Quentin Tarantino Hatches ‘Star Trek’ Movie Idea; Paramount, JJ Abrams To Assemble Writers Room (1 Viewer)

[Lou Sytsma]

Totally out of left field?

Already busy prepping to direct the film he just set up at Sony Pictures, Quentin Tarantino is also planning to boldly go where he has not gone before.

 

[Malcolm R]

Yes. This is what the world needs.

Too bad. Terry said no, so I think that's the end of it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm going to preface this post with a disclaimer. I'm not a Star Trek fan. I enjoyed the first two films in the Abrams reboot, and thought the third one which he didn't direct was OK, but not that memorable. I haven't seen anything other than these three films.

My questions upon hearing this news:

1) Tarintino previously said that he will make ten films and then retire (and he's counting Kill Bill as one film.) That makes his Charles Manson/1969 movie for Sony #9. If he directs this one, since it is part of a previous brand and not a wholly original concept, does that count as #10? And if so, is he all right with his last film being an adaptation of a pre-existing source? (Of course, I hope he decides to change his mind and keep making films as long as he has good ideas, in which case the numbers wouldn't matter. But that's just my hope.)

2) Around the time Star Trek Beyond, there was a report that Paramount was developing a Star Trek 4 with that cast, including Chris Hemsworth returning as Kirk's father who got killed off in the first Abrams reboot movie. Then we know Beyond made less money than Paramount wanted, so that seems to have stalled. Would Tarintino's film essentially replace that film as the fourth one in the Abrams reboot series? Or is this something totally separate? (And, if it is in the Abrams continuity, does that mean his cast would be back?)

 

[Josh Steinberg]

1) Tarintino previously said that he will make ten films and then retire (and he's counting Kill Bill as one film.)

I don't necessarily believe him when he says things like that - I'm not sure I believe most people when they say things like that. How many times have The Who done a farewell tour? Steven Soderbergh said he was retiring from directing films less than five years ago, and now he's directing films again. Cary Grant famously retired, and then famously unretired. Daniel Craig said he'd never play Bond again (while he was still under contract to play Bond again, no less). Whether it's said in a moment of boredom or frustration or whimsical thinking, whether it comes from a place of exhaustion or contemplation, a lot of people in show business put deadlines and limits on their career, and then are the first to blow past them when they feel like working on another project.

I don't see Quentin Tarantino as being someone who just walks away.

2) Around the time Star Trek Beyond, there was a report that Paramount was developing a Star Trek 4 with that cast, including Chris Hemsworth returning as Kirk's father who got killed off in the first Abrams reboot movie. Then we know Beyond made less money than Paramount wanted, so that seems to have stalled. Would Tarintino's film essentially replace that film as the fourth one in the Abrams reboot series? Or is this something totally separate? (And, if it is in the Abrams continuity, does that mean his cast would be back?)

At this point in time, Paramount's licensing agreement with CBS allows them to make films in the Abrams continuity (called the "Kelvin" timeline); CBS may produce television shows in the original continuity (called the "Prime" timeline). So any film done by Paramount will be in the Kelvin universe. The cast is under contract for one more film - they agreed to contract extensions for a fourth film as part of their deal for Beyond.

Unfortunately, unlike a studio like Disney, Paramount is basically not a functional entity anymore. There's a lot we don't know here. See, the thing with Paramount is that they basically don't make movies anymore. They're a holding company thats in possession if intellectual property (IP) that they look to exploit. With the previous Abrams Trek films, here's how that worked. Paramount supplied the rights to Trek and took on distribution of the finished film. Financing companies like Skydance paid for the production of the film. The production company Bad Robot was hired to actually make the film and handle creative decisions. And, for better or worse, Trek is not a priority for Abrams. Since these movies never make as much as Paramount convinces themselves that they think it will make, they're never as enthusiastic about making more as they should be. Paramount expected, in the wake of The Avengers in 2012, that Star Trek Into Darkness in 2013 could make a billion dollars. It didn't, and never was going to, but that was the expectation. Paramount expected, after hiring Justin Lin from the billion dollar grossing Fast & Furious franchise, that Star Trek Beyond could make a billion dollars. it didn't, and never was going to, but that was the expectation. I think bringing back Chris Hemsworth, co-star of the billion dollar grossing Avengers film, was another attempt at chasing that pipe dream. When Beyond didn't gross a billion dollars, Paramount seemed to have lost interest in whatever that project is.

At this point, we don't really know what's happening next. Paramount really is a mess when it comes to committing to their next Trek project. As an example, between Star Trek Into Darkness and Star Trek Beyond, the cast remained signed for a third film but had gotten no word from Paramount on when it would begin. It was apparently bad to the point where agents simply couldn't get phone calls returned from the studio, which is crazy when you consider that people like Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto were signed to the project, so they were employees asking when they were needed at work, and they couldn't get the courtesy of a phone call. It got so bad that finally, when people like Pine and Quinto would do interviews for other projects they were involved with and the interviewer would ask about Trek, the stars were saying in interviews that they had no idea what was going on, and if anyone from the studio was reading or watching, could they pretty please give them a call? It's nuts to think that either Quinto or Pine (can't remember which) couldn't get his calls returned, even when his agent was pleading, "He needs to start saying yes or no to different projects for next year, so we need to know if you're making a Trek film in that time" and was met with silence, apparently. They really don't know what's going on there.

So I don't think we have any indication on whether there will be a Trek 4 with Chris Hemsworth as previously announced, if that film is dead, if the Tarantino thing is real, if they'd wait for him to become available as a director, if they'd just take his idea and let someone else direct it, etc., etc. Unfortunately, with these new Trek films, there's no sense of urgency from the studio.

The studio is upset that Trek hasn't grown into a billion dollar grossing franchise like the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but at the same time, they've taken absolutely none of the steps Marvel took to grow that success. Sitting around doing nothing for 2-3 years, and then scrambling to finish a movie in a too-short period of time, is not a recipe for sustained success.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think, for what it's worth, that if Tarantino did direct it, it would be great, and it wouldn't feel overly Tarantino to the point where it didn't feel like Star Trek.

Tarantino was a huge fan of the TV shows ER and CSI, and directed episodes of both. I didn't follow ER, but I am a big CSI fan. His episodes (he directed a two-part season finale) are fantastic. They absolutely feel like CSI and wouldn't seem out of place if you watched them without knowing who directed them. All of the hallmarks of the show, from the style of photography and the performances to the script, felt like CSI. It turns out Tarantino wasn't interested in turning CSI into Pulp Fiction - he was interested in getting his turn to shoot all of these trademark CSI things that he liked as a fan.

So if Tarantino were to sign on to do Star Trek, my expectation would be that he'd want to make something recognizably Star Trek. Maybe you'll hear a classic song in it (which has already been demonstrated as being OK for Trek), or maybe you'll hear a reference to a 20th century movie, but I think the look and feel of the film will be Star Trek. It'll be PG-13. Characters won't be dropping f-bombs left and right, and the violence won't be any more extreme than it usually is on Trek.

I think, if anything, it'll be a situation like Simon Pegg coming onboard to write Beyond and Justin Lin coming on to direct -- a lot of people were turned off by those choices, and felt that if Pegg was writing, he'd make it a comedy, and if Lin was directing it, he'd make it a stupid car chase movie. And, as it turns out, both men were huge fan of the original series, and what it felt like more than anything was like an extended length version of an original episode. They weren't trying to remake Trek in the same fashion as their other projects; they were trying to make something that felt like the Trek they grew up with. I would expect Tarantino's approach to be the same.

Honestly, at this point, I think it's more likely that Tarantino will contribute an original idea for the screenplay that will be developed by other writers, and that maybe he'll have some role as a producer, but that someone else will ultimately direct. Star Trek Beyond came out in 2016. Tarantino has a movie due out in the middle of 2019. I can't imagine that Tarantino would be available to report to work until late 2019 at the earliest, and I don't see how this could be done before 2021. If that was the case, that would put a five year gap between Beyond and the next film, which I think is too long. Tarantino's not going to leave his current project, so speeding up his availability isn't in the cards. Since Paramount didn't go into production on a Beyond sequel after that movie opened, I don't think they could be ready before 2019 at this point, and even that's a rush. So I don't know what's happening here. I don't think they do either. And I'm not sure how much of this lies in Bad Robot's court, since they're the ones who actually make the movies. But Trek has never seemed a priority for Abrams, and given all that Bad Robot has going on, I don't know that this would be fast-tracked there either.

What Paramount needs for Star Trek is a guy like Kevin Feige at Marvel, whose only concern is the one franchise. Abrams is spread too thin, over too many projects, in too many different mediums, for too many different companies - he can't give this the full attention it deserves. I only hope that in not being very available, he's not causing the project to be delayed as people wait for his input.

 

[Jake Lipson]

We know (and Paramount does too) that Abrams is primarily focused on writing Star Wars IX right now, and then he will direct it. I don't think they expect him to have a huge hands-on approach to Star Trek at this point in time. He is a producer on everything that Bad Robot has going on because it's his company, so he gets credit, but his direct involvement is questionable.

Even on Lost, which people love to blame him for screwing up, he basically started the show and oversaw the first part of the first season and then left it in the hands of Carlton Cuse and Damon Lindelof.

These days, he seems to get attached (as a producer) to a new project every few weeks -- he was also recently announced to produce the live-action Hollywood remake of the Japanese animated film Your Name, for Paramount, right after the news broke that he was taking over Episode IX. I doubt he'll have much involvement in that one either.

Keeping Bad Robot as the producer of Star Trek films overall likely isn't a bad idea, and Abrams can have peripheral involvement, but your idea of bringing in someone else to be the Kevin Feige makes sense. But the question is: do Paramount and Bad Robot have the sense that they need to do that? And, iven how Feige runs things over there, I wonder if they might not do that until after the Tarintino film happens. If he is involved, he's likely to want carte blanche to set the course of the story as he sees fit.

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

The new film's title has been disclosed: Fuckin' Star Track, Okay?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The problem, or one of them at least, is that Paramount waits for Abrams with Trek.

When the 2009 film came out, it was a hit, and more importantly, it got through to people who historically had no interest in Trek, people who were hostile to Trek, people who made fun of people who liked Trek. There was something about that film, the combination of Abrams' energetic style, an appealing cast that actually did remind you of the original crew, and good marketing that got people who never in a million years would have considered seeing a Star Trek anything to go and check it out. That's an incredible achievement.

But Abrams wasn't that interested in making a sequel. Paramount was able to get him to sign on by offering to fund "Super 8" and by allowing Abrams the opportunity to make "Super 8" first. This delayed the sequel to 2013 -- so a four year gap between films. Now, this might not have seemed like a big deal decades ago when sequels and franchises were rare, but Trek was rebooted in an era when people were conditioned to expect a new Harry Potter movie every 12-18 months, and before that, a Lord Of The Rings movie each year. The franchise lost all momentum. Many of the people who tried and liked the '09 movie but historically had been indifferent or hostile to Star Trek went back to being indifferent and hostile. The delays between the film kept it from growing the fanbase, while the content of the film actively antagonized a portion of the existing fanbase. Not exactly a recipe for success.

By the time "Into Darkness" came out, audiences were further conditioned to expect new franchise films every year, or even more frequently. Successful franchises announced their next picture either before the latest installment was even released, or immediately upon its release; it's one of those things that signals to a potential fan that it's okay to invest your time, money and feelings into this franchise because the people responsible for it are committed to it too. But potential fans didn't really get that from Paramount. And Paramount defers a lot of decision making on Trek to Bad Robot, which takes its cues from Abrams - it doesn't seem that there's anyone at Bad Robot or Paramount whose job it is to make sure that a new Trek movie comes out every two years. If the 50th anniversary hadn't been last year, I doubt Beyond would have come out at all.

When you look at how many other franchises have come and gone in the time it's taken Paramount to make three Trek films, it's really a mindblowing list of lost opportunities.

 

[TJPC]

Too bad. Terry said no, so I think that's the end of it.

That’s great! I’ve always wanted to rule the world! Most of the time I’m just pissed off that I don’t.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It's nuts to think that either Quinto or Pine (can't remember which) couldn't get his calls returned, even when his agent was pleading, "He needs to start saying yes or no to different projects for next year, so we need to know if you're making a Trek film in that time" and was met with silence, apparently. They really don't know what's going on there.

Which just means that they went ahead and signed onto the other work while waiting for Paramount to get their act together. They'll do that again now, which will end up delaying things when Paramount is ready, because the actors will be obligated to finish other projects before they can come back.

Of the major actors from the current films, Chris Pine is going to star in a Netflix movie for David Mackenzie, who directed him in Hell or High Water. He's also signed to do a TNT miniseries with Patty Jenkins. And it wouldn't surprise me if they try to incorporate him into Wonder Woman 2 somehow via a flashback, vision or dream sequence of some kind.

Zoe Saldana is currently juggling Avengers 4 with the Avatar sequels. I'm not sure where she is at the specific moment, but both of those things are in production and she will be needed for both. Although it hasn't been officially dated, we know Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 is coming and I would be shocked if it ended up premiering on any other date besides the first weekend of May 2020, where it will occupy the same summer kickoff slot that the second one did this yea. So, it seems fair to assume she'll be shooting that sometime within the next two years as well.

Avatar and Guardians seem like two massive projects that would be hard to juggle, but the imminent Disney-Fox deal might make them more cooperative in terms of scheduling her services.

If Paramount were to get things in gear to shoot Trek within the next couple of years, it would be really interesting to see how they figure out scheduling her between three tentpole franchises. My guess is that since Paramount is the last one to get going, they would have to wait for her. She did sign for Trek before signing for Guardians, but surely they wouldn't be able to pull her from something that will be in the middle of production by the time they figure out what the hell they are doing next.

It's also really telling that, even though the first Abrams Trek film opened first, people probably associate Saldana more with Guardians, which has been the most consistently active franchise of the three with the least downtime, or possibly for Avatar, which is the biggest grosser of them all, but hasn't had a new film in nine years.

To me, if I were in charge of prioritizing her schedule, Gamora is the most important of these roles.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

If Paramount were to get things in gear to shoot Trek within the next couple of years, it would be really interesting to see how they figure out scheduling her between three tentpole franchises.

It may be the studio that signed her to contract first would get first refusal for her services. I don't know if it's the case 100% of the time, but I think it's the case at least some of the time that if you sign a multi-film deal, unless otherwise specified it's understood that you might take on other projects in addition to that one, but that your first loyalty is to that contract.

I think that's why it was so problematic for Pine and Quinto after Into Darkness, when Paramount literally would not return their phone calls. I don't think they were contractually free to work on other projects until Paramount gave the ok that it wouldn't conflict with their Star Trek plans, so by not working on a Star Trek film but refusing to communicate that to the stars, it put them in a really awkward position.

The original deal for the cast was a three picture deal, but in California there's a law about length of contracts where they become unenforceable after seven years. There was some concern that the contract, signed before the 2009 movie, wouldn't be enforceable because 7 years had passed from when they were first cast to before Beyond would have been going into production. So, rather than testing that and risk having the actors (or their agents, or SAG) taking the studio to court, they re-signed everyone to a two picture deal that included Beyond and "Star Trek 14" (whatever it'll be called).

These days, successful franchises build by getting an audience hooked, and then releasing films in reliable intervals. Franchises that are losing their luster stumble by losing audience momentum and engagement through inconsistent release schedules, delays, and lack of engagement by the fanbase. Paramount has this issue with every franchise property they try to work on, whether it's Trek or G.I. Joe. (Mission Impossible is doing well with inconsistent release schedules, but it's all based around Tom Cruise - they haven't had any success establishing the movie franchise outside of Cruise, so if he walks away, that dries up for them.) Right now, Marvel is succeeding at the franchise game, and Paramount is failing, and this is why.

 

[Bryan^H]

This is from an old interview


I'm just worried because he mentions "Yesterday's Enterprise" from TNG as one of his favorite episodes. That is one of my least favorite episodes of the entire run of TNG.

 

[Tino]

This is from an old interview


I'm just worried because he mentions "Yesterday's Enterprise" from TNG as one of his favorite episodes. That is one of my least favorite episodes of the entire run of TNG.

Yesterday’s Enterprise is absolutely one of my favorites and in the top 5 of the whole series for me. Incredibly popular with most TNG fans too (except for you of course Bryan)

 

[Jake Lipson]

It may be the studio that signed her to contract first would get first refusal for her services. I don't know if it's the case 100% of the time, but I think it's the case at least some of the time that if you sign a multi-film deal, unless otherwise specified it's understood that you might take on other projects in addition to that one, but that your first loyalty is to that contract.

I thought that, too, but sometimes it's murky. In that case, the question becomes: because she signed onto Star Trek first, does that automatically put Star Trek into first position? Or, because she signed the extension of the contract for Beyond and the fourth film after she was obligated to Guardians and the Avatar sequels, does that put Paramount third in line?

On Justice League, Henry Cavill had obviously signed onto that film before Mission: Impossible, but because of the last-minute nature of the reshoots, was working on M:I when he was called back for JL. As we all know, Paramount still got to refuse for him to shave his mustache for the reshoots.

This will be an interesting mess for the studios to untangle. Obviously, it would be in everybody's best interest to figure out a way to let her work on all three films and share her appropriately. If the Disney-Fox deal happens, then they would be sharing her with themselves, which would probably result in that being easier to work out. Paramount doesn't seem to know what they're doing anyway, so maybe it won't present as much of an issue as we think.

Or maybe Taintino has some different idea that wouldn't use the current cast anyway.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think almost anything can be worked out with proper planning.

The problem will come, if Paramount acts on this film the way they had on the previous sequels. They delayed-delayed-delayed for years, and then set a release date that gave them almost no time to work, and rushed through pre-production, actual production and post-production for both Into Darkness and Beyond. If they try calling Saldana's agent while she's in the middle of shooting Guardians and/or Avatar and try telling them out of nowhere, "Look, we're shooting on Monday, we expect her here," that's going to be a problem. But since they're seemingly allergic to proper planning... who knows.

 

[Bryan^H]

Yesterday’s Enterprise is absolutely one of my favorites and in the top 5 of the whole series for me. Incredibly popular with most TNG fans too (except for you of course Bryan)

I know.
Something about war, and Trek never seem to work for me. I'm all about discovering the unknown with the occasional dilemma encounter with a hostile alien species.

I still like the other fan favorites "The Inner Light" is up there as one of the best.

 

[Sean Bryan]

This is from an old interview


I'm just worried because he mentions "Yesterday's Enterprise" from TNG as one of his favorite episodes. That is one of my least favorite episodes of the entire run of TNG.

It’s absolutely one of my favorites.

 

[joshEH]

Samuel L. Jackson as Benjamin Sisko.

This time he literally commands a ship named the U.S.S. Ben Sisko's Motherfucking Pimp Hand

 

[TravisR]

I don't necessarily believe him when he says things like that - I'm not sure I believe most people when they say things like that. How many times have The Who done a farewell tour? Steven Soderbergh said he was retiring from directing films less than five years ago, and now he's directing films again. Cary Grant famously retired, and then famously unretired. Daniel Craig said he'd never play Bond again (while he was still under contract to play Bond again, no less). Whether it's said in a moment of boredom or frustration or whimsical thinking, whether it comes from a place of exhaustion or contemplation, a lot of people in show business put deadlines and limits on their career, and then are the first to blow past them when they feel like working on another project.

I don't see Quentin Tarantino as being someone who just walks away.

Normally, I don't believe people when they say they're quitting either but I think QT might be the one who does it or he'll take a long break before giving into the desire to make another movie. I've heard him say (and I'm paraphrasing here) how some great directors damage their overall body of work by going too long. He cited Billy Wilder as a great director but said that some of the movies that he did later in his career weren't that great and he should have quit while he was ahead. Tarantino also said that he'd do other things like writing a novel so he wouldn't drop all creative endeavors and that might enable him to stay away from movies.

 

[Lou Sytsma]

Taratino makes it so with a R Rated Trek:
Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Star Trek’ Will Be R-Rated: ‘The Revenant’s Mark L. Smith Frontrunner Scribe

 

[Jake Lipson]

Well, that is a surprise -- not so much that Tarintino wants it to be R, but that Paramount would support that condition.

Also, I wonder if that makes it less likely to be connected to the current films with the current cast, which have all been PG-13 to this point.

Here's Paramount rushing again now that someone has an idea. But if Tarintino is directing it after his 1969 film, that means Saldana should be done with Guardians 3 and at least a couple of the Avatar sequels before she would be needed (assuming that he does need her.)