was successfully added to your cart.

Cart

Quentin Tarantino to Make New Star Trek Movie!

By December 11, 2017 Axanar News, Feature Stories

Well, it looks like Quentin Tarantino will be taking on the under-performing Star Trek movie franchise!  here is the latest from Deadline:

“After Deadline this week revealed that Quentin Tarantino pitched a Star Trek film to JJ Abrams and Paramount, the whole thing is moving at warp speed. Tarantino met for hours in a writers room with Mark L. Smith, Lindsey Beer, Drew Pearce and Megan Amram. They kicked around ideas and one of them will get the job. I’m hearing the frontrunner is Smith, who wrote The Revenant. The film will most certainly go where no Star Trek has gone before: Tarantino has required it to be R rated, and Paramount and Abrams agreed to that condition.”

Already Patrick Stewart has said he would love to reprise his role, though we think he is a bit old at this point, and besides, I am sure Tarantino wants to make a TOS movie!

Back after Nemesis I was saying “What Star Trek needs is Michael Bay”.  The point being Star Trek needed to reinvent itself.  Well, they got JJ Abrahms, and while I like the movies, Star Trek Beyond lost money and at a $190M budget, you just can’t make movies that only bring in $343M world wide.

You see, a movie generally needs to DOUBLE its budget, and don’t for get the reported budget doesn’t include any marketing.  Add $100M for marketing world wide on top of the $ 190M budget, and you have $290M spent on a movie that now needs to bring in $580M to break even.  Considering Star Trek Into Darkness only brought in $467M world wide, Beyond was a bad bet that at that budget.  And let’s face it, if Axanar proved anything, it was that great Star Trek need not cost a fortune.

So, my bet is Tarantino’s Star Trek comes in around $125M.  The guy isn’t about over the top special effects.  He is about story and character.  Two things that could bring Star Trek movies back.

Alec

Join the discussion 14 Comments

  • J.R. Cook says:

    I still don’t believe that it will save the franchise. CBS and Paramount have done everything they can to destroy any hopes of us older trekkies supporting any projects. After Axanar I hold out very little hope.

  • I agree.

    “New ideas, we talked!” – Admiral James Kirk

  • Jonathan Lane says:

    The problem isn’t Star Trek so much as Paramount. The studio has lost almost all ability to produce a major hit, and even its minor hits are few and far between. Large numbers of executives are being shown the door or just fleeing for their professional lives.

    The studio is deep in the red…and only “Transformers” is covering at least some of the losses. Everything else is either tanking, breaking even, or maybe barely touching profitability after marketing expenses.

    Take a look at the films that Paramount has released over the past two years (and note only two films with any major awards or nominations)…

    13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi
    Budget: $50M
    Box Office: $69.4M
    FAIL – Not profitable after marketing expenses

    Zoolander 2
    Budget: $55M
    Box Office: $56.7M
    FAIL – Not profitable after marketing expenses

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
    Budget: $35M
    Box Office: $24.9M
    FLOP – Not even close to profitable

    10 Cloverfield Lane
    Budget: $15M
    Box Office: $110.2M
    Minor HIT – Profitable because of ultra-low production budget

    Everybody Wants Some!!
    Budget: $10M
    Box Office: $4.6M
    FLOP

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows
    Budget: $135M
    Box Office: $245.6M
    Minor FAIL – Profitable but about break-even after marketing (very disappointing)

    Approaching the Unknown
    Budget: $1.3M
    Box Office: $10,232
    Minor FLOP – Very limited release

    Star Trek Beyond
    Budget: $185M
    Box Office: $343.5M
    FAIL – Profitable but about break-even after marketing (very disappointing)

    Florence Foster Jenkins
    Budget: $29M
    Box Office: $44.3M
    FAIL – Profitable but about break-even after marketing (disappointing)
    NOTE: Oscar nominations for Best Picture and Best Actress for MERYL STREEP plus four Golden Globe nominations

    Ben-Hur
    Budget: $100M
    Box Office: $94.1M
    FLOP

    Jack Reacher: Never Go Back
    Budget: $96M
    Box Office: $162.1M
    FAIL – Profitable but not quite break-even after marketing (very disappointing)

    Arrival
    Budget: $47M
    Box Office: $203.4M
    HIT – due many to a relatively low budget and fairly decent box office

    Allied
    Budget: $106M
    Box Office: $119.5M
    FAIL – Not profitable after marketing expenses

    Office Christmas Party
    Budget: $45M
    Box Office: $114.5M
    Minor HIT – Slightly profitable after marketing

    Fences
    Budget: $24M
    Box Office: $64M
    Minor HIT – Slightly profitable after marketing
    NOTE: Oscar and Golden Globe wins for VIOLA DAVIS and nominations for DENZEL WASHINGTON
    Nominated for Best Picture and Adapted Screenplay

    Silence
    Budget: $50M
    Box Office: $23.7M
    FLOP

    Monster Trucks
    Budget: $125M
    Box Office: $645M
    MAJOR FLOP

    Rings
    Budget: $25M
    Box Office: $83.1M
    MINOR HIT due many to a relatively low budget and modestly successful box office

    Ghost in the Shell
    Budget: $110M
    Box Office: $169.8M
    FAIL – Profitable but about break-even after marketing (disappointing)

    Baywatch
    Budget: $69M
    Box Office: $177.9M
    MINOR HIT/FAIL – Barely profitable, but Paramount was hoping for much more

    Transformers: The Last Knight
    Budget: $217M
    Box Office: $605.4M
    HIT – tent pole property that covered many of the losses from the rest of Paramount’s releases

    An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power
    Budget: $1M
    Box Office: $5.2M
    Tiny HIT – Very limited release

    Tulip Fever
    Budget: $25M
    Box Office: $7.9M
    FLOP

    Mother!
    Budget: $30M
    Box Office: $44.5M
    FAIL – Not profitable after marketing expenses

    Suburbicon
    Budget: $25M
    Box Office: $7.5M
    FLOP

    Daddy’s Home 2
    Budget: $69M
    Box Office: $142.3
    MINOR HIT? – Sightly profitable after marketing, still in some theaters

  • Geoff Fagien says:

    I think he’s the guy to do it, first time you have someone who truly understands what state trek is besides Frakes, Nemoy and to an extent Meyer. I think JJ did a great job with the first one but the second one was mehhh and although i thought beyond was OK it seemed more like a filler episode of star trek than a “yesterdays enterprise”. I think you guys should be excited we actually have someone who is a passionate star trek fan trying to make star trek. All respect to Lin but they make guys like him out to be star trek fans but they really just watched it when they were kids they dont have the passion for it…. or at least it doesn’t look like it. First Contact had a much lower budget than $190 million and was amazing (although it was over 20 years ago now)

  • Mean Guy says:

    I have no issue with Tarantino doing Star Trek. My issue is that it is stipulated to be rated R.

  • DG Navarro says:

    He’d make one helluva “Mirror Universe” Star Trek Movie! Either way, I’m interested…..

  • bob h says:

    Well if I offer a suggestion in the comparison of the number of movies made (good or bad) with their budgets compared the amount of money made AT THE BOX OFFICE. My goodness I have not been to a movie theater in at least 7 to 10 years for a reason. With a family of 6 to “go the movies” is literally a minimum $120!
    If the movie industry can actually put out a quality movie that the public would want to see, *(not just eye-candy)and get over its ‘stick it to you’ pricing, more people would go see more movies, at a movie theater, instead of waiting for it to come out for home viewing.
    There are some movies, I would like to see. But I would like to enjoy to movie experience, not feel like I just got ‘Weinstein’d’ on the way out.

  • Sam says:

    Like Axanar, Tarantino will have to remember what Star Trek is. Star Trek is a hope for the future. He’s going to need a good story, then he can use his skills to make it a better one. I wish him luck.

  • Meg says:

    R – really. After the last movies, I’m not really even looking forward to another, which is unfortunate. But if I change my mind this movie would meet with a Clearplay filter. Yes, I’m one of those people who messes with the director’s vision and has the film altered to my viewing preferences by another company (even PG & PG-13 films meet this fate).

  • Paul Griffin says:

    How about give Seth MacFarlane a chance. The crossover would bring in people. R-rated? No thanks, I have grandsons that have watched Star Trek with me. Cleavage is enough as ST:TOS showed

  • Me says:

    Quentin Taratino is a god awful director… not his type of movie either…which makes or even worse.
    No wonder everything entertainment wise is moving to England

  • Lance Ripplinger says:

    Making a Star Trek film “R” rated is very disheartening. I for one am sick and tired of Hollywood, and their lack of morality. To me, this shows Tarantino’s lack of vision or creativity. To me “R” rated means he is incapable of creating a movie that doesn’t involve sex, violence and language? Is that what the franchise will now devolve to?

  • Dennis says:

    I read a story a while back where Tarantino discussed how he would like to do a Star Trek movie. He talked at some length about it, REALLY seemed to understand the vision of TOS. He did stress story over anything else. I think that he may just be the guy to rescue the franchise.

    However, my son – a film student and a major QT fan – told me that Tarantino has already decided he will only do a certain amount of movies and that he’s already got the movies for the rest of his career mapped out. So, this may not be happening…