Comiskeybum

Tarantino's idea. What is it?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Benedict said:

What the Hell, I'm game. Can't be as bad as what we've had so far. 

Oooh, it can be. I'm still thinking this is an out of control rumor. It seems counter to everything Star Trek to make an actual R rated outing, like a hard edge new BSG and add cussing. Seems like whomever is leaking these stories just wants to do like Deadpool and bring in sassy angry men, but Deadpool was not Tarantino's story. It was just an example. Let us hope Paramount is not foolish enough to think that it's a good idea to make it an R rated story. It worked in Deadpool because the comic was already bawdy. In Most of QT's movies, it's already campy and has a cast of evil bandits and desperate men. Let him do another western then. Or a space movie with that. Star Trek should not be R rated. As one of you said, it would alienate the audience, not bring more people in. I think it must still be a rumor.

If QT wants to do a space opera that actually is raunchy, maybe he should tackle a remake of one of those old Venusian women classic films from the  1950s and 1960s. That actually might be fun, with laser beams, and martial arts expert ladies kicking butt. A remake of 2069 perhaps, or Amazons, or something.

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Benedict   

I don't know. I've not been excited about anything Trek related in a while. Each of the reboot movies sucked the life out of it. I tend to find much joy in watching the original movies. If Tarantino doesn't do one so be it. It's vaguely exciting to think what might be as the expectation is so low. Star Trek is virtually a dead parrot it feels nowadays. Discovery's the first series I've not beat a path to the door off when it comes out (Enterprise I remember beg borrowing and stealing a friend at school's VHS that he used to tape it off Sky1 or whatever it premiered on here). 

Galactica, now that's something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, things seem to be happening... 

I dunno, I'm not that pessimist about this. Sure, what he said on the interview sounded kinda redundant, but I trully dont think he would go for it, I think he just mentioned it as a way to pay homage to the franchise, as a way of saying that there ware episodes so good that they could have became full movies. 

Call me an optimistic fool, but I don't see much of a problem wiht this. ST is not doing so well right now, the last two movies didn't do very well and the Kelvin timeline was in the edge of destruction. Tarantino is a well known name, and he is a Trek fan. The worst that could happen is having a movie that would associate a not so well known and popular franchise like Star Trek with a very well known and popular director. That seems like a fair trade, I'm all for it. 

I would also like to add, that a dark Trek could very much work if done properly. Look at Ds9.  Actually I think I prefer a darker Trek. I liked STID more than Beyond because of that. Beyond seemed like a kid's movie, awesome as it was. STID at least tryed to deal with a current topic like terrorism. That's what Trek does. 

And also, Tarantino is no new guy in these lands, he's been in the business long enough to know what he can or can't do, so does Paramount and Abrams. They aren't goin to spend that much money in something they know will flop. I bet this whole "R rated" thing is just random stuff to get people talking about it, much like Sulu's "amazing revelation" from Beyond that ended up being a scene of 3 seconds that didn't show anything else but two guys hugging. 

This so called R rating will probably end up being just a scene of a klingon doing some gross stuff for a few seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Garak the spy said:

Well, things seem to be happening... 

I dunno, I'm not that pessimist about this. Sure, what he said on the interview sounded kinda redundant, but I trully dont think he would go for it, I think he just mentioned it as a way to pay homage to the franchise, as a way of saying that there ware episodes so good that they could have became full movies. 

Call me an optimistic fool, but I don't see much of a problem wiht this. ST is not doing so well right now, the last two movies didn't do very well and the Kelvin timeline was in the edge of destruction. Tarantino is a well known name, and he is a Trek fan. The worst that could happen is having a movie that would associate a not so well known and popular franchise like Star Trek with a very well known and popular director. That seems like a fair trade, I'm all for it. 

I would also like to add, that a dark Trek could very much work if done properly. Look at Ds9.  Actually I think I prefer a darker Trek. I liked STID more than Beyond because of that. Beyond seemed like a kid's movie, awesome as it was. STID at least tryed to deal with a current topic like terrorism. That's what Trek does. 

And also, Tarantino is no new guy in these lands, he's been in the business long enough to know what he can or can't do, so does Paramount and Abrams. They aren't goin to spend that much money in something they know will flop. I bet this whole "R rated" thing is just random stuff to get people talking about it, much like Sulu's "amazing revelation" from Beyond that ended up being a scene of 3 seconds that didn't show anything else but two guys hugging. 

This so called R rating will probably end up being just a scene of a klingon doing some gross stuff for a few seconds.

Tarantino (as Robin pointed out upthread) has been very self-indulgent in his filmmaking lately; he doesn’t have the discipline or the restraint that he had in his earlier ’90s work.   I’m just afraid that his Star Trek will wind up being more a parody of Star Trek (with lots of over-the-top gore for its own sake) than a true Star Trek movie.

Then again, who knows?  Maybe he really will give it his all...

But for some reason, I just don’t think Tarantino is going to sign on the bottom line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Benedict said:

I don't know. I've not been excited about anything Trek related in a while. Each of the reboot movies sucked the life out of it. I tend to find much joy in watching the original movies. If Tarantino doesn't do one so be it. It's vaguely exciting to think what might be as the expectation is so low. Star Trek is virtually a dead parrot it feels nowadays. Discovery's the first series I've not beat a path to the door off when it comes out (Enterprise I remember beg borrowing and stealing a friend at school's VHS that he used to tape it off Sky1 or whatever it premiered on here). 

Galactica, now that's something else. 

According to an avid Tarantino fan, this story has 20 percent possibility of coming true. No, they will not do an R rated Trek, but a space movie nod would be fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't everyone hate on Justin Linn when he took the job on Beyond for kind of the same reasons we are hating on Tarantino now? And yet Beyond turned out pretty great...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Garak the spy said:

Didn't everyone hate on Justin Linn when he took the job on Beyond for kind of the same reasons we are hating on Tarantino now? And yet Beyond turned out pretty great...

Yeah, pretty much The Trek and the Furious, and yeah, it turned out solid.

My biggest problem with QT is that his last couple of outings were self-indulgent nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prometheus59650 said:

Yeah, pretty much The Trek and the Furious, and yeah, it turned out solid.

My biggest problem with QT is that his last couple of outings were self-indulgent nonsense.

I can't really have an opinion on that as I haven't seen any of his newer works, but I don't think Paramount and Abrams will just let him screw around with the franchise. Tarantino might want whatever he wants, if the studio doesen't see any profit coming from it, it's not gonna happen. Remember, QT only piched the idea, the writters are making what will be the movie, he will only direct, if he does direct it, which is unlikely.

Paramount has been giving a lot to the reboot of the franchise, they aren't gonna throw away their work out of nowhere just because a crazy director thinks they should. 

I might not have faith on Tarantino but I do have faith on Paramount and even in Abrams for that matter. They worked hard on stablishing the Kelving timeline and they won't destroy it. Beyond was still one of the high winners for Paramount last year. They need ST to stay alive.

Edited by Garak the spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected on Reservoir Dogs. It was actually a shot by shot remake of a classic Hong Kong gangster movie.

In fact, none of Tarantino's movies have much originality. They all tend to copy and pay homage to other works.

Heard Patrick Stewart will be in anything, apparently, but no, just because he likes it doesn't mean it's going to happen.

A fan created nod to shipping/slash pairings and the fans that love them could be fun, but again, not for everyone. It is a genre ripe for bawdy humor and some suggestive material, but not mainstream. Playing those stories straight, as in seriously, is not going to work. They need to have some wry humor. A strapping young hotshot captain saves the ship, and beds even the mightiest of engendered species along the way, could be a fun online idea.

Star Trek Odyssey was a little too series sometimes, and not meant to be a parody,. I prefer more of the tongue in cheek. I prefer parody where it is self effacing and relfective, but still light hearted.

A Trek story where they just run off at the mouth swearing at each other, blowing the heads off of guys, and scampering about lecturing on existence, random trivia, and on old mob movies,  would not be Trek at all.

It's not just that some fans want it the old way. It's that some of the repeats become stale with age. If they wish to find new blood though, and ignore a hopeful future, that's not as much fun, I think.

It is still at 20 percent possible as a rumor. Vie and some of you are right. The studio will likely not do that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chimera82405 said:

I stand corrected on Reservoir Dogs. It was actually a shot by shot remake of a classic Hong Kong gangster movie.

In fact, none of Tarantino's movies have much originality. They all tend to copy and pay homage to other works.

^
Yeah, but you could make that same argument for ALL movies/TV shows; there are only a handful of truly original stories.  Everything else is variation within those forms, that’s all.   Tarantino is (or was?) really good at mixing and matching story elements and creating something very original.  

As for Reservoir Dogs being a “shot-for-shot” remake?  I’d like to know which movie it was based on, because I sincerely doubt that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/10/2017 at 9:16 PM, Sehlat Vie said:

^
Yeah, but you could make that same argument for ALL movies/TV shows; there are only a handful of truly original stories.  Everything else is variation within those forms, that’s all.   Tarantino is (or was?) really good at mixing and matching story elements and creating something very original.  

As for Reservoir Dogs being a “shot-for-shot” remake?  I’d like to know which movie it was based on, because I sincerely doubt that.

 

 

"City on Fire" 1987, right down to the 'Mexican standoff scene'. All of the 'best scenes' from City on Fire are recreated in the film, so yes, parts are shot for shot. It is still an interpretation.

DJango for instance, is based on the Italian film, as is InGlorious Basterds, based on another, very closely.

It is commonly known its from City on Fire.

Jackie Brown is a take on Foxy Brown, from the 1970s. Commonly known among fans.

His movies are all homages. It's not just 'no originality in film', they're remakes, and that's fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chimera82405 said:

"City on Fire" 1987, right down to the 'Mexican standoff scene'. All of the 'best scenes' from City on Fire are recreated in the film, so yes, parts are shot for shot. It is still an interpretation.

DJango for instance, is based on the Italian film, as is InGlorious Basterds, based on another, very closely.

It is commonly known its from City on Fire.

Jackie Brown is a take on Foxy Brown, from the 1970s. Commonly known among fans.

His movies are all homages. It's not just 'no originality in film', they're remakes, and that's fine.

Big difference between homage and remake; “Jackie Brown” is actually based on the Elmore Leonard novel, “Rum Punch.”  It only has a similar title to star Pam Grier’s blaxploitation classic, “Foxy Brown” (I’ve seen both and they’re nothing alike, save for title and lead actress; same with Django...it’s NOT a remake of the spaghetti western classic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites