CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Quentin Tarantino's STAR TREK INTO RETIREMENT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Quentin Tarantino's STAR TREK INTO RETIREMENT - Page 2

post #51 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

This is proof we are living in a simulation.
Maybe we all died last November and the entirety of 2017 has been a very subtle Hell.
post #52 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
 

 

Do we really think Paramount will wait 'till 2021 for an R-rated Star Trek movie?

 

Come on, people.

 

Is anyone really clamoring for a STAR TREK film before 2021? Like most of Paramount's franchises TREK is running on fumes.

post #53 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moltisanti View Post

 

Is anyone really clamoring for a STAR TREK film before 2021? Like most of Paramount's franchises TREK is running on fumes.

I liked Beyond, but the only people I've talked to about the movie are the good folks of chuddotcom. Any co-workers or friends I've talked to either A) didn't see it, or B) saw it and don't remember it.

post #54 of 234

It had a pretty dramatic comedown at the box office compared to INTO DARKNESS (I'm purely talking financial, not quality) both here and worldwide.

 

It's sort of wild has far Paramount has fallen in recent years. Losing out on their Marvel characters has been a crusher. Now TRANSFORMERS is out of fashion, too. Lionsgate has essentially passed them by on the studio food chain.

 

So I can see why Paramount would be fine with a shake-up in tone for TREK.

post #55 of 234

Beyond was one of the most inert and unmemorable blockbusters in recent memory. Into Darkness > Beyond!

post #56 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomTastic View Post
 

Beyond was one of the most inert and unmemorable blockbusters in recent memory. Into Darkness > Beyond!

BAH! I liked it fine!

 

(although I kinda regret buying the Blu-Ray because hooboy does it not hold up!)

post #57 of 234
AtomTastic?
A wise man.
post #58 of 234

Paramount fucked up not pushing the 50th anniversary of Star Trek in conjuncture with Beyond's opening. It would have helped with awareness. Contrary to the Internet swears, Into Darkness was well-liked by critics and audiences. They also fucked up waiting four years after the '09 redo was such a big hit and resurged the franchise like it did.

 

Basically it's Paramount's own damn fault they are where they're at right now with the IP.

post #59 of 234

I don't believe this R-rated thing is true.  It would be too much of a dramatic break from the established norms of the franchise.  Isn't it basically canon in TREK that people hardly ever use really hard profanity anymore?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
 

Paramount fucked up not pushing the 50th anniversary of Star Trek in conjuncture with Beyond's opening. It would have helped with awareness. Contrary to the Internet swears, Into Darkness was well-liked by critics and audiences. They also fucked up waiting four years after the '09 redo was such a big hit and resurged the franchise like it did.

 

Basically it's Paramount's own damn fault they are where they're at right now with the IP.

The 50th should have been an EVENT, but I gather that lingering animosity and complications between Paramount and CBS over TREK rights knee-capped what should have been a coordinated effort to honor both the shows and the movies.

post #60 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

I don't believe this R-rated thing is true.  It would be too much of a dramatic break from the established norms of the franchise.  Isn't it basically canon in TREK that people hardly ever use really hard profanity anymore?

Agreed. I can see the R-rating for violence, but not language. Feels like it would be too jarring.

 

"Bones...what in the goddamn fuck are you doing with that Tribble?"

post #61 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangy View Post
 

Agreed. I can see the R-rating for violence, but not language. Feels like it would be too jarring.

 

"Bones...what in the goddamn fuck are you doing with that Tribble?"


I think the language would be super gimmicky.  There's really no way around it. 

post #62 of 234

Discovery features people saying 'fuck' for some reason. It is indeed weird and awkward.

 

Irritation over them not making a big thing of the 50th mainly seems to be a fan thing. Skyfall coincided with 50 years of Bond but it didn't seem to me that it was really the crux of how they marketed it, I don't know that it would've made a world of difference with Beyond. I get the feeling marketers would rather try to appear modern and relevant to young audiences rather than emphasize how aged the property is.

 

I do agree that not striking while the iron was hot after 09 was a big mistake, as is the weird disconnect between the tv and movie projects there is now.

post #63 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul C View Post
 

Discovery features people saying 'fuck' for some reason. It is indeed weird and awkward.

Wow, I hadn't heard about that.  Like, are they throwing it around all the time, or just for strategic emphasis every now and then like we might see on an AMC show, for example?

post #64 of 234
Star Trek Into Colorful Metaphors.
post #65 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post
 

Wow, I hadn't heard about that.  Like, are they throwing it around all the time, or just for strategic emphasis every now and then like we might see on an AMC show, for example?

 

I think it's only once, as part of a shitty Whedon-esque joke.

 

I've seen people here refer to there being tits as well, but I must have slept through that bit. Unless they mean the weird Klingon sex scene in the last episode.

post #66 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belloq87 View Post

Wow, I hadn't heard about that.  Like, are they throwing it around all the time, or just for strategic emphasis every now and then like we might see on an AMC show, for example?

This is the only time. I was expecting it to be used in a cliched dramatic fashion like in PG-13 movies like ARMAGEDDON. Instead it happens after a lengthy technobabble session with a cadet getting overly excited about science.



I thought it was cute and incidental, but understand why some folks are put off by it.
post #67 of 234
Star Trek could use more fucking.

Watched 20 minutes of TNG last night. Everyone kept gaslighting Wesley about Lore.

Would’ve been vastly improved by fucking.
post #68 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Star Trek could use more fucking.

Watched 20 minutes of TNG last night. Everyone kept gaslighting Wesley about Lore.

Would’ve been vastly improved by fucking.

But we got Worf as a punching bag, always worth it.


post #69 of 234
Sitting in a Marriott hotel room in Cleveland watching that last night, I was embarrassed for me.
post #70 of 234
This will be an amazing death knell for Trek on the big screen.
post #71 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Star Trek could use more fucking.

 

post #72 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

This will be an amazing death knell for Trek on the big screen.

Probably for the better. Trek really has no proper place in film. It hasn't really needed to be a film series after the TOS films finished their run.
post #73 of 234
Agreed. Trek has always been better on TV.
post #74 of 234
But the best Trek has been in the movies.

And 99% of Trek on TV is horrible.

And needs more fucking.
post #75 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

But the best Trek has been in the movies.

And 99% of Trek on TV is horrible.


tenor.gif?itemid=3992247
post #76 of 234

Well, this is certainly weird and unexpected. I guess I'd rather see an R-rated Quentin Tarantino Star Trek movie than something boring and safe, though. 

post #77 of 234
WB are probably kicking themselves on not getting QT to do a DCEU film.
post #78 of 234

I'd happily trade Craig's entire Bond run for the Tarantino version of Casino Royale that never happened.

post #79 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

I'd happily trade Craig's entire Bond run for the Tarantino version of Casino Royale that never happened.
I can easily see where you're coming from with that opinion. It'd definitely be something. But being totally truthful (to myself....I'd never presume to tell you what your opinion should be).....hell no. I love Craig's run, warts and all. First Bond since Lazenby that I like every one of his films (lol).

I wouldn't even trade Spectre for that Tarantino version.

But Tarantino Star Trek? Y'all motherfuckers done had y'all's sense of curiosity/wonder/fun/whatever removed if something like THAT is met with mehs and derision. The internet hath finally gone full internet. Cue the Architect resetting everything back to right before Episode 1's release..
post #80 of 234
Obviously Tarantino needs to adapt Badger’s idea:
post #81 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headless Fett View Post

WB are probably kicking themselves on not getting QT to do a DCEU film.

post #82 of 234

Well, he may have a good idea.  Then again he may just be excited at the prospect of writing 300 pages of dialog for the main cast to fire at each other from various parts of the bridge.  Can't help but feel making it R rated will be a death blow.

post #83 of 234
Star Trek Into R-ness
post #84 of 234
All I ask is that, when the heroine has had enough bullshit and is about to start kicking ass, this song plays.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
post #85 of 234
I’d love for Tarantino Trek to have a practical Gorn costume.
post #86 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fraid uh noman View Post

I can easily see where you're coming from with that opinion. It'd definitely be something. But being totally truthful (to myself....I'd never presume to tell you what your opinion should be).....hell no. I love Craig's run, warts and all. First Bond since Lazenby that I like every one of his films (lol).

I wouldn't even trade Spectre for that Tarantino version.

But Tarantino Star Trek? Y'all motherfuckers done had y'all's sense of curiosity/wonder/fun/whatever removed if something like THAT is met with mehs and derision. The internet hath finally gone full internet. Cue the Architect resetting everything back to right before Episode 1's release..

I'd love to see Tarantino's CR, but at the same time that would have been with Brosnan and as much as I like the guy, I'm glad EON went with Craig instead.
post #87 of 234
It's kind of amazing to me that anyone that knows movies would be kind of doubtful about this. Guy is one of the best working directors right now, that alone seems like reason enough to not be hesitant about it. Rarely do directors this good attached to these kinds of projects anymore, especially ones who aren't in a place where a studio can push them around. But on top of that, Tarantino did rewrites for Crimson Tide, a movie (which is rated R) that if you swapped the subs out for spaceships and dropped it into Star Trek it'd be the most Star Trek movie made since Star Trek: The Motion Picture...certainly the most Star Trek movie in over 20 years anyways.
post #88 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

I’d love for Tarantino Trek to have a practical Gorn costume.

I think the Gorn episode is weirdly one of the few original Star Trek episodes I haven't seen, so I was kind of surprised to watch this an hear how much it was like Starship Troopers

I could totally go for a Star Trek Troopers.
post #89 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

This is proof we are living in a simulation.

Don’t you mean the holodeck?

I can’t believe Tarantino convinced a room of execs to give him a multimillion dollar R rated Star Trek. Not your frather’s Star Trek indeed.
post #90 of 234
Thread Starter 

What if the crew is trapped in a sentient holodeck and they must fight their way through different film genres?

post #91 of 234
My bet is a that the budget will be severely cut back to the kind of middle budget range that the old films used to work on. Trek was never going to compete with other big franchises, so it's better that Paramount comes to terms with that. Adjusted for inflation, BEYOND performed no differently than THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and GENERATIONS, the big difference is that it had a much higher budget than the TOS/TNG films ever had so that made it less profitable than the films made over 20 years ago.
post #92 of 234
Thread Starter 

When Tarantino was asked about doing a sci-fi film in the past he said:

 

"I would like to put a spin on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. I want to take it from the pod people’s perspective, so you’re actually rooting for the pod people. I don’t think they’re so bad."

 

What if he does a version of that with the Borg?

post #93 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amos Orange View Post

This is proof we are living in a simulation.

Don’t you mean the holodeck?

I can’t believe Tarantino convinced a room of execs to give him a multimillion dollar R rated Star Trek. Not your frather’s Star Trek indeed.

Django Unchained (which Sony was involved in) cost $100 million and did better than both the 2009 and 2016 Star Trek movies, and better than stuff from around when it came out like Captain America. It's not really all that crazy they'd giving him Star Trek and letting him do whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post

When Tarantino was asked about doing a sci-fi film in the past he said:

"I would like to put a spin on INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. I want to take it from the pod people’s perspective, so you’re actually rooting for the pod people. I don’t think they’re so bad."

What if he does a version of that with the Borg?

I think there's like three sci-fi movies he's talked about doing in the past. There's that. There's the Godzilla movie where the people of Japan had lived under him so long they started to see Godzilla as God. And something he'd brought up like around Django and Hateful Eight I think that didn't have any details other than it not taking place in space.

The Godzilla one is something I could see working as a Star Trek, where there's some planet that worships some giant Kaiju as its God.
post #94 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Stockslivevan View Post

My bet is a that the budget will be severely cut back to the kind of middle budget range that the old films used to work on. Trek was never going to compete with other big franchises, so it's better that Paramount comes to terms with that. Adjusted for inflation, BEYOND performed no differently than THE UNDISCOVERED COUNTRY and GENERATIONS, the big difference is that it had a much higher budget than the TOS/TNG films ever had so that made it less profitable than the films made over 20 years ago.

I don't see it. He was getting that middle range budget money you're talking about for his own original things since Kill Bill. They're giving him $90 million for that movie about two actors in '69 trying to make it big. I can't see him doing a franchise film like this and taking a budget smaller than the one he had for Django Unchanged. He could probably get Ant-Man money without the Star Trek name just doing his own original sci-fi thing.

Beyond did quite a lot better than The Undiscovered Country when adjusted for inflation. Both of those when adjusted for inflation made under $200 million. Beyond made $343.5 million.
post #95 of 234
Just because Tarantino makes (mostly) good Tarantino movies doesn’t automatically mean he’s the best person to make everyone else’s movies.

I don’t think Star Trek, or Bond for that matter, particularly need auteur types to come along and put their personal stamp on everything, and Tarantino can’t do anything other than that.

His Casino Royale idea might’ve made a good Tarantino film but it would’ve been an ultra-stylised retro throwback playing on his fondness for the 60’s movies. But part of the reason the CR we got turned out really well was because it wasn’t nostalgic, it was trying to be a good modern thriller and push the series forward a bit.

As for Star Trek, I find it a little surprising QT would want to get involved in the first place, it has absolutely nothing to do with his normal style or interests. Far as I can remember, in Tarantino’s entire body of work the one and only time he’s gone into fantastical territory is the second half of From Dusk Til Dawn.

Either way this is all moot because this movie is never going to happen.
post #96 of 234
FWIW, though Tarantino talked about how he would have made CR set in the 60s and include narration from the novel when he was trying to win the rights to it, after EON won that bidding war he did say that he was willing to concede to play within EON's parameters just for the chance to be able to do an adaptation of CR specifically.

Given that he's a self proclaimed Trekkie, I assume he knows the franchise is bigger than him and that he's ultimately playing in someone's sandbox. In this case, Abrams'.
post #97 of 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimBOB View Post


Beyond did quite a lot better than The Undiscovered Country when adjusted for inflation. Both of those when adjusted for inflation made under $200 million. Beyond made $343.5 million.

Not according to these numbers: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

BEYOND is just a hair or two above TUC and GEN.
post #98 of 234

The weird thing about Tarantino is not only has he never played in an existing IP's sandbox, there's never been a sequel to a movie he directed. As far as I know, the only sequels to anything he's written were the DTV From Dusk Til Dawn movies (and TV show). 

 

So yeah, it's not so much I can't imagine Tarantino doing a Trek movie, it's knowing there would eventually be a follow-up and trying to imagine that. 

 

Although I'd say it's likely if this movie is with the Pine crew, it'll be their last go-round. I'm betting if this Tarantino movie doesn't happen, Beyond ends up being their last movie anyway. 

post #99 of 234
Imagine if all the rumors are correct and Tarantino really ends up directing Star Trek and Christopher Nolan signs on to make Bond 25.

Then we only need Paul Thomas Anderson's Fast & Furious 10 and Darren Aronofsky's Police Academy 9 to set off the Apocalypse. Just like the Bible predicted.
Edited by Virtanen - 12/8/17 at 4:09am
post #100 of 234
Hell of a time! Though Nolan doing Bond isn't as big a leap as Tarantino, given that Nolan has already dabbled in franchises with Batman and producing MOS.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › Quentin Tarantino's STAR TREK INTO RETIREMENT