It’s been nearly a year since we last heard any news about Paramount’s sequel to Star Trek Beyond, first announced by the studio in July 2016, which at that time was said to feature the return of Thor actor Chris Hemsworth as George Kirk, reprising his role from the first Kelvin Timeline film in 2009.

Back in 2015, famed director Quentin Tarantino talked a bit during a Nerdist interview about his thoughts on Star Trek, calling out some favorite episodes like “The City on the Edge of Forever” and “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” and also expressing an issue with the current film series that forces the storytelling to include all the established characters rather than allowing a focus on the main leads (Kirk, Spock, and McCoy.)

They might have trapped themselves a little bit by the simple fact they have to use all the crew now.

In all the films they’ve established it so much, that you need Uhura, you need a Scotty, you need Bones, you need all that stuff going on all the time — everybody has to be represented in some big story where they all have to deal.

Tarantino talks Trek in that interview, also touching on the casting of Cumberbatch as Khan in Into Darkness, the greatness of “Yesterday’s Enterprise,” and more:

Now, after months of silence from the Paramount side of the franchise during the lead up and opening season of Star Trek: Discovery — remember, CBS owns the television half of Star TrekDeadline is reporting (and The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed) that Tarantino has actually pitched a story to Trek film producer J.J. Abrams, and the studio is putting together a team of writers to explore the idea.

From Deadline’s Mike Fleming, Jr.:

Sources said that Tarantino has come up with a great idea for a Star Trek movie at Paramount. After sharing his idea with JJ Abrams (who himself is busy prepping Star Wars Episode IX), I’ve heard the plan is to assemble a writers room of scribes who’ll hear Tarantino’s take and begin to put together a movie. If it all works out, Tarantino might direct it, with Abrams producing.

While Tarantino has always come up with his own original films, many have wondered what he might do if he took the reins of an existing franchise. He has only done that on television, twice directing episodes of CSI and once an episode of ER. He has spoken about the appeal of taking on one of the James Bond movies, but the hard part of something like that is getting the rights holders to give him a wide creative swath that comes along with a final cut auteur like Tarantino.

This would give a remarkable boost to the venerable franchise for Paramount, which is looking to build them under studio chief Jim Gianopulos.

Safe to say this is way too early to call Tarantino’s involvement with the Star Trek film series anything close to a done deal, and there’s no way of knowing if Tarantino’s idea even includes the current roster of Kelvin Timeline actors.

Back in 2015, Marc Evans, Paramount’s Motion Picture Group president, expressed his interest in possibly expanding the Star Trek film universe to a wider range of stories in possible future films, referencing such heaver-themed tales like Zero Dark Thirty.

Until we know more, we’re certainly filing this under “wait and see” status — but it’s nice to hear that there are still some signs of life in the Star Trek movie business.

Order
Star Trek Beyond
on Blu-ray!

Order
Star Trek Beyond
on 3D Blu-ray!

Order
Star Trek Beyond
on 4K Blu-ray!

  • MattR

    I would definitely be interested in hearing more about Tarantino’s vision. It’d be interesting to see someone like him play in the “Star Trek” sandbox, and maybe take some elements of his style, but not go all the way.

  • Your Worst Nightmare

    Well, that could be different…

    The fanboys are going to hate it. :p

  • Kevin Attwood

    I’d love Tarantino to do a take on City On The Edge – as with most TV episodes a “B” story could be incorporated to feature the rest of the crew whilst Kirk, Spock and Bones search for each other in the past. What would have happened if Edith Keeler DID NOT die??? – Fascinating!

  • rebelemissary

    Star Trek with racial slurs and I thought J.J. was the worst thing to befoul Trek.

    • Mat Rowe

      Worst thing to befoul Trek is intolerant Trekkies.

      • rebelemissary

        Intolerant Trek fans. Why would their opinions be the worst?

        • Your Worst Nightmare

          “Young minds, fresh ideas. Be tolerant.”

          • rebelemissary

            Still trying to figure out how an increase in racial slurs equals “fresh ideas.” Also, Quentin isn’t even known for fresh ideas. Many have accused him of stealing ideas for most of his carrier.

            Hell, I like George Lucas, but I wouldn’t be advocating that he needs to do a Trek movie. Just because J.J. thought he had a “great Idea.”

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            It’s called jumping to conclusions based upon previous work. QT’s films aren’t for everyone, I’ll grant you that. But if this happens (and it’s a big if), I would be shocked if any of the things you suggest actually came into play. Star Trek is the most important thing Paramount has a part of. I’m sure QT understands that as he writes his script.

            Fans need to chill out about this. A real fresh take from a big name writer/director is exactly what Trek needs.

          • Especially considering that Tarantino won’t even write the script (according to what I’ve read). He’s the idea guy. I doubt they’ll tell the screenwriters to write it like you’re Tarantino. He has usually come across as a fan of the franchise, so I’d expect him to have a creative new take on the story, though almost certainly a bit more of an edge.

          • Ace Stephens

            I expect a riff on the time travel and parallel universe themes he mentioned in the above interview. What with talk that George Kirk may be back (granted, from earlier ideas, apparently), could we see a City on the Edge of Forever-type thing involving him? Kirk travels into a universe/timeline where George never died and it seems one must die in order to repair the timeline (of Kelvin or maybe the timeline he enters is the Prime one somehow and he meets a de-aged or older footage Shatner or something maybe with both having their faces covered…).

            I don’t know. Something may allow them to keep all their current contracts/plans in a general sense.

          • October_1985

            So well said. Exactly my thoughts.

          • rebelemissary

            If I don’t use his previous work. What should I use to determine he’d do a good Star Trek film? If his film aren’t for everyone. Why would a Trek film be any different?

          • Your Worst Nightmare

            I suggest you actually look at his body of work outside of the films with gore, swearing and racist statements. He has a whole body of work of writing outside of the eight films he’s directed. He’s an amazing writer.

    • MISTA_JEFF

      Come on man, you’re telling me that in 25 years of his movies, all that you’ve ever gotten out of a Tarantino movie is racial slurs? He’s an extremely talented writer who 100% understands genre. Everyone isn’t just going to start talking like LA gangsters all of a sudden. I’m not sure if his style will mesh with Trek (if anything I’m betting very little of his style comes through in the end, he knows Trek has history, you can’t rock the boat that much). What Tarantino definitely is, is a good storyteller, and while his movies aren’t for everyone, I don’t see how the high quality structure of his themes and scripts is lost.

      • kadajawi

        rebelemissary probably hasn’t seen anything Tarantino, ever. He just has heard what QT is known for, and repeats that.

        • rebelemissary

          I tried to watch two of his films and couldn’t make it through them. Many of my friends try to get me to watch his stuff, but they like you guys. Can’t ever give a legitimate reason why he has to use excessive amounts of derogatory language aimmed solely at blacks.

          • kadajawi

            His usage of language is there for authenticity purposes. And if he were a black filmmaker, no one would give a damn. If a black person says yo nigga, that’s fine. If a white person does, it’s racist. Fine. But what if a white person writes the line that a black actor says? What if it was written by a black person?

            Tarantino doesn’t look like a racist to me. In his movies it’s often black people who are the main character, and usually the good guys, the heroes. If he were racist, surely he would do other movies?

          • rebelemissary

            Again, he’s only authentic when he has black characters to denigrate. From Dusk Till Dawn to Inglourious Basterds. He doesn’t get any where close to the excessive amount of derogatory language for those other racial groups.

            Inglourious Basterds was about a group of Jewish solders sent out to kill Nazis. Throughout the film the harshest terms the Nazis use against them. Are Jew monster or Jewish bastards. No K-word or any other nasty term.

            When he uses the word I question his motives as bigotry or just plan insensitivity. Hell part of me thinks he does it because blacks dared to criticize him for using it and he likes to consider himself edgy.

            He’s not a director or writer I enjoy. There are a lot of directors I would love see do a Star Trek film. The J.J. reboot cast deserves at least one great movie.

      • rebelemissary

        That and over the top violence. Reading this thread has shown me people will accept and justify anything. Just to get new product. I don’t trust him or the executives to not to role over and allow him blow the boat up.

        If their not going to let him go crazy with the language and violence what’s the point of Tarantino doing the movie?

        • kadajawi

          Erm. No. I don’t like the reboot. I thought ID and Beyond were okay-ish, but if the reboot franchise dies, hooray. Except that I do think Tarantino is pretty good at what he does, and thus I’m interested.

        • Ace Stephens

          It’s his idea they like and he’s a talented director who understands genre well. If your perceptions are so narrow that you can’t understand that and instead focus on negative stereotypes about his work (more his writing than his directing as far as you’ve indicated awareness of) due to your distaste for his writing, I don’t know what to tell you except that your preferences are distorting your ability to reason clearly.

  • Justin Olson

    Tarantino’s uncredited rewrite work on CRIMSON TIDE was amazing. This is something he can knock out of the park.

    https://i.imgur.com/uu9pmDP.gif

  • Alex Morris

    This would be a much needed take on the jj verse, I liked beyond alot more with a different director.

  • Godzilla

    It’ll be a Logan like movie featuring Chris Pine and Shatner and giving Shatner a proper death this time. The movie will feature the Kelvin timeline cast and “Old Kirk” can die differently this time because it’s an alternate timeline.

    I can almost guarantee that is the jest of it.

    • That does seem like a jest, I’ll agree with you on that one. 😉

  • Locutus

    It would be sure to draw an audience, if not at least out of morbid curiousity. I for one am onboard, especially if it means ditching George Kirk, which is wholly unnecessary to revisit.

    • DIGINON

      I’m not completely sure but I don’t think Tarantino’s films have been as huge financially as Paramount seems to hope for TREK. He is not the blockbuster guy.

      • Locutus

        Apparently, Django Unchained earned $420 million worldwide and Inglorious Bastards earned $320 million worldwide. If he has a big idea, I could see it earning something along the lines of Inglorious Bastards. Paramount seems interested in marketing Star Trek globally with Chinese investment in Beyond. Tarantino seems to have a global audience. Also, he can shoot on shoestring budgets (probably because his characters talk endlessly.)

  • Mirror Universe, here we come!

  • Quintillion Tesla

    I’ve read speculation ( and this COMPLETE speculation ) that maybe IF they were to do domething like rework “YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE”, they could put the USS Kelvin in place of the ENTERPRISE C.

    I would say, why not just use the JJ ENTERPRISE in the Enterprise C role, with Picard & co having again to face a similar dilemma s before – whether to send the JJ-verse crew back in time to their deaths in order to preserve the “Prime Timeline”?

    • mr joyce

      Cool idea, let’s see if any of this comes to pass

    • Locutus

      It’s an interesting idea, but if it is the JJ Enterprise, wouldn’t sending them back just restore the Kelvin Timeline? I don’t see how it could restore the Prime Timeline.

      The re-booted movies, as I understand them, operate more under the time travel principles from TNG’s “Parallels” with myriad universes. Spock Prime merely slipped into a parallel universe or a new universe created by Nero’s time jump. The Prime Timeline is allegedly still intact. “Yesterday’s Enterprise” operated under the traditional linear “Back to the Future” understanding of time travel. That is my understanding. Frankly, it is all kind of a mess, which is one reason I don’t love time travel stories.

    • Rass

      There’s no need to preserve it since it didn’t go anywhere. Spock ended up in an alternate reality. In the multiverse, the prime timeline still exists.

    • Dansen

      yeah, they aren’t going to restore the prime timeline. Get over it.
      This trek was another reality, a separate parallel one, it didn’t change the prime timeline hence there is nothing to preserve or restore because that reality is still there and still happening.

  • Quintillion Tesla

    I hope this can revitalise/semi-reboot the movie franchise. I really enjoyed the JJ films mostly, but it’s clear audience interest ( and thus studio profit ) was way, way down.

    Would Paramount even want to invest megabucks again into a series of films whose profits were continually trending downwards?

    • kadajawi

      Maybe Paramount should have created movies that appeal to fans, first and foremost, instead of aiming at everyone but fans. Prime timeline, prime looks (as long as you don’t want to make it about Kirk the ships do look modern… I mean how does the Enterprise-E look dated? Plus moving into the future you can always make things more futuristic).

      Of course you can and should write the movie in a way that beginners can get into… many filmmakers and tv show creators have done that successfully. Force Awakens is absolutely true to the previous movies, and fans get to enjoy it a lot. But you didn’t have to have watched it to enjoy it.

      The reason why ST3 was a failure was IMHO that ST2 was a disappointment to many. Personally I liked it better than the first one, but obviously many didn’t. So those who didn’t enjoy it didn’t come back again. You see that in effect with the Marvel and DC franchises, IMHO. All installments in the Marvel world have been at the very least enjoyable, thus people will go to any new movie blindly. I do. I don’t really care for the trailers, for the characters it’s about… Marvel has gained so much trust that I want to watch it if they did it. DC however… after Man of Steel, which was a let down, Batman v Superman which was aggressively bad, and Suicide Squad, which was bad despite good trailers and a fun premise, there’s no way I’m going to the movies for Justice League. Doesn’t even matter if some people say it’s good. Or that Joss Whedon, whom I adore, did some work on it.

      • madmadia85

        Again, delusional. It’s a proved fact that making movies ‘for the fans first foremost’ is a bad idea and doesn’t make them successful. Beyond is the last proof in the pudding: it catered and pandered to reboot haters and tos fans the most and it IS the least successful of the trilogy. A flop.
        It has nothing to do with stid because aside from what deluded reboot haters say, that movie is the most successful. Not only it is more critically praised than beyond and most of old movies, it made more money too. Simply put, people liked it more than beyond (something further emphasized by dvds sales and audience votes on a number of streaming sites)

        • kadajawi

          Star Trek 1 through 9 did well even though they really only appealed to fans. Getting bigger audiences is fine, but not a necessity.

          Beyond, being a part of the reboot, didn’t stand much chance with reboot-haters anyway. It wasn’t early enough for those fans.

          What I am suggesting is a movie that plays after Nemesis. What’s wrong with that? You get to show awesome new tech. Fans will enjoy it… most want post TNG Star Trek as opposed to TOS era Star Trek anyway if surveys can be believed. And for the general population, does it really make any difference if Kirk is in it or not?

          • madmadia85

            “but not a necessity.”
            maybe for you, but not the studio.

            They want and need this trek to be big, or as big as other franchises are, and stay ‘relevant’, and by following the ‘advices’ of some hardcore trek fans, they’d just flop.

          • kadajawi

            I think if they want to stay relevant, they need to increase the frequency. A movie every 3-5 years? By the time the next movie comes out, people already have forgotten it is a franchise. Look at Star Wars. A movie a year. DC is trying it with 2-3 movies a year (though they rushed everything, and thus are failing). Marvel is doing 3-4 movies a year, and they started with mid-sized budgets, and they still do relatively modest budgeted movies for what they are. Lots of different talent doing different movies taking place in one universe that is absolutely consistent (things that should be the same don’t look different from one Marvel movie to another!).

            I really, really think Paramount should have a long hard look at Marvel. What are they doing? They establish different characters. There can be different Star Trek movies that play more or less around the same time, but with different crews. Giving each set of writers and filmmakers ample time to come up with the next iteration. The budget doesn’t need to be massive. One of the ships may be more about exploration, the other may be a war ship, etc. They can do one, two Star Trek shows, too. Eventually, after a few years, do something bigger. Events in the movies, in the TV shows lead up to something big, involving all characters.

            People aren’t opposed to interconnected universes anymore! Marvel is having a massive interconnected universe, with 10 (!!!) TV shows, 9 of them running concurrently and influencing each other, and many more movies that are also part of the same universe. Star Trek used to be the prime example of this, yet Paramount and CBS were too scared to make a show that is based on what came before it. What’s the worst that can come out of it? That people buy DVD and Blu-ray boxes trying to catch up? Or watch it on CBS All Access/Netflix?

        • Ace Stephens

          Sadly (but unsurprisingly), it’s your own take which is nearer to “delusional” as it ignores that positive critic reviews bloated box office receipts a bit and that film was riding on the well-received (generally) nature of the 09 film’s momentum. You’ve oversimplified the concern. Audiences don’t know whether they like a movie until they’ve seen it. It took awhile for fan criticism of Into Darkness to go heeded but that wouldn’t happen now in the age of “Martha” becoming a meme immediately after BvS’s release (plus the current over reliance on Rotten Tomatoes if fans consider giving a film a chance – which many don’t if the previous entry rubbed them the wrong way as in the case of Into Darkness going into Beyond).

    • Locutus

      Maybe one of the appeals of QT’s idea is that it does not involve “megabucks.” Slim down the cast to Kirk, Spock, and McCoy, and trim the budget, then see what the writers pull off.

      • madmadia85

        Or Kirk, Spock and Uhura? You know, to be more real not to mention that was the main 3 of this trek from the start and those 3 are the most popular actors of this trek (mostly Zoe and Chris, due to their other movies)

        Stop overrating McCoy’s importance to this trek when he is just a secondary male character like Scotty. The general audience doesn’t give a damn about original trio nostalgia, and the actor isn’t even a list or enough popular to make people watch a movie only for him. They don’t put him in posters for a reason.

        Some fans are simply delusional.

        • Locutus

          Easy there pilgrim! Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have always been the heart and soul of the TOS crew. It’s not “delusional” to expect QT to recognize them as such. From his prior interviews, he gets it. Not including Karl Urban would be unfortunate. His McCoy is more in line with the original character than any other in the Kelvin universe. I understand the attachment to Uhura though. Admittedly, it is such an ensemble and folks are invested in their favorite characters, fandom will be pissed no matter who they chose to exclude.

          • madmadia85

            Pretentious.
            Tos crew, but not this one (and it can be argued that even in tos, it actually was more the Kirk/Spock show).
            Different actors, different reality, different narrative, different time, DIFFERENT TREK.

            The big 3 of this trek is Kirk/Spock/Uhura, not the original trio. It’s 8 years that it’s like that, even the comics are developed that way. Promotion is handled that way. And there is no ‘conspiracy’ against Urban that makes them delete his face from posters and replace it with Zoe’s.

            If there is anyone here who is too ‘invested’ in their attachment to some of the original characters, and dynamics, it’s the fanboys with nostalgia who are on denial about the character dynamics of these movies, and thus canon, and want to pretend that Mccoy is the protagonist with Kirk and Spock.
            Beyond tried to give him more screentime and bring the old trio back, the result? Least successful movie of the trilogy.

            No one says that they should fire Urban. You are the one who is making the argument that they could get rid of most of the cast and keep only the 3 guys. The answer you got is that, if they really had to reduce the cast to 3 people only (as absurd the idea already is), then they should keep Saldana more than Urban for the above mentioned reasons, and plus the fact she’s more popular as an actor than him.

            No way, in our time and for nowadays audiences, a movie with just Kirk/Spock/McCoy would be more successful than Beyond. It’s not realistic. It’s delusional. It would be a flop, and rightfully so, because most of the people who watch these movies don’t give a single damn about tos and they’ll only see a franchise that went backwards compared to the first movies. Most of the people who watch these movies don’t share our attachment for the old dynamics, and even a lot of us who loved them still recognize that this trek was different and some things can’t stay the same.

          • Locutus

            You claim that “fanboys” are romaticizing the importance of McCoy; however, you are romaticizing the importance of Saldana’s Uhura. Nichelle Nichok’s Uhura was a feminist icon, but the way Saldana’s Uhura has been portrayed (with the possible exception of Beyond) is far from it.

            FACTS: Our first introduction to the character is Kirk hitting on her like a piece of meat in a bar only to be followed by her being groped during a bar fight. Next, we see her standing in her underwear as Kirk drools under the bed. Most of the scenes that follow revolve around her forced relationship with Spock, the reasons for which are never truly explored. Instead of being assigned to the Enterprise because of her merits, we are led to believe Spock pulls the strings. For the remainder of the first movie and much of the second, her role in their relationship is the female trope of the overly emotional nurturer. She interrupts a harrowing mission to the Klingon homeworld to explore her relationship issues with Spock.

            So yeah, I’m a little nostalgic for TOS and could do without Saldana’s Uhura. It’s a step backward, not a step forward.

          • madmadia85

            “You claim that “fanboys” are romaticizing the importance of McCoy; however, you are romaticizing the importance of Saldana’s Uhura. ”

            except, Uhura IS part of the main 3 of this trek while Mccoy isn’t and never was, but you all still pretend that he is, not to mention overinflate Urban’s popularity and box office draw making it seems people will watch a movie just for him.
            Who got award noms for this trek? That’s Zoe, Chris and Zachary, not Urban. Not his McCoy. Who is in the posters? You know the answer already. Who are the biggest name actors of this trek for their other franchises? You can answer to that too (hint: it’s not Urban)

            I stand corrected that it’s not Uhura fans who overinflate her importance. Uhura is part of the big 3 of this trek, but it never is an Uhura fan who makes a silly comment saying that the next movie can have just Kirk/Spock/Uhura because they are the most important characters. That’s McCoy fans. And it isn’t an Uhura fan who is using tos and nostalgia as an excuse for their delusion that some things are the same for the audience of this trek when they aren’t.

            Dont use the word ‘fact’ if you don’t know the meaning of it.

            “Most of the scenes that follow revolve around her forced relationship with Spock”

            you mean like most of McCoy’s scenes revolve around his friendship with Kirk. He literally gets more screentime in Beyond just because he interacts with one of the main guys the most, and he does that only because of nostalgia and fan pandering.

            And from what I read in the fanboards through the years, not to mention what his actor said too, it’s obvious that people think he has a place in the story and purpose only through his relationships with the main guys.
            I think that writers putting certain dynamics in another trek iteration just because they existed in tos is the definition of forced, especially when the reasons for which said dynamics can even get called ‘friendships’ (more Kirk/Spock and Spock/Bones than Kirk/Bones) in this reality too are never developed or showed on screen.

          • madmadia85

            “Most of the scenes that follow revolve around her forced relationship with Spock”

            you mean like most of McCoy’s scenes revolve around his friendship with Kirk and complaining about him (and Spock), in and out of duty?. He literally gets more screentime in Beyond just because he interacts with one of the main guys the most, and he does that only because of nostalgia and fan pandering.

            And from what I read in the fanboards through the years, not to mention what his actor said too, it’s obvious that people think he has a place in the story and purpose only through his relationships with the main guys.
            I think that writers putting certain dynamics in another trek iteration just because they existed in tos is the definition of forced, especially when the reasons for which said dynamics can even get called ‘friendships’ (more Kirk/Spock and Spock/Bones than Kirk/Bones) in this reality too are never developed or showed on screen.

            besides, Uhura? She has a more important role to the main plot than Mccoy in all the movies, even outside of her relationship scenes e.g., she’s the one who intercepted that message in the first movie that basically saved the ship, the one who saved Spock in stid – and Kirk too -, the one who faced the klingons, the one who worked the relay links to make it so Spock could talk with Spock prime, the one who discovered Krall’s identity in Beyond. She was the character who interacted with the villain the most, and contrasted with him by representing the crew and starfleet’s values that Krall despised so much.

            and even her relationship with Spock is more relevant and important to the main plot than McCoy’s ones with the main guys are (the most important ‘bromance’ is and will always be Kirk/Spock, not McCoy’s friendships) . If only because it ties directly into a lot of Spock’s conflict and personal arc. Even in Beyond, most of the interactions McCoy gets with Spock are about UHURA’s relationship with the vulcan, not really McCoy’s own dynamics or his own personal story on the ship.

          • Ace Stephens

            Beyond tried to give him more screentime and bring the old trio back, the result? Least successful movie of the trilogy.

            There’s far more evidence to suggest that this was generally due to the lukewarm (and eventually rather negative) fan response to Into Darkness. Since most of the Beyond buzz (both from critics and fans) was rather positive, if fairly unremarkable overall, it couldn’t combat that stigma.

            As for the lack of POC characters being a possibility, if Tarantino directs it then you can likely expect one bad m*****f***** to show up. And possibly a few badass women. Besides, if they’re excising 2/3rds of the main cast, most of that cast is white anyway (so even if it’s just the trio, the number of white characters excised would be more than the number of POC characters omitted – assuming things such as that Jaylah isn’t back and/or doesn’t count). Sulu and/or Uhura may easily help bookend the film or similar (perhaps Kirk is the focal character and the B story is the rest of the cast trying to rescue him). Regardless, it wouldn’t be an omission of POC characters. In fact, odds-wise, there may be Jackson and/or others Tarantino has worked with previously…so the omission of Sulu may be a much bigger deal in some regards. Plus, generally, I would say the reaction to Cho’s Sulu has been more positive than the one to Saldana’s Uhura. And there are other female characters who may be more relevant to this story such as Jaylah and Carol.

            I just think your take of things oversimplifies or focuses on tangential things, not entirely unlike those you seem to dislike the views of who seem to think the Kelvin timeline should be incredibly similar to TOS.

          • madmadia85

            “There’s far more evidence to suggest”

            except you have no evidence. Your personal opinion, or that of a bunch of fanboys online, isn’t ‘evidence’. Nor it’s a fact. Especially when it flies in the face of actual facts such as how the general audience and critics everywhere responded to each movie. Compare and contrast.
            The only evidence here is that there is no ‘lukewarmand eventually rather negative’ fan response to Into Darkness because aside from what a vocal minority of fanboys online tell themselves, that movie is well received and the most popular. It also gets more critical praise than Beyond.

            blaming Into Darkness’ for Beyond lack of success is stupid. The last movie had its own issues, whether you want to admit or not, that have nothing to do with previous installments. If anything, the success of Into Darkness might suggest that Beyond ignoring it or not being a real continuation might have backfired, and thus make them fail to bring back the audience that already liked the first movies. The audience that made them more successful than beyond, AND STILL DOES (because everything about the first movies still sells better than Beyond’s dvds etc etc)

            A lot of people hate Beyond, or (almost worse for me) consider it forgettable and boring, no less than those who hated stid. It’s funny how some of you will only notice those who hated stid, but on the flip side, when it comes to Beyond you only pay attention to those who liked it and ignore all the criticism that movie got that has absolutely nothing to do with stid, let alone the first movie, and everything to do with Lin’s direction and the script by Pegg&Jung.

          • Ace Stephens

            except you have no evidence. Your personal opinion, or that of a bunch of fanboys online

            This is where your bias shows. You assume I’m a “fanboy” or that I am letting my opinion of a film’s quality influence my interpretation of reactions and box office trends. Which I’m not. So you’re actually just projecting your own bias opposing certain notions toward others who appear to oppose you, assuming they’re playing the same game of “tug of war” when they’re not. And, in my case, I’m not framing it the same way you are specifically because I believe you’ve misframed matters.

            The evidence is in film trends. Justice League opening weekend was down from Wonder Woman was down from Suicide Squad was down from Batman v Superman which was notably divisive. As was Suicide Squad. Wonder Woman did okay critically and regarding fan sentiment overall but did that boost Justice League much? No. Because the most directly-associated film was still Batman v Superman which was notably divisive and has a lot of criticism of it online. This is how these things work. Critical reaction can influence things but what influences things most is fan reaction. And if you go see a movie and it’s awful and then the next movie is about the same characters from the same guy and actually there were a few other movies associated between and only one of them was good…you’re probably going to go, “I’m not interested in that. I bet it’s awful.” With something as limited as the Star Trek reboot’s interest from casual fans and tolerance (generally speaking) from diehard Trek fans, a divisive film like Into Darkness is going to stomp on the following film’s box office unless there’s a big draw to offset the situation (huge returning actor from popular iteration, huge name actor now, etc.). There wasn’t. That wasn’t Beyond’s fault as it was the bad taste that Into Darkness left out there which caused it to be necessary to have “more.” Elba couldn’t make up that difference.

            But if you don’t actually follow film trends enough to see these patterns emerge consistently (for instance, this year Transformers 5 took a huge drop in box office from earlier entries because earlier entries were considered awful and 5 was considered even a step down from them critically and within fan circles generally) with very few exceptions. To the point where yes, you could ignorantly claim that no evidence exists – because you’re unwilling or unable to examine the evidence there. I’m no Sherlock (or Khan, as the case may be…) but telling him there’s no evidence when it’s apparent to him yet your take fails to consider the details of a multifaceted concern…is foolish. Similarly, here, you can’t just ignore box office trends for major franchises with entries which were divisive among critics and/or fans when talking about Beyond’s box office being less than Into Darkness’s.

            Especially when it flies in the face of actual facts such as how the
            general audience and critics everywhere responded to each movie. Compare
            and contrast.

            You are oversimplifying. I look at this holistically. You point toward this or that trend which confirms your biases – I don’t. I was critical of elements of Into Darkness but I was by no means one of those trashing it relentlessly on the basis of TOS or similar. In fact, I’ve defended some parts like the Khan casting not matching fan generalities (again, oversimplifications) about pre-09 timeline stuff. What I look at is how recent sequels to divisive blockbuster entries have not made as much money generally due to the reputation of the franchise rather than the immediate entry itself.

            The only evidence here is that there is no ‘lukewarmand eventually
            rather negative’ fan response to Into Darkness because aside from what a
            vocal minority of fanboys online tell themselves, that movie is well
            received and the most popular. It also gets more critical praise than
            Beyond.

            You say this yet provide no evidence. You fail to distinguish between “fan responses” (those fans being Trek fans generally) and casual filmgoers (who may or may not be fans of the reboot or STID or similar). Additionally, you can’t ignore vocal fans’ influence on trends. After BvS, similarly, we saw a lot of negative people going on and on about what they hated. There were some “fanboys” as well. But what were the diehards who went on and on doing? They were making the reputation of the film seem worse to others. And even some who thought the movie was okay might ultimately decide it wasn’t very worthwhile. So when the people who “know what they’re talking about” (the invested fans who tend to go on and on about things) are heard by both other diehard fans as well as casual fans trashing something? …The influence generally isn’t positive on the franchise’s next entry.

            It’s part of the same reason that even people who don’t like Wrath of Khan that well might suggest it’s the best Star Trek movie even if it’s their fifth favorite or something. Because preferences and behaviors are more complex than your number-crunching simplicity that only sees one frame at a time.

            The last movie had its own issues, whether you want to admit or not, that have nothing to do with previous installments.

            My personal opinion of Beyond doesn’t enter into it. Consider it as though you’re dealing with a Vulcan who has little tolerance for nonsense (so might seem particularly irritable but doesn’t place an emotional investment on anything other than the logic). You fail to acknowledge that people don’t know if they like a film until they see it. And so if you see a film and it’s bad, will you go see the sequel if it doesn’t sell you on the notion that it’s definitely not going to be as bad? For most people, the response would be, “Probably not. I might wait awhile and catch it later, if at all.” That’s how the majority of people function, just like how they function in the sense that if they keep hearing a film is bad, they won’t see it or, if they already did, might rethink it and rate it a bit lower.

            …the success of Into Darkness might suggest that Beyond ignoring it or
            not being a real continuation might have backfired, and thus make them
            fail to bring back the audience that already liked the first movies.

            You mean in the marketing? They brought back Sabotage right away and then people (including even some non-fans) said, “It doesn’t seem like Star Trek.” So no, they were kind of pandering to fans of the reboot timeline, whatever amount they might be considered to have dropped elements from STID. They then revised that approach a bit but the trailers were still full of similar things.

            And if you don’t mean the marketing…you don’t know what you’re talking about as, again, audiences don’t know if they like a thing until they see it. And I have never seen any reliable figures on “repeat viewings” being higher or lower for one film than the other but, even if I had, that might just mean Beyond catered to more diehard fans in some regard that Into Darkness didn’t or, if percentages, could misrepresent the total.

            So, really, what it seems the case is here is that you liked Star Trek Into Darkness in some form so if anyone seems remotely critical of it (even if they’re just speaking toward elements that are evident), you feel the need to defend it? And/or you disliked Beyond. And/or you’ve tied these concerns to another matter (perhaps you dislike the trio – who knows?) to the point where you’re failing to be reasonable. I don’t care about those emotional or preferential elements. I care about what’s evident. And, there, you act like people know to go see a movie they’d like or dislike magically, as though if the quality’s good as far as general audiences are concerned, the box office will automatically be better for a film. Or franchise entry. Not so. Because if nobody goes to see it because the last one was terrible, who’s going to be around to talk up how great it is? Not the people saying, “I’m not going to bother right now.”

            So what goes into Beyond’s take? The reputation of the reboot timeline most of all. Which, following a mildly rocky start, took a hit in terms of credibility among diehard fans (who are amongst the most vocal). Sure, some diehards loved STID but many didn’t.

            And I’m not speaking of my personal opinion here. I’m saying I go somewhere random online and somebody talks about a poor reboot, recast, false stakes, characterization, etc. and alludes to STID, I know exactly what they’re referring to because I’ve seen others refer to the same points. And, if one is reasonable, even if they loved it, after awhile they learn what others mean even if they thought it made complete sense. Just like, to use a more immediate framing, the “Martha” scene in Batman v Superman. My personal opinion on that scene is largely irrelevant regarding the notion that I know it weighs over the franchise’s credibility and is oft-referenced in memes and similar. That is to say, general audiences pick up on the reputation regardless of the facts, quality, etc. Same as with STID heading into Beyond.

            The audience that made them more successful than beyond, AND STILL DOES
            (because everything about the first movies still sells better than
            Beyond’s dvds etc etc)

            Show me those figures, compare them week-for-week, find the best approximations of the marketing budgets for each, etc. Also, you should keep in mind that films which do better at the box office tend to sell better on home media and the like. So account for that as well. My assumption is you can’t or won’t bother because you’re more comfortable with generalizations that favor your biases.

            But say to anybody, “Did you know the third entry of a series, which obviously hasn’t been out as long, hasn’t sold as many Blu-ray copies as the earlier ones?”…they won’t be surprised because that’s how things tend to go unless there’s a big boost (such as in the case of say, The Dark Knight). I can guarantee you that the amount of people who own Saw 3D (VII) on Blu-ray is less than the amount who own Saw on Blu-ray. By a significant margin.

            And it’s not just because the most vocal fans generally agree that Saw 3D sucks (although that does hurt some in various regards).

            A lot of people hate Beyond, or (almost worse for me) consider it forgettable and boring, no less than those who hated stid.

            I am not unaware of these people yet I don’t care because it’s beside the point regarding the amount of fan sentiment being expressed vocally in manners which resonate with general audiences. The amount of memes and derision directed at Beyond is actually a fraction of that directed toward STID. I’m not saying that because, “I don’t like STID.” (I do, generally) or “I love Beyond!” (I don’t, generally). I’m saying it because it’s evident.

            It’s funny how some of you will only notice those who hated stid, but on
            the flip side, when it comes to Beyond you only pay attention to those
            who liked it and ignore all the criticism that movie got

            You use the term “you” there as though you are including me in this when you shouldn’t be. Beyond didn’t make enough of an impact to get the level of derision that STID has had from some vocal fans of the franchise and a smattering of general filmgoers (enough that general audiences follow what people may mean if they’ve paid attention to the subject at all). Again, you ignore things like that. Look – if nobody sees a movie, who’s going to trash it? NOBODY. So STID getting bigger box office combined with the various concerns some vocal people have…that means it’s going to have a tarnished reputation and the follow-up will struggle more. Whereas general word-of-mouth on Beyond hasn’t been notably negative. It’s been mildly positive.

            None of that is to say one is better than the other in terms of quality but general perceptions of such things do influence matters moving forward. To ignore that illustrates bias. To suggest that, “Hey, you said some vocal people disliked Into Darkness but WHAT ABOUT BEYOND’S CRITICS?!” ignores the numerous factors which make Beyond’s critics irrelevant to the notion of ongoing box office returns with further franchise entries not being expressly indicative of the given film’s quality. If we had a Star Trek 4 already and within a reasonable timeframe and notable good/bad things for the franchise otherwise hadn’t changed in the meantime and the budget and marketing were remotely comparable…yeah, you’d start having an argument regarding Beyond’s general quality and the concerns fans have brought up about it. But you don’t have an argument in that regard. You have your bias instead.

            …and everything to do with Lin’s direction and the script by Pegg&Jung.

            Wow. You’re even inaccurate about the thing you’re focusing on. I’ve heard notable criticism (within the relatively small pocket of such) toward things like Spock’s makeup and it being shot on digital (surrounding color palette and similar) and on and on. Things that Lin didn’t necessarily have final say over given Paramount, JJ, etc. So…yeah. You just keep oversimplifying and missing the relevant point as a result.

          • FrostUK

            Into Darkness sucks, get over it.

          • madmadia85

            butthurt much? Of course you are, facts show that other people clearly didn’t share your opinion and still made it more successful than most of the other movies, get over it.
            or keep being delusional when things you hate are successful while what you like is fail.

            (and the movie isn’t even my favorite)

          • madmadia85

            ” His McCoy is more in line with the original character than any other in the Kelvin universe. ”

            which means he, actually, failed the most. What they were actually asked to do WASN’T making impersonations of the old characters. They are alternate versions of them.

            The fact some old fans who want everything to stay the same praise him the most is not surprising. He’s as stuck in the past and nostalgia as some fans are. He too fails to understand that they are in an alternate reality, and that the audience isn’t in the 60s anymore.

  • October_1985

    Well, this is unexepected, and for my part, very welcome. News about another sequel are always welcome and I would be pretty aboard with QT ideas. He knows how to make engaging movies, that is for sure.

  • CAPTAIN D-MAN

    Movies in Tarantino timeline: “Reservoir Targs”, “Spirk Fan Fiction”, “Nyota Uhura”, “Kill Khan”, “Phaser Proof”, “Inglourious petaQs”, “Sisko Unchained”.

    • Quintillion Tesla

      “STAR TREK II: THE FURIOUS ANGER OF KHAN”

      • April

        Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
        On tuesday I got a brand new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
        fj130d:
        ➽➽
        ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleLegitimateGridJobsFromHomeJobs/get/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::fj130l

    • Rass

      Wow… all that effort, and not a single clever title, other than “Inglourious petaQs.’

      • CAPTAIN D-MAN

        What can you offer us?

  • kadajawi

    Hm. Interesting. It’s Tarantino, so I’m automatically intrigued. However why isn’t he writing it? I mean, he is Tarantino. He’s great at writing.

    Also, what happens to what ST4 was supposed to be about? Wasn’t that going to be reworked from the script Orci originally wrote for ST3? I was always curious what he would come up with, without Lindelof and Kurtzman, who I think hurt ST1 and ST2 a lot.

    • DIGINON

      Yeah, I was a little puzzled about that. You’ve got Tarantino but he will just tell his idea to a “room of writers” who will turn it into a script? Maybe he doesn’t have the time (because of his other movie he’s working on) but then the question is: How much of Tarantino will be in the finished product?

    • Ace Stephens

      Tarantino’s “voice” isn’t the Star Trek voice. We’ve heard some talk about how Trek can lean more Shakespearean and Tarantino is well-known for his characters going on rambling, pop culture-associated tangents – which generally differs. His storytelling skills aren’t in doubt but if you told me he was somehow a huge fan of and had a great idea for a Sesame Street movie, I wouldn’t be at all surprised that he also doesn’t want that full of violent non-sequiturs, four letter words, pop culture references to emphasize characterization, etc. (which I’m sure he would try to reign in but it’s just not his approach). Maybe, before directing, he’d rewrite a bit of this Star Trek, but he’s smart enough (and a good enough storyteller) to know that his screenwriting “voice” doesn’t easily match the material.

      …Plus, he’s busy.

  • Quintillion Tesla

    I have an idea how this will go:

    -He pitches his storyline

    -They will change it completely

    -He will “no longer be attached to the project”

    -They may or may not make the idea that they have completely changed

    -It will be not be very good.

  • thecaptainoutoftime

    In the Year 2265, Chris Pine will Kill Bill (Shatner)

  • Matineer

    I’d like to hear what his story is. I do think the JJverse has kind of run its course, so I hope this isn’t just a last ditch effort to save the Kelvinverse while Bad Robot has an option left. They had their shot and have been slow (compared to TOS and most TNG films) to get these movies out. Would rather have Mr. T. do his own vision and design, whatever that may be. Even if that means a recast.

  • Partha Mittra

    I would be very interested in what he came up with. In general I am always interested in any Trek that that is done through someone else’s viewpoint, to keep things fresh and interesting. For me Star Trek is most vital when people are debating it fiercely.

    As for all things Trek I would reserve judgement until I actually saw the finished movie

    • Locutus

      I wholeheartedly agree with seeing Trek done through different viewpoints. What troubled the Berman years, for example, was that the viewpoint became too stale and stagnant. The freshness and interest slowly melted away. Star Trek can still be fresh. Hopefully, QT can prove that again.

  • Fiery Little One

    … If he can keep himself to roughly a PG-13 level, then okay.

  • MeisterOlsen

    Man I am waiting for this news for a decade now! I never thought they would give it to him. Soo exited!!!!! Tarantino is a world class writer/director and a real fan, what can you want more.

  • Aaron

    On the one hand, QT is an awesome director and writer. On the other hand, it’s hard for me to envision his style meshing well with Star Trek. With that being said, regardless of the outcomeq, I’m glad Paramount is still looking at continuing Star Trek movies. The future was (still is?) in doubt after Beyond underperformed at the box office (even though it was by far the best of the Kelvin-verse movies).

    • kadajawi

      But his style is that of being able to do movies in styles that already exist and that he likes.

  • The Science Fiction Oracle

    OMG, this would be something awesome. The movie franchise needs a game changer movie right now — this could be it!

  • FightingMongooses

    I want Simon Pegg and Justin Lin to do another film (without a rushed deadline and studio interference)!

  • GhostLoveScore

    He is a smart guy, I would love to see what he can do.

  • Aqua

    Maybe something that jumps ahead after the end of the 5 year mission? (Or however long it ended up being with the break they had while the Nu-Enterprise A was under construction)

    Paramount could easily do the senior staff not sticking together long term in this timeline. While Kirk got over his burnout at the end of Beyond, the rest could still be up in the air. (Didn’t Spock actually leave Starfleet in the Prime timeline and basically attempt to go full monk post TOS?)

    While I personally wouldn’t want to see it, it would be a way to effectively write off Sulu, Uhura, Chekhov and Scotty. Have them all get promoted and move on with their careers throughout the Federation. That would probably be a significant savings to the budget. (Which will have to be cut somehow after the Beyond numbers)

    It could easily be like the Kelvin timelines version of The Undiscovered County in terms of theme. Or even one last adventure between close friends ala what The Final Frontier was trying to do.

  • Captain Lorca, Section 31

    Is this a joke? Trek already has cancer with Discovery. We need the R rated movie to kill it off for good?

  • Captain Lorca, Section 31

    Apparently they want to lose even more money than STID and Beyond, cause this director won’t cone cheap

  • Dansen

    Oh trek fans never change..
    First you are hating on JJ since 9 years because ‘he doesn’t get trek’, and its ideals of positiveness and progressiveness and hope, and all those ‘messages’ his movies supposedly don’t have. You complain that ‘Into Darkness’ is a mindless, silly, remake of TWOK, and too much ‘bang bang’ with gratuitous violence, and sexist underwear scenes and so on.
    Yet, here you are passionately apologizing for a Tarantino r-rated ‘trek’ movie, and antagonizing people who aren’t that excited about this, telling them they have nothing to worry about when his movies basically are the opposite, in both intent, purpose and style, of what trek is about.
    Tarantino whose most creative idea for a movie seems to be just copying his favorite tos episodes, and remaking them with a new cast and better special effects and budget. Tarantino who loved the first movie very much, but is unhappy about ‘Into Darkness’ not because it’s a rehash but because JJ didn’t make it the same thing.
    Only a foolish would listen to wishy-washy trek fans who aren’t even consistent about their complains.

    It’s obvious you just hope he will get rid of every evidence of JJ’s trek and ‘restore’ tos. However delusional that thought is too because 1) it’s still JJ’s trek and he won’t let anyone change it too much 2) in fact, JJ is the one who wants to hire him and liked his idea 3) unlike you, Tarantino likes JJ’s work. He may like the very things you don’t like about it, so be careful what you wish for.
    At best, he’ll just make a kill bill meets Abrams’s trek movie with more violence, language and nudity, and even more a dark, gritty, depressing picture of the hopeful future trek is supposed to portray.

  • powermidget

    Please no!