Orci Not Directing Star Trek 3

40 thoughts on “Orci Not Directing Star Trek 3”

1. The fact that this site, specializing in news about Star Trek, managed to get to this story about 24 hours after the rest of the Internet, speaks volumes about its value.

2. Huh? The news was out at least a day, maybe two, before being posted to news here. It was also being discussed on the Trek BBS here because of that news. That thread’s OP pointed here:

   http://deadline.com/2014/12/star-trek-roberto-orci-1201311255/

   Nothing against the news here – just that what you claim isn’t true.

3. Giving JJ Abrams 200 million bucks to make STD was one thing. Risking that kind of money on this dude was more than even Paramount could swallow.

4. It effectively removes the Kurtzman Orci Lindelof trio. Removing Lindelof after Lost, Khan 2 STD (nice acronym), and Prometheus was obvious. Yeah, yeah, he had other things to do. Sure, if that helps you feel better, think of it that way. But everyone else allowed Lindelof to convince them Khan was the way to go. Even Abrams isn’t doing Trek 3. Okay, there’s Star Wars, but isn’t that convenient. But that said, there hasn’t been a single Trek movie that has not been subject to derision in one form or another.

5. Surprising news? No, it was Paramount’s selection of Orci as director that was truly surprising, given that he had never previously directed a single television/film production. His dismissal means that someone at Paramount has finally woken up and realized that, with so much at stake, it was utter madness having a neophyte director (and 9/11 “truther”) at the helm of their Summer 2016 tentpole movie.

   I can only hope that his draft script is scrapped and that his role as “producer” (hopefully merely the result of a contractual obligation to Bad Robot Productions) ends up being more along the lines of the “executive consultant” role which Paramount offered Gene Roddenberry following Star Trek – The Motion Picture.

6. It’s a start. I wait to see what the studio does next before I get to excited. Bringing in Wright by the way isn’t the way to go. That’s guy’s movies lack the right tone for Star Trek.

7. Uh more like this site was waiting until it was actually CONFIRMED before making it a “news” item…go back to your blogs!

8. Thank f*ck for that. That’s all I can say.

9. At this point, this is kind of scary, if you think about it.

10. To be honest, after hearing that the story was going to be about undoing some of the damage that the Nutrek movies have caused, I’m bummed that it now sounds like they are going to move forward with this horrible new timeline. I want the old trekverse back. I wish they’d start a new TV show set in post TNG.

11. Yet here you are.
    I hardly pay attention to the franchise anymore. This site’s RSS feed still brings me more Trek news than I care to know about, and this is how I learned about this particular turn of events. My life wouldn’t be any different had I learned about this 24 hours ago.

12. Sounds like you’re too good for this website. Maybe you shouldn’t come back?

13. Jason, what did you hear just out of curiosity?

14. Wow, I totally misread Guest’s post. I read it as boasting that this site reported the news *before* the rest of the internet. So yeah, now I see it is saying the news came “after the rest of the internet.” That is true. This site is run by fans, some of them overly self-important fans (I’m looking at you M’Sharek (sp?) who want you to kneel before them. It never appears to be deeply enough involved with official productions to get truly inside scoops. So I suggest adjusting expectations that this site is just a site for and run by fans like you and me without any special status other than it’s the one we seem to have agreed by default to gather around.

15. Undoing the damage would be nice, as a fan. But it would also be seen as cowardly and lacking in commitment to their story. There would be strong criticism for hitting the reset button once again.

    But as much as I dislike saying it, Abramsverse Trek 3 will likely be the first Star Trek movie I will not see first at the theater. I will wait for a return to the hopeful and meaningful future of our own prime Universe where the story will actually matter and have relevance to us. It’s not just Trek, by the way. It’s the fatigue of Hollywood formula where every movie has the same recognizable formula so that if you just plug in the characters you know for any given story exactly what is going to happen beat for beat. When art becomes science, it’s not art.

16. And where did you hear it? Because I’ve never heard anything like that.

17. Could be worse!

18. They’re resetting, the Batman reset aren’t they?

19. I don’t think Jonathan Frakes/Nicolas Meyer are experienced enough or capable of handling something of this scope. They are from the old-school, low-budget, simpler times. I think, at least. As much as I’d like to see that, it isn’t realistic.

20. either way it goes star trek is dead as a franchise. long live star wars!!!!!!!!!!!

21. Why do you come here so often?

22. Between Cornish and Wright, I’d say Wright is the better choice. His style would be more consistent with that set by JJ, and while I don’t think he is a great Trek fan, his mate Simon could set him straight. Plus Wright/Pegg are still loved by UK actors and could bring any number of quality thespians on board.

23. Uh, I work M-F. It’s a one-woman operation. I heard about it yesterday and wrote up the article even though it was a weekend.

    You want me to work 24/7?

24. As I said above, I usually work M-F. I didn’t hear about this (being offline) until late last night, and even though I usually don’t work weekends, it was important enough to write it up.

    As for inside scoops, in this day and age, for Star Trek, they are rather rare. For the new films, Abrams et al. were very much about keeping things under wraps and letting out as little as possible.

25. Cowardly? Dude, movie making is a business. If something isn’t working, business change back from dumb changes all the time. Someone gets fired and they act like the mistake never happened.

26. Star Trek doesn’t work in the modern age of $200+ million pop corn movies. It’s better to bring it back to low budget and stop treating the franchise like it’s Batman or Spiderman. It’s not a comic book franchise, and there is nothing wrong with that.

27. The fans aren’t in the movie-making business. They criticize it.

28. I can say with some sympathy that I don’t expect you to work 24/7 at this. You’re probably a volunteer? I’m grateful for that even though I don’t enjoy the gossip news that comes along sometimes. I even think you shouldn’t impose a news quota on yourself. I think you’ve said you try to do five stories a week – something like that? I know it’s important to keep a site active, but a quota is probably expecting too much from volunteers.

29. I’m not talking about fans is the only flaw in your reasoning. It’s not odd for a business to make a course correction when it is clear something isn’t working or an old way of doing business really is proven to be better. Again, that isn’t just the business of making movies, that is business period which is ultimately what we are talking about here. The term “cowardly” is an off beat term to use in this case.

30. I agree that Star Trek is dead right now, but “long live Star Wars?” Really? Did JJ pay you to type that or something?

31. As someone who runs a fansite/podcast, I fully understand. Just keep doing your thing! 😀

32. I don’t do a news quota. I work 5 days a week unless a story is important (like this one was). Some days I do one article, and when the last movie came out, I think I did 9 or 10. That was some day! More often, it’s 2-4 a day.

    The only “gossip” I try to do is positive stuff. Like so-and-so is married, or so-and-so had a baby. I try to avoid the bad stuff like so-and-so is divorced and such, although if someone gets arrested (and it has happened), it’s news.

    With needing to have a story 5x a week and not much out there, I take when I can get! Plus – stuff that bores me (like ships) might interest you while stuff that interests me personally might bore you. So it’s hard to tell what readers might like. Hard news is only available during production and they dole it out very sparingly. Secrecy has always been the name of the game, whic is kind of a PITA for someone writing news!

33. I *am* talking about fans making those comments. If I were talking about the suits, I’d be using different language. Not sticking to their guns, or not having the guts and commitment to finishing what they started, but instead bail with a reset button, would undoubtedly get the same sort of criticisms from the same sort of fans who despise the overuse of the reset button in Trek lore, usually with the cliche of time travel.

    I’m NOT saying I don’t want a reset button on the destruction of Vulcan. I’m NOT saying I don’t want time travel. I’m NOT saying I don’t want Orci’s story and a Shatner/Nimoy visit to the film. I AM saying that the reset maneuver will get the same reaction that the abundance of resets have gotten in the past. I COULD NOT care less what the suits think because they are, on the whole, a cowardly bunch of yellow bellies with no imagination or creativity, and wholly without appreciation for talent, EXCEPT in the accounting department where no movie has ever made a profit, yet they are still investing and still in business. THAT is an amazing achievement.

34. …aaaannnd all you have to do is go see the latest news entry above this one with the reaction I predicted about time travel and the reset button to “go back to fix things.” These are fans’ reactions – not your studio suits.

35. because i can!!!!

36. no!!!! its just facts.

37. Well, I CAN go hang around a site dedicated to classic cars and shout non-sequiturs about how classic cars suck and people ought to go check out the new Teslas instead, but I don’t have that kind of time in the average day. Oh well.

38. OK, JJ, we got it, you hate Star Trek and you love Star Wars. Now go screw up the new star wars movie with shaky cam and lens flares.

39. The fact is star wars is a fantasy set in space. Star Trek was conceived as science fiction.

40. I agree completely. Trek is no superhero franchise and shouldn’t be treated as such.

Comments are closed.