Tom Servo wrote:
Wow, he will be involved "in some capacity"
with a "possible"
third film as a "producer"
(executive, associate, producer in name only?). That statement says very little, really.
I'll take the reluctant testimony of a creative insider than the boiler-plate assurance of a studio suit in damage control mode.
You really like spinning everything just to fit your argument, don't you?
No, I just like being on the right side of the argument.
John Elway, for example, offered a similar noncommittal/lukewarm assurance last year when he stated that Tim Tebow would be the starting quarterback going into training camp for the Broncos. This was as much as he could really say, and even so, they still traded the Tebow-circus to the Jets before training camp.
And reluctant testimony (e.g., Orci) really is more valuable, because it cuts against the grain of the bias of the witness. If mom testifies that her baby is a saint and would never hurt anyone, we shrug, because we expect that mother would be biased to protect her child. When mom, however, reluctantly testifies that her son is violent and vicious, we take note that this is probably true for if she were to lie she would lie in the other direction.
More JJ from same link:
“There were the very early conversations and I quickly said that because of my loyalty to Star Trek, and also just being a fan, I wouldn’t even want to be involved in the next version of those things."
So much for loyalty. But hey, throw me a few million and I'll dump Star Trek as well.