How about combining the heads of Tarantino, Bay and Torro to produce the most sick movie ever? Instant success, right? (Well, we'll leave out Bay when making things too deep for his own good)

Seriously though, if that source is right about Stewart then I guess this could actually be fun. Violent and bloody or not, It might be his "poetic views" and how he thinks/directs that fascinates Stewart.

Tarantino: The substance of style.
Del Toro: The style of substance.
Bay:........Kaboom.

Only Tarantino movie I ever watched is "Reservoir dogs". I stopped after that scene when one of the gangsters cuts of a bound policeman's ear, then douses him in petrol and prepares to set him alight...just disgusted me.
Pretty bizarre choice as a director for a Star Trek movie.

Exactly! A ST Universe in highly intelligent farting rap-language, covered in blood-dripping, really dark and scary psyco-moments, and throw in a bit of explosions and monster-ripping CGI (really mortal kombat style).

If only... =)

Truth is, Pan's Labyrinth is one of my favourite movie so I think Toro would have had better style AND Substance than those other two. Tarantino's movies are, like TinyE's pointing, for a lack of better word(s): Fried and sealed idiocracy in a can.

This. I agree with every word.

There's quite a few directors out there who could bring something new and uniquely their own to Star Trek (Christopher Nolan, Taika Waititi, Kenneth Branagh to name a few), but still fit what Trek should be. I feel like going with Tarantino is the studio just not knowing what to do with the franchise after the last movie underperformed, so a big name director willing to take matters into his hands sounds good to them, and R-rated movies have been doing so well lately (Deadpool, Logan, It) that it's not hard to convince a studio to do an R-rated version of pretty much anything these days.

Pan's Labyrinth is one of my top 5 ever. AMAZING FILM.

Basically it's just a retelling of "Kiss of the Spider Woman" but I'm cool with that.

I just realized the last rated R movie I saw with any level of seriousness was Blood The Last Vampire(not the crummy live action one). 300 I saw with a not too serious head on.

I just... don't like Quentin Tarantino. I've seen Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill and was seriously unimpressed with both. He makes movies that I want to see if they weren't done by Tarantino, I much prefer the other directors associated with him, like Robert Rodriguez. The 'R' rating doesn't necessarily bother me, but with Tarantino it's definitely more worrying.

If they were to make another series but still refused to set it after Nemesis, what would you want? I would like to see something between TOS and TNG, I absolutely love Excelsior classes, I want them plastered all over my screen.

Ambassador or bust. >.>

"Unimpressed" is kind compared to what I felt :P I know it's heresy and all, but I consider Pulp Fiction to be absolutely terrible. One of the worst films I've seen.

Sticking to prequels is terribly limiting and it's hard to come up with a worthwile idea. A series about Picard before TNG might work. There's twenty two years(!) of Picard commanding th Stargazer there. His friendship with Jack and Beverly Crusher, Jack's death, the Cardassian war, finally the battle with the Ferengi, the court martial and finally being given the Enterprise as the big final scene.

It's not exactly something I feel we need to see, what we learned from TNG is quite sufficient, but still Star Trek: Stargazer is probably the most promising prequel idea I can think of. Of course casting young Picard would be very difficult, as I doubt they could get Tom Hardy or Scott McAvoy :D

I'd probably go for something more like a ship (Excelsior class, obviously) handling things in a distant area of Federation space. If it takes place during the Cardassian war, the biggest effect would be them basically being the only peace-keeping force in the are with very little backup. Also while I'm dreaming of things that will never be, the Kzinti would show up trying to start shit while Federation is busy. I'm still salty about the Kilkenny Cats not getting made.

Why? I mean "Kill Bill". Vol 2 had rather good story IMO.

Anyway, Tarantino's Trek wouldn't be worse than Discovery. And for all we know it could be set in Mirror Universe, so blood and guts would be totally in place.

Not a Tarantino fan, but I would be OK with this. For me, Star Trek is TV and I see the movies more like an extra. I'd say they could experiment a little further: having a series of charismatic directors trying each a Star Trek movie might yield some interesting results (or fail spectacularly - but there's only one way to know).

I haven't watched any of Tarantino's recent movies (he lost me with Inglorious Basterds), but I'm intrigued to see what he does with an effects-driven movie. He's often talked about disliking CGI and wanting to do practical effects, so would have the freedom to do that here? I expect he'll play nice with the franchise, if his TV work is any indication, and Star Trek does tend to be dialogue-heavy, so it might even play to his interest in long talky scenes.

It's actually moving forward. This is so bizarre I keep expecting it to turn that it's all some huge misunderstanding or some trolling marketing campaign or something, but apparently it's really happening. Sure, movies were cancelled at much later stages of developement, so it could still not get made, but for now it's actually real.