I really do hope this happens.
Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
I'd like to see it happen for curiosity's sake. It would get a LOT of publicity. I wonder if any new Trek movie project has to go through Kurtzman and CBS though now?
Here's TrekMovie's take on QT's Empire comments
https://trekmovie.com/2019/06/10/qu...9E6T5YkhlIQztjUzqUkWiDmn09uGWAk28n0yT11Q7tmt0
Here's TrekMovie's take on QT's Empire comments
https://trekmovie.com/2019/06/10/qu...9E6T5YkhlIQztjUzqUkWiDmn09uGWAk28n0yT11Q7tmt0
If this comes to pass, we could have simultaneously G-rated Trek on Nick, mostly PG-rated Trek on CBSAA, and R-rated Trek in movie theaters.
A trifecta.
A trifecta.
R Rated Star Trek the world is finally complete.
[QUOTE=" I wonder if any new Trek movie project has to go through Kurtzman and CBS though now?
QT is several strata above the clown that is Kurtzman lol
QT is several strata above the clown that is Kurtzman lol
So we won't be getting another movie in the Trek movie franchise that finally found its footing, all because Paramount refused to get a script that didn't pointlessly bring back George Kirk, but we might get an edgelord pile of junk from one of the most overrated directors around. Oh, great. I was just thinking that what Star Trek needed was profanity, slurs, ultra violence and a foot fetish. If we truly live in the darkest timeline where this gets made, it will be the first Star trek related thing that I refuse to watch, I wouldn't even watch it for free.
But, this probably only has a 50/50 shot at getting made, anyway. Hopefully people realize that it would hurt the brand and just not do it.
But, this probably only has a 50/50 shot at getting made, anyway. Hopefully people realize that it would hurt the brand and just not do it.
Then don't watch it. I don't plan on watching Picard.
How? How does this hurt the brand? We have zero details beyond profanity. Oh dear, that never happened in TNG...oh, yeah...it did.
The only harm to the brand is if it stops getting made. And if it does, then there it stops. 50 years is plenty. Perhaps Trek needs to be done.
The movie brand is essentially dead again. The streaming Trek shows are a seperate thing, it would be a neat trick if the movie they saw in cinemas was so horrific it made subscribers delete their CBS-AA accounts.
DC has had some movies tank, but it hasn't affected their ongoing TV properties.
DC has had some movies tank, but it hasn't affected their ongoing TV properties.
If Tarantino and r rated weren't 'promising" alone, look at who wrote the script... his resume seems to only have horror/gritty movies and then there is the (most boring, imo) movie that is known for making Dicaprio finally win an oscar by fighting against a bear. A movie where the only female character is just there to get raped.
Yeah, people have no reason to worry it is going to be a heartless, depressing, gritty, white fanboy mess. Aside from the fact that, IMO, to write for trek you gotta be another kind of 'visionary' not to mention honestly like sci-fi and space. Tarantino doesn't strike me as someone who looks up to the sky and dreams about different worlds and alien species, let alone an utopia reality with hope and where humanity has left many of its issues (90% of which his movies are about) behind.
Also, I sure hope Tarantino changed his mind about the reboot because the one time he talked about it, not only his most creative idea for a movie was copying tos episodes but he pretty much said jj&Co did a mistake by making it an ensemble because it's so unfortunate you gotta have Uhura, Mccoy etc there too. But hey, maybe he can please those who complained Uhura replaced Mccoy because if he removes them both there is no trio and the problem is solved
Yeah, people have no reason to worry it is going to be a heartless, depressing, gritty, white fanboy mess. Aside from the fact that, IMO, to write for trek you gotta be another kind of 'visionary' not to mention honestly like sci-fi and space. Tarantino doesn't strike me as someone who looks up to the sky and dreams about different worlds and alien species, let alone an utopia reality with hope and where humanity has left many of its issues (90% of which his movies are about) behind.
Also, I sure hope Tarantino changed his mind about the reboot because the one time he talked about it, not only his most creative idea for a movie was copying tos episodes but he pretty much said jj&Co did a mistake by making it an ensemble because it's so unfortunate you gotta have Uhura, Mccoy etc there too. But hey, maybe he can please those who complained Uhura replaced Mccoy because if he removes them both there is no trio and the problem is solved
Can I ask - why don't you plan on watching Picard? Don't you even want to give it a chance?
Picard as a character does not interest me.
did that make you feel good?
Don't. Get. Personal.
In a discussion of movies by Tarantino (or those written by Mark L. Smith,) those words are not necessarily complimentary, but neither are they an entirely invalid criticism.
More importantly, though: in the post from which you extracted them, the words were used as part of a phrase describing those movies. There's nothing personal about them, nor any reason they should be taken as such — by you or by anyone else.
For you to strip them of context and use them as an excuse to go after @Malaika personally is not acceptable.
Address the substance of the post if you wish, but never go after the poster. Just don't do it.
Agree 100%, it goes BOTH ways people.
One of the greatest reasons I Love ST is how it shows humans have moved past ignorance your path is only limited by an individual's desire n work ethic, not race
Malaika always seems to have an axe to grind regarding "fanboys" in regards to the Kelvin films, or at least that's the impression she gives whether intentionally or not.
On the topic... Honestly, given that the film franchise is in shambles with the Kelvin films essentially dead, I'm open to seeing Tarantino get a crack at this just to see how it turns out. I don't even believe there's a future for the Trek film franchise, so I don't care whether his project is something that will benefit future films. Let this be a Trek flick where he gets to play with the genre/franchise and then peace out. A one film deal. No sequels. No expansions. After that, Paramount can take the film franchise wherever they want.
On the topic... Honestly, given that the film franchise is in shambles with the Kelvin films essentially dead, I'm open to seeing Tarantino get a crack at this just to see how it turns out. I don't even believe there's a future for the Trek film franchise, so I don't care whether his project is something that will benefit future films. Let this be a Trek flick where he gets to play with the genre/franchise and then peace out. A one film deal. No sequels. No expansions. After that, Paramount can take the film franchise wherever they want.
Unless the irony is deliberate, so called trek 'values' aren't the most useful thing to bring up when one is seemingly taking offense at people finding Tarantino and his 'values' a bad fit for trek.
As for the rest, while my personal goal isn't trying to hit anyone's nerve here (and thus insult them personally) by expressing unoriginal, redundant criticism about a movie/director already expressed by many others before me, and better than me honestly (guess calling Tarantino a fanboy is singling out all fans by gender..), I'm certainly not in the mood to hopelessly try placate anyone's faux insecurities when they are deliberately projecting.
Of course, I can be wrong about Tarantino and his movies and you know, I'd rather be proved wrong here because I'd feel less worried and hopeless about a franchise I'm a fan of. However, concern trolling/deflecting/derailing instead of addressing the actual points raised isn't the most effective way to prove someone's criticism is invalid, IMO. Nor it's the most effective way to defend a director you like, if you find my criticism so unfair or unfunded.
We gain nothing from turning it all into a personal argument; the actual point that Tarantino and that writer make me hopeless because their work suggests they are a bad fit for this franchise remains.
Am I wrong? Maybe, possible, but you are making no attempt to explain why thus giving the illusion that you can't do that (hence the derailing).
As for the rest, while my personal goal isn't trying to hit anyone's nerve here (and thus insult them personally) by expressing unoriginal, redundant criticism about a movie/director already expressed by many others before me, and better than me honestly (guess calling Tarantino a fanboy is singling out all fans by gender..), I'm certainly not in the mood to hopelessly try placate anyone's faux insecurities when they are deliberately projecting.
Of course, I can be wrong about Tarantino and his movies and you know, I'd rather be proved wrong here because I'd feel less worried and hopeless about a franchise I'm a fan of. However, concern trolling/deflecting/derailing instead of addressing the actual points raised isn't the most effective way to prove someone's criticism is invalid, IMO. Nor it's the most effective way to defend a director you like, if you find my criticism so unfair or unfunded.
We gain nothing from turning it all into a personal argument; the actual point that Tarantino and that writer make me hopeless because their work suggests they are a bad fit for this franchise remains.
Am I wrong? Maybe, possible, but you are making no attempt to explain why thus giving the illusion that you can't do that (hence the derailing).
Last edited:
Similar threads
