANT and much more to do with the fact that he just came off of OVERLORD, which was a Bad Robot production. So he's in this because Abrams liked working with him and wanted to have him in on the process. Makes sense to me.

I find it really weird Bad Robot are involved since they and Paramount are about to part ways.