You know what they put on French fries on Vulcan instead of ketchup?
December 7, 2017 2:38 PM   Subscribe

Following the news that Quentin Tarantino is developing a new Star Trek movie for J.J. Abrams, it is being reported that both Abrams and Paramount have agreed to Tarantino's condition that the movie be rated R.

Tarantino briefly talked "Star Trek" on the Nerdist podcast a few years ago, and the guys and gals over at alt.nerd.obsessive are pouring over it in search of possible clues.
posted by entropicamericana (149 comments total) 13 users marked this as a favorite
 
Well, a character DID get to say "Fuck" in Discovery...
posted by ShawnStruck at 2:39 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


“Say 'engage' again, I dare you, I double dare you motherfucker, say engage one more Goddamn time!”
posted by Fizz at 2:41 PM on December 7 [22 favorites]


Kill Bill, part 3?
posted by bonehead at 2:43 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


Enough is ENOUGH! I've had it with these motherfucking tribbles on this motherfucking starship!
posted by lord_wolf at 2:46 PM on December 7 [47 favorites]


You know what they put on French fries on Vulcan instead of ketchup?

Gravy and/or chicken salt. They are the only logical choices.

Ketchup is the worst thing to put on fries.
posted by Talez at 2:47 PM on December 7 [5 favorites]


Hmm...

A) post Weinstein there is definitely something up with Quentin, so I'm half expecting something to drop before this is out.
B) Trek and QT don't exactly seem like they'd compliment each other's style.
C) Beyond, which was great and really Star Treky, bombed, so no doubt this will be an effort to be its opposite in every way.
posted by Artw at 2:47 PM on December 7 [18 favorites]


Tarantino has a style that I'm not sure meshes will with the ST universe. So, this should be an interesting experiment.

And besides, every ST movie after the second one sucked ass anyways, so it's not he could do much damage to the franchise.
posted by Pogo_Fuzzybutt at 2:49 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


At first I was like - why not, most of the newer Star Trek films have not really worked - so why not try something completely left-field, it might stick!

I'm not so sure about the R rating though, I do think one of the appeals of Star Trek is that it is relatively family friendly.
posted by liquorice at 2:49 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


Tarantino has a style that I'm not sure meshes will with the ST universe.

Yeah, I'm not thrilled by the prospect of Kirk casually tossing racial slurs into conversation.
posted by poffin boffin at 2:50 PM on December 7 [30 favorites]


Can't wait to spend money on a movie directed by one of Weinstein's admitted enablers!

Actually, I can wait. Forever.
posted by xyzzy at 2:50 PM on December 7 [27 favorites]


They've already done a Star Trek with anachronistic pop music and he won't be able to gleefully have his "bad" characters say the N-word repeatedly. So what else exactly does QT have to give to a Trek project?
posted by thecjm at 2:53 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


Quentin Tarantino is the suck. This does not bode well. The man is stuck as the 13 year old jerk you hated in middle school.
posted by freecellwizard at 2:53 PM on December 7 [22 favorites]


when i was looking for a tarantino quote to bowdlerize for the title, i realized i had forgotten what a good writer he is. he often gets stereotyped as "fuck this and "n-word that" and blood 'n' guts, but there is a lot of witty character banter in pulp fiction that could be fun to see in a trek movie. plus, he is an unabashed fanboy in general, loves pastiches and homages, so put me down as cautiously optimistic. i mean, at least it seems like they're taking a chance on something different?

i was incredibly pessimistic about the first jj movie, but i loved it, even if i found the movies to be a case of decreasing returns. (into darkness was a big pile of tribble poo)
posted by entropicamericana at 2:54 PM on December 7 [20 favorites]


Enough is ENOUGH! I've had it with these motherfucking tribbles on this motherfucking starship!

You appear to be confusing Shark Night 3D director David R. Ellis with Tarantino.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 2:55 PM on December 7 [5 favorites]


"So there's a race of female aliens, and they all run around barefoot..."
posted by Catblack at 2:56 PM on December 7 [32 favorites]


QT is the kind of guy who would take the lead from from a schlocky prime time show of the past like Fantasy Island and cast him as a muscular, Ahabian villain so maybe he's a good fit after all?
posted by thecjm at 2:56 PM on December 7 [13 favorites]


Fascinating.
posted by samhyland at 3:00 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]


Came for the "motherfucker" jokes, was not disappointed.
posted by gwint at 3:03 PM on December 7


Well,it’ll definitely be the *longest* Star Trek movie.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:03 PM on December 7 [6 favorites]


Maybe he will start the whole film with the villains and then the Star Fleet will make them suffer.
posted by Oyéah at 3:04 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


This is a bad idea.
posted by languagehat at 3:05 PM on December 7 [30 favorites]


He knows how to operate in all kinds of genres. I'm interested to see what he does with sci fi. Trek is a very specific flavor, and I think he can pull it off.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:06 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


God forbid Tarantino exercise a modicum of artistic flexibility to bend his talents to fit within the strictures of a wholly different genre aimed at an entirely different audience. No, instead make the genre bend to accommodate him and his extremely narrow array of tools.
posted by Atom Eyes at 3:08 PM on December 7 [13 favorites]


Granger Willson at Vulture published their take on a trailer for Pulp Federation.
posted by Nelson at 3:08 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Beyond, which was great and really Star Treky, bombed, so no doubt this will be an effort to be its opposite in every way.

Well, bombed might be a little strong. It made a good $330,000,000 worldwide, and cost $185,000,000 to make, so they probably came out ok.

I like QT's movies, but really anything that would make it rated R would take it right out of everything that makes ST what it is, IMO. Graphic violence, sex, swearing, in Star Trek?? No thanks. Let him do it in Star Wars, I'd be fine with that. Han Solo prison movie.
posted by Huck500 at 3:08 PM on December 7 [5 favorites]


I'm glad that there seems to be a Trek renaissance about, and that LensFlareTrek is (apparently) on the wane.

But, this renaissance...it's kind of all over the place, no? Beyond is still warm; Discovery is doing quite a different thing, with little connection to the recent films; The Orville is combining feel-good 90sTrek with dick jokes...and now Tarantino?

Tonally, this is all over the place. Like, there are four independent (and more-or-less unrelated) interpretations of the universe happening at once.

I guess there's no reason they can't do that, but it's certainly unusual. Even when the 90sTreks varied somewhat in tone, they still shared a cohesive visual style, and a common universe.

I'll monitor this Tarantino thing cautiously, but...meh. I can't imagine why I'd want to watch a Star Trek movie directed by Tarantino. I don't trust him with the material at all.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 3:10 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


I suppose this means they've abandoned Abram's idea of somehow bringing back Chris Hemsworth as Dad Kirk. Probably for the best: they've already been to the time travel well, and the bucket's still wet; Kirk's daddy issues are incredibly boring and would have made for a thematically tedious story. Still, Hemsworth's always fun to watch, especially in a comedic mode; maybe it could have worked.
posted by Iridic at 3:10 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Do you know what they call a raktajino on Praxis?
posted by CynicalKnight at 3:10 PM on December 7 [11 favorites]


Huh. You know, one of my favorite mental exercises (done while standing in lines and other boring situations) is to imagine my favorite movies being directed by a completely different director.

For example:
The Sound of Music...directed by John Woo.
Lord of the Rings...directed by Baz Luhrmann.
The Godfather...directed by Chris Columbus. You get the gist.

Anyway, I'm 90% sure that, at some point, I entertained the thought of Quentin Tarantino directing a Star Trek movie. I'm not opposed to it. I'm looking forward to seeing my little boredom mental exercise come to life. And, I'm curious to see what he can do.
posted by Elly Vortex at 3:11 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


Set phasers to Ezekiel 25:17
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:12 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: 30 minutes of comments on an article who's link is broken.
posted by humboldt32 at 3:12 PM on December 7 [26 favorites]


But, this renaissance...it's kind of all over the place, no? Beyond is still warm; Discovery is doing quite a different thing, with little connection to the recent films; The Orville is combining feel-good 90sTrek with dick jokes...and now Tarantino?

And we'll get Black Mirror's take in a few weeks.
posted by Iridic at 3:13 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


Wait, wait wait.... Is this the twist for the Black Mirror ep??
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:14 PM on December 7


Metafilter: 30 minutes of comments on an article who's link is broken.
I flagged it as an HTML error but no joy.
posted by xyzzy at 3:15 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


>Lord of the Rings...directed by Baz Luhrmann.

I'd love to see Paul Verhoeven's take on Trek. It's in great need of deconstruction.
posted by bonehead at 3:15 PM on December 7 [14 favorites]


No fucking thank you
posted by Hermione Granger at 3:18 PM on December 7 [13 favorites]


Nice Guy Eddie: C'mon, throw in a buck!
Mr. Pink: Uh-uh, I don't tip.
Nice Guy Eddie: You don't tip?
Mr. Pink: Since humanity has moved beyond the accumulation of wealth, the exchange of money is no longer neccessary.
Nice Guy Eddie: Ok, makes sense.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 3:19 PM on December 7 [22 favorites]


> I'd love to see Paul Verhoeven's take on Trek. It's in great need of deconstruction.

Deconstruction is the last thing I want here. Generally my fear is that this film will be a film about Star Trek, instead of what it should be, which is a Star Trek film about something else which is real and significant.
posted by qntm at 3:21 PM on December 7 [11 favorites]


Well I hate to be the only one at the party, but I am excited as fuck.
posted by biffa at 3:25 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


I can't imagine why I'd want to watch a Star Trek movie directed by Tarantino.

Here's why I'd withhold judgement for now: Trek has some built-in assumptions that are, from the outside, pretty ugly.

Not sentients are equal. If you're built, intentionally, you're property, less rights than a Roman slave. If you're biological, your freedom is sacred.

Humans border on fascism in their chauvinism of the human form: no variations or modifications allowed. This, at least, has an in-universe history in previous wars (Kahn, etc...), but it's undoubtedly the cause of much misery and suffering.

The federation, at least what we've seen of it, is dominated by humans, abetted by vulcans. There's got to be some colonialism there. It's alluded to by Mudd in a recent Disco episode.

That's the start of it. There's lots of material for a "Federation is blindly evil" story or two. Tarantino loves telling stories from the pov of those at the bottom social rungs: the hated minorities, the slaves. There's much he could do with the 23rd century. I don't know if he will, but I'm willing to see if he will.
posted by bonehead at 3:26 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


a tarantino buddy film with black widow and hawkeye about That Time In Budapest could be good

both both chatting about random pop culture minutia while casually committing horrible acts of violence against faceless masses of hydra footsoldiers

obligatory expletive-laden nick fury cameo
posted by entropicamericana at 3:26 PM on December 7 [13 favorites]


So what else exactly does QT have to give to a Trek project?

Blood. Lots of it. In different colors.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:27 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


Generally my fear is that this film will be a film about Star Trek, instead of what it should be, which is a Star Trek film about something else which is real and significant.

What's wrong with asking what our appetite for Star Trek says about us?
posted by bonehead at 3:31 PM on December 7


Star Trek seems to be pervading all kinds of atypical genres, there's also a trailer out with Dakota Fanning in Please Stand By (at least I think its a real trailer).
posted by forforf at 3:31 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]


It is a real trailer and it's basically your feel good story of the week with the quirky angle being that she's into Star Trek.
posted by liquorice at 3:34 PM on December 7


(Kirk teleports in, needles sticking out of his arm and a space hookah in tow)
WHAT'S UP MY GLIP-GLOPS
posted by boo_radley at 3:34 PM on December 7 [10 favorites]


That's the start of it. There's lots of material for a "Federation is blindly evil" story or two. Tarantino loves telling stories from the pov of those at the bottom social rungs: the hated minorities, the slaves. There's much he could do with the 23rd century. I don't know if he will, but I'm willing to see if he will.

I mean sure. We've basically seen that almost every Admiral and above in Starfleet is a jerk or evil.

But I feel like Discovery has a lock on grimdark Trek universe at the moment, I'd like another Beyondesque film - but clearly that didn't make enough money to keep Paramount happy.

It would be interesting to see Tarantino do something away from the Enterprise though, maybe even from the perspective of a planet and race that has just developed warp capability.
posted by liquorice at 3:37 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


what, like Four Rooms, But In Space?
posted by boo_radley at 3:37 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


Star Trek has gone from being uncool because it was too dorky to uncool because it is painfully mainstream. Success?
posted by grumpybear69 at 3:38 PM on December 7 [9 favorites]


The Sound of Music...directed by John Woo.
Would watch.

Lord of the Rings...directed by Baz Luhrmann.
Would watch.

The Godfather...directed by Chris Columbus.
Maybe not.

This reminds me of the handwringing in trad Holmes fandom when the Ritchie film was announced. The first one was a lot of fun, definitely better than expected. Now that I think about it, I'd definitely watch Guy Ritchie Star Trek, with Jude Law as the lounging baddie.
posted by betweenthebars at 3:42 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


Hand-wringing is mandatory in the Trek fandom.
posted by liquorice at 3:47 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


there's also a trailer out with Dakota Fanning in Please Stand By

uhhhhh this should have its own FPP omg I want to see this like right now.
posted by numaner at 3:47 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


The Sound of Music...directed by John Woo.
Lord of the Rings...directed by Baz Luhrmann.
The Godfather...directed by Chris Columbus.


Hulk...directed by Ang Lee.
posted by ZeusHumms at 3:48 PM on December 7 [20 favorites]


The giants.
posted by stevil at 3:50 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


Does everything need be rated R? And I hope it doesn't have too much Tarantino style rambling babbling about bullshit.
posted by Liquidwolf at 3:58 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Kill Darmok
posted by djseafood at 4:00 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]




Tarantino doing a film about Uhura in the vein of Jackie Brown would be great. He's probably the only director who could successfully move a Star Trek movie away from another Kirk and Spock show.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 4:07 PM on December 7 [13 favorites]


Tarantino could do a great “Lower Decks” episode, but I doubt they’d ever fund that (unless they’re smart and they’re doing expanded universe like Star Wars).
posted by leotrotsky at 4:10 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


Something about the reverence he showed for the themes of Superman in Kill Bill makes me kinda get it. I mean it wasn't totally what I take away from Superman myself, but you expect Tarantino to be a Batman guy so it was a pleasant surprise when he showed a bit of depth and understanding and thought with Superman. I just don't know that a similar love for Trek would translate into a good film, it's not as if everyone else making Trek movies didn't love it too.

But, the Superman thing - this pairing does make a certain kind of sense.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:15 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


I will say this in favor of an R-Rating. The second new Star Trek movie depicts the deaths of millions of people as a bloodless backdrop to increase the stakes of that movie. These deaths are often nasty (crew members pinging off walls and railings while two main characters trade one liners, half a city wiped out by star fleet incompetence) and are completely bloodless and without any consequence so the movie can achieve the ever coveted pg-13 family rating. I found it far more disgusting than the violence in most Tarintino movies because at least Tarintino depicts death as permanent and real and doesn’t offhand slaughter background extras in background visuals that are completely at odds with the banter going on in front of it. If a child sees a death in a Tarintino movie they’ll probably be scared, which I would argue is maybe a good thing as opposed to bombarding them with rampant emotionless death.

Jurassic World is another recent example of disturbing, bloodless, entirely consequence free PG-13 violence. I’ll take an R-Rated movie that treats violence seriously over bloodless meaningless violence pretty much any day of the week.
posted by cyphill at 4:17 PM on December 7 [57 favorites]


Fuck it, I’m interested just to see what happens. I think the original idea behind Trek is outdated culturally. What’s left is endless deconstructions of Rodenberry’s vision and a semi-interesting syfy universe that somehow has to be distinguished from Star Wars. I’d be as interested to see Tarentino’s take as anyone’s.
posted by eagles123 at 4:18 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


Yeah, I'm not thrilled by the prospect of Kirk casually tossing racial slurs into conversation.

Do you see a sign that says "Dead Klingon Storage"? You know why? Because we don't store dead Klingons here!
posted by 445supermag at 4:25 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


I figured it out.

The underpant gnomes are boomers!
posted by srboisvert at 4:28 PM on December 7


The Orville is combining feel-good 90sTrek with dick jokes...and now Tarantino

I'm... fairly certain that The Orville isn't Trek canon or even part of the same intellectual property

lol
posted by runt at 4:37 PM on December 7


Eh. The Kelvin Timeline movies are pretty much DOA, so I'm not worried that Tarantino would waylay the franchise by introducing his own style and themes. At this point a Tarantino Star Trek may just be the kind of electroshock the series needs. According to the guys in the fourth link he's said that stories like "City On The Edge of Forever" and "Yesterday's Enterprise" are his favorite episodes, so I'd say there's good odds he'll tell some kind of time travel story in his movie. And given the way he likes to reconstruct (and deconstruct) old genres it makes sense that he'd do most of his worldbuilding in the past, instead of spending a lot of time creating new alien races.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:44 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Stolen comment: "Well, I'll guess we'll finally see what the feet of a bunch of different aliens look like."

Reply: "And taste like!"

Another stolen comment: "Quentin Tarantino is a man of culture!"

Reply: "Yeah, but most if it is yeast. Foot yeast!
posted by loquacious at 4:44 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


I will say this in favor of an R-Rating. The second new Star Trek movie depicts the deaths of millions of people as a bloodless backdrop to increase the stakes of that movie.

I definitely get that argument, but I don't necessarily think Tarantino is always great with violence, either. There doesn't need to be a drop of blood onscreen for a death, or multiple deaths, to have real and visceral emotional impact; and I don't think Tarantino is someone who always approaches death with the most sensitivity (the ultra-gory violence of Kill Bill, with its extended scene of people getting sliced apart, wasn't exactly a sensitive depiction of the end of life). In fact, what I worry about is that he'll fall back on using shocking violence to get a visceral reaction where it isn't expected, like in a Star Trek movie, without actually improving anything.

The argument about the old westerns was that someone would get shot, say "oh," and fall over. Having them spray (blood everywhere doesn't make things better, because that kind of image has its own appeal (sadistic scenes of violence in action and horror movies aren't necessarily better depictions of death than bloodless ones). I think Tarantino is smart, and a brilliant writer (also a creep and a misogynist), but I don't think he's ever been very good at hiding his obsession with violence, and I don't know if that's going to be a solution to the problem of death and violence in Star Trek.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 4:52 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


I haven't really liked a Trek movie since 1982 or a series since 1969 so Tarantino can't really break anything as far as I'm concerned.
posted by octothorpe at 4:57 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


The R-rating just sounds like a dumb crutch.
posted by Artw at 4:57 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


More on the Federation is definitely bad: The plot of DS9 is the Federation discovering a gateway to new territories and swiftly expanding its empire to those new regions. When the existing inhabitants resist, the Federation attempts genocide with biological weapons, stopped by a few rogue individuals. (Note the attempted genocide is set in motion prior to the outbreak of open hostilities.)
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 4:59 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


I don’t mean to say that brutal violence is better, but Tarintino at least takes violence, it’s depiction on screen and audience reactions to it VERY seriously (I would argue that the exploration of film violence is a primary point of Inglorious Basterds). Violence these days in blockbusters is not treated seriously except as an obstacle to a pg-13 rating. You can get R Ratings by having characters react too emotionally to deaths (it makes it more brutal) but so long as no one cares and no blood is seen you can kill all you want in pg-13. If you claim they’re mutants or aliens or robots you can be even more brutal so long as the blood isn’t red.

I haven’t seen a blockbuster that actually cared about death in forever. Just obsessed with showing it.
posted by cyphill at 5:10 PM on December 7 [5 favorites]


escape from the potato planet: "But, this renaissance...it's kind of all over the place, no?"

It's funny how that works. Trek began with Roddenberry, who definitely filled The Original Series with his own values and themes. But after The Motion Picture (ST I) he got kicked off the movie series and Harve Bennett became the "showrunner" for the next four installments. Nicholas Meyer was the guy most responsible for ST VI, then (I think) Rick Berman and his crew took over for the rest of the movies. Berman became the main force behind TNG after Roddenberry's health failed, and he was more or less the guiding hand behind everything Trek in the 90's, both movies and television.

Now it's... I don't know. This FPP implies that JJ Abrams is the "showrunner" for the new movies, while the TV shows split off with CBS and are completely separate things now. I don't know enough about Discovery to even guess who the main creative force is there.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:11 PM on December 7


I’d love to see something associated with the DS9 series as a QT trek movie. So much potential there and it could be something all Trek should be: timely.
posted by meinvt at 5:12 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]




Looking forward to the trunk-POV shot of Spock in a suit with a skinny tie, opening the trunk of the Enterprise.
posted by chococat at 5:26 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


Does the R-rating mean we finally get onscreen K/S? Tell me it means we get "Kirk and Spock are stuck on an empty planet when pon farr hits."
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:32 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]


I haven’t seen a blockbuster that actually cared about death in forever. Just obsessed with showing it.

Yeah, I didn't mean to say that I disagree at all, but I think where we do disagree on how Tarantino handles it. He's definitely smart enough to understand what he's doing, but I also think he can be really sadistic and mean. I mean, he definitely cares about death, but he's also obsessed with showing it, if that makes sense.

Anyway, to the broader issue of Star Trek having all these moral problems - I thought that was the point? Especially later on. There's a lot of material that forces the characters to reevaluate fundamental moral principles and weigh them against the reality on the ground (on space?). I mean, within the first 10 episodes of Voyager they've already acknowledged how the holographic doctor is treated like a piece of equipment. There's a bunch of episodes about the Prime Directive that shows how shitty it can be. I mean, it's definitely not all addressed (like, the basic idea of having alien species stand in for human races is problematic on about a thousand levels, and the Federation is definitely ultra-colonialist). But I mean, shoot, even Star Trek II is in part about how Kirk left people to die.

But at the same time, I don't want things to flip, black-and-white, to "the Federation is bad," because I don't think that's any more interesting than thinking they're perfect. I'd rather have something that acknowledges and explores these fundamental problems, while also still reaching for some kind of an ideal. Why can't we have something that at least tries to be optimistic, even if that means recognizing human failings? I'd hate for things to go grimdark just because we're fed up with everything being too spiffy.

I do think the franchise handles these problems better as time goes on. DS9 and Voyager took a much more interesting approach than TNG did (I haven't seen much of Enterprise, so I can't comment on that show).
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 5:33 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


I've never been Tarantino's biggest fan (although I think he's made a couple of great movies) but I'm kind of excited about the idea of him taking on STAR TREK, out of curiosity if nothing else. R-rated, though? That's dumb.
posted by brundlefly at 5:33 PM on December 7


Thanks for the link, entropicamericana! That letter is really interesting, but I don't think it proves your point. Roddenberry's criticisms of TWOK (with the exception of what he said about the Kobayashi Maru scene) all sound pretty cogent to me. But that said, Roddenberry's ideas of what Trek should be did become too rigid as he aged, and it seems pretty clear that TNG would have been a failure if he had continued to run it.
posted by Kevin Street at 5:36 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


I've had the impression that Tarantino is a big fanboy of classic Trek, and if he did a movie where all of the Abrams reboot crap was time-traveled out of existence and we were back in the classic timeline, I'd love him forever. But if this movie actually happens I suspect he'd just try to graft some of his sensibility and some of the classic Trek sensibility onto NuTrek, and that sounds like it'd probably be a real mess.

I don't think it'll happen. There are lots and lots of announcements about Hollywood folks "in talks" for weird or exciting movies, and most of those movies never happen. If it DOES happen, with an R rating, I'd be surprised if characters are dropping f-bombs all over the place. More likely Tarantino just wants more violence.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 5:37 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Maybe it will have run amok AI, since that is a current worry. Maybe that is how the violence will go as humans fight to get their mojo back. Robots are about the only thing directors can mash to pieces infinitely, without offense.
posted by Oyéah at 5:46 PM on December 7


If a child sees a death in a Tarintino movie they’ll probably be scared, which I would argue is maybe a good thing as opposed to bombarding them with rampant emotionless death.

Kids do not get traumatized by movies like that and then come out thinking, "You know, this means violence is bad and therefore I should grow up to be a peace activist." Kids aren't adults. It doesn't matter if it's an R-rating--there are going to be younger people who watch this, because it's Star Trek, and I'm deeply uncomfortable with going that direction. I agree that the death of millions should not be a bloodless thing with no consequences. I think that means that Star Trek needs to take much, much greater care with plotlines that revolve around the death of innocents in particular. I do not think that means that Star Trek just needs to be bloodier and that makes it all okay.

All that said, I have heard that Tarantino is a fan, and I'd like to believe that even if he takes this to an R, that he's capable of doing so without it just being a bloodbath. I mean, he did Grindhouse with Rodriguez--and Rodriguez also made Spy Kids. Tarantino is a grown-up who is at least theoretically capable of making more than one kind of movie. If he makes a Star Trek where people swear a bit more and the deaths are just not quite so sanitized, I think that could be fine. If he makes it A Tarantino Movie, it's not just going to hurt Star Trek as a franchise, it's probably going to hurt more than a few fans.

Star Trek is not about "you need to understand the gritty realism of death". It should not be treating death lightly, but Star Trek is about hope and ideals, and I think one movie trying to crush that does more damage than a dozen movies' worth of Benedict Cumberbatch.
posted by Sequence at 5:48 PM on December 7 [9 favorites]


So here's the thing. Lot's of swearing isn't what makes Tarantino films what they are. Gratuitous use of the N-Word isn't even. Not even lots of violence, even.

What makes Tarantino films work so well is ratcheting up tension through unconventional means, usually through on-its-face unassuming and pedestrian dialog, but it comes out in a lot of different ways. The strongest hit against the J.J. Abrams Star Treks is that they are Star Wars with Roddenberry's characters and universe on top of them, but Tarantino knows how to actually make hay out of what Roddenberry was doing, much in the same way Ronald D. Moore knew how to do that (in TNG and then with BSG before that went up its own ass) by making people who are all sympathetic run up against each other despite common shared goals.

I personally think he could have done this, and perhaps more interestingly, with a PG-13 restraint, but I don't doubt that this will be good.
posted by Navelgazer at 5:54 PM on December 7 [6 favorites]


The last QT film I saw was Jackie Brown so I have no idea what his films have been like since then but most Star Trek movies are total garbage. I found Beyond so incredibly boring and entirely mediocre I didn't even finish it (I found the Force Awakens only slightly less boring so like any Joss Wheadon does is not for me maybe the same with Abrams).

In other words, my expectations could not be lower so why not.
posted by juiceCake at 5:57 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


I recently watched Discovery, and was very, very, VERY pleasantly surprised. I think it is the best Trek since the original, because, to me, it's true to the spirit of the old show.

I'm in a good place now, so I'm feeling generous. If Tarantino wants to make an R-rated film, let him. I'm curious to see what he comes up with.

Maybe he's an acquired cinematic taste, but I've always thought his film-making bonafides were in good order, and if he's a fan, maybe he'll show more respect to the source material than J.J. Abrams did. Hell, a styrofoam cup could have done a better job than Abrams did.
posted by KHAAAN! at 5:57 PM on December 7 [7 favorites]


QT is the kind of guy who would take the lead from from a schlocky prime time show of the past like Fantasy Island and cast him as a muscular, Ahabian villain so maybe he's a good fit after all?

Yeah, we've already seen Malcolm McDowell as a Star Trek villain.
posted by Guy Smiley at 6:02 PM on December 7 [5 favorites]


The R-rating just sounds like a dumb crutch.

No worse then lens flares and pop music.
posted by Ashwagandha at 6:02 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


Does the R-rating mean we finally get onscreen K/S? Tell me it means we get "Kirk and Spock are stuck on an empty planet when pon farr hits."

Heck, why not just do porn at that point. Captain Kink and Mister Spun--- uh... nevermind.
posted by zarq at 6:05 PM on December 7


The last Tarantino movie I watched was Hateful Eight so hey, okay I guess? Bit of a weak end? but boy is he doubling down on his less likable tropes over time.
posted by Artw at 6:12 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


. I think the original idea behind Trek is outdated culturally. What’s left is endless deconstructions of Rodenberry’s vision and a semi-interesting syfy universe that somehow has to be distinguished from Star Wars. I’d be as interested to see Tarentino’s take as anyone’s.

Deconstruction is outdated, culturally. We already have gone over the flaws in '60's Trek's vision of an egalitarian future, in 90's Trek's vision of a multicultural future. What we need is a 2017 vision of a utopian, multicultural future. Something with a vision and a backbone that at least tries to envision what the future could be if humanity could rise above all the bigotry and racism and bullshit.

Of course to do that, you'd probably have to have a group of people in charge that weren't mostly white dudes. Which, as far as Star Trek itself goes, good luck getting a radical vision like that by studio execs and their precious "intellectual property."
posted by Zalzidrax at 6:13 PM on December 7 [11 favorites]


More on the Federation is definitely bad: The plot of DS9 is the Federation discovering a gateway to new territories and swiftly expanding its empire to those new regions. When the existing inhabitants resist, the Federation attempts genocide with biological weapons, stopped by a few rogue individuals. (Note the attempted genocide is set in motion prior to the outbreak of open hostilities.)

This is an extraordinarily inaccurate DS9 plot summation. It's so inaccurate, it would be more accurate if written by someone who had never seen one episode of the show.
posted by Automocar at 6:26 PM on December 7 [11 favorites]


I feel like I'm stepping into the dragon's mouth here, but why does the race and gender of the people in charge matter? If your goal is to depict a utopian, multicultural future, then surely the important thing is what's shown on screen.

It's weird to say this, but I wonder if one reason it's so hard for Hollywood to tell utopian stories now is because in some ways we've gone backwards a bit since the 60's. Many things are possible now that were flat out impossible because of bigotry when Trek was created, but we don't seem as united in our beliefs about what is right as they did then.
posted by Kevin Street at 6:30 PM on December 7


well...he can't do worse than the reboots. explosion dreck.

that said, I'm sticking with my martin-guitar-travesty-boycott.
posted by j_curiouser at 6:41 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


It's weird to say this, but I wonder if one reason it's so hard for Hollywood to tell utopian stories now is because in some ways we've gone backwards a bit since the 60's.

One of the reasons I enjoy Star Trek is because I believe it reflects a desire for the ideal version of the world we live in now. That means I want to see the people behind the camera be as diverse as those on screen. The race and gender of the people in charge matter because they're always going to be writing from the lens of privilege that they have. We all have our own privilege, but I think we've had more than enough white male stories for a little while now - it would be okay (nay - desirable) to give other viewpoints an opportunity as well.

I mean, have you watched the original Star Trek? It may have been utopian for the times but it is awfully sexist and uncomfortable. They had to recast the First Officer from a woman (Majel!) to Spock because the test audience didn't find it believable that a woman would be in such a senior role and found her too bossy.

We've gone from that to having Discovery which has a black female "First Officer" as the lead, started off with a Malaysian female Captain, and the first "official" gay (and interracial!) couple to boot. Yeah, people are still complaining about it but the difference is - the producers didn't listen to them.
posted by liquorice at 6:49 PM on December 7 [10 favorites]


So it looks like Tarantino would be directing it but not writing it, and he's currently auditioning several potential screenwriters to flesh out some idea he had. It's a weird situation and at this point I don't think there's any predicting what the heck this thing would be.

I just wish we could get Abrams out of the mix for good. I thought he was busy with Star Wars stuff!
posted by Ursula Hitler at 7:13 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


I was annoyed by this news but honestly, with Discovery off to a good start this is the perfect time to experiment with Trek. The TV show really eliminates any begrudging obligation to see Tarantino's take. At worst we get something ignorable, at best we get a bold new entry in the series.

Do you know what they call a raktajino on Praxis?

A raktajino.

(It's Klingon coffee.)

(Peldor joi, everyone!)
posted by greenland at 7:14 PM on December 7 [4 favorites]


> This is an extraordinarily inaccurate DS9 plot summation. It's so inaccurate, it would be more accurate if written by someone who had never seen one episode

Now I feel like I should have a go.
posted by The Card Cheat at 7:19 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


For me Trek has always been about characters and ideas (and ideals) and not really about spectacle. Abrams’ reboots feel, to me, like nothing but spectacle with some well chosen quips holding them together. While I think this works for Star Wars (never a deep franchise to begin with), I don’t think it works all that well for Trek. His first rebooted film felt at least he was making an effort but the other 2? Considerally less so, especially Beyond. That film feels like you could swap out the Enterprise crew and replace them with whatever bog standard sci-fi stereotypes and it would be the same film.

For all the cursing and bloviating in his films, Tarantino’s idea of spectacle isn’t the same as Abrams (or Michael Bay, or George Lucas or Spielberg…). It’s often very personal and often anchored to some bravura central performance. Along with that he is also interested in character more than those action set pieces Abrams’ relies on. The R rating is a red herring – saltier language, more violence, a little sex or more likely adult situations - that is what I’d expect from Tarantino. So while I’m not against this, especially if he isn’t writing the script, I’m not entirely convinced this is going to happen. As mentioned above, I think Tarantino’s personal past may come back to sour his present ambitions.

For me, especially with how good Discovery has turned out to be, I’d much rather see a legitimately diverse movie Trek on the screen and behind the scenes. That’s the hopeful utopia we need.
posted by Ashwagandha at 7:39 PM on December 7 [6 favorites]


I'm... fairly certain that The Orville isn't Trek canon or even part of the same intellectual property

Wow, thanks for clearing that up.
posted by escape from the potato planet at 7:51 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


A few thoughts on this:

- Anyone who thinks that classic Trek is bereft of sex and violence might want to rewatch "The Cage", "Charlie X", or "The Enemy Within."

- save alive nothing that breatheth, that's not a hot take so much as just flat-out wrong. By the time that Odo was infected by Section 31, the Dominion had already destroyed New Bajor and the Odyssey, twice kidnapped Federation citizens, and infiltrated the military structures of the Federation and the Klingon Empire. Oh, and weren't exactly strangers to genocide themselves, as witness "The Quickening".

- "So pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the fuckin' shuttle."
posted by Halloween Jack at 8:28 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


Disappointing. My 8-year-old and I have been watching ST:TNG in syndication, and he is SUPER INTO IT. It's sad how more recent Treks aren't family-friendly; TNG is, even the sex is mostly innuendo and suggestion. But I don't feel like I can show him Discovery (female Klingon riding male Klingon, naked), and I'm going to have to rewatch the rebooted movies to see if they're okay, given the more threatening/realistic violence of them (and, frankly, lack of coherent plot).

I admire Tarantino's work, but I don't see any of it as something I can share with my children and discuss with them to foster their moral and intellectual growth. It's really frustrating to have a Trek that's off-limits to children, especially as the newer Star Wars movies are off-limits too.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:57 PM on December 7 [8 favorites]


I'm... fairly certain that The Orville isn't Trek canon or even part of the same intellectual property

That's a blessing too. The Planetary Union of The Orville is in a way more interesting position than the Federation. Humanity is a mid or even minor power in The Orville's universe, whereas the Federation is a dominant superpower.
posted by bonehead at 9:11 PM on December 7 [2 favorites]


I don't see how anyone who sat through the godawful, idea-free mess that was Hateful Eight can possibly say Quentin Tarantino is a director who "takes violence seriously."

Anyway, the first Abrams reboot was a pretty great Trek film; the other two were shallow, flashy, dumb slogs. I can imagine the meetings where Abrams et al were trying to come up with a plot for the 4th film - lots of sighs and thumb-twiddling and "I dunno, what do *you* think?" It must have been such a relief when Tarantino burst through the door. As gimmicks go it's not a bad one, but high hopes? Uh-uh.
posted by mediareport at 9:12 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


The Orville is very close to TNG in rating, while Discovery appears to be trying to be The Expanse. Which is going to be Games of Thrones-level adult in spacesuits.
posted by bonehead at 9:14 PM on December 7


Unless it takes place in the alternate evil universe, I'm skeptical. Also, does this mean the current Trek roster is being replaced?
posted by Beholder at 9:16 PM on December 7


Discovery appears to be trying to be The Expanse

Yeah I really don't see that. Expanse is comparatively boring in comparison to Discovery. But I neither cared for Expanse the show nor the book it is based on.

does this mean the current Trek roster is being replaced?

All reports seem to indicate that it is the 4th film in Abrams reboot universe. But it is still the early days.
posted by Ashwagandha at 9:18 PM on December 7


I feel like I'm stepping into the dragon's mouth here, but why does the race and gender of the people in charge matter? If your goal is to depict a utopian, multicultural future, then surely the important thing is what's shown on screen.

For the same reason that you wouldn't make a multidisciplinary science team by hiring mostly physicists.
posted by Zalzidrax at 10:33 PM on December 7 [3 favorites]


leotrotsky: "Tarantino could do a great “Lower Decks” episode, but I doubt they’d ever fund that (unless they’re smart and they’re doing expanded universe like Star Wars)."

Dunno. The maintenance man episode of Babylon 5 really worked quite well in my opinion, and it was just a regular episode of the mainline show, nothing "special". I think, for example, the trials and tribulations of a couple of low ranking engineers could be quite good.
posted by Samizdata at 10:49 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


brundlefly: "I've never been Tarantino's biggest fan (although I think he's made a couple of great movies) but I'm kind of excited about the idea of him taking on STAR TREK, out of curiosity if nothing else. R-rated, though? That's dumb."

I do NOT think a shuttle, painted yellow, with the words "Pussy Transport" in pink on the side, would work in a PG-13 movie. Just sayin.
posted by Samizdata at 10:53 PM on December 7 [1 favorite]


I'd pay a little money to see Samuel L. Jackson as a Klingon.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 12:11 AM on December 8 [5 favorites]


From my perspective, the thing that differentiates Star Trek from Star Wars and the rest of the usual sci-fi, not to mention present day action thrillers, is that in Star Trek there is a belief that government can be a force for good, for promoting and maintaining beneficial values, that deep down, in the end, all people want essentially the same things, peace, harmony, and respect. That such values are sometimes perverted to destructive ends out of fear, hate, or individual lust for power is the hurdle that must be overcome to resolve the situation.

For many obvious reasons we've lost faith in government and doubt collective similarities of desire. Movies, particularly US ones, offer instead heroic individualism, rebels fighting against the amassed power whether government, corporate, or other. There is obviously some resonance in that, but at the same time it suggests little hope for improvement and promises nothing aside from faith in someone believed to be the "one" good hero who will save things. Rebellion in that way appeals equally to the progressive and the reactionary since the promise is just overturning the status quo for something different. It's destruction to ambiguous end, measured only by the hero being seen as better than the villain, though not necessarily more fun.

That's much easier and more immediately enjoyable to do than show people working together for the common good, which is why it makes for "fun" and dynamic movie making. Star Trek may be unbelievable in its optimism for humanity, but its only in that hope that there is some brighter future ahead. Fetishizing individualism is not a better path nor does it make for better storytelling necessarily, it's just what we've become conditioned to expect as much as anything else.

Tarantino is a gifted director, he understands well how to diagram a scene and structure a story to gain maximum effect. His interests and manner of expression is juvenile, but he knows how to pace his dialogue for good effect among multiple characters. He's a fan boy, but has some fetishes of his own that he draws his perspective from, so overall I'd expect a exciting enough movie, but maybe one that continues to carry the franchise away from its defining values to something more conforming to Hollywood interests instead. Who writes it and how much say Tarantino will have in that will shape things considerably, if it does indeed get made at all.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:17 AM on December 8 [9 favorites]


I'd pay a little money to see Samuel L. Jackson as a Klingon.

So long as its a TNG-DS9 style Klingon, the latest variant would be a waste in terms of too much facial build.
posted by biffa at 2:00 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


There are a lot of desperate room temperature burns in this thread. He's Quentin Tarantino. He's good at making movies. Maybe he might make a good movie?
posted by Sebmojo at 2:20 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


This won’t be Star Trek but it might be good. Unlike the Abrams movies which resembled Star Trek in the way McDonalds resembles food with approximately equivalent quality.
posted by Glibpaxman at 3:45 AM on December 8


After Abram's inexcusable incapacity to understand the integral role of humor in Star Trek, I believe that Tarantino's seemingly effortless ability to meld drama and comedy will serve the franchise well.
posted by fairmettle at 3:56 AM on December 8


There are a lot of desperate room temperature burns in this thread. He's Quentin Tarantino. He's good at making movies. Maybe he might make a good movie?

People like talking about movies and the people who make them. It's fun to speculate and think about how this franchise will mesh with a pretty distinctive directorial voice. If we left everything at "eh, we'll see how it turns out," there'd be nothing to talk about.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 4:23 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


I do NOT think a shuttle, painted yellow, with the words "Pussy Transport" in pink on the side, would work in a PG-13 movie. Just sayin.

It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby.
posted by zarq at 5:05 AM on December 8


Also WRT Tarantino doing Star Trek, I think that he's usually credited (well, not in the formal sense, since he was script doctoring) with this scene in Crimson Tide:
Hunter: You ever watch Star Trek?
Vossler: St- yeah, Star...
Hunter: Star Trek! The USS Enterprise? All right, now you remember when the Klingons were gonna blow up the Enterprise and Captain Kirk calls down to Scotty he says "Scotty, I gotta have more power-"
Vossler: He needs more, more warp speed, yeah.
Hunter: Warp speed, exactly. Now I'm Captain Kirk, you're Scotty, I need more power. I'm telling you if you do not get this radio up, a billion people are gonna die; now it's all up to you, I know it's a shitty deal but you got it, can you handle it?
Vossler: [silent]
Hunter: Scotty?
Vossler: Aye, Captain.
posted by Halloween Jack at 6:26 AM on December 8 [5 favorites]


He's good at making a very particular type of movie.
posted by Artw at 6:26 AM on December 8 [5 favorites]


zarq: "I do NOT think a shuttle, painted yellow, with the words "Pussy Transport" in pink on the side, would work in a PG-13 movie. Just sayin.

It doesn't matter when it's Arcturian, baby.
"

I'd be thinking that would be more an Orion thing, but, yeah, okay.
posted by Samizdata at 6:34 AM on December 8 [1 favorite]


calling it now, there will be at least one long, gratuitous shot of the female lead's bare feet and the villain's starship will be shaped suspiciously like a woman's high heel shoe
posted by indubitable at 6:38 AM on December 8 [1 favorite]


What, Yorgos Lanthimos was unavailable? Actually, I think I'd watch his iteration of Star Trek, come to think; in fact, that kinda needs to happen.

Well, actually, I'd like to see him do the next-in-series films for ALL the franchises currently in process. But you may not want to live in my version of "Hollywood." Few likely would.
posted by heyho at 7:04 AM on December 8 [1 favorite]


Orion Slave Girl Unchained, anyone?
posted by DrAstroZoom at 7:35 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


This reminds me of the handwringing in trad Holmes fandom when the Ritchie film was announced. The first one was a lot of fun, definitely better than expected.

That's where we disagree. I'm a fan of both Ritchie and the Holmes books and I didn't like anything about that movie, can barely even remember anything about it other than thinking "is this almost over?"

Fuck it, I’m interested just to see what happens. I think the original idea behind Trek is outdated culturally.

That was back when we still had hopes for the future as a society.
posted by bongo_x at 9:22 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


I have high hopes. On the podcast, he talks about expanding situations from OS and TNG episodes to feature length. I like that he plans to mine the source material for ideas, rather than gloss over the former series as old schock, as most of the Star Trek films have done. I wish Tarantino were writing it instead of a JJ Abrams selected blockbuster committee. I'm surprised he's doing a franchise film at all.
posted by OrderOctopoda at 9:44 AM on December 8 [1 favorite]


Err... most of the Star Trek films have mined old episodes to some extent.
posted by Artw at 10:06 AM on December 8


I perpetually expect bad decisions about new directions for Star Trek movies. Since this is at least a very different kind of bad decision than any I'd have expected, I'm at least a little intrigued.
posted by the phlegmatic king at 10:09 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


Some predictions:

Cinematography will be some combination of the look of Sergio Leone and the Original Series.
Interminably long facetime sessions.
Scenes of Star Trek fighting modified only in that the punches actually appear to land and there's blood.
Like 30 minutes of the film will be a single scene set around the bar and/or a table at Ten Forward
A Federation/Klingon/Romulan/Khan Mexican stand-off at the end where Kirk shouts "Stop pointin' that fuckin' phaser at my son!!"
Tim Roth with some sort of forehead prosthetic as alien villain.
Abrupt cut to mid-film title screen: PART 3: THE GORN
Michael Madsen as a guy marooned on a planet for 30 years. Says he's not bitter.
Some sort of extremely gory and troubling transporter incident - maybe the transporter gets used as a weapon by beaming somebody into somebody else?
Admiral Kurt Russell
Michael Keaton as the captain of some other ship
Jamie Foxx as James T. Kirk
Riker delivers an incredibly graphic monologue about his sexual exploits

"You see this tricorder? This tricorder was first purchased by your great-grandfather during the first conflict with the Klingons. It was bought in a little commissary at the Starfleet Academy on Earth. Made by the first company ever to make tricorders. Up until then, people just carried three different corders."

Alternatively: The film opens with the crew entering the holodeck for some R&R, and then the whole rest of the movie is just a western where some holodeck cowboy teaches Data to use the f-word, which he uses non-stop until eventually everybody is killed old-west style and we never see any part of the ship or space or any of that again.
posted by The World Famous at 10:43 AM on December 8 [3 favorites]


Jamie Foxx as James T. Kirk

Okay, this I want to see.
posted by Artw at 10:48 AM on December 8


And you know there's gonna be some shirtless Sulu martial arts action.
posted by The World Famous at 11:12 AM on December 8


Admiral Kurt Russell

Sold. (As long as you keep him away from the guitars.)
posted by Halloween Jack at 11:36 AM on December 8 [3 favorites]


I'm imagining a scene like from Animal House where Spock is jamming out with space hippies and Admiral Snake Plissken smashes that harp thing.
posted by The World Famous at 11:40 AM on December 8 [2 favorites]


The World Famous, you haven't mentioned a single not-man character or actor? which is probably in line with QT's vision, but jeezus, this is a good part of why some of us are worried.

Misogyny isn't cute.
posted by allthinky at 12:04 PM on December 8 [2 favorites]


"fox force five" but they work for section 31
posted by entropicamericana at 12:11 PM on December 8 [1 favorite]


I would definitely like to see a movie centered on Uhura. I'm bored with Spirk, or Kock, or whatever they call him.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:15 PM on December 8


Getting to direct a Star Trek movie should be a great honor, and I'm tired of all the great honors going to white men. I want exciting new ideas in my Trek, and I doubt I'll get any from Tarantino.
posted by The corpse in the library at 12:20 PM on December 8 [1 favorite]


I'm imagining a scene like from Animal House where Spock is jamming out with space hippies and Admiral Snake Plissken smashes that harp thing.

Been done.
posted by Halloween Jack at 12:35 PM on December 8 [5 favorites]


The World Famous, you haven't mentioned a single not-man character or actor? which is probably in line with QT's vision, but jeezus, this is a good part of why some of us are worried.

Misogyny isn't cute.


My apologies. I'm not sure what to do with that criticism, other than apologize, reflect, and try to improve. I'm sorry.

I could add some jokey predictions about non-male characters and actors, but at this point I worry it may come across as disingenuous.
posted by The World Famous at 3:22 PM on December 8


The World Famous, you haven't mentioned a single not-man character or actor? which is probably in line with QT's vision, but jeezus, this is a good part of why some of us are worried.

Uma Thurman would like to have a word with you about ass-kicking female characters in the work of Quentin Tarantino.
posted by Ursula Hitler at 3:50 PM on December 8 [1 favorite]


"Up until then, people just carried three different corders."

I am laughing so much at this.
posted by I'm always feeling, Blue at 5:36 PM on December 8 [1 favorite]


Misogyny isn't cute.

Neither is ignoring most of QT's films to accuse him and others of misogyny, either. Do better.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 11:26 PM on December 8


The debate over Tarantino's treatment of women in his films is a bit more complex than tough=good. While I personally think there is some useful discussion to be had on the subject, and there's been some solid writing on it over the years, I'm not sure this is the place for it since it is a bit off topic and the mods probably don't need the hassle, but I am sure we won't get that discussion by people just making blanket statements asserting the "truth" of the situation one way or the other. If the subject is going to be taken up, I'd suggest approaching it with a bit more care than shown so far.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:05 AM on December 9 [1 favorite]


I don't need you to tell me how hot my earl grey is, I replicate it.

That's all I got.
posted by quinndexter at 4:58 AM on December 9


Well, QT did mention (two years ago, FWIW) that he wasn't really interested in doing a sci-fi movie, but that there is one thing in particular that he would be interested in. "It might be science fiction, but it wouldn’t involve spaceships.” In that same interview (I'd link to it but I can't find the source) he also mentioned that he needed to do at least one more western if he wanted to be called a western director. So my guess is a remake of A Fistful of Datas with lots of postmodern meta shenanigans on the holodeck.
posted by fregoli at 5:33 AM on December 9


I know he probably just added the pop-culture references, but maybe some of Crimson Tide rubbed off on him. Which in some ways would make for a good Star Trek in ways that people have complained the Nu Trek hasn't been meeting. The central conflict is a credible moral disagreement, right? You've got these good speeches like Denzel Washington saying "The enemy is war itself" versus Gene Hackman talking about the Russians fueling their missiles.
posted by RobotHero at 10:23 AM on December 9


If someone else with the actual chops for science fiction writes this, I am fine with QT directing. He can shoot and edit beautifully; his writing is juvenile and bloviated. Keep him behind the camera and afk and we should be fine. Although yes, we may still have to endure his foot fetish.
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 11:24 AM on December 9


Behold the alien centipede woman.
posted by biffa at 1:41 AM on December 10


his writing is juvenile and bloviated.

Some of his writing, especially his dialogue, is juvenile, but he's brilliant in other ways. I liked Pulp Fiction when I first saw it, but it wasn't until I read about it in a screenwriting book that I realized how great the screenplay is: Tarantino rearranges the story structure so that it doesn't follow the traditional narrative arc. It mirrors the traditional 3 act structure, but the events are placed out of chronological order to maximize narrative tension. I'm doing a bad job of summarizing what I read, but it had me convinced that he really did know how to do brilliant things with a screenplay, even if you don't like his dialogue.

But that's a good point, that he'd be directing but not writing. I can't think of a movie I've seen that he directed, but didn't write. I'd be interested to see how that's different from the movies of his that I've seen. I can see him having good judgment as a director, although I'm still worried about how he'd handle violence.
posted by shapes that haunt the dusk at 2:17 AM on December 10


« Older Anyone who was watching that night was shrieking...   |   Childhood Innocence Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.