May 24 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Orci Star Trek 3 News

1 min read


Roberto Orci spoke briefly about possible story ideas for Star Trek 3.

In an interview with Orci, the writer was asked if the story for Star Trek 3 would be an original one, or if they would “stay in the classic Trek world.”

“Little bit of both,” said Orci. “Part of the fun of the freedom that we bought ourselves is that you can harmonize with canon and you can echo what’s come before, so you can do it in a new way.”

Star Trek 3 is expected to be released in 2016.

About The Author

47 thoughts on “Orci Star Trek 3 News

  1. > In an interview with Orci, the writer was asked if the story for Star Trek 3 would be an original one, or if they would “stay in the classic Trek world.”
    > “Little bit of both,” said Orci.

    Like, retelling Wrath of Khan, only dumber? Oh, goodie, I’m sooooo looking forward to this.
    Seriously, why is this clown even allowed anywhere near the franchise?

  2. Here we go.
    It will be Star Trek 3: The Search for Lens Flares.
    I agree in that this isn’t newsworthy as he has revealed very little and the bare bones of what he did say shows that we are looking at another classic Star Trek story filtered through JJ Abrams Star Wars fantasy.
    I’m not budging after being burned by the first film, I didn’t and won’t watch The Wrath of Cumberbatch and I won’t be watching the 3rd film that they make.

  3. Net: “I will wait until 4 months before shooting and then pull a script out of my ass.” I wonder if it will include a headless robot from the past?

  4. Can we please have a good writer who isn’t going to rely on old lore to make it cool and flashy again? They must think we jump up and down with glee when we see references to the old when in fact we are shaking are heads and saying why.

  5. Here we go. “Star Trek Into the Search for Khan.” Right now, I can guarantee that my butt will not be in a seat to see it.

  6. Who cares what Orci or anyone from the Church of Abrams has to say? They haven’t done anything for Trek and after messing with this franchise they tear Star Wars into little pieces and make something sooo new and sooo original of it that we all will be amazed how “awful” the early movies actually were. Why don’t people just pay them tons of money for NOT making movies and tv shows?

  7. “Part of the fun of the freedom of ignoring the rules you set up for yourself at the beginning is that as long as you just drop in enough proper nouns for fanservice you can otherwise write ANYTHING YOU WANT! I mean, check this out, the Enterprise is run by dilithium crystals, right? Well, what if dilithium crystals turned out to be sentient beings who were angry at being used as fuel for all these years and decided to take REVENGE on the Federation? And what if dilithium crystals could EXPLODE when they got really angry?? And what if their leader was a guy named Dave Johnson who was once the gear-shift knob in a sports car that was owned by a little guy you might have heard of named KHAN??? ALL-OUT GALACTIC WAR, DORKS! It’ll be so cool. Let me go jot this down and if you don’t like the idea, well, you guys already know what I think you can go do with yourselves.”

  8. Yawn, someone let me know when this man is done making what seems to pass as Star Trek movies these days…

  9. Seriously? Boycotting and / or lavishing unfiltered disgust upon a film sequel that hasn’t even been conceptualized yet?! If you’re all so against the idea of JJ Abrams powered “New Trek”, why expend any energy whatsoever in bitching about it? And on a Trek fan site no less! It just seems like such a contradiction. Clearly, you all like Star Trek enough to have found your way here. But if you have such passionate disdain for the franchise in its current form, why not move onto something else?

    Wouldn’t your time and energy be better spent on following a series you actually might enjoy? At the very least, you could wait for some sort of official announcement / teaser trailer / oh I don’t know, THE FILM TO ACTUALLY COME OUT, before making up your minds as to whether it’s likely to be your cup of tea.

    Now of course, that is a purely subjective argument, and I suppose sort of ironic, as I’m expending at least 7 calories composing a response to your close minded whining, but hey, welcome to the internet!

    The fact remains that from a purely business standpoint, Star Trek (around the time of Enterprise and Nemesis) was an intellectual property on life support. I for one happen to thoroughly enjoy all incarnations of Trek (ENT and NEM included, and with many a naf blip during the run of each series) but for the whole thing to thrive it needed to be reinvented. Is it at all possible for each of you to at least try to keep an open mind?

  10. After what Abrams has done to Star Trek with his first two movies he simply cannot do anything that would bring back the atmosphere of the original franchise – because he does not understand Trek at all. This is like retelling Shakespeare and mixing characters from various works just because they might look good in this NUShakey. No one in his right mind can keep an open mind re. the third movie. He will continue cannibalizing the franchise and maybe make Zefram Cochrane a time traveller who travels into earth’s past to give them warp drive technology. But he is followed by the Borg who are now vampires which makes them much more cooler. At the end everyone but the polar bear is actually dead and it all has been just a dream ot Spock during Pon Farr (but the gay version just to make it a bit cooler).

    Abrams has no clue what Star Trek is about, and this will never change!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. What about the new writers? I saw both movies and they were serviceable summer “blockbusters, ” but there’s very little meat on the bone in terms of innovative or memorable designs, ships or plot elements — even the writers admit it’s “reimagined.” So there is very little to say about these new movies except “When is the next one?” They will need a very good story to get me to buy a ticket for 3. Will they skip any connection to the 50th anniversary?

  12. Did this need to be an article at all? There’s barely any content whatsoever! Just flamebait (or clickbait).

  13. What he meant was: “Part of the fun of the freedom that we bought ourselves is that you can dispense with canon and you can reuse what’s come before, so you can do pretty much any shit you want.”

  14. Against my better judgment, i’m going to indulge your completely nonsensical and sarcastic ramblings and ask you this:

    What is Star Trek about?

    You seem to have an exceptionally solid grasp of what it shouldn’t be, and you seem steadfast in your resolve when you proclaim that “Abrams has no clue… and this will never change”. So i’d be very interested to learn your perception of the franchise. But please, no more ridiculously hypothetical musings about supposed plot lines for the third movie. It’s not strengthening your argument. It’s making you look as though you don’t have an argument to begin with.

    Also, let me be clear. I’m not so blinded by lens flares that I can’t find any faults in the JJ Abrams “interpretation” of Star Trek. The new films do have a tendency to trivialize the lofty social / political commentary of the old show (another argument in favor of Star Trek being better suited to television than the big screen), and secondary characters are continually being underutilized (which is ironic as that is VERY faithful to the original series). But these are superbly well acted films with silky smooth production values (two things that previous iterations of the franchise haven’t always been able to claim for themselves).

    I should also add that “interpretation” is a subjective word, one which I think if you fully understood you would be less brazen in your apathy for the new films. JJ Abrams and co. are doing a VERSION of Star Trek. Not the same as before. Familiar, but different. That’s an interpretation. Because lets be fair, there would be an epidemic of internet nerd rage if he just copied verbatim every character and moment from the original series. These films are different, and arguably aimed at a much younger audience (“this isn’t your fathers Star Trek” and so on), so AGAIN, if you can actually broaden your mind and accept that it’s not the same, it may offer entertainment value of a different nature and you might be pleasantly surprised. If you must stubbornly wish for times long past, then please, buy the blu ray’s and rewatch Next gen twenty more times because it seems like you’ll have infinitely more fun with something you know you enjoy than you would by expending any more energy in bitching about something you don’t. Food for thought?

  15. I really don’t know why I read the comments on any of the new Star Trek news. People are so vocal and negative all the time that it’s depressing. Yea yea, you’re not a fan. We get it already. It’s too bad you guys aren’t in charge of the new movies. They would be perfect.

  16. Yes, Abrams, Orci, and company have interpreted Trek differently. I think that what people (including myself and my college-age son) feel when they complain about the movies is they are mediocre at best. They lack depth, complexity, and basic plotting. That’s not to say they don’t have some excellent moments (Kirk’s dad’s death being one). But anyone looking for more than eye candy (which you can get in any Transformers movie) will be disappointed. Broadening one’s mind, or even trying to accept it on its own terms, won’t really get around this.

  17. But it isn’t. What made money for the franchise for so many years was MERCHANDISING, and NuTrek hasn’t generated any. It’s the Prime Universe, the real Trek, that’s still generating all the various baubles that get the fans to part with their money and keep the cash cow going. Trek wouldn’t have been in almost continuous production for 25 years on the big and small screens if that hadn’t been the case.

    The inability to merchandise NuTrek is going to be a major factor in Paramount’s decision whether to continue with any more of these after the contractually-set third film, along with whether they can actually make any profit on the movies themselves (’cause they didn’t make any on STD).

  18. I recommend you check out STD, if only as a “you really have to see it to believe it” exercise.

  19. 2009 film was good, I’d like to see them get back on track even though Into Drekness was a turd.

  20. Clearly “perfect” was an exaggeration. Of course you think you can do better lol,

  21. That’s exactly my objection to this last one. 2009 Trek was a pretty good film and a very promising restart, and the flaws in it were far outweighed by good acting, good dialogue, and good character development. That was all chucked out the airlock for this last film. The characters, especially Kirk, were reset back to GO and followed the same progression all over again, as if the character and story beats from 2009 Trek were the only ones the writers knew. Deus ex machinas were overused to steer the story instead of logic or planning, and they wrote themselves so far into a dramatic corner that they’ve removed most of the sense of jeopardy and risk from their paradigm.
    I’m glad to see the major changes in the creative team, and I’ll withhold judgement until I see something, or at least until they start saying stupid shit in interviews (BOB).

  22. I’m sorry, but story- and character-wise Shatner did better than STiD with Final Frontier.

  23. They are generating ticket sales. Out the yinyang. As far is Hollywood is concerned Bob Orci shits gold bullion. The only thing that will convince them otherwise is if the ticket sales fall off enough for the shiny to wear off. Then, and ONLY then, will Bob, Alex Kurtzman (whom I know little about since he’s not prone to spewing a steady stream of stupidity), and Damon Lindehof be consigned to the Hollywood has-been dustbin next to Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio.

  24. I don’t think it’s fair to downvote him for making a simple, non-inflammatory statement of fact.

  25. I had to watch it in chunks. I couldn’t sit through it all in one go. And I wouldn’t be nearly as disappointed by it if it didn’t have some moments of genuine brilliance.

  26. I didn’t like STI either, but I don’t understand people who seem to think any article even tangentially connected to it should be another opportunity to spit out this venom.

  27. Exactly! I will always appreciate the originals shows and films more but I can’t wrap my head around the negativity of some trek fans.

  28. Maybe, but he said, “Something it wasn’t doing before.”

    What does that mean? That none of the previous stuff, whether movies or TV shows, didn’t make money or wasn’t successful? Come on.

  29. @disqus_P66syTXgsP:disqus @disqus_CcZn7iYO5o:disqus

    Thank you for bringing an intelligent and balanced argument to this page. You have restored my faith in [internet] humanity. You’ve both made some very interesting points.

    @Randy H specifically: While I agree that the standout moments in both films don’t compensate for the overall lack of depth, I still think that people like @thereader would benefit from a more open minded approach to judging a film that doesn’t technically exist yet. Fair enough if elements of the two currently released reboots disappointed him, but in the spirit of a fair critique, I still think there’s room to broaden one’s response to future installments beyond the unjustified sarcasm he has displayed thus far. After nearly 50 years, Star Trek still exists in some capacity, and so called “fans” should at the very least be willing to embrace the IDEA of the franchise continuing, even if its current form doesn’t totally satisfy everyone. I still think that both Star Trek (2009) and Star Trek: Into Darkness are a cut above other summer blockbusters like Transformers, G.I. Joe, The Fast and the Furious etc… in a number of ways, despite their reliance on oversimplification as we’ve already discussed.

    @Kang the Unbalanced specifically: You are literally awesome for saying “I’ll withhold judgement until I see something” in a public internet discussion. Like Randy H above you, you have restored my faith in this fanbase that despite justified reservations, you’re willing to at least give a third film the chance to impress.

  30. Thanks, though I have been known to go off the deep end as well from time to time. And mind you I still have a qualifier of “until they start saying [stupid things about it]”. For this last film my whiskers started twitching when Orci and Kurtzman said, regarding sequels, “it’s all about the villain!” And it was all downhill from there.

  31. Hm. I guess I am am making an assumption, but I took it to mean just “before the new films were made” instead of “ever before in the history of the franchise”. Have to admit, after Enterprise, Star Trek in general was looking pretty poorly.
    I guess I’m giving Daniel the benefit of the doubt for not being as obnoxious as some others have been. I hope I’m not proven wrong for doing so.

  32. Because we really didn’t like it? What’s so hard to get. We think it’s a dumb travesty, a Star Trek flavoured Transformers movie, but one infused with only the pulpy pop culture residue of Star Trek, not the real thing. We disagree – fine – but I don’t understand what’s hard to ‘wrap your head around’.

  33. How many Star Trek movies is Abrams going to be allowed to make before we can form a general impression of his take on the franchise then? So many people said, after 2009, hey don’t worry, *this* is the shlocky fun movie that just introduced the characters: next time, there’ll be a puzzle or scientific dilemma, some exploring, some ideas! Nope. What we got was more of the same, combined with half warmed over TWoK and poorly plotted to boot, with more of the inane and now quite cliched terrorist-action face offs and juvenile destruction. No film critic, nor a member of the general public, has ever been reasonably asked to withhold judgement of a third film in a series of which the first few disappointed him.

  34. The question is not “why don’t you like it” — many reasons for that have been articulated already. The question is, why does every single article even tangentially connected to it require another round of complaints? And mostly not specific complaints at all — just vague insults that most schoolyard bullies would pass on as too juvenile. There has to be a point when this passes from merely not liking something (a movie, let’s remember — not a dictatorship or a major disease) into pathological hatred.

  35. People, people! Stop it! I’m an original series fan. Amy nearly 58 years old. Saw seasons 2 and 3 of TOS on NBC from ’67-’69. Now look, you have two choices, either you for the most part go along with the new TREK while offering constructive suggestions as fans, or there will be no more TREK, period. It’s nearly 50 years old. You update it, but stay within the realm of the general philosophy of STAR TREK which in my opinion, J.J. has done. Frankly the series, especially Enterprise was getting stale. I like new takes on things. I’m a DR. WHO fan, and everything her regenerates, it refreshes a 50 year old franchise. Now with Peter Gibaldi as the 12th Doctor and the alternate timeline in TREK, it’s, at least to me, like an old friend that has had a face lift and gotten all new clothes, but underneath is still that old buddy you’ve lover most or all your life.

  36. Boy, am a horrible typist. “Am nearly 58…” “…and every time he regenerates…” “… old buddy you’ve loved…”

  37. Err, Dr Who has always had face lifts, Matt Smith was only in role for 3 years. The Big refresh was 2005 with Christopher “Lots of planets have a north” Ecclestone. It didn’t just redo the same stories but in a bad way though, it was nothing new.

    Now I liked the reboot film, XI. Transwarp beaming was a mistake though. STID was something different though. Why reuse Khan? Why not simply come up with something new? Hell a section 31 Khan inspired genetic bad guy. Just don’t use Khan, where was the point?

    Remove Spock’s dumb “KHAAAAN” shout and the super-blood, and it goes up a lot in my estimation.

    I prefer the books for my trek fix now though. I only watch STID once in the cinema, and haven’t bought it.

  38. I hope its an original story but if they do have some elements from classic Trek, please no more Kahn. Star Trek Into Darkness was so bad when you compare it to The Wrath of Kahn. In fact stop trying to copy Wrath of Kahn and come up with something original. All I know is I hope the new director is anti lens flares and you can see a ship battle scene without shaky cam and the battle zooming at warp speed. I like to at least be able to tell whats going on. I still cant tell Phaser blasts from Photon torpedoes in the new movies, since they use phaser bolts and not a steady phaser stream.

  39. Speaking of turds, Star Trek Continues is going to release their second episode this coming Saturday or Sunday. This is not a cool thing for the Star Trek Universe.

  40. want to see good star trek?check out star trek continues on you tube within 5 minutes your hooked and iam not normally a fan of fan made films ep 1 has orginal series actor who played apollo reprising role ep 2 has lou ferigno n erin grey guest staring

Comments are closed.

©1999 - 2024 TrekToday and Christian Höhne Sparborth. Star Trek and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. TrekToday and its subsidiary sites are in no way affiliated with CBS Studios Inc. | Newsphere by AF themes.