Quentin Tarantino Says His Star Trek Movie Is Still A ‘Big Possibility’

While there is a lot of activity going on with Star Trek on TV, things have been mostly idle on the movie side, especially since the Star Trek 4 project was put on indefinite (and possibly permanent) hold. However, there still appears to be some life in the other Star Trek project in development at Paramount, the one based on an idea from Quentin Tarantino.

Tarantino talks Trek

Since it was assigned to screenwriter Mark L. Smith in December 2017, the Quentin Tarantino Trek project has been pretty quiet. It was always expected the project was something that would come after Star Trek 4, the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond, which was originally slated to go into production this year before it ran into trouble due to a salary dispute. Now for the first time, Tarantino is talking about his Trek project. An interview with Slashfilm has this exchange:

I feel like I have to ask this even though I don’t know if you’ll want to answer. But are you going to make a Star Trek movie? Is there any truth to that?

It’s a very big possibility. I haven’t been dealing with those guys for a while cause I’ve been making my movie. But we’ve talked about a story and a script. The script has been written and when I emerge my head like Punxsutawney Phil, post-Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, we’ll pick up talking about it again.

Tarantino’s film Upon a Time in Hollywood will be released this summer, on July 26th. The Oscar-winning writer/director’s comments sound like he is keen to return to Star Trek later in the year. And based on comments from Paramount motion-picture group president Wyck Godfrey in January, the studio is also keen on Tarantino Trek.

Quentin Tarantino with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio

Little is known about Tarantino’s Star Trek concept. Reports differ on what characters it would involve, although some Kelvin films cast have indicated they believe they would be involved, including Karl Urban who has called the concept “bananas.” Cast members from Star Trek’s prime timeline have also expressed an interest in being involved, including William Shatner, Patrick Stewart, and Jonathan Frakes.

Keep up with all the news on upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Donald Trump has a better shot at a second term then Tarentino Trek ever seeing the big screen. Get a couple of drinks into Simon Pegg, and he’ll probably tell you that Trek 4 is still a big possibility, too. The only thing that matters is QT saying what he hasn’t done. File this under don’t hold your breath.

You must vastly underestimate how likely four more years is in order to feel that way

I’m guessing you vastly overestimate that possibility.

Michael Hall

“I’m guessing you vastly overestimate that possibility.”
-Karl Rove on FoxNews, election night, 2012.

Underestimate the orange one at your own peril. ;-)

Truth. I’ll never forget the election night here in the local East European TV (infested by anti-native, Slav-hating globalists since twenty years ago). Everybody was all giddy with optimism and ready to cheer at “Madam President”…. and then the results started coming in. Never before I’d seen so many long faces at the same time. ;)

underestimate him at everybody’s peril. This is the first time since Reagan that I spend time actively worrying nukes will fly.

Would serve the United States right if Trump was to slip his finger on the nuke button. You put an unstable clown in the White House and bad things will happen.
On to Quentin…I would love to see his take on Star Trek (Much to the dismay of others ) I have always loved his movies.
Trek is way overdue for an R rating. If it is profanity that bothers you….Discovery’s Stamits and Tilly already dropped the F bomb.
Get over it Mr and Ms sensitive. I want to see a bloody/ cuss filled/ sexy star trek. So there !!!

Uhm Alec Grimes,

I get that there may be a slice of the Trek audience that wants ‘bloody/cuss filled’…

But there is a risk of destroying what makes Trek what it is, just to satisfy the desire for more sensationalism.

Can you accept that there are a lot of fans of Trek (like me), that have sought it out faithfully, year after year precisely because it wasn’t bloody and cuss filled…

And that there is a risk of soiling and doing irreparable damage to heroic Trek characters, if writers or a director are permitted to take Trek characters across a moral line.

Personally, I lost all respect for Archer (in Enterprise) when he tortured a prisoner, in a desperate attempt to get information.

Even if the films are in the Kelvin universe, if Patrick Stewart’s Picard or Frakes’ Riker cross the line, it will be hard to view them in the same way.

Totally agree on this. Must be a different cast. Or a Mirror Universe. This is for me totally against what Gene Roddenberry envisioned for the franchise.

‘Deep Space Nine’ was “totally against Roddenberry’s vision” and it was the best series. Aside from the atheism part, who cares about Roddenberry’s vision? He’s long gone.

I think it made Archer a deeper character. In spite of Bakula’s weak acting. The moment helped him feel more human. He totally didn’t want to stoop to that level. But he didn’t have a set of writers available to give him another option. It was the only way. The entire Xindi arc elevated Archer in my eyes.

Tarantino is a fan of Star Trek and more specifically TOS. I highly doubt he would attempt to make Star Trek into Pulp Fiction in space.

I understand what you are saying. I have been a trek fan for over 40 years. I just feel that star trek have always played it safe. Well until DS9 came about ( My favorite Trek ) It’s not to say that the main cast will be dropping f bombs and all. It all depends on the story and the characters. If you do a time travel story….say set in an era where there is a lot of upheaval…it may call for violence, blood, profanity.
It all depends on the story and I think over the 50 plus years….writers have shy away from telling those sorts of stories. You mean to tell me…even in the 24th century…humans don’t curse ? that is not believable.
In reality….say you are on a starship and you have incoming torpedos from an enemy ship…I would be cussing up a storm.

Fallout drifts, Alec. Everywhere. (really puts a spin on ‘winter is coming’ when it could be a nuclear winter.)


His ego and authoritarian bent would seem to be causes for alarm. But, then, what nation is he likely to initiate a nuclear exchange with? He’s extremely cozy with Russia and N. Korea, and the most antagonism he’s shown China has been import tariffs amidst otherwise cozy relations with them. Then again, his rashness, lack of forethought and total disinterest in learning about important topics are genuine causes for concern. It’s a strange time, but I wouldn’t stress over it. I think the biggest danger is that he loses in 2020, refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the election results, and the 35% of our citizenry who’d be fine with him shooting someone on Fifth Avenue follow him blindly as he chips away at public trust in our most sacred and important democratic institutions. If he’s re-elected, his unwillingness to participate in global climate change reduction efforts will be a big problem, as will his fiscal, economic and social irresponsibility. The nation would recover, but it would be a messy and unpleasant episode in our history.

I’ve never worried that. Even under Reagan.

I was up to over two packs of unfiltered Pall Malls during the Reagan years, because I really didn’t think I’d live long enough to get cancer or heart disease. I was a firm believer in Nick Meyer’s statement that we weren’t going to make it out of the 20th century.

I hear ya. I’m about to take my collection of ’50s and ’60s black and white sci-fi DVDs and head for the AZ desert, Kev.

Reagan was, and still is an under-appreciated psycho-social genius. He talked up some mad crazy shit and sold it as the golden word. An American cowboy ready to let loose with both barrels or so he would let you believe. Easily in the top 5 U.S. Presidents and someone I would not like to meet at a poker table or in a dark Alley!!

Oh god, please, don’t even joke about that! I already have a hard enough time clicking on the front pages of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post each morning to see what the day’s crisis du jour will be. I can’t take another four years of that. (The country surely cannot.)

We will have both 4 more years of Trump and the Tarantino Star Trek. I look forward to your whining about both….

If Trump doesn’t go to jail first which is where he definitely belongs.

Shouldn’t GWB be there for 10+ years already? Someone personally enriching himself is still a far smaller fish in my book than a war criminal responsible for 200K+ deaths! Let’s not forget who were all the people who voted and supported the biggest lie of all, the “weapons of mass destruction”…

Is that your opinion, or did the media tell you to think that? If not, I wonder how you formulated your opinion. By the way, we’re discussing a potential Star Trek Tarantino project. Don’t let your hatred for the President of the United States intervene in this thread. I know it probably makes you feel better, but I’m really curious as to what you think a potential Star Trek Tarantino movie could potentially entail. Honestly, your ideas regarding Trek, particularly Discovery are very thoughtful, and I like to read your material. Please don’t spoil it by repeating the media’s narrative. I would happily discuss politics in the proper forum.
And this goes for all of you doing the liberal media’s dirty work for it and bringing your Trump hatred to a Star Trek forum.

Let’s hope this thread is shut down soon.

And let’s hope you keep thinking that it’s just the media’s narrative. :)

Shutting down threads is like shutting down opinions… it doesn’t change much, until election day ;) But this exchange nicely illustrates once upon a time fans of all persuasions could enjoy Trek but this concensus just does not exist anymore. Ah, the utopia of the 1990s… (Rose colored glasses, I know)

I agree with your point, VS, but, as More Troubles pointed out, this is a Trek thread, not a political one. Nothing good will come from continuing to escalate this debate.

I guess you are right Holden. This IS getting out of hand. And all because of some ill-chosen analogy the OP made about the probabilities of Tarantino Trek. But you can tell the frustration is sitting deep ;)

Frustration is understating the matter. Frustration is when the slowpoke in front of you causes YOU to miss the yellow light and wind up late for work. Frustration is for when a cute little show you like — and almost nobody is watching — gets retooled for its second season into something you deplore.

But for this — Rage is the word.

I must ask – if this is rage, what was your word for GWB then? :p

Something very close to rage — I have done way too much reading about 9/11 and the years that followed to be otherwise. I’d say this current thing is more of an ongoing obsessive rage instead of one that peaks and then flattens out … maybe Bush II primed my pump?

Some people apparently watch Trek for the explosions.

Yeah, that dirty Lügenpresse–always a problem. Oh….

Indeed. The only reason Trump isn’t on trial RIGHT NOW is that he is the President and the DoJ doesn’t indict sitting Presidents (the logic being you don’t want a normal President to be tangled up in random lawsuits and the Congress can impeach and convict).
Trump is currently in a struggle to hang on as long as he can, cuz the instant he’s no longer President there’s a jumpsuit matching his fake tan waiting for him (Obstruction of Justice has a statute of limitations of 5 years).

Someday somebody has to explain to me why there is a statute of limitations on major crimes — it’s not like the affects of a crime diminish past a certain point, if anything the ripples spread wider, especially since people get increasingly willing to do bad stuff once they’ve already gotten away with it.

It is because with the passage of time, it becomes more and more difficult for the accused to present an effective defense. Evidence deteriorates, memories fade, witnesses pass away, etc. (“Is this your gun, Mr. Jones?” “I don’t know, I haven’t seen the gun I bought since 1974.”)

Clinton got away with his perjury, Bush got away with his war crimes, so why should it be any different in this case? In fact it would be a TRAVESTY if the liar went to jail but the mass murderer stayed free. But you guys keep up your fake outrage. Welcome to the real world :)

Whataboutism much?
Because we got it wrong in the past, we can’t do the right thing now?

Amen. I for one do not trust a word of the media. It is they who are the enemy within. That should be the subject of Tarantino’s film. Don’t wait for an others truth to become your’s by default. Go out and find the truth for yourself.

But you will gladly listen to Trump lie out of his teeth every day? What is it, up to 10,000 now? Or they just made up all those too?

I’d much rather suffer another 10000 lies than another 10000 dead (make that 100000) at the hands of an American president. But that is the core of the hypocrisy here: for the first time the actions of a bad president are having an effect on America, and not “only” on a bunch of unknown brown people half a planet away. Only for them, the “effect” is not some minor inconvenience of having to suffer the daily exaggerations of a notorious liar, but murder, torture, maiming, poverty, disease. So I’d much rather take the pig who ends all foreign adventures, especially the military ones, than the well-behaved sociopath who bombs entire nations back into the stone age.

We will have both 4 more years of Trump and the Tarantino Star Trek. I look forward to your whining about both….

Oh I have not even BEGUN to whine, Alan Light. The Mango Menace is an existential threat to American democracy, if not the entire planet. He. Must. Go.

I will, however, be perfectly fine with Quentin Tarantino taking a shot at Star Trek 4. The franchise has nothing to lose!

Trump is a chump. His supporters fools or curs.

Hopefully Tarantino pruned his social media posts properly in time so the thought police can’t come after him. For an inconvenient non-conformist like Tarantino, that is a far bigger threat in our troubled times than any studio politics or budgetary reasonings (or any “reasoning” at all).

As much as I love PULP FICTION and INGLORIOUS and KB1, QT still doesn’t get a free pass from me, just on the basis of the Uma Thurman stuff. He certainly didn’t do enough about Weinstein early on, and forcing her to do that driving stunt that injured her sounds so on-the-way-to-being-John-Landis to me that it is near-criminal.

Good point kmart.

I’ve enjoyed QT’s films too. But the Uma Thurman injury gave me more than a little pause.

More to the point, even if he’s a fan, so much of QT’s work is deeply anti-Trek in ethos. I don’t see that he gets Trek positivism, and strong moral centre.

I’m actually quite taken aback by the number of Trek actors who have come forward unsolicited to say they’d like to work with QT.

“More to the point, even if he’s a fan, so much of QT’s work is deeply anti-Trek in ethos. I don’t see that he gets Trek positivism, and strong moral centre.”

Does Kurtzman get it though, really? And does it matter more than mature, deep writing? BSG has none of Trek’s positivism or” moral center” (whatever that is these days) either, but I see more intellect in the first few episodes than all of Discovery already. I must revise my opinion and concede that I have been too LENIENT on this complete and utter BS we are being served as Trek today and for the past decade. And so in my desparation I will welcome even someone like Tarantino if he can deliver a smart adult Trek movie, violent or not, that for once does not feel like a kindergarten fairytale. Something of the format of Star Trek VI would be great!

I agree VS that Kurtzman still has a way to go to show he fully understands Trek.

However, he is clearly monitoring fan feedback and trying to learn.

There’re been some real achievements that are obscured by the faults that are a barrier to many of us.

On the other hand, if we were judging the 90s series on the basis of the first two seasons of TNG, your harsh critique of the last decade of Trek would be on point.

If the Picard show is good, it will build a lot of trust with me.

“I agree VS that Kurtzman still has a way to go to show he fully understands Trek.

However, he is clearly monitoring fan feedback and trying to learn.”

You see, I’m not so sure that the current failings are an issue of “learning curve”. To me season 2 has proven that same as Abrams, Kurtzman wants to turn Trek into something else, something I don’t like and find not engrossing at all. Im really not talking about Klingons with or without hair but the basic makeup of the series. Season 2 first had the chance to explore something meaningful about Science and Faith, and then Artifical Intelligence, and it had exactly NOTHING of any relevance to say. Instead we get time crystals, ironman suits and soap opera. What happened to the Trek that could put two actors into a dark room and deliver fantastic drama? Wasn’t that the advantage of Trek on television, the (narrative) diversity, the variety of formats, the freedom from having to shock and awe every week? Instead we get the opposite, Abramstrek movies in serialized form, dragged out to 14 hours. And if anything the jump into a future where technology can only look like magic to us, and there are zero dramatic constraints left in terms of canon, can only worsen these problems and accelerate the Marvelization of Trek.

VS not disagreeing, but think Kurtzman has a long journey to let go of Star Wars.

I keep thinking of the Roddenberry quotes around his motivations for creating Trek…

Basically, he said that he was tired of writing for shows where the last 10 minutes of every episode was a gunfight.

Trek was meant to offer action and adventure (and allegory) without being dependent on ‘bang bang’ or ‘pew pew’

So, while I think the strategy of a menu of Trek offerings across niches is sound…

If the peak moments in most episodes or seasons becomes ‘pew pew’, a Trek product has lost the way.

Discovery’s finale was a fun ‘pew pew’ heavy spectacle, but the logic of the time theory got lost somewhere along the way. And without that, it seems not to be Trek no matter how powerful the character beats.

I’m picking up the threads as I rewatch S2 with our kids, but if I wasn’t familiar with Kirsten Beyer’s explanations of certain theories of time in her Voyager novels, I’d have no idea what the dialogue clues meant. What’s behind season 2 is actually a valid theory of time for Sci-fi to explore, but without explanation it comes across as magic.

Trek has been successful in conveying it’s speculative science to viewers in the past, without talking down to them. I wish Discovery would seriously take this on, and ignore the impatience of those who cry out against ‘technobabble’.

I agree with you on the actor abuse, just it had nothing to do with sexism. I think a number of male actors have suffered serious injuries due to the callousness of directors as well, and this is NEVER okay.

Glad we agree on the question of actor safety being an ungendered issue VS.

That’s actually a pretty good chance. You sound more optimistic this will happen than I am.

Don’t underestimate the ability of the Democratic Party to hand Trump a victory. The establishment Dems would rather Trump win than Bernie.

I can believe that. They fixed their own primary when it looked like Bernie might overtake Hillary.

I know I’m picking up a line from another sci-fi franchise, but I got a bad feeling about this.

My gut tells me that this thing is going to happen. Paramount announcing a new Star Trek project with Tarrantino attached will generate a lot of buzz and it would seem Paramount really wants this to happen. An announcement by end of year seems like a real possibility.

Agree. As long as he can work around Pine (or sort the pay out), I don’t see anything else holding this back.

If the problem with #4 was really the combined salary demands of Pine and Hemsworth, Paramount might be willing to pay just Pine what he wants.

Paramount is not exactly churning out big hits lately. That Sonic movie looks DOA. The Dora movie not much better. All they got is Mission Impossible. They NEED a big hit. I’m sure they would be all in for a QT Trek movie.

I think so too. The key part is that QT didn’t necessarily say he’d direct, just that the movie is a big possibility. I’m thinking they are just waiting for his formal blessing since it was his story idea. If the script is done, the price is right, and Paramount is anxious for another Trek, I think it gets made. And I’d bet that the premise doesn’t necessarily require the NuTrek cast, which makes it all the more appealing to the studio.

Do you see them getting a brand new cast for this? I guess its possible but I don’t know how probable unless they are thinking more sequels down the line.

@ Holden: What Paramount is anxious for is for a Trek production to be made on a ‘Quiet Place’ type budget, and then deliver similar revenue. Bad Robot’s productions were basically break even affairs, but if you factor in the last two TNG movies, Trek has been a box office dud for close to twenty years now. Trek 4 was shaping up to be another 200MM budget, which is what killed it, and I suspect no one really wants to give QT 100MM to make a Trek movie, for a lot of the reasons stated here. The guys reputation isn’t as spectacular as some folks think, and if the studio thinks he’ll give them a Trek version of Grindhouse, then they have, in all likelihood, thanked him for his interest and shelved that project, too.

The other big problem, one that Paramount has admitted many times, is that Trek doesn’t do huge business outside of the US. They’re usually break-evens, at best.

Off topic just a bit – one of my associates is from Singapore, and I had a Section 31 story up with Michelle Yeoh in the pic, whom she recognized immediately. She asked what was going on, and when I told her, she said it would be huge. Section 31 isn’t being made for an American audience, but the Asian market. Once the franchise is buttressed up a bit in the foreign market, I’d not be surprised to see Trek return to the big screen on a regular basis. That could be 5-10 years down the road, though.

Unless he directs it, or writes it himself, I don’t see his name giving it enough of a boost to give it life. “Loosely based on a Vague Idea Conceived of by Quentin Tarantino” just doesn’t have the same cache as “Written and Directed by.”

Yeah, I also wonder what exactly Tarantino’s role would be if he doesn’t direct it. By all accounts, a script has already been written by someone else. Sure, Tarantino could probably do rewrites but if Paramount really wants to make use of his name they need to get him to direct.

Yeah, that might be true, Afterburn. But I think the promotional campaign would be around “QTs Trek.” Audiences wouldn’t be reading the fine print (credits) too closely, especially if QT did the obligatory interview tour.

Fingers Crossed!

I’m thinking that this is a way to get Pine (and maybe Hemsworth) back in their roles. Many actors would love to work with Tarantino, so this could be the bait that Paramount needs to make Star Trek 4 happen.

Do you guys remember when Beyond came out? That was like, ancient history. Basically everything older than 2017 is old now, like we’ve all aged a decade in two years. Remember when ST09 came out, A DECADE AGO?!?! I would Pegg the odds against a follow-up Kelvin film as likely as Kirk and Spock both being killed in Devil in the Dark: 2,228.7 to 1.

I look at stuff from the beginning of THIS century and it feels so far removed as stuff from the beginning of LAST century! The good old times, when focus was on solid characters and story and not on signaling and outrage (let alone SFX-for-its-own-sake)… I think a large part of this “rapid aging” is the poisonous influence of social media and algorithms, which have changed society more profoundly than most people realize, and not in any good way…

Yes, definitely agree with that, and the internet in general has really brought out the worst of humanity. That’s why I disagree with Phil ^ in thinking that Trump is gonna lose in 2020. I think he’s actually favored to win at the moment, and even if he isn’t, it’s far from a non-zero chance that he could get elected again. And I think we really have the internet to thank for that.

But yes, to put it in perspective, I have maybe a few dozen distinct memories from the last millennium, and that’s about it. And there are probably more people alive today who have no recollection of the 20th century than those who do. As Bob Dylan put it, the old road is rapidly aging.

I’m not picking sides here, I’m saying both sides have become unbearably extremist and still think what they think represents any kind of “normal” or “center” idea, all thanks to the filter bubbles and echo chambers of social media. There’s actually some handy charts that prove this very point, how the gap between both sides has significantly widened since the 1990s… Everyone has become more extremist, everything has become more polarized, the center has lost. But as the ancient Greeks already knew, virtue lies in moderation, or, as the ancient Chinese knew, in the balance of things…

Many thumbs up! I think this is part of why I enjoy black mirror so much. Intelligent social commentary through a sci fi narrative.

Thanks, you reminded me that’s something I wanted to watch too! But first things first, I got 4 seasons of BSG on my plate now :)

VS, You’re in for some real treats (and at least a couple of tricks, too, but hey, that adds spice.)

The middle of s2 is electrifying, and the start of s3 is when I remember newspapers — remember newspapers? — start describing the show as the most politically relevant thing on TV.

Great! I read BSG has alot to say about the post-9/11 Bush era, and unlike alot of people here I don’t think at all that era is over and best forgotten now, but on the contrary much of the current troubles in the West are a direct consequence of it.

Yeah, you’re in for a ride alright. BSG’s often described as the anti-Star Trek (right down to Ron Moore himself who says whenever they came to a plot point, they’d ask themselves what Trek would do and then do the complete opposite. When you’re finished with the show, go read So Say We All. Great book) but I’d say that’s a strength rather than a weakness. It pisses all over Discovery in practically every measure, despite having a fraction of the budget, a grim demeanor (that never lets up), some unlikeable – but always compelling – characters and limping along on a cable channel hardly anyone watched. Oh- a cable channel that wanted to kill it and neuter it every step of the way. Great stuff. I’m actually jealous you’re watching it for the first time knowing I’ll never have that pleasure again.

Thanks, blackmocco! I’m now at the turn of the third season already and just when it was getting a bit repetitive/formulaic with weekly gunfights, they completely refreshed the setting and characters!

I really wonder what RDM thinks about Discovery seeing this show takes ALL of Voyager’s weaknesses (characters being a function of the plot, inane twists, reset buttons (they just package them differently), cop-out magic technology etc.) to new extremes.

Vulcan Soul

Moore’s BSG is top-tier. Make sure to watch the made-for-TV movie “Razor,” between Seasons 3 and 4. It supplies a great backstory for the Battlestar Pegasus. You may start to find the series grim and dragging a bit during Season 3. Push through that and you’ll be glad that you did.

Thanks, Cygnus, I will heed your advice! The New Caprica arc is grim, yes, but I can see the light at the end of the tunnel ;)

I still find it hard to believe that ST4 died due to salary negotiations with two actors. Must not have been a great script to have so little faith in its moneymaking potential. I expect it was time to wait and see what happens with Trek on TV and the merger. This would be key for a Tarantino flick if it is going to reference the TV show at all (plot points based on canonic events in the CBS-owned Universe, which Tarantino loves).

They weren’t really negotiations. More like Paramount “strongly suggesting” Pine and Hemsworth take substantial salary cuts to do another one.

I don’t. Treks profitability in the theater hinges on getting these movies made for around 100MM, not 200MM. Bad Robot isn’t interested in that, and I don’t think there is a ton of confidence that handing 100MM to QT is going to result in anything other then another break even Trek production for Paramount.

Unlike Bad Robot, Tarantino is used to working within small budgets as his movies are rather “niche” compared to blockbusters, so it seems he fits the realities of Trek just fine! I say they are waiting out the expiration of their “first look” contract with Bad Robot in 2020 before going ahead with anything…

Vulcan Soul,

The only reason to wait out BR’s 1st look contract is if Paramount has a script they love that they think can be made for $100milion, but somehow fears if Bad Robot takes the option that somehow they’ll legally go over budget to $200million. It seems unlikely JJ would bite on what, in his estimation, would be an ,script, and his turning it down would allow Paramount to shop it out to whoever they want so waiting out a 1st look contract seems nonsensical for Paramount. Besides, JJ isn’t the only director Paramount has a 1st look contract with

Vulcan Soul,

browser crash munged some of that:

“It seems unlikely JJ would bite on what, in his estimation, would be an ,script, and his turning it down would allow Paramount to shop it out to whoever they want so waiting out a 1st look contract seems nonsensical for Paramount. ”

should read:

“It seems unlikely JJ would bite on what, in his estimation, would be an underfunded script, and his turning it down would allow Paramount to shop it out to whoever they want so waiting out a 1st look contract seems nonsensical for Paramount. “

Star Trek movies cant cost $190 million dollars. Had Beyond and Into Darkness cost $150 million each, they’d have been bigger successes. STID grossed more than 2009’s film, but cost more to make and market. Beyond experienced erosion but only cost $5 million less than STID. No one is saying go back to the days of making Trek movies for $60 million or less, but there are creative ways to make budget limitations work, and they can even inspire more than unlimited resources do. These movies have a ceiling of around $400 million now, they have to be budgeted accordingly.

Their basic problem is they think they could out-Marvel Marvel with huge SFX set pieces instead of simply good stories… The latter “cost” alot less than the former, but can earn back so much more both financially and critically!

Sure it could, the creative team that commented here in the past said frequently that they had the money, so they added the FX. Gravity was made on a 100MM budget, but when you look at how that was framed you can see that they got the most from fairly minimal use of FX. All three of the BR movies could have been made with substantially fewer FX, and I suspect you’d of had a superior product in the final analysis as well.

It died because Beyond performance wasn’t exactly stellar (sic) and the investors backed out. The Kelvinverse merchandise was not selling great either. I honestly don’t think we are going to see another Star Trek movie ever. Maybe a spin-off of the new series, but I doubt that either.


Not me.

But I guess TPTB at Paramount might think that they can expand the tent and revenue base with a Tarantino cinematic release.

Thing is, Discovery’s first season demonstrated that there is a good-sized segment of the core Trek fan base that is decidedly not into graphic violence.

If that segment of the base stays home, then the film might not do any better than Beyond.

Why doesn’t he just completely recast? The only Kelvin crew member I would really like back who did the best job is Karl Urban. WOuld be great to work Shatner and Stewart into it.

…I have a feeling all generations of Trek will be in his film..Shatner, Koenig, Takei and Nichols too if their health allows. TNG will likely be in it too…Pine and his crew probably too. Just my opinion, but I think a true fan like Tarentino directing will breathe needed new life into the franchise.

I hope Tarantino never gets his hands on the Star Trek franchise.

I hope he does. JJ’s new Trek didn’t play well with the fans. They went safe and had something that was incredibly close to original Trek with BEYOND and people didn’t like it. So why not QT? It can’t possibly be worse than Into Darkness or Nemesis.

Just because he quoted Khan in a movie doesn’t mean QT would restrain himself to make a Trek movie the fans would love. There’s not much about his style of filmmaking, preferred adult tone and sense of humor that dovetails with Trek IMO. Maybe it’s just me, but I cringe when Discovery goes full TV-MA and shows gratuitous gore, violence and sexual violence. He’s an auteur with name recognition and it’s certainly different, which is nothing to sneeze at, but it’s okay to be skeptical about how this will turn out.

DISCO was pretty tame after all. Season 1 had some true TV-MA stuff but most of that was in the “blink and you’ll miss it” territory. The “sexual violence” turned out to be just plain Klingon love-making misinterpreted by Tyler’s troubled mind. I didn’t like it at first, but now that we got this child conceived at that moment in a pivotal role in Season Two as the time keeper of Boreth, I see that scene in a different light.
The rest of the violence was still within the limits of good taste by modern standards and those scenes got fewer after Berg and Harbarts had been fired. The horror scene with Pike in the chair was spot on and I’m glad they did that!

But yeah, QT would certainly up the ante on these elements and nope, I’m not up for that ride at all…

My thing was just that I couldn’t imagine watching Discovery S1 as a kid with my mom the way we did TNG and DS9. Retconning the rape didn’t make it a less tawdry inappropriate moment to exploit the way they did, and this was on top of the show being very happy to indulge in explicit violence every week. S2 calmed down a lot, for sure, but I’m glad the franchise is overtly going for kids with some of its animated shows – Discovery is squarely aimed at the family audience… that’s grown up.

I agree with this. Season 1 just felt so serious and dour, I doubt many 10 years would even be interesting in watching Discovery first season because it felt so serious most of the time. And yes, you have the F bomb I guess but I don’t really think thats a big deal at all especially since it was only done in one episode. Season 2 though came off a little more family friendly IMO. Still not exactly kids can get into but at least watchable.

You’ve nailed it Ian.

We couldn’t see our way to showing Discovery’s season 1 to our middle graders.

I’m watching season 2 with them now — we’ve omitted a few of the episodes with graphic violence – – but the recaps are good enough that they can follow.

I’ll welcome pretty much anyone who isn’t Alex Kurtzman at this point.

I have to agree to that. I hope he doesn’t get to make an actual Trek movie, even if that means we won’t be getting a new big screen outing for the next ten years.

Some like his movies, others don’t so much. But QT turning Trek into an R-Rated bloodfeast is the least I’d want at this point. I can imagine an R-Rated Trek movie, done by people with good taste… Ridley Scott or the Wachowskis come to mind.
I don’t mind gore inflicted by monsters, transporter accidents, other disasters or actual battles in context, but QT is imfamous for making characters kill one another out of thin air in the most sarcastic, nihilistic ways. I don’t want to see the QT version of the Tribbles fist fight on TOS. But that’s just how this guy roles. It’s his way and he does that to all his creations. The guy’s a menace.

Nope. Not going to watch any QT Trek flick…

I’d take this any day over Kelvin Kirk meeting his father time-travel bibbity bop nonsense. Enough with the daddy issues. I thought I’d read initial rumors that this would be a cast of new characters…? I’ll take that too. Trek’s stuck in mud. Shake off the old stuff and do something really new. QT FTW!

Well, if QT does, in fact, do the next Star Trek movie, then I am all in. I know it would be different, but the dude knows Star Trek. He is a big fan. Also, I am hopeful he could be the guy to get Shatner back. There are always possibilities!

this ^^

The JJ Abrams Trek era seems to have unceremoniously died. I’m up for Tarantino Trek, especially if it takes us to some strange new worlds that don’t resemble Star Wars or hopefully anything else we’ve ever seen.

Yup, it’s already a nostalgia act — we’re about to hit the 10th anniversary and there’s been basically no talk of a fourth film in three years. It ended with Beyond.

Except there’s little nostalgia for JJ Trek. Makes you wonder what meaningful impact those films really had.

Isn’t it still too soon for nostalgia though? I thought the 2009 film was nothing short of spectacular. I ranked it at 3rd place both then and now, behind The Voyage Home and The Wrath of Khan. I won’t argue that the sequels mostly failed to live up to the promise of their predecessor. Three movies is all the Bad Robot people were guaranteed anyway, I won’t be sad if the unbalanced trilogy we got turns out to be it for the Kelvin films.

But I’m definitely up for TT if they can somehow close the deal. I’ve always preferred for my Treks to be as stylistically diverse (from each other) as possible. This would definitely seem to qualify.

Its funny because I thought Beyond was the best one. I liked the 09 movie (saw it at the first premiere in Sydney with the entire cast and JJ Abrams) and I remember thinking how great it felt when I first walked out of it, but even a few weeks after that it felt a bit empty to me. Fun movie, big fX and stuff but still missed something for me in terms of Star Trek and I think why a lot of fans never truly loved them like the other movies and shows. Beyond did the worst financially for sure but it probably was the best recapturing the Star Trek spirit and certainly TOS, but only my opinion of course. But it was too late by then.

Its crazy the original movie is now officially ten years old. I hope TM does some kind of retrospective.

I would prefer they do a retrospective on each Kelvin film individually. I think they said they were going for an all-in-one though. They also planned at one point on reviewing Galaxy Quest.

I can understand why they want to do them all at once. Its not really a lot of people here (and the films aren’t exactly beloved on this site lol). And I guess it will just mark the ten years for all of them like all we mark all of Star Trek every September even though its really TOS that is having a birthday. But it would be strange if they did nothing since this entire website started because of these movies. Hard to believe in a few days it will be ten years.

And its crazy how things change. When that film came out so many were convinced the prime timeline and past shows/characters were done for good. The Kelvin universe would be a new era for Star Trek from this point on. Now the fourth movie has been cancelled months ago and as I type this, Patrick Stewart might be on a set right filming a scene as Picard. The Star Trek franchise seems to be very unpredictable these days.

I think it revived interest in what Star Trek could be and led us to where we are today, for better or worse. You know what I think will have a big impact? Lower Decks and the Nick series. I think Trek could thrive in either format, bringing in new fans from both a more adult demo in one case and younger in the other. I really really hope they succeed and get many seasons.

If this movie does make it to fruition, whatever else they do, they need to use THAT BRIDGE from Discovery!

Or just film in Toronto and get Tamara Deverell to lead production design…

However, it’s been reported that Guillermo del Toro has got her for his next film Nightmare Alley.

Assuming its even the Enterprise crew of course.

QT will get his chance but I doubt the studio want Pine anywhere near it after he insisted on his salary raise be honoured. Actors who do things like that rarely work again for the same studio. Just ask Keanu Reeves he said the other week Fox blacklisted him for 14 years after he (quite rightly) dropped out of Speed2!! Or Alec Baldwin when he wanted to do a stage play before a Hunt For Red October sequel! Pine is not exactly being swamped with movie offers right now & has nothing lined up for 2019 so looks like he got blackballed by the studios (or no-one else wants him!).

He didn’t get blackballed. Name me any movie he’s carried alone at the box office. Or name me any franchise property that’s dependent upon his presence. Wonder Woman? Star Trek? Jack Ryan? They’re all bigger than him. Always were, and always will be. He’s a talented performer but studios are right to say he’s not worth the cash.

Look at it from the new execs @ Paramount perspective. The old regime who are long gone from the studio lot promised Pine a payrise to get Beyond made. When Beyond underperformed due to terrible marketing & bad release date timing (nothing to do with Pine he was more than ok in the movie) the box office was $200M+ lower than expected. Pine holding out for the same promised deal from the old management is a terrible business decision from him or his agent. Star Trek movies are not Marvel the global appeal is just not there due to the long release dates & poor creative choices. Making ST4 with Pine on a lower salary would have been better than the big nothing this crew now face!!

I don’t know how real the negotiations were. On TUC, Shatner, Nimoy and possibly even Kelley, along with b-t-s biggies, took deals that lowered their initial income, but still guaranteed them their original numbers by a later date, in order to get the numbers to a point where Paramount would make the movie. Paramount juggled things on their end a bit too — when a TREK producer showed how they could make the pic at Par’s demanded budget by eliminating ILM from the mix, Par reconsidered and gave them a bit more so ILM could at least do the model shots (which, based on TFF, was one of the smartest things they could have done, short of hiring the Skotak Brothers or DreamQuest Imatges.) And the results were so good that during post, Par gave them more money again to put into VFX. That sounds like back and forth negotiation, not the draw-a-line-in-the-sand/f-you-pay-me-my-money tactics that seem to have derailed this proposed new one. Then again, maybe nobody was that passionate about doing it — it’s easy to take an attitude if you don’t care.

I understand your point but in all fairness we don’t know what they even offered him. It may not even be about sticking with the old deal, it also may be the new deal being extremely lowered than promised to the point of insult. That may not be true but we just don’t know.

But something was telling when both he and Hemsworth walked away. They both talked about being in the next movie and that it was going to happen. So whatever rug was pulled had to be a big rug to walk away as permanently as they did.

I remember being on IMDB and use to say once Beyond bombed and the fourth one they were all free from their contracts it probably would put the next one in doubt if they want too much money. Well it looks like that has happened at least in Pine’s case. I’m guessing unless they meet his demand he’s done with Trek for good.

The story idea is Tarantino’s, but didn’t Paramount hire another writer to write the script? As I recall, Paramount was also going to hire another director for this project, so I don’t understand what’s left to talk about with QT.

Or, is Paramount considering hiring QT direct it? What’s the range of QT’s potential involvement with this project? The whole thing seems a bit nebulous.

Mark L. Smith is the screenwriter for the Tarantino Trek movie. His most notable screen credit is The Revenant. He also screenwrote Overlord for Bad Robot.

As I understand, Smith was Tarantino’s choice to write the movie. But yes, Paramount hired him.

It’s never been confirmed that Tarantino would (or wouldn’t) direct, just that he has Smith writing his script for him.

It’s been suggested on here that he may be content with just getting a “story by” credit for the movie, but as an illustrative example of the fact that he was not guaranteed to direct.

In just my opinion, it seems likely he would at least want to produce the movie, similar to his role in From Dusk To Dawn. But I’m not a fans of his, and I haven’t studied his work.

But even if he wasn’t directly involved, I still want it. It’s just my intuitive feeling ST needs more people like him. Just like it needed Meyer after Shatner almost ended the original cast film franchise.


I’ll be very impressed if Paramount lets him direct and/or produce it.

I’m already impressed that Paramount didn’t insist on someone lame to write the script.

If he can’t at least produce it they won’t have very strong grounds for advertising his name on it.

I can think of no reason Paramount wouldn’t let him produce it if they’re already using his script.


Paramount might not want to market it as Tarantino Trek. They might think that QT’s filmmaking brand does not mix well with their brand image of Star Trek. Paramount has been chasing younger demographics than those who grew up watching Tarantino movies. So, who knows. Their marketing strategy for the last Trek movie was pretty bad, and I don’t give them much credit in that department. It could be that they just like his story and want to use it, and having a “story by Quentin Tarantino” for marketing purposes is enough. As for why they wouldn’t let him produce it, I can think of plenty of reasons. They want to maintain tight control over the project, and as such want more of a JJ-Abrams Yes-man producer than a creative visionary like Tarantino is likely to be. If they let QT produce it, they may get a wilder, out-side-the-box movie than they want. If the past three Trek films are indicative, Paramount is not looking to make a work of art or great film for the ages. They’re looking to hit a certain percentage over cost. So, why take all of the risks associated with putting a creative visionary firebrand like Quentin Tarantino in charge of the production?

Well that’s the other half of the equation. Paramount execs are still at least partly interested in a Tarantino Trek, and now Tarantino himself is still at least partly interested in it. This is as positive a sign as we’re likely to get for now, but I dare say I think the movie has at least a fair (maybe 50 percent) chance of happening.

I hope it happens! I wouldn’t normally associate his style with Trek, but I think he gets it more than the Discovery team. QT is a fan

John Logan is a talented fan too – Nemesis brought out all his worst instincts.

Not really. He was stuck with ‘conditions’ that Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner demanded of the script if they were to take part. Logan did what he could with a lot of nonsense like Tom Hardy being a Patrick Stewart clone, and Spiner wanting Data killed off because he was too old to keep playing an ageless android (like Data couldn’t build a new face whenever he wanted? He created Lal for heaven’s sake…) And worst of all Stuart Baird obviously didn’t know diddly-squat about Star Trek and refused to listen to anyone who did.

Perfect scenario:
CBS and Paramount remerge and we get a Tarentino directed Pike Enterprise movie set in the Prime timeline after the events of DSC season 2 :)

QT doing Pike’s accident would probably look like 2Face’s creation in DARK KNIGHT, and I don’t really need to see THAT in this ‘verse.

This ^^

Anson Mount’s Pike is not a character that I’d like to see QT touch.

10 years ago we were all so very excited by Trek 09, for me it had the spirit of the 60’s with a blockbuster budget and perfect casting. I also loved the sequels. The prospect of a QT directed film could bring back that excitement!

i feel like we have been here before when he wanted to do ‘casino royale’ with brosnan years ago.

He was willing to do it with Clooney as well. Yeah, I’m re-reading CASINO ROYALE again right now and I’m sure I know exactly how he would have done it, with voice-over narration and a period retelling. He offered to do CR for 40 mil and the producers wouldn’t even talk to him, preferring to spend 145 mil on DIE ANOTHER DAY and then about the same for the first of the seriously overrated Craig films that did more to mutilate Bond’s character than the whole dread Roger Moore era.

‘ the seriously overrated Craig films that did more to mutilate Bond’s character’

and generated $3billion worldwide for mgm/eon so they ain’t losing sleep over not doing it with QT.

Which has NOTHING to do with what I’m talking about.

Ms. Broc was once gaga over Dalton, who at least brought the right goods and looked the part while failing to deliver the audience, but she seems to have settled for somebody now who just lights her fire while appearing as though he lost an acid fight — and has squandered what there was of his talent in the bargain.

Your hatred of the Craig Bonds seems to rival my hatred for The Voyage Home.

Apples and oranges though. Bond preferences are always more divisive than a Discovery finale. (Connery’s my fave, obviously, although I wished Dalton got the scripts he’d deserved and I do like Craig. Moore and Brosnan always seemed a little campy. At least Craig brings the muscle.) Bond, like Trek, usually (not always) reflects the times we’re living in. The style of the Brosnan movies, Goldeneye aside, was just desperately out of touch with modern tastes. I actually like Craig’s version for the most part (although the last one was terrible). Even have a soft spot for the much-hated Quantum Of Solace. Talk of Tom Hardy next. Not sure about that.

If they’d gone with the director’s preferred choice on CR, Cavill, they’d have gotten Henry before he got all weird and musclebound, back when he seemed to have more charisma. Would have worked for the ‘rookie Bond’ idea too. I have a feeling if they hire a 20something, they are going to have to do another origin story, and boy, Bond does not need origin stories. I like the way Bond was described by Connery, as somebody who just was in his 30s with almost no backstory besides the previous adventures.

Dalton laid the ground work for craig, gritty approach not appreciated at the time now the tone for the current films.

In other words, it isn’t happening.


My guess: QT loves dialogue more than violence. Given Kelvin, that’s a Kirk centered movie with some big philosophical questions. If this project is on a slow cooker…. it’s not dead for very good reasons: the story is already in good shape & the work ahead is making it a great ST story.

Story by QT but I bet also a lot of the verbiage. And also a lot of earned genuine humor. Smith/Revenant indicates epic drama, environment, toughness.

I suspect strongly that Pine is already in as he wants to show his acting chops and get nominated. If it’s time travel there is a pivotal Shatner subplot.

Ain’t going to be another 4 years of that clown. If they didn’t have that electorate…Mrs Clinton would be in office now…uhh….perish the thought. Don’t like neither of them….but would have taken her over him any day!
I hope Queinton gets his Trek film and prove all the naysayers wrong.
The only esteemed directors that Star Trek ever had was Robert Wise, Nicholas Meyer and JJ. I don’t include Johnathan Frakes because he is Trek family.
There will always be different interprentations of Trek. I say go Bold or go home.

I hold Abrams in no esteem whatsoever. The only movie or TV that he has directed that I’ve ever even mildly enjoyed was FORCE AWAKENS. I don’t know that Meyer is held in much esteem at all, given his track record. I love TWOK and TIME AFTER TIME is pretty good, but nothing else is really successful or very rewatchable outside of parts of TUC.

I would include Leonard Nimoy as one of those esteemed directors. And absolutely agree with JJ Abrams being on the list.

Maybe Frakes would be under a different creative regime. As it is I don’t think the producers wanted him to stand out any more than Carson did.

It is sad that Insurrection put the brakes on the TNG films, and Nemesis buried them. A great cast, with more stories to tell. But the people in charge had clearly run out of ideas and were going through the motions. As much as i liked Enterprise i felt the same about that. Trek became safe and stale, did not take any risks and did not really have anything to say. It was beyond time to bring in new ideas and fresh people to begin anew. Berman Trek had become all the same except for the gem of DS9.

No, thank you.

Are we still talking about another Star Trek movie!? Face it Paramount has moved on to bigger and bettter! Haven’t you all seen the trailer for the Sonic the Hedgehog movie??? That’s got Oscar written all over it. Endgame’s $1.2 billion opening record is in jeopardy!!!!

Whilst sitting on the toilet this morning, I broke QT’s Star Trek 4 story …

Captain Kirk and Captain Spock have been captured on a covert mission deep within the Klingon Empire! (Due to contractual disputes with Paramount,) Kirk’s severed head is sent to Starfleet command cut clean off by a Klingon bat’leth!!

The Klingon’s secretly demand the secrets of Genesis in exchange for Spock’s life. Starfleet, unwilling to give the Klingons a doomsday device, officially pronounce Spock dead.

Captain McCoy, distraught over his dear friend Kirk’s death is out for BLOOD!!! He tries to enlist Admiral Uhura, Captain Sulu, and Captain Scott to aid in his quest for REVENGE, but they refuse.

Captain McCoy attempts to charter a ship to Qon’os by himself. In speaking to a Yridian information dealer he learns that Project Genesis is hidden in a secret Section 31 facility on Risa and discovers that Spock is still ALIVE!!!!

With Spock still alive, he tries to enlist Admiral Uhura once again, and she agrees. With Uhura onboard, Scotty and Sulu decide to tag along. Scotty steals the Enterprise-A. With their crew assembled on the Enterprise, they set sail at LUDICROUS speed to the Klingon home world.

Along the way they stop at Risa for some T and A … errr, to steal Project Genesis. While Sulu and Uhura seek out the secrets of Genesis, McCoy and Scotty attempt to blend in and act casual. Uhura uses her feminine wiles and performs a naked fan dance to distract the guards while Sulu slips into the Genesis facility. He finds the plans and captures Dr. Marcus. She is so distraught to learn of Kirk’s death, she joins anyway thirsty for REVENGE. Sulu signals Scotty to beam him out, but he is passed out over a bottle of Aldebaran Whiskey. Trapped, Dr. Marcus and Captain Sulu take off all of their clothes and put on Section 31 stealth suits. Dr. Marcus tells Sulu to look the other way, but Sulu reminds the audience he is not interested. Sulu un-sheaths his Katana and cuts his way through thousands of burly Section 31 agents.

Free at last and with plans in hand, Uhura, Sulu, and Marcus track down Scotty and McCoy in a brothel. Uhura and Marcus get naked and pose as prostitutes to sneak into the brothel with Sulu (who is not interested). Uhura rolls her eyes and reminds the boys that Spock’s life is at stake. Scotty puts down the Aldebaran Whiskey, McCoy untangles himself from some prostitutes, Uhura and Marcus put on clothes, Sulu sheaths his Katana, and onward to Qon’os!!!!!

On their way to Qon’os, Scotty and McCoy must use Sulu’s plans to construct the Genesis Device. “Damnit … Scotty, I’m a doctor, not an engineer!” Hilarity ensues.

Arriving at Qon’os, Admiral Uhura hails Chancellor Kor of the Klingon Empire. She demands they release Spock or else face the devastation of the Genesis device. Kor refuses, so Sulu and McCoy come up with a masterful plan to reclaim Spock. The plan goes awry! Sulu un-sheaths his Katana and slices his way through THOUSANDS of Klingon warriors to find Spock. McCoy exclaims, “You green blooded, pointed eared, mother-f€%#ing half-breed, hobgoblin!!!!!!” … “Good to see ya.”

Meanwhile, back on the Enterprise, Uhura destroys HUNDREDS of Klingon D-7s. Uhura exclaims, “Today is a good day to die!” in Klingon, and orders Marcus to set the genesis device to self-destruct over the Klingon home world, in order to lay waste to all sentient life.

Scotty beams McCoy, Sulu, and Spock back to the Enterprise. Reunited with his love, Captain Spock reminds Admiral Uhura that Starfleet’s mission is to save life and that killing all the Klingons to avenge Kirk’s death is not logical. Uhura rolls her eyes, grudgingly agrees, and directs Dr. Marcus to detonate Genesis over Praxis, restoring all life to the once-dead moon.

The Enterprise sets course to the second star on the right … THE END!!!!!!!


Bought a tear to my eye. I smell an Oscar!

Urm, was that really what you smelt…?

What could it hurt at this point? Let’s see it.

Danpaine there are a number of us who can see the potential for serious downsides.

If this goes in a bloody, profane or vicious direction (i.e. typical QT), it could really poison the well for the movie franchise, and potentially spill over to impact the TV/streaming products.

Especially, if it takes place in the Prime Universe or if the actors (Stewart, Frakes, Spiner) play their characters. The audience may not be able to distinguish the portrayals from the Prime TV versions.

Paramount management doesn’t really know the Trek franchise at this point, and they may be willing to take risks that could harm the franchise.

It’s one of the problems with the movie licence being held separately from the overall rights held by CBS.

And one gets the sense that, unlike other licencees, Paramount doesn’t have to clear a significant change in direction with the licensor (CBS).

Understood about concerns he’s going to make this into another Kill Bill, TG47, but I agree with those who say that as a longtime fan, he’ll respect the Trek legacy and keep it reasonably clean. Of course he’d leave his ‘mark’ on it, but I have confidence the positive would outweigh the negative. I do agree that Paramount has no grasp of the franchise. Also, if a Picard show is airing on CBS while QT puts the character in a film, I don’t see that working either, as it would certainly confuse some casual fans and would that even be allowed to happen, contractually?

Why not?

Response to this article is heavily skewed by burying the comments from Wyck Godfrey, the Chairman of Paramount. Reporting to Wyck, the current President of Paramount Pictures started off as Darren Aronofksy’s executive in Brooklyn and was the executive in charge of Star Trek at Paramount when Wyck came over (from being a Producer, including Producer of Damien Chazelle’s FIRST MAN at Uni) as the new Chairman. She was handed the Bad Robot-Kurtzman Orci TREK portfolio and oversaw BEYOND before moving up the ranks. The idea that Wyck’s pitching it to investors to get THEM riled up AND the studio President’s background in indie filmmaking… the likelihood of Tarantino’s Trek is far, far greater than the article or response lets on. If it doesn’t happen, it’ll be on TT’s account, not Wyck’s.

Tarantino’s Trek bona fides are well-established. I hung out with him one night, more than ten years ago, and he was rhapsodic about the women of TOS and had a whole genius riff on Kirk’s taste in women. The man knows his stuff as well as any super fan, and has a strong, period-specific take on what Star Trek means. I’m freaking thrilled.

If it doesn’t count as too nosy… I’d love to hear more about what he had to say. I know his contributions to punch up the script for Crimson Tide were very much Trek-laden.

I can’t authentically recreate the conversation. But I recall that his theory was based on the idea that Kirk’s true love is his ship, and that since he’ll never settle down with any woman, each woman he kisses (plus Carol) represents a glimpse of the kind of life he has forsaken–whether it’s a life of ideals, sensuality, romance, whatever. Basically every one of Kirk’s women is a reminder of what he can’t have as a Starfleet Captain. And with Carol, the whole point of the tragedy with David is that Kirk ‘did what she asked, he stayed away.’ It’s a very melancholy take on Kirk’s alleged womanizing.

FYI – Tarantino is a HUGE TOS TREK fan! Most people don’t know this. Also, for makeup FX, he uses KNBEFX & Greg Nicotero on his film projects. Greg is a HUGE TOS fan too!

Never said QT wasn’t insightful, but still not convinced he can deliver the Trek ethos.

But this analysis brings up another discussion point we’ve been chewing over in other threads…

In TOS, Enterprise is a character in itself.

Kirk’s faithfulness to the ship is important, and it’s what earns the tension when the self-destruct is engaged.

The same could be said for the Enterprise-D or Voyager, and to some extent DS9.

Discovery the ship hasn’t been allowed to become a character, because Burnham’s relationships are to people. But this may change with the move forward in time.

With regard to USS Discovery, the personal relationship to the ship might become much more literal. If Discovery herself begins to evolve the Artificial Intelligence seen in “Calypso,” it is the ship personified.

@Jefferies Tuber: “But I recall that his theory was based on the idea that Kirk’s true love is his ship, and that since he’ll never settle down with any woman, each woman he kisses (plus Carol) represents a glimpse of the kind of life he has forsaken…”

So Tarantino’s “theory” is just the basic character as we saw in TOS. Not sure why you give him credit for a “theory” that isn’t a theory but is an inherent aspect of the show and the character. It’s like saying it’s his theory that Spock is conflicted about emotions & logic. No, that’s not his theory, that is the character as defined in TOS.

I guess it’s cool that Tarantino told you he likes Kirk, but he didn’t say anything new or revealing about the character in the anecdote you shared. I still can’t figure out why you give him credit for a “theory” that is nothing but the character already shown to us.

Does anyone want to be PaulB’s friend? Anyone?

@Jefferies Tuber – What’s wrong with my reply? You posted something commonly known as if it were a remarkable new concept, and I merely questioned that. It didn’t make any sense to give him credit for the *basic character* of Kirk.

It’s like saying “JJ Abrams told me his theory about Kirk and Spock. His theory is that they became close friends, so close they would risk their careers and lives for each other.” Um. Yeah. That’s the basic character relationship.

I replied to you politely. I could have just written “DUH” but that felt rude.

What did you want? A Pulitzer for your groudbreaking investigative reporting? Applause for stating the obvious?

Here’s your Prize. [slow applause] There. Feel better?

And yet it already shows us QT’s basic understanding of Kirk is correct, as opposed to JJ’s brash I-have-daddy-issues version.

True to an extent, but Kelvin Kirk had a different childhood than Prime Kirk. So it’s not a matter of JJ and KO not understanding who Prime Kirk is. They simply remixed the character by throwing up a big psychological barrier that Prime Kirk never had to cross.

…and made the character infinitely less interesting with that decision.

Nice to know that there is a script.

The Axanar project sounds better that this.

How does it sound ‘better’? We literally know NOTHING about this movie lol. Just that they written a script. That’s it.

Technically, we don’t know anything about Axanar, either….

Well they at least have a 20 minute mini-film on Youtube. We know what the story would be or will be? I guess that project is up in the air as the movies are these days.

I think I know all I need to know about AXANAR, except why AP is allowed to keep fleecing folks instead of doing hard time.

I was fleeced by the JC crowdfunding as well, so of the 5 entities to whom I donated funds over the past 5 or 6 years, only one acknowledged my donation (and then some!) and supplied me with all the promised perks. As another friend of mine commented, many crowdfunders are grifters, unfortunately.

I think the Abrams stuff helped, but I’m fine with letting it die now. We have a lot of great content going, let’s not over do it and confuse people with multiple concurrent timelines.

It was fine for Discovery to be another timeline while the current successful movies were into the kelvin. Can’t see why it should be an issues for the movies now when it wasn’t for TV trek.

I don’t think it would be an issue either. I don’t think the overwhelming majority of people think that hard about it, just us obsessed Trek nerds. I use to think maybe it would confuse people if they had two different Spocks on at the same time when I assumed Peck’s Spock would still be showing up on Discovery and if the fourth Kelvin film happened by next year. But now that’s not an issue at all with either Discovery or another Kelvin movie being made.

And my guess if they do make a Tarantino movie and its not in the Kelvin timeline it will probably be another new timeline anyway IF its about Kirk and Spock. I hope it isn’t but probably is.

So happy to hear this. I can’t wait to see a filmmaker of QT’s caliber make a Star Trek film.

Jeebus, I sure as hell hope this happens. I don’t think he’s going to do “Reservoir Trek”. I think what he turns out will challenge people, but I’ll bet he can get some butts into the seats, respect the material, and make a Star Trek film for the ages, Kelvin-verse, Prime, or something new.

Exactly. I really don’t think he’ll have Sam Jackson as a Klingon cursing while chopping people’s head off. If he is truly a Trek fan, and I think he is, he will respect the franchise. It will definitely have his style, most likely with the dialogue, but not crazy violence for no reason.

I’m excited.

I couldn’t care less about this Quentin Tarantino thing.

Leonardo DiCaprio needs to be in a Star Trek movie. Wishful thinking perhaps, but one guy who might convince him to do one is Tarantino!

DiCaprio’s forehead already seems Romulan to me, but I find him near-unwatchable. I loved INCEPTION, but every time I watch it, I think ‘this would be so much better with Jon Hamm in it.’ (same thought for INTERSTELLAR.)

I find DeCaprio to be a very over rated actor. I don’t find him “unwatchable”. He can’t kill a movie by himself. I loved Inception in spite of him. It’s just that he’s not good. I watched The Reverent and Hardy was light years better than Leo.

15 years ago he could have played Kirk now he is too old.

trump even ruins star trek boards more than they are already ruined… impressive

I hope whoever convinced the public that politics is like sports is happy with themselves, because everyone else sure isn’t.

Vote for the person who represents your best interests and the interests you care about, and then move the frak on. If they don’t do what they promise to do, or they don’t represent your interests well, vote for the other person. Party lines be damned.

Well, at the moment politics is reality television. If I’d been told in 2016 to vote for President, but I’d only have two reality TV stars to choose from, the least they could have done is toss Kim Kardashian into contention….

Never happen. He will move on to something else of his own. He’s never done another’s IP like ST would be and he writes all his movies so don’t buy he would do someone else script. This is just talk and won’t ever be anything else.

We can only hope.

Seems unlikely, but it would be a great development for the franchise. I’ve only seen his Pulp Fiction, but it’s an impressive piece of storytelling, and what Trek desperately needs is someone who can craft a solidly-structured tale.

He makes Pastiche movies. So i wonder what a Star Trek film by him would be borrowing from.

Loved the Star Trek reboot, but not interested in seeing a Tarantino version of it. The series and films have mass appeal. His version would not. He’d kill the franchise like Dark Phoenix has killed the X-Men films.