Sign in to follow this  
Sherlock Holmes

Rated R Star Trek is a dumb idea.

Recommended Posts

                     I have been so annoyed with the "mature" direction Star Trek has been going recently. Star Trek is NOT Game of Thrones. It is not The Walking dead. It is not Deadpool. If you ask anyone today when they got into Star Trek, 4 out of 5 will tell you, it was when they were a kid. I was 4 years old when I first started watching Star Trek TNG in 1990. Then when syndication caught up with the current episodes and flipped over to TOS, I started watching TOS. My parents would not have allowed me to watch a TV-MA show nor a Rated R movie. 

          I feel like by making the next Star Trek movie, "rated R", we are cutting off Star Trek's future fans. I hope someone tells Tarantino "no".  I want Star Trek to return to low budget , creative, intelligent storytelling.  Not someone's shock, sexed up, gore-porn.  

Also, this sounds like a Star Trek idea that's headed for another reboot. I do not want star trek to be rebooted over and over like Spider-man, each incarnation worse than the last.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't say that I'm necessarily afraid of an R-rated Trek. TUC almost earned an R. For nothing, in my opinion, but there it is all the same.

 

At this point, I simply have no faith in Tarantino to do a Trek film worth watching even if they allowed him to make a three-hour NC-17 gore-fest or limited him to rated G.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we just wait and see? It's not like we can do much about it. Star Trek is Star Trek regardless of being at it's best or at it's worst, we have to support it in any way we can, it's the only way they will keep making new movies and shows, and  they can't improve something that doesen't exist, so let's cheer for the people doing different things, even if it turns out to be horrible, thay are at least keeping the franchise alive, therefore giving it a chance of improving. ( My personal opinion )

Edited by Garak the spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Garak the spy said:

How about we just wait and see? It's not like we can do much about it. Star Trek is Star Trek regardless of being at it's best or at it's worst, we have to support it in any way we can, it's the only way they will keep making new movies and shows, and  they can't improve something that doesen't exist, so let's cheer for the people doing different things, even if it turns out to be horrible, thay are at least keeping the franchise alive, therefore giving it a chance of improving. ( My personal opinion )

Well, this is a fan site. If there's no one to opine, speculate, or complain, this is going to turn into a dull place. :)

That said, Trek has made Paramount and CBS billions. If they take a break, it'll be back eventually because money. Nemesis didn't end the movies and Enterprise didn't end the prospect of a series.

But the prospect of that lull doesn't obligate me to support a product I don't like. I didn't like Voyager, and, only now am I picking up seasons as they come in used in my local shops now that there are newer reissues out there.  There's enough good in a season to justify $15 a pop , but that's about it, and I'm still not technically supporting the product. Paramount already got someone else's money for that set.

I don't have to drop money on something I don't like in the hopes that they'll get around to something I do.

THAT said, I'll plunk down money at least once for Tarantino-Trek just to give it a fair judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, prometheus59650 said:

Well, this is a fan site. If there's no one to opine, speculate, or complain, this is going to turn into a dull place. :)

That said, Trek has made Paramount and CBS billions. If they take a break, it'll be back eventually because money. Nemesis didn't end the movies and Enterprise didn't end the prospect of a series.

But the prospect of that lull doesn't obligate me to support a product I don't like. I didn't like Voyager, and, only now am I picking up seasons as they come in used in my local shops now that there are newer reissues out there.  There's enough good in a season to justify $15 a pop , but that's about it, and I'm still not technically supporting the product. Paramount already got someone else's money for that set.

I don't have to drop money on something I don't like in the hopes that they'll get around to something I do.

THAT said, I'll plunk down money at least once for Tarantino-Trek just to give it a fair judgment.

That seems pretty fair. And you're right, without our opinions this would turn out into a dull place haha

I dunno, I just want so muc for Trek to reach some level level of sucess, it might be effecting my judgment. As someone younger, having the Kelving timeline and Discovery has been my first ever chance to actually watch, discuss, hope and feel the hype for more Trek that's actually being made AS WE SPEAK, and it's been great as a fan, to be able to feel that, which most people here have felt already, in the glorious times of TWK and TNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Garak the spy said:

That seems pretty fair. And you're right, without our opinions this would turn out into a dull place haha

I dunno, I just want so muc for Trek to reach some level level of sucess, it might be effecting my judgment. As someone younger, having the Kelving timeline and Discovery has been my first ever chance to actually watch, discuss, hope and feel the hype for more Trek that's actually being made AS WE SPEAK, and it's been great as a fan, to be able to feel that, which most people here have felt already, in the glorious times of TWK and TNG.

6

Even for us longtime fans it's always nice to have new Trek to look over. 

I think Trek is seeing success. It's anchoring CBSAA, it's going to see a new season, and people are talking about it. The movies have always been a harder sell for audiences, so I sort of don't blame them for a willingness to try something markedly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, Star Trek has always been a creature of television. Television allows writers the time to flesh out characters and ideas. Movies are always more of a slice of time. I don't have that much problem with an R rating as long as it's a soft R.

My kids and I watched R movies and TV ma shows when they were in 6th grade. Each kid is different. My son was terrified of Reading Rainbow when he was really little because the first episode he saw showed a fire.But the same son and I watched the TV ma show 6 feet under together when he was in middle school. He had no problem with it. But when my son, daughter and I watched a particular episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that I didn't think twice about when they were about the same age, they had nightmares about it for weeks. They never watched horror movies because it would give them nightmares. When it comes to swearing, children need to learn when swearing is appropriate and when it is not. They need to learn that swear words are a form of power words that will get a serious negative reaction if you use them in the wrong situation. Simply hearing a naughty word isn't going to destroy a child. I crack up on some people I've known that swear every other word who won't let their kids go to R-rated movies because they might be exposed to swearing. 

So to me it depends on why the show gets an R rating. A few f-bombs, some mild violence a little above pg-13 and some mild sexual situations and I wouldn't have had much problem with letting my kids watch it when they were younger but not too young. Scenes with people getting their heads cut off with blood flying everywhere, no so much. Star Trek was never geared towards really little kids anyway. I think that a 10 or 12 year old is more likely to be into ST than a 4 or 5 year old. By the time a kid is 10 or 12, they have probably been exposed to a lot of stuff that their parent's would be appalled of. But if they've got good parents and friends, they'll be fine. 

The question of Tarantino-Trek is whether or not he has enough will power and desire to reign himself in and keep the movie on target. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, scenario said:

The question of Tarantino-Trek is whether or not he has enough will power and desire to reign himself in and keep the movie on target. 

^
This is my biggest concern as well; his own self-indulgence and lack of impulse control have hampered his movies of late.

But for some reason (and I know I sound like a skipping LP) but I have a nagging feeling this won’t happen; it reeks of Bryan Singer’s twice-aborted Battlestar Galactica.  

Tarantion-Trek will stew in development hell for awhile, and then some tried-and-true franchise helmer will probably take it over and resuscitate it (much as Justin Lin & Simon Pegg jumped in and took over from the reportedly troubled aborted effort of Roberto Orci). 

No studio, certainly not risk-averse Paramount, wants an R-rated Star Trek.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of an R-rated Star Trek. I'd like the idea of an NC-17 rated Star Trek as well. Maybe it's because I've been writing this kind of Star Trek for over a decade, and I really can't stand it when someone wants me to "tune down" things so that they're "fit for PG-13 audiences" (in fact, I will tell people no if they ask me to write such a story - simply because I don't want to limit myself, I want a clean slate when I start to write, some stuff becomes R-rated, some doesn't, I just want the freedom to boldly go). I guess Tarantino feels the same way about his work, and regardless of the quality of that work, which I have zero opinion on since I have seen only one of his movies, I can relate to that 100%.

I have no emotional attachments to the Star Trek franchise other than TNG, maybe this is why an R-rated movie wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I don't understand why this is such a big problem. Logan did just fine as an R-rated movie, and people were crying about that as well at first. It all depends on the material and the movie, sometimes a rating just fits that kind of tone.

All that being said... they already bent Star Trek over and backwards with the Kelvin universe and now they're bending it over and backwards again with Discovery and now, if they really end up hiring Tarantino, it will be bent over and backwards all over again... it's a clear pattern of "we don't listen to what the fandom wants"... maybe it's time for the fandom to either adjust to the new ways of the franchise or simply do what our own Gus did... choose to not go along and leave the franchise behind?

Please don't throw rotten tomatoes now I'm just saying, there's so much anger and frustration these days, why get hung up on this when there are tons of episodes and DVDs to re-watch, maybe I just don't really understand this die-hard dedication that Trek fans have...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

I like the idea of an R-rated Star Trek. I'd like the idea of an NC-17 rated Star Trek as well.

I would be okay with it too, if the filmmaker behind it weren’t Quentin Tarantino.  DSC has already proved that Trek can handle mature themes and even drop the “F-bomb” while staying true to Star Trek.   Tarantino is just... not the guy.   Besides I think the topic is moot anyway; Paramount (the producers of Trek’s movies) are far too risk averse to ever allow one of their darlings to get an R-rating...

29 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

All that being said... they already bent Star Trek over and backwards with the Kelvin universe and now they're bending it over and backwards again with Discovery and now, if they really end up hiring Tarantino, it will be bent over and backwards all over again... it's a clear pattern of "we don't listen to what the fandom wants"... maybe it's time for the fandom to either adjust to the new ways of the franchise or simply do what our own Gus did... choose to not go along and leave the franchise behind?

Or, they could do as some try to do; try to open their minds to a new and different interpretation of Star Trek...;)

26 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

Please don't throw rotten tomatoes now I'm just saying, there's so much anger and frustration these days, why get hung up on this when there are tons of episodes and DVDs to re-watch, maybe I just don't really understand this die-hard dedication that Trek fans have...

^  You’ve touched on the bigger problem in Trek fandom; the damned gatekeepers.  It has to be ‘their’ Star Trek or it’s not ‘true’ Star Trek.   I say nonsense.   ST has always evolved.  If it hadn’t, we’d have never had DS9, since that series broke a LOT of Roddenberry rules...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it happens, then I’ll assess it. That’s fair.

I think OP Sherlock Holmes does have a point that Star Trek has always been accessible to a family audience though. At the same time, it’s never been afraid of far-out ideas - this was always a difficult mix to balance, but is also why Trek has such a wide appeal and has inspired millions over the years throughout its different TV and movie incarnations. 

In its gallop to embrace the streaming audience and to show that it’s a contender for the modern sophisticated audience who don’t object to a bit of viscera and “adult themes,” Discovery has shown a willingness to experiment. I don’t think that’s a bad thing and I’m certainly not going to object to it stretching the envelope, although I don’t think the results are always 100% successful (hi, new Klingons). But that tendency does tend to place a limit on how accessible the show becomes to a younger audience, and it’s kids who are the future. They’re who really should be having their imaginations gripped and fired by strange new ideas, and if their parents stop them watching it because of an f-bomb, that’s sad. I personally don’t think that a bit of profanity ruins family entertainment - cf. Data’s “Oh, shit!” Back in Generations.  

I just wonder if engaging Tarantino is a step too far. Engaging an “entrant terrible,” an auteur of sorts who is known for willfully subverting source materials for his own ends and sensibilities seems... well, a bit desperate. It’s not a step Star Trek, as a franchise, needs to take, which is why, at first, I thought it was just attention-grabbing brouhaha for both parties, Big T and Paramount via JJ’s Bad Robot. But there’s definitely something going on here. Maybe they’ll get him to develop a script, and then balk at what he proposes. I can’t imagine Tarantino making something that would work as a big family friendly tentpole movie, but maybe they’re thinking this doesn’t work anyway, so let’s go arthouse. I think there would be better choices than Tarantino, but here he is, stepping up and showing interest, and Hollywood being Hollywood, they’re hearing him out. You’ll certainly get a very unusual take on Star Trek. He is an extremely talented storyteller, but he hasn’t ever demonstrated a capacity to tell stories palatable to the PG audience.  I can’t imagine Tarantino, with his tendency for ultra violence (no matter how cartoony) crafting something with the kind of wide appeal that Trek has always enjoyed. Above all, I don’t want movie Trek to become “niche,” invalidated by a studio’s desperate attempt to accede to a director’s whims. 

But I reserve the right to be surprised. Fundamentally, Trek’s about keeping an open mind... so let’s see what Tarantino’s got.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sehlat Vie said:

I would be okay with it too, if the filmmaker behind it weren’t Quentin Tarantino.  DSC has already proved that Trek can handle mature themes and even drop the “F-bomb” while staying true to Star Trek.   Tarantino is just... not the guy.   Besides I think the topic is moot anyway; Paramount (the producers of Trek’s movies) are far too risk averse to ever allow one of their darlings to get an R-rating...

I do see that point, I guess I was just trying to treat rating and director as separate entities. A lot of fans don't want Tarantino as the director, and I understand, if I were a die-hard Trek fan like them I'd question his ability to make a Trek movie, too, even though the movies are held to lower standards these days - and not just because of the Kelvin time line action flicks, Nemesis and Insurrection carry much of the blame for this drop in standards as well - Tarantino seems like a particularly extreme choice. But if a good director steps in with the right idea, an R rating doesn't seem "stupid" to me. Of course we'd need a good idea, violence just for the sake of violence bothers ME as well, absolutely. I'm just saying that limiting folks to a PG-13 rating is not always a good thing, it can really suppress creativity in some cases.

8 minutes ago, Sehlat Vie said:

Or, they could do as some try to do; try to open their minds to a new and different interpretation of Star Trek...;)

Yeah... but opening your mind to a new interpretation of Star Trek is SO far from the minds of so many fans, and not just the gatekeepers, a lot of them are just fans who simply can't accept that the franchise is moving on and who want their dosage of nostalgia with some kind of TNG 2.0. The jubilant reactions to Sir Patrick's "I want to be in Tarantino's movie" prove this - people are mindlessly all over this idea now, the fandom is buzzing with excitement, but I can guarantee you that if that sort of thing were to happen those very same jubilant people would be the first to scream NO NO NO NO if Jean-Luc as much as BREATHES differently from the way they're used to (which he would, especially in a Tarantino movie). Their "YES I WANT THIS" would turn into "WHAT NO HOW CAN THEY DO THIS" in no time, and it wouldn't be pretty. It's a real problem in this fandom. People want the Star Trek of their youth, and they do NOT want a Star Trek that they don't recognize as such. The Kelvin timeline movies got that reaction, Discovery is getting it, and that new movie, whatever kind of movie it turns out to be, will get it as well. The franchise is moving on, has been doing so for many years, but those fans are still stuck with wanting either 60s or 90s Trek, depending on their age. They aren't moving along with the franchise, they're still clinging to the hope of getting a "real" TNG movie, a DS9 movie, etc, etc, and I just think expectation and reality are SO far apart these days that maybe, just maybe, parting ways with the franchise might be the better idea for many of those fans. It's not worth the aggravation and continued frustration, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Robin Bland said:

I just wonder if engaging Tarantino is a step too far. Engaging an “entrant terrible,” an auteur of sorts who is known for willfully subverting source materials for his own ends and sensibilities seems... well, a bit desperate. It’s not a step Star Trek, as a franchise, needs to take, which is why, at first, I thought it was just attention-grabbing brouhaha for both parties, Big T and Paramount via JJ’s Bad Robot. But there’s definitely something going on here. Maybe they’ll get him to develop a script, and then balk at what he proposes. I can’t imagine Tarantino making something that would work as a big family friendly tentpole movie, but maybe they’re thinking this doesn’t work anyway, so let’s go arthouse. I think there would be better choices than Tarantino, but here he is, stepping up and showing interest, and Hollywood being Hollywood, they’re hearing him out. You’ll certainly get a very unusual take on Star Trek. He is an extremely talented storyteller, but he hasn’t ever demonstrated a capacity to tell stories palatable to the PG audience.  I can’t imagine Tarantino, with his tendency for ultra violence (no matter how cartoony) crafting something with the kind of wide appeal that Trek has always enjoyed. Above all, I don’t want movie Trek to become “niche,” invalidated by a studio’s desperate attempt to accede to a director’s whims. 

But I reserve the right to be surprised. Fundamentally, Trek’s about keeping an open mind... so let’s see what Tarantino’s got.  

And I would definitely check it out... if it happens.  Of which I’m still doubtful, for some reason.  

I just don't see Paramount gleefully and willingly sacrificing one of their sacred cows to the altar of ‘edginess.’  

Granted ST Beyond underperformed (largely an issue with promotion/release dates), but I don’t think they’re that desperate; especially since DSC got its 2nd season with relative ease (and CBS-AA got record new #s of subscribers).

13 minutes ago, Mr.Picard said:

But if a good director steps in with the right idea, an R rating doesn't seem "stupid" to me.

Me neither.  

I’m not against the rating in principle (many of my favorite movies are rated R).  But I’d be against it if it were being used only for cheap, exploitative gain and not for some truly groundbreaking exploration.   It’d be a wasted opportunity if the R-rating were used only to show a Klingon’s entrails spilling onto the deck after combat, or Captain Kirk swearing every other word during a heated argument with Bones.    That wouldn’t add anything to Star Trek.

But... if that R rating were being used to highlight say, an interspecies relationship in daring new ways we’ve never seen before, or to give emotional weight to a tragedy that becomes the impetus for the plot?  Then I’m in. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sehlat Vie said:

 

I’m not against the rating in principle (many of my favorite movies are rated R).  But I’d be against it if it were being used only for cheap, exploitative gain and not for some truly groundbreaking exploration.   It’d be a wasted opportunity if the R-rating were used only to show a Klingon’s entrails spilling onto the deck after combat, or Captain Kirk swearing every other word during a heated argument with Bones.    That wouldn’t add anything to Star Trek.

But... if that R rating were being used to highlight say, an interspecies relationship in daring new ways we’ve never seen before, or to give emotional weight to a tragedy that becomes the impetus for the plot?  Then I’m in. 

 

 

This, exactly. I’m not at all sure he’s that guy, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2017 at 0:09 PM, Garak the spy said:

How about we just wait and see? It's not like we can do much about it.

Oh, we can do something about it. Fan backlash from Orci's other outings in film got to the studio, and he was fired from doing Star Trek Beyond before production started. We did make a difference. Granted it was his ratings and profits from his previous films, but also fan backlash. The studio found he was not really as impressive as he seemed.

Also, isn't this like the Tarantino's idea thread too? It's basically the same subject.

12 hours ago, Mr.Picard said:

 Tarantino seems like a particularly extreme choice. But if a good director steps in with the right idea, an R rating doesn't seem "stupid" to me. Of course we'd need a good idea, violence just for the sake of violence bothers ME as well, absolutely. I'm just saying that limiting folks to a PG-13 rating is not always a good thing, it can really suppress creativity in some cases.

Yeah... but opening your mind to a new interpretation of Star Trek is SO far from the minds of so many fans, and not just the gatekeepers, a lot of them are just fans who simply can't accept that the franchise is moving on and who want their dosage of nostalgia with some kind of TNG 2.0. The jubilant reactions to Sir Patrick's "I want to be in Tarantino's movie" prove this - people are mindlessly all over this idea now, the fandom is buzzing with excitement, but I can guarantee you that if that sort of thing were to happen those very same jubilant people would be the first to scream NO NO NO NO if Jean-Luc as much as BREATHES differently from the way they're used to (which he would, especially in a Tarantino movie).

Yeah, we're not going to get TNG the Reunion, not in Paramount's schedule anytime soon, but there is a little fan film I've been working on for several years that will go there, even though recent events pushed up completion to later in 2018. It is not being funded and was entirely volunteer work, This is why it has taken us years. It will be a love letter to the fans, and totally free. It' going online, for free, but could be TV 14 for suggestive humor in parts.

I am not against a gritty, darker space opera sometimes. I'm just tired of the darker genre for certain things. For instance, Batman is dark, but it wasn't always, and it works as it being dark. Star Trek seems to be leaning toward tossing out the hopeful rhetoric, when it should be embracing some of that. I do not like to be reminded of the here and now in a fantasy movie. I would rather be entertained. Discovery, I can't comment. I've seen two episodes. Tell you when I get the box set when it comes out.

The Orville is kind of a love letter to Trek fans already. Campy might not work though for a modern Trek outing.

Tarantino would be perfect for a remake of Valley of the Dolls, or Forbidden Planet, or even a live action Cowboy Beebop, (although that should probably be done in Japan), but for Star Trek, I am not so sure. Wait and see.

Let's face it, Tarantino's movies do not scream 'brazen optimistic hope for the future of our species' but rather, 'bad guys sometimes win and everyone gets killed'. Not exactly what fantasy of the type should muster. It could. But should it? I dunno.

 

Edited by Chimera82405

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it has been pretty well proven that R-Rated movies do not make a lot of money. An R-rating costs you viewers at the box office. An R-rating does not by definition make a move "more awesome" and if it did be sure that the Batman/Superman movies would be R-rated.

This is not going to happen for a simple reason: An R-rated Trek 4 cannot afford to pay the salary of its regular cast + Patrick Stewart's salary. While we are on the topic, it's unlikely that a typical Bad Robot PG13 Trek 4 could pay even its regular cast's salary. Im afraid the Kelvinverse is stuck in a rapidly shrinking static warp bubble.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Chimera82405 said:

Let's face it, Tarantino's movies do not scream 'brazen optimistic hope for the future of our species' but rather, 'bad guys sometimes win and everyone gets killed'. Not exactly what fantasy of the type should muster. It could. But should it? I dunno.

That's it right there. That is all he does. He's a one note writer. Granted, it's fun to watch here and there but it really is all he's capable of doing. Exposition+exposition+more talking+a lot more talking+ and then the shit hits the fan.

So he's going to do that with a Star Trek shell? Nope. Not interested. I think constraining to make it family friendly might be the way for him to be creative. Both Star Wars and Star Trek have been family friendly. I haven't seen any pressure on Star Wars to 'adult' it and it's doing quite fine as a franchise. Get better writers and you'll get the pay off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chimera82405 said:

Oh, we can do something about it. Fan backlash from Orci's other outings in film got to the studio, and he was fired from doing Star Trek Beyond before production started. We did make a difference. Granted it was his ratings and profits from his previous films, but also fan backlash. The studio found he was not really as impressive as he seemed.

Orci's termination had nothing at all to do with fan backlash. Paramount has notoriously been deaf to the cries of fandom. Orci was canned because he has a nasty attitude and, primarily, because he couldn't produce a story worth shooting.

Share this post


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

Also, isn't this like the Tarantino's idea thread too? It's basically the same subject.

No it’s not.  This thread isn’t specifically about Tarantino Trek; it’s about why any R-rated ST (Tarantino-made or not) is a bad idea.  Not the same thing.

2 hours ago, Chimera82405 said:

The Orville is kind of a love letter to Trek fans already. Campy might not work though for a modern Trek outing.

^
Though arguably it’s working for “The Orville”; the show got picked up for a second season.

2 hours ago, Chimera82405 said:

Tarantino would be perfect for a remake of Valley of the Dolls, or Forbidden Planet, or even a live action Cowboy Beebop, (although that should probably be done in Japan), but for Star Trek, I am not so sure. Wait and see.

I could definitely see Tarantino remaking “Valley...”  or Cowboy Beebop.  Even a sequel to “Serenity” (he’d fit that project like a glove).    

I have a little more trouble seeing him do a remake of “Forbidden Planet” though...

2 hours ago, Justin Snead said:

I think it has been pretty well proven that R-Rated movies do not make a lot of money. An R-rating costs you viewers at the box office. An R-rating does not by definition make a move "more awesome" and if it did be sure that the Batman/Superman movies would be R-rated.

This is not going to happen for a simple reason: An R-rated Trek 4 cannot afford to pay the salary of its regular cast + Patrick Stewart's salary.

^
Very much all of this.  It also reinforces my belief that Tarantino Trek is about as probable as a George Lucas-directed remake of “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone (of us) really longing for more Bad Robot Trek films? I don't hate them at all but they are also not special to me. I could see myself sitting out Trek 4 no matter who makes it, especially if it looks like more of the same as the previous 3. This is probably why Tarantino is even being discussed. Paramount knows this film franchise is probably dead unless the next one is able to stand out in some dramatic, buzzy way.

Trek films need to be redesigned as a perennial space adventure with heavy dose of wonder and character ala Interstellar, Gravity and Arrival. A lot of people go to see the "space movie" every couple years because a lot of people really like them. If Paramount could do those kind of movies in a Trek frame, it would work. Won't make Marvel/DC money, but Trek is never going to make that kind of money period, and they will continue to fail if they try to be those type of superhero movies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno.  I really enjoyed ST Beyond, despite its somewhat lazy 'bad guy with super weapon seeking revenge' plot (an unfortunate post-TWOK side effect that has hobbled all but a few ST movies since 1982).

It was a refreshing step in a better direction; bringing back some of that future-utopia optimism that was a hallmark of the TV shows. 

As for redesigning them in the mode of "Interstellar" "Gravity" or "Arrival"?  While I love those movies very much, those aren't exactly ST either.  ST is not about oohing and ah-ing over space travel per se; it's about human parables within that setting.  They're morality plays, not spectacles of awe or wonder.  The only ST film to really do that was TMP, and it was a critical dud (despite my own love for it).  Any awe and wonder that is generated about space travel in ST is incidental, not central (as it is in Gravity, or Interstellar).

I don't see Paramount ever going back in that direction.

Though I do agree with you that ST won't ever make Marvel money; that's a foolish wish, since ST movies have never made that kind of money.  ST09 was the only one that came close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I think? Paramount and CBS should finally come to their senses when it comes to who has the rights to what and they should just wait a year or so and then make an MA-rated Discovery movie.

Problem solved. :P  (Well, not for the gatekeepers but they hate the Kelvin timeline as well anyway, so it doesn't matter what kind of movie they get, they'll hate it, regardless.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this