/strek/ - Star Trek ★

absurd if true, but then again it's nuTrek so who really cares. Samuel L. Jackson as a bad motherfucker Klingon should be good for a few laughs.

Kind of a bummer, was hoping JewJew would go down with the rest of the rapists before this happened again.

Did he get bored of Star Wars already?

>tarantino

could be good

>and abrams

why. you'd think after all the other failures people would have shafted him already

>DOES EMPEROR KAHLESS LOOK LIKE A BITCH?

>>13439

>>tarantino

>could be good

Only if you like feet or black dicks.

>>13442

>Only if you like feet of black dicks.

FTFY

I'll take it. At the very least it will be more distinct and memorable than the last few. Maybe it'll be another Star Trek V tier shambles. I'll take that. At least it could be fun.

I recall an interview with Tarantino from some months ago, when STD was just starting, about what he wanted to do if he could make a trek movie. He talked about playing with a lot of the implications in some of the more high concept sci fi episodes, like Yesterdays Enterprise, that sounded interesting.

And suddenly he and JJ are collaborating in making a new trek, inspired by Yesterdays Enterprise?

JJ may be the michael bay of science fiction, but I'm interested in seing what Tarantino might do with something like this.

My only concern, other than JJ being involved in the project, is that Tarantino's typical style doesn't really lend itself to typical Trek stuff.

>>13409 (OP)

There was also an article about it being R-rated. Mind you, it's all rumours at this point, but I don't know what to think about it.

http://archive.is/CDp8B

I don't really like Tarantino much, but if he actually makes something that takes place AFTER TOS, then it automatically gets some points from me.

>>13458

>And suddenly he and JJ are collaborating in making a new trek, inspired by Yesterdays Enterprise?

So somebody rewrites history and turns the universe into shit? For the second time in four movies?

>>13477

>There was also an article about it being R-rated.

>set phasers for jiblets

>>13450

>Uhura gets an afro and basically solves the whole thing by herself with guns and acting sassy

>>13519

There was news about a Foxy Brown remake recently too, maybe that was Tarantino's idea too, and then he thought, "oh, I'll do it in space… no not space… as Star Trek"

>>13458

Is Tarantino even capable of high concept that isnt a bunch of jack offs with guns in a room together?

>>13524

No. He's an edgy uneducated cuck and it truly shows. I'm trying to imagine a worse director for a potential Star Trek film and I truly can't….I think Adam Sandler might even be better.

>JarJar Abrahm happens

>STD happens

>Now this

Welcome to the rfucking proselytization of everything you knew and loved for the normalfags

>>13458

>inb4 he does the Swoleverse

Bump non-faggot thread.

Bottom line is Tarantino is a shitty cuckold with no good movies. Him interacting with Star Trek is even worse than Abrams.

>>13555

Fuck, even normalfags barely tolerate Quentin. They might be bending over for something but it ain't for box.

>>13557

Things are already radically different in NuTrek, it's possible that Piccard will never be born.

>>13586

even remotely believeing theres a chance picard exists in JJs world

>>13586

Swolecard is born from great gains. JJ verse is probably not capable of it.

I like some Tarantino because his style is fairly unique, even if it has become somewhat less so since edginess is now the norm and he has failed to evolve as a filmmaker for some time. But he doesn't fit with Trek at all. Trek doesn't need to be brilliantly directed, and if it does then it needs a director who understands that his skills should go to bringing out the characters and themes, and not action and battles.

Tarantino does not seem like the person for it, and news of an R-rating is precisely why. There is no legitimate reason for Star Trek to be rated R.

>>13603

The R rating sounds like a publicity move more than anything. I think even Tarantino would be smart enough to know Star Trek isn't the place for the kind of excessive violence and language you get in his usual films. I can't imagine Star Trek movies get a lot of play with kids, so you gain more reeling in an audience who are curious to see what R rated Tarantino Star Trek looks like, than you lose shutting out little Billy.

>>13606

>I can't imagine Star Trek movies get a lot of play with kids

I don't know what JJ Trek audiences are like, but one of my earliest Trek memories was going with my Dad to see Insurrection at the theatre. Star Trek was a family show, particularly TOS/TNG/VOY, and even 2009 was still appropriate for children of a reasonable age.

I hope you're right that Tarantino and the R-rating are both just marketing ploys, but you don't just get an R-rating by asking for one. There has to be excessive swearing or violence or incredibly dark themes. And I really don't see Tarantino fitting into a pre-existing mould. His films are all of a certain style, and he's never really shown any indication that he'd vary that more than slightly.

>>13607

As a kid, Star Trek was primarily the boring show my Dad watched. On the rare occasion they played an old TOS episode or one of the movies, I enjoyed it, but TNG onwards was stuffy and boring. Maybe the Abrams movies do a little better with kids, but you don't hear much about that.

>>13609

I remember being 6 and glued to the screen for star trek tos and next gen.

>>13612

>>13607

Same here, Trek was something fun to watch with my dad; watching TOS and TNG on TV, renting VHS tapes of episodes, and every time a TNG movie came out it was a big deal for us.

Trek shows were never very complicated. The plots were simple enough for older kids to follow, and even if young kids didn't really understand everything they could still be entertained. I can't imagine anything good coming from R-rated Trek. It's probably an excuse to show people being mutilated or exploding in space or something stupid.

>>13626

TOS was a fun adventure show with more episodes focused on exploring strange planets and fighting monsters. TNG onwards got more concerned with politics and moral questions. Not as fun when you're a kid. The Borg episodes were badass though.

>>13626

What if because its a heavy mature action plot with a deadly virus and tense well written drama with some dark elements that come into play as well as moments where the crew has to go undercover at seedy strip joints.

I know its alot to hope for

So who is going to suck who's dick?

Samuel Jackson will be an Admiral in it.

>>13626

Are we all here because of our dad?

>>14818

That seems to be the case for all of us. And they said old school trekkies would never have kids.

>>14828

What they actually meant to say is "second generation trekkies will never propagate, they will be pathetic imageboard posters from the day they're born"

>>14818

Nah, I watched trek out of my own. My dad was never much into sci-fi stuff.

>>14835

watches because his mom was a star trek groupie and the whole tos cast and sulu with a strap-on

>>14818

I'm not. It's my mom who's the real Trekkie. To the point where she would most likely have named me James Tiberius if she'd gotten her way.

So anyone ready to see Samuel Jackson as a Vulcan?

>>16626

I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THESE MOTHERFUCKING KLINGONS ON MY MOTHERFUCKING BRIDGE!