post-jja abrams trek, and kurtzman style trek has never been good, besides the animated series.
This is honestly expected. Paramount literally has a black list of people who they say are “anti-Semitic”. CBS has bent completely over to the Cheeto. The entire concept of Star Trek is an antithesis to their platform without completely changing what Star Trek is.
i wouldnt be surprise if they shoe-horn gal gadot at some point, miss shilling for israel/idf.
The pledge, organized by Film Workers for Palestine and published Monday, initially featured 1,200 signatories, including filmmakers and actors: Yorgos Lanthimos, Ava DuVernay, Boots Riley, Adam McKay, Olivia Colman, Mark Ruffalo, Riz Ahmed, Tilda Swinton, Javier Bardem, Emma Stone, Andrew Garfield, Harris Dickinson, Guy Pearce, Jonathan Glazer, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Abbi Jacobson, Eric Andre, Elliot Page, Payal Kapadia, Joaquin Phoenix, and Rooney Mara.
Kid Rock the next James T Kirk? Now named Charlie Kirk?
or CHRIS PRATT who wanted to be a lead, lol. he was salty he wasnt in lead in many other established franchised, nah nobody wants a right wing nutty. people like pratt and sinese seems to have a fetish for authorative lead roles(its always military, copaganda types)
Charlie “Redshirt” Kirk
So why did they scrap the Chris Pine movie franchise, then?
I liked them, but it’s just been too long since Beyond to justify the cast. Everyone will look a decade older, the crews are gone, everyone has moved on. And with a new Chekov (and most of the cast saying they’d feel bad doing it without him) it just would be a completely different movie anyway. Better to do something different.
Ahh man. I love the castings. Lens Flares aside I do love the aesthetics.
Shame the stories were always meh to terrible.
But whatever there will always be more Star Trek.
RIP Anton Yelchin
Edit: for the most part, I agree. The roles were very well cast. But it was just the writing and the direction that I really didn’t care for.
Multiple ideas and filmmakers have been considered, including […] an R-rated Star Trek movie from Pulp Fiction director Quentin Tarantino.
Ew. Keep that weirdo foot fetishist far away from all the wholesome alien characters. Talk about wrong vibes.
I would actually be very interested in seeing a Quentin Tarantino Star Trek film… But not as an official Star Trek film. Just as, sort of, an experiment.
Galaxy Quest 2 or Orville the movie?
orville is controlled by mcfarlane, and hes been having problems with which network will fund the next season, plus many actors dint like how it was so far in between season, it became too unaffordable to live near the orville set.(Pallacki in rosenbaums interview)
You know Kirk would have been down for some green alien foot play.
Hey now, I enjoy many of Tarantino’s movies. But I wholeheartedly agree that he’d be an awful pick to write and/or direct a Star Trek movie.
I will 100% admit to bias against anything Tarantino because of his defending Polanski’s statutory rape and contributing to Weinstein not being held accountable for assaulting Uma Thurman and Mira Sorvina, Tarantino’s own girlfriend at the time, and others. It would also not shock me in the least if sexual or physical assault allegations come out about him directly, there are already verbal assault accusations. Anyone who says a 13-year old “wanted it” when they’re raped by their boss is a half step away from doing similar themselves.
“Judge the art, not the artist” type arguments fall apart for me when the artist is still alive and profiting off their awfulness.
I wasn’t aware of all that. That’s really shitty and gross of him to defend Polinski and Weinstein. How tf was he not canceled during the “woke” cancel wave of the mid-2010s?
Because he wasn’t accused of doing things himself. And if I recall the verbal assault was against people of any gender, not just women.
You’d be shocked and disgusted at the number of famous actors and directors who stood up for Polinski back in the day. Not even that far back in the day; he’s received several lifetime achievement awards since running away from the charges, and film awards as recently as 2019.
he probably had a hold on hollywood “executives” who wouldve blacklisted any actor that spoke up against him.
he’d be an awful pick to write and/or direct a Star Trek movie.
That franchise is so stale this would have been a great experiment.
abrams and kurtzman ruined the franchise. almost every trek has followed abrams style since.
I don’t disagree, but I struggle to see Tarantino doing high sci-fi like that very well. He’s a master at creating engrossing, gripping dialogue scenes. But what do I know, maybe he’d have done a great job in the end 🤷♂️
R-rated Star Trek movie
I like me some hot white on green action…
The Kelvin Timeline sucks and always sucked. It’s not that there was anything inherently wrong with any of the actors. One could argue that the scripts were mostly OK too – at least this was true of 2009.
The problem is that Paramount decided to rehash and replace instead of coming up with something new. At least Disney (amidst their own rehashes, admittedly) had the decency to throw in some actual new material into the Star Wars universe. What Trekkers definitely didn’t want or need was some non-Shatner running around in remakes of (parts of) beloved films, ruining references. What an absolute waste of resources for a famous franchise.
What gets to me most is people who have only seen the Kelvin Timeline films, because they’re newer, and think they are a good representation of what Star Trek is supposed to be. None of these people I have talked to say they like Star Trek, and I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t either.
I don’t mean this in a combative way (haven’t even seen much of Star Trek!) but I’m really interested in what you mean by this line:
the scripts were mostly OK too – at least this was true of 2009.
It stuck out to me because I can’t quite grasp if you mean films in general were of lower quality in 2009, scripts were less advanced or dense, or if it is a specific reference to how Star Trek scripts were more acceptable since?
Again, not meant in an argumentative way necessarily (although perhaps a little if it’s the second assumption, as I would probably disagree 🙂) - rather I am confused by seeing it expressed like this.
Meaning “Star Trek (2009)”, which was the first of the Kelvin Timeline. That is the one film of that timeline which tends to get the most love, and I think it also had the best script of any in the timeline.
We learned from the interminable TNG movies that Star Trek is not suitable for being made into action movies, and they’re fortunate if they’re just bad Trek or bad action since they’re usually bad at being both. Then again, I’m one of the few who perceives the objective fact that Star Trek: The Motion Picture is the best Trek movie, so maybe my opinion has the high and lonely destiny of rejected truth.
Didn’t know that was even discussed. Thought it was three and done.
I was only in it for Karl Urban as Bones.
Dude nailed it
I liked Simon Pegg as Scotty.
The whole cast did a great job (except sulu, he was kind of meh). The cast wasn’t the problem the director was.
Good riddance. Those films were terrible.
Keep JJ Abrams out of Star Trek
and KURTZMAN out of the series making. did not learn from STD, trying to escape the problems of each season, then made picard and snw.
…and Star Wars, and pretty much anything really.
Daniel Day Lewis/Paul Thomas Anderson is my pick. Star Trek about to get some heft to it.
It’s time to melt The Shat and have him as an annoying holo-creature on the Sulu and Chekhov adventures.
