Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No. Really! He has,

Seemingly it’s a continuation of the Pine universe. But I could be up for that.

I mean at this point why the hell not, it's not as if the IP really means anything any more so they might as well pimp it out to anyone who'll give it a go to scrape up every last dollar they can.

I really liked Beyond, it felt much more like conventional Trek than the first 2 and just did a lot of things right for me. I really like Tarantino but I'm not sure his style would gel all that well with Star Trek... Though I'm always up for interesting new ways to shake up my favorite properties so at the very least I'd be curious what he does with it.

I'd welcome this. Tarantino has a flare/interest in older film styles. If anyone could return it to a bit of its heritage he could. Granted he does tend to work with more, ahem, bloody works than Startrek, but cut the blood and violence out and you can see a lot of good techniques in his films.

 Overread wrote:
I'd welcome this. Tarantino has a flare/interest in older film styles. If anyone could return it to a bit of its heritage he could. Granted he does tend to work with more, ahem, bloody works than Startrek, but cut the blood and violence out and you can see a lot of good techniques in his films.

Thing is though, there's a reason he's renowned for the bloody stuff - you don't bring in Tarantino unless you want that association in the minds of your potential audience. TBH I didn't think they could get any more leaden, deconstructionist, and relentlessly dim-grim with the license than Discovery and Into Darkness, but fair play to them a Tarantino-style flick would pull it off. EDIT: And just to be clear, nobody would be happier if I were totally 100% wrong and Tarantino came in and delivered a fantastic, intelligent, thoughtful, back-to-basics Trek film, I'm just not convinced that's why the cynical corporate gits in charge of the license who've been determinedly trying to grimdark the IP for years are considering him for the job.

The comments on that article are most excellent.

Hateful Eight of Nine.
Reservoir Borgs.
From Dusk till Khan.
Kill Bill Shatner.

 Yodhrin wrote:
And just to be clear, nobody would be happier if I were totally 100% wrong and Tarantino came in and delivered a fantastic, intelligent, thoughtful, back-to-basics Trek film, I'm just not convinced that's why the cynical corporate gits in charge of the license who've been determinedly trying to grimdark the IP for years are considering him for the job.

Thing is he does bloody, but his films are generally far from totally mindless and about the only one you could call less mindful is his Deathproof film which is much like the Machete films - its made to be a B slasher/bloody flick from the get-go.

I think he also one of the fewer directors left in Hollywood who has a good sense of timing and pacing in films. There's a lot of films out now (a good few of the marvel films qualify) where they clearly try to cram way too much into a single film for the time slot they've got. Heck in one of the superman films they tried to condense 3 films into one.

Also I think Tarantino comes with a quality crew as well, he seems to be good at picking up cinematographers etc... who are good at what they do.

I do agree, I don't want to see Star Trek go grim-dark-bloody. I'd love for them to return to the almost magical/mystical edge that the early films had. Heck I've been re-watching Babalon 5 recently and the mystical edge is there too. It's something that modern sci-fi has almost dropped. In a way they've gone just a bit too much toward the techo and action edge of things and they've lost that mystical wonder of the unknown of space exploration that I think was around a lot more in earlier sci-fi.

Now a while back, Frazzled pitched an interesting idea that might intersect nicely. Sure, Tarantino would be at best an odd choice for a Federation film- but would you like to see a Klingon film with him at the helm? Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek: Bird of Prey.

A blood splattered revenge story of two klingons competing for the love of an old flame. The climactic poetry battle where she throws sparking bridge furniture at them while under fire should be particularly awesome.

Tarantino films feature a lot of dialog - that isn't very star-treky if you ask me. Without that though it wouldn't be Tarantino - so seems kind of pointless. I also don't get the hate for the last 3 startrek films - I think they have been pretty good. I see no reason why they wouldn't just keep doing what they are doing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Now a while back, Frazzled pitched an interesting idea that might intersect nicely. Sure, Tarantino would be at best an odd choice for a Federation film- but would you like to see a Klingon film with him at the helm? Quentin Tarantino's Star Trek: Bird of Prey.

A blood splattered revenge story of two klingons competing for the love of an old flame. The climactic poetry battle where she throws sparking bridge furniture at them while under fire should be particularly awesome.

I could absolutely see that.

I used to like Tarentino but lately it seems like he does too much of "Hey let's sit the camera here and... ok, start your monologue now!"

I don't want to have to sit through a 12 minute speech with Data telling Picard how his digital feelings are feeling today.

Still though, I'd be curious to see what he could do with the IP.

 kronk wrote:
The comments on that article are most excellent.

Hateful Eight of Nine.
Reservoir Borgs.
From Dusk till Khan.
Kill Bill Shatner.

When I read the title of the post I immediately pictured a Klingon carving off a guy's ear to "Stuck in the Middle with You".

 Xenomancers wrote:
a lot of dialog - that isn't very star-treky if you ask me.

I gotta disagree on that... I mean if The West Wing pioneered the art of distracting the audience from the complete lack of action on screen by having characters walk down hallways and talk, Star Trek pioneered the art of distracting the audience from the complete lack of action on screen by having characters sit down/stand around and talk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Necros wrote:
I used to like Tarentino but lately it seems like he does too much of "Hey let's sit the camera here and... ok, start your monologue now!"

For me my fear is that Taentino 50% feels like a bald face liar. Maybe it's just his marketing team but I felt like trailers and ads for Inglorious Bastards and Hateful Eight presented films radically different from what he actually produced. Steaming piles of crap with 2-3 memorable moments that don't make up for the utter waste of my time. Django Unchained was good. Kill Bill is okay. His early work is great. Of late though I feel he's gotten too sucked up into his own legend.

He's sort of a one trick pony, its undeniably a fun trick but only in small doses, plus there's no-one more convinced of his genius than himself

On the flipside doing something that is a bit outside of his comfort zone might work to his (and fans) favour.


As for the self-convinced-genius I thought that was a pre-requisite for all directors to have (at least until they get the reviews for the film in; then they can be mopy if it sells badly).

Who were the chaotic evil bastards with the weird foreheads that tortured people and gak...Cardassians.

I bet he could write Cardassians well.

 kronk wrote:
The comments on that article are most excellent.

Hateful Eight of Nine.
Reservoir Borgs.
From Dusk till Khan.
Kill Bill Shatner.

So we'd have a 30 minute conversation between Spock, Kirk, McCoy and Mr. White about coffee in space and then Mr.s White would machine gun everyone?

I have a feeling QT knows more about what makes Star Trek work than many of hte other "talents" brought in to direct it ever have.

I mean, think of Bill's monologue about Superman in Kill Bill Vol. 2. He basically lays out Superman better than Zach Snyder has managed to do in several films. The guy just gets writing and genre intuitively better than anyone else.

 Easy E wrote:
I have a feeling QT knows more about what makes Star Trek work than many of hte other "talents" brought in to direct it ever have.

I mean, think of Bill's monologue about Superman in Kill Bill Vol. 2. He basically lays out Superman better than Zach Snyder has managed to do in several films. The guy just gets writing and genre intuitively better than anyone else.

And that's why I've hope if he directs and isn't over-managed by others.
He's a quirky, slightly (totally?) nuts guy there's no denying that. But he "gets" what makes films work. Plus he's far more influenced by more classical works than many others.

Heck if he were doing a classic remake he's the kind of director who'd go back to using film or film effects on digital to get the same grains on the film; the same style and feel of presentation rather than the much more "clean and clinical" appearance that modern digital and cgi film work tends to produce.

I'd say he's a 'reverential' film maker.

He shares with us everything he loves about a given genre when he makes a film.

Blaxploitation, Grindhouse, all that stuff.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I'd say he's a 'reverential' film maker.

He shares with us everything he loves about a given genre when he makes a film.

Blaxploitation, Grindhouse, all that stuff.

Including his foot fetish.


Considering that 2 of his movies (that I can think of, Reservoir Dogs and the Hateful 8) basically take place in a single room. It's a similar style to Star Trek, on which 90% of the content takes place in a single vessel.

At first I thought this was the worst idea ever. But the more I think about it.... As others have said one of his great strengths is writing and directing dialogue. Can you imagine if he had done Star Trek V? The campfire scene at the start would have been at least twenty minutes longer and probably the highlight of the film

Thing is if you look at a lot of earlier Startrek films they are not action fests. They have peeks of action; but often as not a lot of the middle isn't filled with action.

Undiscovered Country has a steady start and a long period of more talk than action; indeed the real action isn't till the end.

Motion Picture (first film) doesn't even have a penultimate battle.



If anything battles in those films were more epic because they really were a one last great battle affair. Whilst more action based films tend to have more constant battles and action happening through the film.

Well there you go folks, it's a Festivus miracle, a discussion on the internet has changed someone's mind - you've convinced me this might actually be a brilliant idea afterall

It would be interesting to see what he's come up with

Also, can't wait for Discovery to return - he should do some directing of that.

Can you imagine if Tarantino did a Chain of Command style episode or two?

On that, however, my mind is set - Discovery is beyond saving. The basic concept of the show and its main character just don't work for me, doesn't matter who's writing or directing.

If Discovery did a Chain of Command episode, the Cardassians would be morally ambiguous rather than villainous and Jellico would be presented as the 100% correct hero of the piece and used as an excuse to tear down Picard's(and, based on everything seen up to that point, Starfleet's) style of command.

Tarantino is one of the best film makers alive. I think him doing a Trek film would be fascinating.

According to DenOfGeek, he's pushing for an 'R Rating'

But then, pretty sure everyone says that about every film these days.

In another forum someone said that the R rating would be for exposed boobies. Thing is the old Kirk seemed to fall into a romance with every other alien he met; so having a harem of bare breasts and Kirk does make a lot of sense.


Also another factor to consider is that many of ST's fans are older generation. So an R rating isn't too prohibitive a barrier.

Eh, whether it's a barrier is less the issue than the fact it's not really necessary if you're telling a "proper"(IMO, obviously) Star Trek story - I can't think of any Trek episode or film that really *needed* anything more than a 15 rating to tell the story they wanted to tell, and none that would have been improved by pushing them into GoT-territory to justify an R/18.

I mean, did TOS ever actually need to show Kirk and the Sexy Green Girl of the Week full-frontal in flagrante to get across that part of his character? And would seeing some young actor or model simulating a tongue-tango with Little Tiberius, slurpy sound effects and all, really add anything to proceedings?

That earlier optimism is ebbing away quite quickly.

Could be he just wants the freedom that a planned R rating would allow?

Whilst I wouldn't say he's a director prone to excess, he doesn't seem one used to constraint beyond his own.