Simon Pegg Can’t Wait To Start ‘Star Trek 4,’ Unsure If He’s In Quentin Tarantino Star Trek Film

While promoting the release of his latest film Terminal, Simon Pegg spoke to Moviefone a bit about the two Star Trek films in development.

Inspired by hiring of Clarkson, see’s it as a sign ‘Star Trek 4’ is gearing up

While Paramount has not yet set a release date, the next Star Trek film is expected to be the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond, which was announced in the summer of 2016 and will involve Chris Hemsworth returning as George Kirk. The latest movement on that film is the recent hiring of of director S.J. Clarkson, which has Pegg feeling optimistic about the project and the hiring of Clarkson, telling Moviefone:

I’m very excited about it. It feels belated, for a start. It’s about time. I can’t wait to see what she brings to it as a director, irrespective of her gender. She’s done some fantastic work, I think her ideas are really inspirational and it feels like a perfectly timed thing. And so right that it’s “Star Trek.” Embarrassingly, in 2018, it should have happened a long time ago. I can’t wait to meet her and give myself over to her ideas.

And speaking to AP at the Terminal premiere, the actor talked more about what it’s like to have Clarkson come on board and it is a sign production is getting closer to starting:

Obviously the gender of a director shouldn’t be important, but it is a nice change of energy. It feels good, because it feels less conventional in some respects – it shouldn’t do. But, with S.J. [Clarkson] being attached to Star Trek 4, it’s something and it also means we’ve geared up again in terms of making it. That is another step towards us getting on set as well. I am super excited. I can’t wait to hang out with her.

Simon Pegg on set with Beyond director Justin Lin, says he’s excited to work with SJ Clarkson on Star Trek 4

Being kept in the dark on Quentin Tarantino Star Trek

With regards to the Star Trek project based on an idea pitched to producer J.J. Abrams by famed writer/director Quentin Tarantino, Moviefone asked Pegg if he knew if he would be involved in the film and the actor said he did not know, and noted his ignorance about the project was by design:

We don’t know anything about it. Because they know that we’ll get asked about it all the time and they protect us from ourselves. I know as much as you do. I just know that Quentin came in with an idea and I’m excited to see what fruit that bears. I know there was some kind of consternation from the fans. But he’s a devoted “Star Trek” fan and an incredibly gifted filmmaker, so I can’t think of anything more exciting than him having a crack at it.

High levels of secrecy around J.J. Abrams-produced Star Trek films is nothing new, but Tarantino’s project seems to be shrouded in even more than the usual mystery. It has been reported that the Tarantino Star Trek project would come after the Star Trek 4 film. However, the Tarantino film has been reported to be “separate” from the other Kelvin films, and possibly the start of a new series of films.

Quentin Tarantino and JJ Abrams aren’t talking about their Star Trek project

Catch all the latest news for both of these projects in our upcoming Star Trek films category.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There are rumors the Tarantino film takes place in the prime universe. That might mean recasting all the TOS parts. But have either of these movies been greenlit?

That be Awesome.

You sure about that? I don’t think he cares that much about precious Canon.

Why recast the TOS characters if it’s in the prime universe? They are supposed to be the same people. The only recasting should be Chekov.

If it’s a TNG era yesterday’s enterprise type of story involving the TOS enterprise, realistically they could use the same cast as the JJ films

@Kev-1 — NO. Nothing has been green-lit. There are some scripts in development, with the details of how to produce them being worked out, including who will direct them. The director will have significant input into the script as well. More importantly, a budget must be agreed upon, and a way to finance it. There are no guarantees anything we’ve heard about will move forward, much less in time for the 2020 Summer box office. The longer it takes to develop a script, the greater the chance some players take other jobs, pushing the start date back further.

Paramount is notorious for not formally announcing the overrated “green-lit” thing that Trek fans always waste time ruminating over. They are obviously in pre-production now, and I would be shocked if they are not filming by the fall…worst case maybe January.

And please “turn down the headlights” — yes we can see all see your paragraph! It doesn’t come across as more convincing to read your fan guesses masquerading as news in bold font…sorry

I wish we all used boldface, it is much easier to read. A print mag I used to work for changed its typeface awhile back, making it much lighter in tone. Graphically, it made the mag more of a nightmare to read, not an improvement.

Well sure, I could go with that myself; but that is a different issue than I was reffing to…someone trying to garner more attention to their point through the use of boldface. Staring off that post with “NO…” in boldface to Kev-1 seemed like a lame “look at me, I am correcting you” condescending move. And that’s not even considering that this person was essentially making wild ass guesses about the status of Trek 4 that are inconsistent with what looks like the pre-production status of the movie right now.

For this site, I find the regular type a bit too light, and the boldface to thick and hard to read, so something in between the two extremes would be nice.

Yes, as someone who doubted if the next film will even happen its all but clear at this point its happening lol. It went from a lot of ‘I don’t know what’s going on’ to ‘we now have a director and a script’ so my guess is its only a matter of time before they give an official start date. And no one goes through the motions of finding a director if they are not even sure a film will be made yet so yeah.


Re: …no one goes through the motions of finding a director if they are not even sure a film will be made…

Aren’t you forgetting about the Paramount found director, Orci, and his scripts which they apparently weren’t “sure” of committing to film?

Aren’t you forgetting that Orci’s major guest star would have presumably had Shatner in a big role, yet the studio didn’t take ANY steps to sign Shat — VERSUS this situation where A-lister Hemsworth is fully contracted to be in the movie? That’s a big difference. Paramount was never really on-board with Orci’s Trek 3 project; there is no sense of that this time regarding Trek 4.

That’s apples and oranges though. A film still happened, they just got into creative differences with Orci, it wasn’t if they wanted a film or not.

And in fact maybe that’s why they been so slow to announce another film, to avoid the bad PR they suffered over the Orci thing and build things slowly behind the scenes.

I’m still hoping we get what really happened there. To go months of pre-production and having approved the script to later go ‘nah’ is really bizarre.

Exactly. And some of that seemed to be like Orci was “campaigning” to force Paramount’s hand to accept his proposal. Obviously, he rubbed the studio and BR the wrong way, hence he is now relegated to minor TV series work (i.e. compared to the major movie work for several years that he had going at his career high point). He kind of embarrassed Paramount, and you just don’t do that in Hollywood where everyone has very long memories.

I always figured Orci leaked the Shatner-in-the-script story to force their hand as it received such news coverage. He denied it here but he’s the type to have had someone else actually send the leak and then claim since he didnt press “enter” he didnt leak it.

I bet the Orci fall from grace is far more interesting than we’ve ever known. Recall how a seemingly “intoxicated” Orci went batshit crazy on this very forum one night (timing suggests it was when he was fired, though the public didnt learn it for awhile).

JJ couldn’t save him and then he split with his partner to a degree he hasnt even been asked to pitch a story for Discovery (which seems far more up his ally).

But he has a big bank account and flies on private jets so what do we know.


I think that’s covered in the New Age Edition of the Bible:

It is far easier to fly your private jet through the eye of a needle than it is to fly it through the Gates of Heaven.

To play the devil’s advocate, there have been plenty of times when directors were hired for films that never materialize.

But how many times did a studio head at a business meeting say they are making the movie, and then the week after the director got hired, did the movie not get made? That would certainly be rarer than just the director only issue you are bringing up.

Additionally, they have a completed storyline and I think it’s likely a completed draft script, plus A-lister Hemsworth is signed….so your case would be even rarer when you include these other data points.

Not often. A decade of Superman reboots/sequels comes to mind. Directors were hired. Scripts were written. Actors were auditioned. Some, like the case of the Justice League movie from 15 years ago, were even cast and announced. Yet the movie never happened for some reason or other.

That said, I think Star Trek is a different animal and in all likelihood the new feature will be happening. I will just feel a lot better when it becomes “official.”

Well said! The current Mad Max thing also comes to mind as an exception.

@BorgKlingon — Sigh. Yet there’s no way this movie is not getting made, by a company on the verge of declaring bankruptcy? So many industry insiders and experts on these forums!


“A Quiest Place,” “Annihilation” and “Mission Impossible: Fallout” just called to say “hi” to you.

How about “getting a clue” the next time before you bring your weak and silly bold-face proclamations here to us all?


Re: “getting a clue”

The financing for MISSION IMPOSSIBLE:FALLOUT was secured in 2015.

ANNIHILATION cost $40 million to make and at that the studio still could only afford to risk releasing it to 3 theatrical markets: the US, Canada and China. And it only broke even.

A QUIET PLACE cost even less: $17 million.

So they secured $57 million to make those two movies, plus $110 for Ghost in the Shell, plus $68 million for Downsizing, plus $69 Million for Baywatch — all while on the verge of bankruptcy — which has been in the news as a possibility way back since late 2015. And I am throwing you a bone by not mentioning the 2017 versions of of the crappy Transformers and XXX.

And for this year, explain Bumblebee and Overlord??? (question: are you going to claim that they won’t be able to afford releasing those outside of the U.S.?) And how in the hell are they doing the $100 Million for the mega-animated movie Wonder Park due in 2019…are you going to tell me that they won’t be able to afford to release that outside of the U.S. either?

Perhaps you should do your homework next time before just agreeing with someone on this site as a way of scoring points against me? Just saying.


Re: Perhaps you should do your homework …

An interesting twist since it was more than obvious you hadn’t done your homework in citing 2 examples of inadequate fundraising to the task at hand.

And this late 2017 event:

“In the latest sign of retrenchment by Chinese investors in Hollywood, Paramount Pictures said Tuesday that its $1-billion film-financing deal with China’s Huahua Media had collapsed.

Nonetheless, the move was a blow to Paramount, which has endured a prolonged drought at the box office and financial losses.

The studio was counting on the money to finance 25% of the studio’s film slate for three years. Viacom also said Tuesday that it will report a $59-million expense in its fiscal fourth quarter at Paramount because of the termination of the Huahua agreement.” — ‘Paramount Pictures loses Huahua Media slate film financing deal’
By Meg James and Ryan Faughnder | | Nov 07, 2017 | 6:00 PM

Is why your citation of financing in years prior is meaningless regardless of whether or not the word “bankruptcy” was bandied about back then.

I mean, Paramount couldn’t even finance their next TERMINATOR without going hat in hand to FOX to co-finance it.

So instead of directly addressing all of those recent/current/near future movies that total hundreds of millions of dollars that Paramount has achieved financing on, you get me some newspaper articles that are non-specific to actual movie’s in the pipeline?

“I mean, Paramount couldn’t even finance their next TERMINATOR without going hat in hand to FOX to co-finance it.”

Yes or no, were they successful in arranging a business deal to finance it?

You got nothing except a fan’s well-meaning opinion of being overly pessimistic in how real financing works in Hollywood with struggling studios. Look all those movies I listed — are they being financed and produced or not? This does not jive with your simplistic understanding from reading a few articles.


Re: You got nothing

I got why the billion dollar film financiers Pulled out:

“Rather, concerns about Paramount’s accounting and its assessment of the slate’s profitability were Huahua’s main motivation for breaking off what would otherwise be a largely passive investment. The company concluded that Paramount’s upcoming titles between now and mid-2018 had little chance of a positive investment return.” — ‘Paramount to Be Audited by China’s Huahua, Shanghai Film Group (EXCLUSIVE)’ By Patrick Fra | | November 8, 2017

I think all three of us would be in a better position to discuss the premature nature of your assertion as a well-meaning fan that the next STAR TREK film’s financing had already been secured at the time of your announcement after their audit. It certainly was nether the position of Curious Cadet nor myself that no STAR TREK film could ever be financed by Paramount ever again.

So again, you ignore my actual examples of all the movies that they have financed currently and are in the pipeline. Whatever.

Enjoy your Hollywood business gossip magazine. In the meantime, their is a large slate of financed releases in the Paramount pipeline, several of which will be large international releases…FACT.


Re: Just saying

No, you are just falsely impugning my motives in classic misdirection, something you claim to abhor, using yet another invented ad hominem to attack me.

Stick to the substance of what was said:

This from the person who completely ignored my large list of movies that Paramount has achieved business deals to finance, despite being a struggling studio. You are the one who misdirected here by ignoring my very specific examples and instead choosing to focus on some business section type articles that aren’t telling the real-world movie financing story about how Paramount is largely continuing along with the business of making movies, albeit if they are having to find more partners than in past…but the movies continue and they are not doing silly stuff like not releasing their major movies overseas because they are broke as you suggested…Again, how in the hell are they doing the $100 Million for the mega-animated movie Wonder Park due in 2019…are you going to tell me that they won’t be able to afford to release that outside of the U.S. either? That’s just ludicrous! Are you serious?


Re: my large list of movies

Look, my initial point was that your initial salvo of examples into this specious line of reasoning was weak. Since, you’ve tried to repair it with better examples, as would be expected, but you can’t win this point with more of them because, if you are as familiar with film industry as you claim, you know darn well that even in a studio NOT facing bankruptcy that during any time period of financed film productions that you point to, the number of projects in development hell that NEVER get financing far exceed those that did. So I’m uncertain what exactly you believe your examples prove, especially when Paramount is in a period of record LOW number of productions?

I’m just saying that you are counting your chickens before they’re hatched and your enthusiasm for this is reckless which is likely what led you to make the claim that “Hemsworth is fully contracted”, that you say you didn’t intend?

Because I certainly don’t see Michael Bay jumping to Netflix:

and Paramount pulling TRANSFORMERS 7 as a good sign for Bad Robot STAR TREK financing.

While my hope is that you are right, my rationale says that you are grasping at straws at this time.

I provided real-world examples to back up my point. Your point has a lot of “watch what’s going to happen – they can’t sustain this” assumptions in this. You can only provide conjecture at this point, and you and I both know that.

Not ignoring, failing to see the merit to how any of it contributes to making your conjecture that, the next Bad Robot STAR TREK is guaranteed to be made this year and in pre-production now, somehow more valid than any other? You have only cited one example where raising funds were adequate to the level of getting a Bad Robot STAR TREK film made, i.e. the funds secured in 2015 for MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: FALLOUT.

I have earnestly tried to find a mention of Paramount possibly facing bankruptcy in 2015, as you believed you recalled in warranting its inclusion, via Google but to no avail. Perhaps you conflated the parent company, Viacom’s, struggles in other arenas?

OVERLORD is a WW II horror film from JJ along CLOVERFIELD lines – again, not liable to get funding out of the 2 digit millions and BUMBLEBEE doesn’t appear to be mustering even the minimum $150 million:of its ancestors:

“We will make the first movie with Michael and go right into a Bumblebee movie, which will be at a lower cost.” — Brad Grey, Paramount Pictures chairman and CEO speaking to THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER, ‘TRANSFORMERS 6 Will Be a Lower-Cost BUMBLEBE Spinoff’ by Tatiana Siegel, 8:42 AM PST 2/16/2016

The financing raised for each of your “large list of movies ” cited after 2015 seem cherry-picked to show a pattern of Paramount consistently NOT raising enough money, in the intervening time span, for their average film released on the level required to produce a Bad Robot Trek movie as has been done in prior years, and your faulting me for seeing that trend in YOUR chosen data points as backing up the indications that I derived from the reporting that I’ve read, some of which was cited?


In October 15, 2008, Nikki Finke, Brad Grey’s Entertainment News mouthpiece reported for DEADLINE, “Paramount Pictures said today it has reduced its release target to twenty films annually … .”

Later, THE NEW YORK TIMES reported in June of 2010 that, “Paramount has sharply reduced its release schedule.“ from that number. On February 23 of 2016, after reporting Paramount’s Dauman was pursuing selling a minority stake,

“The advantages for Viacom and Paramount are significant. A strategic partner can enhance Paramount’s business by adding overall expertise, FUNDING EXPANDED PRODUCTION, building on our distribution clout and scale, and providing new creative opportunities for our employees, our talent and our studio production partners.” — Philippe P. Dauman, Viacom’s chief executive in a note to staff members

the NYT later noted, “Mr. Dauman has said that Paramount’s output will increase to a 15-film slate in the current fiscal year [2016]. In the fiscal year [2015] just ended, the studio made 11 films.”

Other sources, such as THE MOTLEY FOOL and FDA also confirmed that Paramount only made 11 films in 2015.

The Film Distributors’ Association Ltd. (FDA), the trade body for theatrical film distributors in the UK also tracks Paramount’s current and future releases as well as the past:

Year No. of films
2015 11
2016 12
2017 9
2018 11
2019 11

Where you can also see that 2016‘s planned expansion to 15 never quite materialized – much as the sale which was to finance it.

In 2016, Paramount reduced their slate of films to be produced from 15 to 9.

The FDA shows no place holder for a STAR TREK film production from now until of February 2018.

In this quote:

“The actions [Changing Paramount’s financing of movies.] we are announcing today establish a financing model that is better aligned to Paramount’s new strategic approach to film production. Our focus on a more balanced slate – a mix of big, broad-audience films and more targeted and co-branded films made with greater fiscal discipline – demands a more flexible and tailored financing model going forward. This structure positions us to capture more upside beyond 2019 as the new slate takes full effect.

The production financing Paramount has secured is weighted toward its bigger-budget films, allowing Paramount to capture greater upside on its more modestly budgeted titles, where presently there is no third-party financing.” — Jim Gianopulos, Paramount chairman and CEO, November 7, 2017

Gianopulos pointed out that for the modestly budgeted film, the type of the vast bulk that you cited, Paramount had no third party financing lined up and that its announced current new 2018 financed slate is oriented towards a Trek type budget but no Trek film was put on the slate back then when this was announced, and that new slate announced at the end of 2017 won’t take full effect until 2019 which sure reads like no financing of not yet slated [as of 11/2017] big budget film productions until then.


Pegg keeps saying the gender of the director doesn’t matter, and of course he’s right, but why then does he keep talking about it? Enough already!

I guess it’s because they keep asking him.


It matters. It’s a big deal. And why should they stop talking about it?

Because it’s repetitive and boring. Equality means that it really shouldn’t matter.

We don’t have equality. And Pegg’s known for repetition.

Yet you read the article, and then spent time to post about it? So your statement makes no sense from your own perspective?

Because the press keeps bringing it up.

Please oh please, hoping beyond hope for a final TNG film. Grant us all that, JJ & Quentin.

Me too, friend.

There’s always the possibility that Quentin’s ‘reboot’ will involve some kind of ‘alternate timeline’ caused by some kind of ‘time rift’ – where Stewart plays an ‘elderly Picard’ who encounters a redesigned ‘Next Gen’ Enterprise which is captained by a cocky young ‘alternate Picard’ who has a very different personality to him… ;)

Tom Hardy again, just this time with a GOOD director?

More likely James Mcavoy

Tom Hardy will never go near Star Trek again.

Tom Hardy has continually shown over the years that if the cash is right, he’s in.

But you are still right — Trek would not open the safe to pay him want he wanted.

Could they afford Mcavoy, and why would he be interested? I mean, he gets lots of interesting roles, from FILTH to SPLIT. Show me how Picard could be anywhere near that interesting in a film script. I mean, it’s Picard (mental picture of awkward horseback riding fills the screen, followed by very unconvincing sobbing and his one solid expression for when he explains the Federation is losing the war.)

Except that you forget how 90% of actors salivate over getting a chance to work with QT…they could be playing the dogcatcher, but would still want to be in his movie.

Agreed, but with re-casting all TNG parts, and a much better looking D starship.

Stargazer ;)

Something that looks more like the -C would be welcome, these baby nacelles with a giant deformed saucer are never welcome.

And nudity.

I haven’t ever seen a clothed starship, would you care to show me how a Starbase puts on a G-string?

@ kmart: NSFW ;-)

There has already been a final TNG film.

The actors don’t know any more than we do at this point.

I am glad they have a director, I thought we were going to wait another 4 years until Paramount greenlit a script and found a director. This is good news so sometime by 2020 we will get a new film.

I suspect filming is going to be in Spring 2019; part of me hopes that filming may start earlier in the Autumn of this year, but I would be quite surprised by that, it depends on where in the process preproduction is on the film. Do they have a working script? Do they have concept art and sets in mind, ready to go and be built?

I guess it also depends on how much creative input she gets. Is she just a “hired gun” who’s supposed to run with an existing script and existing designs? Or does she get input on the story and assemble her own creative team? Basically, if they have a script already, how much are they willing to go back to the drawing board if she has some good ideas.

The activity seems to point filming starting much sooner than that. I’d say filming starts late summer/earl fall, with a pre-Thanksgiving release date next year — keeping it 3 to 4 weeks ahead of SW ep 9.

Tarantino’s movie will be TOS right down to the poorly soundproofed sets. Soundtrack, costumes, maybe even special effects will be lifted directly from the 1960’s. The visual difference between it, Star Trek 4 and Discovery will be enough for the general public not to get confused.

I seriously doubt it will be another TOS. And that might make it confusing to see yet another TOS cast when there is already the Kelvin and then the bits of Enterprise in Discovery. I mean another ship in yet a different timeline may feel confusing.


Please no more Kelvin universe

Signed every trek fan from before 1999

“Signed every trek fan from before 1999”

You don’t speak for me, nor do you speak for MANY others. This is condescending and simnply false.

You don’t speak for me either bill. Speak for yourself.

I’ve been a Trek Fan since 1973. You certainly do not speak for me.

Been a fan since about 1982…. so no. Love the Kelvin universe.
Stop with your nonsense.

just want to say you definitely speak for me! die kelvin-verse, die!

I’ve been a STAR TREK fan since 1966. Now if you’ve finished hosing down the deck with ….

Apologies, while I did quote a STAR TREK person, Akiva Goldsman, he wrote that for the other franchise.

Star Trek lives. If it was only for the old fans star trek would have died after Star Trek 6. The send off for classic trek, second star to the right and straight on ’til morning.

Also no more prequels

Signed every trek fan from before 1999

Enough please with the “signed every trek fan from before 1999,” nonsense.

Aren’t you confident enough in your own opinions without having to throw out made-up group-think proclamations like this to back up your opinions?

Bill… You’re an idiot. Signed, me.

I’ve been a fan since 1973 and I find the prequels to have better storytelling potential then anything Voyager or Nemesis had.

I’ve been a fan since 73 and find that except for DSC, Enterprise and the Abrams-directed films, EVERYTHING has better storytelling potential than VOY and NEM. (in the case of TNG, most of that potential was squandered, but even so.)


i’ll co-sign this too! keep it up bill – we’re all with you minus the few exceptions that are posting!

You mean the the 80% of us who responded who disagreed with Bill?

You ever take a math class…like in 5th grade perhaps where you learn percentages?

Assuming the Tarantino movie is real, I guess it could be another ship and crew, or even mirror verse. Maybe a spin off with the offspring of some of the kelvin characters, or a prequel set far in the past. Doubtful it’s tos crew or another reboot, can’t see the audience caring.

Mirror Universe seems to be more in Tarantino’s wheelhouse if he indeed wants to go on full R-rated, but then we already had mirror universe in Discovery so the producers might want to stay away from it. I think anything is possible with Tarantino, we should just be patient and see what the writers he picked can come up with. I am hoping he stays away from some of tried and true tropes of Star Trek movies and go for more originality and creativity. Same is true for the guys making Star Trek 4 as well. Lets try not to repeat what came before.

Plenty of dark stuff in every incarnation of trek without jumping to a mirror u – shoot, QT could do a riff on CONSPIRACY and it would be in his wheelhouse.

Its already being reported it WON’T be in the Kelvin timeline so it may be something completely different. I’m praying its not another prequel at least, but yeah.

I would be OK with a Mirror Universe story. A film version could be fun and trippy.

I know about that report, but the realm of rumors is what it is and we might only know less than half of the truth. Technically, if it were set in the mirror reality of the kelvin reality, it wouldnt be the kelvin reality (so the report would still be accurate). Same if it were a sequel with another ship and crew because reports might simply refer to/want to hint the possibility it isn’t a sequel with this cast and these characters. Potentially, they could even borrow the idea from the comics that there are many parallel/alternate realities that share similarities with the kelvin one.
I just think it has to have a connection with either the kelvin reality or discovery because that’s the two popular trek iterations they have right now and they might want to cash on that. Or maybe he has a new reboot in mind, but I don’t see Tarantino being able to or willing to start a new trilogy and franchise. A standalone movie possibly, but not a whole new franchise in a genre that isn’t even his cuppa as a director and when he’s already thinking about retiring.

My guess is its just another reboot (for some reason Star Trek people are really scared of that word) and probably why its rumored to be set in another timeline completely. Of course yeah all of this could be false. For all we know he could be doing a movie in the prime universe film with the Enterprise cast (not likely just an example ;)) so we will have to see.

And I don’t think Tarantino himself would be that involved in a new franchise. My bet is he will do the first film and if its successful enough others will just take over. But studios don’t just make standalone films anymore with big brands. If they are doing this film, its probably with the thought more will happen if its big enough.

In fact I remember reading the report here the film could produced sequels. But again all of this is up in the air until we here some concrete details. Its bizarre in fact how we have heard from other people about it but not a peep from Tarantino himself lol. Is the man living in a cave? At least try to get a comment out of him.

I think he is fully concentrated on his new film that is why Mr Tarantino is staying silent. He wants to finish up his “Manson” film before diverting any of his attention to Trek. We should just be patient I think.

To be honest, as a fan of kelvin trek I don’t care about Tarantino’s movie either way. I don’t like his movies and after all the stuff I read about him, I don’t like him.
So if his movie happens and it’s completely separated from this reboot the better, for me. I actually hope so.

You don’t like his movies because of what you read about him or you just don’t like his movies? I think there are occasions when we need to separate the fact from fiction otherwise we would not be able to watch any movies. I mean I think Roman Polanski is a creep but that doesn’t mean I won’t still watch the classics he made like Rosemary’s Baby or Chinatown. I personally think Tarantino might be the shot in the foot that Trek needs to get its groove back and start creating more original stories for films. It will definitely attract big names just because of the fact that Tarantino is involved.

Hahahaha! “I know there was some kind of consternation from the fans. But he’s a devoted “Star Trek” fan“ Simon, are you sure you don’t have it twisted? All I keep seeing is fans excited that Tarantino will direct… perhaps the “consternation” (??) you speak of was directed at the reductive and hollow JJ films.

re: It has been reported that the Tarantino Star Trek project would come after the Star Trek 4 film. However, the Tarantino film has been reported to be “separate” from the other Kelvin films, and possibly the start of a new series of films.

I’m not liking the sound of the whole “after” aspect of the Tarantino movie. “After” means that we have to go through yet another cycle of promotion and disappointment for the JJ movie before we get the movie that actually holds promise. Having thought long and hard about the situation, I have arrived at what I believe to be a cost-effective and equitable solution. Check it out…

Rather than the QT Trek movie coming “after” the JJ Trek movie, the QT movie comes “instead of” the JJ Trek movie. See how that works? The key is the “instead of.” That way, the fans and the studio get all the marketing benefits of a new Trek vision with exciting new possibilities, without the fans having to get dragged through the muck of promotion, false promise and ultimate disappointment. “Instead of.” That’s the ticket.

There’s some validity to what you’re saying beyond what you’ve actually said, based on doing both in the reverse order.
After TFF, Bennett wanted to go back and really do STARFLEET ACADEMY, before another TOS adventure. Idea is that you’d have a new potential ladder, the first rung anyway, and then people would still be waiting for ST VI. The QT film could engender new interest in Trek, which might reinvigorate interest in the current bunch if they did the next film after the QT.

But it ain’t gonna happen.

They’ve already signed the director, have a script and have Hemsworth, so your well-meaning daydream I am afraid to say is DOA. They are obviously in pre-production already, and you can expect more casting news this summer.


Re: …have a script…

It seems more likely to me that things are at the same stage as when Paramount announced their last two directors, Lin and Orci, i.e. there’s no completed script, but rather a commitment to a pitched story treatment to which a writer or writers have been commissioned to knock off a first draft.

I suspect they likely have a first draft completed. Can I prove it? No I can’t.

You are ignoring one huge fact in comparing this to the Orci situation — in this situation they have actually signed an A-list actor (Hemsworth) to play a leading role, a role defined in the story/script that they are obviously now going with. For Orci’s script, not only was the studio not convinced, they didn’t start the obvious casting to lock in Shatner. Orci blew a lot of smoke up Paramount’s ass on his concept and role on Trek 3 and it blew up on him — please see my other post here today where I go into that a bit more.

@BorgKlingon — they made a deal with Hemsworth. Big difference from signing him with a start date. He has options. At some point his deal expires if they stop paying the options. Happens all the time in Hollywood. So many films would have been made with different stars had the deals not expired waiting for the films to get made.

Stop bolding your comments. What you have to say is not more important than what other people have to say.

@AP — just to be perfectly clear — is this a new Trekmovie forum guideline? ‘No use of bold text in forum posts’? Or is this directed at bolding an entire comment? Does this restriction also apply to any other formatting tools available in the public software such as italics?

How about please just zip it and follow the Moderator’s instructions?


Re:…A-lister Hemsworth is fully contracted…completed script…

How do you account for TrekMovie not noting those “facts” here?:

As far as I’ve seen reported from credible sources on contracts, all Paramount has done so far is exercise options on three actors.

I can’t speak as to why Trekmovie doesn’t show Hemsworth as contracted. If you want to believe he’s not under contract, have at it. For myself, I’m pretty damn convinced.

I love how you quoted me as “…completed script…” instead of what I actually said: “I suspect they likely have a first draft completed. Can I prove it? No I can’t.” LOL, there you go again. I commend your consistency in spin-doctoring what people say!


Re: I can’t speak as to why Trekmovie doesn’t show Hemsworth as contracted.

Talk about spin-doctoring.

You said Hemsworth was “fully” contracted, i.e. that he’s getting his going rate.

The only credible contract reporting I’ve seen was that Paramount optioned 3 actors of which Hemsworth was one. This is a deal that involves paying at most ten percent of an actor’s going rate so that his or hers name can be attached to a project. This is usually a financing move so the name can be bandied about to entice financial institutions and investors to fund a production so that it can be gotten off the ground. Once the financing’s been secured , THEN the actors can be “fully” contracted at their going rates.

In the past, TrekMovie has accurately reported when first draft scripts are completed and contracts fully implemented when their sources confirm it.

Forgive me, but I simply do not trust your sources for this information.

Problem is you are lying about what I said again. You claim I said “fully contracted” and then proceed to challenge me that “fully” is wrong because it’s an option process and the contract is not “fully” realized until the option is picked up and the actor’s rates are then taken care of.

Problem is, I never said “fully” contracted. NEVER !!!

You have this extremely intellectually dishonest habit of tweaking what people say to allow you to then challenge details based on your new definition of what they said — when what they actually said was different, and would not be able to be challenged by you in that way.

I look forward to the day when you will stop making shit up about what I say, and instead have an honest discussion about what I actually said. Why is it so hard for you to actually quote what I exactly said instead of this continuous fake-ass nonsense when you change it around to benefit your position?


“Aren’t you forgetting that Orci’s major guest star would have presumably had Shatner in a big role, yet the studio didn’t take ANY steps to sign Shat — VERSUS this situation where A-lister Hemsworth is fully contracted to be in the movie? That’s a big difference.” — BorgKlingon, May 14, 2018 12:55 pm

Apparently, you were referring to yourself in regards to forgetting?

OK, I stand corrected on this one. I didn’t mean to define it that way, but obviously I said what I said, so: good point!

A big difference between you and I is I will freely admit when I was wrong on something versus misdirection and spin-doctoring.


Re: A big difference between you and I is I will freely admit when I was wrong on something versus misdirection and spin-doctoring.

That’s it? The old speciously pious “I will freely admit when I was wrong…” dodge, but those conclusions about me proven by your being absolutely wrong are still absolutely right?

Who are you trying to convince about the virtues of this derived from the proven corrupt logical foundation of your theses? Conclusions, I might observe, apparently preordained from my making the simple mistake of trying to engage you in a simple two-way conversation, which involves feedback of what your words communicated to me, and you attacking me that since your words are “clear and concise” there’s absolutely no possible way that you could be communicating something else? Ergo, I am therefore guilty of sins with which you have been excessively and desperately tarring me, at every opportunity, ever since?

But now, it appears, you do acknowledge the possibility that your carefully chosen “clear and concise” words can communicate things other than you meant:

“ I didn’t mean to define it that way, but obviously I said what I said, so: good point!” – BorgKlingon

And your assertion that I do not freely admit when I am wrong will be the 3rd provably false claim that you’ve leveled against me since I made the observation that you appear to have an ulterior agenda to dress me down in these public comment chains of


As were J&J’s.

But to give you the benefit of the doubt, I read deeper into the court’s Red Cross rulings which are quite a complicated thing to build your “simplifying” analogy upon, and I think I overstated the case. The court, in holding the Congressional act over the original trademark, gave them far more rights than I thought while grandfathering in J&J’s trademark.

I think I see now, how your analogy could work. But it only does so by an act of Congress of which Paramount/CBS don’t have the benefit.

I knew the story one way but the court took it another. I was wrong and I now see how you could be right.’‘ — Disinvited, posted March 25, 2016 4:13 pm, comment chain of Trek Movie’s article ‘Rod Roddenberry Talks Star Trek All Access, the 50th Anniversary, and That Legal Case That Just Won’t Go Away’ By: Kayla Iacovino | March 23, 2016 |

Ouch! Somebody please mail order my butt a replacement outer skin layer please. That was one hell of a virtual spanking. LOL

PS: Well done searching from all of your posts over the previous three years to find one 26 months ago when you said you were wrong…wow, you really showed me up with unequivocal response, didn’t you? ;-)


Re: Ouch!

Pain, more likely the result from all the off-topic asperions you’ve seen fit to pull out of it and spread liberally across contributors to the various comment chains without a shred of evidence.

Re: Well done searching…

I would think that instead of wasting our time and the time of all of the readers of these chains, casting even more unwarranted and off-topic aspersions and making light of it, that if you had deigned to do a bit of it, yourself, in regards to your own contributions, you could have spared us all the “extremely intellectually dishonest” and off topic blather and tweaking on how you never said something that you actually did.

@Disinvited — Absolutely correct. Beat me to it!

Based on a lie about what I said…so it’s fitting that you are now validating that “BOLD-face” lie.

Get it? LOL

I ‘think’ the issue is QTs film could still be years away and it sounds like Paramount wants another Trek film in the next two years. And as someone said, they already have a cast all lined up and ready to go with a script that has been written for awhile now so I can see why that one is going forward.

I think the Tarantino one is probably more in the blue sky phase and why there is nothing more yet. I’m guessing if he wasn’t directing the other movie he could very well do his Trek film first.

It’s not the past if it takes place in a future that has not happened yet.

According to IMDPro as of 26 April 2018, Star Trek sequel to Beyond status is Pre-Production.

Tarantino should stick to his own movies. Keep your hands off my Star Trek!!! I love the direction the reboots have taken and I would hate to see a Star Wars ep 1-3 type DISASTER happen to it. I am curious to see how they will handle Chekov recasting.

Its been reported they don’t plan to recast Chekhov, at least based on a quote from JJ Abrams.

That would be extremely disappointing if it’s true. As endearing as Anton Yelchin was, Chekhov is part of the main characters and needs to be part of the ongoing series.

Not really.

A Last Jedi Star Trek would be far worse than anything from the prequels. Can you imagine kirk as a coward who loses his way and lives on an island for 30 years and dies a creepy old loser. You have him give up on the Enterprise and Starfleet, look like he has not bathed in 30 years and has long hair and a beard that birds could nest in.