Karl Urban Urges Paramount To Make Tarantino’s Star Trek, William Shatner Sees Kirk “Running Wild”

The last couple of days have generated some news and updates on the Quentin Tarantino Star Trek project over at Paramount and Bad Robot, with comments from Karl Urban, William Shatner, and Tarantino himself. There is also an update on the corporate merger that would bring Paramount and CBS back together again.

Urban urges Paramount to make Tarantino’s Trek, wants in

Karl Urban—the Leonard “Bones” McCoy of the Kelvin movies—has been doing a round of press promoting his new Amazon show The Boys, and he has taken a couple of Star Trek questions along the way. Speaking to the Huffington Post, Urban clarified his level of knowledge about the film:

This is a project that I have no information about, really. I haven’t read a script for it, but I understand the basic concept of it.

Last year, TrekMovie reported that Urban had described Tarantino’s concept as “bananas.”

Urban also opined to HuffPo on what he thinks Paramount should do:

I think Quentin Tarantino doing that film would be phenomenal. He is definitely one of the most exciting filmmakers that’s currently working and if he has an interest in making a ‘Star Trek’ film, I think the studio would be insane not to let him do that.

In the Los Angeles Magazine, Urban also discussed possibly appearing in Tarantino’s Trek:

Well, it really hasn’t been announced, but this is what I know about Star Trek 4. There is currently a script that has been written by the writer who wrote The Revenant [Mark L. Smith], and Quentin Tarantino has expressed an interest to direct it. I think it would be awesome if that movie was to happen. I think Quentin Tarantino is one of the most exciting filmmakers currently working. And I would not only love to be a part of that movie, but I would love to see it.

It’s interesting that Urban refers to the Tarantino project as “Star Trek 4.” That shorthand has usually referred to the follow-up to Star Trek Beyond which was announced by Paramount in 2016, based on a script by J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay. At one point it had a director and was slated to go into production earlier this year, but a salary renegotiation dispute with Chris Pine and Chris Hemsworth derailed the project. Urban seems to confirm what most have assumed, that the Tarantino project has leapfrogged the direct sequel to Beyond to become the more likely next Trek feature film.

Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy in Star Trek Beyond

Shatner sees Kirk “running wild” in Tarantino Trek, doesn’t see R-rating fitting with Roddenberry vision

Last month after Quentin Tarantino spoke about his love for William Shatner, the actor indicated he would be interested in appearing in the Tarantino Trek project.  Today while promoting his new History Channel show UnXplained, Shatner was asked on People Now if he would do the film and seemed to pull back, indicating he isn’t too keen on playing an old Captain Kirk.

If Quentin Tarantino said to me “will you play Captain Kirk in this film,” and it isn’t like – Leonard Nimoy played Spock in one of J.J. Abrams’ films and they went back in time to see him, and I said to him “Leonard, when you go back in time and you are still old Leonard, that’s really old.“ They go back in time and he still looks old.

During his segment on People Now Shatner learned for the first time that Tarantino’s Trek would be R-rated, which came as a surprise to him. When asked what he thought it might be like, Shatner joked that R-rated Star Trek would not please creator Gene Roddenberry:

R-rated? Things going on that Roddenberry…First of all you have to harness the energy of Gene Roddenberry revolving in his grave. If you could harness that, you could use that as the power for the whole film.

As for Kirk himself, Shatner also speculated on what Tarantino’s version of the character would be:

Running wild. He’d be running wild, and I am having difficulty running wild now.

Looping back on if he would do it, Shatner seemed to indicate he would be interested, but the role could be dangerous:

Oh goodness yes. [Running wild] through the fields of hay, running, running, and then having a heart attack and falling down.

You can watch Shatner on People Now below:

Tarantino says his final film will be “Epilogue-y”

While the Tarantino Star Trek project was born from his own concept, the script was written by Mark L. Smith. Tarantino has recently said that how that he is finished with his ninth feature film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, he has time to work with Smith on the script. A big question that could impact if the project were even to move forward is if Tarantino would sign on to direct. The Oscar winner has long said that he will stop directing after his tenth film, raising the question of whether he wants to exit with a Star Trek film.

Yesterday, The Hollywood Reporter quoted Tarantino from the Moscow premiere of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood talking about his tenth movie:

If you think about the idea of all the movies telling one story and each film is like a train boxcar connected to each other, this one would sort of be the big show-stopping climax of it all. And I could imagine that the 10th one would be a little more epilogue-y.

If a Star Trek film—even one based on his own concept—can’t fulfill Tarantino’s desire for an “epilogue-y” movie to bookend his directorial career, that would leave the director’s chair open. This could impact Paramount’s (and their co-financing partners’) interest, but perhaps “based on an idea from Quentin Tarantino,” with him also as a producer would be enough for the studio.

Paramount and Viacom haven’t merged with CBS, yet

Another factor regarding the future of the Star Trek film franchise is the potential re-merger of Viacom (parent company of Paramount) and CBS. Last week we reported talks had progressed to a point where there would be a possible merger announcement this week. Yesterday both CBS and Paramount made their latest quarterly announcement and avoided all talk of mergers.

However, the Hollywood trades and business press continue to report that the imminent reunification of the media companies that split (slicing up Star Trek along the way) in 2006. Yesterday Variety reported the negotiation between the boards of directors continued with a deal “a few days away.” Today Bloomberg reports the structure of a new board of directors has been made. And Fox Business reports final details are being worked out, with an announcement possibly coming as early as Monday.

If CBS and Viacom merge, it would unite Star Trek under one roof for the first time in over a decade. It is likely that responsibility for the film franchise would be wrapped into CBS’ recently formed Star Trek Group, headed by Alex Kurtzman. J.J. Abrams and his Bad Robot production company will be ending their “first-look” relationship with Paramount in 2020, with Abrams likely moving to Warner Media. However, he and Bad Robot could remain involved with the Star Trek projects they have already started developing, just as Abrams has worked with Disney on Star Wars films while under contract at Paramount.

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

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Shatner sounds demented with his comments. Yikes!

No, he doesn’t. No need to insult both Shatner and dementia sufferers with your foolish comment.

He’s being humorous.

I think he’s being self-conscious about his advanced age. And for a life-long grandstander like him, that is a MAJOR maturation in character!

That’s true! It’s progress that he’s now willing to admit that he’s old. :-)

All due respect to Harrison Ford who is supposed to do “Indiana Jones 5,” Shatner sounds very realitic about what he is capable of as opposed to Ford. Shatner is still a great actor and has Emmys to prove it. Yet Kirk was a man of action and seeing Kirk in Generations trying to be the “action typoe Kirk” fighting and such was a little bit of a disppointment. Khan was great and dealt with Kirk dealing with his age and mortality. I do think “Generations” was not a fitting end for Kirk and Tarantino could probably give Kirk a more satisfying end to his career than that movie. It would be great to maybe see Kirk running Starfleet (or Section 31 since Kirk usually broke the Prime Directive every week).

yup, refreshing, cause he was always so uptight. He sounds able to poke fun at himself genuinely these days.

he’s just being silly… joking about how old he is… he’s amazing at his age… a friend of mine who worked on tng ds9 yoy etc had lunch with him… a dream come true decades ago… and even then he was old and tired… the body can only take so much…

That’s uncalled for.

Not in the slightest. Too bad you can’t understand his humor.

Not really – when he was doing that old timers travel show he tended to crack wise about old guys peeing a lot. Not trying to be to dark here, but considering how reluctant the guy has been to discuss his own mortality in the past, maybe a doctor has told him something that’s triggered a dark sense of humor. Sheer speculation on my part, but if he knows he’s not up to it, who are we to argue. I’m a little PO’d at Nichelle Nichols family, who seem to be trying to squeeze every last dime out of her fame as she slides into dementia. There’s nothing wrong with riding into the sunset with some dignity left intact.

He doesn’t sound demented at all.

A Tarantino Directed Star Trek would be amazing, especially if it has Urban and the rest of the Kelvin cast, love those guys. Like he said, Paramount would be insane not to do it.

The one notion that I am seriously wondering about is whether or not Paramount will actually take a leap of faith and green-light this Star Trek 4 movie (or “Tarantino Trek”).
It really seems to me that with this new runaway train of new Star Trek series gaining serious (positive) momentum on CBSAA, I just think that Paramount is going to hold off or shelve any Trek movies for awhile now… Paramount must really be interested in Tarantino’s script/idea, but can respect their apprehension of moving forward with another Trek movie after the financial losses and backlash of the three movies to date.

I can certainly see Trek doing better right now and in the near future in the television series’ being offered on streaming right now…which can certainly help with gaining fans (new and old) back and getting more excited about Trek again. Paramount took a gamble with the JJ verse movies and ultimately got burned. I just don’t see Trek 4 (or Tarantino Trek) happening anytime soon, and with the current cast incarnation being attached.

I think if Mr. Tarantino agrees to direct, it will be happen. If he is just a producer, it will be too big a risk (an R-rated big budget movie) for Paramount. They weren’t happy with the profit margin of Into Darkness, and that had the bigger potential audience of a PG-13 movie (and the goodwill of a well-received previous movie.)

As for Mr. Roddenberry spinning in his grave, I think that depends on the details. Language? Nah, I don’t think he’d mind. Sex and nudity? Has Mr. Shatner not seen “Pretty Maids All In A Row”? Nah, he wouldn’t mind that, either. (Didn’t he originally want the Ilia-bot to be nude in ST:TMP?) Violence? Well, Mr. Roddenberry was there when TNG’s “Conspiracy” (with the exploding Lt. Cmdr. Remmick) got made and he didn’t say, “wait guys, too violent!” (but the suits did later, according to rumor.)

The studio might be wary of an R-rated Trek, but I doubt Mr. Roddenberry would have been.

I think they’ll get him directing it. It happened with Prometheus.. initially Scott was just planning to produce but Fox wanted him to direct so let him do it what he wanted to do .

And at this point its either Tarantino directing or its RIP Trek Movie franchise

“And at this point its either Tarantino directing or its RIP Trek Movie franchise”

On the contrary… It would be RIP Trek movie franchise IF he gets to direct it.

I mean, where would you go from there? If successful, every future Trek movie would have to be like that: R-Rated, ultraviolent, full of bad language and nudity…it would become the new Wrath of Khan, a blueprint for every filmmaker working on Trek…

If it fails, that’s it anyway…

Either way, this movie would end the movie franchise as we know it for good and that means RIP…

The only way to save Trek would be to prevent this QT movie from happening altogether. It’s our only way…

The movie franchise didn’t end with Trek5, didn’t end with NEM, won’t end with BEY and it wont end with TARANTrek. It will end one day, but not for a long time. My guess another 30 years at least.

I do NOT want to see Tarantino anywhere near Trek. He would ruin it and it would be a waste to invest in “his” Trek vs. actual Trek.

In all fairness, Star Trek VI was originally going to be rated R (because of the Gorkon assassination scene, which, though tame by today’s standards, back in 1991, was going to get an R rating (it was only the studio changing Klingon blood to Pepto-Bismol color that got it made PG (but if released today with the original red Klingon blood it’d still likely be PG-13)

“And at this point its either Tarantino directing or its RIP Trek Movie franchise”

That’s silly and remarkably short-sighted. Every time someone predicts the end of ANY movie franchise, that person ends up looking foolish in the end.

Sure, GR wouldn’t mind some colorful metaphors or some nudity Certainly not! He might not even object any bloody transporter accidents, monster fights or stuff like that.

But I’m not so sure with R-level depictions of man-on-man violence, you know, the stuff QT is notorious for.

“Well, Mr. Roddenberry was there when TNG’s “Conspiracy” (with the exploding Lt. Cmdr. Remmick) got made and he didn’t say, “wait guys, too violent!””

That was fantasy violence. Remmick was completely infested with alien parasites that burst out of him. He was already dead from within.

Tarantino on the other hand would turn a harmless bar brawl like the one in “The Trouble With Tribbles” into a bloody nightmare, splattering the walls of K7 with blood, guts and brains for the lowest entertainment purposes. There are those “moments” in alomst every one of his movies (except “Jackie Brown”)…

Optimism Captain.

Why can’t they have Trek on TV (streaming) and a movie in the cinema?. half the movies came out when trek was on TV at the time

Given the apparent rolling success on the television side, why would CBS, as the parent company, permit a go on a film that is highly likely to be a financial failure?

If one of the rationales for the merger is to better manage the Trek property, I find it hard to imagine that senior executives would allow a high profile unprofitable Trek cinematic production as one of the first results of the merger that they will put in front of the owners and shareholders.

Whether or not we agree that Tarantino could make a good Trek film, or a cool Trek film that would appeal to a different market niche, it’s really clear that Tarantino’s movies just don’t generate the kind of revenue needed to cover even a modest amount of vfx.

And I doubt Pine or the others would take a big pay cut ‘just because it’s Tarantino’.

I honestly don’t see this film ever happening. I’ve love to see it, but I can’t imagine it being greenlighted.

Harry, Give the Captain a break. He is 88 years old. I’m amazed how he is still plugging away! I guess horses keep you young.

Harry, here’s what I meant…..I have read every interview Shatner has given over the last forty years, and I know he likes to make jokes and show his wit. BUT, in this interview, he sounds way off from his usual self. Maybe he was distracted or having a bad day, but it just didn’t sound like the Shatner we have seen all these many years. It sounded disjointed and scatter-brained.

He was clearly joking.

Why do so many fans lack a sense of humor? Gheez.

Kill Bill Vol III

Seriously, I don’t want Tarantino to end his career on a (Star Trek) franchise movie, which means he would never make even one original movie again. This conundrum could be solved, by his own admission, if he didn’t count his first and only franchise movie towards the TEN he set out to make. After all, that could mean ten ORIGINAL movies. It’s all up to him.

It could also be solved if he didn’t set an arbitrary limit on the number of movies he’s making, but whatever.

Okay, that’s dark. And I snorted when I read it….

Karl Urban has been the best part of the Kelvin series. Love his portrayal of “McCoy”. Would love to see Zachary Quinto lean down a bit…Spock was never meant to look fat/heavy. “Star Trek V” being the rare exception. Would love to see Shatner back on the big screen. Hope they can bring Takei and Koenig back too. Nichelle too if she can handle it.

Karl Urban was the highlight of those films. Would love to see him as Bones once again.

Zachary Quinto looks fat?? LOL. What drug are you taking? Quinto has never been fat in his life.

You must’ve missed “Star Trek: Beyond” then. But I’ll save you two hours of your life…skip it !

I wonder if Shatner ever saw Trek XI. He doesn’t quite seem to understand the plot.

Sounds like he and Tarantino have that in common.


tarantino has given so many answers about this stupid 10th movie thing while promoting once upon a time: it’s star trek… it’s a horror movie… it’s kill bill 3… for someone who is retiring he’s got a lot on his hands… he’s just talking out of his…

I still am baffled that any artist can just completely walk away from his/her art because of some arbitrary timeline or number. So if he has a great movie idea eight or ten years from now, Tarantino won’t make it because “sorry, I said I would only make ten”. That’s a tragedy for the world of art and cinema, and it is completely nuts.

he came up with it i believe because he didn’t want to be that director who keeps making movies and they’re not good… some are like woody allen or clint eastwood or spielberg… they just keep moving along… and you get great ones mixed with ok ones and it’s art and it is what it is… tarantino seems to be overly concerned about his legacy…

Eastwood has never made a bad film. Some are better than others but none of them are bad. Spielberg, however, hasn’t made a good film in about 20 years now and just lives basically on his prior legacy.

All of Eastwood’s movies are bad.

To be fair, Midnight in Paris was excellent, and that was 34 years after Annie Hall. I don’t care if there was a dozen bad movies and a handful of decent ones in between. You can always ignore the bad ones and watch the good ones. That’s the philosophy I use for the Star Trek TV shows.

he’s just answering every single silly question and pondering things… he obviously has no idea what he’s gonna do but at least trek 4 has been written… just need a great replacement director if he just produces… edgar wright?

So, now Paramount will be rid of Abrams but Kurtzman will be in charge of the movies and the TV shows — basically all things Trek. And somehow I don’t see QT choosing a Trek movie as the epilogue of his film career. Though, I hope I’m wrong about that.

Whether he directs it or not, it seems that my interest in new Trek projects will probably be ending after the QT Trek movie. Unless Kurtzman, by doing what George Costanza does in the Seinfeld episode, “The Opposite,” manages to go against all of his instincts and hire a producer that turns out a really good Trek TV show or movie, Trek seems destined for the perpetual, stultifying mediocrity that has become of Star Wars. I think back to the year that Paramobius leaked all of the info about CBS’s plans for Trek, most of which has borne out true in one form or another. . .

I remember how exciting that year was — 2014, if I remember correctly — and how hopeful I felt about the Trek franchise. CBS, I imagined, had been observing Paramount’s mismanagement of the Trek brand and would now be the fans’ white knight, riding in to rescue Trek from the clutches of JJ Abrams and the clueless neglect of Paramount. But CBS’s first move was to use the AXANAR debacle to effectively end all Trek fan films, and the only worthwhile Trek drama made since 2005, Star Trek Continues, was prematurely and sadly terminated. It was a harsh blow but an assuageable one, if CBS’s new Trek show delivered on its promise to the fans. CBS, however, had other plans. For a year, they promoted the upcoming new show, Discovery, based almost entirely on racial and sexual “diversity” appeals. What would the new show be like? What would its storytelling style be? Would it be allegorical, like TOS and TNG? Would it be more character-based like DS9 and later Berman Trek? Would it return to the science-fiction roots of TOS and TNG, or be more of a sci-fantasy show, like DS9? It’s going to have “diversity,” was, in the main, what we got from CBS. It was a bad sign. And when DSC was finally released, the lack of substance in its marketing campaign gave way to a show that was equally uninspiring. And now, the formula for uninspiring Trek, it seems, has been made global and permanent. I think Shatner’s right about Gene Roddenberry turning in his grave, though for a larger reason.

Very well said. I agree completely. I remember defending Discovery from the people attacking it pre-release for its claims of “diversity”, and I still would if that’s all they had against it, but it turned out to be just as shallow as many feared and its inclusiveness counting for very little.

Star Trek fans are often the very worst part of Star Trek fandom. Thank you for proving this yet again.

Pick Hard

Your comment is completely unproductive as it fails entirely to address the topic.

It’s also ad hominem, which is poor form for a discussion forum and typically the last resort of a losing argument.

Boy, this article is just loaded with wild eyes fill in the blanks speculation. Urban now says he has no knowledge of the project. QT hasn’t said anything new. Shatner admits he probably isn’t up to it. So, the one thing we know he IS true is that there’s no Trek movie any closer to production now then there was six months or a year ago.

Everyone is orgasmic about a Tarantino Trek movie. I’m sure as an actor, working with a director with his reputation would be a huge opportunity. I’m also sure it would be a different kind of Trek movie. I’m not sure most of those here would really like that movie. Tarantino likes to rewrite history. If he choses to rewrite Trek history, he will break Canon and that freaks everyone out here. Be careful what you wish for. Remember in the Tarantino world, Brad Pit killed Hitler, and Sharon Tate lived past August 8, 1969.

Given his style of movie making, he would make a killer mirror universe movie. He could kill off anyone, including Kirk, and it wouldn’t break Canon. He could have Picard kill kirk or vice versa and it would be fine.

I have a feeling that if the merger goes through, this will be it for the Tarantino movie. I don’t know why, but I don’t think Kurtzman would want to work with Tarantino, there would too much of an ego clash if those two come together. I see Tarantino’s approach to Trek closer to Nick Meyer’s Trek films and look what happened to Nick Meyer when he was “part” of Discovery. I have a feeling something similar might happen with Tarantino and Kurtzman. The most effective way to get Tarantino to make his Star Trek is to let the guy take the full reigns and step away and let him do his own thing.

That’s been my feeling too, that Tarantino’s Trek might be too out of socket for CBS’ Trek franchise efforts, even with the likes of Lower Decks in production. I feel like the more headway Paramount and Tarantino could have made with each other, maybe the more hopeful the outcome. I’ve even wondered if CBS’ particular interest in Trek in regards to this merger was in any way motivated by a desire to not see a Tarantino version of Trek get made.

I don’t think anyone knows what happened with Nick Meyer on STD, and I suspect everyone (particularly Meyer) is too polite to talk about it. But the writers room was obviously a mess (I mean look what they put out), and I don’t think that suited him. I kind of wondered what he was doing there anyway. It seemed like Fuller and CBS wanted their “Star Trek heroes” just to help advertise the project, and they were as likely to bring in popular Trek novelists (who in my view are essentially hired to write professional paperback fan fiction, but perhaps I wouldn’t know better because I stopped reading those), as they were a popular prior Trek writer and director.

However I’m agreed about Meyer’s films. The Harve Bennett era remains my favorite in all of Trek, and I especially love the analogue anachronisms of Meyer’s installments (although I do think Abrams made a better first movie than Meyer’s final one). But I don’t want more of them; ST really needs people who will give it something LIKE what Meyer did… but every time that “something” would be something different or it no longer counts.

And my curiosity won’t be satisfied if we never see what Tarantino wanted to do to it.

“R-rated? Things going on that Roddenberry…First of all you have to harness the energy of Gene Roddenberry revolving in his grave. If you could harness that, you could use that as the power for the whole film.”

This is exactly how I feel about it. He’d be revolving in his grave but after all this revolution might actually spark the flame for something new… I just don’t know whether this new flame is a good thing…

I love Urban’s portrayal of Bones, I really do, but his attitude toward Tarantino is beyond me.
But I guess it’s naive to expect anything else from an actor who has starred in “Dredd” and is currently doing “The Boys”. From his POV, that level of Tarantino violence is the new gold standard of modern productions. Trying to wrap my head around it but I’m not sure whether I like that development or not…

He is an actor he wants to work. However, he should be careful because 1) Tarantino already attacked Pegg for defending him when he said he couldn’t do pulp fiction in space and he is a fan 2) Urban is disappointed by his secondary character role but Tarantino might give him even less since he already said that it was a waste jj had to give characters like Mccoy something to do too. Tarantino only cares about Kirk and some Spock. Full stop. He doesn’t care about the ensemble of the enterprise family. Urban, Cho, Pegg..they better not take for granted he wants them too, he might replace most of the secondary roles with original characters played by his fav actors.

I’d say that most of them are actors that would like to have the caché of having been in a Tarantino ‘art’ film.

Whether it’s about perceived esteem, or increasing their scope of future roles, it seems certain that they’re doing a different calculus…

The one in this group that actually has art film credentials is Shatner.

Very few seem to remember that he started out as a classical actor who moved down from Canada and was favourably reviewed in 50s Film Noir roles.

He might like to be in a Tarantino film to remind people of that, but he has absolutely nothing to prove.

We have no idea that Roddenberry wouldn’t be very happy with an opportunity to make an R Trek. It could really appeal to a creator who had felt years of studios and censors. What if an R rated Trek was like Das Boot? That would be something. Or The Hunt for Red October? Or the novel about the submarine and nuclear war fare…?

“Red October” was PG. “Das Boot” and “Crimson Tide” were R though.

To much is being made of what Roddenberry would have thought of an R rated movie. QT’s trademark is gratuitous violence, but if QT could work in some gratuitous (female) nudity, or played out Kirk/Chapel bumping uglies in some bizarre wish fulfillment segment, I suspect GR would have given that rated R Trek an erect third thumb up. Way up.

Beyond violence, his trademark is witty dialogue and perhaps nonlinear storytelling. In every film, especially films like Jackie Brown & Django, he literally loves his genre to death. It’s not really that different than Michael Chambon writing Picard.

I guess Urban hadn’t read Tarantino’s old comment where he said you only need Kirk and it’s annoying JJ had to give Mccoy and others something to do too….
After Tarantino’s bitchy reaction over Pegg defending him, I would be extra careful talking about this project.

I guess he didn’t read his latest comments either, where Tarantino doesn’t even understand what happened in these movies and that they are an alternate reality.
You gotta be truly desperate to even want to give that guy the keys.

Tarrantino doesn’t understand anything about Star Trek. That much is clear from all his interviews. The last thing that should happen would be for him to help a Trek fan. He’d botch it out of a lack of understanding of what matters.

He has admitted he only liked trek better than star wars because he likes Shatner. He doesn’t seem to care about space and, you know, everything that makes trek different from his movies.
The fact he has so much troubles getting the parallel reality thing makes me question, alone, how he can even appreciate the first movie or episodes from the other series.

I don’t think a trek director must be Stephen Hawkings but experience isn’t optional when making a movie in a genre like this. You gotta be at least a bit curious about..space.

The only thing clear is no real update. Sounds like QT is backing away from it now & still not spoken to Paramount about this project. Shatner comments are just the usual deflecting away from the subject he probably knows more than he is letting on if he met QT about this a while ago.

I took Shatner’s comments as a QT movie wouldn’t happen and he was joking around knowing it’s too far fetched.

Yeah, this isn’t happening. If the CBS/Viacom merger is real, no one is spending any major money on something ‘in development’ until fresh management looks it over. That could be years away.

Yup, my sense is that Tarantino is just talking it up in the hopes it will be harder to kill, or to keep it from being buried in the post-merger project review.

It’s pretty classic pre merger tactics when it’s not friendly.

It’s more than a bit offside for a friendly merger that’s citing the benefits of joining together Trek IP.

My antennae are reading this as a situation wherein Tarantino knows or has been told that his ideas for a Trek movie are off-brand and not financially viable.

So, he’s trying to make the case that he can get the stars (Pine, Shatner, Pitt) to make a Trek feature when Paramount management has recently failed.

My sense is that the new megabusiness management will not appreciate Tarantino’s attempt to negotiate in public.

I’m imagining a Dead Space type of movie for a QT Star Trek.

Only Shatner role I see working in a Tarantino directed film, is it being a combination of Mirror Universe and Time Travel. MU to give us a villain in Emperor Tiberius who bands together a “Wild Bunch-style” crew of aged cutthroats, aiming to conquer the regular Star Trek universe…

And time-travel so they clash with a Kirk, Spock, Bones etc played by the J.J. Abrams cast.

Maybe have strong ties to “In a Mirror, Darkly” with Enterprise-cast cameos that should’ve happened on Discovery’s return to the MU.

All the QT haters have you seen his current film in theaters? “Once Upon A Time In Hollywood” is a very soft R movie. It almost felt like PG-13 and not your typical QT blood and gore fest. I think any Trek film is better than no Trek film, and since the film side of the franchise is dead right now why not? I’m 100% behind him getting to do a movie and so are all the Trek actors.

Back when this possibility first arose, I was entirely averse to Tarantino Trek giving the nearly cartoonish trend of his films since “Jackie Brown.” However after seeing “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” my stance has softened considerably. His latest film is so much more mature in tone and pacing, I wonder what kind of job he might do with science fiction.

It seems apparent to me Tarantino is certainly an “actor’s director,” someone who relates well to his actors and coaxes their best performances from them. If the project doesn’t happen, then so be it but it might not be as bad as I once feared.

He is such an actor’s director that he’ll put your life in danger for a scene or spit on or strangle you personally to make it more authentic.
Oh right, that’s what he does to actresses, you said actors. I guess he treats guys good.

Well, I heard about that story where William Friedkin had to fire a gun to get the reaction he wanted from one of his actors in The Exorcist and Werner Herzog also got to go to some lengths to get what he wanted so Tarantino is not the only director who can sometimes go to extremes.I know its not nice behavior. In the end it is up to people to decide whether we can separate the person from his/her art.

His success and the fact certain people give him a pass isn’t surprising to me. He is the hero of those who need a hero like him to feel validated. I have no respect for those who defend this guy.

I’m finding it difficult to believe that there are still so many who will defend directors who pressure and risk their actors, especially women, on the basis of ‘the end justifies the means’ in the name of art.

There are already several questions around Tarantino that give one pause, particularly concerning Uma Thurman.

Yes, there is a long history of art directors abusing their power, and female actors having little ability to resist.

Alfred Hitchcock injured his leading lady Tippy Hedron, by hurtling real live birds at her to make The Birds realistic.

He also notably brought her daughter a Barbie in a coffin that had a specially-made likeness of Hedron’s head and face. Melanie Griffith (the daughter) hasn’t held back on letting the world know what it was like to be a child in Hollywood with her mother in Hitchcock’s power.

Or how Hitchcock was able to enforce is ‘you’ll never work again in this town’ threat to Hedron when she refused to continue to work for him, and discontinued their romantic relationship.

With MeToo, one would hope that both audiences and producers would ask questions and not turn a blind eye in the name of art.

two wrongs don’t make a right, indeed.
Roddenberry was problematic too because he was still a guy from the 60s..

Tarantino has issues and his exploitative “art” is an expression of them too. At best, he uses the genre as a means to get a pass on all the problematic things he wants to say or do.

People shouldn’t use Uma Thurman’s own reticence in being too much against the guy to win points and justify his behavior, either. It was still wrong and honestly, he’s too powerful and Uma cannot afford getting black listed. It is no coincidence it took her ages to even talk about it.

Good on you to have mentioned Roddenberry Jemini.

While Roddenberry was in many ways forward-looking in his vision of what women could achieve, the reality of his relationships with more than one of the TOS women actors has to give one pause.

No, I’m not giving a pass on that either.

One of the things that I really respect about Kurtzman is that he’s not only reported to be a decent guy himself, he’s made a place for Jenny Lumet after her MeToo revelation, and seems supportive of Anthony Rapp in his.

Yeah, people don’t want to hear it but Roddenberry was no saint. Kate Mulgrew recently got attacked for mentioning how misogynistic tos was but she told no lies. Just ask Dc Fontana or Gene’s personal assistant. .. he was contradictory because on one hand, he wanted to include female characters as equals but he was still sexist, he still saw them as eye candy only and he still thought women shouldn’t captain a spaceship. Even in terms of the lgbt he admitted he had been a homophobe, and you could tell what was his perception when commented the slash subculture saying that the bros could have a sexual relationship if that (men doing that) were the ‘style’ in the future. Perfect example of someone who wants to sound open minded but he actually erases lgbt people with that comment. You cannot hide ignorance.
I can contextualize tos because those were the 60s, but nowadays people should do better and they can do better.

I think we’re in the same place on this Jemini.

I too can appreciate where Roddenberry was ahead of his generation, while acknowledging where he was not.

50 years later, the goal posts have thankfully moved.

Tarantino unfortunately seems behind in terms of Trek values.

Correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe that all the actors making public statements about how much they would like to be in a Tarantino Trek film are straight white males.

Doesn’t that tell us something?

Well I have never heard Pam Grier, Zoe Bell or Sam Jackson saying anything bad about Tarantino. Do you really think these guys would have continued to work with Tarantino if he was the monster everyone is making him out to be. Maybe he is a bit eccentric and a little too obsessed with movies, but he certainly makes films that make a sound. I think the biggest problem he has is that he is a too old school style filmmaker and is not willing to change to “adapt” to more “modern” styles, in terms of both in front and behind the scenes of film making.

Yeah, who can forget the travesty he foisted on Pam Grier for “Jackie Brown,” huh? Or Lucy Liu in “Kill Bill,” or Jennifer Jason Leigh, or Bridget Fonda, or Roseanna Arquette, or Margot Robbie, or Kerry Washington. That must be why Thurman was cool with her daughter working for Tarantino in this last flick.

I thought it was supposedly “un-woke” to use the term “actress” these days.

Exactly. QT doesn’t always have to make curse-filled bloodfests, and “Once Upon a Time…” proves that. I don’t think he has any intention of destroying Star Trek since he is a fan of the franchise.

The JJverse actors would just be in it for the money, not for the love of Trek. Walk away from this wreck.

Pegg and Urban are major lifelong Trek fans, and Cho has become one as well. So… no, you’re wrong.

Money speaks louder. Seems like when a regular ST IV doesn’t look like it would happen, then why not start backing a QT Trek?

…Because Tarantino’s films have never made the kind of revenue that would cover the cost of sci-fi special effects.

His most recent film only cost US$90 million.

It was one of his best openings ever, but only has US$100 million in domestic revenue to date. International revenue is US$7.7 million.

That’s less than Star Trek Beyond domestically after 4 weeks. It’s also noteworthy that Beyond relied on international revenue to get in the black.

The money isn’t there for Tarantino Trek, and I haven’t heard anyone on this board who can make a profitable business case for it.

I think it’s just where the buzz is, so there’s hope of a paycheck. Shatner knows the real fans won’t go for it. The only way it could fit into the Trek universe and have any hope is the mirror universe. I could see that if it were done right.

The term “haters” is such teenage drivel.

Haven’t seen it, those I’ve talked to who have hated it, for a variety of reasons. Even assuming it’s a masterpiece, it’s shaping up to be about 150MM in worldwide revenue on a 90MM budget. If Paramount wasn’t thrilled with the performance of the previous three Trek movies, all that performed better the what OUATIH will, they aren’t about to turn QT loose on what won’t even be a break even project for them.

Hey, QT movie would be cheap. I mean, it must be when you don’t need to show spaceships and scenes in space…

People are often snobbish when it comes to movies in this genre but truth is, they are hard work and not everyone can have the competence required. Nor the passion.
I think QT issues don’t end with the fact he doesn’t get the alternate reality thing, though that alone is a big issue.

In a vacuum, QT just wanting to tell a story with this group of characters without being bogged down with canon BS is understandable. Let someone else worry about that. He’s not in that vacuum, he is damaged goods because of his ‘look the other way’ approach to Weinstein, suppressed misogamy, and having an interest in a tech heavy movie that’s out of his wheelhouse. Never mind that he’s not getting a dime over 80MM for a project others insist can’t be made for twice that. Someone else pointed out, that it looks like QT is pleading his case to the press, as this is starting to smell like the studio has probably told him that his treatment, as it stands, isn’t viable with this franchise and isn’t getting made without substantial concessions on his part.

I agree with that observation. QT Trek is dead.

Just let Tarantino do this one-off bonkers balls-to-the-wall Inglorious Basterds In Space. We’ll have some fun and a few laughs and then return to canon.

I just want another movie the Pine cast and it seems the only way we might get one is with Tarantino. He definitely wouldn’t be my first choice, but better him than no movie.

I think something that most people don’t seem to be addressing in this “another movie” controversy is that the popularity of the TV resurgence went back to a prime universe setting. The Kelvin universe just totally fizzled out after the first movie.
So many of these directors want to do a version of a franchise in their own styles and forget that it’s not about making a pieçe of a much larger franchise “your own” but to add to the collective body of works while giving the public what they want. If you just want to make art for the sake of self-expression, don’t do it on the backs of something with an established history.


I was into this concept initially, but the more I hear about it the more reservations I have.

I’m willing to give a QT Trek movie a chance.

Also, I’m puzzled by Shatner’s comment about Nimoy in ST (2009).

It sounds like he understands that it was a prequel, but he doesn’t understand that Nimoy was playing Spock from the future.

I’m sure he didn’t watch it. Shatner has said many times that he never watches any Star Trek TV shows or films–not even the ones he himself is in.

Yep, people forget that but he isn’t a trek fan. He supports the thing he was into, but by choice he never watched it.

Pick Hard & Jemini, it’s not a matter of being a fan or not, Shatner never watches anything he’s performed in.

He’s said he can’t stand seeing himself on screen.

But not having watched TOS, it’s not surprising that he hasn’t watched other Trek series or movies.

He does not sound that interested in playing Abramsverse Older Kirk in the Kelvin timeline. He could not be Kirk Prime since he only exists as an echo in the Nexus as Shatner’s 1994 self.

I have to say, I just got back from “Once Upon A Time in Hollywood” and was absolutely astounded. He manages to play with a lot of the conventions of 60’s film making, but does it in such a twisted and provocative fashion that the film really captures the whole vibe in a lot of fun and interesting ways. I told my wife that this is the most *interesting* film I’ve seen in a long time. I am now extremely interested and optimistic about what he may have in mind for a Star Trek film.

Brad Pitt’s enchanter with the Manson family at the Spahn Ranch was very eerie. It reminded me of Kirk and company scouting around an alien planet where you knew a menace was lurking, but not sure what form it would take (e.g., “Operation: Annihilate!”). I’d love to see Tarantino’s take on the ethos and aesthetics of TOS.

That was the EXACT scene i had in mind when writing my comment!

I also got a “Miri” kind of vibe from that part.

Definitely. That scene with all of the Mansonoids standing around like zombies as Brad Pitt speeds away was chilling.

That should read “Brad Pitt’s encounter with the Manson family”, not “enchanter”. Autocorrect has been having some fun.


I loved it! Watching a really well-made, thoughtful movie by a filmmaker with something to say is such a stark contrast to the vast majority of movies made. During the first 10 or 15 minutes of ONCE UPON A TIME…, I actually thought to myself how well QT had done the exposition of DiCaprio’s character. He gave us the character’s inner struggle and outward goal in an entertaining, often funny style that was remarkable in how neat and seamless it came across. Before you know it, you care about this character, because QT has given the character clear, meaningful motives. And, also, because DiCaprio is a pro who sells it all. But, it’s all such a stark contrast with the Marvel, Star Wars and the Bad Robot Trek type of movies, which have NONE of that kind of character exposition. QT makes it look so easy.

I think that a major part of why QT is so much better at it than the Marvel, Star Wars and BR Trek writers and directors is that QT has something to say, and it’s something thoughtful. I don’t get that impression from those other movies. I get the impression that the studio wants to turn a profit, so they hire writers/directors/producers to exploit some intellectual property that they bought and had no part in creating, whether it’s Marvel, Star Wars or Trek. The studio tells the writers/directors/producers, in essence, We’re making another Trek or Marvel or Star Wars movie, so come up with a reason for the movie to exist. And, that’s why the story sucks. With QT’s movies, he doesn’t make them unless he’s already written an inspired story. That’s the difference, and it totally shows in the finished product.

Your site now has mobile pop up ads.

Many excellent points. Pulp Fiction set on the Enterprise or on Klingon is no better then Toy Story set on Vulcan. As has already been said, the best QT Trek movie would be a Mirror Universe Trek. I should be a TOS movie, but imagine Kirk and crew against Emperor Philippa Georgiou, could include Evil Burnham and Evil Lorca .. Perhaps a movie after Discovery ends on CBS AA

…Kill kirk Vol. 1

QT Mirror Universe is the only way I could see it working.

I think QT is an eccentric having a laugh and Star Trek is caught up in that.
Star Trek, KB III, and some horror movie can’t ALL be his final movie. He’s doing his “keep people guessing what I’ll do next” routine. He doesn’t even seem to understand the basic concept of the alternate timeline. I can understand not getting into the weeds of canon, but it’s only three movies and a fairly simple spin on the material.

I’m not even mad, since the movie side is otherwise dead since Pine walked away from negotiations. At least it gives people something to talk about.

The thing that really has me fascinated and excited is the possibility of the Kelvin cast playing their Prime timeline counterparts.

I realize it’s speculative to even consider this as a sequel to Beyond, but it sounds way too messy and risky to bring back the Kelvin cast to continue a series of films that has largely failed to sustain interest. If he’s going to do a Star Trek film, I’m pretty certain he would want to fill it with actors he wants to work with from scratch. The Kelvin cast and story belongs to other producers. Tarrantino walking in and making a sequel to those films sounds nearly impossible to me.

As for Shatner, I think that ship has sailed.

Star Trek XIV: Wild Bill Runs Wild

No more JJ films we the fans do not waNT ANY MORE ABRAMS FILMS. ITS time for JJ to leave and its time for the movies to move toward The Prime Time Line. If Quentin moves in the Kelvin Time Line we don”t want theme.

Tarantino wouldn’t be my first choice as director, but I don’t mind them doing more movies in the Kelvin timeline. As long as the prime time line is still represented on TV, the movies can go to whatever reality they want.

Just curious, who appointed you spokesperson for the entire flippin fanbase?

I still think that an R-rated Star Trek film is a baaaaaaaaaad idea.

I just saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD and caught another Trek connection in the movie.

Actor Spencer Garrett, who played the persecuted crewman with secret Romulan ancestry, Simon Tarses, in TNG Season 4’s “The Drumhead,” has an entertaining role in QT’s latest film. The actor has kind of a baby-face that hasn’t changed all that much, so I recognized him immediately. Garrett also had a recurring role in the VOYAGER two-parter, “Flesh and Blood.”

Tarantino’s 9th film is a riot, and I’d recommend seeing it in a theater, if you plan on seeing it.

Would like this. Would especially LOVE this if it was not anything to do with the JJ verse. For multiple reasons. Let him do it.

Mirror/Mirror !!!

I’ve said it a thousand quatloos; just put Shatner in a klingon outfit, push him in front of a camera, and turn the camera on.

It would be GLORIOUS!

On one hand, the last thing I want to see is a 90-ish William Shatner running wild through fields of hay. Or any other field.

On the other hand, I’d probably pay good money just to see him onscreen running wild through fields of hay, just for the sheer spectacle.

But please. Not in the nude.

Eric Enderle,

Are you forgetting the man runs a (harness?) racing horse ranch?

What you suppose could, indeed, be some sort of spectacle, either way.