Star Trek Beyond **SPOILERS FROM POST 566 ONWARD**

Thrill

Roberto Orci is said to be favorite to take over from J.J. Abrams.

After an aggressive lobbying campaign, Roberto Orci has emerged as the clear frontrunner to replace JJ Abrams and direct Paramount‘s third installment of the Star Trek series. I’m hearing they’re in talks. This comes after Orci parted company with longtime partner Alex Kurtzman (though they continue on TV projects).

This would amount to another first-time director taking on a massive project, which has been hit (Snow White And The Huntsman) and miss (Transcendence, John Carter, 47 Ronin).

http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/roberto-orci-frontrunner-to-helm-star-trek-3/

DrumSteve

Id love to see what someone like David Fincher would do with it... I cant help but feel this chap will mess it up.

Adamantium

Thrill wrote: »

Roberto Orci is said to be favorite to take over from J.J. Abrams.



http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/roberto-orci-frontrunner-to-helm-star-trek-3/

Antar Bolaeisk

Is Lindelo(l)f still involved?

I suppose it can't be any worse than the last one even if he is.

Basq

Giving a successful writer / producer his directorial debut with a franchise as big as this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFGfWrJR5Ck

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Adamantium

I wonder what Johnathon Frakes is doing these days (he has all the experience), and don't give me the excuse that he wouldn't know how to do modern CGI, the clown Orci can do now this supposedly and he has not even directed aside from sitting on a few boxes watching Abrams do his gig.

Hell call Ronald Moore who knows his sci fi and extraordinary drama (of all kinds).

I'd love it if they gave it a seasoned director out of left field, it'd be like tapping the brakes a little on the first two movies for the third (Kenneth Brannagh, Ron Howard)

BrookieD

Frakes is still directing, he did a very good episode of NCIS LA there a while ago. Brannagh and Howard are good calls but of those two i would take Brannagh over Howard. My choice going a little out there would be Ridley Scott, or Paul Greengrass

Goldstein

Pure Cronyism.

Lindelol, Kurtzman and Orci are all woeful. Heaven forbid they hire someone on merit over lobbying from their buddies.

humanji

I'm guessing it's a case of the studio wanting full control over the project. A first time director will do what he's told and take the blame if the film flops.

Antar Bolaeisk

Basq wrote: »

Giving a successful writer / producer his directorial debut with a franchise as big as this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFGfWrJR5Ck

This will be Kirk's line in the third film.

SarahBM

Brannagh!!! Let's start a campaign!!!

nyarlothothep

If the new film sucks I think this could spell the end for Star Trek in its current incarnation, which I think might be a good thing. The problem with Star Trek reboot is that it's part of the remake culture. And then it went into the we're going to make everything dark and dramatic film culture of the current era which was fairly unoriginal. I think Star Trek as a premise just doesn't fit into the culture of the early 00s with its positive message and somewhat detached intellectualism, which is great because 00s culture is terrible compared to 60s-90s.

SarahBM

agreed. I love the Star Trek version of the future as opposed to all this dystopian scenarios that we have now like the walking dead etc.

I have to say I really love the reboot, but I am like others worried that it will get darker and more sinister instead of what we like, as trekkies, idealism and the moral filled stories.

Like, what's wrong with the good guys beating the bad guys.

nyarlothothep

People seem to associate darkness/cynicism with more adult storylines and higher drama. But this is a bit simplistic because you can have precisely the same adult storylines in a show like TNG, probably moreso, because it's focused on abstract concepts/theories. However this doesn't fly nowadays.

Adamantium

People talk of Star Trek being a multi-millionare dollar blockbuster franchise, but Trek was never really that popular before the Abrams movies

Trek does seem sort of ill-fiting for today's zeitgeist.

So the question, should they lay the franchise for a decade or so and wait for the general zeitgeist to change towards a more hopeful one or continue in something to the vein of Battlestar Galactica (which I think is the most extraordinary brave and complete story I've seen on film/tv)

It needs to return to TV in some form anyway, but when?

To the poster talking about 60-90's culture ,I sympathise. Watch this prophetic review and why people who loved these movies and characters/actors and how we had YEARS of back story to make them seem authentic aka not phony or insincere

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO-4cQwjLiU

SarahBM

you would never be able to get the current incarnation of the Enterprise crew to agree to a tv series when they are all more or less hollywood A listers. They couldnt commit to a series unless it was like a 10 parter or something

Admldj

Really hope they close the loop in the next movie and restore the original timeline, leave this trilogy for what it is a trio of summer popcorn flicks, then put some time and effort into a new tv series set after voyager, cant understand why studios go for prequels

SarahBM

Admldj wrote: »

Really hope they close the loop in the next movie and restore the original timeline, leave this trilogy for what it is a trio of summer popcorn flicks, then put some time and effort into a new tv series set after voyager, cant understand why studios go for prequels

I for one loved Voyager, would love to know what happened after they got back to Earth. Obviously the Federation would have changed a bit in the 7 years they were gone.
If possible incorporate some of the crews from Voyager and DS9. perhaps TNG.

am I dreaming?!?! yes, yes I am.

I have to defend the JJ Abrams films though. I really loved them

Sad Professor

I can’t see Paramount handing a 250 million dollar budget to a first-time director.

I re-watched Into Darkness on Blu-ray recently and it’s really good. Maybe not as good as it could have been. I would have preferred a deeper, more ambitious middle act over the very safe, standalone effort that we got. But in a franchise that has been plagued by mediocrity for the last 20 years, beggars can’t be choosers. Abrams made the two best Trek film since Meyer left the franchise.

Admldj

Enjoyed them myself ,but they've lost the plot now ,no need for starships with the transwarp beaming and a cure for death ,oh and leave khan and his mates in storage thats a great idea!

Adamantium

Sad Professor wrote: »

I can’t see Paramount handing a 250 million dollar budget to a first-time director.

I re-watched Into Darkness on Blu-ray recently and it’s really good. Maybe not as good as it could have been. I would have preferred a deeper, more ambitious middle act over the very safe, standalone effort that we got. But in a franchise that has been plagued by mediocrity for the last 20 years, beggars can’t be choosers. Abrams made the two best Trek film since Meyer left the franchise.

I was genuinely excited that midway

Khan was going to team up (permanently) with the crew of the Enterprise and prove that things would be different in this timeline

I couldn't express how disappointed when he reverted to the well trodden villian path and then when Scotty goes you

"better get down here,...better hurry",

I think it was the only time ever actually threw my hands up in the air and around my head in the cinema going "No....No! You....Don't you dare"


I'm used of shallow moments in blockbusters but,
As Spock ran I thought "This can't be real, they wouldn't have the gall"

"No, NO"

"OH HE SAID"

"YOU'VE ONLY JUST GONE THERE AND DONE IT"

The day nostalgia (sorry creativity for the PR execs) died.

A whole galaxy and there is nothing else you could have done? Thought of, really?

That being said I really enjoyed the movie. :pac:

Adamantium

The sad truth is Star Trek can't be about sci-fi in the movies, simply becasue sci-fi is about ideas

Most people can't get past rubber heads and makeup. Most people don't look into their stories for allegory or lessons unless its you know "my family are kidnapped, the suspense of what I would do"

Some want ideas, most want entertainment.


Yet that's storytelling what is all about, and served a serious purpose when we couldn't write down. The allegory for me is the most interesting part.


And people are not interested in that "detached intellectualism", if they were The Wire and BSG would two of the most popular TV shows for the whole populace of all time and not just critical darlings.

So in order for Trek to be in movies and consequently make money, it has to be something less than it could be


We just got Transcendence, not the greatest movie, but what was going on there was 100 times more Star Trek than anything we have received in the movies lately, and look at how poorly it has done (probably will be a loss), because it had the courage of its convictions. Sad.

Actually get Wally Pfiester for ST.

nyarlothothep

Adamantium wrote: »

The sad truth is Star Trek can't be about sci-fi in the movies, simply becasue sci-fi is about ideas

Most people can't get past rubber heads and makeup. Most people don't look into their stories for allegory or lessons unless its you know "my family are kidnapped, the suspense of what I would do"

Some want ideas, most want entertainment.


Yet that's storytelling what is all about, and served a serious purpose when we couldn't write down. The allegory for me is the most interesting part.


And people are not interested in that "detached intellectualism", if they were The Wire and BSG would two of the most popular TV shows for the whole populace of all time and not just critical darlings.

So in order for Trek to be in movies and consequently make money, it has to be something less than it could be


We just got Transcendence, not the greatest movie, but what was going on there was 100 times more Star Trek than anything we have received in the movies lately, and look at how poorly it has done (probably will be a loss), because it had the courage of its convictions. Sad.

Actually get Wally Pfiester for ST.

Well in films I agree that it's a sad trend. The 60s/70s were meant to be a golden era for high minded cinema, Lucas et al changed that with big budget tentpole films which leads to the design by committee problem which is the bane of all good art and that's where we're at now. People want instant gratification because that's what they're being fed. What started out as something that could compliment the culture of film-making has come to dominate it, it's a monopoly, monopolies engender stagnation. So we get remakes and reboots and get frustrated with the cliched and nonsensical plotlines and bland characters which are designed to appeal to as many people as possible to recoup the budget and make a profit. I think there is a place for intellectualism in tv, I think BSG and The Wire are fairly succesful to the extent that they got renewed (not sure on that one) but it's a much more forgiving environment than film. Star Trek was and has been a multi million dollar franchise, the films made some pretty good profits on their original budgets which weren't that big either, First Contact was quite successful, TNG was massive in the 90s apparently. As long as the story is told well then people won't run away from it because it hurts their brains as it were. The Inner Light is one example of just an awesome piece of scriptwriting, sure you have to give it about 10 mins to get sucked in, of course it's far too placid and dry for today's culture which demands T&A in addition to maybe a speech explaining clearly the central conceit of the show for artistic worthy credpoints. It seems like today's culture is like the nadir of the corporatisation of artistic creativity itself.

Adamantium

You know what was a great Star Trek film, Master and Commander: Far Side of the World.

The sense of being out there exploring, and isolated in the southern oceans with no help , was akin to a really claustrophobic, explorative, yet somehow relaxing Star Trek film. It feels much longer than it is, in the best possible way

There were

ship tactics, weather conditions, land falls on the Galapagos islands ( so an alien planet basically), chasing a mysterious vessel, repairs at sea

There are

only two big engagements (amazing) in the film and loads of other day to stuff happens in between, that really fleshes it all, a day in the life basically. The movie breathes and you're happy to go along with it.

An great "guy" friendship between the surgeon (Paul Bettany) and his ship's captain Russell Crowe,That movie is based upon conflict of ideals between a ship's captain and his friend, the ship's surgeon.
Yet it's never played for melodrama and it feels like two people you'd imagine would end up working together and rely on each other in order to get **** done.

I really like the last two films but they're just hamfisted and Spielbergian in their execution a lot of the time. It seems like the only thing they can do every situation do is to grab the knob marked 'DRAMA' and twist it all the way open until it breaks.

Adamantium

nyarlothothep wrote: »

addition to maybe a speech explaining clearly the central conceit of the show for artistic worthy credpoints.

THIS, HERE, is what grinds my gears about the scripts that are put into production today.
They never go there, or carry their convictions through, lip service at most.

Prequel culture means we never get there.

It's why both films ended on a speech of exploration, which made me think "Hmmh, so why didn't they just begin the movie at that part". Its a soft touch approach, to avoid the heavy lifting.

In Iron Man 1, it ends with

"I'm Iron Man"

, ok now I want to see what happens to Tony Stark. Begin your movie.

It's one of the reasons I'm delighted about Episode VII, is that they're moving forward unto uncharted territory.

Decided to rewatch Into Darkness this afternoon and really enjoyed it. It remains one of the most thrilling Blockbusters in quite sometime and while it's reluctance to slow down and take a breath robs the film of much it's still damn good fun. All the talk of being dark and gritty really doesn't wash, there is little in either of Abrams films which could be called overtly dark or gritty, sure the stories go places past Trek may not and the world and universe is a little less enticing but over all it retains the spirit of the show and the sequel sees characters genuinely excited about exploring the unknown.

Adamantium

http://www.blastr.com/2014-3-21/star-trek-3-writer-drops-first-intriguing-clues-about-next-movies-plot

So I'll bite the bullet and say that Orci will turn out be a fantastic director like Niall Bloakamp directing his first film, District 9. :pac:

I don't know if this is relevant, but I feel it would be wrong to leave it out; Orci is a 9/11 truther and Boston bombing false flag believer, and Payne and his co-writer are strong Mormons, we might be getting a few thinly veiled message coming through in the film. How could we not? Write what you know after all? I honestly wouldn't mind this at all

I don't what movie we're going to get on the 50th anniversary, honestly

They plan on moving forward from any origin, earthboundstuff and focusing on exploration and the unknown

Payne said:

We're trying to set up a kind of situation where you really could — and not in just an 'everything's relative' sort of moral relativism — you could be a good person of any creed or philosophical background and come down on both sides of how you should respond to this opportunity that the crew has.... that also has some pitfalls to it. Where you could argue very, very, very compellingly that 'this' is what you should do, and if you're advocating 'this' then it's actually evil.
It's sort of the Adam and Eve thing, where should we eat the fruit or not eat the fruit? Well, there are some very compelling reasons why they should and why they shouldn't. So, similar kinds of things here that really give the whole movie and opportunity to sort of play with that, and have people come down on different sides and wrestle with it; then come to an ending where you can walk out and say, 'You know, I don't know what I would do.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6_ltbBGWxM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnOmQrCVaq0

Oafley Jones

Adamantium wrote: »

I don't know if this is relevant, but I feel it would be wrong to leave it out; Orci is a 9/11 truther and Boston bombing false flag believer

I'm looking forward to the press campaign of this film. Orci isn't just toxic because of his terrible writing. It's also his idiocy and it'll be front and centre with a directing gig. I can't see paramount keeping him muzzled. It will blow up on them.

Greyjoy

Deleted User wrote: »

All the talk of being dark and gritty really doesn't wash, there is little in either of Abrams films which could be called overtly dark or gritty

Really? Into Darkness has a suicide bomber blowing up a secret Starfleet Black Ops lab full of personnel and in the movie's final act you have an action scene where crowds of people flee in terror as a gigantic starship plows through buildings in San Francisco.

Adamantium

Adamantium wrote: »

I don't know if this is relevant, but I feel it would be wrong to leave it out; Orci is a 9/11 truther and Boston bombing false flag believer, and Payne and his co-writer are strong Mormons, we might be getting a few thinly veiled message coming through in the film. How could we not? Write what you know after all? I honestly wouldn't mind this at all

Oafley Jones wrote: »

I'm looking forward to the press campaign of this film. Orci isn't just toxic because of his terrible writing. It's also his idiocy and it'll be front and centre with a directing gig. I can't see paramount keeping him muzzled. It will blow up on them.

Who cares what either believes, just because they may have beliefs which aren't the norm does not mean that it will come though in their work. Orson Scott Card has some horrible old fashioned views and many people went out of their way to paint the Ender's Game film as some celebration of his "toxic" views but it simply wasn't true. Most writers are extremely opinionated and have staunch viewpoints but most can ignore it when writing.

Greyjoy wrote: »

Really? Into Darkness has a suicide bomber blowing up a secret Starfleet Black Ops lab full of personnel and in the movie's final act you have an action scene where crowds of people flee in terror as a gigantic starship plows through buildings in San Francisco.

Come on, two small scenes hardly implies that it was either dark or gritty. Perhaps if we had scene after scene of misery and death then the dark and gritty tag may fit but honestly Into Darkness is a pretty safe Blockbuster. The mid section is where it could have gotten a little dark but they played it safe.

ziedth

Personally I really liked the first one and enjoyed into the darkness for what it was. I'd like to see them take a bit of a risk with the third one. Kill off a main character kind of thing.

Like what has been said above I'd love another show more then a film. Mix of DS9 and Voyager sounds like a winner. Wasn't a huge fan of Voyager at the time I much preferred DS9 but it had some pretty good episodes.

Yeti Beast

Like others have said/hinted at, I kinda hope the next movie fails. Then give it a few years and bring Star Trek back to the small screen where it belongs.

Adamantium

Thrill wrote: »

Roberto Orci is said to be favorite to take over from J.J. Abrams.



http://www.deadline.com/2014/05/roberto-orci-frontrunner-to-helm-star-trek-3/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np9Hb9IrhaI

Cookie_Monster

At the very least it should cut down on the non stop lense flair, plus it really can't be any worse than the previous two...

Myrddin

Adamantium wrote: »

Trek does seem sort of ill-fiting for today's zeitgeist.

That's exactly it. I liked the reboot movies, but I didn't feel there was much in the way of 'Star Trek' in them, they were homages maybe, dressed up to appeal to modern tastes. I suppose being big screen blockbusters, that's fair enough...a lot was riding on the success of the movies, & risks were likely not part of the plan. They were better movies than any of the TNG films I feel, so while it's a step in the right direction, I'm not sure where the rails can possibly take Star Trek this time.

Todays tv culture is so different to how it was when Star Trek was in its prime. People have different expectations from shows these days, than they did in the 90's...the message is different. I don't see Star Trek returning to the small screen any time soon, & if it does, I'd worry that the basic premise of Star Trek is just too different to what is expected today, and that the two are just inherently incompatible.

Adamantium

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

At the very least it should cut down on the non stop lense flair, plus it really can't be any worse than the previous two...

No.

Adamantium

So that's that then , it's official.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-to-direct-star-trek-3-1201180140/

C'mon everybody, it's alright, it's going be ok (lies), have a clip. Things aren't so bad now, are they?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avTfiRccYIA

I just realised Chris Pine has directed a film before, but not Orci!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU

Goodnight.

Thrill

Trek 3 director: 'Sequel will be closer to original series'

Orci said that the next adventure will take place in "deep space".

"In I]Into Darkness[/I they set out finally where the original series started. The first two films - especially the 2009 I]Star Trek[/I - was an origin story.

"It was about them coming together. So they weren't the characters they were in the original series. They were growing into them and that continues on in the second movie."

He added: "So in this movie they are closer than they are to the original series characters that you have ever seen. They have set off on their five-year mission. So their adventure is going to be in deep space."

Star Trek 3 is expected to be released in 2016 to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the science fiction series.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/news/a580844/star-trek-3-director-sequel-will-be-closer-to-original-series.html?utm_source=twt&utm_medium=snets&utm_campaign=twitter

Cookie_Monster

tenuous, closer to the original as they'll be in deep space, right... Not closer in terms of character focus, or being plot driven rather than a simple minded explosionfest I am going to assume

Bacchus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

tenuous, closer to the original as they'll be in deep space, right... Not closer in terms of character focus, or being plot driven rather than a simple minded explosionfest I am going to assume

In fairness, it's a new director so the is room for some hope of change. Not that I didn't enjoy the first two but they were more action than "Star Trek".

I genuinely don't get the hate for the newest incarnations of Star Trek - as someone who has grown up watching the numerous series (all bar Enterprise, but that's because even I thought it was muck) and whose happiest childhood memories were from watching Next Generation as a child, I thoroughly enjoyed them. It was so good to get a proper blockbuster Star Trek movie because, truth be told, most of them bar Wrath of Khan and First Contact weren't the best. And sure, there could have been less lens flare, but that aside, Abrams made a good movie.

The guy knows movies and you can tell he loves them through every single one he makes.

Agent Coulson

William Shatner, who played Captain James T. Kirk in the original '60s series and movies, says J.J. Abrams contacted him about the 2016 film, part of a rebooted big screen series that stars 34-year-old Chris Pine as his character, following recent rumors. Abrams directed the first two new movies in the hit sci-fi franchise and serves as a producer for the third, which is being helmed by Roberto Orci. Abrams has not commented.

http://uk.eonline.com/news/583452/william-shatner-to-appear-in-star-trek-3-original-captain-kirk-responds-to-rumors

Cookie_Monster

how can they jam him in at that age, he's already dead when he's 20 years younger!
:rolleyes:

bnt

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how can they jam him in at that age, he's already dead when he's 20 years younger!
:rolleyes:

Oh, I imagine quite a few people have forgotten Star Trek: Generations ... I can't believe that was twenty years ago already.

Zubeneschamali

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

how can they jam him in at that age, he's already dead when he's 20 years younger!

That never happened in the new continuity, of course. Only old future Spock remembers that.

But we learned in Into Darkness that Spock and Kirk have changed roles in the new continuity, with Kirk dying and Spock yelling KHAAAAAN!, so presumably in the new continuity it is Spock who is played by a fat bald ham actor, and future Kirk will end up thin and logical. So if Shatner is in Trek 3, he'll be playing alternate future Spock, not Kirk.

astrofool

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That never happened in the new continuity, of course. Only old future Spock remembers that.

But we learned in Into Darkness that Spock and Kirk have changed roles in the new continuity, with Kirk dying and Spock yelling KHAAAAAN!, so presumably in the new continuity it is Spock who is played by a fat bald ham actor, and future Kirk will end up thin and logical. So if Shatner is in Trek 3, he'll be playing alternate future Spock, not Kirk.

Like blowing the timeline up like a balloon!

JP Liz V1

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-exits-star-trek-3-1201372245/


Orci not directing now

OldeCinemaSoz

Whatever happened to THE COLOR in the ST films? After all,
the best reason in the world to buy a COLOR TV, back in '60s
America, was STAR TREK.

Now it's all DUMBED DOWN TERRIBLE GREY HUED COLORS...

Goldstein

At this stage who cares which run of the mill director/writer the next generic space action movie has. Give it to Michael Bay. He'll make loads of money for them.

Antar Bolaeisk

bnt wrote: »

Oh, I imagine quite a few people have forgotten Star Trek: Generations ... I can't believe that was twenty years ago already.

Eurgh, thanks for that

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/roberto-orci-exits-star-trek-3-1201372245/

Orci not directing now

Great, now can they remove him from script duties as well please?