As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Star Trek] Keep On Trekkin' (Lower Decks stuff in SPOILERS)

1555658606177

Posts

  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Monwyn wrote: »
    I'm not gonna say it'll actually make for good TV, but at least on paper it makes sense that Q would continue showing up in Picard's life.

    Sure, but this only reinforces for me that the whole concept was terrible from the beginning. That final scene with Q, with him done up in all the Encounter at Farpoint regalia? That was the perfect way to cap off that storyline and relationship. I have precisely no doubts that this will fail to live up to that.

    If they really wanted to reuse Q, I would have been interested to see how the Abrams crew dealt with him; Quinto's Spock playing against DeLancie could have been really great. But Q doesn't blow shit up, so it was not to be.

    “The trial never ends…”

    Yeah, and then then they stuck Q into Voyager, which certainly was one hell of a trial.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    MsAnthropyCambiataShadowenJacobkoshNightslyrKana
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Deathwish was great and a fitting final episode for Q.

    Then they went and made Highlander 2. Twice.

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 18
    Abrams' is a terrible director, but he's never made such a mean spirited, misogynist movie like Hateful Eight.

    Seems like Tarantino is a victim of his own success and no one really edits his stuff anymore. Major Marquis' story alone was just gross and ugly, and there was really no reason to "film" it going down. It stuck out like a sore thumb in a film filled with a bunch of other needlessly ugly moments.

    Dark_Side on
    MegaMan001TryCatcher
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    edited June 18
    I feel like Tarantino films have a particular oeuvre and going in expecting anything remotely close to restraint with regards to violence and gore and generally shitty behavior is not reasonable.

    Inquisitor77 on
    Mancingtom
  • DonnictonDonnicton Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Abrams' is a terrible director, but he's never made such a mean spirited, misogynist movie like Hateful Eight.

    Seems like Tarantino is a victim of his own success and no one really edits his stuff anymore. Major Marquis' story alone was just gross and ugly, and there was really no reason to "film" it going down. It stuck out like a sore thumb in a film filled with a bunch of other needlessly ugly moments.

    Tarantino is the type of person who becomes relentlessly defiant whenever he faces any kind of opposition. But he has the clout to get away with that kind of behavior where nearly anyone else would be laughed out the door by the studios, so he exists in a feedback loop of reinforcing his behavior.

  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    I'll admit I don't automatically see Tarantino as a natural fit for the established Star Trek aesthetic, but that actually makes me more excited to see what he can make! It might be good, it might be bad, but I'll be very surprised if it's boring.

    I'm a little surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at his films here tbh. I'm not about telling people what they should and shouldn't enjoy, we all have our lines as to what we think is crass or vulgar and one persons isn't any more objectively right or wrong than anothers. That said, I'm kind of confused by the implication that there is no artistic merit in making a movie about bad people doing bad things. Or that a film with a negative tone can't be enjoyable.

    I thought Hateful Eight was a pretty good movie, the dialogue was tight, the pacing was great, the tension slowly rose and the ending was bleak but powerful. Yes, the people in it were murderous, racist, misogynist and just generally shitty people, but I'm not offended by seeing that depicted in a period accurate way, or as a narrative device. Art can be challenging, and sometimes that's good!

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
    LeztaCambiataMatevNightslyrshrykeKana
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    I'll admit I don't automatically see Tarantino as a natural fit for the established Star Trek aesthetic, but that actually makes me more excited to see what he can make! It might be good, it might be bad, but I'll be very surprised if it's boring.

    I'm a little surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at his films here tbh. I'm not about telling people what they should and shouldn't enjoy, we all have our lines as to what we think is crass or vulgar and one persons isn't any more objectively right or wrong than anothers. That said, I'm kind of confused by the implication that there is no artistic merit in making a movie about bad people doing bad things. Or that a film with a negative tone can't be enjoyable.

    I thought Hateful Eight was a pretty good movie, the dialogue was tight, the pacing was great, the tension slowly rose and the ending was bleak but powerful. Yes, the people in it were murderous, racist, misogynist and just generally shitty people, but I'm not offended by seeing that depicted in a period accurate way, or as a narrative device. Art can be challenging, and sometimes that's good!

    Yeah I liked Hateful Eight. I liked Inglorious Basterds, too, and thanks to that video posted upthread I'm gonna need to rewatch it now.

    The only Tarantino film that I watched and didn't enjoy was Kill Bill part 1. So much so that I never bothered with Part 2.

    He seems like a weird fit for Star Trek but I wouldn't say outright that it will be bad. In fact, it could be amazing.

    While it doesn't seem that any rich were eaten. It definitely feels like a soup course with broth made from rich stock - bouillonaire if you will - was had.

    My Dragon Age Origins Let's Play

    Casual
  • CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    I'll admit I don't automatically see Tarantino as a natural fit for the established Star Trek aesthetic, but that actually makes me more excited to see what he can make! It might be good, it might be bad, but I'll be very surprised if it's boring.

    I'm a little surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at his films here tbh. I'm not about telling people what they should and shouldn't enjoy, we all have our lines as to what we think is crass or vulgar and one persons isn't any more objectively right or wrong than anothers. That said, I'm kind of confused by the implication that there is no artistic merit in making a movie about bad people doing bad things. Or that a film with a negative tone can't be enjoyable.

    I thought Hateful Eight was a pretty good movie, the dialogue was tight, the pacing was great, the tension slowly rose and the ending was bleak but powerful. Yes, the people in it were murderous, racist, misogynist and just generally shitty people, but I'm not offended by seeing that depicted in a period accurate way, or as a narrative device. Art can be challenging, and sometimes that's good!

    Yeah I liked Hateful Eight. I liked Inglorious Basterds, too, and thanks to that video posted upthread I'm gonna need to rewatch it now.

    The only Tarantino film that I watched and didn't enjoy was Kill Bill part 1. So much so that I never bothered with Part 2.

    He seems like a weird fit for Star Trek but I wouldn't say outright that it will be bad. In fact, it could be amazing.

    It's weird you should say that because the Kill Bill movies are basically the only Tarantino movies I've watched that I had a very negative reaction to on first viewing and only went back to for another attempt like 15 years later. Maybe they're just a departure from his usual style.

    Anyway, to get back on topic, yes I can see a whole bunch of ways in which he could have a very interesting take on Star Trek. There's basically no other writer/director in mainstream Holywood cinema today who can make people just sitting in a room talking as riveting as he can. I can't really imagine how he will translate that talent from the criminal/gangster settings that he's used to, to something more Star Treky but I'm excited to see him try. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see how a slower, smaller, more dialogue focused Star Trek movie could be something really special.

    i write amazing erotic fiction

    its all about anthropomorphic dicks doing everyday things like buying shoes for their scrotum-feet
    Winky wrote: »
    Corgis are totally the white people of dogs
    That_Guyshryke
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    Let's be clear. Quentin Tarantino is a DIE HARD star trek TOS fan. He's stated in multiple interviews that TOS was a big inspiration for him through this career. Making a Star Trek film is basically his dream gig. He even said it wouldn't count toward his 10 movie limit. It's easy to sit here and just evaluate what we think a QT Star Trek film would be like but the bottom line is that we have no idea how it would end up. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks he could do profound and interesting things with the IP. Things that we would never expect to see from QT. Every single one of his movies is like a sizzle reel for different genres he is capable of doing. I think if he was forced to pick just one or two to focus on, we could get an amazing Star Trek film.

    steam_sig.png
    JacobkoshCaedwyrNightslyrshrykeMsAnthropyCidTheSquid
  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    CambiataDark_SideJacobkoshCasualautono-wally, erotibot300ShadowenCaedwyrhlprmnkyCommander ZoomNightslyrKetarboogedybooshrykeMsAnthropyGiantGeek2020Kana
  • CambiataCambiata Commander Shepard The likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Cambiata wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    I'll admit I don't automatically see Tarantino as a natural fit for the established Star Trek aesthetic, but that actually makes me more excited to see what he can make! It might be good, it might be bad, but I'll be very surprised if it's boring.

    I'm a little surprised at the level of vitriol aimed at his films here tbh. I'm not about telling people what they should and shouldn't enjoy, we all have our lines as to what we think is crass or vulgar and one persons isn't any more objectively right or wrong than anothers. That said, I'm kind of confused by the implication that there is no artistic merit in making a movie about bad people doing bad things. Or that a film with a negative tone can't be enjoyable.

    I thought Hateful Eight was a pretty good movie, the dialogue was tight, the pacing was great, the tension slowly rose and the ending was bleak but powerful. Yes, the people in it were murderous, racist, misogynist and just generally shitty people, but I'm not offended by seeing that depicted in a period accurate way, or as a narrative device. Art can be challenging, and sometimes that's good!

    Yeah I liked Hateful Eight. I liked Inglorious Basterds, too, and thanks to that video posted upthread I'm gonna need to rewatch it now.

    The only Tarantino film that I watched and didn't enjoy was Kill Bill part 1. So much so that I never bothered with Part 2.

    He seems like a weird fit for Star Trek but I wouldn't say outright that it will be bad. In fact, it could be amazing.

    It's weird you should say that because the Kill Bill movies are basically the only Tarantino movies I've watched that I had a very negative reaction to on first viewing and only went back to for another attempt like 15 years later. Maybe they're just a departure from his usual style.

    I don't think they're a departure, exactly, because at least Part 1 is a tribute to pulpy 60s movies which his films borrow from a lot. It's just that in this case a lot of it was pulpy martial arts and samurai movies and I liked the originals way better. Like I could see myself enjoying it if Kill Bill had starred an unknown female martial artist with amazing skills instead of a famous actress, but as it stands, I'd rather just go back and watch Game of Death and Yojimbo again. Sorry, Tarantino, you are not Akira Kurosawa and Uma Thurman is not Bruce Lee. Maybe I'd change my mind as an older person but I think making it a 2-parter was extra self-indulgent, making me not want to spend the time needed to try.

    While it doesn't seem that any rich were eaten. It definitely feels like a soup course with broth made from rich stock - bouillonaire if you will - was had.

    My Dragon Age Origins Let's Play

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    Yeah, Tarantino is at his heart, a giant film nerd. I look forward to basically anything he might do with the Star Trek IP.
    I feel like Tarantino films have a particular oeuvre and going in expecting anything remotely close to restraint with regards to violence and gore and generally shitty behavior is not reasonable.

    No doubt. But something about Hateful 8 just seemed a bit too much, particularly because it's an overly long, slow moving film already, and stuff like Marquis' story just make it longer for really no good reason other than to be gross. (While granted there is a good reason Marquis tells the story.)

  • Space PickleSpace Pickle Registered User regular
    If there were no racial slurs I think I could be into a Tarantino trek.

  • CroakerBCCroakerBC TorontoRegistered User regular
    If there were no racial slurs I think I could be into a Tarantino trek.

    How do you feel about referring to a character as a “green-blooded hobgoblin”?

    Casual
  • Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited June 19
    My big concern for a Tarantino Trek is I just don't know if he can get his ego out of the way enough to make something that shines within the IP. The guy makes stylized movies he likes, that's been his whole career. That's what he does. So I could very easily see him going into making a Trek film with every single sincere intention of not putting his style first and Trek second, then immediately and unavoidably doing the opposite by sheer force of habit.

    But until he delivers a Trek movie, I don't feel confident in making any kind of estimate. He definitely has the capability of making excellent films, so I hope he would deliver an excellent Trek film.

    Ninja Snarl P on
    Harry Dresden
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    Favreau made his bones doing movie adaptions before moving into Star Wars, he's proved himself as reliable - as well as being able to change his style to fit the IP. Tarantino has done none of these things. Favrau is more then Chef and Swingers, he's also Iron Man, Elf, Jungle Book and Zathura.

    MorganVTryCatcherShadowenHahnsoo1Nightslyr
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    Favreau made his bones doing movie adaptions before moving into Star Wars, he's proved himself as reliable - as well as being able to change his style to fit the IP. Tarantino has done none of these things. Favrau is more then Chef and Swingers, he's also Iron Man, Elf, Jungle Book and Zathura.

    Yeah, that'd be my biggest concern. I'll be honest, not a fan of Tarantino's work as a whole, but legit asking, has he done anything outside his wheelhouse? Or does he conform to the things he's done successfully?

    Be interesting to see what he can do outside his usual fare.

  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning Registered User regular
    I remember he did an episode of CSI. It was a bit weirdly directed, but it was still recognizably a CSI episode. I don't know if that helps though.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    Yeah, Tarantino is at his heart, a giant film nerd. I look forward to basically anything he might do with the Star Trek IP.
    I feel like Tarantino films have a particular oeuvre and going in expecting anything remotely close to restraint with regards to violence and gore and generally shitty behavior is not reasonable.

    No doubt. But something about Hateful 8 just seemed a bit too much, particularly because it's an overly long, slow moving film already, and stuff like Marquis' story just make it longer for really no good reason other than to be gross. (While granted there is a good reason Marquis tells the story.)

    IMO it's to draw out the entire story while also emphasizing the extent to which this guy, who is in some sense the most sympathetic of the lot, is also not a good person.

    Dark_Side
  • That_GuyThat_Guy I don't wanna be that guy Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    I think there's a good case to be made that Tarantino would treat someone else's property, which he grew up loving, very differently than he would something wholly of his own creation.

    Favreau has a similar approach to Star Wars, for example. He's not making another Swingers or Chef when working on the set of The Mandalorian. Acting like people can only ever do one thing and will always do everything the same way they did that one thing is not fair to them as individuals.

    I'd be very interested to see what Tarantino would make if given the reins to a Trek movie. I bet he'd do a better job than Abrams did.

    Favreau made his bones doing movie adaptions before moving into Star Wars, he's proved himself as reliable - as well as being able to change his style to fit the IP. Tarantino has done none of these things. Favrau is more then Chef and Swingers, he's also Iron Man, Elf, Jungle Book and Zathura.

    Yeah, that'd be my biggest concern. I'll be honest, not a fan of Tarantino's work as a whole, but legit asking, has he done anything outside his wheelhouse? Or does he conform to the things he's done successfully?

    Be interesting to see what he can do outside his usual fare.

    https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000233/

    Back in the mid 2000s he wrote and directed a couple of episodes of CSI. He's a rather prolific script doctor in Hollywood but his contributions generally receive a special thanks credit or simply go uncredited. For example he was brought in to punch up the screenplay for The Rock. It's basically impossible to find a complete list of his work some people have assembled incomplete lists like the one below.

    https://www.nashvillescene.com/arts_culture/the-tarantino-10-films-you-may-not-have-known-tarantino-had-anything-to-do-with/article_5353d7c5-533a-54e2-a9e3-ee1886bdb274.html

    You don't notice his uncredited rewrites and directing gigs because he doesn't want you to. That's the point. QT is perfectly capable of making films in anyone's style. His style is basically a mashup of 5-6 different styles into something uniquely his.

    steam_sig.png
    Kana
  • MegaMan001MegaMan001 CRNA Rochester, MNRegistered User regular
    Tarantino Trek Drinking Game.

    Drink for the following: monologue about inane thing (food, etc.), Every pop culture reference (twice if that reference has to do with the wild west).

    Finish your drink: at some point the movie turns into a cartoon, racial epithet, movie turns into black and white, a monologue on the wonder of cinema and or movie making, you just realize the movie isn't being told in chronological order.

    Take a shot: a young woman is barefoot.

    Finish the Bottle: she's barefoot on the bridge

    I am in the business of saving lives.
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    Protip: get on the liver transplant list BEFORE starting the game.

    Strikorchrono_travellerGiantGeek2020Nightslyr
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    I remember he did an episode of CSI. It was a bit weirdly directed, but it was still recognizably a CSI episode. I don't know if that helps though.

    If I remember right, it was the episode where:
    One of the team members gets kidnapped and buried alive.

    That was a real intense and fucked up episode. In an entertaining way, but man was I left unhinged for a bit afterwards.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
    Shadowen
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    I'll note above, as much as I have qualms about the possibility of QT Trek, and even Abrams Trek, I'll STILL take more Trek that tries to do honest by at least the characters than I will no Trek.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    edited June 19
    Shadowen wrote: »
    I remember he did an episode of CSI. It was a bit weirdly directed, but it was still recognizably a CSI episode. I don't know if that helps though.

    If I remember right, it was the episode where:
    One of the team members gets kidnapped and buried alive.

    That was a real intense and fucked up episode. In an entertaining way, but man was I left unhinged for a bit afterwards.

    The part where they
    finally dig up the guy's glass coffin, but have to pull back because it's wired to blow, but the guy has no idea of that and starts panicking because he can't imagine why they're leaving and he's so desperate and scared he thinks his longtime friends and colleagues are just going to leave him there.

    It was a long time ago, but that scene still sticks in my mind.

    Undead Scottsman on
  • hlprmnkyhlprmnky Registered User regular
    I just had a disturbing thought and I need to run it by you, fam

    Lemma 1:
    Trek that is generally accepted to be Good™: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that has problems, detractors, reasonable-people-can-disagree, etc.: the rest of it

    Lemma 2:
    Trek that was supported by either an established network that didn’t Need This One Thing To Succeed, Pronto™ or by the largesse of Lucille Ball, personally: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that was launched as a Tentpole Franchise Offering™ to prop up UPN, Paramount+, etc. etc.: the rest of it

    Are these …correct? Am I missing something? I’m one more Father’s Day Weekend ‘Perhaps I will Have Another’ Cocktail away from launching a petition.org petition for Lady Gaga or someone else famous and wealthy to pick a new Trek pitch, bankroll it, and make that the New NuTrek.

    Historiographers of the franchise, please - talk me out of it.

    _
    iOS: hlprmnky | PSN: hlprmnky_2 | SC2: Callow.126
    Commander Zoomchrono_travellerCambiata
  • SneaksSneaks Registered User regular
    edited June 20
    I mean, there’s almost certainly more correlation than causation at work here, but it generally tracks that the more that the non-creative financiers depend upon a thing, the more they interfere with it, and the worse it gets.

    Sneaks on
    hlprmnkyCambiataJacobkosh
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    You know, other countries have national art endowments that are large and give out a lot of money. For this reason.
    So I'm for a petition to tax the rich and pay the artists.
    To be fair, you'll get hits and misses, and more misses than hits, when people feel free to swing for the fences. But the hits will be better, and the misses will disappear into the churn.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
    hlprmnkyCambiataGiantGeek2020MatevJacobkosh
  • hlprmnkyhlprmnky Registered User regular
    You know, other countries have national art endowments that are large and give out a lot of money. For this reason.
    So I'm for a petition to tax the rich and pay the artists.
    To be fair, you'll get hits and misses, and more misses than hits, when people feel free to swing for the fences. But the hits will be better, and the misses will disappear into the churn.

    My understanding is that “The hits will be better, and the misses will disappear into the churn” was an early draft of the Starfleet motto, but it was scrapped after a truly heroic number of attempts to translate it into Tellaran, each of which resulted in all Tellarites who read or heard it immediately challenging all sentients in earshot to a “dance battle to the fucking death” for reasons no Tellarite was willing to explain. I mean, I don’t hate “From the stars, wisdom” but man, the sacrifices me make for the sake of detente, am I right?

    _
    iOS: hlprmnky | PSN: hlprmnky_2 | SC2: Callow.126
  • HydropoloHydropolo Registered User regular
    hlprmnky wrote: »
    I just had a disturbing thought and I need to run it by you, fam

    Lemma 1:
    Trek that is generally accepted to be Good™: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that has problems, detractors, reasonable-people-can-disagree, etc.: the rest of it

    Lemma 2:
    Trek that was supported by either an established network that didn’t Need This One Thing To Succeed, Pronto™ or by the largesse of Lucille Ball, personally: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that was launched as a Tentpole Franchise Offering™ to prop up UPN, Paramount+, etc. etc.: the rest of it

    Are these …correct? Am I missing something? I’m one more Father’s Day Weekend ‘Perhaps I will Have Another’ Cocktail away from launching a petition.org petition for Lady Gaga or someone else famous and wealthy to pick a new Trek pitch, bankroll it, and make that the New NuTrek.

    Historiographers of the franchise, please - talk me out of it.

    I think you overrate DS9's opportunities. It had the benefit of riding on TNG's coattails but fucking went for it. Yes, yes, it was largely the same formula as that other show, but arguably that was both better and worse for ds9.

    Really what I'm getting at here, is Voyager more followed the TNG formula, so I'm not sure the above is super valid.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    That_Guy wrote: »
    Let's be clear. Quentin Tarantino is a DIE HARD star trek TOS fan. He's stated in multiple interviews that TOS was a big inspiration for him through this career. Making a Star Trek film is basically his dream gig. He even said it wouldn't count toward his 10 movie limit. It's easy to sit here and just evaluate what we think a QT Star Trek film would be like but the bottom line is that we have no idea how it would end up. I'm firmly in the camp that thinks he could do profound and interesting things with the IP. Things that we would never expect to see from QT.

    Abrams was a big Star Was fan, look how that turned out. Being a fan is not the same as making a movie about that IP, which Trek goes against him on every level. We know what movies he makes, Tarantino isn't an unknown factor. What he thinks is irrelevant, he's going to clash wildly with Paramount and be put off when he's not given control over everything. The reason his films are at Miramax wasn't an accident, Harvey Weinstein gave him creative freedom he wasn't going to get in any other studio. He's Edgar Wright, not the Russo brothers.
    Every single one of his movies is like a sizzle reel for different genres he is capable of doing. I think if he was forced to pick just one or two to focus on, we could get an amazing Star Trek film.

    They're all distinctly Tarantino films and none of them are like Trek. The studio won't just force him once and let him be, it'll be a constant struggle behind the scenes. Tarantino pushes the envelope, Trek needs that but not how he does it. Bring back Justin Lin instead.

  • Inquisitor77Inquisitor77 2 x Penny Arcade Fight Club Champion A fixed point in space and timeRegistered User regular
    I dunno I feel like Tarantino is a person and isn't some caricature that always has to do things the way he's done things in the past.

    BloodySlothThat_GuyshrykeMatevCaedwyrJacobkoshCambiataNightslyr
  • HevachHevach Registered User regular
    edited June 20
    Voyager had problems before it had rampant network interference. For that matter, what writers have said was the first big act of network interference (shoving Neelix to the back and adding a new character) worked out to the benefit of the show. The WWE cross promotion did nothing for anyone, but I think a bigger problem was that the old TNG staff filtered over to DS9, Voyager, or left for other projects, Voyager did not win the split.

    Hevach on
    Dark_SideKana
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    I dunno I feel like Tarantino is a person and isn't some caricature that always has to do things the way he's done things in the past.

    Sometimes people don't mix with studios: Josh Trank with Sony, Edgar Wright with Marvel. Maybe he's changed, but I'm going to need more than optimism based on nothing to sway my opinion on Tarantino. What proof do you have showing he's up for this?

  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited June 20
    Hevach wrote: »
    Voyager had problems before it had rampant network interference. For that matter, what writers have said was the first big act of network interference (shoving Neelix to the back and adding a new character) worked out to the benefit of the show. The WWE cross promotion did nothing for anyone, but I think a bigger problem was that the old TNG staff filtered over to DS9, Voyager, or left for other projects, Voyager did not win the split.

    There were so many problems that sort of screwed Voyager from the start. Berman, love or hate him, was being pulled in a bunch of different directions with his graduation to doing trek films, and the studio was pushing Voyager hard and on a tight deadline because it was supposed to be the flagship show for the new UPN network. It has a plot made for gritty grimdark trek, but DS9 was already doing that, so instead they tried to rehash TNG, but with worse characters and sloppy writing. The big sell was it was TNG but on a ship not named Enterprise! (But is basically the Enterprise anyway)

    Dark_Side on
  • ouchiesouchies Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    Hevach wrote: »
    Voyager had problems before it had rampant network interference. For that matter, what writers have said was the first big act of network interference (shoving Neelix to the back and adding a new character) worked out to the benefit of the show. The WWE cross promotion did nothing for anyone, but I think a bigger problem was that the old TNG staff filtered over to DS9, Voyager, or left for other projects, Voyager did not win the split.

    There were so many problems that sort of screwed Voyager from the start. Berman, love or hate him, was being pulled in a bunch of different directions with his graduation to doing trek films, and the studio was pushing Voyager hard and on a tight deadline because it was supposed to be the flagship show for the new UPN network. It has a plot made for gritty grimdark trek, but DS9 was already doing that, so instead they tried to rehash TNG, but with worse characters and sloppy writing. The big sell was it was TNG but on a ship not named Enterprise! (But is basically the Enterprise anyway)

    I thought the consistent creative through-line for Star Trek was TNG-VOY-ENT, with DS9 sort of its own side project. I have some kind of vague memory that when DS9 started in '92, it carried over a few people from the TNG staff, but was deliberately encouraged to go in it's own direction. Berman was involved, but he clearly didn't give it any more than a passing glance. TNG ended in '94, and the majority of that staff just turned around and started working on VOY for its premier in '95. This makes a lot of sense considering the renewed focus on episodic structure, the rehashing of TNG story lines, and an overall similarity in tone (there is a conflict that will be resolved in 42 minutes, with a minimum of consequences, stakes, or growth). VOY ended in 2001 and a few short months later, ENT premiered that same year, again carrying over a lot of the same staff, making the same kind of episodes for the third time over.

    I wonder if this is just head cannon I made up back then, so long ago that it seems true to me now. But looking back, it makes a good deal of sense to think that there was one largely consistent group of people making Star Trek from 1987 to 2005, while there were some weird theater dorks making their own show, whatever that's about, over there from 1992 to 1999.

  • MancingtomMancingtom Registered User regular
    hlprmnky wrote: »
    I just had a disturbing thought and I need to run it by you, fam

    Lemma 1:
    Trek that is generally accepted to be Good™: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that has problems, detractors, reasonable-people-can-disagree, etc.: the rest of it

    Lemma 2:
    Trek that was supported by either an established network that didn’t Need This One Thing To Succeed, Pronto™ or by the largesse of Lucille Ball, personally: TOS, TNG, DS9
    Trek that was launched as a Tentpole Franchise Offering™ to prop up UPN, Paramount+, etc. etc.: the rest of it

    Are these …correct? Am I missing something? I’m one more Father’s Day Weekend ‘Perhaps I will Have Another’ Cocktail away from launching a petition.org petition for Lady Gaga or someone else famous and wealthy to pick a new Trek pitch, bankroll it, and make that the New NuTrek.

    Historiographers of the franchise, please - talk me out of it.

    I see your point, but this is a case of hindsight is 20/20 or rose-tinted lenses.

    The opening seasons of TNG and DS9 are incredibly weak. I'd go as far as to say that TNG has the worst first season in the franchise. Also, while every series has suffered network interference, the weakest—Voyager and Enterprise—saw most of their problems come from Rick Berman.

    In fact, early TNG's issues stemmed largely from Roddenberry, not network executives.

    Every Trek series has problems. What separates the weak from the strong is how well they overcome them. TNG is great because it became great. Voyager is disappointing because it never managed the same.

  • ThirithThirith Registered User regular
    Then again, DS9 has one of its best episodes (IMO) in its first season: "Duet".

    webp-net-resizeimage.jpg
    "Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
    RMS Oceanic
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Opening season of DS9 is very solid.

    Opening season of TNG is not great but was better then it seems now imo.

    JacobkoshDark_SideNightslyr
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited June 20
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    CroakerBC wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Abrams does a lot of things well.

    He's fucking fantastic at casting. Like basically every project he's in charge of has fantastic casting. I remember reading a review saying "Everyone should be so lucky as to direct a movie cast by JJ Abrams" and ... yeah.

    He's got a good eye for visuals and action and pacing. He knows how to keep things moving.

    And love it or hate it, he knows how to ape the feel of other things. TFA gets a lot of the feel of Star Wars right. Super 8 really nails that 80s Amblin Spielberg feel when it's trying to and is honestly compelling while doing so.


    He's just also got limitations that have steadily revealed themselves, imo, to be something he just probably can't grow out of.

    He doesn't understand characters or stories on a fundamental level it seems. He doesn't understand the idea of character motivation or themes as a thing that motivates how a story moves from A to B. And he understands how to copy a thing but not why you should copy a thing or what that thing originally meant and thus how to reference it in any way other then just doing the thing again.


    So yeah, he could make a Star Trek movie that was brilliantly cast and fun and fast and entertaining to watch but that was ultimately hollow and meaningless.

    It did a good job of being a summer blockbuster and getting the Star Trek brand a bigger place in the public consciousness.

    We evidently had different experiences of ‘09 Trek, which I don’t think was any more “hollow and meaningless” than any other Trek film. I’m less inclined to argue the toss on the other two, mind.

    I think you can look at films like Wrath of Khan or Undiscovered Country as compared to ST 09 and see just a massive difference in terms of their focus on good character work, clear themes, how those characters and ideas motivate the plot at every step, etc, etc.

    I think you can look at Wrath of Khan (especially) and Undiscovered Country and see excellent, character driven film.

    But I can suggest, firstly, that character driven film is not always the best cinema, and that even if it were, ‘09 brings its own. The triangle relationship between Spock-McCoy-Kirk. Kirk’s rebellious nature, chiselled into something harder by the demands of command. Spock, the half-human loner, looking for and refusing connection, trying not to sob in the pits of the science institute. The flashes we see of the ensemble - Uhura’s banter and determination, Sulu’s courage, illuminate those characters in decisive strokes.

    You can’t establish a crew as well as they did, without that character work. It’s there.

    Theme is harder to unpick, but I think the through-line of ‘09 is about friendship and duty. It’s not subtle, but it’s not trying to be, and that’s no bad thing.

    I think ‘09 has a plot, but I don’t find it’s characters to be ciphers, or the subtext it does have too tricky to dig into. It may not live on the same level as Khan or UC as drama, but it does what it wants, and it’s a story that I think certainly has soul. They’re not just there to sell merch and popcorn.

    Like I say, maybe we experienced it differently. That’s cool!

    I'm not just talking about films being character-driven vs not-character-driven. That's why I mention things like themes and the way a story sets up and pays off various ideas. The way things connect together using "but" and "therefore", instead of "and then".

    The film has it's characters somewhat sketched out but so little of what happens is motivated by anything but just "and then another thing happened". And the character arcs that do try to assert themselves (basically just Kirk and Spock) are kinda of vague and unfocused. Like a lot of JJ's stuff, it does good setup and bad payoff and doesn't pay much attention to creating coherent plot or character arcs. I enjoyed both ST09 and Into Darkness to a good degree. But they have their limitations.

    I mean, I think Chris Pine talking about being in the movie kinda sums up so much of what is wrong with JJ Abrams:

    shryke on
    LeztaHydropoloCommander ZoomMegaMan001Dark_Side
Sign In or Register to comment.