I just want it to be clear on the record that I never asked for this.

Space... The final mother ****ing frontier

Why in the hell would you not? Too talented a filmmaker for Star Trek?

There goes the tradition of me taking my mom to newest release of a Star Trek movie in the theater. Family fun...ruined.

It'll be the new thing a la "dark and gritty" origin.

Star Trek, but cussing.
Spider Man, but cussing.
Batman, but cussing.

Burn, Hollywood, burn.

Username...checks out?

Because Logan was such a disaster when they went this route...

You sending Worf? That's all you had to say.

Vulcan mother****er! Do you speak it?

The people in charge of Star Trek right now do not understand Star Trek.

So I am fine with whatever adult content Tarrantino brings to Star Trek, as long as he brings back what modern Star Trek has been missing for so long: people exploring stuff.

TCTTS said:

---

Because Logan was such a disaster when they went this route...

---

So apply that formula to everything?

And Wolverine was already a dark and violent character.

"Everything"? We're talking about ONE Star Trek movie here, from the mind of and possibly directed by one of the greatest filmmakers of the past 20 years. Why is this suddenly something so precious in a franchise that has been all over the place as of late, in an overall blockbuster landscape where everyone and their dog is throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks? Why can't it just be some fun experiment? I, for one, am totally here for this.

Raptor said:

---

There goes the tradition of me taking my mom to newest release of a Star Trek movie in the theater. Family fun...ruined.

---

THE. MOST. ON. BRAND. FANBOY. POST. EVER.

I don't want this just because I hope for good Star Trek movies and QT's Tarantino-ness tends to overshadow whatever genre he pretends to be doing. Even if he turns out a good movie, it's unlikely to be recognizable as Star Trek. Might as well pick some other source material or just do any original.

Also I can't stand roughly half of his movies, so there's also that.

Quote:

---

throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks

---

I think you kind of answered your previous question.

If you don't want it, then don't watch it.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

If you don't want it, then don't watch it.

---

Novel advice.

Does. Not. Fit. Should replace Michael Giacchino with Metallica while they're at it.

Social Media Influencer said:

---

Quote:

---

throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks

---

I think you kind of answered your previous question.

---

But that's exactly my point. We live in a world where Godzilla is about to fight King Kong... where they're already rebooting Lord of the Rings... where Star Wars is ending but then continuing as something totally different... where we're on our third Spider-Man actor (in his fifth appearance) five years after the last one... our third Batman actor two years after the last one... Terminator is back AGAIN and this time they're ignoring nearly every movie that's come before, but it's still somehow a sequel... we've got two different actors playing the Joker... Fassbender's Magneto is somehow only 10 years younger then McKellen's Magneto... Suicide Squad is another sequel-that-also-isn't... Charles Xavier cusses... and the latest Star Trek movies not only used time travel to reboot the franchise, but basically made Kirk a god, then decided to completely ignore that development in the last movie...

I'm just saying, we've LONG since moved past the point where cinematic iterations of the things we love are these precious things to hope and pray that the powers-that-be get just right. I want great movies as much as the next guy, but I gave up years ago thinking that anyone is ever going to get any of this stuff "just right" outside of Marvel. So it's weird to me that people still have this attitude of "How dare they do [X] to my franchise!" I guess I'm just numb to it all by now but get excited when they aim for "interesting" over trying to make everyone happy, the latter of which has proven to be an impossible task.

At this point, Tarantino doing a space movie sounds awesome as hell, and if he wants to play around in the Trek universe, who cares? More power to him. It doesn't erase everything that's come before, nor can it be any worse than what we have now.

Also, when it comes to Trek specifically, we're in a weird time. It doesn't sound like we're getting a fourth, "traditional" Abrams-verse movie ever since the Pine/Hemsworth deals fell apart. And Paramount isn't going to reboot the franchise yet again cinematically so soon after the last iteration, especially with the TV offerings really starting to hit their stride. So if you want a Star Trek movie anytime in the next five years or so, this is basically it; some kind of fun, experimental thing that may or may not include the Abrams-verse cast, that literally only Tarantino can get made.

People tend to complain about what they're not getting in a perfect universe, but we don't live in a perfect universe. There's no reality where Paramount goes back to the drawing board and gives you the exact Star Trek movie you want any time soon. So, until that happens - if it ever happens - why not let Tarantino riff and do his cover?

All that stuff you said is kind of why I'm not happy about QT getting access to a franchise like this. It's not like all these crazy directorial picks and reboots have mostly worked out so we can trust that the most distinctive director alive* is going to turn out a good Trek movie.

I'm not mad and I'm not even a huge Trekkie, but it's hard to imagine a bigger mismatch between source material and director. For a counterexample to prove that I'm not just hating on QT: I disliked TLJ a lot, but I think Rian Johnson could make a great Trek movie in the spirit of the franchise.

I'm pretty sure he's just going to lock Samuel L. Johnson, Michael Madsen, and half a dozen A-listers in a shuttle and have them all murder each other. You don't really need the Star Trek franchise to do that.

Samuel L Johnson

* Maybe this footnote is better for its own thread, but:

Part 1: how would you rank the most distinctive directors? I think of Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Tim Burton, and John Hughes.

Part 2: is being a distinctive director definitely good? Clearly all of the people I named are very accomplished, but if an actor always "plays himself" it seems to count against him. Is being able to disappear into the genre/plot a positive characteristic?

The memes alone are going to be worth this.

Once qt does Trek, how many funny spoofs of QT does sci-fi or fantasy are we going to see?

QT does:
Buck Rogers?
Neverending Story?
Tron?
Aliens?
Back to the future? (can you imagine following a QT timeline in a time travel movie?)
Labyrinth?
V?

I'm looking forward to the spoofs.

Also, the QT Trek alien sex.

QT is played out. We know his schtick. Nothing is fresh anymore. He doesn't adapt, he repackages.

This sounds like a very terrible idea.

mazag08 said:

---

QT is played out. We know his schtick. Nothing is fresh anymore. He doesn't adapt, he repackages.

This sounds like a very terrible idea.

---

??