Quentin Tarantino Is A Terrible Choice For 'Star Trek'

For a film and TV series like Star Trek, a director needs a basic understanding of the franchise. As I've written many times in my Star Trek Discovery recaps for this site, the series is at its best when it acts as a case study for how humanity can get along with each other. As Gene Roddenberry said when describing Star Trek:

"Star Trek was an attempt to say that humanity will reach maturity and wisdom on the day that it begins not just to tolerate, but take a special delight in differences in ideas and differences in life forms. [...] If we cannot learn to actually enjoy those small differences, to take a positive delight in those small differences between our own kind, here on this planet, then we do not deserve to go out into space and meet the diversity that is almost certainly out there."

Compare that to how Tarantino described his movies in a 2010 Telegraph interview:

"I think it's one of the strengths of my movies that I work in genre. I like making very, very personal movies, buried inside of genre."

Technically, Star Trek is a genre show, but it behaves as something much more. It behaves as a high allegory — and allegory is something that often seems lost on Tarantino, who is adept at working within a genre but often forgets that one of the most compelling parts of genre films are their ability to comment on contemporary issues in a witty, surprisingly deep way. Often, Tarantino's films don't provide commentary on a larger issue, even in films like Inglourious Basterds, which features a rogue WWII squadron taking down Hitler, and Django Unchained, which aims to tackle America's original sin, slavery, and make a runaway slave the superhero. More times than not, Tarantino's films reflect Tarantino and Tarantino alone — they amplify his first loves: blaxploitation, grindhouse, and the counterculture style found in both genres.

As Benjamin Secher wrote in that same Telegraph profile:

"Although his films are instantly recognizable...they feel united in the manner of products belonging to a carefully controlled brand, rather than by a common heart of personal revelation. Indeed, the most frequent criticism levelled at Tarantino is that his characters lack humanity; their fates may amuse us, but rarely do they move us. No matter how many people die on screen, nobody cries at a Tarantino film."

Tarantino's films are personal in the sense that they showcase him. But by that same token, they are also narcissistic.

Django Unchained is a perfect example of this narcissism on display. We are made aware of Tarantino's interest in exploring America's history of slavery, and in several interviews leading up to the release of the film, he talks openly about how he struggled with if he should be the one to bring such as story to screen. After getting advice from elites in black Hollywood like Sidney Poitier, Tarantino decided to bring his story of a slave defeating the slave owner ensnaring his wife, to the screen.

The film begins hauntingly as we see Django (Jamie Foxx) and other slaves chained together, being led through the wilderness by a slave trader. But as the story goes along, the film becomes less about Django's revenge on the film's big bad, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio), and more about Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) and his bleeding heart towards slaves. Schultz's pathos reaches its zenith when he — not Django — delivers the death blow to Candie, despite Candie being Django's to kill. Schultz's growing intolerance to slavery slowly showcases Tarantino's penchant for centering films around himself; Schultz is Tarantino's avatar in this lawless world, and through Schultz, Tarantino is able to live out the fantasy of ending slavery and saving black people. He literally becomes a white savior.

If Tarantino is going to successfully write and direct a great Star Trek film, he's going to have to think outside of his narrow grindhouse bubble. There is a way to make a personal film without it becoming self-centered, and somehow, Tarantino is going to have to grow beyond his own ego and point-of-view to understand what a Star Trek film needs. Tarantino is a student of pop culture and he surely knows that Trek's strengths come from uplifting the values of camaraderie, peace over violence, and acceptance over bigotry.

Yes, Mark L. Smith is the current frontrunner to pen the film's screenplay, but Tarantino's going to have his hands all over the script regardless. With that worry in the air, I'll bring attention to the most divisive part of Tarantino's film history — his use of the N-word.

No director has been more linked to the N-word in modern film history than Tarantino. Tarantino has said that he loves saying the word for various reasons, as Gawker recounted. First, in a 1994 interview, he said that when you make a joke with the N-word, you've got to use the word "or it's not funny."

"It's only the dirtiness of it, the nastiness of it, that makes it funny," he said. "So I don't want you to censor the way my characters talk."

Later that year, after Spike Lee called him out on his overuse of the word in Pulp Fiction ("It's not cute," he said), Tarantino gave his political stance on the word to Vibe Magazine.

"My feeling is the word...is probably the most volatile word in the English language. The minute any word has that much power, as far as I'm concerned, everyone on the planet should scream it," he said. "No word deserves that much power. I'm not afraid of it. That's the only way I know how to explain it."

Tarantino has a deep desire to claim blackness, including that incendiary word — he's said before that he feels like he identifies with the word because "it speaks volumes about who I am." To him, the word relates to "somebody who's not to be fucked with." But his incomplete view of "blackness" has warped his mentality so much that he thinks he has the right to say that word and dictate how others use it, or better yet, how others should view his usage of it. Every black person can (and probably has) developed their own opinion on Tarantino's claiming of blackness and his usage of the N-word, but this black person is saying his usage of it is immature and juvenile at best. Him saying the N-word isn't nullifying the word's power so much as it is fetishizing it for Tarantino's own pleasure.

I hope Tarantino wouldn't be that obtuse as to put such a horrible word like that in something as meaningful as Star Trek. But whether it's the N-word or something else, I don't put it past him to include some kind of divisive tactic in the film, especially if it means sticking to his grindhouse/blaxploitation aesthetic. Even in his own films, Tarantino has a penchant for going overboard, as illustrated in the Pulp Fiction scene Lee was referring to, in which Tarantino's character says the N-word way too many times during a five-minute conversation between himself, Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent (John Travolta).

Star Trek isn't the property to try something divisive. Star Trek is characterized by a code, something Roddenberry stuck to religiously during his tenure. After his death, his code carried on into the various Star Trek writers' rooms. Even the films, which are much looser than the TV shows ever will be, still stick by tenets of Roddenberry-ism, which is to have core characters get along (or at least attempt to understand each other), to keep said characters as likable protagonists, and to have the script promote finding strength in humanity's differences.

Only recently has Star Trek deviated from Roddenberry's original commandments; in Star Trek: Discovery, some main characters are, in fact, unlikeable, and cursing — another no-no from Roddenberry's book of rules — is now allowed. Even kissing and sex, which was avoided throughout much of Star Trek's franchise history, is now a part of Discovery's modus operandi.

But all of these changes took decades to come by. Star Trek is a franchise that can adapt to the times, but it's also a franchise that, like Starfleet itself, has a set of protocols it likes to follow. When protocol changes, it's momentous and rare. Tarantino, however, is like a wrecking ball of a director. I don't see how his anti-protocol sensibility will mesh well with a franchise that is the equivalent of a Type-A college professor.

Tarantino has talent, but I doubt he has the type of foresight or worldliness needed to churn out a good Star Trek film. There are tons of directors out there who would be awesome in the director's chair, and for a film like Star Trek, it would behoove Paramount and Abrams to hire directors who can fully understand the racial, cultural, and social issues Star Trek addresses.

Everyone shouts out names like Ava DuVernay and Dee Rees as directors studios should hire more often. I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I think DuVernay and Rees are owed the chance to direct a Star Trek film. First of all, they've already proven themselves — DuVernay is finishing A Wrinkle in Time for Disney, and Rees, who made her name with Pariah, has attracted awards buzz with her latest film, Mudbound. Secondly, they are astute to what makes characters in racially and culturally polarized worlds relatable and likeable. To that end, they are able to pull out unique moments that resonate with all audience members.

Taika Waititi should also be considered for a Star Trek film, and not just because he's been able to tame a beast like Marvel's Thor property. Thor: Ragnarok showed what an "outsider" filmmaker can do with a big budget, but the film also gave larger audiences an introduction to Waititi's charming and heartfelt comedic style, a style which has carried over from his other films like Hunt for the Wilderpeople and the wildly inventive What We Do in the Shadows. While Star Trek often has a professorial air, the franchise also relies on the power of comedy, and Waititi's mix of honest character beats and situational comedy would add the punch of levity Star Trek sometimes needs.

However, if Paramount is set on having Tarantino direct a Star Trek film, so be it. But, to paraphrase his beloved Jules, I dare you to mess this franchise up, Tarantino — I double dare you.