Earlier, we reported on comments made by Karl Urban (McCoy) at last weekend’s Trekonderoga convention, about how he was confident that the salary dispute with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth will be resolved and Star Trek 4 will move forward. But at the same event, the actor also talked about the other Star Trek movie project in development at Bad Robot and Paramount, the one pitched by auteur writer/director Quentin Tarantino. TrekMovie was there and has those details as well as more from Urban at Trekonderoga 2018.
Urban ready to go bananas in Tarantino Trek
Karl Urban gave the crowd at the Trekonderoga a briefing on the Quentin Tarantino Trek project, revealing he knows something about the story:
Quentin Tarantino went in to [producer] J.J. [Abrams]’s offices and pitched him an idea for a Star Trek movie. I know a little bit about what that is, and it’s bananas. So, they are writing that as well. He is currently making a film with Brad Pitt and and [Leonardo] DiCaprio [Once Upon a Time in Hollywood]. So, it is going to be a year away from finishing that. So, it would be really rad to get to make a film with him. That would be a dream come true, he is definitely an auteur. Whether you like his films or not, he is a good filmmaker. And he makes interesting stuff. So, to me, that is when you get the best results.
Confirms Kelvin cast in Tarantino Trek
Responding to a question about what he thinks Tarantino brings to Star Trek, Urban confirmed that the Kelvin cast would be involved in the movie:
I was personally delighted he was not only a Star Trek fan, but also interested in working with our cast. It’s not only a new story, but he is just one of those filmmakers that has a very unique and specific vision. And he totally utilizes the camera to tell the story. I think he would make a great Star Trek movie, I really do.
Okay with just doing Tarantino Trek
Even though Urban expressed confidence that Star Trek 4 project will move forward, he also said:
I think that Tarantino would be able to do something quite unique. So, fingers crossed that will happen. It is in the hands of Paramount. If we don’t get to make [Star Trek 4] next year with Chris Hemsworth, then that’s ok, let’s make a really good Quentin Tarantino Star Trek movie. You will have to wait longer, but it will be well worth it.
Tarantino Trek Rated R for horror of space
It has previously been reported that Tarantino wants his Trek film to have an R-rating, but Urban assured the crowd that doesn’t mean it would be filled with f-bombs like a typical Tarantino film:
You shouldn’t worry that it is going to be full of obscenity and stuff. He wants an R-rating to really make those beats of consequence land. If it’s not PG, if someone gets sucked out into space, which we have all seen before, we might see them get disemboweled first…It allows some some breadth…gives him some leeway to do that. To me, that was always one of the things I loved about what DeForest Kelley did. He would actually capture the horror of space. That look in his eyes of sheer terror always struck me when I was a kid.
Believes in Roddenberry’s Star Trek’s vision
Karl Urban may be ready for a unique take on Star Trek from Tarantino, but he still believes in the core origins of the franchise. When asked a question about his impressions of the state of affairs in the United States, as seen from someone from New Zealand, the actor said the country felt like the “Disunited States,” leading him to talk about how he feels everyone would be better off if they stick with the ideals of Star Trek:
That’s one of the things I really respected and appreciated about Gene Roddenberry’s vision, was this hopeful view of the future and the fact that you had this wagon train to the stars that had a multi-cultural crew and they were working together in order to solve their common enemy or whatever the problems were. That to me was a vision of humanity that had overcome it its more base instincts, overcome war and greed and rampant commercial exploitation of the environment. It had overcome that and was united in the spirit of exploration. That is what always appealed to me about Star Trek. That and it was a character driven show and you tune in each week to see how this group of eclectic individuals had to overcome their personal differences with each other in order to succeed.
Ready to return to Dredd
Switching gears to another franchise, Urban talked about reprising the role of Judge Dredd, which he played in the 2012 film Dredd. A new TV series set in the same universe called Mega-City One is in development, and the actor indicated he could be ready to put back on the helmet for it, saying:
I’m not attached to it, although I did have a preliminary round of conversations with them. I am interested in doing it. There are a lot of great stories to tell there. It is up to them. I don’t know really where they are in the stages of development. If I get the opportunity, great, otherwise some else will do it, and we can all see some more Judge Dredd. I did read the comics when I was a kid, as I teenager I read Judge Dredd a lot.
Urban also revealed what he knows about how the show is structured and what role Dredd plays in the series:
Their idea for Mega-City One is was basically to build the show around more rookie judges and young, new judges and Dredd would come in and out and I said that I’ll do it, but it has to be done in a meaningful way. I can’t just come on and grunt and pull faces, there has to be a story there for him. There has to be a kind of little arc and a story we are trying to tell. So, we will see what they do.
More from Trekonderoga
See our earlier report about Karl Urban talking about Star Trek 4. Also, check out our report with comments to the press from Gates McFadden, where she talks about her time on TNG and the upcoming Star Trek series with Patrick Stewart as Picard.
Keep up with all the news on the upcoming Star Trek movies at TrekMovie.com.
You can order any kind of film research paper.
Special thanks to the Wayward Geeks of Fanboys Radio for their vital assistance with this report. Also, a special thanks to the USS Henry Hudson landing party for their assistance at Trekonderoga.
Hopefully Paramount can get its act together and make another Star Trek movie period, be it the Kirk meets his father story, the Tarantino project, or something else.
The bologna with not negotiating with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth does not augur well for the future of the Kelvin movies, nor does the ongoing corporate fight between CBS and Paramount.
They did negotiate. The negotiations failed. Big difference.
Re: The negotiations failed.
No, the original terms of picking up their options with an agreed upon rate to be paid when fully contracting them for an actual production was negotiated just fine with Brad Grey. It was Paramount breaking Grey’s agreement that started REnegotiations. It was Paramount’s attempted renegotiations spurred by their financial woes that failed.
Finally you are acknowledging that they were “signed” originally.
THANK YOU !!!
Still waiting for your lazy finger to review the original thread from months ago and stop all this spin doctored nonsense:
and admit that that was never the original issue and that I did specifically identify Hemsworth back then.
Paramount has money problems. We will be lucky to see a new Star Trek in a few years if at all.
Love this guy. His McCoy is spot on. Made me cry to see Bones alive and young again in 2009 and it’s been great watching him each film. He really IS the character as much as De Kelly was. He captures the voice and details so well. Looking forward to more Trek with him in it.
Totally agree. He’s one of the best things about the Kelvin films.
Exactly! And very underused.
Good comments there from Karl Urban. Though, I suspect I’m not the only one wondering what exactly he means by “bananas.” Is that good or bad?
I also suspect I’m not the only one who doesn’t particularly want to see anyone disemboweled in a Star Trek movie. Headcrusher in STID was more than enough graphic violence for me. Extreme violence just doesn’t work well in Trek for some reason. Not that I ever really enjoy seeing it. But, in some dramatic contexts, I can at least appreciate what it adds. In Trek I find it typically takes away from my enjoyment rather than adding anything meaningful to the story. At least, so far.
I don’t care for the idea of gore either because I think it shuts out children, but the fact is that Discovery has done it now so the precedent is very much set. It is what it is. As long as they retain the values of the franchise then I’ll begrudgingly accept the gore.
“Headcrusher in STID was more than enough graphic violence for me.”
That was all done through clever editing and sound – you didn’t actually see the head ( Admiral Marcus’s ) get crushed.
I know, but it was still disturbingly excessive. I wasn’t expecting to see/hear something like that in a Trek movie.
More often than not, when things like that happen off camera they carry a TON more weight. Example, Bambi’s mom getting shot happened off camera. But tons think they saw it when they were kids.
As a fellow Kiwi, I can perhaps translate … “bananas” means crazy, nuts, etc … usually in a positive sense.
Or as Urban’s fellow German father might say “Das ist ja völlig Banane’, meaning the same thing: crazy, gaga, meschugge… but usually in a rather negative way.
Urban says several times he thinks Tarantino will make excellent Trek so I think Rodney’s explanation of the idiom fits.
I think it’s more like “It’s something so out of the realm of what the mind conjures up when one mentions STAR TREK that it’s bananas.”
Yeah, could be. But, “bananas” in what way? In like a topsy-turvy David Lynch kind of way where the plot doesn’t seem to make sense and it’s intended for surrealism interpretation (which is the sort of thing that I can appreciate, but not everyone does)? Or, what happens to the characters is crazy because they go out of character? Or, it’s a very unusual story for a Trek movie, which is what I think you’re suggesting. It could also just mean there’s lots of action—running around, fighting, stunts, explosions and so forth. I mean, “crazy” could mean quite a number of things. I’m feeling a bit like Joe Pesci in GOODFELLAS here.
From my observation of his filmography, QT was a child of television and incorporates surprisingly artistic homages to various TV shows throughout his works.
And by “artistic” I mean a surprising command of what the audiences, for the various shows were and what about them was good and the show’s essence that drew them.
I suspect bananas in the sense that he’ll visit something about space that all in Trek’s audience knows has to be a part of it and yet no one ever expected to find Trek there.
Sounds good to me.
Meanwhile 91 things not in Trek for you to ponder:
Ha! Another one that I always wonder about is the fires and sparks on the bridge of the Enterprise-D. The ship gets hit by phasers, and the control panel catches fire?
In UK parlance, it can mean that someone is angry (“He went bananas when he heard the news…”) or it can mean that something is stupid (” His plan for improving productivity is just bananas…”)
So a strongly vocal minority of angry fans will go bananas and accuse it of being stupid, even when (and if) the results are shown to be contrary?
Don’t know about you, but the transporter malfunction scene in TMP is as horrific as it gets.
It occurs to me that the original script for City on the Edge of Forever was pretty bananas. But, a mirror universe film would fit well into Tarrantino’s style.
Now I really want Tarrantino Trek — bring it on!
“When asked a question about his impressions of the state of affairs in the United States, as seen from someone from New Zealand, the actor said the country felt like the “Disunited States,”
I know we are not suppose to get into politics here, but given Trekmovie quoted this, I will mention that I do a lot of international travel, and it’s gone from embarrassment to just “laughing along” with people I meet in other countries regarding our epic failure of leader here.
I am not from the USA, and trump is just like obama, like bush, etcetera, is you people who think there is a difference.
You’re not from the USA and clearly why you can’t tell the difference. Don’t pretend like you understand the political dynamics in this country just because you watch it on CNN or BBC.
And my guess is most foreign leaders definitely see those differences as well since Trump’s foreign policies are radically different from Obama’s in terms of trade, taxation, environment, defense and diplomacy.
I’m not from the USA either yet I do very much see a difference… Very hard to believe how anyone wouldn’t. Your knowledge of world events is clearly lacking.
Are you from Antartica, perhaps?
Sorry, but something is not right when the likes of Russia and North Korea now get a pass, but we routinely blast Canada and the EU as mortal enemies. We are living through a failed presidency, and there is plenty of reason to fear the end game….
Just traveling to the UK, Philippines, Malaysia and China regularly for the last few years, I can say that my experience says differently. I’d get some debate about US international policy no matter what, but no disparaging comments about Obama (in fact, I got quite a few, “Ah, American! OBAMA!!!” greetings in SE Asia), a number of, “The US is going to pick Hillary, right?” in 2016, and plenty of, “Soo… Donald Trump?” conversation starters since the election that go downhill from there.
I generally try to avoid the politics but I will just add this. I was in New Zealand and Australia a year ago and what I gleaned was that folks there may not fully understand American politics and are more often than not relying on cliches when talking about it. There was one Aussie who SERIOUSLY thought that 1/3 of America carried sidearms. (I went overseas for work a few times in the ’90’s and should have heard the things people were saying about Clinton in Europe!) There are other examples of this sort of thing I could relate but I’ll end with this.. I suppose it is reasonable to conclude that probably works both ways.
I travel a lot as well, often to the USA (I’m from Canada). I’ve had Americans actually apologize to me for Trump, others wanting to move to Canada… I find it very interesting to discuss politics with Americans, despite what they say about never talking about politics. You just have to listen and not impose your point of vue if it happens to be different. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Disemboweling? Is that what it’s come to?
It’s not that I have anything against scary elements in Star Trek, but horror works better when it’s implied instead of fully shown, in my opinion. I’m thinking of the Ceti eels in Wrath of Khan. We watch them go into their ears, but we don’t actually SEE them burrowing into their brains. The actors and music sold the horror.
Interesting you should mention that. Here in the UK, at least for the early VHS releases, part of the scenes of the eels exiting and entering the ears were cut in early versions so you literally just had the music and screams to tell you bad stuff was happening.
Yeah, I remember seeing that in the classics collection set of Trek videos.
Where and what video format is this classics collection? I’m curious.
ABC cut that down on its first television broadcast of TWOK also.
That is interesting. So it was just as horrific with even less of the eels to see? I should also add ‘editing’ to the elements that sold the horror in that scene.
“Capture the horror of space”
Hmm… maybe the crew will respond to a distress call from a colony and end up fighting an army of xenomorphs that have acid for blood.
In space, no one can hear you scream… oh wait.
Contrary to that point, the tedium and monotony of space makes for dull drama. Very dull drama.
“I say that we beam up, and General Order 24 the planet from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.”
Its really exciting we are getting so much more Trek news (PICARD!!!!!) and projects these days. It’s like reliving the 90s! :)
But I really hope on the movie end at least this doesn’t turn out to be a lot of hot air. I honestly don’t care which movie they make since we really don’t know anything about either one. But maybe this could be an option to fast track if they lose Pine and Hemsworth to get this story made instead. Especially if (I’m assuming) the story isn’t so reliant on Kirk and his family history.
And ANYTHING will sound better than a story about Kirk’s dad. I just can’t begin to care no matter how much I try lol. So maybe if the other falls through it will be for the best. But that said, just make whatever damn movie they can make before this series starts to feel even more irrelevant.
And as long as Urban is in the next one, I’m totally there! Love this guy. :)
Urban seems like a solid, decent chap! Love his work, too.
Horror in space… Event Horizon?
(I love that movie, by the way ;))
That would be a nice backwards way for Jason Isaacs to come back to Trek! ;)
Great movie. Nice mix of sci-fi and horror.
Eh I really really don’t need to watch people get disemboweled in trek.
Sometimes not showing things is as scary if not even more effective, cue Braveheart’s torture scene.
Agreed. Still I can see where QT got the idea. There are many horror elements in TOS. Much of the first season involves eerie stories centered on dead or dying ancient civilizations. The second season had its’ share of monster stories and the third season is loaded up on ghost stories.
Not gonna lie, QT trek is the project I’m most interested in right now. There’s so much buzz around it and I really am too curious to know what R rated trek might be like. Let’s just see! It might be amazing. I doubt it would be bad.
I think the Tarantino movie might be the fresh shot on the foot that could revitalize Star Trek in motion pictures, especially if Tarantino is directing. I also think we shouldn’t really judge him for the person he is but rather for the work he has done or is doing which has been phenomenal so far. These days it seems as though being an auter is frowned upon, like its something entirely elitist. While that maybe true, I think in the long run if it produces good products then being auter is not a bad thing.
I’m not a kid anymore, but what I loved about Star Trek was how easy and fun it was to watch as a family with my mother. I don’t know that excessive violence, sexual violence or profanity at the level of “Discovery” would have ever made the franchise something we could have bonded over. The franchise is expanding and trying to be all things to all people, and maybe it can be, but creatives get this mad dog look in their eyes when they hear the words, “Streaming only, no content restrictions!” or, “Quentin Tarantino has condescended to work with us!” and just go nuts.
I personally think “Discovery” lost its way and was less Star Trek than DS9’s most fervent critics ever accused it of being. That doesn’t mean the franchise can’t be violent and grotesque on occasion, but I think there are some blinders on which the people in charge should take off and get some perspective about where this is all going and who they want their audience to be now and in the future.
I see your point but you have to consider DISCO is made for a new generation of viewers. I guess it IS still easy and fun to watch for people who are used to or grew up on shows like GOT, TWD, The Strain or Into the Badlands. Compared to those, DISCO was tame in its first season. And you know, these shows are all watched by entire families these days, no matter what you may think about that.
As a child I used to freak out over the TOS Salt Vampire or the chilling faces in the windows on that overpopulated planet but that was a different era. No twelve-year-old would lose it over cheap rubber costumes when they are used to slaying zombies or vampires.
That said, I think the context is what matters the most. Guts and gore on Trek works best when it’s supposed to represent true evil… the darkness of the Mirror Universe for example. In those episodes, the violence and bloodshed worked because it seemed in place – in universe – entirely.
It can also work to expand upon those natural dangers in space that used to be watered down in previous installments. The Tardigrade wounds come to mind! ALIEN sort of gore, you know.
I would have issues if the blood and violence morally compromised any of the main characters beyond repair by turning them into blood-thirsty madmen, just like in your standard Tarantino movie. This is where I have issues concerning him as an artist.
If QT gives us a more visceral take on a transporter accident,monster attacks or Borg assimilation procedures… be my guest. But if he turns heroic Starfleet officers into cynical, mindless killing machines, I’m out.
Everyone parents differently. While I still say Discovery went overboard (the Mirror Universe barely felt justified since the real universe was full of vicious Klingons and violence, and whatsherface the doomed security officer on the Discovery was pretty brutal too), I can accept that Trek has moved on from what I grew up with. It’s the graphic depiction of rape which I keep coming back to as hard to countenance. Sexual violence is something I’ve never considered appropriate family material, so GOT and Discovery are just alien to me as things anyone could watch with their kids at the same age I was watching TNG. You can stick an elementary school kid in front of just about any episode of the first 6 shows. Discovery I think has to be for teens and up, but you get a very different sort of attachment to a show when you start it as a smaller kid and watch with your family. But as you say, things are moving on.
Jeez, Karl Urban just GETS it. Wish Trek had more of him around.
Wi am sorry Karl. I understood the first 2 movies. Enjoyed them. But the 3rd was well put together for a nontrek film and 4 doesn’t have any elements of traditional Trek as you describe it. Trek needs to get back to its roots not become a horror movie like 50’s movies were
The Tarantino movie is the only ST project I’m really excited for right now. And I say that not even really liking his movies in general.
The Chris-and-Chris movie: I’ve been saying the Kelvin films deserved at least ONE more installment to wrap the series up and send the ship home. But that now comes secondary to whatever Tarantino wants to do with ST. I still wish the best for that movie, but not at the expense or unfair compromise of Chris and Chris. Ultimately I’d prefer for the movie to live or die according to whichever of those two outcomes makes the Tarantino project more likely to happen. I.e., I do NOT want the Chris and Chris movie to happen if it’s going to cause Paramount to want to back out on the Tarantino deal.
ST needs more people like Nick Meyer. And Tarantino seems to me a likely such person.
Well Nic Meyer was on Discovery. It looks like that guy either quit or was fired because no one on Discovery has uttered his name in a year…nor he with Discovery. I really hope one day we hear what happened there. He was one of the biggest reasons I was excited about the show.
Well, per IMDB, Meyer is listed only as a consulting producer on the series and has no writing credits. So, maybe he was never really all that involved to begin with?
Yeah that’s probably the case now but when he was originally announced to be on the show it sounded like he was hired as a writer too. My guess is when Fuller was on board he had a much bigger role but maybe the shake up caused him to be on the outs since it was Fuller who hired him.
Or maybe he just lost interest after Fuller left? I too have often wondered why he just silently disappeared from all mention of STD.
I personally think he didn’t agree with the creative way the show was going after Fuller left and just decided to silently remove his participation so as not to offend anyone. He is one of those old school guys that don’t seem to really mesh well with more modern ways of thinking.
He still tweeted about Discovery in March of this year. However, it’s unclear what his contribution to the show was.
Nick Meyer is no guarantee of quality. The Undiscovered Country was one of his, and it’s not hard to find people who feel it has aged badly.
It’s not hard to find people who rejected it right away. And yet, in all of ST history, The Undiscovered Country is the most recent project that was a stylistic one-of-a-kind.
Whatever Tarantino does IS almost guaranteed to be its own entity. And that’s what ST needs more of.
I’ll buck the trend here, I’ve enjoyed the Undiscovered Country both times I’ve watched it. I sometimes wonder if people genuinely dislike some of the stuff they claim to or are really just parroting others.
I’m not in disagreement.
There’s only ever been one new version of ST that didn’t have an immediate fan hater backlash against it. And that was VOY. TNG fans seemed to like it right away because it was essentially a clone, and besides it was still fashionable to dismiss DS9. It took almost a year-and-a-half for fans to start turning on it. Though of course its ratings were slightly lower than DS9 right from the start.
I have to admit that I don’t find TUC to have aged well, either. The story is basically a whodunnit murder mystery that isn’t all that compelling to watch again after you know who dunnit. The racism theme is heavy-handed and has our protagonists acting out of character in order to teach the audience a lesson. I do like that Captain Kirk learns a lesson and has an arc, but it’s such a tiny arc that it goes from one end to the other with almost no development in between: he hates Klingons, is unjustly thrown into a Klingon labor camp, sees some action inside the pen, and then suddenly sees the error of his ways for no particular reason while chatting with Bones at the midpoint of the film. I guess he just needed some time away from his normal routine to think?
By far the best scene in the film, for me, is when Spock extracts the information from Valeris. The way it’s filmed, with the camera circling the two of them, and a Jaws-esque theme playing as Spock goes in for the kill, the shots of the rest of the crew as they react with horror and shock, and especially Kim Cattrall who sells the scene brilliantly. The whole scene is fantastic and just works really well. And yet, Nick Meyer has recently expressed regret about it, saying that he’d do it differently if he had it to do again, apparently because it’s un-PC to see Spock treating a woman that way. That’s one of the most disappointing things that I’ve ever come to learn in all of Trekdom.
Has any newer version of ST aged any better though? I don’t think any of the TNG films have, including First Contact. The TNG television series already holds up better than all three of its spinoffs (with all respect to DS9). Even the 2009 movie already seems more awkward in its choice of product placement than it did at the time of release.
Has any newer version of ST aged any better though?
None of the post-TUC films have, as far as I’m concerned. Especially FC, which is so riddled with plot holes and has a Picard arc that essentially reboots the TV-TNG version of the character. I don’t think that DS9 has aged badly, though I never thought it was as good as TNG.
Bring it on. Use that cast. Just don’t call it the Kelvin timeline. That’s what would be really cool. It’s Tarantino. He’s wild, exciting, provocative. Pretend none of that stuff happened and get it on track with Quentin’s version. Why not?
That’s not entirely a bad idea, but the problem is that the audience going in will still have the Orci-Kurtzman-Abrams characterizations in their heads, and they’ll be expecting the characters on screen to act accordingly. That’s actually the only obstacle for me to overcome in QT’s movie. I wish he was making it with a new cast, because the JJ movies have despoiled those characters for me. When I think of Pine as Kirk, I think of a GOOD WILL HUNTING rip-off with no real character arc running around doing whatever the plot needs him to do. When I think of Quinto as Kirk, I think of a ridiculously over-emotional, crying, whimpering, tantrum-throwing definitively non-Vulcan character. The rest of them aren’t as much of a problem for me. Though, when I think of Urban’s McCoy, I think of him having the nickname “Bones” for entirely the wrong reason. I suppose that QT could overcome all of this by re-writing the characters and establishing their new personas early on in the story. But it would be a challenge, assuming he even decides to go that route. If he doesn’t, then his story at least has to make me forget how badly Kirk and Spock were characterized in the previous films. Having said all that, I am curious and cautiously excited to see what QT comes up with. I’m with everyone who says that they’d rather the QT come first than the Trek 4 movie.
Made a typo there. I mean When I think of Quinto as *Spock*
“He wants an R-rating to really make those beats of consequence land. If it’s not PG, if someone gets sucked out into space, which we have all seen before, we might see them get disemboweled first…It allows some some breadth…gives him some leeway to do that.”
And with that, Star Trek is officially dead to me. I already had to stop watching Discovery about a third of the way through the first season because of the gore. This is just sad.
I didn’t find STD to be that objectionable. There were two people disfigured by that tardigrade and a single instance of a spoken F-bomb from what I recall. In movie terms, both are actually still within PG-13 parameters — or at least they used to be.
Would an R film really be the ST apocalypse, especially in the aftermath of such franchise movies as Deadpool? We’ve had a G-rated ST movie (and a fairly decent if flawed one, I actually love it) from the creator himself since the beginning. Why not a single one-off R picture just to balance it out?
(By comparison, ST could spend the next 50 years balancing out the stylistic sameness of the Berman era -even acknowledging that roughly a third of it was actually good- just due to its sheer quantity.
“There were two people disfigured by that tardigrade and a single instance of a spoken F-bomb from what I recall…”
Nah, there was a bit more than that. A lot more actually, especially during the Mirror Arc. Emperor Georgiou’s “fidget spinner” comes to mind or Lorca blowing out a character’s brains by using some sort of infection. There was also the infamous sex scene between L’Rell and Tyler/Voq that used bodypaint nudity combined with graphic torture images.
But none of it was completely over the top, and it worked, especially in the mirror universe. But lots of these moments would have been R-Rated on the big screen.
I never found a single moment jump out as being definitely R-rated or whatever the TV equivalent of that is, including the “infamous” sex scene (fairly positive the bodypaint would technically disqualify it as nudity by any conventional means of classification). It seemed to me that people were overacting, which is nothing new.
Having “leeway” is not the same as turning this hypothetical project into a bloodbath. There was a fair bit of blood and nastiness in The Wrath of Khan, more so than the family entertainments of that time, remember. I seriously doubt Paramount would let Star Trek turn into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I like Karl as McCoy as much as I think the cast for the Kelvin Timeline is nearly perfect.
How ever Karl has said things in the past that has been merely deceptions avoiding the truth (saying Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be a great Gary Mitchell..you lying bastard)
I have no doubt that ST4 will happen.
I also see Paramount making a stupid move by recasting Capt Kirk.
Wait and see.
What is the point of making a movie based in a franchise if the movie will be totally unrelated in every way to that franchise? They already did that with the new trilogy too.
In terms of tone alone, you can’t get anymore farther away from Roddenberry than Tarantino. Not that anything is sacred anymore, but he’s pretty much the opposite end of the spectrum. Can’t say I’m enthusiastic.
I’m not interested in another ST Into Greater Darkness movie.
Having suffered through a couple of QT’s movies, I agree. ST is supposed to take us to a better future of space exploration instead of into blood and guts territory. There’s enough darkness and hate in the real world already!
It is wrong to assume this is going to be a pure QT movie in the sense of Kill Bill. One, he isn’t writing the script, which he does for all his movies (he’s just providing the story). Two, JJ Abrams is involved, who specialize in PG-13 blockbusters. Three, Paramount would never give QT carte blanche to do whatever he pleases with Star Trek.
Those are all fair concerns. Though, it would be unusual for QT to direct a film that he didn’t have full creative control over. If it’s revealed Abrams is allowed to meddle with the film creatively, my enthusiasm for the project is going to take an immediate nose-dive. QT not writing the script is another issue of concern for me. Not because QT hasn’t directed films by good writers before, but because JJ Abrams and Paramount have a reputation at this point of simply not hiring good writers for the JJ Trek movies.
I think Tarantino will definitely leave if he feels like Paramount or the producers are meddling with him too much. I think if they officially sign him on, the producers need to be open to the way that Tarantino likes to operate.
Trek Horror film? Thanks, but no thanks.
Trek is about optimism, hope for a better future involving cooperation across species. Powers that be clearly have lost that direction in recent years.
BTW, for those folks who somehow weren’t happy with SJ Clarkson as director, the Bond people are now talking to her about Bond 25. So there! She is definitely headed for the big time, TREK or no TREK!