April 25 2024


An archive of Star Trek News

Orci Defends NuTrek Stories

1 min read


Roberto Orci spoke with fans on the TrekMovie news site, setting them straight about actions he took on the Trek movies, and his role in Star Trek 3.

Although the news has been out there for a while, Orci confirmed that he is definitely producing Star Trek 3.

“I’m producing,” he said. “Nothing more or less.”

One TrekMovie reader blamed the nuTrek stories on Bad Robot, claiming that they wanted an alternate timeline so that they could “write over fifty years of Star Trek with their own brand of Star Trek and merchandise it, do TV, animation etc and control it to an extent.”

Not true, said Orci. “Stop blaming [Bad Robot]. [Time Travel] was my idea so that you would not know what was gonna happen next. Nothing more or less. I stand behind it. And it, again, is the reason why I make movies and you don’t.”

When asked if Star Trek 3 would be worth seeing, Orci said, “I won’t lie. I don’t know yet, but the story we are talking about would be awesome; hang in there!”

Star Trek 3 will be released July 8, 2016.

About The Author

23 thoughts on “Orci Defends NuTrek Stories

  1. I actually thought that going back in time and creating an alternate universe was a brilliant idea, since it would enabled them to tell all new stories without worrying about keeping things canon-compliant.

    What I object to is what they did to the characters. They painted Kirk as a whiny and egotistical child, who succeeds mostly through luck. While it’s true that TOS Kirk had phenomenal luck, it was mostly his tactical genius, his strength of will, and his ability to gain the love and respect of his crew that enabled him to succeed so often and against such odds. And while he had some ego — had to have, to be a captain — TOS Kirk controlled it, rather than being controlled by it, as NuKirk is.

    And they’ve made Spock a human action hero who happens to have pointed ears, instead of a restrained and logical Vulcan scientist. While TOS Kirk was a great character, we’d seen exceptional captains before, but the character of Spock was something entirely new and was one of Roddenberry’s most brilliant ideas. Seeing such a special character reduced to a generic action hero … my heart just cries.

  2. There was no reason to retread with established characters. Bob keeps saying he did what he did so the audience won’t know what was coming next and so he wouldn’t be saddled with 45+ years of cannon. I hate to break it to ya Bob, but the audience had a fairly good idea what was coming in your last picture and thanks mostly to a soft reboot, you are still saddled with 45+ years of cannon.

    You make movie Bob and I don’t because you know the right people and I don’t. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact is that despite his lazy writing and inability to work with original properties or characters, this man keeps getting jobs. That fact alone to be an interesting look at what is wrong with the industry as a whole, but I digress. Sure, one could say he is laughing all the way to the bank, however what kind of legacy is he leaving behind? I doubt 50 years from now he’ll be remembered as one of the greatest screen writers.

  3. PS: There are typos in my original post. I wrote it in haste, sorry. That said, my typos don’t make what was said any less true. Orci has no business writing Star Trek period. All the writers in Hollywood and Paramount goes with Bob. A clear sign they aren’t that committed to making anything good. But then again that is the current game in Hollywood right, a sloppy product for quick returns? It’s not like people will still care about movie made these days 75 years from now, so who cares? We’ve officially past 1939 or any resemblance of it.

  4. While Roddenberry deserves some kudos for Spock, he was actually forced into it when the network told him to get rid of #1, a coldly logical woman (The Cage). It is interesting that Spock’s mother was later made human and warmly emotional. But the Spock we know, as opposed to the character in The Cage, resulted from network sexism. The original Spock may have been more likely to be the action hero.

  5. This is a myth, spread by Roddenberry himself. Actually, the network didn’t like Number One because they thought Majel Barrett wasn’t a strong enough actress to carry a show. Roddenberry falsely claimed that it was network sexism to save her face.

    And of course Roddenberry didn’t create Spock alone; Leonard Nimoy and Dorothy Fontana both added an enormous amount to the character, and other people helped, too.

  6. Wait, what exactly is the reason You Make Movies And We Don’t, Bob? (I actually do work in this industry, so spare me the insecure one-upmanship bullshit). Time travel concepts? The gob-smacking suspense of not knowing which guy would die in the radiation chamber this time around? Flat-out lying to all of us about the presence of Khan? Or having the balls to continue to stand behind all of it and tell us what a bunch of fools we are for not appreciating you?

    You should have just told us to “FUCK OFF!” again and saved everyone some time.

  7. There’s a reason why other people direct movies and Orci doesn’t. He’s not going to recover from losing this directing gig and he blew his chance at the brass ring.

  8. > You should have just told us to “FUCK OFF!” again and saved everyone some time.

    That’s pretty much what he meant with:

    > “And it, again, is the reason why I make movies and you don’t.”
    He’s made his contempt for the die-hard fans pretty clear with this one. He sounds like a spoiled brat.

  9. meg·a·lo·ma·ni·a
    obsession with the exercise of power, especially in the domination of others.

  10. This guy is unbelievable. I’ll never forgive him for making the brilliant Khan Noonien Singh a white upper class British guy. What an absolute letdown.

  11. Being a 45+ year fan of Trek, I did have a chip on my shoulder going into my first screening of the “rebooted” Trek, but found that I actually enjoyed the story. The second installment was a let down. Having watched the original broadcast of “Space Seed”, along with modernization of the story for “Wrath of Khan”, “Darkness” was a wretched wreck of hackneyed, rehashed dialog meant to evoke some empathy. All it evoked was laughter as the roles were reversed but the dialog remained the same. I also agree with the poster’s insight into this new Spock character as being an action figure with pointy ears rather than that voice of logic and non-aggression.

    It is not for me to say I trust this latest round of caretakers; very few movies these days seem to rise above the commercialization mass marketing (I DETESTED “Guardians of the Galaxy”; let’s take the first “Avengers” script and instead of Iron Man, make it a talking raccoon).

    Where Trek needs to go is back to the small screen. It’s needs to tell small stories of humanity in the face of adversary that Gene Roddenberry began with and continued in each successive show since the original series. I re-watch “Deep Space 9” and “Voyager”, and find there is some really good story telling going on. The arcs are absorbing, the premise remains true to speaking of humanity in the face of adversary. Even the concept of “Enterprise” was well done. I think the closest movie approach the Roddenberry vision on the big screen (other than the first motion picture) was “Insurrection”.

    Trek doesn’t need more explosions, lens flares and rehashed dialog. It needs to tell a story.

  12. I’ve been fiddling around in the industry for a few decades, am making my first (micro-budget) feature in 2015, and no way in hell I’d want BobO anywhere near my project, even if he offered to help for free. I’d gladly accept a bag of cash tossed in my direction though.
    Sincerely, One-Take Cosmo

  13. Nimoy said the portrayal of Spock changed because the actor playing the captain changed, and he was playing for contrast.

  14. I think the time travel reset was a smart way to get back to Trek basics without bowing to the continuity-obsessed minority. I like the look of the new version, as the best compromise between the original ideals and current aesthetics. I found the first reboot fairly enjoyable, but thought the script of Into Darkness was a terrible mess, a crazy “and then, and then” plot with clunky dialogue, which turned Kirk and Spock into a-holes. The first film also had kind of a nasty, aggressive tone to it, which I noticed was also present in the comic book adaptation, so the script is the likely source of the problem.

    New writer, new composer, please (would Bear McCreary be available?).

  15. I have this funny feeling that Paramount, Abrams, Orci, et al think there is too much talking in Hamlet and not enough action.
    As to this universe, it simply does not have the momentum to keep it going by just being the same kind of nonsensical action film which have been infecting theaters since Tom Cruise’s Mission Impossible proved making no sense and making money went together. Star Trek can end up like the Lone Ranger, or The Shadow, or other similar properties of value, but which really don’t have value at the moment: Trek doesn’t have to go on forever, and while a film is never going to be the best medium for it, a film simply cannot simply use the characters as generic action film pieces, or the franchise dies off in 20 years.
    Also as to the universe, it does need to a.) either reach closure with the previous one, or b.) be washed away completely as a bad idea that couldn’t be made to stick because it confused shallowness with success, of c.) do something else. So, in regards to a.), I will point out that the original Kirk still exists in the Abrams-verse, as does Guinan (in two places). Ignoring actor’s aging for a moment: Kirk–or an afterimage of him–is alive and well in the Nexus. As is the after-image of Picard. And the Nexus should still exist in the Abrams-verse. Probably too convoluted for a movie (though a quick Basil Exposition moment could maybe explain it all away), but the opportunity does exist. Of course, I don’t think Shatner can actually act anymore as anything but William Shatner, but perhaps the craftsman still has it in him to bring out the lean Kirk of old (and I don’t mean weight, I mean ‘eye of the tiger’ Kirk).

  16. Nothing. It’s just not Khan Noonien Singh. If you had understood my comment you wouldn’t pose such a stupid question.

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.