Screenwriter For Quentin Tarantino’s Star Trek Movie Says They “Had So Much Fun” With Kirk

It was three years ago this week that news first broke that Quentin Tarantino pitched a Star Trek movie project to producer J.J. Abrams. This generated two years of buzz, including hype from Paramount brass, and actors from Patrick Stewart to William Shatner raising their hands for parts.

With Tarantino busy with Once Upon a Time… In Hollywood, screenwriter Mark L. Smith (The Revenant) was tapped to write a script for Tarantino’s Trek, which he did. However by the end of 2019, the buzz died down when Tarantino indicated he had “steered away,” from directing the project. But this summer Tarantino’s Trek was reported to be “still viable” at Paramount, and now the screenwriter is dropping some hints about the script.

Mark L. Smith talks Tarantino Star Trek… and Kirks

Not much has been confirmed about the film. Tarantino has described it as “Pulp Fiction in space,” and it is intended to be R-rated. And that report in the summer hinted the film would be tied into the classic mobster-themed Star Trek episode “A Piece of the Action.”

Spock and Kirk in TOS episode “A Piece of the Action”

Speaking to SFX Magazine about penning the new George Clooney Netflix sci-fi movie Midnight Sky, Mark L. Smith also talked a little about the Tarantino Trek project, at first contrasting it with the Clooney film:

“I wrote a Star Trek with Tarantino, and that was a sci-fi script on which I could have fun and lean into some bigger, broader things.”

While SFX didn’t press Smith on details from his script, some sense of his approach can be gleaned from when he talked about his level of Star Trek fandom:

“I’m more a casual fan. But I was always much more Star Trek than Star Wars. There was something about the characters and the relationships. I could get so invested in the friendships, and the dynamics between them, that I was drawn to all the different Star Trek iterations: The Next Generation, all those things. The characters were so deep, and had so many levels and layers. The relationships all felt real, and something I could relate to.”

And when asked the venerable “Kirk or Picard?” question, he dropped another clue about Tarantino Trek:

“I love Picard. And Kirk is always just so fun. Tarantino and I had so much fun with him, because Kirk is just William Shatner, y’know? It’s like: you’re not sure who is who, so you can kinda lean into that! Because you watch Chris Pine and he’s playing Kirk, but he’s also playing William Shatner a touch.”

William Shatner and Chris Pine as James T. Kirk

Smith’s comment is as close as we have got to a confirmation that the Tarantino film would include James T. Kirk as a character. Of course, it isn’t entirely clear which Kirk he is talking about. He mentions both William Shatner’s Kirk Prime and Chris Pine’s Kelvin Kirk. Last year Tarantino admitted “I don’t get it” when it comes to the Prime and Kelvin timelines. Quentin is an avowed fan of both actors, but Shatner is his first love, as he explained last year:

I love William Shatner as James T. Kirk. That’s why I like Star Trek. The reason I like Star Trek more than I like Star Wars is: William Shatner is not in Star Wars…William Shatner as James T. Kirk, that is my connection. That is why I liked it…So the reason I was actually intrigued by the J.J. Abrams version of it is because I thought Chris Pine did a fantastic job, not just playing Captain Kirk, but playing William Shatner’s captain.

Could Tarantino’s “bananas” Trek work?

It wouldn’t be surprising if the Tarantino project, which Karl Urban once called “bananas,” has room for both Kirks, and maybe other actors and/or characters from both the Kelvin and Prime Universes. It is almost certainly not going to be the next Star Trek film to come from Paramount, but if the studio can successfully get the franchise going again on the big screen, it could be an interesting addition to the Trek universe, even if it doesn’t exactly tie in with what is going on with other films or TV shows.

Both the DC and Marvel film franchises are having success with films that aren’t tied into their main universes, so why not Star Trek? And Trek has actually dabbled in this before. One of the greatest episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” takes place primarily in an alternative universe. And in 2015, two years before his project even started at Paramount, Quentin Tarantino cited “Yesterday’s Enterprise” as an example of a Star Trek episode that could work as a feature film.

Tarantino sees feature film potential in “Yesterday’s Enteprise”

ICYMI: Nerdist vision of Tarantino Trek

Three years ago, the folks at Nerdist had some fun with the idea of Tarantino Trek. Check it out.

More from Smith in SFX

To get the full interview with Mark L. Smith and more, pick up the latest issue of SFX Magazine.

 


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

106 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

That new Dalek looks pretty cool.

Yep. Can’t wait for New Year’s Day! What better way to ring in the new, not 2020, year!

Where’s the plunger?

Helen on Truth Seekers nabbed it for her cosplay.

Somehow I had not seen that Nerdist’s video. That was fantastic! However, as much fun as a movie like that might be, it would make for a terrible Star Trek movie.

Why would it be a terrible movie , you haven’t seen the script,have you ? So what should Paramount do play it safe like they always do action ,action zero story. What made Trek good in the first place was it was so different the stories were so different for it’s time.Please if they make any other Trek movie then this one you will be the first to bitch. Question what kind of Star Trek movie would you make. I’m waiting.

Wow, lighten up dude, that was an unexpected comment. I was commenting on a silly fan made trailer, not an actual movie or actual script. The trailer was fun, but its focus on guns, violence and sex isn’t exactly in Star Trek’s MO (not that I don’t enjoy those things – as for the record I very much enjoy Tarantino’s movies). Star Trek movies SHOULDN’T be all about the action, and that is what this FAN made trailer was all about.

Last edited 4 months ago by noraa

At this point I suspect all these writers suddenly coming forward are test balloons by a studio utterly clue- and helpless as to what could be the next Trek movie that doesn’t bomb!

The biggest problem with a new Trek movie is simply that Trek has never been designed for big blockbuster events, which is what Paramount wants out of Star Trek. The highest rated of all the Trek movies is Wrath of Khan, which had a shoe string budget (relatively speaking). If Paramount could let go of wanting Trek to be their tent pole movie franchise, I think we could actually get some really good movies. The universe is so massive the movies could be standalone stories with different crews doing different things.

Spot-on Noraa.

Star Trek could work well for movies IF the studio realized that it can’t be an “action-packed” blockbuster, but rather a thoughtful, intelligent, cerebral piece of art. There can be a LITTLE BIT of action, let there be one or two short scenes. Imagine some of the best episodes, especially the 2-3 parter ones. If they built something like that out, made the story more immense in terms of the stakes, but then filmed it like a well done batch of episodes, they could create something great. Think of Time’s Arrow. Think of Homefront/Paradise Lost. There could be a great story if it’s built up! Bit they’ll never do it because they think people only like stupid action movies.

I suspect that cerebral Trek movies would do best as straight-to-streaming productions.

The thing about it is that ViacomCBS could put arty, cerebral Trek limited 6 part series or movies on its own P Plus AND license it to a curated streamer like Prime.

It could be a was to get critical recognition, round out the universe, attract a different kind of viewer, and draw audience back to their own platforms.

Given CBS’ continued push into streaming and the upcoming Paramount+ streaming service, that would make a lot of sense. As such, don’t expect it to happen :p

Well the way it’s going you may have your wish. WB is sending all there movies to HBO and that includes future movies. They believe movie theaters are dead and won’t come back. AMC begs to differ. And once this virus is under control I’m sure WB will change their minds.But for now streaming it is.So are you saying young people of today are incapable of a cerebral Star Trek film? Cause if you are that part of your comment might be worth rethinking.

Wow, you’ve certainly decided that I’m an old stick in the mud LOL.

I don’t think age was ever mentioned. Just because I think that directors who choose to play in a franchise sandbox should respect what’s already been done doesn’t make me rigid.

There’s lots of ways to play in a multiverse without wrecking the toys for other creatives, which is basically what we’re talking about in respecting continuity (canon) in the existing timelines.

Yes, I’m aware of what WB’s doing, and also conscious of how some of the independent cinemas that show art films have been closing due to Covid.

In terms of a younger audience, it’s more that streaming has been successful in attracting audiences to diverse and niche products (movies, limited series, documentaries). Films that would have been only seen at festivals and in in-house theatres are now accessible anywhere and can find and build audiences.

Perhaps it’s because it’s easier to take a risk and experiment from home or because the distribution system for theatres relies heavily on mass market products, but it seems clear that through streaming audience is becoming more open to different types of niche products.

What the solution is for theatres is yet to be seen, but it appears that Paramount is fixated on tent-pole movies for the medium term.

I rather watch movies at home. I’m never going to the movies again.

Agreed, but for some reason Paramount (and a lot of movie studios for that matter) often equate sci-fi with action. Quite the opposite is often true though, as some of the best sci-fi movies are cerebral and not action packed. At the same time, a blockbuster also doesn’t need to be purely action packed, you can make a thought provoking movie that also contains action (see Christopher Nolan movies).

Paramount has always tried to make Trek into a big action-packed sci-fi adventure, I don’t see that suddenly changing.

I have read some great comments here. The problem is they never listen. Were just fans we know nothing , let us ( them) make the movies and you buy the tickets lol.Remember these guys live in a bubble and their out of touch. And people that run Paramount really don’t care about Star Trek.The last guy that cared about Trek and was head of Paramount was Alan Ladd jr.We got Star Trek 3 and 4 and Nimoy as director.Ladd wasn’t a super Trek fan but he saw the importance of Trek and trusted Nimoy as director.And Ladd got a lot of push back trusting Nimoy with Trek until 4 came out then everybody was Ladd’s friend, sounds like Washington DC lol.Star trek 4 is considered second to Star Trek 2.To me it’s almost a tie because 4 had everything humor a great story and the cast seem to be having fun doing it. But what do we know.

Agreed, This sounds like a interesting script but I wish they would forget Kirk and Spock and move on.Those characters are worn out and done.I mean there doing it on TV right now with Discovery and Lower decks and as much as some fans hate Discovery at least it’s a new crew new stories and different. I suggest Paramount should let The Trek movie part go and let CBS take over.Instead of sitting on Star trek let some else take over. But that’s there fear. If they let someone else handle Trek and they do it better ( which is a low bar right now) well they lose out.

There’s a lot of merit in the idea of sending the features over to CBS Studios Thomas Vinelli.

In fact, I’m wondering if the Paramount lead on cinematic features is an obstacle to doing made-for-TV or made-for-streaming Star Trek movies or limited series.

Seriously, it would be great if they could let CBS figure out a way to make movies without all the Trek movie tropes and clichés that Lower Decks rightly satired in 109 “Crisis Point.”

Well we do agree on this one! The question of course if post-pandemic and the changing cinematic landscape this past decade, with rise of high stakes, high profit streaming it still requires cinema to make such a movie or if it would thrive more in all respects as a limited series for the same budget.

No one is going to pay to see a boring Trek movie.

Just call it a non-cannonical “What If?” sort of movie and let Tarantino go hog wild with it.

Or just place it in its own universe like the other of millions that suppose to already in Star Trek. That way it can still feel connected to the franchise but separate at the same time.

That would take all the fun out it and would make the movie useless in my oppinion. It is like saying Inglorious Basterds would make more sense in a fictitous country instead of Nazi Germany, because of historical inaccuracies but therefore losing all context.

Godwin called and he wants his unfitting analogies back!

(I know, I know, look who’s talking! :D)

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

Yes, you” re the proof that you can break a law without understanding it. Mine was a perfectly fitting analogy, with no regards to Godwin”s law. Tarantino’s movies show that he can pay tribute and evelate a certain genre by understandings it from the heart. For a long time I have not seem a American director who understands German culture like Tarantino. I would love him to do the same thing for Star Trek.

You didnt HAVE to bring in Hitler/Nazis as an example though and that’s what Godwin is about.

And actually I was not even breaking it because it does not apply when the writers literally established Space Hitler committed multiple holocausts. They just didn’t use that word but genocide. And Hitler arguably wrote the book on that, whatever you call it. Let’s not quibble over semantics ;)

P.S. Did you just say Tarantino understands German culture because he makes Nazi movies? Is that why you guys want to eradicate that culture and replace it by whatever Middle East / African is the cultural fetish DU JOUR? Asking for a friend ;)

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

There is a difference between making a joke and trolling. I took your first post as a joke, but if you further want to dicuss on a racist base, I’m out.

I was asking questions, as always, unimpeded by political correctness and other ideological barriers. And decline is measurable, ad hominens notwithstanding.

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

“ P.S. Did you just say Tarantino understands German culture because he makes Nazi movies? Is that why you guys want to eradicate that culture and replace it by whatever Middle East / African is the cultural fetish DU JOUR? Asking for a friend ;)”

Vulcan Soul you should seriously consider changing your username considering the number of racists and homophobic posts you make. Perhaps Changling Soul would be more fitting given their obvious racism and their superiority complex.

I’m only interested in the objective big picture, not alleged, subjective offenses, and anyone looking at the past 10, 20 years and not feeling shocked, troubled, confused by so much unnecessary, self-inflicted decline is not looking at it with a clear mind.

So no, no username change required, on the contrary :)

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

Shocked, troubled and confused by what exactly?

I think you also have forgotten that in-universe, emotional humans have always accused unflinchingly logical Vulcans of the things you say so if the shoe fits I wear it proudly ;)

You didn’t answer my question – shocked, troubled and confused by what exactly?

You still haven’t answered my question – shocked, troubled and confused by what exactly? Your silence is somewhat telling.

DECLINE. And I got better things to do when playing defense for strangers who insult me online because they feel the need to kill the messenger telling them THEIR COUNTRIES are going down, with great regret and not ‘sense of superiority’. Ain’t my fault ;)

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

*sigh* That was hardly an answer, though I guess I didn’t really expect to get a real answer.

My “insults” (and calling some racist or homophobic isn’t an insult when their words reflect those mindsets) are based on a collection of your posts, but I honestly don’t know what your true viewpoints actually are, which is why I asked for you to clarify.

Alas, you don’t seem interested, which is a real shame as being fans of Star Trek, one of the many tenants is to be able to have discussions about topics we have fundamental disagreements on.

You can start with looking at the West’s utter inability to rein in the pandemic because of a corrupted understanding of “freedom” and the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many (aka “the greater good”). Being unable to make tough restrictions of individual rights for the short term to guarantee long term survival of all. It helps to remember that the West that revolutionized human history was a fundamentally different place than societies today, and such divided societies have never proven to be sustainable in the long term. It’s an unprecedented experiment, and one we have seen every indication for is failing.

As for having discussions on disagreements, your ad hominens are self-defeating as they preclude these very discussions. In fact, that is a sign of believing to hold a position of moral superiority and the only possible truth. When it is scientifically disputed something like “non-binary” even exists as a distinct physical condition and there are many vastly different stances on immigration around the world, even and especially among your allies such as Japan, you can, in Archer’s words, take your prejudices against different ideas and bury them! :)

Last edited 4 months ago by Vulcan Soul

See, I actually 100% agree with your first paragraph. The west, and especially the U.S. has absolutely failed in combating this pandemic – and a lot of that has to do with the idea of “personal freedom” (or as I like to put it – the little kid yelling at the top of his lungs “you can’t tell me what to do!”). There is an absolute decline in western culture for a plethora of reasons – but your opinion that these declines are based on sexual identity (such as transgender and non-binary) is where we run into an issue.

And your final line is rather ironic when you refuse to recognize non-binary as an actual thing (i.e. you are prejudice against different ideas…).

“That would take all the fun out it and would make the movie useless in my oppinion. It is like saying Inglorious Basterds would make more sense in a fictitous country instead of Nazi Germany, because of historical inaccuracies but therefore losing all context.”

A. You do realize that Star Trek and all the planets it visits outside of Earth are already fiction, right?

B. How is it ‘useless’ if you are just moving your story to another fictional universe, with all the same places and characters as the other one?

I guess I don’t really understand this argument? Especially because I keep hearing Tarantino just wants to make a cool one off movie with no real attachment to the other movies or shows. Fine, but since it’s not going to go beyond this one project, it won’t be anything but a side story anway (and probably another reason Paramount isn’t exactly begging him to do it). It just make sense to treat it as such and make it clear that’s all it is. Sort of like how The Joker was originally supposed to be without tying it to the DC properties (but then it made a billion dollars, so I’m guessing they now plan to make it a trilogy and multiple spin offs ;)). This would just be the same idea.

This would just be, forgive me, the best of both worlds. It gives Tarantino to make whatever he wanted without worrying how could he squeeze in Kirk’s Andorian daughter in the movie and does it without wrecking 50 years of Trek canon that every other writer will have to try and clean up after it.

And it’s way too late to throw Enterprise 1000 years into the future to explain it away later. ;)

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

I’m not quite sure if I understood you right. I thought you meant the script should be transfered into an other universe like they did with The Orville. That has no appeal for me. I would prefere a What If scenario, like we have with Adam West,- Tim Burton- or Nolan -Batman. I can enjoy all of these. If that is what you meant, we are on the same page. But something what is only a Kirk or Batman knock off I have no interest in

Tiger2 and I are saying that Tarantino should have his own “Tarantino Universe” in the Star Trek multiverse.

It can be its own thing like the Mirror Universe or the Kelvin Universe.

But DO NOT let Tarantino mess up and rework canon in the Prime Universe where there are already 4 separate established eras on television, especially when there is a new 24th century prequel series about to go into production with Anson Mount as Pike.

I full heartedly agree with that. I want to see Tarantino Trek, but it should not have consequences for canon. It should strictly be its own thing like you said.

Another one lol. You guys talk about canon like it’s some new cult,God. You want to get real good Trek, the hell with canon it gets in the way.

Come on do you really think anybody cares about canon anymore. Do you really think when they were doing TOS they even thought of canon?No they about ratings, money. I’m so sick of canon. Canon has got Trek nowhere. As well as canon got Star Wars anywhere. It’s pure b.s.Nobody cares except hardcore Trek fans who the masses don’t care.Get over yourselfs or as the Shat said in the day ”get a life”

No I didn’t mean anything like that. It would still be firmly in the Trek universe, just not the Prime (or Kelvin) universe, that’s all. As TG47 already said it just be part of the Trek multiverse and they can call it the Tarantino universe if they want, just keep it seperate from the rest of canon.

But yeah all this is moot anyway since it’s clearly not happening.

I agree that it is unlikely to happen for different reasons. I just don’t want, that one reason is fans being to closeminded to allow anything to happen which is new, different and risky.

I am all for something different and new. Hell, I’m begging for it.

The irony about this project though, at least based on every rumor we heard, it’s not really ‘new’ at all. It just sounds like more nostalgia bait based directly off a remake or a sequel to an old TOS episode; but using the Kelvin actors as stand ins for the original TOS characters which sounds even stranger.

I understand you want to use the TOS characters but at least come up with an original story with them. And I still don’t get why they just can’t be the same Kelvin characters as they are?

I’m much more interested in Noah Hawley’s idea because it sounds like it’s using brand new characters in the movies (a first) and an actual original storyline. That sounds like taking a real risk and sadly probably why it was rejected as well.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

I think if you take emphasis on the Star Trek part of a Star Trek movie, then Hawley would clearly make the better movie, but if you take emphasis on the movie part then Tarantino would lead. Tarantino obviously has no deep knowledge of Star Trek but he is brilliant intuitiv.

Both of those could be true of course. And obviously as fans we want them both, a good movie AND a good Star Trek movie. Those two haven’t always been mutually exclusive though lol.

At this point, I think most of us just want ANY Star Trek movie to happen. I’m not fond of the Tarantino idea but obviously I would still go and watch it; it’s just not my first preference (or second or third if I’m being honest). And of course it could end up great. I’m only going on very scarce details so far but for me literally NONE of it sounds very enticing. The more I hear the less I want it to happen lol. But if they made it, I would definitely go see it and judge it on my own.

But it’s just funny, now all the ‘news’ we are getting about these movies lately is just the writers talking about what could’ve been essentially if they got a green light. Four years on since Beyond, three scripts, 100 different news stories about them and not a single project greenlit yet…and Star Trek’s 55th birthday is next year. You figure if there was a time to make it happen, it would be happening already.

I been saying this for literally two years now, Paramount is clearly in no rush to make another movie and two years later, that seems much more obvious today. Thank Kahless we will now be getting six more Star Trek shows probably in the next two years instead.

And for me, I would take the shows over a movie every time anyway. I don’t know if I want another Kelvin movie with yet another uber-villain showing up from a different century ready to wreak havoc on the Federation once again. Been there and done that literally three times now. ;)

Your right now that you said that. They could do it and forget the Kirk and Spock thing.Get a new crew and actors and try that. Paramount was interested in it for awhile so yeah same old same old.The risk of Paramount green lighting something different is zero ,they will play it safe again and they would be wrong.Remember these guys don’t think like we do .It’s all about money ,money and more money.The Irony is playing it safe is why the last 2 Treks didn’t make the money at the box office.

Yes we fully agree on this. And for the record I don’t have an issue with using Kirk and Spock again, but if you’re going to do it at least do something freaking new with them!!! Kirk dropping F bombs is not my definition of ‘new’. And since all the All Access shows now do it, it’s not even a huge deal anymore. I’m surprised Spock didn’t just tell Michael to fuck off in Discovery last season. That would’ve made it into a meme lol.

But I don’t think Paramount is into this idea at all because it wouldn’t really expand the base in any major way. We’ll all show up and some of the Tarantino fans but it’s not going to drive a lot of casual or new fans to see it if it’s just feels like a movie length TOS episode. That’s literally the same issue Beyond had (of many). If it doesn’t cost that much it will probably make a profit but probably not anywhere Paramount would hope to make.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

But with these cult canon guys Trek will never be anything but what’s it been boring. At least this script sounds like it’s puts a little fire under the ass of Star Trek moving forward.

Based on what we know (or think we know) the movie would be a one off story remaking a 54 year old episode from TOS with the same 54 year old characters. How is that remotely ‘moving forward’?

It just sounds like what it is, nostalgia bait for TOS fans, just with a Tarantino flare to it. It can’t feel any less ‘forward’ if you tried. I wouldn’t be shocked he found a way to get Shatner in there, making it even more clear it’s not remotely moving forward in the least.

I don’t know how you feel about Discovery, but this season is about moving forward, in every sense of the word.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

Agreed like they did with TOS back in the day.

Setting aside for the moment that this ship sailed a long time ago, if the movie making gods moved heaven and earth and green lit this tomorrow, Shatner would be 92ish at the start of principle photography. This is interesting conversation, but there’s no universe where this would be talked about like it’s a viable project.

CGI!

The jury is still out on reanimating dead actors. I’d not even venture a guess at how awful CGI’ing a 92 year old Shatner into action sequences would look…..

who caes, it’s not like this movie’ll ever be made

You care, or else you wouldn’t have responded. Those who respond “Who cares?” never seem to get that.

Why theatrical? Why not a TV Movie for Paramount+ with QT’s script and Hawley’s script to be adapted for the rebranded Paramount Movie Channel on Cable? (or either/or for Showtime?) I think people would be willing to accept another set of actors for the classic cast (I think Ethan Peck as the 3rd “official” Spock proved that…) if need be.

STAR TREK 2 and 3 proved you can do quality TREK on a lower budget. Look what Hulu is throwing at THE ORVILLE for season 3! :)

Last edited 4 months ago by Herb Flynn

I remember when “Yesterday’s Enterprise” first aired on the original run of TNG. As soon as the episode ended my friends all exclaimed, “ why didn’t Paramount save that script for the first feature film?” If it had been Kirk and Spock who had to go back into the temporal rift to restore history, there wouldn’t have been a dry eye in the theatre. And WHAT a send off it would have been in passing the torch to the next crew!

The Story had just as much resonance without Kirk and Spock.
And the fact that Tasha KNEW that she had died a senseless death in the other timeline, well, even people who aren’t necessarily into Trek can relate to wanting their death to MEAN SOMETHING!

Gary,
That’s plain silly. A mythic and heroic end for characters who have themselves become classics would carry tons more emotional weight — probably with casual viewers as well as fans — than just redeeming a supporting player with a meaningful death. YE works very well, but it could have become unforgettable as a feature with the E-A instead of the E-C.

And for the best of both worlds, you could have kept alt-Yar, had her form an attachment to a TOS regular and accompany the E-A back.

Then again, I also think a suitably tarted-up version of THE CHASE would have been an alternate best feature for TNG folk, but that’s probably more of a genuinely minority view.

I’m glad this film will never be made. It sounds like another misfire in the making.

Treating Kirk and Shatner as one in the same is a critical mistake that stunted Pine’s take on the character in my opinion.

OMG, I have seen that Nerdist video in ages. I forgot how funny it was. That’s definitely the makings of a fun TOS movie!

As far as the potential movie, I soured on the idea long ago, but I definitely would still like to hear what the idea really was since it sounds like it’s not happening now. And I agree with others, why not just put it in its own universe? That was the other problem, it just sounded like it was going to make a mess of canon. Then others said ‘we don’t care about canon, we just want to see a Tarantino Star Trek movie’. That’s why you put it in it’s own universe so Tarantino just do what he wants with it and canon is whatever he wants. ;)

Talking about what’s being discussed in the other thread about Discovery and the Kelvin universe, this is the thing I always wanted in Star Trek, a real multiverse just like what DC is doing with their properties now. They tried to do an MCU with the movies originally, but now they realized they can do one better and just have a multiverse of shows and films and plop whatever they want in those universes or just create something outside of those. And because of the upcoming Flash movie (and the past Crisis on Infinite Earths CW event this year) they are making it very clear that’s what it all is now. I think that’s great because now you can do the CW shows and then you can do something like The Joker and technically they all exist in the same realm. It’s just a fun creative way to make it all fit.

To me this just makes more sense. If people want another TOS show, clearly it’s going to have to be rebooted so why not just do what they did with the Kelvin universe, but this time it’s just really it’s own thing from the beginning? You can do a dozen versions of TOS that way if you want. Same for TNG and whatever else.

So if they did it that way and the Tarantino film would’ve been the first film separate from everything else but still connected, have at it!

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

Star Trek jump the shark.

I guess you hate the Tarantino idea more than I did. But to be fair, we still don’t know the full extent of what it was about or how it was suppose to work.

But yes I thought the idea of pretending Pine is suppose to be Shatner’s Kirk as utterly dumb and would just confuse the concept between Prime and Kelvin even worse. You put it in its own universe, do whatever you want.

Last edited 4 months ago by Tiger2

The problem is that Tarantino clearly wants at least a significant part of the story to take place in the Prime Universe.

Given he’s not likely to want to be obliged to know what’s canon in the Prime Universe, let alone respect it, that’s a hard NO for me.

Could they get Tarantino to agree to brand it as Shatner’s Kirk in another universe? Go figure.

I’m going to be fair here and I don’t know if he REALLY wants it in the Prime universe so much as he wants Shatner’s version of Kirk back. I honestly feel it’s more the latter and he only wants it in Prime because that’s where that Kirk resides. But yeah who knows?

This is all moot now anyway, but we agree it would be a hard no. And again, you would think Tarantino out of all people would want to respect story and character consistency since I highly doubt he would want others to use his characters or story lines from his films any way they want, especially if it’s totally contrary to those movies. The Trek universe should be respected the same way. The beauty of it is it’s such a big sandbox you can add to it whatever you want, but it still has to stay (mostly ;)) consistent of what came before regardless.

And I was thinking how much his idea is kind of an insult to the Kelvin universe and those characters. Both he and the screenwriter praised Pine’s version of Kirk, but apparently don’t believe his direct version of the character is worthy enough to be in his film? I still can’t wrap my head around what exactly happens in the movie that it must be the original version of Kirk? Does he need his dad alive or something?

Again, the whole thing just sounds totally bizarre and weird and really glad it’s not happening.

There’ll be a great documentary one day about how this never got made. Can’t wait!

Sure… You can’t wait!

Whatever. This will never get made!

But the script exists. So the Story is there. The Dialogs, Charakters, all of that.

And how is that different than Hawley’s project?

If it doesn’t make sense for the brand or the market, it doesn’t matter what’s been sunk into the project already.

I think QT name carries more weight right now than Hawley. My concern would be the studio not being concerned about good Trek and just go for the name recognition. Any project he is attached to garners interest and hype. Would have been much more as Director but they may just take what they can get. If they gave him a Producer credit along with a Story by credit it could help the marketing. I really didn’t know Mark L Smith but some may recognize him for The Revenant. Not sure how much of a push that would give it.

Sorry, considering a Haim Saban / Krofft Bros / Golan-Globus grifter named Kurtzman is running your franchise, you really can’t be too precious when actually talented people are interested in contributing. If Tarantino wants to casually dictate an outline of a feature film interpretation of, say, THE LIGHTS OF ZETAR, there’s a decent chance even that will have more merit than the endless procession of Kurtzmanian streaming, steaming slop now offered.

“Mommy can you hear me? Mommy do you love me? Mommy that’s convenient you’re now one of the Romulan nuns from 800 years ago that the other show was just talking about. I saved the day with my mommy’s love. I will solve The Burning and redeem our galaxy with my mommy’s love. Thank you, mommy, but I have lost interest in Starfleet, beyond being its ultimate savior, on account of this mumbling Ali G hottie because he is psionic and has a large cat and is super hot. I will give the Federation my gift of data triangulation, that no one else could ever dream of, but I am so over the Fed in general, and I was able to realize all this because you love me, mommy, even more than Mia Kirshner loves me, mommy. “

You seem to think you have made a point and said something clever.

You have not.

Thanks for saying that Rios.

that project might rescue the franchises’ attempts at the big box. something really new and innovative. or it might become what the ewok films mean for the sw franchise: something you shamefully neglect …
(yes, that new dalek looks really cool)

Star Trek isn’t about violence. I have no doubt that’s the reason they want it to be rated R. No thanks.

The whole “A Piece of the Action” claim is based on a website misconstruing a comment and getting the setting of that episode wrong. Tarantino’s script involved “1930s gangsters,” so people assumed it was “A Piece of the Action”–even though that episode doesn’t take place in the 1930s.

Well, no, but Sigma Iotia’s civilization was based on the book “Chicago Mobs of the Twenties”. So it is a faux-1920s. If Tarantino wants to revisit that planet in the Kelvin Universe, it could be 10 years later and the faux-1930s.

Whenever I hear a writer or director say something like they are a “casual fan” of Star Trek like what Mark Smith states here, it reminds me of Stuart Baird directing Nemesis. I think it matters to be a fan and knowledgeable of the property before getting involved, otherwise we might get someone who thinks Geordi is an alien again.

The writers of Star Trek Vl were both no fans of Star Trek with little understanding and alltough I”m not fond of the movie for that reason most fans seem to disagree with me.

The only case i know where someone knew very little of Star Trek outside of seeing an episode on Television and knowing what it was but wasn’t a fan, and everything worked out was Nicholas Meyer. The problems with Nemesis lie with the script by John Logan and the story by Brent Spiner, not with Baird as director. The film wouldn’t have worked if Frakes had directed it.

Denny Martin Flynn didn’t know squat about TREK either, hence odradek’s TUC remark above yours (I’m no fan of TUC either, I find a lot of it character assassination, though it has somehow grown on me like a comfy jacket down through the years, so I don’t get as incensed by its missteps.)

As much as I agree with you that the NEM script sucked in all sorts of ways (some of them quite fixable if anybody had noticed or demonstrated any taste or intelligence), a marginal movie could still have been made by a deft director. Baird as a feature director was zero-for-three, even with having such a great crutch as Jerry Goldsmith composing for each of those sluggish and downright terrible efforts. How you can make such a mess of a Clancy-like story blows my mind, yet he managed that with EXECUTIVE DECISION, a flick that makes PASSENGER 57 (by ST 5’s screenwriter) seem like Harold Pinter. I actually could not get all the way through either of his previous films without fast-forwarding.

All you have to do is look at that blessedly-cut endless long scene with Picard and Data in Picard’s quarters to see how badly Baird handles characters and camera. He is just about burning film so as to have editorial options, which is true of other editor turned directors (despite some early good work, Roger Spottiswoode’s later efforts fall squarely in this category.)

Nicholas Meyer worked closely with Harve Bennet on TWOK. Bennet watched almost every episode of TOS to chose a story that connects directly to the series. He chose “Space Seed” and the rest is history. I remember reading the writer’s guidelines for submitting a spec script for Star Trek back in the 90s, and one thing that always stood out to me was “If you don’t watch our show, don’t submit a spec script.” Even Bob Orci is a big Star Trek fan. I realize that not all the filmmakers need to be a Trekkie to create good Star Trek, but there needs to be some people that are. This Mark Smith gives general statements about Star Trek that do not fill me with any hope. But I suppose it is in vain since his script will not get produced.

Dude, it is MOST likely Tarantino’s version WILL be the next Star Trek movie. Paramount already assigned him screenwriters. Use your common sense. There is also NO indication that it will be about Piece Of The Action, and every indication it will be about Yesterday’s Enterprise: Tarantino: ‘l think Yesterday’s Enterprise should be expanded upon’. Quit surmising and ” ‘use the facts, ‘Luke’ “.

If that was the case, then they would’ve just used that script to greenlight the movie instead of hiring another director to come up with his own movie when they already had a script. They wrote this movie three years ago already, what is the hold up? My guess is they were curious to see what Tarantino wanted to do, they saw the script and decided it was a pass and/or Tarantino himself backed out. Either way, no one seems to be moving heaven and earth to make it happen.

Hiring a writer to flesh out a script was a minimal investment on the part of Paramount, and this script was done quite a while back now. Common sense would suggest that the studio wasn’t interested, otherwise by now they would be making a movie. They aren’t.

Tarantino has already reported that his project is dead, so… no.

The comments that Star Trek is not violence, that Star Trek is this or that, are all fine. Trek means a lot to us as individuals, what we bring to our fandom. Of course we have diverse views of what Trek can and should be. But the key to a successful film is always EXECUTION. Many if not all of the great movies can be reduced to a dumb tagline, whereas movies about big ideas or even fan appreciation (Rise of Skywalker cough) can be turgid boring messes.

Tarantino, you might not like the ideas or the man himself, but his movies are made well.

If this doesn’t happen, it will be a real loss of opportunity to bring a master director into this material.

Now if this was Cronenberg’s take on Trek, I’d agree because he is an auteur filmmaker who understands and works in sci-fi.

Tarantino not so much. He’s an auteur of violence.

Luke was at least Luke in Rise of Skywalker, he wasn’t Jake Skywalker. he was Mark Hamill’s Luke, George’s Luke not Rian’s.

“Does it say dead To Romulan storage on the outside of this ship? Wa wa wait a minute! I wanna go out side and check just to make sure some mother F’er didn’t write dead Romulan storage on the side of my ship.”

Yes please! We should do this and all the others, if Paramount would just realize that no Trek movie is going to gross a billion dollars. Give them a budget from 150mil to 200 and be happy when you double your money. Its not hard. It’s not like you even really need to market it. Trek fans for as diverse as we are seem to congregate at a few places and none of them are charging advertisers a premium.

In some ways this make the most sense for the next movie. I agree with the studio in holding off on Hawley’s virus story. Need a break from that as we get through this Pandemic. Although I am sure at some point we will be flooded with virus related movies and programming. The Hemsworth story could be ok. I think if Tarantino would have directed this it would have been greenlit no brainer. He is just too scattered with his career to have ever counted on him doing it. The question now is does a Story by QT written by Mark Smith have enough appeal to what the studio is looking for?. They seem to always look to increase Global markets and “non” Star Trek fans. Debatable if that is the right way to go but always seems to be their wish to grow the revenue. I think getting Shatner may have some appeal but like Phil mentioned earlier he would be 92. Maybe none of the 3 are viable but if i had to pick right now what had the most appeal and intrigue it would be the Tarantino one. Definitely a risk though.

I’d like for the Hawley concept to be expanded brought out as a limited 6 episode series on Paramount+.

By the time it’s produced and post is done, it would be late 2022 anyway.

Last edited 4 months ago by TG47

If they had Chris Pine playing prime timeline Kirk and the rest of the cast playing their prime timeline counterparts it would confuse the hell out of people. People are expecting the 4th reboot film. Sounds like QT wanted to make a R rated movie that is an extended episode of TOS as a one off.

Tarentino Trek would be amazing!

If this script is so called ”bananas” then paramount should green light it. This is what Star Trek needs to get out of it’s same old same old which we been getting.What made TOS different in it’s day was they thought out of the box. They had a bunch of young no name writers and a younger more flexible Roddenberry with a more open mind let the writers to some degree do their thing. The problem with Paramount is they always play it safe (so they think).They play the numbers game.They think this younger generation is incapable of liking a Star Trek movie that would be a little different then the norm. They think all young people care about is action and special effects with zero story behind it. Hollywood lives in a bubble and is out of touch.It’s all dollars and cents. And with Disney ruining Star Wars this is paramount’s window to blow Star Wars off the map for awhile. Well I was the younger generation one time back in the sixties and Star Trek blew my mind at the time. There was nothing like it on TV at the time. And when Paramount got Michael Pillar next gen took off and suddenly Next gen was doing stories that blew people’s mind as well as DS9. All Paramount has to do is green light this script and get out of the way and i’m sure Trek fans of all the shows will be pleased. This script sounds like something very different and is just what Trek needs. The last 2 movies fans at this forum were crying give us something different and what did paramount and JJ do ….nothing same hero and villain story Pay Pine what he wants and let’s move on.

You’re sure that “fans of all the shows will be pleased.”

That’s a bit of a heroic generalization.

I’m a fan of all the shows but Enterprise, and I even enjoy Tarantino films.

But am I confident that I would like the two things combined? Uh no.

At least Deep Space Nine found its own identity. Voyager and Enterprise were TNG warmed over. And people seem to want TNG warmed over it seems. Since most of the complaints about Disco and Picard seem to be how unlike TNG they are, or how unlike Berman Trek they are. I like variety, i like when they at least try to do something new even if they fail. The problem with Star Trek is the same with Star Wars so focused on past glories and fan service that they retread and play it safe. Don’t rock the boat or our merchandise might not sell. Its a bad way to tell stories or make films.

Would love to see QT’s take on the franchise, whatever that may be. I hope it’ll happen at some point.

Last edited 4 months ago by Danpaine

Uh, it sounds awesome. Like the best thing that never happened to Star Trek. It makes perfect sense that Tarantino would gravitate to A Piece of the Action. FUN.