devin faraci has own demons, but back in 2014 he reported that orci had bullied his way into the director's chair on his star trek 3.
Star Trek 4 Hits A Snag
- Thread starter Doc Mugatu
- Start date
What they canned the next Guardians movie? But if it's a money maker why?
I LOVE STID & ST BEYOND
It started with unearthed offensive tweets made by the director many years ago, and ended with some of the cast refusing to come back unless his story was used. Click!
I'm sure Disney will eventually make more Guardians of the Galaxy, but what form it will take is anyone's guess.
I get why Disney fired him but the cast want him back. Maybe they should protest if they feel that strongly about it but I doubt it. They will likely use his script and make changes.
I guess the larger reason for the whole success of Orc & Kurtzman was that they were always on time, professional, and finished their work under budget and according to the wishes of their superiours, and had an extremely large output every year.
They were never creative genuises, or really lauded for their art. But they were damn good craftsmen that delivered time and again.
Then Orci went completely off the rails. Pushing right-wing conspiracy theories on twitter, incorporating his truther-stuff into more and more of his work (Into Darkness is a great example - they pretty much rounded all the edges, but if you know it's in there, it's hard to overlook). But mostly he was probably seen as not reliant anymore - pushing hard to acquire a directors seat he was absolutely unqualified for, and then predictably not being able to deliver and being fired from the project - that shit burned millions of dollars.
Nobody really ever loved their work. But they were known for delivering their stuff, and at a LARGE output at that. Take that away - and there is just no reason to hire Orci anymore. Only the risk of loosing millions of dollars with him.
I'd so very happily trade Beyond for that
damnit orci why could you have just been content doing script and let someone else direct!
That theory always amused me with the haters. On one hand they claim they ripped off TWoK and on the other, they claim it was a movie about a conspiracy theory of 9/11 if memory serves. I always wished they'd make up their minds. Not that any of it makes a lick of sense to me, since I've seen quite a few Star Trek episodes across the board about dirty Admirals. Though to be fair, I really don't care if it is influenced by that since it makes for a good story.
What it boils down to is artist are influenced by what they find interesting. You don't have to agree with the artist beliefs or interest to find what they create entertaining. It's kinda the same thing with actors. You may not like who they are as a person but can still find the character they're playing believable. Or at least, I can. There is only one actor I can't watch without wanting to slap silly.
The film had a dedication to post-9/11 veterans in the credits, which makes it awkward that the film was written by a 9/11 Truther. One can try dismissing those 9/11 truther allusions Orci planted by pointing out the corrupt Admiral trope, but that just shows how clever Orci can be, using Trek tropes to shield his Truther messages. When can always debate the quality of his screenwriting abilities, but one can't deny how savvy he is at times.
I just wanna know where Orci's "magic blood" trope came from as he immediately reused it in THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2 with Harry Osborne needing Peter Parker's blood to cure himself of a genetic disorder. Funnily, I skipped out that movie in theaters because I had made the conscious decision then to just avoid anything written by Orci/Kurtzman as all of their work underwhelmed me. When I finally ended up seeing it a year later on cable, it turned out to be my favorite of their works! It's such a mess of a movie that I've come to enjoy it as a guilty pleasure. That wacky Hans Zimmer score certainly helps!
From what I understand, Orci&Co wrote TWO stories, one with Shatner and another with Kirk's dad. No clue they had anything in common, tbh. The studio rejected the first, but liked the second.** However, Orci left anyway for creative differences (or because he really was obsessed about bringing Shatner back, thus wanted that first script to be the movie)
**These informations were given over trekmovie in his comments. When the first story got rejected, he said they had a second one he loved too and hoped paramount would approve. My guess is they liked that second one and saved it for later.
In more recent time, he kept saying that failing to convince the studio to bring Shatner back is his biggest regret...
I'm not sure losing a job because of Shatner is entirely worth it. That guy doesn't even care. Judging by some comments by both on their pages, they surely share a 'borderline' character vibe.. I mean, it's telling I often wondered if their comments were written by trolls using their names.
And it's telling that Orci losing trek happened in the same time he divorced from Kurtzman as a writers duo. I doubt they aren't friends anymore, but the second is more successful right now in spite of his mummy movie flopping.
I honestly don't see the problem? Orci is a truther, Roddenberry was an adulterer, and so on.
Trek behind-the-scenes has never been a church social.
I never understood the need to dismiss or excuse Orci's beliefs regarding 9/11 and Into Darkness. Regardless of influences, Into Darkness, as a film, stands on its own, and if Orci wanted to put his beliefs in to it, more power to him.
The awkwardness isn't Orci being a truther alone but the combination of that and the 9/11 dedication at the end. That's just how I feel.
I don't see it. You can think something untoward happened on 9/11, and still want to honor those who fought afterward, even if under false pretense, they were still fighting for America.
Or, the dedication simply came from someone else involved in the film?
The notion that Orci bullied his way into the directing gig and wasted a lot of time and money at least would explain why he's been absent for so long now. He just ended up burning a lot of bridges. I have no idea of that also ruined his friendship with Kurtzman, that's more of a personal matter that doesn't concern everyone else, much like the friendship that broke between Moore and Braga had in 1999, though they seem to have patched it up by 2005 recording commentaries together.
Like I said, it just makes me feel awkward. Especially Khan using a starship to crash into a city.
Oh man, now I'm just imagining if Orci had his hands on some of the DS9 storylines with the changelings. I kinda wanna see what he would have done with them just for curisoity's sake.
Honestly, I don't think the casual viewer will see anything wrong there (stid 9/11 ), outside of those who are (rightfully) disappointed about the whitewashing which is another matter.
Trek had always been contemporary to its time and the political climate of it as well.. and in stid the message, allegory of our world, I see is that terrorism is bad but sometimes finding a real villain isn't as black&white as it might seem.. Khan is bad and he does despicable things, but Marcus (who is part of the group assumed as being 'the good guys' who should protect people) is as bad, if not more the villain of the story because it's people with the power he had that started it all and created, literally and methaphorically, Khan. It's also about desperation making people fragile (also see the starfleet officer who wanted to save his little girl): is there anything you wouldn't do to protect your family and those you love? Someone can take advantage of that. Then Kirk's speech in the end is like.. hate and revenge brings us nothing but darkness and we should try to not let it consume us and taint us (cue Spock's face in that scene where, I think, he was also thinking about his own hatred not only towards Khan but towards Nero destroying his world, and the loss of his mother)
Trek had always been contemporary to its time and the political climate of it as well.. and in stid the message, allegory of our world, I see is that terrorism is bad but sometimes finding a real villain isn't as black&white as it might seem.. Khan is bad and he does despicable things, but Marcus (who is part of the group assumed as being 'the good guys' who should protect people) is as bad, if not more the villain of the story because it's people with the power he had that started it all and created, literally and methaphorically, Khan. It's also about desperation making people fragile (also see the starfleet officer who wanted to save his little girl): is there anything you wouldn't do to protect your family and those you love? Someone can take advantage of that. Then Kirk's speech in the end is like.. hate and revenge brings us nothing but darkness and we should try to not let it consume us and taint us (cue Spock's face in that scene where, I think, he was also thinking about his own hatred not only towards Khan but towards Nero destroying his world, and the loss of his mother)
That's all a different matter. I can see why Cumberbatch was cast beyond those racial implications, because of his performance as Sherlock. In that show I can see what the producers might have seen, in that show he's much more like Montalban's Khan with his superiority complex, arrogance, and swagger, the only difference is that he doesn't have ambition to, ya know, rule as a dictator. Ultimately they went for a different take with the Khan in STID that Cumberbatch played the character with a more portentous bent.
Similar threads
