May 26 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Pegg: Orci Is One Of Us

1 min read


The news that Roberto Orci might be directing the latest Star Trek movie made Simon Pegg happy.

Pegg found out via an email from Orci. “Hey man, I might be doing this;” said Orci. “Shall we nerd out?”

“[Orci]’s a good friend;” said Pegg. “He’s very much part of the Star Trek family.

“I’m really happy he’s doing it as it’s kept within the family kind of thing; it’s not somebody coming in from outside.

“Bob’s been there since the first Star Trek – by that I mean the 2009 one – so it seemed to make perfect sense that he come in as a director on this one because he gets it.”

In addition to directing, Orci is also co-writing the story for the film, along with J.D. Payne and Patrick McCay.

“He was always the most Trekkie of all of those guys anyway,” said Pegg. “He’s always understood the story the best so it’s great that he’s going to be involved in the writing and directing.”

Star Trek 3 is expected to debut in 2016.

About The Author

21 thoughts on “Pegg: Orci Is One Of Us

  1. He may be one of you, but he ain’t one of me! I’m actually a Star Trek fan! 😛

  2. I’m with you, Milo!
    If Orci can be considered “one of us” based upon what he inflicted upon us with NuTrek, I’d HATE to know what one would consider to be a non-fan!

  3. Oh please. Given some of the ideas “fans” come up with, Trek is in better hands with Orci than people who claim they can do better.

  4. We’ve already seen some of the ideas of the “fan” Orci in the last two so called star trek movies. No thanks. He should stick with Transformers and Power Rangers. Let’s leave Star Trek and real science fiction to truly creative people and to those who really respect Trek.

  5. The last two Trek movies? As in the ones which were both critically praised and the most profitable entries in the franchise?

  6. Pegg should just shut his yap. He’s a b level actor that’s already pissed off fans for voicing their opinions on the first sorry two installments of JJTrek and only got the role of Scotty due to conections. He is probably my least favorite JJ Trek actor. Thank God ths train wreck will be over after this last abortion

  7. I’d love to see the numbers backing up your claim of profitability. Paramount poured more money into the Abramsverse than they ever did before with Trek and ended up with grosses well short of what they expected. Any profit they saw with STD was very small. The Harve Bennett movies, which were all made for under $20 million and ranked among the top grossers of their respective years, were easily the most profitable entries.

  8. Box Office Mojo backs me up. What backs your claim? If you don’t want to talk about money, you can’t ignore the positive critical and audience reception the new movies have gotten.

  9. Yes, suddenly all critics had a switch flipped in 2009…

    This is why people make fun of Star Trek fans.

  10. Trek 2009 was quite profitable and was a pretty decent film. I feel they greatly overreached with Star Trek Into Dude, Where’s My Script? Bigger budget and bigger expectations led straight to a bigger disappointment.

  11. Over Into *Hurk*ness, I agree. There is so much wrong with that film that I really have no idea what they slipped into the critics’ drinks.

  12. He’s certainly made an ass of himself. And yet… in Into Blandness, he was almost the only character who was recognizeably in character. Or rather, that JJ allowed to be in character.

  13. Maybe, but there are other ideas that REAL fans have that would wipe the floor with Orci, so what’s your point Cool Dude? The difference is that Orci is PAID millions of dollars to write this stuff. There should be more expectation from that and he’s just falling flat.

  14. Critics are not fans and why they might have brought in the most money, they also cost the most. It’s about the return, not the gross!

  15. Getting sick of JJ-fans that don’t understand math. If you have a film that made $2,000,000 and cost $1,500,000 to make compared to a film that made $1,000,000 but only cost $500,000 to produce, which film “did better” at the box office? Yes, film “A” made more money, but film “B” had a higher return on the initial money it took to produce it.

    Yes, the two JJ-Trek films brought in more money than the original ten films, but they also cost more. If we break down the numbers, both Abrams movies are low on the list of Star Trek films with the highest return. THAT is what matters so far as box office numbers. That and butts in seats. How many tickets were sold? If we are going to argue with box office, let’s at least make sure it’s the correct argument, thank you!

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.