[ SECRET POST #4591 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4591 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 12 secrets from Secret Submission Post #657.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

05. https://i.imgur.com/TJe1p6Q.png

[(Anonymous)]

The nice thing about new Star Trek movies is that it's basically impossible for any new Star Trek movie to be the worst in the series so it's really easy to just move on and ignore it like we did with Insurrection or STID

So, you know, might as well just throw some shit against the wall and see what sticks, that's my attitude

[(Anonymous)]

True, but given how Tarantino is something of a one-note fiddle (ok, maybe he covers a full octave in one key) it's reasonable to be skeptical of his Pulp Fiction in space aspirations.

[philstar22]

Pulp Fiction in space sounds like a good idea for a movie. Just not a Star Trek movie.

[(Anonymous)]

IDK. I mean, he's not my favorite director by any stretch and I get why people would be skeptical. But he's also someone who's really deeply into genre and TV / film history and formalism and stuff, and I think that could be a really interesting, different lens for a Star Trek story. Or it could fail horribly. One or the other.

[philstar22]

Star Trek has some very specific elements to it, though. And Tarentino is not exactly known for hopeful, positive movies. Star Trek always has that element of hope, even when it goes dark. It is a vision of a better future for humanity. I'm not sure I trust Tarentino to put aside his own thing to do the Star Trek thing.

[(Anonymous)]

As long as it's not darker than DS9, I got no problems. I'm just saying there's some leeway with regards to darkness.

[philstar22]

Can Tarentino rein it in that much? I'd be happy with DS9 level of dark. I love DS9. But DS9 maintained hope. Things were grim, but there was hope that things could be better. Starfleet and the Federation were bad at points, but it was always shown that they could be better, could be their best.

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry to be nitpicky but you keep spelling his name wrong. There's no 'e' in it. It's Tarantino.

[(Anonymous)]

His genre cred mostly revolves around hardboiled 70s action with an affectation of ironic detachment, more Eastwood than Eastwood before Eastwood got bored trying to perfect what he got typecast into and moved on as a director.

[(Anonymous)]

More Westerns, thrillers, and crime movies generally, I feel like? Also, TOS obviously has a lot of Western DNA and IIRC he's expressed a lot of affection for TOS in the past so I would imagine he would mostly be riffing on that. That doesn't guarantee it would work I just don't think it would obviously fail either.

Also as much as I don't love Tarantino I'd take him over Eastwood as a director any day of the week.

[philstar22]

I actually like quite a bit of Tarantino's work. I just don't think it is a good fit for Star Trek.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree.

Eh.

[(Anonymous)]

I think if he did a one-off Star Trek movie not specifically centered on Starfleet, that could be interesting. Maybe if he has some Vulcans, Romulans, Klingons, Ferengi, humans, and, like, Orions all doing their own things at the beginning and then everyone coming together at the end.

Re: Eh.

[(Anonymous)]

Seven Samurai, with Klingons.

Re: Eh.

[cloudtrader]

I'd watch it.

[(Anonymous)]

Tarantino has a tone, and as we saw when he did that episode of CSI, it can be really jarring. I had the same experience with Whedon's first Avengers movie-- to me the characters mostly sounded wrong and I didn't like it at all. As much as I like T's own stuff I sympathize with the concern.

[(Anonymous)]

I was just thinking of his CSI episodes... they were stale turds, and the comparison to Whedon is very apt. Neither can restrain themselves from putting their stylistic stamp on a piece of media, whether it's appropriate or not.

[(Anonymous)]

I still like him and will watch everything he makes, Star Trek films, included, but I have to actively work against seeing him on the news/speaking nowadays.

[(Anonymous)]

Can't stand him, agree. Would of seen Once Upon A Time In America if it hadn't been directed by him but oh well

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, I intensely dislike Tarantino & his work. His style of storytelling is something that I SHOULD like (I like other movies similar to his), but really don't. I don't want him anywhere near Star Trek.