And The New Director Of Star Trek 3 Is…
1 min read
One of the directors on the short list mentioned last week to helm Star Trek 3 has been chosen.
Justin Lin will be directing Star Trek 3.
According to Deadline, Lin was the only one on that list offered the job of directing the movie. Lin was available to direct because the movie that he was originally going to direct, the sequel to The Bourne Legacy, was postponed, freeing him up for other projects.
Roberto Orci remains as producer on Star Trek 3, which is due out in 2016.
About The Author
IT’S DEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!
Star Trek Into Fast and Furiousness.
This is Paramount’s official notice to a fanbase of fifty years that it can go pound sand. All I can say is, good luck without us.
Star Trek Fast & Furious?
I dunno. I’ve been a fan since 1973 and found the JJ films were great–better at evoking what TOS actually was (and not what 50 years of distortions have led some to think it was) than any other iteration of Trek since TOS. I do see where they’re not all that close to TNG era Trek, but that was never the point of the JJ films. I, for one, look forward to as many more JJ-universe films as they’re willing to make.
I can’t agree. I haven’t been around that long but I do have a good three decades of fandom under my belt, am a TOS Trekkie all the way, and remember the premiere of TNG (and my skepticism and disappointment that it was so different from the original). I had the good fortune to start getting into TOS as a kid right at the time the first complete VHS release of the series was hitting the stores and the syndicated airings were still going strong on my local independent station, so by the time I was 10 or 11 I knew much of the series by heart. And what I saw, what inspired me to hoard so many Trek novels and comic books and build AMT model kits of the original Enterprise over and over and over again, was a show that said something, was about something, that tried very hard to tell intelligent science-fiction stories with believable and respectable characters.
Just last year I sat down and went through the entire series again, and found that the show is only looking better to me as I get older, that I see more in it all the time. It’s still a show about something, its Kirk and Spock are still heroes and professionals. At its best, it is a show that excites the senses AND challenges the intellect. I’m not confused by the distortions of memory and nostalgia; I know what TOS is. And the Abramsverse has nothing in common with it but uniform colors and proper nouns. The Abramsverse, if anything, is the distortion of TOS. It’s the parody of what people think this show and its characters were.
My only hope is that we’ll at least get a better-looking version of the NCC-1701 than that awful JJ-prise.
Did we see the same film? Even by just TOS standards those films were crap!
I get the message Paramount, you don’t need me anymore. Good luck with your new fan base!
I rewatch the Original Series pretty regularly. I can tell you that it’s reputation as a show that attempted to tackle important issues, to deal with the speculative problems that are the bread and butter of science fiction, to actually be about something – is not produced by distortion. In fact, the Abrams fan view of the show – that it was just a campy fun caper – is the real distortion, caused by not watching the damn thing. For my money TOS is superior to TNG in every way, but AbramsTrek is a far as it is possible to go from it.
In other words I agree with Theragen who says it more comprehensively and eloquently than I can. It mystifies me that anyone can think the vapid, Transformers-in-space, comic book movies that are the Abrams films have any really fundamental relationship in tone, theme, stance or spirit to the Original Series. They are not, for one, science fiction movies – but merely action-pop set in space, unlike the Original Series.
But they fail even as movies. Nero was one of the worst villains ever devised for the screen, screaming and banging but with no real motivation beyond stupidity. Enough had been said about the deficiencies of Khan in STID. Their enemies don’t make sense, and as a result the plots don’t hold together.
But that Lin is taking over is fitting. New Trek is more at the level of the Fast and the Furious.
‘Parody’ is correct: Abrams just makes his own super dumb films with a Star Trek skin, grafting on loads of chirpy one liners that have entered pop culture, dropping small references to Tribbles and so forth, recreating some of the characters – but not making Star Trek. How this is meant to be similar to TOS is beyond me.
The JJ-prise is primarily awful because it does not have a consistent look. It has the saucer from the refit and the lots of smooth curvature in other places which does not go with the saucer. I doubt it would make any sense to change it for the next movie though.
And I thought it couldn’t get any worse than THESE two movies
RIP Star Trek
You’d think someone from the original series or Next Gen would take a stand against Trek being pummelled into the dirt. Very sad to see something great being desecrated like this. Happy 50th everyone.
Gives new meaning to the statement “Starship drifting in space”.
“It will become a floating tomb, drifting through space…” – Lenore predicting the fate of the USS Enterprise, Star Trek TOS – Conscience of the King
There is an interesting article here (http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/why-justin-lin-makes-sense-as-the-new-director-of-star-trek-3) that argues that Lin makes sense because “What Lin brings to the table, aside from basic competence (more in-demand than you would expect these days), is a knack for directing an ensemble cast and an ability to stage the sort of absurdly gigantic set pieces that drive these movies now.”
Now I’m not a fan of how the last two films were directed. Casting was pretty good (other than Pegg, who desecrates Doohan at every turn), and IF they can finally deliver a good script we may yet have a film worth seeing. Yes, that is a big if – but with JJ a bit less involved and Orci on the outs maybe we have hope yet.
Also, for fascinating ruminations from someone who liked Lin for the job prior to the announcement, see http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/12/09/star-trek-suicide-squad/
Yes, a dark day. JJ may not be universally popular, but him, Orci and co are sci-fi fans and they at least had some integrity. Now this… well, Paramount want to take it more mainstream. Can’t blame them, but I doubt it’ll be good for the hardcore fans.
Well, that’s unfortunate news. Paramount seems intent on destroying Trek as thoughtful, metaphorical storytelling that reflects some of the tough questions and dilemmas that are currently faced by humanity. The ethos of Trek just doesn’t fit as a tentpole Hollywood popcorn movie, which is why Trek belongs on television telling smaller (in budget and spectacle), but meaningful, stories that make one ponder as the end credits roll.
I’m not even disappointed by this news, after the last disaster. I wasn’t expecting the next one to be any good. At least with my expectations set so low, there’s room for surprise! Too bad that’s what’s gotta pass for optimism 🙁
Action with suspense is exciting. These new movies are all action. They never leave you free for one second to grip your seat and wonder “what’s next?”.
Unlike Mr Orci, who is the co writer of STID and ASM2, Justin Lin is a film director, so the Star Trek 3 situation has improved. Lin’s past work on Fast and Furious franchise isn’t automatically a sign that Trek 3 will be one long car chase, by that logic Star Trek TMP was a wartime musical, given its director Robert Wise also directed The Sound Of Music. The biggest problem with STID was the dreadful script and story with quasi politics and nonsensical story mashed into fantasy Harry Potter technology and topped off with a sprinkle of characters acting out of… character. Unfortunately, by all accounts Orci remains involved in the script and Lin can only direct what he is given.
That covers the internal problems, externally the juggernaut that is Marvel studios has set the bar very low for ‘sci fi’ with GOTG, it’s fourth film about a magic rock with undefined powers, saught by an underdeveloped villain with a plot to destroy everything. Paramount desire to emulate that movie will influence script, story and director. As fans we can lament the passing of moral, emotional and science fiction stories like City on the Edge of Forever, The Inner Light and The Visitor, but truly the movies have never really delivered this version of Star Trek. It’s also fair to say that the TV version of trek certainly has its fair share of drop kicks, explosions and chases. I don’t mind the trek movies being like TWOK, action adventure films with strong sci fi elements, but STID a TWOK remake with none of the terror, emotional gravitas or story logic of the original is a step to far for me.
I will await the trailer for Lin’s trek with an open mind, but as soon as I hear the trailer voice say “a villain, hellbent on revenge…” I am out.
No Klingons, no Romulans, no Borg, just an original sci fi story about deep space exploration which involves an ethical conundrum and a character arc for 2 or more of the ensemble cast – but not Kirk ‘earning the chair’ or Spock getting angry about his friends and loved ones. Too much to ask?
Respectfully disagree; the series Kirk would never have the traits the movie one does, even if he had no father; Spock – what happened to his control of emotions? Keenser; the brewery; constant use of product placements; virtually no standards for placing people in command positions; they would not happen in TOS. They wanted it both ways in those movies; the characters and Starfleet are more militaristic — off the rack Cold War uniforms, no mercy for Nero, yet academy cadets live in what look like messy apartments (Uhura’s place) and Starfleet promotes, at worst, cadets, perhaps Kirk was a lieutenant, to captain of the Federation flagship. “Star Trek” on TV created all kinds of new technology — they created a future; they did not import Corvettes, Beastie Boys, missing man formations, current slang like “throwing him under the bus,” cinderblock built Ice Stations, poured concrete starship flooring and other anachronisms not belonging in any sci-fi movie, certainly not in Star Trek. The first one was a good blockbuster, the second passable, but neither is like the series. Like any of them, really. End rant.
Sorry, 9/11 “truther” Orci has no integrity.
Crossing my fingers that the mini-series CBS might do is more faithful to Star Trek and that they actually make it. I’d hate to not have something new to enjoy for the 50th.
So…apparently Paramount thinks that they need to entrust the Star Trek franchise to the guy behind The Fast and the Furious movies, because this is what they think the fans want to see happen next with it. It boggles the mind if you try to figure out how they came to that conclusion.
Let’s do a bit of math. They got my money for all season box sets of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT. I bought them all years ago as they first came out one at a time, and I paid an average of $120 each (I just checked with my library manager software…that was the asking price back then, and I was happy to own these series even at price). TOS was the first series ever I bought on DVD–I got the original 40-disc set, and paid from $30 to $40 *each* back them. I also bought the first 10 movies.
All-in-all, I’ve sunk well over $4000 of my hard-earned cash into this franchise over the years. I don’t buy the toys, shirts, merchandising or any of that crap. This is just the movies and series.
But it stopped at the JJ-verse. I recently saw both ST2009 and STID on Blu-ray for $5 each–even at that price, I have no room on my shelf for that garbage. It’s over, Paramount. I’m obviously no longer part of the market you cater for. You go right ahead and keep making material that has no shelf life, and ends up in the bargain bin in no time at all. I hope you make it up in bulk.
Not interested in Tits & Ass. Not interested in Khan. Not interested in a remake. That pretty much covers the next movie.
Don’t know what that even means. But he likes Trek and I trust him to have good intentions towards Trek.
I still stand by what I said before which is star trek is dead and long liv star wars.
Star trek into nothingness. Machos, hot chicks, testosterone, and Spaceracers.
Star trek turned into its own c caricature
I have a feeling this movie is going to really suck. Hopefully this director will at least not use those stupid lens flares and maybe they will tone down the bridge form the over lit apple store it looks like.
If Orci really had the good intentions you say he did, what the hell happened with the last two movies? He may like Trek, but he clearly doesn’t “get it.”
Hostile, 9/11 truther is easily googled if you don’t know what it means, when you see what it means you see where we got our supposed zeitgeisty political story in STID, when in fact it’s naive, narratively unworkable, childish tat.
Secondly we have gone from someone who hasn’t directed as much as a school play to someone who has directed films, that’s n improvement. If you were boarding a plane who would you want piloting? A pilot or someone who draws crappy pictures of planes but really wants to fly one? You must also be aware of the phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. If you really think OrcI is anything but a franchise killing journeyman then ask yourself how ASM3, Venom, Sinister 6 and female spidey spin off have all been shelved after ASM2? Webb and Garfield were there from ASM, which was ok, in come OrcI and Kurtzman and we get yet another magic blood nonesense story in which characters service coincidence and contrivance with no emotional rationale for their behaviour… Sound familiar?
If they were ‘sci fi’ fans why were the last two movies Transformers in Space? Why did Abrams say that Star Trek was too philosophical for him?
Because the studio wanted flash bang whallop – something they are demonstrating quite well right now.
In short, the two JJTrek films together are a four-hour train wreck!
In a pig’s eye!
It should also be noted that many of the Starfleet practices evidenced on TOS were inspired by or occasionally directly lifted from American military practices and command structure. Makes sense when a fair amount(?) of the creative staff were veterans, including Our Man Roddenberry himself.
so uh, you’re slightly wrong. not wild about the brewery, tho.
I’m opened minded about this new director. I’ve watched Trek from its inception and appreciate it in all forms. I hear the talk that the new Trek is inferior and just about action, but disagree. I fear that the ‘us vs. them’ bitterness causes some old-timers to overlook the depth of story that truly is present. Take Star Trek Into Darkness. Have we considered the core Star Trek themes it develops? First, from the opening scene, to Kirk and Spock returning to Star Fleet HQ talking about what is next, to the end with the Enterprise heading off on a five year mission, the film emphasizes that Star Trek – and indeed life – is not about experiences safe at home, not at an academy, nor in a simulator … but it is ‘out there’. Score 1 for core Trek. Second, in the portrayal of the Admiral’s protectiveness of the Federation, the Klingon’s supposed (but not real) involvement, Khan’s struggle to protect ‘family’ despite his megalomania, and even Kirk’s own actions taken to understand which is right, the film explores the theme of right vs. wrong, how that may depend on a point of view, and how, while we can empathize with a perspective, we all make sometimes gray moral choices and at the end of the day have only our own principals as a guide. Score 2 for core Trek. Third, the film starts with a new crew that is still coming together, initially untrusting, but then finding what bonds them as family. We see this in the many scenes where the relationship between Kirk and Spock are tested, until finally Spock sees the light and gets it. This is emphasized in the scene of Pike’s death, and then again at Kirk’s death. We also saw it in the journey of the Admiral’s daughter and her ultimate acceptance aboard the Enterprise. The emphasis of this not being just a journey – but the primacy of *family* during that journey – is tested, discovered, and emphasized. Score 3 for core Trek. Lastly, from looking down on Khan’s genetically enhanced heritage to the Admiral’s tough guy bravado with his bigger ship to the unknown ‘torpedoes’ accepted aboard the Enterprise at the start, the film emphasizes that technology can have unintended (and undesirable) outcomes. Score 4 for another classic Star Trek theme. At least four classic Trek themes amidst a film that also happens to include some good action. Its hard to say that stuff is missing and that the film is therefore inferior because it does not consider social scenarios. Watch these films a few times with an open mind for these things and you will see the good Trek work that is being done for the next generation.
So Sulu will gain a bigger role in this film after all?
Depth of story? Did you actually watch either of the JJ films? What depth of story?!?!
This isn’t some thing like “Your music sucks because it’s new, pull up your pants son” kind of thing. No, these films are truly horrid!
While I understand gripes against the TNG films, Voyager, Enterprise and even DS9, for me there was enough there that was good and each clearly tried to be modern at the same time trying to stick to the spirit of what Star Trek is. These Abrams films very clearly don’t give a damn about any of that. I honestly don’t see how any sesable fan can see something that isn’t there. These films are not mde for fans, they are made for non-fans in the hopes of finding an all new fan base, period.
Based on what I’ve seen so far, it hasn’t worked out very well. It’s still old fans going to see these movies and the few new fans they get just are not as passionate about these films and old fans are about everything else Trek. In so many years this trilogy will be but an uncomfortable footnote in a much larger tapestry.
I had to burst your bubble kid, but Star Wars is dead too. The classic franchises of the past re nothing more than hollow shells of their former self’s.
Hi Steve, Merry Christmas!
I am pleased you enjoyed Star Trek Into Darkness,I wish I had. I wholeheartedly disagree with your points which I will tackle one by one,
1, ‘life/Star Trek is not about experiences safe at home’
Both new trek movies are set primarily on and around Earth,when the movies are not in and around Earth they are set on Kronos and Vulcan. So both movies play very much in humanity’s ‘home’ and star trek’s home. We also have cameos from Nimoy in both movies, tribes, Klingons and Romulans, the villains of STID are section 31 of DS9 and ENT and Khan of TOS and TWOK. If star trek is about getting out there and being exposed to new species and new ideas why haven’t we seen any? Why is the only alien species we meet, the Nibiru, literally a joke? The dialogue casually references exploration and such ideals whilst the narrative and script literally cuts and pastes characters, dilemmas and even dialogue from previous and popular incarnations. These two movies could not have played it safer if they had tried, Therefore I reject this point, these movies do not thematically represent star trek’s ethos of exploration at all.
2, ‘right vs wrong’
Khan is a dictator, he is star trek’s Hitler, no grey issue there,he kills and destroys because he believes his crew dead, although he has no concrete proof of this, given his crew are alive and well? The admiral is protecting earth from which threat? Nero? He is dead, we saw that in the first movie? His desire to protect earth is so strong that he enlists the help of a Hitler character from earths history? Why? To what end? His relationship with Khan lasted so long they built a ship together, they even changed his name to John Harrison for no reason. After all in 300 years if someone met a man called Richard Nixon would they assume he was the nefarious President from USA history? Khan and Marcus do not enjoy a morally complex relationship they enjoy a badly written one, it’s ambiguity born of illiteracy. Both Khan and Marcus are motiveless villains. As for his daughter, who boards the enterprise to investigate the torpedoes she doesn’t know about (illiteracy again!) even she is against her father from the outset? We don’t see a healthy relationship destroyed by his madness we see a relationship that has already broken down. As for Kirk he doesn’t Fire torpedoes at a known hostile race to kill one man, who beamed thee magically and for no reason, again this isn’t an ethical conundrum it just doesn’t make sense. I reject that STID iS about right vs wrong. It’s demonstrably about plot contrivance with motiveless characters making decisions to service the next coincidence or revelation.
3, ‘the primacy of family’
I don’t see Khan enjoy a family relationship with anyone in this movie, therefore his deeds make no sense, look at khan’s relationship with Joachim in TWOK, I understand the bond between these men. In STID Khan’s devotion to his family is empty, it’s told and not shown, it’s like having a rocky film where we pan away from the end fight and then have Paulie announce the next morning that “Rock won”
Won’t be good for fans with brain cells, either.
The 9/11 truthers are conspiracy nuts whose primary source of “news” is Alex Jones and company. In other words, total morons.
Cosmo I didn’t say I didn’t know what the term meant, I advised the OP to Google it if they didn’t.
Star Trek fans have never determined the success or failure of any Trek films. Ever. They’ll do just fine without you.
Well, at this point if Paramount could get the entire remaining loyal fan base to see a Trek movie three times apiece they’d lose their shirts. So not pandering to trekkies is a good call.
Lin’s a good director; I’ll be there for the opening show. Star Trek Lives! 😉
Ignorance. Historically, Star Trek fans have always been the reason Star Trek films have existed. Paramount made ten films over two decades with (except for the first) restricted budgets under the rationale that Trek’s built-in core fanbase represented a guaranteed audience that made these movies good investments.
Paramount may still be taking the fanbase for granted, but they’re foolish to at this point. The studio’s reported wish for Trek 3 to be “huge” is a veiled admission of what many of us have long suspected, that the JJ movies have never done the “huge” numbers P had hoped for at the outset of the reboot.
In addition, the JJverse has no tie-in merchandising to speak of because the fans, the people who would normally buy that stuff, aren’t interested. Tie-in dollars have always been the foundation of the cash cow, and Trek’s masters are killing that golden goose thanks to the direction they’ve chosen to take it. So no, they’re not doing “just fine” without us. If they were, they wouldn’t be hiring a guy with a track record as a franchise turnaround artist to deal with a reboot series that was supposed to have been “huge” five years ago. The Abramsverse, having been designed by and for bottom-feeding idiots who believe it’s right and proper to dismiss the same source material on which they piggyback, now has no choice but to go all-in on that audience in order to suck up as much short-term reward as it can generate. And I’ll say again, good luck to it on that.
I didn’t say you didn’t know what the term meant; I was just throwing in my two cents on truthers. 🙂
I tend to agree, Trek is a nitch franchise in ways that say Star Wars or Marvel films are not, but there is nothing wrong with that. It’s the core audience of fans that the original ten films were made for. The last one of those (Nemesis) failed to attract that core audience and failed miserably as a result. Historically Star Trek does not do well in the mainstream, but since the budgets used to be so much smaller and the core and casual fans supported it in the 80’s and 90’s especially with not just ticket sales but tons of merchandise, that never mattered before.
Paramount is trying to turn Trek into something it’s not, and the franchise is suffering as a result. It will never catch on in the mainstream because it’s not that kind of vehicle. It’s not exactly high art, but compared to more mainstream things like say Fast and the Furious, it feel more like that. That isn’t me knocking popcorn films, sometimes I like them. Rather, it’s being honest what is what. Trek is meant to be rewatched and examined when it’s done right while pop corn entertainment is meant to be quickly forgot after the credits roll. This is why the JJ-films don’t work, because they are trying to turn Trek into a pop corn franchise, and it’s just not what it is. You might as well put a square peg in a round hole and make it fit!
No need to be insulting asking if I have seen the film after having provided clear comments. Yes, indeed, I have seen STID no less than a dozen times now, three of those on the big screen and the rest at home with friends and family at home, all of whom are long time Trek fans and say they enjoyed it. Others have discussed seeing the themes I mentioned too. You?
My advice is to see the films knowing that Shatner and Stewart are not appearing on screen. Get beyond that. Then watch the film as something new with an open mind for the story elements the writers are using. Identify those intellectually (instead of denying them emotionally), then compare those to classic Trek themes and see how they line up. I think they are dead on.
Of course this requires having an open mind that something new can be good versus believing that only old conventions work. I understand the difficulty in that and appreciate the loyalty of old Trek fans. However, as one of those fans, I also see how terribly easy it is for some of our community to point to old Trek as undeniably superior. Go watch episodes such as ‘Turn About Intruder,’ ‘The Alternative Factor,’ ‘Wolf in the Fold,’ ‘The Way to Eden,’ ‘The Paradise Syndrome,’ ‘The Man Trap,’ or Elaan of Troyus’, then come back and tell me why – story element for story element – that the writing in those episodes is better.
To each their own of course. The new Trek stories are a little darker, faster paced, more complex, and much more interwoven in their development than old Trek ever was. To me (and the huge box office that has supported these films) that is what makes this new Trek a very strong showing for its next iteration. Those who don’t see that are just missing out in my view. Give it awhile and maybe it will grow on you.