Well observed. I'd be 100% confident in Tarantino skills. The 60's and 70's inform everything he does. His sensibility to that epoch and the epoch of the original Star Trek, to 'explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before'. Star Trek was a child of 60's new thinking, of hope, and the dawn of a new understanding. I'm sure Tarantino sees that. And I hope Patrick Stewart isn't any where near it.Thing is take a look at the films he makes and the cinematography he uses. He has a far more classical eye toward the "golden era" film makers than many modern film producers (who seem to be far more into heavy colour casts, clean visuals and CGI).
You can clearly see that many of his films draw inspiration from not just the story but the style of presentation in, say, a spaghetti western.
Yes he's famous for bloody scenes, but equally he has quite a number of slow conversation scenes that really show he "gets" the characters and film he's making. I think if he does a Star Trek he's one of the few that will go back to hopefully emulate what made Original Motion Picture a great film.
It's a risk, he is very quirky and could go off at a huge tangent, but at the same time I think he could do wonders.
Ps if they ever did a Klingon film he'd be epic for it - granted it would be a very bloody chapter in their history.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|7 things you (probably!) didn't know about the new Star Trek films||Star Trek||1|
|S||Next Star Trek film could be in 3D||Star Trek (films)||0|
|Why No Star Trek Slot in the Featured Films Section?||Feedback||1|
|R||Is Nemesis a Genuine Star Trek Film?||Star Trek (films)||5|
|"Worst" old Star Trek film poll||Star Trek (films)||17|