GustavoLeao

Shatner Wants to Return in Tarantino Movie

Recommended Posts

On 2/3/2018 at 4:52 PM, kenman said:

Shatner has blocked people before and unblocked them, and there is sometimes bo reason for it. He may just be a dope who is accidentally blocking people. I know he did block STC because they had used an inage of his Kirk to promote their show, and he didn’t appreciate that. Which is his right I suppose. Are you sure he blocked Doohan or just the show? At any rate you can block whoever you want on twitter, if it is anyone I wont really hold that against him. 

Slightly off topic, Uma Thurman interview about Weinstein, Hollywood, and how her friendship with Tarantino crumbled makes me REALLY want him out of the franchise. He is a great filmmaker, but he nearly killed her in a stunt...and I just want his filmmaking style and brand nowhere near Trek...I love his work, think he is not what the franchise needs. Unfortunatey I think it had gotten what it needed as a film franchise and it didn’t make a enough money. 

I just read Tarantino's version. The stunt was driving a car at 35 mph down a dirt road. I would have been comfortable letting either of my children do it on the day they first got their licence and neither of them are stunt driver material. Tarantino knew that Thurman had a drivers licence, what he didn't know was that she almost never drove since the day she got her licence and hadn't driven in years. At the last second, they changed directions and this direction had an S-Curve. She lost control of the car and crashed into a tree. I can see the situation. They've set up a shoot where all's Thurman has to do is drive fairly slowly down the middle of the road. She has a licence, this shouldn't be much of a problem. She comes in at the last second and says I can't do it. Tarantino rolls his eyes and says that we'll lose a whole day shooting if you don't do it. She reluctantly agrees. The thing Tarantino didn't realize is just how bad a driver Thurman was. Bad assumption, and bad listening skills. I've had lots of bosses that don't want to hear it. It kind of goes with the territory of boss. 

Shatner is a prima donna. There's a lot of actors like him. You see his type in a lot of areas. I don't really hate Shatner, he's just got annoying tendencies like a lot of people. The problem with him and a Star Trek movie is that he is a prima donna and has to be the star. His ship has sailed long ago and he can't live with the fact that he can't be the star anymore. If he could dial his ego down and take a bit part, I wouldn't have a problem with him in the movie. But he can't. I look at being a prima donna as almost like a disability. I'm sure that his need to be the center of attention has cost him a lot of roles in the past. 

On the topic of Tarantino, I recognize that he is a very good director but I really don't like any of his movies. I haven't seen a single likeable character in any of the Tarantino movies I have seen. Every character are some form of self centered jerks. This really doesn't fit very well with Star Trek. I just can't see him making a good Star Trek movie. At best, it would be a Star Trek flavored Tarantino movie. And of course, Tarantino seems to be almost as much a prima donna as Shatner. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, scenario said:

I just read Tarantino's version. The stunt was driving a car at 35 mph down a dirt road. I would have been comfortable letting either of my children do it on the day they first got their licence and neither of them are stunt driver material.

Did you read the part of Thurman's version where one of the crew told Tarantino that the vehicle was faulty?

And if it was all Thurman's fault as a crappy driver there's no reason for them to seize the camera footage and not release it unless she agreed not to sue. If she's a crap driver and the film shows she's just a crap driver, there's no reason to bury it.

 

51 minutes ago, scenario said:

His ship has sailed long ago and he can't live with the fact that he can't be the star anymore. If he could dial his ego down and take a bit part, I

This. Star Trek doesn't need or want him anymore and he has a problem with it because there was a time that Star Trek could be done without him

 

56 minutes ago, scenario said:

On the topic of Tarantino, I recognize that he is a very good director but I really don't like any of his movies.

I like, overall, very few of his films and like parts of others. Inglorius Basterds, for instance. Stellar performance by Waltz, great work from Brad Pitt, otherwise a bad film. 

Share this post


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

Did you read the part of Thurman's version where one of the crew told Tarantino that the vehicle was faulty?

And if it was all Thurman's fault as a crappy driver there's no reason for them to seize the camera footage and not release it unless she agreed not to sue. If she's a crap driver and the film shows she's just a crap driver, there's no reason to bury it.

 

This. Star Trek doesn't need or want him anymore and he has a problem with it because there was a time that Star Trek could be done without him

 

I like, overall, very few of his films and like parts of others. Inglorius Basterds, for instance. Stellar performance by Waltz, great work from Brad Pitt, otherwise a bad film. 

I don't doubt that that his story and her story don't match. She says that the the car was faulty. He says that the car was modified and you had to be careful driving it. If they said something like you have to push the brakes down a little further than in most cars to make them work, the car is faulty. But it's the sort of thing that millions of drivers around the world live with every day. Not everyone drives a brand new car. I drove a forklift on a job that had no brakes. You had to use the clutch to slow down and stop.

The real problem is that they didn't explain things very well in advance or allow a few practice runs. If she could have made 5 or 10 runs at 10 mph to get used to the car, she would have been fine. Like most movie shoots it was wait around forever and then hurry up and get it done right now. She didn't know that she would have to drive until it was too late to practice. He didn't allow for any practice time because it was the sort of thing that an experienced driver could do in their sleep even with a slapped together vehicle. It was most certainly his fault for not checking but driving is such an common skill in first world countries, it didn't occur to him to check. 

I can understand hiding the footage. A movie star crashing into a tree and almost killing herself is not the thing a producer would want to see spread across the news. Damage control.  That doesn't make me like Tarantino any more. I just don't think that what he did was totally reckless. It's one of those things that in hindsight was foolish but it was done under time pressure. 

To me it's like riding a bicycle. In my generation, everyone could ride a bike. It was a skill that 99.9% of people could do. I recently got on a bike for the first time in 10 years and rode it no problem. But this is a skill that is dying. Many people my children's age do not know how to ride a bike. So I'm making a movie about kids in the 1980's. I ask the kid and their parents, "Can you ride a bike." The have ridden a bike a few times but aren't all that good. They say, yes they can. I set up a scene where the child has to ride the bike to in front of the house, stop and get off. The bike has hand brakes but the child is used to foot brakes. The skills needed to complete this scene are minimal. The child falls off the bike and breaks their arm. They say the bike was faulty because it had hand brakes instead of foot brakes. Whose fault is it? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, scenario said:

I don't doubt that that his story and her story don't match. She says that the the car was faulty. He says that the car was modified and you had to be careful driving it. If they said something like you have to push the brakes down a little further than in most cars to make them work, the car is faulty. But it's the sort of thing that millions of drivers around the world live with every day. Not everyone drives a brand new car. I drove a forklift on a job that had no brakes. You had to use the clutch to slow down and stop.

The real problem is that they didn't explain things very well in advance or allow a few practice runs. If she could have made 5 or 10 runs at 10 mph to get used to the car, she would have been fine. Like most movie shoots it was wait around forever and then hurry up and get it done right now. She didn't know that she would have to drive until it was too late to practice. He didn't allow for any practice time because it was the sort of thing that an experienced driver could do in their sleep even with a slapped together vehicle. It was most certainly his fault for not checking but driving is such an common skill in first world countries, it didn't occur to him to check. 

I can understand hiding the footage. A movie star crashing into a tree and almost killing herself is not the thing a producer would want to see spread across the news. Damage control.  That doesn't make me like Tarantino any more. I just don't think that what he did was totally reckless. It's one of those things that in hindsight was foolish but it was done under time pressure. 

To me it's like riding a bicycle. In my generation, everyone could ride a bike. It was a skill that 99.9% of people could do. I recently got on a bike for the first time in 10 years and rode it no problem. But this is a skill that is dying. Many people my children's age do not know how to ride a bike. So I'm making a movie about kids in the 1980's. I ask the kid and their parents, "Can you ride a bike." The have ridden a bike a few times but aren't all that good. They say, yes they can. I set up a scene where the child has to ride the bike to in front of the house, stop and get off. The bike has hand brakes but the child is used to foot brakes. The skills needed to complete this scene are minimal. The child falls off the bike and breaks their arm. They say the bike was faulty because it had hand brakes instead of foot brakes. Whose fault is it? 

If she adamantly didn’t want to drive the car, was told it was faulty, she felt uncomfortable with it...there is no reason he should force her. End of. Get a stunt driver. Can’t be that hard. It wa s abig film from a big director, and he was pushy and overbearing because TO HIM it shouldn’t be a problem...and now she has permanent injuries. 

I like almost every Tarantino film, and I didn’t want him anywhere neat Trek before, but this coupled with his creepy defense of Roman Polanski and his mild complicity in the Weinstein stuff...Must we taint Trek with such a controversial figure, especially if he wants to make a. Ig dark gritty R-rated version? I would love if somehow Trek could have something that was still watchable for family viewings. I watched Trek as a kid...I really like Discovery but I wouldn’t want my kids to watch until they are older, I could see the Kelvin movies (at least 2009 and Beyond) being watchable for kids (like 7 or 8 and up). If the show is gonna gear towards a more mature audience, at least make the movies a  sort of middle ground. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the particulars, he put her in a position she was clearly uncomfortable with. That she didn't drive, and the car was modified or potentially not road-worthy without some skill is all the MORE reason not to pressure her to do it.

The fault is still his. 

Share this post


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

Regardless of the particulars, he put her in a position she was clearly uncomfortable with. That she didn't drive, and the car was modified or potentially not road-worthy without some skill is all the MORE reason not to pressure her to do it.

The fault is still his. 

Oh I agree totally. It's his fault.

I just think that actors are placed in positions their not comfortable with all the time. I'm sure that actors are also not comfortable saying no to directors. Any love scene would be uncomfortable with a lot of actors. Having a scene where you have to pet a dog when you are terrified of dogs. Many actors ignore their inner fear to get the job done. The show must go on. I'd bet most actors have stories of the time they did something that they really didn't want to do. 

Actors who say no I can't do that, are called prima donnas and they stop getting job offers after a while. A director who has cost overruns because they have to delay shooting a simple shot of a person driving down the road, may find it difficult to get funding for their next movie. No one shoot would be that big of a deal but if they do it too often, they might not get funding later on.  

He didn't think the shoot was that big of a deal. She didn't want to but convinced herself she could do it. The car was a little difficult to drive but not that bad. They turned the other direction for some reason. The original direction was a dead straight road. The new direction ended in an s turn. A series of poor assumptions and lack of information led to an accident. 

There's a show called dual survivor. One of the original stars complained that some of the things they were doing were unrealistic and potentially dangerous. He was fired. Trantino didn't have to say anything. All actors know that they can be fired for saying no. Alls it takes is a sigh and rolled eyeballs and the actor will say "Okay, I'll try it."

Share this post


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

Shatner is a prima donna. There's a lot of actors like him. You see his type in a lot of areas. I don't really hate Shatner, he's just got annoying tendencies like a lot of people. The problem with him and a Star Trek movie is that he is a prima donna and has to be the star. His ship has sailed long ago and he can't live with the fact that he can't be the star anymore. If he could dial his ego down and take a bit part, I wouldn't have a problem with him in the movie. But he can't. I look at being a prima donna as almost like a disability. I'm sure that his need to be the center of attention has cost him a lot of roles in the past. 


Agreed.

3 hours ago, kenman said:

If she adamantly didn’t want to drive the car, was told it was faulty, she felt uncomfortable with it...there is no reason he should force her. End of. Get a stunt driver. Can’t be that hard. It wa s abig film from a big director, and he was pushy and overbearing because TO HIM it shouldn’t be a problem...and now she has permanent injuries.

^  VERY much this.   You should never put the primary actor at stake, even if its driving a car at 35 MPH on a dirt road.   She hadn’t driven in years, she wasn’t comfortable.  That was more than enough (IMO, anyway) to call out the damn stunt driver.   That’s what they’re there for, for chrissakes. 

And given this resurfaced interview link  where Tarantino defends Roman Polanski’s rape a 13 year old girl (no girl is ‘asking for it’ at age 13), I’d say his chances of directing a Star Trek movie just went to s#!t. 

Share this post


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


Agreed.

^  VERY much this.   You should never put the primary actor at stake, even if its driving a car at 35 MPH on a dirt road.   She hadn’t driven in years, she wasn’t comfortable.  That was more than enough (IMO, anyway) to call out the damn stunt driver.   That’s what they’re there for, for chrissakes. 

And given this resurfaced interview link  where Tarantino defends Roman Polanski’s rape a 13 year old girl (no girl is ‘asking for it’ at age 13), I’d say his chances of directing a Star Trek movie just went to s#!t. 

The key word is adamantly. If she was saying clearly, "I cannot do this. I do not have the skill." It is a clear cut case. You get a stunt driver even if it costs a day of shooting.  If it was more like her saying "I really don't feel comfortable with this."" And he said, "it's not that hard can you give it a try?" And she said, "okay, I'll try it." It's in a different category.  He knew before shooting started that she had a driving licence. That gives the impression that she is at least minimally competent to drive. 

The thing with this situation to me is that I don't have enough information to be strongly on one side or the other. The stunt looks very easy to do, at least on the surface. She has a drivers licence. I can see either side being true. One side, she knew she couldn't do it and loudly "I can't do it," and he pushed her into it. The other side, She was embarrassed to admit she couldn't drive and gave a weak tepid complaint about the stunt and then agreed to do it.

It's a where do you draw the line kind of thing. Working with animals takes a skill. I've read stories where a director asked an actor if they can ride a horse. The actor said yes. But the actor had never even seen a horse up close. The director finds out on the 10th day of shooting that the actor lied to him. What to do now? Reshoot the movie or try to give the actor a quick lesson or two to shoot a few vital scenes.  Like walk up to horse, and get on it. Cut, put in stunt man to do actual riding.  If the actor gets hurt whose fault is it? 

Whether or not a 13 year old girl is asking for it is irrelevant. She could be on her hands and knees saying "please please" begging him and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. As an adult, it is his responsibility to say no. If a 3 year old begs to drive a car a responsible adult says "No you can't." An adult can't use the excuse that the 3 year old asked to drive the car in court.  An adult can't use the excuse that a 13 year old asked for sex in court. Same thing. If you're going to try to to use the defense she asked for it, you'd better be saying she had a knife in her hand and I was afraid for my life or I was passed out drunk when it happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites