Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

For everything Star Trek related, that isn't covered by the other forums.
Post Reply
User avatar
MSgtUSAFRet
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:49 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by MSgtUSAFRet » Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:55 pm

Okay, I just read that Tarantino is interested in directing a Star Trek movie and an R-rated one at that. I know my thoughts on the matter but I would rather hear what you think about it.

No, it is not from Onion New service it is here: https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/ar ... more-news/

And here: http://www.businessinsider.com/quentin- ... ow-2017-12

Whaddayathink?

Steve

MadManMUC
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:55 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by MadManMUC » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:25 pm

I'll not be seeing this.

I really, really despise what Trek has become since Nemesis and Enterprise.
DANGER. SPACE DOORS ARE CLOSED.

"I saw it done on Discovery" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.
(With apologies to Tesral for nicking his sig. :mrgreen: )

MadManMUC
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:55 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by MadManMUC » Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:41 pm

And speaking of Nemesis, Patrick Stewart has indicated he might be up for playing Picard again, just to be able to work with Tarantino.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/star ... -star-trek

Ugh. :roll:
DANGER. SPACE DOORS ARE CLOSED.

"I saw it done on Discovery" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.
(With apologies to Tesral for nicking his sig. :mrgreen: )

WarpNein
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:58 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by WarpNein » Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:31 am

I'm very apprehensive. On the one hand, I've always felt Trek could benefit from a more mature rating, and I'm not talking about empty, gratuitous violence. If it's going to be violent, it should be used in service of a greater point, like Blade Runner (and not coincidentally, Ridley Scott is a name I would love to see attached to a Trek film). Blade Runner uses its bursts of brutal violence to contrast the emotional immaturity of the Replicants (as when Roy Batty, who just brutally murdered two people, confusedly ponders his actions in the elevator) and to screw with the audience's perceptions and biases (as if seeing Replicants, who have the emotional maturity of children, get gaping holes blown in them should be any less affecting given we know they're not human). Reservoir Dogs is another great example of using violence well, and is still the best of all the Tarantino movies I've seen.

On the other hand, I don't trust Hollywood to do much more than make dumbed-down action movies or simpleminded polemics. I stopped watching Tarantino flicks after Kill Bill. To his credit, Tarantino makes unconventional movies with particular styles and nonlinear storylines (again, of the film's I've seen). But as with all mavericks, those who rebel against the system eventually become it. I'm curious to see what Tarantino will do. Star Trek could very well be his Prequel moment. Knowing that Stewart is interested in reprising Picard just to work with Tarantino is troubling. Letting the desires and interests of the real life actors filter into the universe is how we get absurdities like the Nemesis dune buggy. I hate when the writers let their biases infect the already existing setting. It's even worse when the actors do it.

The real question is always whether the director is truly a fan who respects the source material, or simply wants to put his mark on an established franchise or commandeer it to spread his own political or social message.

MadManMUC
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:55 am
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by MadManMUC » Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:45 am

WarpNein wrote:Ridley Scott is a name I would love to see attached to a Trek film
I'd have a lot of trouble with this one. I never associate the idea of optimism and hope with Ridley Scott, he's a pretty dark chap.

For me, I think that a possible franchise-saviour could be Christopher Nolan. It's not just that he's an exceptional filmmaker, but I also get the impression he inherently knows the real fundamentals of Trek.

Here's a good article breaking down why this would work (not something I wrote, I just found it last night):

http://www.cinelinx.com/movie-stuff/ite ... -film.html

But back to Tarantino. Stylistically, he's all wrong for Trek. And he's definitely not the first name that pops into my head when I think of intellectual debate and philosophical nuance.

I hope this idea falls through.
DANGER. SPACE DOORS ARE CLOSED.

"I saw it done on Discovery" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.
(With apologies to Tesral for nicking his sig. :mrgreen: )

User avatar
Tesral
Bear with me
Bear with me
Posts: 3321
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:58 pm
Location: Dearborn, Mi -- at my desk.
Contact:

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by Tesral » Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:09 am

They lost me and "We want to make an R rated film". Not that a R rating is a turn off, but you are deliberately aiming at a market, instead of telling the story and letting the chips fall.

Ask me and I'' say that this entire brand of thinking is why movies in general suck. Micro managed focus group massaged into utter blandness that will not take a risk.

The Trek franchise has been deliberately trying to retell Wrath of Khan since Wrath of Khan and it has suffered for that.

Remember when Star Trek was about Strange New Worlds and new Civilizations? When it was a bright future? When the first duty was to the Truth? When it was we come in Peace?
Garry AKA --Phoenix-- Rising above the Flames.
"I saw it done on Voyager" is no excuse for anything, even breathing.

WarpNein
Legendary LT Commander
Legendary LT Commander
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:58 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by WarpNein » Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:26 pm

Nolan could be interesting, but he certainly has his dark streak. That isn't a problem if a dark storyline is used effectively to test the Federation's commitment to it's principles. This is why I so love DS9. TNG also got in it's fair share of this in later seasons. There are elements of the Federation's stance that are pretty horrific if you think about them, such as standing by while an entire civilization, primitive as it may be, goes extinct before their eyes in "Homeward".

The struggle to maintain one's principles in the face of danger and death is the defining attribute of the later seasons of DS9. Throwing Section 31 in was a great move, and a dark film dealing with their activities and the moral and intellectual struggle of Starfleet officers to stop 31 even while admitting it's usefulness could be a powerful story. I can imagine a Romulan or Cardassian character dressing the idealistic Federation down. Every other great power has an organization like 31, as Odo points out to Bashir. But the Tal'Shiar and the Obsidian Order are acknowledged and funded by their respective governments. 31 is much more dangerous because the Federation's refusal to formally acknowledge them, and the average Federation citizen's refusal to believe in something that would tarnish their claim to moral superiority, actually give 31 a carte blanche the other organizations don't have. That could be a really interesting take.

The struggle between the pros and cons of technology is also an defining attribute of Trek, as your article points out. One could craft a story based around the divisive effects of profound technological change that only Trek could tell. One idea I've always been fascinated by is that the transporter can be used to achieve practical immortality, as we saw in "The Lorelei Signal" and "Unnatural Selection". Perhaps the information was classified by Starfleet, and a breakaway group of 24th century Singularitarians is using it to achieve everlasting life. The struggle between the utopian desire and the more conservative impulse to "play the cards you're dealt" as it were would also make for a powerful film, as one could empathize with either position. And what if it's not just age? Could one step into the transporter a man and come out a woman? Or come out another race? How deep or meaningful would these distinctions be if technology could shuffle them around so easily. You could go further still and explore some of the paranormal aspects of Trek that have been part of it since it's inception, and tie it all right back to Q's line about "charting the unknown possibilities of existence". How would the characters, of various political persuasions, deal with the profound societal transformations and upheavals this would portend? Violence could be really effective here. It's established the transporter can reorder matter. What if the technological wizardry of "Our Man Bashir" is now commonplace, and neural patterns can be downloaded and stored. People would have no reason to be concerned by horrific violence to the body if a transceiver could simply store the mind while the transporter seamlessly reassembles mangled flesh. Hollywood got close to this idea with the medical pods in Elysium, but their implications were brushed aside so Matt Damon could do battle in a mech suit.

One of the things I love most about DS9 is the interactions between Bashir and O'Brien and Bashir and Garak as sort of archetypes of political orientations. Some of the most powerful character moments come out of them interacting with each other. This is one place I think Tarantino could do well, provided he were backed up by a competent writer who really understands the source material. Most of Reservoir Dogs is the characters talking to each other, not action set pieces. Putting that element of Tarantino's direction together with the best of Trek's moral and intellectual quandaries a la Darmok, Pen Pals, Who Watches the Watchers, In The Pale Moonlight, The Drumhead or Hippocratic Oath could make for a great Trek film. Which brings me to one last point.

This has to succeed both as a movie and as a Trek movie to be lasting. Into Darkness fails at both. The Motion Picture is not a good movie in terms of the things that attract general audiences, but it is probably the best Trek film. It's one of the few that feels as if it's confronting something truly alien, both wondrous and terrifying at the same time. It has a scale and grandeur that most of the others lack, and I think the slow pacing and buildup work for most Trek fans. The indulgent, nigh-pornographic reveal of the Enterprise works not just because of her significance as a character in her own right, not just because she's beautiful, but because she's representative of the spirit of exploration and discovery and the bright, optimistic future Trek fans year for. I think The Voyage Home gets it perfectly right, succeeding as both film and Trek film. It's another truly alien quasi-antagonist who is overcome through understanding rather than force, and the film blends comedy and drama together in a tale that's both serious and lighthearted and fundamentally optimistic at heart. Wrath of Khan gets the promise and danger of technology underneath a perfectly crafted revenge yarn, and so also succeeds at being both. The Undiscovered Country concerns both the promise and fear of major political change, dealing with issues of racism and bigotry within the Federation and how they make strange allies among the conspirators. It deconstructs the Federation's idealism a bit (I've read that Mockingbird alum Brock Peters was very uncomfortable with Cartwright's turn in the film) but allows the optimism of it's main characters to shine.

User avatar
el gato
Fatidical Fleet Admiral
Fatidical Fleet Admiral
Posts: 5925
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:41 pm
Location: In a land whose boundaries are that of imagination

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by el gato » Wed Dec 13, 2017 12:21 am

Tarantino is not someone I would associate with Trek. Not a knock on his or his style of film making, it's just that the stories he likes to tell are not Star Trek.
RogueWolf wrote:I've sacrificed many dozens (maybe even hundreds) of gummy bears to the dark modeling gods to grant me my wish... but I fear my offerings only amuse them, not appease them.

User avatar
MSgtUSAFRet
Charismatic Commander
Charismatic Commander
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:49 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by MSgtUSAFRet » Wed Dec 13, 2017 2:12 pm

Okay, thanks for all the responses. It kinda looks like I agree with most about Tarantino. To be fair, I have watched Kill Bill parts 1 & 2, Django and Deathproof, so I'm not speaking in a vacuum here when I talk about Tarantino.

I understand the his "style", if you can call it that, borders on the weird and grotesque and the "dark side", which, due to the recent continental shift of Star Trek to the dramatic, cynical, Blade Runner-esque, depressing storytelling, his "style" would fit in just fine.

What concerns me the most is the vulgarity with which Tarantino, and by extension his lucky charm Samuel L. Jackson express themselves. I understand that my Star Trek worldview and my generation was defined by the censors of television when Star Trek appeared, but I don't see evolved men and women having to resort to vulgarity, punctuated by crudity, to express themselves; especially in my view of Gene Roddenberry and Gene L. Coon's view of evolved mankind.

Sorry for the rant, but I don't think Tarantino should be anywhere near Star Trek and I am deeply disappointed in Patrick Stewart that he wants to be apart of, what IMHO, is a denigration of the franchise that made him famous.

Thanks for reading.

Steve

User avatar
Xen
Bear with me
Bear with me
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2012 1:19 am

Re: Quentin Tarantino New Star Trek R-rated Movie

Post by Xen » Thu Dec 14, 2017 5:32 pm

rant away. :) it can be fun if you just avoid the rl tinderboxes, making it personal etc.

my quick 2c [prefix "imo" for each paragraph].

mr q is too harsh for trek. in saying that, i doubt mr q would even be contemplating 'dark rl trek' if it were not for all the reboots, and perhaps the owners 'reaching out' to any/all with a 'special something' to aide their brand. do they know their own brand these days? what the trekkie knowns and general unknowns would want?

it comes down to the owners, producers, writers, and in-house creative masters. they need to rediscover the core values of trek, give them a polish and be brave enough to stand by those values. through thick and thin.

then the movie or show directors, editors, writers, actors and the rest will have a clear idea of what is needed and wanted. imo, need = essential for survival. want = subjective, open to creative flair, dabble until it's their version of 'right' for viewers.

Post Reply

Return to “General Trek”