In a new interview promoting his latest film, Quentin Tarantino has opened up more than ever about the Star Trek movie he has in development with Bad Robot and Paramount.
Ready to work on ‘cool’ script for “Pulp Fiction In Space”
As part of Deadline‘s extended interview promoting Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Tarantino’s Star Trek project was also discussed in detail. Tarantino indicated that he is planning on working on the script written by The Revenant screenwriter Mark L. Smith, but has yet to decide if he will direct the film:
I don’t know if I’ll [direct] it or not. I’ve got to figure it out, but Mark wrote a really cool script. I like it a lot. There’s some things I need to work on but I really, really liked it.
Tarantino also wanted to clear the air, taking a bit of a swipe at Scotty actor/Star Trek Beyond co-writer Simon Pegg:
I get annoyed at Simon Pegg. He doesn’t know anything about what’s going on and he keeps making all these comments as if he knows about stuff. One of the comments he said, he’s like “Well, look, it’s not going to be Pulp Fiction in space.” Yes, it is! [laughs hard]. If I do it, that’s exactly what it’ll be. It’ll be Pulp Fiction in space. That Pulp Fiction-y aspect, when I read the script, I felt, I have never read a science fiction movie that has this sh*t in it, ever. There’s no science fiction movie that has this in it. And they said, I know, that’s why we want to make it. It’s, at the very least, unique in that regard.
John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson in Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction
R-rating has J.J. Abrams and Paramount support
One of the noteworthy elements of this project is that it is to be R-rated. Tarantino says he doesn’t think this is “that big of a deal,” adding that if he is going to do the project he is “going to do it my way.” He pointed to the support of producer J.J. Abrams and Paramount and cited the successful Deadpool movies as a precedent for R-rated genre movies:
The thing is, when I talked to J.J. about it, it’s not that radical. We’re just not worrying about stuff like that. J.J. said, “Quentin, I love this idea because I think with Star Trek we can go any way we want to.” Look, I’ve got a situation. As long as Paramount likes the idea and the script they almost got nothing to lose right now when it comes to Star Trek. Deadpool showed that you can rethink these things, do them in a different way. So really, even before J.J. knew what the idea was, his feeling was, if it wants to be an R rating, fine. If it wants to be the Wild Bunch in space, fine.
Quentin Tarantino has producer J.J. Abrams’ support to make an R-rated Star Trek movie
High Praise for Shatner, Pine, and Quinto
It has yet to be confirmed what characters and actors would be involved in the project, but Tarantino made clear how fond he is of the original Captain Kirk:
I’m a big fan of the show Star Trek. I really like it a lot, but my portal into that show is William Shatner. I love William Shatner on Star Trek. I love his performance as James T. Kirk. That is my connection. That is my umbilical cord. It’s why I like Star Trek more than Star Wars, because William Shatner’s not in Star Wars. I think it’s one of the greatest performances in the history of episodic television, of a series lead, and rightly so, because very few series leads have ever gotten the opportunity to play all the different wild, crazy things.
In another part of the interview, after he was asked about how he is known for giving opportunities for well-known actors to “resurface,” Tarantino brought up Shatner and mentioned he has met with him, but didn’t say when or for what project.
Tarantino says William Shatner was his portal into Star Trek
And while Tarantino has a lot of love for Shatner, he also expressed admiration for J.J. Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek film and the new Kirk and Spock:
I actually really was so taken with J.J. Abrams’ first reboot and how fantastic I thought Chris Pine channeled William Shatner. He didn’t go a serious actor-y way. He said, well no, I’m going to do my own thing. He’s playing the William Shatner version of Kirk and he’s doing a fantastic job at it. I mean perfect, frankly. And [Zachary] Quinto is perfect as Spock. Those two guys, they f*cking got it.
Tarantino admires Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto’s work in 2009’s Star Trek
It does appear that with the release of his Once Upon a Time in Hollywood coming in a week, Tarantino will soon have the time to work on his Star Trek movie concept. While Paramount has expressed interest in moving forward with the project, they have yet to set a date, keeping this project still firmly in the early development stage.
Keep up with all the news on upcoming Trek films at TrekMovie.com.
Tarantino just lost considerable points with me for his apparent love of Trek 2009. (Ugh.) And I can’t think of anything more antithetical to Trek’s hopeful vision of the future than the wild nihilism that infused every frame of PULP FICTION, albeit to very entertaining effect. And yet, a big part of me is totally stoked to see this movie (or, at the very least, to read the script). Weird and perverse, I know. Am I really becoming that jaded?
I for one am looking forward to not seeing it, at least not in theaters. This is going to be the first Star Trek movie since 1994 I’m not going to see on the big screen. I’ve never watched a QT movie in cinemas and this one is not going to make me do it either.
Cynicism and nihilism are the ingredients of every Tarantino movie so far (being a collector I’ve seen them all on DVD or BD)… I’ve never enjoyed any of those movies beyond around minute 70 when the entire pseudo-intellectual house of cards of the first and second acts is blow to smithereens by an out-of-thin-air and totally overdone bloody shoot-out that has brains splattered across the screen. Do I want this in a Star Trek movie??? Could I even tolerate it?
That man’s got talent but he squanders it in the most pathetic, tasteless and meaningless way imaginable. He’s a victim of his own childhood movie-watching antics as he used to suck up each and every low-budget grindhouse flick available in the 70s. Later, he turned this gere into mainstream movie-making, inspiring dozens of movie makers to follow his example. And now he’s turning on Star Trek, the very antithesis of what his opus represents.
You sound like that angry old dude who yells. “get off my lawn, kids” LOL
P.S. “get off my AstroTurf, kids!”
Garth Lorca, you describe very well my own feelings on this.
I also have to thank you for concepualizing why I always feel that the initial intriguing hooks of Tarantino’s end up in mind-numbing repetitive violence.
The promise of art is never quite achieved, and I feel like I’m stuck an endless loop of Slaughter’s Big Rip-Off – a bad film that I saw only because it was the only entertainment on offer at a small town where we were visiting in the 70s.
At a certain point, I just become bored.
I would sure like it if Tarantino could surprise us all and go without his usual splattery/torture-y ending. I don’t mind cussy Trek, I don’t mind sexy Trek, and I don’t even mind it getting somewhat violent, if it’s for the good of the many. But I don’t think I want Star Trek: Ruddy Gore
LOL I’m going to love this movie.
Bring on QT Trek! I can’t wait for this new take on Trek!
And Trek 2009 is the best Trek movie since Trek IV.
In total agreement on on both points.
No to me Star Trek Beyond is the best out of the three Abramsverse/Kelvin Star Trek timeline movies and the best one since Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home (the best Star Trek: The Original Series movie) and Star Trek: First Contact (the best Star Trek: The Next Generation movie). I’m definitely down for Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek but I was hoping it would be based on the Mirror Universe, about the Terran Empire and the evil Starfleet. It be more appropriate at least for his style of Star Trek instead of the good (either the original/Prime or Kelvin) universe with the Federation and the good Starfleet.
Yeah Beyond is the easily the best of the three reboot movies. Tbh with you the Star Trek 2009 movie is really boring. We just get thrown from one action sequence… to another… to another… to another and we still havent resolved whatever it is they’re actually trying to do. I own every single Star Trek movie but in my view it’s the worse one.
And for me, Beyond is tied with Insurrection, Nemesis and Star Trek V (it’s a four-way tie) as the worst Trek movie ever.
agreed. Beyond was the absolute worst of the JJ Treks. and what made it worse was the knowledge that the intriguing sounding Orci/Shatner/timeline script was jettisoned in favour of Pegg & Lins curious blend of nerdiness and ‘coolness’. I remember seeing it in the cinema and thinking ‘oh man this isn’t working’..it was like Insurrection all over again
I’m forced to agree. A QT directed Trek would be best suited to be set entirely in the MU. No crossovers. Just a straight MU story. And since you brought it up… Also agree that Beyond was the best of the KU flicks. The best TNG film I felt was Nemesis. And the best TOS film was obviously Wrath of Khan. But TVH was for sure the worst of the all of them.
Best since and on par and equal to First Contact
Michael Hall
You’re not alone. And I’ll raise you the involvement of Bad Robot.
Why does that awful company have to be involved? Why does JJ Abrams, scourge of the thoughtful cinephile, have to be involved? QT does what JJ and Bad Robot do infinitely better than they do it! Why does this project need those hacks? Would this film fall short of Paramount’s garbage quota without them? Christ Almighty, can’t we just have one good movie that doesn’t get dumbed-down and ruined by these people.
Abrams/Robot is the monkey in the wrench for me too. Now if he were partnered with Nolan, that would be one bizarre combo (IDIC, y’know?), or Fincher even, though you’d have to go back in time to 20th century to get Fincher Prime. But TACTILE TREK is something I’ve always wanted to see done right, instead of hinting about it in TFF, which didn’t have anywhere near as much as promised, and this would be that.
I’m with you on bad robot. Tired of what they’ve put out so far, really wish paramount would sever their ties with them in regards to trek. Feel the same with Kurtzman and cbs.
Agreed, with all of this. QT operates on a whole different level than JJ/Bad Robot. However, I’m afraid it appears Kurtzman will be around for at least the next few years.
He has always stated his love for City on the Edge of Forever… I understand some of what he plans… I think today was some shock value… $
Star Trek (09) is a great ST film. It’s explain a lot in a new Continuity and keep cannon alive. Plus it’s fun
I haven’t seen Pulp Fiction. But for some reason the thought of a Pulp Fiction-y Trek does not sound very appealing to me. But, I do like the idea of changing things up. So I guess I’m still torn on the matter. At this point, if it happens I will be seeing it for sure. If it doesn’t happen, I won’t bemoan the fact it didn’t happen.
I have seen Pulp Fiction, and the thought of a Pulp Fiction-y Trek is not very appealing to me either.
Me either.
It could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. He’s also compared his current movie to Pulp Fiction. And from what I hear, his new movie is fairly episodic. What Pulp Fiction did was take film noir and infuse with a realism in dialogue and had several stories interlock outside of chronological order. The characterizations, dialogue, and humor were sort of Seinfeldian, but the stakes and themes remained noirish. It’s a highly entertaining film. If Seth MacFarlane credits Star Trek, particularly TNG, with casualizing space shows by showing it as an everyday job, then I think Tarantino would bring at least a little bit of that flavor in his Trek film. I think he’d also have fun with playing with genre and style. I have no idea what he’ll do, but I think I have an idea why he likes Star Trek, and how that might overlap with why a lot of various parts of the fandom like it as well. I’d be curious to see how it comes together.
It was fine until it got to the guys in the basement with ball gags. Everything else was sort of madcap, sarcastic, and nihilistic [Samuel L. Jackson’s character], which was okay, and in some places quite funny [Walken’s recitation to Willis]. But I’m not entirely sure it’s a tone quite right for Trek …. that said, I did like most of Season 1 of Discovery; it had a different tone from most TV Trek.
So … wait and see, I guess?
I think that the basement and the terrible things that happen in it is a spot of black humour too. “Bring out the gimp!” (snicker, snicker) indeed. I think if people take Pulp Fiction at pure face value then they don’t really get it. I mean John Travolta gets killed on the toilet in that film. How funny is that, when you think about it! Also there its a kind of weird morality tale. The big crime boss that throws people off of balconies for giving his misses a foot massage really gets a major negative karma result… and he loses a bunch of money in the process. How does any of this relate to Star Trek? I have absolutely *no idea*.
lol thanks for reminding me of all the great Pulp Fictions scenes that film is funny AF! I got to rewatch it soon lol I actually saw it in the cinema back in 94 based on great reviews in Empire magazine etc and could tell it was an absolute classic. it was like an event movie like T2 or The Matrix etc but the complete opposite of them in that there was no SFX/stunts etc.. just great characters, crazy dialogue, the ingenious disjointed storyline. and bags of cool
You know Marja, Pulp Fiction lost me at just about the same spot.
The WTF absurdity of the basement scene didn’t outweigh the appalling actions.
I tried to tune that out and take the rest, but I’ve got to admit that it’s one of the parts that’s stuck firmly in memory — and takes away any interest in seeing it again.
Marja
I would actually be thrilled at the prospect of a homosexual rape scene in QT’s Trek, only because it would imply that Paramount had given QT free reign with the story, if not also as director of the movie. But, I think it’s safe to say that Paramount ain’t going along with that sort of thing in a Star Trek movie. So, I don’t think there’s any reason to worry about that. Also, keep in mind that QT has come a long way as a filmmaker since his second film, PULP FICTION, notwithstanding his quip that his Trek movie would be “Pulp Fiction in space,” which could mean many things, from an out-of-order storytelling form, to stylized dialogue and film noir-type characters. I wish he hadn’t said that his Trek movie would be Pulp Fiction in space, but it’s entirely possible that he was half-joking, or that it was a lighthearted comment, like when Karl Urban said that QT’s Trek story was “bananas.” QT was certainly being vague and stereotyping his own style with that comment, so, perhaps it’s best not to read too much into it. Let’s all just keep our fingers crossed and hope for a homosexual rape scene. Figuratively speaking, of course.
The best way of imagining a Pulp Fiction-y Trek scene is to imagine the TOS Klingon-Starfleet brawl on space station K-7 in the bloodiest way imaginable. It’ll start out just like in “The Trouble With Tribbles”… a little bit of pseudo-witty teasing and triggering on both parts, Scotty talking back to a feisty Klingon opponent, but all of a sudden you will see dozens of people being slaughtered within seconds… phaser fire ripping bodies apart, Bat’leths slicing throats, exploding brains, walls splattered in red blood, purple blood, green blood…even the topless Orion pole dancer won’t be spared… all accompanied by some stylish 60s incidental music hand-picked from QT’s own record collection. This is Tarantino… and now, it is Star Trek. Too sad, isn’t?
I don’t think that’s a fair statement. Yeah, I’m assuming we’ll see brain matter or blood or something extreme…but the way you describe it is like Pulp Fiction was just nothing BUT a violent movie.
Honestly, as far as action goes, it had less action probably than all of the Star Trek movies…except for The Motion Picture at least. It was violent, but the movie was also full of dialogue…some of which might have been considered boring and pointless, but still not violent. Using “The Trouble With Tribbles” isn’t a bad idea, but I seriously don’t see Tarantino’s film being as tacky and tasteless.
I don’t even hardly watch films unless they are sci-fi, fantasy or horror. Anything that resembles real life is something I probably wouldn’t be interested in. Pulp Fiction, Forest Gump, The Sandlot…these are a few exceptions…also the adaptations of Stephen King that aren’t horror, sci-fi and fantasy.
Anyway, just saying…yes, when the action scenes happen in Pulp Fiction, they are very violent, but that’s not what the movie is all about. And with all the griping about too much pew pew pew and not enough dialogue in newer Star Trek movies, I think Tarantino might be a good fit.
Also I find it interesting that this is the fourteenth film, the fourth in the JJ Abrams series, so all of the colorful metaphors that we hear in Tarantino’s movies would be a cool throwback to the “first fourth film”, THE VOYAGE HOME, which is one of my favorites and I think should be alluded to in some way.
I’m sorry, but for me, every QT movie falls apart because of the excessive nature of its violent DEPICTIONS. It’s not that there hadn’t been a lot of violence in previous Trek installments… Man, they blew up entire worlds, devasted fleets and cities, causing tremendous collateral damage. But still, all of these violent incidents remain watchable for kids and teens because of their toned-down nature.
QT movies aren’t anything like that. No matter what they might be about thematically, I simply can’t look beyond those excessively graphic depictions of violence. And I simply don’t want that sort of adult-only entertainment in a Star Trek movie. I’d have to somewhat feel ashamed for the franchise as a whole.
It’s like that other form of fiddling-in-the-middle “adult entertainment”… Adults (and sadly teens) may consume it in private, but it’s nothing I’d like to wear on T-shirts being frank and proud about it. For some reason, I feel the same way about Tarantino movies or other instances of R-Rated entertainment. Not because of their content or story, but because of that sort of uncensored depiction.
I can wear a Star Trek or Superman shirt, but I’m not willing to wear a Deadpool or Punisher shirt. It’s just the way I feel about it. Sorry.
Based on your comments, I don’t think you have even viewed one QT movie.
Yea, it’s clear Garth Lorca has not even seen Pulp Fiction.
That is where my mind goes first, too, Garth Lorca. Not saying that is what he would do. But it feels like what he MIGHT do.
I think it’s a lot more than that. He MIGHT not just do it, he WILL. I don’t think there can be any doubt about that anymore after today’s interview.
Obviously you have not seen Pulp Fiction, as it’s not an action movie.
Pulp Fiction is a very good movie. It’s not very Star Trekkish, but it’s a very good movie. I can’t really comment on anything without a plot synopsis.
I’ve seen it twice but I can’t relate to that sort of film. I guess it’s because my lack of interest for mobster-related stuff. I haven’t seen a single episode of The Sopranos or Boardwalk Empire and I even don’t like The Godfather very much. I guess, either you are into that sort of stuff or you aren’t but that’s not the point here.
Can both, the theme and style, be successfully applied to Star Trek? I know there have been elements of mobster-related content on Trek… A Piece of the Action, Dixon Hill-related holodeck bits on Next Gen, some holosuit stuff on DS9… but I don’t see a connection strong enough to fuel an entire big screen installment.
But thematically I’m fine with rolling with something in that vein. What I cannot condone is the degree of violent, gory and voracious depiction a Tarantino-helmed R-Rated movie would automatically encompass.
We share some opinions here, Garth. I am not a fan of the mobster genre myself. I saw The Godfather and was bored to tears with it. I started watching The Sopranos and didn’t care about any character enough to keep me watching. Wasn’t a fan of A Piece of the Action but that episode was done VERY tongue in cheek so I could give it a pass. Never like the Dixon Hill stuff either, but then, any TNG episode centered on the hollodeck was a loser in my mind anyway. And as much as I loved DS9 I never liked the Vic Fontaine bar in the holosuite. I know a lot of people like that genre. I’m just not one of them. For the record, I did like DePalma’s Untouchables. So I guess everything has an exception.
I have to admit that I’m not a fan of crime films myself, unless Batman movies count…lol…but no, I’m not a fan.
Pulp Fiction was different for me though, and I found it something a bit more accessible to guys like me who mostly stick to speculative fiction.
If you haven’t seen it since 1994 you might try it again. Or not…don’t really matter. As for the Tarantino’s style meshing well with Star Trek…that all depends on what he has in mind to deliver. I have never considered Star Trek to be “adults only” myself, but then again I never felt it was for kids either…sure, I liked Trek since I was a kid, but then again I also loved horror movies.
I’m not saying that I watched a lot of violent movies as a kid, even my parents were somewhat strict as to what I watched. There were even some movies that were PG that I couldn’t watch and R rated movies I literally didn’t see until I was an adult.
But it really depended on the product. I don’t feel that all R rated movies are inaccessible to children, sure some of them. Like I didn’t let my boy watch “It” that came out a couple years ago. But he’s 8 now…that doesn’t mean I think it’s gonna be something he couldn’t handle a few years down the road. All kids do grow up eventually.
We do allow him to watch movies that are PG-13 though. Those are recommended for ages thirteen and up but we still allow him to. To be honest, there’s little difference from PG-13 vs R movies anymore. There may be a few extra F-bombs and blood spatter. The R-Rated version of Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice comes to mind as an example of a movie that’s just barely R…I don’t know…a lot of the PG-13 movies these days are even more violent than older R rated movies like “The Matrix.”
Back to Star Trek, if we do see graphic violence the same way it was presented in Pulp Fiction, then it’ll be quite brief. If you recall, their were violent scenes, the most probably being when Phil LaMarr’s character Marvin gets his head blown off. But even that was incredibly brief.
In Trek, it’s gonna be different. This is Starfleet…the violence shouldn’t be glamorized, and it will probably be done simply for shock factor…this is for the emotional effect of it. I seriously don’t see it being like what you described on your Space Station K7 scenario…and also, Pulp Fiction didn’t have nudity in it either…so don’t expect that. (not saying there’ll be none, but no need to think there will be)
Soooo, the idea of something being like something you’ve never seen before bothers you?
Not at all. Not the message I was conveying. In fact, I outright said the opposite.
EXACTLY!!! HAHAHA! The way I see QT’s comments is not just the violence, but the style and storytelling. And ML31 never did say the opposite, as he claims in response– he literally said:
“I haven’t seen Pulp Fiction. But for some reason the thought of a Pulp Fiction-y Trek does not sound very appealing to me.” HAHAHA.
As usual you responded without actually reading the post. I said…
” I do like the idea of changing things up. ”
The exact opposite of something being like something I’ve never seen before bothering me.
Further, thinking that Trek done in a very different style may not work does NOT mean I am bothered by something I’ve never seen before either.
You might want to consider actually reading the entire post before writing things you WISH were said in it.
Still laughing? I thought not.
It sounds amazing to me. I’m so disappointed that so many Trek fans lack any vision. Just “waaaah, i don’t like the sound of that!”
He means Pulp Fiction in that it’d be the disjointed narrative.. which in Trek terms probably means different time-periods and certain crews/characters possibly interacting at points.. (JJcrew , Shatner, Stewart, and who knows who else.. you think anyone is gonna say ‘no’ to being in a QT movie)
this is so happening. probably for summer 2021 😊
This is exactly what I think he means, too. Pulp Fiction(y), in that there would be intertwining stories going on at once – and even over different time periods would go even further with it. Compelling.
“He means Pulp Fiction in that…”
You sound like Simon Pegg.
never compare me to Pegg! NEVER!!
I’m guessing he also means that the dialogue will have a casual, realistic feel to it.
Oh my GOD, no TECHNOBABBLE? Haha, I can imagine him dispensing with that in a sentence. “Just trust me, Captain. The ship’s gonna blow the F up unless …”
If it was just the narrative structure, he wouldn’t be stressing the R-rating prominently every time he talks about his Trek installment.
The disjoint narrative would be fun (we had something like that in a fun DS9 episode once), but no, that’s NOT what he’s talking about.
He directly adresses Simon Peggs statement and Pegg has tried to calm down worried fans about the degree of visual violence we’ll have to endure, claiming that the R-Rating will be only applied to deal with “the dangers of space”… Quite obviously, this isn’t the case. Otherwise, QT wouldn’t dismiss SP’s statement. And SP was NOT talking about the narrative structure, not one bit…
listen theres been plenty hard violence/gore in Trek already – II, III, VI, FC, and various stuff in the JJ films (and lets not forget ‘Conspiracy’). in fact for years TWOK was rated 15 on vhs uncut in UK. 15 and 18s are equivalent to an R in the US so for many years Star Trek II was basically R rated in the UK and my 15 rated Khan VHS sat alongside my other 15 rated SF movies like Blade Runner and T2.
theres absolutely NOTHING wrong with Tarantino going abit harder for an R rating. Xmen did it to incredible success and XMen and Trek are quite connected in various ways (and I don’t just mean Patrick Stewart)
I hope that’s what he means, but he didn’t clarify his statement at all. It could mean anything.
It can only mean one thing: splattered brains and meaningless, out-of-thin-air killings depicted in an unnecessarily hyper-stylized way, not a means to an end, but to an end in itself. Tarantino is an overgrown Grindhouse fanboy, undoubtedly of tremendous talent, but caught in the mindset of an ever-thirteen-year-old gorehound. And he lacks any sort of cinematic conscience.
Another QT hate “cut and space” special from you.
WE GET IT NOW — MESSAGE RECEIVED — WE HEARD YOU THE FIRST 20 TIMES
I think they are just trolling us. They must be.
The more ideas I hear about this film, the more I want it to happen. Trek’s ‘hopeful vision of the future’ on the big screen took a dump with STID, imo. Bring on QT Trek.
Danpaine are you sincerely looking for QT to bring back Tree’s hopeful vision of the future’ to film?
No, TG47, not whatsoever. My comment was speaking to those who are decrying the loss of the ‘hopeful vision,’ if QT does a Trek film. My argument is that ship has already sailed, quite a while ago. I’m excited about this film.
I don’t see why a QT ST film can’t still have a hopeful message at the end or underneath the surface, as they say.
QT doesn’t need ST. Surely he could just as well do his own independent Sci Fiction movie without branding it a Star Trek movie. The fact he’s pitched this to Paramount and Abrams as a Star Trek movie suggests he wants to make a statement through his own cinematic style and vision. Every director has put their own stamp on Star Trek; Wise, Meyer, Nimoy, Shatner (lol), Carson, Frakes, Baird (oh yes!), Abrams, Lin. QT will be fine. I think. He can’t be a worse choice than Baird anyway.
“He can’t be a worse choice than Baird anyway.”
It’s possible he can.
No, because no matter what you think of his ultimate Star Trek script, the film is all but guaranteed to be beautifully shot, well-acted, and slickly edited.
I don’t see any evidence supporting that guarantee.
I’m sure Bones will bring out his anti-trauma injections for the crew so we can still get our laughing freeze-frame at the end.
Okay, this just says it all. QT-pie tells us it’s going to be “Pulp Fiction in Space”, so basically it’ll be Tarantino in space, unfiltered, uncensored, relentlessly tasteless.
Not just Simon Pegg but many people on this board have been telling us stuff like “Don’t worry, Taratino is such a versatile filmmaker. He won’t be doing just another Tarantino movie in space. He can adapt to a different genre / franchise. It’ll be R-Rated for some language and a messy transporter accident. That’s it.”
Well, here we go. The man has just told us you’ve been very, very wrong. He is just going to make it an inglorious Tarantino movie in space. What can I say? It hurts to tell you I’ve been right all along. I hate to be right on this one. I really do. But that’s what those aye-sayers have signed up for.
If there is one filmmaker on this planet who is NOT able to adapt and restrain himself from doing the same old time and again, it is QT. Rodriguez is able to make kids’ movies, even Eli Roth is able to make a family-friendly fantasy adventure… but not Tarantino. He is so full of himself and his cynical style, he’s just going to turn this into one bloody mess. How anyone can back this guy is beyond me.
Think TOS Klingon-Starfleet Tribbles’ brawl going full Tarantino… And yes, we are now officially up for that.
Not that I wouldn’t like to see a space-based QT movie at all, but not set or related to the Star Trek universe. That’s not just not appealing at all, it’s excessively appaling…
One of the best all-audience films I’ve ever seen was Hugo and that was directed by Martin Scorsese.
And I have stressed that almost every great movie-maker is able to adapt and connect with the genre he’s working on. ALMOST every one of them: Scorcese, Rodriguez, Roth, the Wachowskis, Ridley Scott, you name it…
QT is one of the rare cases who simply cannot do that. He does what he does, for what it’s worth, but he does the same old tropes time and again. If you like it, enjoy the movie, but I for one certainly won’t (enjoy)…
id rather that than another Beyond Insurrection
I’d rather get no new Trek movies ever again than having to suffer through this abomination… Mediocrity is one thing (INS and NEM certainly were mediocre in many ways) but the destroying the very moral fabric of Star Trek by infusing this universe with QT’s antics is not acceptable…
The ONLY way I could tolerate this would be to set it in the mirror universe where it belongs. But I doubt Paramount will go so far…
Yeah, I was here and other sites where Tarantino fans mocked those who were unsure about him with claims that he wouldn’t change trek and turn it in another of his movies. They whined we were just prejudiced and he just wanted to do something different. I KNEW he wanted to alter trek and thus do exactly what his apologists were denying he’d do. Those who were worried aren’t the delusional ones here. Look at Pegg (or wasn’t that Cho or Urban? They were all saying his movie wouldn’t be Pulp Fiction in space).
Jesus, we heard you the first 20 times.
WE GET IT NOW — MESSAGE RECEIVED !!!
it wouldn’t be a star trek project without supposed fans hating on it… so i think this is gonna be a go and be awesome… and these same cry baby fans are still gonna whine and cry after good reviews and big boxoffice and still they’re gonna pine for the days of nemesis? still don’t know what they want. but who cares right?
So many trolls are already trying to say that Star Trek: Picard is going to be terrible…How could anybody even know?
You must go to places I don’t. I’m not getting that reaction at all. It’s either joy Picard is back or cautious optimism. Very little, “it’s going to suck” comments.
Heh – I’ve seen, “Why does Picard suddenly have a DOG?” “Stewart’s gonna ruin it like he did Nemesis — the dog is the dune buggy all over again” and other such nonsense.
The one truth I’ve found in 10 renewed years of Trek fandom is, some “fans” will find a way to biyotch about every demmed thing even before they see it.
Let’s take a wait and see attitude, with Picard, and with QT.
Then you’re willfully ignoring comments in the articles. Here, i’ll quote you some from just one article recently:
“I’ll be pleasently surprised, if that series works.”
-Sascha
“This worries me. I want to see Picard, not Stewart further transmogrifying the character into an extension of himself.”
-Soren
“I’m beginning to believe Midnight’s Edge. This looks NOTHING like the TNG era.”
-HisEminence
“The premise seems very hollow.”
-More Troubles More Dribbles
“I think it’s going to be depressing. Nobody wants to watch depressing Trek, but I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to be.”
-Jo Smith
“I’m 99.9% sure there’s gonna be tiresome & forced anti-Brexit “parable” in this…”
-David Harrison
“Ugh. Like moths to a flame this franchise goes, towards introversion and Trek fatigue.”
-dmduncan.
“Hey, cool. Only a minute and I’m already getting that sappy cheesy melodramatic Kurtzman vibe.”
-khambattafan
“This is going to suck. Not unlike you.”
-Marty
“Stewart’s skill by itself cannot salvage a badly put together show. They are gambling on the overall story to be compelling. If it’s not (like season 1 discovery), or there are terrible elements in the telling of the tale (like season 2 of Discovery) then the show will still be in trouble.”
-ML31
So no, nobody specifically said “this show will suck” but clearly a lot of people pre-judging and being overly critical, and not expecting a good show. Certainly not the unanimous optimism and joy you claim.
EDIT: only ONE person said it was going to suck. And this was all just on one or two articles… Go back further and i’ll keep citing more, if you like.
If you bothered to actually read my comment you would see that I did not say it was “unanimous”. I said there were very few “it’s going to suck” comments. And if I had the kind of time you seem to have I could go out and show you 5 joyful comments for each of these. And the one from me is not claiming the show will be terrible. So you kinda need to edit those a little better.
You are right about the general issue of Trek fans being too picky at times. I guess that started back in 1969 with TOS Season 3 being flamed to bits and Fred Freiberger being installed as Trek’s first scapegoat and has been repeated down the history lane time and again on numerous occasions.
I’ve always been against critizing Trek to death and I’ve defended each and every Star Trek production so far, be it the early Next Gen seasons, DS9, VOY, ENT and DSC, Next Gen movies or the KT flicks… I’m looking forward to PIC as well, despite what some influencers on You Tube may have to say about it.
But a QT movie is my personal red line I cannot cross. I’ve rejected this guy as a filmmaker for far too long to grant him the benefit of the doubt this time round. And this interview doesn’t really contribute to changing my mind about this infamous piece of work either. Tarantino is a no-go for me and most of my Trek-related friends agree with me on that.
Freiberger was not a scapegoat. He genuinely made the show suck, for the most part. That and the Friday 10 pm time slot killed TOS.
I really didn’t like Pulp Fiction. I hope this isn’t too much like it.
Nobody needs or wants this, just stop this before it ruins the franchise!
I want it.
I would like to see it as well. There’s nothing to lose. Go for it, Paramount.
I fully agree on the nothing to lose part. Even if the CBS merger happens that will still be true.
Gotta say, I’d like to see this.
think you in the minority buddy along with Lorca and the guy who said he wouldn’t want Trek anything like Pulp Fiction but hasn’t even seen Pulp Fiction lol
CBS already has a good start on that, I’m afraid.
I want it.
While only QT can say what QT means when he says it will be Pulp Fiction In Space, here’s what I know about his films, having watched all of them.
– He loves paying homage to genre films, and adopts a different style with each one, but he doesn’t do it so much that it’s “Hey, did you notice?” More like, deep cuts for cinema fans.
– He has range. Jackie Brown, an adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s Rum Punch, was relatively low-key and realistic, and in some ways feels like a blend of Steven Soderbergh’s The Limey and some Scorcese films, playing off the dissonance of its sunny California setting and the noir goings-on, but never feeling fake or off.
– In between highly stylized, beautifully filmed action sequences (for instance, the House of Blue Leaves sequence in Kill Bill), he has real emotional moments between the characters.
– All his characters have realistic motivations, particularly the villains. Even Bill, the big bad of the movie, is presented somewhat sympathetically and knows he overreacted, that his own death is warranted. After 3+ Trek films with “wronged guy seeks unrealistic revenge against the universe” I’d welcome antagonists who have realistic interests they’re trying to achieve, who have complexity and depth, who can be horrific monsters as well as identifiable.
– Yeah, he makes controversial choices, like anachronistic music on a soundtrack. Then again we had the Beastie Boys in the 23rd century, so.
– He’s not known for treating actresses particularly well (again, Uma Thurman in Kill Bill) This to me would be the biggest red flag, and make it problematic to get good talent to stay or join the cast.
– Pulp Fiction wasn’t really that violent – in total, only nine people died permanently, including one of our protagonists, but people remember the splashy accidental death of Marvin more than anything. Compare that to literally *tens of thousands* of people killed when the Vengeance crashes into San Francisco – arguably more horrific because you *don’t* see it, you have to imagine it.
– Pulp Fiction *does* hold the all-time record for cursing in Tarantino’s work. Would a Tarantino Trek movie be wall-to-wall swearing? Probably not, but the dialogue will probably be more realistically earthy, for people in a space navy…
Ultimately, the question would be, can he make a good, entertaining movie with a point of view? His track record says yes. Could he do a Deadpool-esque “side story” that loosens the corset somewhat and become a surprise hit? Quite possible. I don’t know if he could do that if Paramount wants to turn the next film into another summer blockbuster, which means a LOT of restrictions, thinking about international markets, and so on.
All excellent points, particularly wrt JACKIE BROWN, which was much more low-key and sweeter in tone than the rest of his output (and in fact was more sympathetic to its characters than the Elmore Leonard novel it was based on). I have my own concerns, but the assumption that Tarantino will deliver a splatterfest in space or that he’s a one-trick pony with no ability to adapt his style to the source material seems to me unwarranted.
Thanks! (Fun trivia note, since Soderbergh adapted Leonard’s Out of Sight, Michael Keaton played the same character, Ray Nicolette, in both movies.)
TBH I would really love to see Soderbergh do a Trek before Tarantino – he’s proven he can navigate between smaller, arthouse / experimental projects and big-budget stuff – in fact, you’d be surprised how many mainstream hits he’s done, including Solaris, Erin Brockovich and Ocean’s 11.
Or, maybe Patty Jenkins (Wonder Woman and its upcoming sequel) – she’s got experience directing both intense character studies like Monster, and CGI-heavy action, and Chris Pine….
Or, if they could get her, Kathryn Bigelow – Oscar winner, with a portfolio of sci-fi, fantasy, action / military films that go deeper and have a lot of interesting ideas, and she attracts great talent.
I find this intriguing. The big mystery, of course, is exactly what he means by this.
I’m having a little trouble seeing how this will play out. But I’m a Trekkie and I’m a Tarantino fan, so … bring it on?
I’d love to see what he would do with Star Trek. I think the idea of “Pulp Fiction in Space” is more about narrative structure that anything else.
Star Trek needs a shot in the arm. Yes, we have Discovery and now Picard is on the way but if you’re looking for interest beyond the fan base it really isn’t there. This project would generate a lot of buzz and get people into a theater who typically wouldn’t give Star Trek a second thought.
Paramount wants this to happen so I suspect that they’ll do what they’ll need to do to get this thing off the ground.
Would it be possible to eliminate Star Trek from the title?
Wow, I said too much I think..
If this is ever gets made it’s going to be hated among hardcore Trek fans and loved by everyone else.
What is your basis for saying that? I’m a hardcore Trek fan and I want to see the Tarantino vision of Trek.
I guess you each have a different definition of hardcore Trek fan. I consider myself a pretty hardcore fan, I’ve loved the franchise for over 50 years now, but I am WILLING TO EXPLORE NEW THINGS IN TREK … for example, I enjoyed the first season of Disco more than the second. It was darker and things were re-imagined, some in wonderful ways.
(I enjoyed Season 2 of Disco also, but there seemed to be a lot of fanservice.)
I loved the Kelvin Universe’s reinvention of TOS characters. Star Trek 2009 was a giddy romp, but after that Abrams et al. ran the series in the ground with the wretched Into Darkness and the muddled mediocrity of Beyond.
If Tarantino wants to take those characters on a TOS-style adventure, I’m all for seeing where it goes. I’d love to see Pine, Quinto, et al. in a movie that revives the potential of reinventing TOS that was never really realized after the first movie.
If that movie is a disaster then the Kelvin Universe is probably over, but without a Tarantino movie it is possibly over anyway with the apparent cancellation of the Kirk meets his father movie.
well Beyond should’ve been the Shatner/Orci battle for the timelines thing but as that didn’t happen (and the Hemsworth ST4 rewrite didn’t either) it sounds like QT is planning some Shat in this movie so maybe it was for the best the Orci version of 3 didn’t happen (even though that was clearly the movie to do for the 50th)
It all depends on what aspects of Pulp Fiction he’s talking about. Non-linear, interlinking stories, perhaps? The 1960s stylings and his love of using the music from the period?
Abrams films went for an updated look, while Tarantino might embrace the whole Gold- and Silver Age design styles.
There’s plenty to be intrigued by…
“Now THAT’s a Star Trek!” (cue the musical number)
If QT is not writing the script himself, speculation is specious.
Pine and Kirk are in, Pegg is out.
Wouldn’t it be so great to have Christopher Waltz as McCoy!
Christophe Waltz as a scientist who’s made something that goes horribly wrong?
[I love Karl Urban’s McCoy!]
Isn’t Pegg a friend of his? Besides, Urban and Cho were too saying he wouldn’t do pulp fiction in space. .
I’ve always been keen for Tarantino to personally direct this Trek concept of his, rather than someone else…but I’m more concerned about the movie’s score than I am about any violent action or random sweary word that he may inject along the way.
If this goes ahead, I just hope he goes with a great theme and score throughout, rather than pepper it with random musical choices…as that would definately put it into ‘parody’ territory for me. While that kind of thing was fun and worked well in the likes of his Kill Bill movies, I wouldn’t want him to go down that route for this particular movie. I’m sure it will be ‘edgy’ enough in certain ways without going down the ‘eclectic music’ route too.
While the Beastie Boys inclusion was a low-point of course, one of the things that J.J. got right with his Star Trek 2009 reboot was having a great score for it, and I’d like to get another.
On another point, even if his usually excellent casting happens to also give us such luminaries as Shatner and Stewart in the mix too (who knows at this stage?), I really hope that whatever Tarantino’s ‘bananas’ storyline brings, that it ISN’T yet another ‘revenge’ tale, but something which involves some kind of ‘otherworldly’ exploration vibe along the way.
In the meantime, I’ll definitely be catching his Once Upon A Time In Hollywood on the big screen when it arrives…and look forward to an eclectic smattering of period music/songs for that one.
As to “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I imagine the Beatle’s “Helter Skelter” will feature largely
I want this to happen. Here’s hoping
I like to think of myself as an open minded Trek fan. I’ve watched EVERY iteration and found something valuable and entertaining in all of them at some level. But ‘Pulp Fiction in Space?’ I’m struggling with that one. What does the concept bring to Star Trek? A hopeful idea? A larger audience?
I don’t see it.
Where’s that great photoshop someone did of the TOS crew as the Reservoir Dogs characters? ;^)
That image was the background on my laptop for awhile. Love it.
McCoy: Why does Spock get to be Mr. Pink? I want to be Mr. Pink!
For a fan-base that considers itself open minded, I see a lot of close mindedness in these message boards. I think we should just see if the film happens first and watch the film. Who knows, maybe we will be surprised about it. Personally I think Tarantino making a Star Trek movie would at least give the Trek movies a prestige they were lacking previously among the more “snobbish” cinematic circles and perhaps may even lead to much more award recognition in the Oscars and getting more big name actors involved. Like I said, Tarantino can surprise us and I believe we need to be more open minded when judging him. He is passionate about cinema and makes the films he wants and if these film are entertaining and bloody at the same time, so what is so wrong with that? What some people call “childish tendencies” I call “passion”. Besides I don’t think everything childish is automatically bad, sometimes we do need to remember or get back to our childhoods to look at the world from a different perspective.
exactly. naysaying a potential Tarantino directed Trek movie is high up there in the stupidsphere.
and imagine some of the Tarantino regulars like Sam Jackson and Kurt Russel as Klingons or Starfleet admirals in scenes interacting with Shatner or Stewart.
Sounds awful. I have enjoyed some of his films, but infused with Trek it will be the death of it. I like dark, gritty, apocalyptic in its place (huge nuBSG fan), but not Trek. For god sakes can one show/franchise in this world offer a modicum of optimism, hope. To me that is what Trek is, not blood ‘n’ guts, cussin’, and ‘splosions. This could be the first Trek film I pass on if it lives up to this hype.
Reminds me a bit of a kid I worked with at Kinko’s Copies, who claimed to be a Trek fan and had a “concept” fanfic Trek he touted, which featured a team of hardasses fronted by some ass-kicker who was tougher than Worf (naturally) and carried some ridiculously huge, Rob Liefield-esque gatling gun. Sounded awful like some 11 year olds gonzo, action hero fantasy. Whatever it was it wasn’t Trek, much like this (and Section 31) sounds like it isn’t.
THIS IS A DISASTER!
(just had to get in there)
As a Trekker who was previously a Trekkie, and a fan of every series and film in the franchise for almost 50 years now – I am totally on board. Love QT and love Star Trek.
Not a disaster. The Iraq War was a disaster. Pearl Harbor was a disaster. A nuclear attack would be a disaster. Climate change is/will be a disaster. The sad, unwinding of a sci-fi franchise to become a same ol’, same ol’ blood, guts, and explosions blockbuster is merely a disappointment. How about a dose of optimism for dark times? Even SW-The Last Jedi offered more optimism than recent Trek. IMHO, optimism is the Trek brand. Having a villain gut a red shirt with a Bowie knife while spouting a Tourette’s Syndrome spewage of foul language, while everything is exploding in the background just is not Star Trek to me. Action. Danger. Okay. But I’d like a little bit of the wonder and strange new world exploration thrown in, and, yes, maybe a bit of the gee whiz optimism and humanism that we will survive the current dumpster fire humanity is mired in thrown in for good measure. Just my take on Trek.
IMHO, I think Star Trek needs to be what it is. Slapping the Star Trek label on any old, typical Hollywood blockbuster schlock product does not mean it is ‘Star Trek’ to me. Screw canon. I’ll take head canon any day.
He lost me with pulp fiction in space, but then I got back on board when he talked about Shatner! I figure, what the hell, JJ and Discovery already played havoc with trek. If it gets me the original Capt Kirk I’m all in for the sh*t show. :)
Bet Roddenberry is raging, wherever he is. Lol
wherever he is Roddenberry will probably be ‘beaming’ with pride (then claim its all ripped off from his God Thing or JFK scripts :)
Pegg talked his part way down then if this gets made he is not going to be a main player in it is he!
Pulp Fiction in Space. Interesting. I’m not even sure what that means actually.
Maybe this film will involve time-travel again?
“Say ‘Warp’ again one more time Mother Klingon, I dare you, I double dare you!”
Bring it. Love me some QT.
I hope it gets made. There is room for a Trek movie with an R rating. I did enjoy the 2009 Star Trek movie. The other two? Not so much.
Paramount needs a hit with a Star Trek movie. I think this might be the ticket.
I can just see it now: Kirk turns to Spock and asks him: Do you know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese on Rigel 7?
I’ve never been a Tarantino fan or really understood the appeal of his movies; the violence, profanity and general unpleasantness is just over the top in everything of this that I’ve ever seen. His dialog always feels meandering and distracting as he tries a little to hard to show how hip and clever he is. I can’t see how grafting that sensibility on Star Trek would make for an enjoyable presentation but hey, Paramount hasn’t had a clue when it comes to Trek for a long time now so what’s one more misfire?
As they wait for the turbolift, Kirk makes small-talk to pass the time. . .
KIRK: You know what they call a Romulan Ale on Romulus?
CHEKOV: They do not call it Romulan Ale, sir?
KIRK: Sh*t, no! They on Romulus, mothaf*cka! Everything there is Romulan! They just call it ale.
CHEKOV: …ale…
KIRK: You see this watch?
The reaction to this latest thing is funny. Tarantino has ALWAYS been a bit of “streaming of consciousness” type of film-maker. In other words, until he actually begins production, there is no indication as to the type of film he is shooting for. Heck, we’re not even in pre-production yet, and he himself hasn’t committed himself to the production, either as producer or director. And quite frankly? Considering the state of the franchise, I wouldn’t mind Tarantino taking a shot at directing a ‘Trek film. Besides, if Tarantino succeeds in directing a ‘Trek film, it could mean getting quality film-makers on board for future outings. Who knows?
Oh this makes me so happy, I could only be happier if Quentin decides to direct it himself. And finally the recognition again that Kirk IS the star of the show. This turn to the Spock-ish and all the Kirk/Shatner hate that exists in the fandom is just not doing it for me.
The only better thing the new show has on TOS is production values, and the only thing I came away from with that Picard trailer is how been there-done that it looks.
But THIS movie sounds like an original. Could be a masterpiece.
Good points. Here’s hoping.
this movie could literally be THE greatest Star Trek movie ever made
Tarantino turning out to be just the arrogant class free creative thug many people feared. Heaven forbid the master has to alter his style in any way, shape or form to respect anything decent or noble that came prior.