Why get enraged over F Bombs in a Trek movie when they had them in the JJ movies? So there'll be swearing and other things not like we have never seen that before in some format over the last 50 years.
Tarantino Trek - what could we expect?
- Thread starter Danlav05
- Start date
What swearing was in the JJ movies? I don't recall any.
Kirk says "Bullshit" (to oldSpock) in the first one. Carol Marcus says "Shit!" in the second one, and later there's a "Well, shit" from her admiral daddy. McCoy says "Cut the horseshit" (to nuSpock) in the last one. Pretty darn tame, as PG-13 movie profanity goes, and the TNG movies got there first anyway. The only "F Bomb" I can think of was in the lyrics to Beasties' "Sabotage," but if you don't already know it's there it's really not going to jump out at you.
When did they cast Samuel L. Jackson in the next movie?
Yeah the original post said 'Why get enraged over F Bombs in a Trek movie when they had them in the JJ movies?' - I knew there were no F-bombs to speak of.
If humans are truly more enlightened in the 23rd century nobody would be making a fuss about swear words anyway, so why should we?
Exactly. There is just no valid reason to add "white" in this context. It's an irrelevant reference at best, and offensive at worst.
Okay, enough. Anyone who's so genuinely bothered that they're unable to let this drop may feel free to contact me via PM to discuss it (which I'm sure you all knew — without me saying so — was the correct course of action) but the in-thread grandstanding stops now.
Topic: Tarantino Trek
Go.
I'm more offended by Data and Picard's swearing than anything in JJ's films or DSC thus far.
Data swearing was great you prude!!!
But seriously, when did Picard swear besides occasional French obscenity in the show?
But seriously, when did Picard swear besides occasional French obscenity in the show?
Uhura dropped a few F bombs in the shuttle in Into Darkness and swore at Spock once I think.
Also there's Disco where it's used a bit.
Even Shatner has weighed in on this movie idea.
https://www.trektoday.com/content/2019/06/shatner-supports-tarantinos-r-rated-trek-movie/
No, she really didn't. There are no F words in STID.
Oh.... OK I might have to watch again I thought she did.
Kind of proves the point you don't need the r rating to make the characters authentically express themselves like a scene requires them to. You probably think Uhura swore because she was angry and emotional (she wasn't just annoyed at Spock. She was on the verge of tears because she was worried about him having a death wish), but she actually, effectively, conveyed it all without having to use foul language.
Personally, the f bombs aren't really my concern. It's more the previous works of these guys that make me worry that letting Bones say f*ck isn't the reason why he wants to make it R rated, lol.
He should really surprise me, but that means both him and the chosen writer want to really make something that is very out of their comfort zone and the opposite of what seems to inspire them the most. I dunno. Certaintly possible, but I'm more inclined to take the few clues I have as a suggestion that the guy wants to foundamentally alter trek to his own genre and gritty, dark, style and not really challenge himself by doing something different. I find more reasons to worry than be hopeful, let's say it like that.
I'd feel the same if the rumored director was Almodóvar, in spite of liking him far more than Tarantino. It's about observing what seems to inspire these storytellers and from that, realizing that they don't make much sense with something like trek and thus this genre.
Replace Tarantino with a different big name such as Del Toro (or even Nolan) and the rating wouldn't matter to me because while Del Toro made movies like Crimson Peak, I can so easily see him being inspired by trek and why. That guy is about hope, he finds optimism revolutionary and believes that 'monsters' (meaning, those who don't fit with society's standards of what constitutes as normal and good. Which means he might as well be one of the people who would be really inspired to have alien characters that have integrity) are our heroes too.
Tarantino? In that one commentary about trek and the reboot, the guy seemed to find most of the cast outside of Kirk useless. I'm not use he considers the ship useful either since his favorite episodes were those that focus on Kirk away from it and not doing much 'exploring the space' with the crew. He doesn't seem to get it..
Beyond already made a mistake that shouldn't be made again: Lin destroying the ship was, in retrospect, an unsuccessful idea for me that doomed the movie by taking away one of the main appeals, IMO, of a movie of this kind.
It doesn't seem to compute that one of the things trek can offer that can set it apart from Star wars etc etc is precisely seeing 'life in space' and different worlds, among other things. If you take away their amazingly big ship and trap them into a planet and then a small little ship like the millennium falcon, you are doing it wrong for me.
I think what I disliked about Altamid is that it isn't even an alien world with mysteries to uncover and new alien species the characters can interact with. For a moment, the cave scene where Spock looks at the alien symbols gave me hope but the movie did nothing with that. It feels like Altamid is a place they should maybe return to because it had a story to tell but the movie didn't tell it and only used it as a temporary place where to put the crew.
For a movie that had such a pricey budget, it kind of feels like Lin destroyed the ship because it's too expensive to have scenes on it and in space. In general, Beyond was expensive but it doesn't look like it.
Personally, the f bombs aren't really my concern. It's more the previous works of these guys that make me worry that letting Bones say f*ck isn't the reason why he wants to make it R rated, lol.
He should really surprise me, but that means both him and the chosen writer want to really make something that is very out of their comfort zone and the opposite of what seems to inspire them the most. I dunno. Certaintly possible, but I'm more inclined to take the few clues I have as a suggestion that the guy wants to foundamentally alter trek to his own genre and gritty, dark, style and not really challenge himself by doing something different. I find more reasons to worry than be hopeful, let's say it like that.
I'd feel the same if the rumored director was Almodóvar, in spite of liking him far more than Tarantino. It's about observing what seems to inspire these storytellers and from that, realizing that they don't make much sense with something like trek and thus this genre.
Replace Tarantino with a different big name such as Del Toro (or even Nolan) and the rating wouldn't matter to me because while Del Toro made movies like Crimson Peak, I can so easily see him being inspired by trek and why. That guy is about hope, he finds optimism revolutionary and believes that 'monsters' (meaning, those who don't fit with society's standards of what constitutes as normal and good. Which means he might as well be one of the people who would be really inspired to have alien characters that have integrity) are our heroes too.
Tarantino? In that one commentary about trek and the reboot, the guy seemed to find most of the cast outside of Kirk useless. I'm not use he considers the ship useful either since his favorite episodes were those that focus on Kirk away from it and not doing much 'exploring the space' with the crew. He doesn't seem to get it..
Beyond already made a mistake that shouldn't be made again: Lin destroying the ship was, in retrospect, an unsuccessful idea for me that doomed the movie by taking away one of the main appeals, IMO, of a movie of this kind.
It doesn't seem to compute that one of the things trek can offer that can set it apart from Star wars etc etc is precisely seeing 'life in space' and different worlds, among other things. If you take away their amazingly big ship and trap them into a planet and then a small little ship like the millennium falcon, you are doing it wrong for me.
I think what I disliked about Altamid is that it isn't even an alien world with mysteries to uncover and new alien species the characters can interact with. For a moment, the cave scene where Spock looks at the alien symbols gave me hope but the movie did nothing with that. It feels like Altamid is a place they should maybe return to because it had a story to tell but the movie didn't tell it and only used it as a temporary place where to put the crew.
For a movie that had such a pricey budget, it kind of feels like Lin destroyed the ship because it's too expensive to have scenes on it and in space. In general, Beyond was expensive but it doesn't look like it.
That wasn't the scene I was thinking of, it was another scene when they were in a ship going down to where Khan was Uhura was having a little fight with Spock in front of Kirk. That's the scene I thought she swore in.
Ah found it.
I thought she said "you don't give a fuck"
Yeah I took issue with similar points regarding beyond. I thought the destruction of the enterprise was a brilliant scene and probably the the best, most exciting scene in the movie, but, it did come too early in the runtime, I would have liked to have seen it (if at all) at the end and have some of the crew on the ship and some on altamid - the story and theme of teamwork could still have worked. Altamid itself, bar a few mountainous bits didn't look alien enough, and I thought kralls base looked far too small considering the ridiculous amount of swarm ships we see at the end. The yorktown base looked stunning and then some though but I do think destroying the enterprise for the third time in the movie series especially after the shafting it got in into darkness was a mistake.
No, I understood you because this is the scene I was talking about too. She is angry and worried, her feelings all exacerbated by the fact they are in a dangerous mission where they could all die and thus never get the chance to talk and resolve some things. Zoe conveys it all without having to use foul language. The fact you hear words not really uttered might speak about the effectiveness of the scene that doesn't need the r rating . Same goes for many scenes where Mccoy is annoyed/frustrated at Kirk or Spock.
Think about the scene when Spock told those vulcans 'live long and prosper' with THAT TONE: it's obvious he was pissed and the way he said that was a contained, but no less effective, f*ck you. Do you need him to use those exact words? No, it's great precisely because he didn't but it's still obvious the message is that one. Plus, it kept him more in character while still allowing him to basically insult those who have insulted him, thus allowed him to express himself and have a reaction that makes sense in context (honestly that whole scene is such pure Spock sass like: "No Vulcan has ever declined admission to this academy!" "Then, as I am half-human, your record remains untarnished." #savage )
I'd think the r rating isn't just for the language, though. Probably it's about the tone of the movie and to get more graphic with the violence and gore. But is that so necessary? We had scenes in these movies that were quite effective without having to see everything (eg Nero torturing Pike, Khan killing admiral Marcus. .not to mention Krall torturing those crew members or killing Syl, both scenes being quite graphic..) it isn't like trek had been, so far, a Disney movie for kids and you need the r rating to make it more adult.
Personally I don't see the need for trek to be an R/15 rated movie, you can get away with quite enough with the PG13/12 certificate these days, including usually one F word, a few shits, and fairly graphic violence. I don't think the kelvin films pushed their respective ratings as far as they could have gone - I would say the khan head crush was probably the biggest offender and even that was offscreen, I didn't find it anywhere near as disturbing as young magneto crushing those soldiers heads in their helmets in X men first class for example, which I found to be generally more graphic and profanity filled than these reboots.
That being said I believe this supposed 'R' rating is clearly being used as a carrot to get Tarantino to direct. When he releases a film it's usually pretty big news and gets a LOT of media coverage, so I'd imagine him releasing his first blockbuster would be a pretty big event in itself and has a good chance of making the 500m+ trek needs. I can see why this route can potentially appeal to the bean counters as it probably wouldn't require a 180m+ outlay either.
Do I think trek needs more violence and swearing? No. Would I watch a more adult trek film at the cinema? Absolutely. I just don't see it getting made and put it's chances of seeing the light of day at 20%.
That being said I believe this supposed 'R' rating is clearly being used as a carrot to get Tarantino to direct. When he releases a film it's usually pretty big news and gets a LOT of media coverage, so I'd imagine him releasing his first blockbuster would be a pretty big event in itself and has a good chance of making the 500m+ trek needs. I can see why this route can potentially appeal to the bean counters as it probably wouldn't require a 180m+ outlay either.
Do I think trek needs more violence and swearing? No. Would I watch a more adult trek film at the cinema? Absolutely. I just don't see it getting made and put it's chances of seeing the light of day at 20%.
You know what I agree with both you guys.
The other one done off screen is him breaking Carol Marcus's leg. I heard the crunch and her scream. But glad we didn't see it. Same for the head crush.
Having said that I still want to see what Tarantino could do given the chance to direct. I'm open to one movie outing with him as director.
It's such an audacious idea that I want to see it happen, just to see what it would be like. Shaking Trek up in this way could be just what the movie franchise needs. Besides, we haven't had an A-List Director work on Trek since Robert Wise. It's time, don't you think?
Similar threads
