I can’t think of anything more pathetically Star Trek than using the franchises first ‘fuck’ for a nerd getting excited about science. Like… come on. That’s PERFECT!
MajorHavoc@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 19:11
collapse
Indeed. It is, I daresay, fucking perfect.
guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 2023 05:50
nextcollapse
I still maintain that a Quentin Tarantino Trek likely would have been the greatest Trek film ever made (not a high bar though). Come on, imagine Inglourious Basterds set during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. But the rights holders have always been Trek’s biggest enemy because for the most part they just want to make something safe that will get people viewing, when what’s great about Trek is how expansive the universe is and how much room there is to tell stories of every kind. Literature about the far future, whose entire point is how expansive and diverse that far future could be, shouldn’t be so stylistically narrow that people get their knickers in a twist when Picard swears. But since it is, we can never have something as good or even just interesting as Quentin Tarantino Trek.
KISSmyOS@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 06:10
nextcollapse
No. The story would revolve around an intergalactic war started over a teenage girl’s feet.
guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 2023 06:14
collapse
Donjuanme@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 08:33
nextcollapse
I don’t think it would be, galaxy quest set a pretty damn high bar.
Corgana@startrek.website
on 21 Dec 2023 16:43
collapse
Imagine Inglourious Basterds set during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor
Damnit Jim, I hate that you said this because I know I’ll never get it!
natecox@programming.dev
on 21 Dec 2023 05:51
nextcollapse
I enjoy the Tarantino films, but I don’t want them anywhere near Star Trek.
I really dislike what’s happening with ST lately; what was in my childhood a hopeful message for how much humanity could achieve when we finally get our shit together, is now just another action movie / drama template. Government bad, corruption everywhere, war for the sake of war, etc.
I’m certain Tarantino would double down on that and I just don’t want it.
xilliah@beehaw.org
on 21 Dec 2023 06:13
nextcollapse
Also Lower Decks is incredible. A Star Trek show that makes fun of itself and the franchise but is still narratively driven and... entertaining.
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
on 21 Dec 2023 08:09
nextcollapse
I call it the Omniman/Homelander distinction
That is to say, is the deconstructing work made by someone who gets the message of the work being deconstructed or not.
Omniman is a complex look at the stated origin of Superman being sent to earth, and the paternalistic nature of what exactly Jor’El wished for Clark to do with the benefits of Earth’s environment, and also a look at how even despite that, Superman would have been capable of learning to be a true hero without that guiding hand of a human upbringing, and that some of his spark isn’t nature or nurture but just that drop of empathy it takes to make someone see helping others as worth it for its own sake.
Homelander is a wankfest about how bad superhero comics are written by a guy who wrote an entire series about how he believes everyone secretly wants to be a murder rapist and is just “brainwashed by societal bullshit” to not acknowledge it.
Ramin_HAL9001@lemmy.ml
on 21 Dec 2023 07:59
nextcollapse
Government bad, corruption everywhere, war for the sake of war, etc.
I’m certain Tarantino would double down on that and I just don’t want it.
Tarantino is kind of a bellwether for the mostly apolitical right-wing (but non-fascist) middle-class majority of the US population, the movie “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” convinced me of that. It also convinced me that Tarantino himself has lost the plot, or actually never really had it. He reminds me a bit of Beavis and Butthead, kind of just watching movies and TV all the time, sorting everything into the binary categories “cool” or “sucks”, except he actually goes out and makes films that glorify all he thinks is “cool” which happens to be a cross-section of all media that glorifies violence and toxic masculinity.
So he likes Star Trek. Congratulations Tarantino, your “geek” bona-fides are authentic, but like the rest of the right-wing (non-fascist) middle-class majority, you really have no fucking clue and don’t care about the political origins of Star Trek and are just itching to erase them so you can make it into another “cool” movie that glorifies violence and toxic masculinity. You can fuck right off, Tarantino.
DessertStorms@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 12:06
collapse
right-wing (but non-fascist)
you keep using these words but they don't mean what you think they mean.. People who are right wing support fascism. Full stop. They don't have to mean to, but they actively do, and what I assume is an attempt to spare their feelings (though the reason doesn't really matter) is just more confirmation for their cognitive dissonance that they're not doing anything wrong.
I very much agree with everything else you said, but I can't grasp why you would make the extra effort to pander to them like that, it's bizarre.
Ramin_HAL9001@lemmy.ml
on 21 Dec 2023 12:38
nextcollapse
People who are right wing support fascism. Full stop.
I very much agree with everything else you said, but I can’t grasp why you would make the extra effort to pander to them like that, it’s bizarre.
You are right, and I also agree with you, so let me just clarify… there is a difference between people who unconsciously support fascism merely because they are apolitical, and people who are very deliberately fascist, as in enthusiastic supporters of the Republican party.
Most fans of US movies are indifferent, and do not think of themselves as political beings. They think of themselves as just “ordinary.” Like a fish not knowing what water is, “ordinary” for an average US citizen is about as close to fascism as a person can possibly be without enthusiastically actively waving around swastikas – but there is still a difference between “ordinary” apolitical people like Tarantino and all of his fans who think of him as edgy, and someone actively wishing to purge the world of all non-white people. That is what I mean by “right wing” and not fascist.
I think it is important to draw that distinction because I don’t like blaming apolitical people for being the victims of US mainstream cinema brainwashing.
DessertStorms@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 13:02
collapse
Ok, so you're not talking about right wing people then (or more accurately - conservatives), you're talking about centrists and liberals (who are not left wing) (edit to add: while claiming to be "apolitical", looks like Tarantino has donated to the DNC in the past, so that tracks).
I know that's uncomfortable to hear, but it's the truth, and to those willing to sit with that discomfort and challenge their bias, I recommend taking the time to read this and this.
Ramin_HAL9001@lemmy.ml
on 21 Dec 2023 13:19
nextcollapse
you’re talking about centrists and liberals.
I suppose I am, though I think it is accurate to call centrists and liberals “right wing.”
Those are both good articles, I have actually read them both before.
DessertStorms@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 14:23
collapse
I think it is accurate to call centrists and liberals “right wing.”
Oh yeah, I agree in principle, but practically it becomes a bit confusing, as this exchange has demonstrated lol, glad we cleared it up..
And yeah, fuck Tarantino.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz
on 21 Dec 2023 13:53
nextcollapse
Show me a moderate Democrat in the US and I’ll show you a moderate right winger in the world.
From a world perspective, the US hasn’t had a left leaning president in the last 30 years or more. The US lost its left at some point, and advocating for sensible policies became its new left. Outside looking in, Bernie is a centrist or at most left-of-center.
So if your reference is the full spectrum, the majority of the US population is right wing, a good portion of it radicalized fascists. Now if your reference is the severely skewed Overton window of the US, then yeah, all right wingers are fascists.
GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
on 21 Dec 2023 13:13
collapse
Just a side note: American fucked up definitions of words and ideologies are not “how things are called”. Liberals are not non committed leftists.
SupraMario@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 13:03
nextcollapse
You do realize that’s like saying all people who are left wing support authoritarian communism right? Neither extreme is healthy.
FuryMaker@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 08:12
nextcollapse
Yeah, I prefer the positive role models & society present in 90’s trek. You don’t get that much in nutrek.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz
on 21 Dec 2023 14:08
nextcollapse
You must have hated DS9.
I see TNG with mostly 2D characters where the Federation and its ideals are the main driving force of the plots. When they deviate from that is when you get bad episodes (cough Sub Rosa cough). The characters had to shed some of their depth and become idealized for message to shine through.
On DS9, you have a gritty view of a frontier without the influence of the Federation. The evolution of the characters and how they react to the changing reality around them is the center stage, and for that you need 3D, flawed characters to build development arcs upon.
Then on DSC you have perfect 2D characters in a corrupt world and the show is about Michael Burnham but she’s also perfect and I can’t see what message they’re trying to send.
natecox@programming.dev
on 21 Dec 2023 17:47
collapse
I think DS9 set a precedent that was bad for the franchise, but I don’t hate it; the show felt like it understood its roots. I took DS9 as a way to explore how federation values addressed a galaxy not quite there yet.
It didn’t diminish the hopeful future by saying that “actually the federation is evil" it just said “listen, we still have work to do”.
Watching Cisco wrestle internally with reconciling who he knew he was supposed to be while the galaxy tested that was at least interesting on an intellectual level.
I think that bit of nuance got lost though, so I do kinda wish it had never happened.
Zoboomafoo@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 14:46
nextcollapse
You should check out Strange New Worlds then, it’s a return to episodic form
natecox@programming.dev
on 21 Dec 2023 17:50
collapse
I kinda feel like I just don’t have the heart for ST anymore. Picard was the final nail in the coffin, I am all out of trust for the modern generation of writers.
I’ll just watch TNG through every couple of years and be happy in my bubble.
Cethin@lemmy.zip
on 21 Dec 2023 06:32
nextcollapse
So I agree mostly, but classic Trek also had plenty of looking at the present and past showing how bad things were/are/can be. It’s a hopeful message in that we can change and solve problems, but it doesn’t totally ignore issues either.
I do agree the drama and action is a negative for it though. Some amount of its fine, but ST is about considering our reality through the lense of sci-fi and aliens, not just brainless entertainment. Star Wars already exists in that market. ST needs to do what it does well and not worry about trying to be as big as Star Wars. Endless growth is only going to kill the franchise.
Honytawk@lemmy.zip
on 21 Dec 2023 11:46
nextcollapse
Meh, it is not like a Tarantino Star Trek movie is going to diminish the older series.
I’d say let him try, and if it turns out bad, throw it on the pile of bad Star Trek movies.
No real harm done.
frezik@midwest.social
on 21 Dec 2023 11:23
collapse
It apparently would have been a direct follow-up to “A Piece of the Action”, the gangster planet episode. Which is probably the one Star Trek plot that would make sense for Tarantino.
princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone
on 21 Dec 2023 05:52
nextcollapse
I mean, of course it was going to be R-rated, Quent doesn’t exactly make family-friendly pics.
But also, why is everyone always trying to make Star Trek edgier these days?
FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 06:02
nextcollapse
Re: edgier Trek:
For me, I feel like we’ve had so much ‘positive utopia’ Trek, that more of the same just gets a bit boring. There’s also the fact that life today is different compared to when Trek first aired. We’re more aware of some of those sharper edges and want to see them represented in media.
From a practical standpoint, there’s also ‘we can, so we do’. When Trek aired on regular TV, you couldn’t drop an F-bomb, much less show actual gritty stuff. With streaming, there’s no reason to hold back. Which gives writers more room to explore.
query@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 06:30
nextcollapse
Lucky they made DS9 before TNG had even finished, then.
We didn’t really get more of the TNG side of things with the TNG movies. Then they moved on to JJA Star Trek, which wasn’t much of anything, not dark, not utopian, just references.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fascist from another universe.
It took bringing back Picard himself to approach doing what they once did decades ago. And I guess not let the actor have too much say over the script, if that’s what messed up the movies.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fscist from another universe
You mean part of a single episode. Saving her was never planned in the first place and was even a surprise to the character in the moment. when she comes back she actively fucks everything up and is constantly at odds with everyone. So no part of it was based around her at all. Unless you’re talking about the season 3 two partner in which case it’s two episodes but that’s still very distinctly not the entire show. It’s also AGGRESSIVELY Star Trek to help others you have differences with. Starfleet goes out of its way to do that constantly in TNG even if it might put them at risk too.
Not to mention the fact you say after TNG that the older style was dead as if Voyager doesn’t exist. Then you mention Picard bringing back the old style which is an utter lie. Picard was willing to execute a prisoner. The first two seasons are nothing remotely like TNG and the third season is an even further detraction. Doesn’t mean it’s bad but it is aggressively different.
Gettin real tired of y’all just blatantly lying because you don’t like a thing and wanna slander it.
No. They kept her around like she wasn’t someone who should be imprisoned for life, far removed from any position where she could manipulate others.
Which is a different complaint. Your initial problem was saying it was “based around her.” This isn’t. She’s a side character. But let us address your complaint then, shall we? She commited no crimes in Federation space. None. Not a single one. She was brought, against her will, from the place she was from into the Prime universe. What you’re asking for is to hold her guilty under Federation law when no crimes were ever committed in Federation space or against Federations persons. In fact, she actively helped Starfleet in multiple occasions. When she arrived in the Prime Universe she was imprisoned and while having issues with that, she didn’t fight back. She understood the situation that she was in a new world with new rules. The Federation doesn’t imprison people for doing things in their own space, nevermind when it’s a different universe altogether.
If they wanted to help others, there was a universe full of people more deserving. Two, even.
Both are capable as were proven throughout Season 1, 2 and 3.
Yep.
Then nothing you say can be taken seriously if you are willing to outright ignore, and admit you’re ignoring, things that don’t fit into your invented narrative.
Have fun with that. I’ve got far better things to do with my time than engage with arguments made with such bad faith and dripping with such bitterness.
Seriously, because she’s from a different universe, her actions of committing genocide and torture across any number of star systems are irrelevant?
If Starfleet doesn’t care what people do “in their own space”, how could they ever have a problem with anything? Just declare yourself a ruler, obviously democracy doesn’t play into it, and you decide what you can do anywhere you are.
guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 2023 06:12
collapse
Because you can only tell so many stories when literally all of your characters are required to be so narrow and flat it becomes a matter of debate and discussion when they do or say anything that would make them seem like real people.
Exactly. There is painfully little character development done throughout TNG. At the end of the final season the characters are still basically the same person who they were at the start. Picard is a little softer, Data is a little closer to being a person, Worf is still just Worf, Geordi is arguably a creepier person, Riker did not change like at all either, Deanna and Beverly also didn’t get development so much as a wardrobe. Basically the person with the most character development was Yar who died and then got resurrected through time shenanigans before forced into sexual slavery to a Romulan until she died. That’s not exactly… impressive. I love TNG and I love all the stories and the morals it tells but in todays TV atmosphere it is impossible to properly replicate that. Even SNW keeps a consistent plot throughout all the episodes and limits it to half of what TNG was dropping per year.
Then you look at Deep Space 9. This show is constantly praised by people left right and center. Why? Character development, a consistent plot, a serialized story and consequences that carry over from episode to episode instead of being immediately forgotten or relegated to a simple reference with a background prop. It is insane to me that so many people hate the newer Trek iterations for being “too dark” and “focusing too much on story” when that’s just Deep Space 9. An incredibly dark show that covers some seriously heavy subject material and has a consistent story that affects everything else around it.
FinishingDutch@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 05:57
nextcollapse
As a longtime Trek fan, I’m certainly in favor of it. There’s plenty of things to work with; things implied but never really shown. Which is why I also liked more recent Trek projects like Strange New Worlds and Picard. They have a bit more grit to them.
Tarantino’s trek would not have been for everyone… but it certainly would’ve been a massive hit. Even if you hate his other work, you can’t help but be intrigued.
Corgana@startrek.website
on 21 Dec 2023 16:50
collapse
With Tarantino you’re also guaranteed to have a well-crafted product. It would never be a shallow cash-grab like certain other movies in the franchise.
Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 05:59
nextcollapse
Tarantino movies do tend to feature the hard r pretty prominently.
Deceptichum@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 07:01
collapse
xilliah@beehaw.org
on 21 Dec 2023 06:18
nextcollapse
Set phasers to fry
FoundTheVegan@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 06:40
nextcollapse
Either talk about the plot, set a production date or stop writing these nothing articles.
I mean, no duh Tarantino would do a Trek movie that has lots of blood. To be familiar with his name is to know that's his style. Just tired of years teasing how great something WOULD'VE BEEN but not saying why.
Basilisk@mtgzone.com
on 21 Dec 2023 07:14
nextcollapse
I feel like in the best case it would have been a catastrophe that somehow manages to fall together in a way that actually works, and in the worst case it would have just been bad to the point of being offensively bad, appealing to neither regular filmgoers whole also pissing off established fans.
… But it also feels like giving a chainsaw to a bear: You know whatever’s gonna happen you’re not gonna like, but also you kinda want to do it just to see what it is.
Donjuanme@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 08:29
collapse
Your last analogy made me snort my 3 sleeping partners (human canine and feline) awake.
Also spot on. But I really don’t want to see it. But I’m sure I’d be entertained by reading about the result.
Lucien@hexbear.net
on 21 Dec 2023 08:18
nextcollapse
I love Tarantino films; major fan. But I don’t think he’s capable of nuance or subtext, both of which are heavily used in the franchise. I would also abhor a “hard R” Star Trek film. It would be right up there with the Kelvin films. There’s no way in hell the fan base would allow something like that to be canonized. The only alternative I could see is if it involved time travel and all of the "hard R"s were from humans from the past.
guitarsarereal@sh.itjust.works
on 21 Dec 2023 08:50
nextcollapse
Counterpoint: with some subject matter, you don’t need nuance or subtext. Hence why IB remains, in my opinion, his greatest work. It’s one of the few subjects where you don’t need nuance so the good technical aspects of his filmmaking doesn’t just wash out in all the blood and gore. All you have to do is cook up a story in the Trek universe where his filmmaking style would be an asset (hint: have the story revolve around killing fascists), don’t give him complete control, and make him work in tandem with Star Trek old hands like Brannon Braga or Jonathan Frakes and I honestly think you’d end up with something good.
Personally, I think Star Trek is good enough that it deserves more and more interesting film treatments than it’s gotten. Tarantino Trek would upset a lot of people just because it wasn’t an anodyne feel-good PG movie, but if it was good, we could end up with other, better directors doing even more interesting things with Trek.
Kolanaki@yiffit.net
on 21 Dec 2023 11:10
nextcollapse
Star Trek itself often has nuance that’s about as subtle as being hit in the face with a brick. Need I remind everyone about Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, TOS S3E15.
TonyHawksPoTater@kbin.social
on 21 Dec 2023 12:56
collapse
I think when they say "hard R" here, they mean a strong R rating for the film, not the other hard R for which Tarantino is known.
FWIW, I recall an interview with Tarantino on YouTube somewhere in which Trek came up, and he was asked to name one of his favourite episodes.
To my surprise he named Yesterdays enterprise. He genuinely seemed to love it and remembered a lot of details about the plot. The other he mentioned is city on the edge of forever.
So while many might react to the idea of an R rated Tarantino Trek film negatively, I’d be quietly optimistic that he has good taste in Trek and would have a good core of a premise and story. I suspect he’d also handle the characters well, knowing how to balance campiness, seriousness and comedy.
It’s from 2015. Go to 3.47 for the relevant section. Interestingly, rewatching it, the prompt of the conversation was “what Star Wars movie would you like to do” and Tarantino responds with he’d rather do a Trek film.
And to further my point, he’s main point is that so many good episodes from Trek, especially the original series, could be made into movies.
Lucien@hexbear.net
on 21 Dec 2023 10:38
nextcollapse
City on the Edge of Forever is the best TOS episode in my opinion, and surpasses 90% or more of all Star Trek across all the series.
It’s good to know he knows his Star Trek. But I still wouldn’t want a Tarantino Trek movie — unless, of course, Avery Brooks reprises his role and recites Ezekiel 25:17 and has a phaser with Bad Motherfucker etched on it. That’s a Trek movie I’d watch.
A team of section 31 assassins armed with katanas are beamed aboard the enemy starship with orders to take out the top leadership?
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 11:07
nextcollapse
Man, now I’ll never find out how many times Samuel L Jackson can be called the n-word on the bridge of the Enterprise…
Damage@feddit.it
on 21 Dec 2023 11:33
nextcollapse
So, set on Qo’noS?
Flyberius@hexbear.net
on 21 Dec 2023 11:35
nextcollapse
All I know is that I would really have wanted to see it.
kill_dash_nine@lemm.ee
on 21 Dec 2023 12:35
nextcollapse
When you came to space dock here, did you notice a sign out in front of my station that said “Dead Romulan Storage”?
hakunawazo@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 14:27
nextcollapse
It would have been like the mirror mirror episode only with more of Uhuras feet.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8805b206-bfc1-430d-98b3-d6167dd32deb.png">
kandoh@reddthat.com
on 21 Dec 2023 14:30
nextcollapse
I’m guessing it would have really leaned into the colonial pulp fiction aspect of the original series.
Corgana@startrek.website
on 21 Dec 2023 16:35
nextcollapse
I understand hesitancy for an R-rated Star Trek movie, and I also understand that Tarantino’s style isn’t for everyone, but that said- he always puts a lot of effort in to crafting a good story, and there’s always a ton of attention detail. His movies are never shallow pandering cash grabs like certain other directors who will remain nameless here.
So while a Tarantino Trek movie sounds very weird on the surface, I think he’s far and away earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making any movie at this point and I would welcome his perspective.
Not that it’s ever gonna happen, of course. But if we do ever see a new movie, I would far prefer an auteur over a plug-n-play disneyfied cash grab like we see with the MCU, Star Wars, and basically any other pop culture franchise.
If he really wanted to do it he could do a sci-fi movie without it being attached to Trek and it would still make a billion dollars.
I like Tarantino movies and I like Star Trek, but they don’t need to mix
Vaggumon@lemm.ee
on 21 Dec 2023 16:34
nextcollapse
I’m a big Qentin Tarantino fan, but I never felt he was right for Star Trek. Not his type of movie IMO. But what the fuck do I know.
Corgana@startrek.website
on 21 Dec 2023 16:37
collapse
I just left a comment with more detail elsewhere, but at this point I think he’s earned the benefit of the doubt. Tarantino-Trek sounds like a weird combo, but based on his spotless track record, I would be surprised if he somehow managed made a stinker.
dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 21 Dec 2023 16:47
nextcollapse
Pure marketing piffle.
Paramount would never let a Hard R Trek get made. Not only is it the completely wrong tone for Trek (even if you rate the JJ Abrams movies) but it would seriously harm ticket sales as kids and young teens would be prohibited from going to the theater to see it. Imagine Kirk and Spock sitting around, smoking weed, talking about their favorite obscure 2200s films while holding knives to each other’s nutsacks.
They only started talking about Tarantino directing a Star Trek movie in order to build hype for the new Trek shows that are of dubious quality.
DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
on 21 Dec 2023 17:21
collapse
I also don’t think Captain Picard needs to drop the N-word while gazing at alien feet tbh
NatakuNox@lemmy.world
on 21 Dec 2023 18:03
nextcollapse
Don’t you mean feet out? Preferably, women’s feet. Covered in oil?
CeruleanRuin@lemmings.world
on 22 Dec 2023 03:53
collapse
Quentin’s pitch: “So there’s an entire species where they’re all feet. And Kirk says the n-word. Like, a lot.”
For anyone interested, Tarantino spoke ad lib about the idea of making a Trek film back in 2015. I mentioned this in another comment here but didn’t have the link to the interview.
Go to 3:47 for the relevant section. Interestingly, rewatching it, the prompt of the conversation was “what Star Wars movie would you like to do” and Tarantino responds with he’d rather do a Trek film.
He’s main point is that so many good episodes from Trek, especially the original series, could be made into movies, and cites specifically City on the Edge of Forever and Yesterday’s Enterprise, which certainly indicate that he has some good Trek Taste.
skellener@kbin.social
on 25 Dec 2023 01:45
collapse
threaded - newest
I like star trek, and I like R-movies. I don’t know if they will mix well.
Hopefully better than Discovery gratuitously using the F word.
It used it once and the line was over science saying “This is so fucking cool”. The Picard show used it more frequently.
Yall really get butthurt over a show when half the problems you have with it you’ve imagined and invented lmao
But that one time it was used VERY GRATUITOUSLY (a youtuber told me that makes sense).
I can’t think of anything more pathetically Star Trek than using the franchises first ‘fuck’ for a nerd getting excited about science. Like… come on. That’s PERFECT!
Indeed. It is, I daresay, fucking perfect.
I still maintain that a Quentin Tarantino Trek likely would have been the greatest Trek film ever made (not a high bar though). Come on, imagine Inglourious Basterds set during the Cardassian occupation of Bajor. But the rights holders have always been Trek’s biggest enemy because for the most part they just want to make something safe that will get people viewing, when what’s great about Trek is how expansive the universe is and how much room there is to tell stories of every kind. Literature about the far future, whose entire point is how expansive and diverse that far future could be, shouldn’t be so stylistically narrow that people get their knickers in a twist when Picard swears. But since it is, we can never have something as good or even just interesting as Quentin Tarantino Trek.
No. The story would revolve around an intergalactic war started over a teenage girl’s feet.
I didn’t say give him full artistic freedom!
Unless…?
I don’t think it would be, galaxy quest set a pretty damn high bar.
Damnit Jim, I hate that you said this because I know I’ll never get it!
I enjoy the Tarantino films, but I don’t want them anywhere near Star Trek.
I really dislike what’s happening with ST lately; what was in my childhood a hopeful message for how much humanity could achieve when we finally get our shit together, is now just another action movie / drama template. Government bad, corruption everywhere, war for the sake of war, etc.
I’m certain Tarantino would double down on that and I just don’t want it.
Have you tried strange new worlds?
Also Lower Decks is incredible. A Star Trek show that makes fun of itself and the franchise but is still narratively driven and... entertaining.
I call it the Omniman/Homelander distinction
That is to say, is the deconstructing work made by someone who gets the message of the work being deconstructed or not.
Omniman is a complex look at the stated origin of Superman being sent to earth, and the paternalistic nature of what exactly Jor’El wished for Clark to do with the benefits of Earth’s environment, and also a look at how even despite that, Superman would have been capable of learning to be a true hero without that guiding hand of a human upbringing, and that some of his spark isn’t nature or nurture but just that drop of empathy it takes to make someone see helping others as worth it for its own sake.
Homelander is a wankfest about how bad superhero comics are written by a guy who wrote an entire series about how he believes everyone secretly wants to be a murder rapist and is just “brainwashed by societal bullshit” to not acknowledge it.
I’ll check it out thanks. I kinda disliked the idea of a st cartoon and it seems more aimed at teenagers.
.
Tarantino is kind of a bellwether for the mostly apolitical right-wing (but non-fascist) middle-class majority of the US population, the movie “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” convinced me of that. It also convinced me that Tarantino himself has lost the plot, or actually never really had it. He reminds me a bit of Beavis and Butthead, kind of just watching movies and TV all the time, sorting everything into the binary categories “cool” or “sucks”, except he actually goes out and makes films that glorify all he thinks is “cool” which happens to be a cross-section of all media that glorifies violence and toxic masculinity.
So he likes Star Trek. Congratulations Tarantino, your “geek” bona-fides are authentic, but like the rest of the right-wing (non-fascist) middle-class majority, you really have no fucking clue and don’t care about the political origins of Star Trek and are just itching to erase them so you can make it into another “cool” movie that glorifies violence and toxic masculinity. You can fuck right off, Tarantino.
you keep using these words but they don't mean what you think they mean.. People who are right wing support fascism. Full stop. They don't have to mean to, but they actively do, and what I assume is an attempt to spare their feelings (though the reason doesn't really matter) is just more confirmation for their cognitive dissonance that they're not doing anything wrong.
I very much agree with everything else you said, but I can't grasp why you would make the extra effort to pander to them like that, it's bizarre.
You are right, and I also agree with you, so let me just clarify… there is a difference between people who unconsciously support fascism merely because they are apolitical, and people who are very deliberately fascist, as in enthusiastic supporters of the Republican party.
Most fans of US movies are indifferent, and do not think of themselves as political beings. They think of themselves as just “ordinary.” Like a fish not knowing what water is, “ordinary” for an average US citizen is about as close to fascism as a person can possibly be without enthusiastically actively waving around swastikas – but there is still a difference between “ordinary” apolitical people like Tarantino and all of his fans who think of him as edgy, and someone actively wishing to purge the world of all non-white people. That is what I mean by “right wing” and not fascist.
I think it is important to draw that distinction because I don’t like blaming apolitical people for being the victims of US mainstream cinema brainwashing.
Ok, so you're not talking about right wing people then (or more accurately - conservatives), you're talking about centrists and liberals (who are not left wing) (edit to add: while claiming to be "apolitical", looks like Tarantino has donated to the DNC in the past, so that tracks).
I know that's uncomfortable to hear, but it's the truth, and to those willing to sit with that discomfort and challenge their bias, I recommend taking the time to read this and this.
I suppose I am, though I think it is accurate to call centrists and liberals “right wing.”
Those are both good articles, I have actually read them both before.
Oh yeah, I agree in principle, but practically it becomes a bit confusing, as this exchange has demonstrated lol, glad we cleared it up..
And yeah, fuck Tarantino.
Show me a moderate Democrat in the US and I’ll show you a moderate right winger in the world. From a world perspective, the US hasn’t had a left leaning president in the last 30 years or more. The US lost its left at some point, and advocating for sensible policies became its new left. Outside looking in, Bernie is a centrist or at most left-of-center.
So if your reference is the full spectrum, the majority of the US population is right wing, a good portion of it radicalized fascists. Now if your reference is the severely skewed Overton window of the US, then yeah, all right wingers are fascists.
Just a side note: American fucked up definitions of words and ideologies are not “how things are called”. Liberals are not non committed leftists.
You do realize that’s like saying all people who are left wing support authoritarian communism right? Neither extreme is healthy.
Such hard bigotry, you left wing fascist
Yeah, I prefer the positive role models & society present in 90’s trek. You don’t get that much in nutrek.
You must have hated DS9.
I see TNG with mostly 2D characters where the Federation and its ideals are the main driving force of the plots. When they deviate from that is when you get bad episodes (cough Sub Rosa cough). The characters had to shed some of their depth and become idealized for message to shine through.
On DS9, you have a gritty view of a frontier without the influence of the Federation. The evolution of the characters and how they react to the changing reality around them is the center stage, and for that you need 3D, flawed characters to build development arcs upon.
Then on DSC you have perfect 2D characters in a corrupt world and the show is about Michael Burnham but she’s also perfect and I can’t see what message they’re trying to send.
I think DS9 set a precedent that was bad for the franchise, but I don’t hate it; the show felt like it understood its roots. I took DS9 as a way to explore how federation values addressed a galaxy not quite there yet.
It didn’t diminish the hopeful future by saying that “actually the federation is evil" it just said “listen, we still have work to do”.
Watching Cisco wrestle internally with reconciling who he knew he was supposed to be while the galaxy tested that was at least interesting on an intellectual level.
I think that bit of nuance got lost though, so I do kinda wish it had never happened.
You should check out Strange New Worlds then, it’s a return to episodic form
I kinda feel like I just don’t have the heart for ST anymore. Picard was the final nail in the coffin, I am all out of trust for the modern generation of writers.
I’ll just watch TNG through every couple of years and be happy in my bubble.
So I agree mostly, but classic Trek also had plenty of looking at the present and past showing how bad things were/are/can be. It’s a hopeful message in that we can change and solve problems, but it doesn’t totally ignore issues either.
I do agree the drama and action is a negative for it though. Some amount of its fine, but ST is about considering our reality through the lense of sci-fi and aliens, not just brainless entertainment. Star Wars already exists in that market. ST needs to do what it does well and not worry about trying to be as big as Star Wars. Endless growth is only going to kill the franchise.
Meh, it is not like a Tarantino Star Trek movie is going to diminish the older series.
I’d say let him try, and if it turns out bad, throw it on the pile of bad Star Trek movies.
No real harm done.
It apparently would have been a direct follow-up to “A Piece of the Action”, the gangster planet episode. Which is probably the one Star Trek plot that would make sense for Tarantino.
I mean, of course it was going to be R-rated, Quent doesn’t exactly make family-friendly pics.
But also, why is everyone always trying to make Star Trek edgier these days?
Re: edgier Trek:
For me, I feel like we’ve had so much ‘positive utopia’ Trek, that more of the same just gets a bit boring. There’s also the fact that life today is different compared to when Trek first aired. We’re more aware of some of those sharper edges and want to see them represented in media.
From a practical standpoint, there’s also ‘we can, so we do’. When Trek aired on regular TV, you couldn’t drop an F-bomb, much less show actual gritty stuff. With streaming, there’s no reason to hold back. Which gives writers more room to explore.
Lucky they made DS9 before TNG had even finished, then.
We didn’t really get more of the TNG side of things with the TNG movies. Then they moved on to JJA Star Trek, which wasn’t much of anything, not dark, not utopian, just references.
While Discovery was in part based around rescuing an ultra-fascist from another universe.
It took bringing back Picard himself to approach doing what they once did decades ago. And I guess not let the actor have too much say over the script, if that’s what messed up the movies.
You mean part of a single episode. Saving her was never planned in the first place and was even a surprise to the character in the moment. when she comes back she actively fucks everything up and is constantly at odds with everyone. So no part of it was based around her at all. Unless you’re talking about the season 3 two partner in which case it’s two episodes but that’s still very distinctly not the entire show. It’s also AGGRESSIVELY Star Trek to help others you have differences with. Starfleet goes out of its way to do that constantly in TNG even if it might put them at risk too.
Not to mention the fact you say after TNG that the older style was dead as if Voyager doesn’t exist. Then you mention Picard bringing back the old style which is an utter lie. Picard was willing to execute a prisoner. The first two seasons are nothing remotely like TNG and the third season is an even further detraction. Doesn’t mean it’s bad but it is aggressively different.
Gettin real tired of y’all just blatantly lying because you don’t like a thing and wanna slander it.
No. They kept her around like she wasn’t someone who should be imprisoned for life, far removed from any position where she could manipulate others.
If they wanted to help others, there was a universe full of people more deserving. Two, even.
Yep.
Which is a different complaint. Your initial problem was saying it was “based around her.” This isn’t. She’s a side character. But let us address your complaint then, shall we? She commited no crimes in Federation space. None. Not a single one. She was brought, against her will, from the place she was from into the Prime universe. What you’re asking for is to hold her guilty under Federation law when no crimes were ever committed in Federation space or against Federations persons. In fact, she actively helped Starfleet in multiple occasions. When she arrived in the Prime Universe she was imprisoned and while having issues with that, she didn’t fight back. She understood the situation that she was in a new world with new rules. The Federation doesn’t imprison people for doing things in their own space, nevermind when it’s a different universe altogether.
Both are capable as were proven throughout Season 1, 2 and 3.
Then nothing you say can be taken seriously if you are willing to outright ignore, and admit you’re ignoring, things that don’t fit into your invented narrative.
Have fun with that. I’ve got far better things to do with my time than engage with arguments made with such bad faith and dripping with such bitterness.
Seriously, because she’s from a different universe, her actions of committing genocide and torture across any number of star systems are irrelevant?
If Starfleet doesn’t care what people do “in their own space”, how could they ever have a problem with anything? Just declare yourself a ruler, obviously democracy doesn’t play into it, and you decide what you can do anywhere you are.
.
Pretty much every trek since 9/11 has been edgy.
.
Because you can only tell so many stories when literally all of your characters are required to be so narrow and flat it becomes a matter of debate and discussion when they do or say anything that would make them seem like real people.
Exactly. There is painfully little character development done throughout TNG. At the end of the final season the characters are still basically the same person who they were at the start. Picard is a little softer, Data is a little closer to being a person, Worf is still just Worf, Geordi is arguably a creepier person, Riker did not change like at all either, Deanna and Beverly also didn’t get development so much as a wardrobe. Basically the person with the most character development was Yar who died and then got resurrected through time shenanigans before forced into sexual slavery to a Romulan until she died. That’s not exactly… impressive. I love TNG and I love all the stories and the morals it tells but in todays TV atmosphere it is impossible to properly replicate that. Even SNW keeps a consistent plot throughout all the episodes and limits it to half of what TNG was dropping per year.
Then you look at Deep Space 9. This show is constantly praised by people left right and center. Why? Character development, a consistent plot, a serialized story and consequences that carry over from episode to episode instead of being immediately forgotten or relegated to a simple reference with a background prop. It is insane to me that so many people hate the newer Trek iterations for being “too dark” and “focusing too much on story” when that’s just Deep Space 9. An incredibly dark show that covers some seriously heavy subject material and has a consistent story that affects everything else around it.
As a longtime Trek fan, I’m certainly in favor of it. There’s plenty of things to work with; things implied but never really shown. Which is why I also liked more recent Trek projects like Strange New Worlds and Picard. They have a bit more grit to them.
Tarantino’s trek would not have been for everyone… but it certainly would’ve been a massive hit. Even if you hate his other work, you can’t help but be intrigued.
With Tarantino you’re also guaranteed to have a well-crafted product. It would never be a shallow cash-grab like certain other movies in the franchise.
Tarantino movies do tend to feature the hard r pretty prominently.
Romulan?
Jesus, man, Omulan please.
Set phasers to fry
Either talk about the plot, set a production date or stop writing these nothing articles.
I mean, no duh Tarantino would do a Trek movie that has lots of blood. To be familiar with his name is to know that's his style. Just tired of years teasing how great something WOULD'VE BEEN but not saying why.
I feel like in the best case it would have been a catastrophe that somehow manages to fall together in a way that actually works, and in the worst case it would have just been bad to the point of being offensively bad, appealing to neither regular filmgoers whole also pissing off established fans.
… But it also feels like giving a chainsaw to a bear: You know whatever’s gonna happen you’re not gonna like, but also you kinda want to do it just to see what it is.
Your last analogy made me snort my 3 sleeping partners (human canine and feline) awake.
Also spot on. But I really don’t want to see it. But I’m sure I’d be entertained by reading about the result.
I love Tarantino films; major fan. But I don’t think he’s capable of nuance or subtext, both of which are heavily used in the franchise. I would also abhor a “hard R” Star Trek film. It would be right up there with the Kelvin films. There’s no way in hell the fan base would allow something like that to be canonized. The only alternative I could see is if it involved time travel and all of the "hard R"s were from humans from the past.
Counterpoint: with some subject matter, you don’t need nuance or subtext. Hence why IB remains, in my opinion, his greatest work. It’s one of the few subjects where you don’t need nuance so the good technical aspects of his filmmaking doesn’t just wash out in all the blood and gore. All you have to do is cook up a story in the Trek universe where his filmmaking style would be an asset (hint: have the story revolve around killing fascists), don’t give him complete control, and make him work in tandem with Star Trek old hands like Brannon Braga or Jonathan Frakes and I honestly think you’d end up with something good.
Personally, I think Star Trek is good enough that it deserves more and more interesting film treatments than it’s gotten. Tarantino Trek would upset a lot of people just because it wasn’t an anodyne feel-good PG movie, but if it was good, we could end up with other, better directors doing even more interesting things with Trek.
Star Trek itself often has nuance that’s about as subtle as being hit in the face with a brick. Need I remind everyone about Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, TOS S3E15.
I think when they say "hard R" here, they mean a strong R rating for the film, not the other hard R for which Tarantino is known.
FWIW, I recall an interview with Tarantino on YouTube somewhere in which Trek came up, and he was asked to name one of his favourite episodes.
To my surprise he named Yesterdays enterprise. He genuinely seemed to love it and remembered a lot of details about the plot. The other he mentioned is city on the edge of forever.
So while many might react to the idea of an R rated Tarantino Trek film negatively, I’d be quietly optimistic that he has good taste in Trek and would have a good core of a premise and story. I suspect he’d also handle the characters well, knowing how to balance campiness, seriousness and comedy.
EDIT: Found the interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyD7CFnFH3A
It’s from 2015. Go to 3.47 for the relevant section. Interestingly, rewatching it, the prompt of the conversation was “what Star Wars movie would you like to do” and Tarantino responds with he’d rather do a Trek film.
And to further my point, he’s main point is that so many good episodes from Trek, especially the original series, could be made into movies.
That’s something about Tarantino I did not know
Edited my post with a link to the video/interview if you’re interested.
City on the Edge of Forever is the best TOS episode in my opinion, and surpasses 90% or more of all Star Trek across all the series.
It’s good to know he knows his Star Trek. But I still wouldn’t want a Tarantino Trek movie — unless, of course, Avery Brooks reprises his role and recites Ezekiel 25:17 and has a phaser with Bad Motherfucker etched on it. That’s a Trek movie I’d watch.
Literally laughed out loud!
I love Tarantino but I would hate to see his star trek. His balls hard R star wars movie on the other hand would be the best film in the series.
A team of section 31 assassins armed with katanas are beamed aboard the enemy starship with orders to take out the top leadership?
Man, now I’ll never find out how many times Samuel L Jackson can be called the n-word on the bridge of the Enterprise…
So, set on Qo’noS?
All I know is that I would really have wanted to see it.
When you came to space dock here, did you notice a sign out in front of my station that said “Dead Romulan Storage”?
It would have been like the mirror mirror episode only with more of Uhuras feet.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/8805b206-bfc1-430d-98b3-d6167dd32deb.png">
Mirror mirror episode description
I’m guessing it would have really leaned into the colonial pulp fiction aspect of the original series.
I understand hesitancy for an R-rated Star Trek movie, and I also understand that Tarantino’s style isn’t for everyone, but that said- he always puts a lot of effort in to crafting a good story, and there’s always a ton of attention detail. His movies are never shallow pandering cash grabs like certain other directors who will remain nameless here.
So while a Tarantino Trek movie sounds very weird on the surface, I think he’s far and away earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to making any movie at this point and I would welcome his perspective.
Not that it’s ever gonna happen, of course. But if we do ever see a new movie, I would far prefer an auteur over a plug-n-play disneyfied cash grab like we see with the MCU, Star Wars, and basically any other pop culture franchise.
If he really wanted to do it he could do a sci-fi movie without it being attached to Trek and it would still make a billion dollars.
I like Tarantino movies and I like Star Trek, but they don’t need to mix
I’m a big Qentin Tarantino fan, but I never felt he was right for Star Trek. Not his type of movie IMO. But what the fuck do I know.
I just left a comment with more detail elsewhere, but at this point I think he’s earned the benefit of the doubt. Tarantino-Trek sounds like a weird combo, but based on his spotless track record, I would be surprised if he somehow managed made a stinker.
Pure marketing piffle.
Paramount would never let a Hard R Trek get made. Not only is it the completely wrong tone for Trek (even if you rate the JJ Abrams movies) but it would seriously harm ticket sales as kids and young teens would be prohibited from going to the theater to see it. Imagine Kirk and Spock sitting around, smoking weed, talking about their favorite obscure 2200s films while holding knives to each other’s nutsacks.
They only started talking about Tarantino directing a Star Trek movie in order to build hype for the new Trek shows that are of dubious quality.
I also don’t think Captain Picard needs to drop the N-word while gazing at alien feet tbh
Don’t you mean feet out? Preferably, women’s feet. Covered in oil?
Quentin’s pitch: “So there’s an entire species where they’re all feet. And Kirk says the n-word. Like, a lot.”
For anyone interested, Tarantino spoke ad lib about the idea of making a Trek film back in 2015. I mentioned this in another comment here but didn’t have the link to the interview.
The interview: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyD7CFnFH3A
Go to 3:47 for the relevant section. Interestingly, rewatching it, the prompt of the conversation was “what Star Wars movie would you like to do” and Tarantino responds with he’d rather do a Trek film.
He’s main point is that so many good episodes from Trek, especially the original series, could be made into movies, and cites specifically City on the Edge of Forever and Yesterday’s Enterprise, which certainly indicate that he has some good Trek Taste.
I’d still love to see him make it!