Orci Interview Re: Trek XI

[Lapis Exilis]

My only point to "belabor" is that Orci's filmwriting credits are The Island, The Legend of Zorro, and Transformers. If someone would like to explain to me what was entertaining or intelligent about any of those flicks, I'll be happy to listen.

Well...to YOU they might not have been entertaining...

Obviously to me. Who else would I have been talking about?

but I liked Zorro and I like Transformers, and last I looked? They both out drew more than three times as much as the last two TREK movies...

Well, you must not have looked lately because Zorro made all of $3 million dollars more than Nemesis ($46M to $43M - plainly Zorro was a raging success), and Transformers made nearly 7 times as much as Nemesis - which I'm sure you can chalk up to its brilliant, insightful screenwriting.

so what is your point???

Um, what I said? That Orci's work doesn't do anything for me. Why does everyone get so hysterical just because I've expressed an opinion that is more nuanced than "This movie looks FULLY AWESOME!"?

To have another BERMAN trek??? Direct to DVD? or not star trek at all...

There are other options besides this or Berman Trek (and early Berman Trek, much as everyone likes to forget it, was some of the best - TNG seasons 3 & 4). What's wrong with direct to DVD? There's already been nothing worth the name Star Trek in 8 years, and I made it through the long, dry years between 1970 and 79 and 79 to 86 when there was no Trek - it's really not as horrific as you might imagine. The rivers do not dry up, people do not die with black boils on their faces and civilization does not fall. I could actually live just fine if no Star Trek was ever produced again.

The main goal of this movie, incase you haven't guessed, is to make TREK more mainstream...meaning..more like TRANSFORMERS and lest like Nemesis...if you prefer Star Trek movies like Nemesis then you are out of luck...


Rob
Scorpio

Again, to think that because I said I find Orci's work mediocre this means I want Nemesis is a ridiculous argument. As for Trek being more mainstream, I'd rather see no Trek than stupid schlock with the Trek name on it, which is why I say there's been nothing worth the Trek name for 8 years since stupid schlock is all we've been getting.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

TrekMovie: You were used to just giving your name and WGA serial number?
Roberto Orci: Exactly [laughs]. We were used to saying we had only seen four lights instead of three lights.

That should be "four lights instead of five."

This guy's lack of knowledge of Star Trek's basic essentials is disturbing.

I'm one of the biggest geeks around and Chain of Command, II is my second favorite episode, but even I missed that.

My only point to "belabor" is that Orci's filmwriting credits are The Island, The Legend of Zorro, and Transformers. If someone would like to explain to me what was entertaining or intelligent about any of those flicks, I'll be happy to listen.

Never saw Zorro as I'm not 5 years old.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Island and Transformers though and I took them for what they were worth. I don't understand why you think they were particularly poorly written. They were action flicks and though simplistic, relatively entertaining. Reminds me of TOS.

Transformers wasn't particular intelligent but I watched it on Imax and it was what I paid for - big robots knocking the shit out of each other...

Actually, that's exactly how it was billed and I believe that was the offical tagline of the movie.

trekkerguy said:
The Island: Awesome frenetic action and a view of a dire
world through the untainted eyes of clone children, who
we get to watch grow up and realize how harsh the real
world has become. Showing that once again sacrificing
our Humanity can have sad consequences.

The Legend of Zorro: Simple family fun.
Had basic family moral tale and some fun action sequences.
Nothing special, but not a bad outing.

Transformers: Over the top special effects and action
sequences are always fun. But with a good narrative
about Humanity and that there is hope for us to improve
ourselves as shown by the heroics of the main characters
aided by the Autobots.



Ahh... I love choosing to enjoy my entertainment.

Ahh... I love when someone says something silly and thinks it sounds superior. I love enjoying my entertainment too - when it's actually entertaining. I saw The Island on a date, and I saw The Legend of Zorro because I've seen every Zorro picture ever made. They are both lackluster, by the numbers stories with no originality and no memorable characters.

But you couldn't pay me to see a movie based on a bunch of boy's dolls.

My only point to "belabor" is that Orci's filmwriting credits are The Island, The Legend of Zorro, and Transformers. If someone would like to explain to me what was entertaining or intelligent about any of those flicks, I'll be happy to listen.

Well, two of those were directed by shameless hack Michael Bay, who you can count on to make dumb films regardless of who the writer is.

Zorro I know nothing about.

I don't think you can always judge someone by their past works if they've never done anything similar to their current project. I mean, Peter Jackson directed cheesy horror films, who knew he would handle epic so well? Perhaps the source material elevated the artist, but there's no reason that couldn't happen here too.

Peter Jackson had directed "Heavenly Creatures", a widely critically acclaimed film, and the primary reason he was able to successfully pitch LotR to New Line.

Besides, we're not talking about a director here, but a writer. Are you telling me I can't judge Stephen King's new books by the other material he's written?

Heavenly Creatures was crap. A lot of movies get critically acclaimed that are crap.

As far as Steven King's books, how many Steven King well-written novels have been made into crappy films?

And for the record, no,you can't tell how well a writer is going to do based on his previous work (Not all Steven King novels are all that great, either). There are a lot of writers that are very inconsistent and you didn't even see Transformers, yet you criticize it. That John Logan joker that wrote Gladiator and he shit he bed completely on NEM.

-Shawn

 

[CaptainHawk1]

There are other options besides this or Berman Trek (and early Berman Trek, much as everyone likes to forget it, was some of the best - TNG seasons 3 & 4). What's wrong with direct to DVD?

What's wrong with it is that it's not practical, just as a miniseries isn't due to the production costs so get it out of your head because it will never happen.

There's already been nothing worth the name Star Trek in 8 years, and I made it through the long, dry years between 1970 and 79 and 79 to 86 when there was no Trek - it's really not as horrific as you might imagine. The rivers do not dry up, people do not die with black boils on their faces and civilization does not fall. I could actually live just fine if no Star Trek was ever produced again.

79 to 86??? You had three films.

What I find interesting is that like Transformers you're bashing the film without seeing it based on your own prejudices.

-Shawn

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Never saw Zorro as I'm not 5 years old.

I'm not following what age has to do with it. The Mark of Zorro (1922), The Mark of Zorro (1949), and The Mask of Zorro (whatever year that was) were all well-received by people of many ages.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Island and Transformers though and I took them for what they were worth. I don't understand why you think they were particularly poorly written. They were action flicks and though simplistic, relatively entertaining. Reminds me of TOS.

I think The Island was poorly written because it had stock, uninteresting characters that even a great actor like Ewan MacGregor couldn't make interesting, it telegraphed it's big "reveal" about 15 minutes in, and it had an unsatisfying ending. As I mentioned, I did not see Transformers.

Heavenly Creatures was crap. A lot of movies get critically acclaimed that are crap.

The subjective quality of Heavenly Creatures really wasn't my point - it was that Heavenly Creatures was the movie that made it possible for Peter Jackson to make LotR, not the low rent horror movies he had previously made, which was the poster's claim.

As far as Steven King's books, how many Steven King well-written novels have been made into crappy films?

Plenty. What does that have to do with the question of whether or not you can predict probabilities of quality in a writer's work from what they've previously done?

And for the record, no,you can't tell how well a writer is going to do based on his previous work (Not all Steven King novels are all that great, either).

This is true - but most of his mediocre works came later in his career, which has been mightily prolific. The more an artist produces, even a great artist, the more likely some of it is to be crap. King's first 5 or 6 books were terrific and after you'd read Carrie, 'Salem's Lot and The Shining, you could pretty much guess that The Stand was going to be good. Orci's first three works have been, IMHO, mediocre, so that does not bode well for his following works to be brilliant.

There are a lot of writers that are very inconsistent and you didn't even see Transformers, yet you criticize it. That John Logan joker that wrote Gladiator and he shit he bed completely on NEM.

-Shawn

Gladiator was pretty forgettable both character and plot-wise, though it was a crowd pleaser because it had manly men doing manly things, so it's not really surprising that Nemesis fumbled character and plot so badly.

What I find interesting is that like Transformers you're bashing the film without seeing it based on your own prejudices.

-Shawn

Where have I bashed the film? Quote one single thing I have ever posted in this forum that bashes the new Star Trek film. I have expressed my doubts and concerns and backed every single one up with a reason. Overstating my position with hyperbole just brings me back to the idea that people are reactionary when anyone expresses anything less than glowing optimism about the upcoming movie.

And forgive me for getting the dry spells of Trek wrong - I wasn't thinking of the other movies. They slipped my mind.

 

[M'Sharak]

TrekMovie: You were used to just giving your name and WGA serial number?
Roberto Orci: Exactly [laughs]. We were used to saying we had only seen four lights instead of three lights.

That should be "four lights instead of five."

This guy's lack of knowledge of Star Trek's basic essentials is disturbing.

I'm one of the biggest geeks around and Chain of Command, II is my second favorite episode, but even I missed that.

Am I the only one who has an idea that Orci knew perfectly well what the correct number of lights was and said that deliberately, perhaps just to tweak people who might have been figuring on giving the movie a miss?

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

That should be "four lights instead of five."

This guy's lack of knowledge of Star Trek's basic essentials is disturbing.

I'm one of the biggest geeks around and Chain of Command, II is my second favorite episode, but even I missed that.

Am I the only one who has an idea that Orci knew perfectly well what the correct number of lights was and said that deliberately, perhaps just to tweak people who might have been figuring on giving the movie a miss?

I really think The Wormhole is pulling your legs with some of this.

 

[shapeshifter]

Nevermind.

 

[M'Sharak]

TrekMovie: You were used to just giving your name and WGA serial number?
Roberto Orci: Exactly [laughs]. We were used to saying we had only seen four lights instead of three lights.

That should be "four lights instead of five."

This guy's lack of knowledge of Star Trek's basic essentials is disturbing.

I'm one of the biggest geeks around and Chain of Command, II is my second favorite episode, but even I missed that.

Am I the only one who has an idea that Orci knew perfectly well what the correct number of lights was and said that deliberately, perhaps just to tweak people who might have been figuring on giving the movie a miss?

I really think The Wormhole is pulling your legs with some of this.

Of course he is, Dennis, and I probably sprained something trying not to give that away weeks ago, but I still think it entirely likely that Orci's doing a chain-pull of his own with this one. It would fit nicely with some of the sly answers he's given to other questions over the last year or so. I suspect he and Kurtzman have done their homework a lot more carefully than a lot of people are giving them credit for having done.

 

[CaptainHawk1]

Am I the only one who has an idea that Orci knew perfectly well what the correct number of lights was and said that deliberately, perhaps just to tweak people who might have been figuring on giving the movie a miss?

I really think The Wormhole is pulling your legs with some of this.

Of course he is, Dennis, and I probably sprained something trying not to give that away weeks ago, but I still think it entirely likely that Orci's doing a chain-pull of his own with this one. It would fit nicely with some of the sly answers he's given to other questions over the last year or so. I suspect he and Kurtzman have done their homework a lot more carefully than a lot of people are giving them credit for having done.

I doubt it... it was probably just a mistake. I once referred to the registry number of the Defiant, my favorite ship as NCC-74656. I also said that Section 31 was established in Federation not the Starfleet Charter.

Do you see the level of geekdom coming out right now?

It was a mistake... who cares... it doesn't mean he 's not a fan and it's silly to think that he made that off-the-cuff remark with any motivation other than to show that he is a fan.

-Shawn

 

[trekkerguy]

I really think The Wormhole is pulling your legs with some of this.

Of course he is, Dennis, and I probably sprained something trying not to give that away weeks ago, but I still think it entirely likely that Orci's doing a chain-pull of his own with this one. It would fit nicely with some of the sly answers he's given to other questions over the last year or so. I suspect he and Kurtzman have done their homework a lot more carefully than a lot of people are giving them credit for having done.

I doubt it... it was probably just a mistake. I once referred to the registry number of the Defiant, my favorite ship as NCC-74656. I also said that Section 31 was established in Federation not the Starfleet Charter.

Do you see the level of geekdom coming out right now?

It was a mistake... who cares... it doesn't mean he 's not a fan and it's silly to think that he made that off-the-cuff remark with any motivation other than to show that he is a fan.

-Shawn

I dunno... if I was where they are as writers, I would do just that to the nitpicky fuckers online.
I would find it hilarious to watch them eat eachother over it.