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.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I feel like this isn't going to happen, certainly not as an R-rated film. I mean, I suppose it could. I'm just not holding my breath.

It's very hard to take a franchise from being an all audiences type of storytelling to a restricted audience type of storytelling. Star Trek, in particular, is known as family entertainment, and for longtime fans, it's a point of pride to discuss how they learned about Trek from a parent, how they grew up with it, and how they've introduced their kids to it. If it's not as strongly tied to the brand as it is with Disney, Star Trek historically has been an all-ages proposition.

But there's a lot that can change between now and late 2019/early 2020, which is the earliest that Tarantino would be available to direct it.

We should be getting Trek movies every two years or so, it's a shame that they haven't even come close. If they had started making the Chris Hemsworth-Chris Pine teamup that they announced before Beyond opened, it could be ready for next summer. But that movie doesn't appear to be happening anymore.

 

[joshEH]

Paramount frakked up by not pushing the 50th anniversary of Star Trek in conjuncture with Beyond's opening. It would have massively helped with awareness. Contrary to the Internet-swears, Into Darkness was well-liked by critics and audiences. They also frakked up waiting four years after the '09 redo was such a big hit and resurged the franchise like it did.

Basically, it's Paramount's own damn fault they are where they're at right now with the feature-film IP.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'm guessing that the disappearance of the Pine-Hemsworth film is directly tied to the box office grosses of Beyond. Had Beyond been a billion-dollar smash, they would have rushed to get going on the Hemsworth one. Since it wasn't, that cooled their heels.

I also think that due to the underperformance of Beyond, Paramount likely views the series as a fading property that needs a shot in the arm. (I'm not saying it is one, just projecting how the studio probably feels about it.) I also doubt very much that they view the underperformance of Beyond as their fault, or realize that their long gaps between films and marketing falures are actually THEIR failues. They'd rather blame someone else, anyone else, other than themselves for botching the current state of the property.

Bringing in a filmmaker like Tarintino would certainly qualify as a shot in the arm, so maybe that's why they've agreed to the R rating, because what else are they going to do?

If Tarintino is in fact making an R film, it wouldn't surprise me if it was a soft reboot -- not really, but sort of like what Logan is in relation to the main X-Men series, where it technically exists in the same universe as them but has its own distinct tone and doesn't really acknowledge events from them that much.

If that is the case, it's possible some or all of the cast might not be needed back.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Paramount frakked up by not pushing the 50th anniversary of Star Trek in conjuncture with Beyond's opening. It would have massively helped with awareness. Contrary to the Internet-swears, Into Darkness was well-liked by critics and audiences. They also frakked up waiting four years after the '09 redo was such a big hit and resurged the franchise like it did.

Basically, it's Paramount's own damn fault they are where they're at right now with the feature-film IP.

Yup.

I also think that due to the underperformance of Beyond, Paramount likely views the series as a fading property that needs a shot in the arm.

Part of why Star Trek Beyond underperformed is that they waited too long, didn't do anything to tie it into the 50th anniversary, and antagonized the fan base by releasing a first trailer that looked and sounded nothing like Star Trek. I don't know who they hoped to please with that trailer, but when your trailer manages to piss off the director and forces the writer to come out publicly saying that it looks nothing like the movie he wrote, that's bad.

Part of the reason that Marvel has had so much success, as have other studios with other franchises, is the frequency that they're coming out. They become mini-events, and people start getting excited for the next one before the current one even ends. Everyone leaves a Marvel movie excited for the next one with that little tease they do at the end of the film. When you leave a Marvel movie and your friend says, "That was awesome!! When does the next one come out?!" you can give an answer. When you leave a Star Trek movie, the answer is "Depends on if they even feel like making another one, but no time soon."

 

[Jonathan Perregaux]

Does this mean they'll change the frakkin' helmets again? GORN TO KILL!!

 

[TravisR]

I realize the world has gone utterly fucking crazy as of late but I'm beginning to think I'm hallucinating things at this point. An R-rated Star Trek movie that has a $150 million budget?! No matter what is currently being said, I don't see any way that Paramount doesn't get cold feet and pull out.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Part of why Star Trek Beyond underperformed is that they waited too long, didn't do anything to tie it into the 50th anniversary, and antagonized the fan base by releasing a first trailer that looked and sounded nothing like Star Trek.

Oh, I 100% agree with that, and the rest of your post. Even I hated the first trailer for Beyond, and as I said, I'm more of a general audience member when it comes to this series than a fanboy.

But -- here's the thing -- do you think that Paramount actually had an internal post-mortem on Beyond, internalized what they did wrong, and are going to move to corect it?

No. just like they didn't learn from the outcry about splitting up the bonus features on Into Darkness and did the exact same thing on Beyond, they don't learn from their own failings.

To them, they won't acknowledge any of the stuff they did wrong. They'll blame the movie, or the franchise, or whatever. Anything to avoid admitting that they screwed up.

So, even though the underperformance of Beyond IS on them, I'm sure they thought they did everything right and people just don't want Star Trek anymore. Hence, bringing in Trintino to kick-start the series again, because he is a brand unto himself, and it prevents them from having to accept responsibility for anything that did or did not happen with Beyond.

 

[Sean Bryan]

I’m certainly interested in what Tarantino may bring to the table in a Star Trek film. Don’t see the need for an R- rating though. That is a little odd. Just doesn’t seem necessary.

 

[TravisR]

I’m certainly interest in what Tarantino may bring to the table in a Star Trek film. Don’t see the need for an R- rating though. That is a little odd. Just doesn’t seem necessary.

Yeah, I swear like a sailor and I don't think so either. I tend to think that, in terms of violence or language or sex, they should basically stick to the mold of what has come before. That being said, I'm intrigued by the idea of what Tarantino would do with this.

 

[Jake Lipson]

No matter what is currently being said, I don't see any way that Paramount doesn't get cold feet and pull out.

Worst-case scenario, Mr. Smith (or whomever else they select from this writers room they've formed) writes the script in an R-rated fashion, and they don't like it. Then, they talk to Tarintino and ask him to rework it for PG-13. If he refuses, they simply give him story credit on the final film and get someone else to direct it at PG-13. Either way, we should end up with another film out of this.

 

[Bryan^H]

I realize the world has gone utterly fucking crazy as of late but I'm beginning to think I'm hallucinating things at this point. An R-rated Star Trek movie that has a $150 million budget?! No matter what is currently being said, I don't see any way that Paramount doesn't get cold feet and pull out.

I'm a huge Tarantino, and Trek fan. But an "R" rating is a deal breaker for me. No way do I want any part of it. I respect Star Trek too much to see a movie peppered with the "F" word and possibly worse..an uncomfortable exploitation scene. Fine for a QT stand alone film, but to be brutally honest I thought Quentin Tarantino had more respect for Star Trek too.
I mean he could make a thought provoking, well crafted Star Trek film that is adult in nature without having to "go there" with an "R" rating. Is this just to make sure his stamp of it being a QT film is recognized? If so, I find that extremely selfish to the die hard Trek fans like myself.

Would be like Star Wars with an R. I don't want it.

I've gone from extremely enthusiastic to completely uninterested in just one day. Bummer.

 

[TravisR]

I'm a huge Tarantino, and Trek fan. But an "R" rating is a deal breaker for me. No way do I want any part of it. I respect Star Trek too much to see a movie peppered with the "F" word and possibly worse..an uncomfortable exploitation scene. Fine for a QT stand alone film, but to be brutally honest I thought Quentin Tarantino had more respect for Star Trek too.
I mean he could make a thought provoking, well crafted Star Trek film that is adult in nature without having to "go there" with an "R" rating. Is this just to make sure his stamp of it being a QT film is recognized? If so, I find that extremely selfish to the die hard Trek fans like myself.

Would be like Star Wars with an R. I don't want it.

I've gone from extremely enthusiastic too completely uninterested in just one day. Bummer.

I would think of this movie (if it happens) as existing in its own universe. I think Tarantino referred to Kill Bill as not taking place in the world of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction but as a movie that those characters would watch and I would think of this Star Trek movie in the same way. It's not a 'real' Star Trek movie but its own thing in its own world.

To compare it to Star Wars, there's a kids TV show called 'Star Wars: The Freemaker Adventures' (using LEGO-style animation) and it's fun, cartoony and its own thing but it's not considered canon.

 

[Sam Favate]

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

I can't say I think it's a good idea to have an R-rated Star Trek.

But from Paramount's perspective - It's been clear for a long time now that they don't have any idea what to do with Star Trek, so they hire big names (Abrams, Tarantino) to handle the property for them. Keep in mind, Paramount's not really a movie studio anymore; it's a holding company for intellectual property, and it hires filmmakers. So when one of the most celebrated directors of the last 25 years comes along and wants to make a film of one of your properties, you give him carte blanche.

Separate from all this, Patrick Stewart was asked this week about ever returning to Star Trek. He said "Maybe if someone came up with a brilliant idea, I’d do it. One thing that might interest me would be to bring all the existing casts of “Star Trek” from the last 50 years together for one big story."

Maybe Quentin will take inspiration from that.

 

[Sam Favate]

More from Patrick Stewart today:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/h...card-role-tarantino-directs-star-trek-1065667

"But one of my dreams is to work with Tarantino. I admire his work so much, and to be in a Tarantino film would give me so much satisfaction. So, if he is going to direct something to do with Star Trek and there was the possibility of dear old Jean-Luc showing up again and doing that for Mr Tarantino, I would embrace it."

Stewart said one thing was sure about a Tarantino-directed Star Trek installment: it would be gripping.

"The one thing that characterizes all of his movies is that frame by frame, it always challenges, always demands your attention, always demands a very kind of open and generous response to what he does," he said. "I also love his sense of humor as a filmmaker. So yes, he would be my first choice."

 

[Joel Fontenot]

Just on the surface of it, Tarantino could be an interesting development.

Going for the R rating... purposefully... is a bad idea.

My 8 year old son has just recently started getting interested in Trek (TOS and most of the movies), realizing it's a different thing from Star Wars that he's already there with.

My 20 year old son isn't interested in an R rated Trek.

How about Quintin and his writers, oh... I don't know... stretch themselves... be creative... step outside the box of R rated thinking (I personally think that it's more limiting thinking that way). Interesting dialog doesn't have to drop f-bombs or action doesn't have to be overtly graphic. We've had plenty of great and interesting movies that didn't need all that for many many years. There's a place for that, and I like many movies that are R rated. But an already beloved established world doesn't need something like that.

I know everyone brings up Discovery, but I haven't seen it. And, the more I hear about it, the less I'm interested in seeing it.

 

[TravisR]

My 8 year old son has just recently started getting interested in Trek (TOS and most of the movies)...

I had basically never seen any Star Trek before having started watching TOS reruns on METV a few months back and I have to say that I enjoy it a lot more than I ever expected. I had hoped that Tarantino, given his affinity for older stuff, was going to make something that was deeply in the mold of the original series.

 

[Vic Pardo]

I'd much rather Tarantino make a James Bond film.

 

[AshJW]

I could live with both, an R-rated Trek or an PG-13-rated Trek as long it is from Tarantino.
The same goes for a Bond movie from QT.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I'd much rather Tarantino make a James Bond film.

I suspect that MGM and the Broccolis (sp?), who control the James Bond franchise, would be too hands-on for Tarintino. He's not going to get carte blanche to do it his way if he works with them. Rightly or wrongly, on the other hand, Paramount likely views Trek as a problematic franchise, in that it has not yet achieved a billion-dollar gross. I don't think expecting that is being realistic, but if they think there needs to be course correction done after Beyond underperformed, then giving a marquee filmmaker like Tarintino license to do his thing is certainly one way to recharge the property. Bond doesn't need to do that, because they're working just fine doing things the way they've been doing them.

 

[Tino]

I suspect that MGM and the Broccolis (sp?), who control the James Bond franchise, would be too hands-on for Tarintino. He's not going to get carte blanche to do it his way if he works with them. Rightly or wrongly, on the other hand, Paramount likely views Trek as a problematic franchise, in that it has not yet achieved a billion-dollar gross. I don't think expecting that is being realistic, but if they think there needs to be course correction done after Beyond underperformed, then giving a marquee filmmaker like Tarintino license to do his thing is certainly one way to recharge the property. Bond doesn't need to do that, because they're working just fine doing things the way they've been doing them.

Since you made an effort to spell the Broccolis correct( which you did) may I politely correct your spelling of TarAntino. It’s with an A. Hurts my eyes to see it spelled with an “I”