Star Trek Beyond

[Aberration]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Yeah, no way that's going to happen. They're not going to hand a $200M movie to someone who's never directed before, and he's not THAT valuable to the franchise like a Shatner or Nimoy. (And I'm seeing even they directed some television before helming their respective Trek films.) He should've started by directing on any of the handful of TV shows he produces.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Come on Paramount, there has to be someone more qualified in Hollywood who can steer this Star Trek sequel in a better direction.

I really don't see how that would make much of a difference. Despite telling fans to F off and calling yours truly a crack head for a non-harsh comment that wasn't even directed towards him, having him direct the film is the least of my worries. My worry is that he's still part of the writing process. Not even a critically acclaimed, academy award winning director can make a bad script work, and Roberto Orci gets away with so many of those.

But to be fair, this roster of talent is already better than the one we got with Star Trek Into Darkness. Not having JJ Abrams direct is a pretty big one since he never really showed any admiration for the source material and thinks that showing a lot of women half naked is ok as long as you do the same with the men... even if their footage wound up being cut. I also can't imagine anyone being disappointed in Damon Lindelof's departure since a lot of what made Into Darkness problematic was his doing, even at Roberto's own admission. He was the one who pushed to make the character who wasn't Khan KHAN and thought that the best way to get audiences interested in a franchise about space travel is to have most of the film's important events take place on Earth. This could all change as things develop, but I can't imagine being it being worse.

 

[Bryancd]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Despite telling fans to F off and calling yours truly a crack head for a non-harsh comment that wasn't even directed towards him

I actually thought that was pretty funny.

 

[CessnaDriver]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

All i want is a good new Trek series back on TV for the 50th at this point.
Ed Wood can resurrect and direct JJ Trek-like product III. I doubt anyone could tell the difference.

 

[jlee562]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Even I don't want Orci to direct the next one!

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Even I don't want Orci to direct the next one!

You're wish has been granted!

Roberto Orci to Direct ‘Star Trek 3′ (EXCLUSIVE)

You did say you wanted Orci to direct the next one, right?..... Oh,

 

[jlee562]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Ugh. Really? I mean, I like the JJverse films for what they are, but the anniversary deserves something spectacular. Good enough isn't gonna cut it.

 

[jmaerker]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

A trained Rhesus Monkey would be a better choice that that no-talent hack Orci.

 

[Vivek]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Paramount Hires Guy With No Directing Experience For STAR TREK 3 | Badass Digest
Devin weighs on this decision by Paramount.

devincf: "JJ Abrams supported Orci doing TREK 3 in order to guarantee no one made a better movie than his.

What must it be like to be a Trekkie like Orci is, to get the keys to the kingdom and yet be aware most other fans hate you?

Has Orci even directed a commercial or a music video or a wedding video?

Women directors who have actually directed things can't get blockbuster jobs but Orci never directs ANYTHING and gets STAR TREK 3.

Literally Paramount is saying a man with no experience is better than any experienced woman in Hollywood. "

 

[cayman shen]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Though I was initially excited about JJ's new Trek in 2009, STID soured me on him, big time. I realized he just doesn't get ST. So in my mind, any new director will do.

 

[The Terminator]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

How about for the next Trek film they get everyone back for the 50th anniversary? When I say everyone I mean everyone: Kirk, Wesley, Picard, Ensign Harry Kim, Sisko.... everyone
It won't ever happen but, you never know.

I realized he just doesn't get ST.

That is what the man himself have said.

 

[ProfKSergeev]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

You're (sic) wish has been granted!

Roberto Orci to Direct ‘Star Trek 3′ (EXCLUSIVE)

I'm forced to agree with Crow T. Robot that a severely impaired box turtle with a very busy schedule could do a better job than Orci.

 

[Riceball]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

I wouldn't say that this next Trek movie will be an automatic disaster simply based on Orci directing it, it also depends a lot on the writing team. So long as Lindeloff isn't on the writing team then this movie might have a chance at being decent, but if Lindeloff is doing any of the writing then this movie will almost certainly suck. Because if you really want a name that ruins movies it's Lindeloff, just think about some of the most controversial movies that have been discussed here in the past few years in which a lot of people here ripped on as being bad despite the love for the franchise that it's based one, what's the one thing they all have in common? They were all at least co-written by Lindeloff, think about it, Prometheus, New Trek 1 & 2, all ripped on heavily here and he had his hands on all and don't forget his involvement with LOST which also gets a lot of hate.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

I wouldn't say that this next Trek movie will be an automatic disaster simply based on Orci directing it, it also depends a lot on the writing team. So long as Lindeloff isn't on the writing team then this movie might have a chance at being decent, but if Lindeloff is doing any of the writing then this movie will almost certainly suck. Because if you really want a name that ruins movies it's Lindeloff, just think about some of the most controversial movies that have been discussed here in the past few years in which a lot of people here ripped on as being bad despite the love for the franchise that it's based one, what's the one thing they all have in common? They were all at least co-written by Lindeloff, think about it, Prometheus, New Trek 1 & 2, all ripped on heavily here and he had his hands on all and don't forget his involvement with LOST which also gets a lot of hate.

Damon Lindelof may be a bad writer with backwards thinking ideas (Star Trek needs to spend more time on Earth!), but he knows when to keep his mouth shut. After Breaking Bad ended, he closed his twitter account not because of something he said, but because fans of LOST were railing on him again over LOST's ending by saying how Breaking Bad did a much better job. That was it.

Roberto Orci's behavior towards fans is not only unprofessional and full of hypocrisy, his defenses clearly shows that he doesn't get why fans are having a hard time with the current state of Star Trek. When trekmovie.com posted an article called "Star Trek is Broken", a non-hostile critique at the current state of Star Trek and how it could be a huge thing again, Roberto Orci had this to say.

I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.

Having said that, two biggest Star Treks in a row with best reviews is hardly a description of “broken.” And frankly, your tone and attidude make it hard for me to listen to what might otherwise be decent notions to pursue in the future. Sorry, Joseph. As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.

Respect all opinions, always, nonetheless.

Bob should know right off the bat that this article wasn't about how his movies broke Star Trek, but how his movies are the ONLY NEW STAR TREK MATERIAL that we will probably ever get to see for a long time. For a franchise that has done so much with it's hugely diverse universe (And can certainly do a heck of a lot more), Star Trek should be in a position where the writers can write a story that isn't solely built around action. Now you can argue that the new movies have drama, comedy, romance and action, but that only makes the "broken" aspect of Star Trek more apparent. When it was on TV, Star Trek was able to tell stories that didn't require it to have all of those genres crammed into one story. There are episodes of Star Trek that don't even have any action scenes, episodes that are delightful comedies, episodes that are thoughtfully suspenseful and episodes that are cold-heartedly dramatic. Since these movies are geared towards an audience who don't know anything about Star Trek to the point that JJ said you don't need the last film to get this one, I think it's likely that we're just going to get another product that tries to do all the things Star Trek has done and cram it into one story.

 

[Zombie_61]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

...Star Trek should be in a position where the writers can write a story that isn't solely built around action. Now you can argue that the new movies have drama, comedy, romance and action, but that only makes the "broken" aspect of Star Trek more apparent. When it was on TV, Star Trek was able to tell stories that didn't require it to have all of those genres crammed into one story. There are episodes of Star Trek that don't even have any action scenes, episodes that are delightful comedies, episodes that are thoughtfully suspenseful and episodes that are cold-heartedly dramatic...

The difference here is that the television series had more time to play with the various notions presented within--79 hour-long episodes spread out over a three-year period; so far J.J. has only had a little over four hours. Also, Paramount didn't want a duplicate of the television series--they wanted to bring in new fans who never "got" Star Trek.

To be clear, I'm not attempting to defend J.J.'s Trek movies; they are what they are. And yes, Star Trek had it's "lighter" episodes. But the best episodes convinced audiences to examine and question society's way of thinking about various aspects of life--racism, sexism, morals, virtues, the acquisition of wealth, war, beliefs (religious and otherwise), etc.--presented through the characters' words and actions, and even the movies with the original cast dropped that ball most of the time. So if the original series is the benchmark, Star Trek was broken long before Abrams and/or Orci got their hands on it.

That said, I don't think it's possible to re-capture the things that made Star Trek such a phenomenon in the first place. The show and the people involved in it's creation were very much a product of that time, and times have changed.

 

[Jeyl]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

The difference here is that the television series had more time to play with the various notions presented within--79 hour-long episodes spread out over a three-year period

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that when I said that Star Trek "was on TV" that I was making the exact same point you made there. I didn't know that Star Trek as a television series was different than Star Trek as a television series. Now I know...?

The show and the people involved in it's creation were very much a product of that time, and times have changed.

And yet when JJ and his court decided that instead of creating a new crew and a new scenario that would better reflect the change in the times, they elected to not only go with the original crew but also embrace the very elements of the original series' time period. We've got an almost entirely male crew with the exception of their token female character who mans the most useless station on the bridge (Which by the way is one of three communication stations on the bridge. Don't forget Hannity and Chekov) while also wearing a short sleeved, short skirted uniform that doesn't even show her rank. And to top it all off, she's romantically involved with one of the male leads. If this movie thought this was a new, clever thing they were doing, Deep Space Nine already did that 12 freaking years before Trek09 with Worf and Dax, who by the way were pure blooded members of their own species and not a human dating a half human.

So if the original series is the benchmark, Star Trek was broken long before Abrams and/or Orci got their hands on it.

Star Trek was definitely broken before Trek09 was even conceived. No arguments there. But I'm not the kind of fan who uses the original series as a "benchmark" to judge every other series in terms of quality of it's characters and/or story telling. There are many areas in "The Next Generation" that put their second tier cast members to much better use than TOS ever did, and Deep Space Nine showed a huge interest in exploring and expanding other alien cultures that make up the Star Trek universe rather than reducing them to "monsters of the week".

 

[AJTaliesen]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

Honestly, I'm surprised so many here could even tolerate the garbage that JJ Abrams released as Star Trek. A forum known for people who look at details and re-watching movies over and over.

I loved the first Star Trek reboot...the first time I saw it. The second time I noticed some holes. By the third viewing the whole plot fell apart.. Into Darkness didn't even survive the entire first viewing before the plot collapsed like a flan in the cupboard.

In part 3 are they even going to have ships? In two movies they've established that transporters can not only transport between systems, but hit pinpoint a ship at warp, that's been moving directly away from you for hours. Why even bother building them anymore? Also, since Vulcan was destroyed and the human race only consists of about 50 people total (why else would you need to make a midshipman captain of the flagship, demote him back to midshipmen, invite him to meetings of the joint chiefs, then make him captain of the flagship again. This really only makes sense if there's literally no one else on the planet capable of walking in shoes without falling down).

 

[Ronan87]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!

The last 2 Star Trek movies weren't good? When the heck did that happen? I thought people really liked them... and who the heck is 'Orci'?...

 

[Zombie_61]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

I'm sorry. I was under the impression that when I said that Star Trek "was on TV" that I was making the exact same point you made there. I didn't know that Star Trek as a television series was different than Star Trek as a television series. Now I know...?

Yeah, sorry, I didn't quite get that impression when I read your post above. But my point was more about the time allowed to develop characters and storylines in a television series that lasted three seasons versus the time allowed to try to do the same thing in two two-hour movies. It might have helped if Abrams had a better understanding of the characters and what made the original series tick, but since Paramount wanted to reboot canon along with the franchise it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

And yet when JJ and his court decided that instead of creating a new crew and a new scenario that would better reflect the change in the times, they elected to not only go with the original crew but also embrace the very elements of the original series' time period...

The problem with this is in thinking it was Abrams' idea and that he somehow had absolute control. He wasn't much more than a director-for-hire; it was the suits at Paramount who wanted to reboot the franchise using the characters from the original series, and he was just giving them what they wanted. To be clear, I'm not trying to be deliberately argumentative here, I'm just pointing out something you may have overlooked.

Star Trek was definitely broken before Trek09 was even conceived. No arguments there. But I'm not the kind of fan who uses the original series as a "benchmark" to judge every other series in terms of quality of it's characters and/or story telling. There are many areas in "The Next Generation" that put their second tier cast members to much better use than TOS ever did, and Deep Space Nine showed a huge interest in exploring and expanding other alien cultures that make up the Star Trek universe rather than reducing them to "monsters of the week".

I am the kind of fan who uses the original series as a benchmark because a) that's what started the phenomenon and the franchise, and b) in my opinion none of the spin-off series were nearly as good as it was...what I saw of them, anyway. Not that the original series was perfect--far from it--but it had a quality that the spin-off series' lacked.

 

[Risu]

Re: New STAR TREK 3

I just checked out JD Payne and Patrick McKay on IMDB, am I reading this right? Neither of them have any writing credits? So we get Orci directing AND writing with two guys who haven't written anything before? I mean, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll suck, but I do think it gives Orci an overwhelming ability to overrule them on everything. Meaning the movie will essentially be completely made by Orci. Not looking good.