Who?
.And you pretty much have to pry the "worst helmsman" title out of Travis Mayweather's blank, irrelevant hands. Or maybe Wesley if you shoehorn Space Doogie into the role of helmsman instead of his usual gig of "non-departmental awesomeness officer"
Also if I'm being petty, neither Data nor Kim were science officers. They were Operations officers. Considering it was a science and exploration vessel by design, it was always kind of weird that they didn't really have a dedicated science officer/station on Voyager.
I'm a Tarantino fan, but that doesn't mean this is a good idea or that I will love it. If he's a fan of the series and thinks he has a great way to do it justice, than I'm all for it. If he just wants to make a Tarantino film with the veneer of Star Trek, just no. That would be doing the franchise as much of an injustice as JJ Abrams making a Star Wars movie with a veneer of Star Trek did.Just want to say a Tarantino style Trek sounds awful but I guess I'm just not a fan of his in general.
Patrick Stewart says that he might be interested in playing Jean-Luc Picard again if Tarantino will be directing.
Patrick Stewart Might Reprise Jean-Luc Picard Role if Tarantino Directs 'Star Trek'
Tarantino usually finds a way to draw the most forgotten about, obscure actors out of the woodwork and onto the big screen again.
In that vein, I think we could see Avery Brooks.
I don't think any amount of money in the world, let alone Tarantino, could get Brooks to come back to Trek.
I don't know Deana's ability to come in and crash the ship every time she takes the helm gives her a leg up for me in terms of fail.Also if it offends you guys so much you can have separate science/operations officers.
The guy strikes me as a casting snob. He reminds me a lot of Edward Norton in that way.
Just want to say a Tarantino style Trek sounds awful but I guess I'm just not a fan of his in general.
I couldn't disagree more. He's very talented. He knows how to create real drama, tension, and compelling dialog.I agree. Tarantino would be awful. His movies are style over substance.
While it's been a while since Tarantino has made a movie I've loved, this just isn't true. Pulp Fiction especially is an amazing movie.I agree. Tarantino would be awful. His movies are style over substance.
I couldn't disagree more. He's very talented. He knows how to create real drama, tension, and compelling dialog.
While it's been a while since Tarantino has made a movie I've loved, this just isn't true. Pulp Fiction especially is an amazing movie.
Klingon Heavy episodes that I think are among the best in no particular order.
Errand of Mercy (TOS)
The Trouble With Tribbles (TOS)
A Matter of Honor (TNG)
Redemption (TNG)
Birthright (TNG)
Blood Oath (DS9)
The Way of the Warrior (DS9)
The Sword of Kahless (DS9)
Apocalypse Rising (DS9)
Once More Unto the Breach (DS9)
I couldn't disagree more. He's very talented. He knows how to create real drama, tension, and compelling dialog.
You haven't enjoyed any of QT's movies?
His movies are stylized, and often too reliant on violence. I would like to see the violence toned down, but I would love to hear Tarantino's touch applied to the dialog in Star Trek.
It feels weird to be strongly united with Tawnos against johnjm22 for a change, on a Star Trek matter, no less. Is this what an alternate universe is like?
The thing that bugs me about QT is the same as what bugs me about a lot of media. I hate when I get the feeling that someone is creating material with a purpose rather than allowing the material to come out of their talent naturally. What I mean by that is that I don't like when someone is trying to be edgy for the sake of being edgy or I don't like when a thrash metal band is fast for the sake of speed.
With Tarentino, I always get the feeling that he's trying to write pithy, smart dialogue for the sake of pithiness and intelligence. This is opposed to someone like Sorkin, who I get the feeling writes musical and smart dialogue because that's just how his style comes out.
I agree. I get the feeling with Tarantino films that he really wants you to know that you're watching a Tarantino film. You're always aware that it's him behind the camera. If he were a classical artist, he'd be standing there with you in the gallery, talking about his art and distracting you with his presence, instead of standing way in the back and observing quietly. Some people like that, since they're interested in the artist as much as the art, but that's not really for me.
His dialog isn't intellectual and not trying to be. It's fun, quirky and interesting.Hate the idea of Tarentino being involved in a Star Trek film.
Tarentino's dialogue is the epitome of pseudo-intellectual.
Then again, my answer to "have I enjoyed any of QT's movies" would be a resounding: absolutely not.