Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sci-Fi Movies Star Wars Prequels Television Entertainment

Quentin Tarantino and JJ Abrams Team Up For 'Star Trek' Movie (hollywoodreporter.com) 228

Quentin Tarantino reportedly has a pitch for a Star Trek film, and he has shared his vision with J.J. Abrams. According to Hollywood Reporter, "Tarantino and Abrams have plans to bring together a writers room to develop a film at Star Trek studio Paramount. Tarantino has an eye to direct the potential project." From the report: Abrams rebooted the franchise with 2009's Star Trek and also helmed 2013's Star Trek Into Darkness, before pivoting to Lucasfilm's Star Wars: The Force Awakens. He remains a producer on the Star Trek franchise even as he readies 2019's Star Wars: Episode IX. Paramount previously stated it was developing a fourth Star Trek film to star Chris Hemsworth as Captain Kirk's (Chris Pine) father, but no director has been attached and it's unclear where this Tarantino development leaves the project. The latest installment, Justin Lin's Star Trek Beyond (2016), was well-liked by critics but earned just $343.4 million worldwide, the lowest in the rebooted universe. In a 2015 Nerdist podcast interview, Tarantino revealed that he would be more likely to direct a Star Trek film over a Star Wars pic, noting he was a big fan of the original series.

Quentin Tarantino and JJ Abrams Team Up For 'Star Trek' Movie

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Say "Dilithium" one more god damned time!

  • Sound in page (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qortra ( 591818 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:37PM (#55684293)
    1. 1. Click on link
    2. 2. Immediately video starts playing back with sound
    3. 3. Leave page because fuck that.

    Can anybody suggest a good plugin that will ban sites that do that shit? I don't even want to show up in their daily-active-user count.

    • Ghostery blocks all that stuff.
      • by qortra ( 591818 )
        Thanks for the suggestion! However, Ghostery looks more like a content filter (to remove trackers, ads, etc.), whereas I don't even want to patronize the site at all. I just want my browser to tell me that it's a garbage site before my browser navigates away so I can move quickly along with the rest of my life.
        • It does that too. It will block entire sites if they are deemed malware. It didn't block this site for some reason, but it blocked its malware laden video players.
        • by lgw ( 121541 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:58PM (#55684429) Journal

          There's probably something that could be done with your ... hosts file [wince].

          • by qortra ( 591818 )
            Absolutely not. I only want to ban 80 and 443. Think of all the other ports that could carry useful data though! In this particularly case, I wouldn't want to deprive myself of the notably excellent hollywoodreporter.com gopher space.

            More to the point, while I could use my hosts file, I would still need a mechanism to keep it up-to-date with all sites that auto-play audio. Self maintenance would mean that I would have to visit most offending sites at least once, whereas I would like to keep that number mu
    • by wjcofkc ( 964165 )
      If I had mod points.... But yes, I can verify this travesty.
    • Re:Sound in page (Score:4, Informative)

      by FrankHaynes ( 467244 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:58PM (#55684419)

      There's a setting buried in the Firefox "about:config" tree that stops autoplay of videos/media, but I don't remember what it's named right now. Search around there long enough you'll find it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        media.autoplay.enabled

    • Blocks all of that crap. I once loaded a news site I frequent in another browser and laughed at all of the garbage that popped up and ate up screen real estate. With NoScript the site doesn't look as pretty but it's far more usable.

    • In Chrome using https://github.com/Eloston/dis... [github.com] . this before moving to Firefox.
    • by deep2k ( 640705 )

      Can anybody suggest a good plugin that will ban sites that do that shit? I don't even want to show up in their daily-active-user count.

      On any chrome-based browser: chrome://flags then scroll down to Autoplay policy and select "Document user activation is required"

  • by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <kfitzner@excelcia.ca> on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:39PM (#55684301) Homepage Journal

    JJ Treks are good movies, but terrible Star Trek. He took the original series, movies, animated series, and a few books put them in a blender and hit Frappe. What pops out is Star Trek for people with no attention span - it's like Star Trek Anime. The action sequences are ok, and as a turn off your brain light sci fi, I have to admit they are enjoyable. But they aren't Star Trek. JJ did the same with Star Wars, just took the original stories and recycled them with little innovation and nothing new. It's sad to see Trek raped that way.

    • by qortra ( 591818 )
      This is a good analysis of the new Trek movies. However, one can say the same thing of some of the older (particularly TNG) trek movies. Trek TV has always been about exploration, but movies 9 and 10 (and even 8 if you eliminate the Zephram Cochrane arc), for example, had precious little to tickle the curious mind. They were good-guys / bad-guy "action" flicks, but they weren't even good at the action parts. Ever since Star Trek II (the first one), the studio[s] considered it a safe financial bet to just tu
    • by FrankHaynes ( 467244 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:59PM (#55684441)

      It's not Star Trek. It's a totally different movie that rips off the same character names to draw in long-time fans, but it's not recognizable to them. Fuck Abrams and his money grab.

    • by JohnFen ( 1641097 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:02PM (#55684455)

      JJ Treks are good movies, but terrible Star Trek.

      A million times this. Abrams is precisely the wrong person to be making Star Trek movies. I find them aggressively objectionable.

      If, however, you took the same movies and didn't connect them to Star Trek, then they'd by OK. Not great, but fine.

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The last one was okay, but the first two were pretty terrible. The first one was like an interrogation with a light shined in your eyes the whole time, and the second one had to add in fake CGI tears.

        • Whaaat? The last one was the worst. That's the one where they worried that a ship might not stand up to the stresses of being flown through the atmosphere before literally using it like a bulldozer for the remainder of the movie, and then they killed a swarm of Zerg with Beastie Boys music.

          The first JJ Trek was decent, the second one was OK. I can accept a Star Trek-themed popcorn action flick, but it should be a good action flick.

    • You are of course right, but be careful about criticism regarding TFA. Orthodoxy requires that you say itâ(TM)s great even though itâ(TM)s a recycled movie. Itâ(TM)s simply not culturally PC to admit TFA was terrible.
    • Star Trek Into Plot Holes was not a good movie by any definition. It was miserable. Utter trash. No, it was not enjoyable.

      On the other hand, saying "well this may be a Good Movie by the standards of the non-trekkie unwashed masses, but it just doesn't live up to the high standards and tradition of excellence that is Star Trek" is rather strange. General consensus is that at least half of the pre-Abrams Star Trek movies are dreadful too. I don't know that any of them were quite as bad as Into Plot Holes, but

      • > On the other hand, saying "well this may be a Good Movie by the standards of the non-trekkie unwashed masses

        I don't think that was the point of the original comment.
        For instance Star Trek the Motion Picture is a really good "Trek movie" but a pretty bad "movie".

        It's just that the action movies of JJ are so divorced from the Trek mythos that they don't scratch the Trek itch.

    • JJ Treks are good movies, but terrible Star Trek..

      They weren't even "good movies" to be honest. Certainly not Star Trek, but even if you rebadged it something else like "Star Voyage" they were still pretty bad films with terrible dialogue, ridiculous plots, and poorly directed.

      The first "JJ Trek" film was OK compared to the other two he made. The other two were just dire.

  • will make a great Yoda.
  • by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:53PM (#55684387) Journal

    I am 100% behind Quentin Tarantino directing Star Trek if it means Samuel L. Jackson will be playing the captain of the Enterprise with a jheri curl.

    "I said...BEAM ME UP MOTHERFUCKER!"

    https://youtu.be/9wEnb9yIoes [youtu.be]

  • Who accidentally gets shot in the back seat of a shuttle craft? And will Star Trek language will go where no language has gone before? Far beyond that one swear in Discovery...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I must be severely out of step with my generation, but I despise both these guys and with the amount their films gets rubbed in my face, it's with a passion.

    Now I'm a Trek fan that hates nuTrek, this is like a double whammy of crappiness, where nuTrek delves even deeper into mindless action. I didn't think it was possible.

    • by jedidiah ( 1196 )

      I don't totally despise JJ Trek and even I think this is a bad idea.

      • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

        I love tarintino but tend to agree. Nothing about this makes sense.

        It may be interesting to see him completely outside of his wheelhouse though.

  • by wjcofkc ( 964165 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @06:56PM (#55684405)
    Let's do it.
  • Good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sexconker ( 1179573 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:04PM (#55684465)

    This is good, because I don't plan on watching it.

    Everything JayJay touches is shit. Everything Quentin touches is over the top and ridiculous not for any point, not for any stylistic effect, and not even for the sake of being over the top or gratuitous, but simply so you will know Quentin is behind it.

    • Man you must be fun at parties.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The problem with a lot of Tarantino stuff is that it's just an inferior knock-off of the thing he is paying homage to. Kill Bill was a low point for that, but all of his work suffers from it to some extent.

  • by 93 Escort Wagon ( 326346 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:05PM (#55684475)

    Then have John Woo do the next couple after that. Too bad Peckinpah isn't around, though.

  • by ngc5194 ( 847747 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:28PM (#55684613)

    Here are some lines of dialogue I want to hear from this movie:

    Being 1: "You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with cheese on Qonos?"
    Being 2: "They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?"
    Being 1: "No man, they have a different system of measurement in the Klingon Empire, they use kellicams to measure distance and shit."
    Being 2: "Then what do they call it?"
    Being 1: "It's a loQ cheb with cheese, only they don't eat it with cheese. Klingons don't like cheese because it doesn't move."
    Being 2: "LoQ cheb with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?"
    Being 1: "A Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they serve it with a side of gagh."

  • by seoras ( 147590 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:30PM (#55684617)

    Things to look out for when Tarantino boldly goes where no director has gone before:
      - Mexican stand off in space.
      - "N" word. Has it been abolished a few hundred years from now?
      - Samuel L. Jackson goes from Jedi to Klingon
      - Uma. In spandex. Paying homage to Duran Duran.
      - The resurrection of a long forgotten film star.

    Add some of your own below.

    • by seoras ( 147590 )

      Not the pop group. The movie with Jane Fonda
      "Duran Duran" -> Barbarella

    • > Samuel L. Jackson goes from Jedi to Klingon

      Reminds me of this classic:


      Subject: Star Wars

      ------------------
      Subject: The TOP 10 Things We Want To Hear Samuel L. Jackson, "JediMaster
      Mace Windu," say in the Star Wars Prequel.

      10. You don't need to see my goddamn identification, 'cause these ain't the
      motherfuckin' droids you're looking for.

      9. Womp rat may taste like pumpkin pie, but I'll never know, 'cause I wouldn't
      eat the filthy motherfucker.

      8. This is your father's lightsaber. Whe

    • - Covert foot fetish scenes
      - Phasers now cause gory deaths

  • A fictional character has to save everyone from:
    Aliens. Really bad aliens that don't want to be invaded by humans.
    Someone in the crew is problematic and has to be reeducated.
    People in the chain of command are also very problematic and they all have to be reeducated.
    The fictional character will plan, fight and win the long war with aliens.
    The bad aliens will have a peace treaty dictated to them so lots of humans can fly over a new tourist attraction.
  • by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:55PM (#55684751) Journal
    It's total chaos, it's unwatchable, and it's time to just admit it: It's dead, Jim. It's all artificially Star Trek-flavored, complete with trans-fats, FD&C Red #2, and NutraSweet, and a mandatory carcinogen warning label if sold in California.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Discovery is good. It's got a compelling story, interesting characters, some new direction to make Trek fresh but also still very much grounded in the established universe.

  • You know WHY you didn't see that sign? 'Cause it ain't there, 'cause storing dead Klingons ain't my fucking business, that's why!

  • by Noishkel ( 3464121 ) on Tuesday December 05, 2017 @07:57PM (#55684767)
    Because ST:D is literally one of the worse Sci-Fi series in years. Super charged lens flare laden Abrams quality CGI for the first two episodes only but absolutely garbage in every other way. Not that Trek has ever had the best writing, but Discovery makes Enterprise look like TNG by comparison.
  • ... Tarantino will death proof [wikipedia.org] the Enterprise -- but all the red shirts will be in the passenger seat.

  • Part of me thinks this is a bad idea - a guy known for his over the top stylistic violence and profanity epics handling the next entry in a popular pop sci-fi franchise just seems like a bad fit.

    However, part of me thinks this would be great because Tarantino's strength is making solid movies with interesting and compelling plots while at the same time paying homage to old movie styles and in the process coming up with a great example of the same.

    For example Kill Bill is a really great movie in the st
    • by Boronx ( 228853 )

      OTOH he extracts great performances from actors, writes intelligent dialog, is a master at building tension and isn't afraid to make a left turn, all qualities sorely lacking in the current Trek movies.

  • Abrams? Tarentino? Let's stop playing around and go straight to the bottom of the barrel. if we're going to hire talentless hacks to dig up Rodenderry's skull and do nasty things to his skull, let's go directly to the Master of No-Talent Directing, Uwe Bol.
    • by x0 ( 32926 )

      Abrams? Tarentino? Let's stop playing around and go straight to the bottom of the barrel. if we're going to hire talentless hacks to dig up Rodenderry's skull and do nasty things to his skull, let's go directly to the Master of No-Talent Directing, Uwe Bol.

      And then, the coup de grace of all dares, the sinister triple-Bol-dare. Shogun37 created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the Shymalan triple dare and going right for the throat!

  • Quentin Tarantino seems to be morphing into Jim Broadbent.

  • I am ok with this just as long as the film ends with a mexican stand-off where the entire Star Trek cast gets permanently wiped out (and starting with Kirk), just think Reservoir Dogs in space, but on a grander scale.

  • to star Chris Hemsworth as Captain Kirk's (Chris Pine) father

    Chris Pine: 37
    Chris Hemsworth: 34

    I really hate revisionist plot lines. Kirk's father did a suicide run to save people in the first movie. I guess we'll find out in this one that he actually escaped at the last minute and travelled through time with the Romulans in the first movie, but for some very convincing reason he didn't show up in the plot until this 4th movie.

When a fellow says, "It ain't the money but the principle of the thing," it's the money. -- Kim Hubbard

Working...