Because this movie isn't a raunchy comedy.
‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct
- Thread starter HaplessCrewman
- Start date
- Status
Because this movie isn't a raunchy comedy.
How does one direct a movie prior to one's directorial debut?
How is he going to do that when Abrams is in the Middle East and UK filming Star Wars?
Sorry- I misspoke. Meant that to read "Trek" Debut. "Time After Time": wasn't sure it was real until I looked on IMDB. My point is-he not only had VERY limited directing experience, but at the time knew NOTHING about Trek. He did OK. Orci could do great, he's been around productions, and I'm sure he's savvy enough to surround himself with guys who know what they're doing, and unlike Shatner won't assume he is always right.
Don't see how this would be bad for Trek, and it could be great.
I think that if Orci did get the job, if nothing else, the science would probably be more coherent than in Abrams's films, and that alone is a plus where I'm concerned. As for the rest, though, who can say?
The funny thing is, that's exactly the kind of thing that will ensure he gets the job.
It will likely be the most financially successful Trek movie of all-time because people will have to go eight times so they can say how much they hate it and Orci.
Yeah. While many can't watch Tom Cruise because of his scientology craziness, I'm able to because he's never shoving that stuff down audiences throats, so it's easy for me to separate Tom Cruise the crazy scientology guy in real life and Tom Cruise the movie star. Orci being a Truther doesn't turn me off from watching films written by him (it's actually his hack writing that does, ZING!), but when he starts incorporating Truther stuff onto his films, that's when I have more issues.
Ironically, I still think STID is a big step above ST09 for various reasons. If I only knew Orci by that whole opening sequence on the planet, I would totally be on board with him staying on the creative team. Since I know everything else he's done with Trek and beyond... No, I'd rather not have him. I don't care if he has a "vision" or about wanting to keep things consistent with the first two films. I don't even like those films. A better film can be made without him or any of the Abrams' Bad Robot cronies.
These points cannot be overstated. Even if it turns out not to be a fan favourite, the notion that artists should "listen to the fans", in any medium, is odious and to be avoided at all costs.
On the other hand, it can be argued that "listening to the fans" can be another way of saying that you're doing justice to the spirit of the source material. Not always, of course. But I've seen instances of writers/directors saying essentially that they didn't give a damn what the fans thought - and it was ultimately to the detriment of those films.
Orci feels like such a lazy uninspired choice. I'm not a fan of his writing and putting him in charge of Trek doesn't make me feel like it's heading in a great direction.
Meyer first established his reputation as a writer. Time After Time was a big success critically and financially, I saw it when it was released. He was approached for TWOK because of it. He watched the episodes, watched TMP, read the previous script drafts, then wrote up his own script incorporating elements from the existing ones. He learned Star Trek through a crash course.
It's sort of been sad watching how budgets are often over $100 million now, concentrating on blockbusters all the time. Instead of a variety of small interesting genre films that would take time to tell the story and make you think, now everything has to be a popcorn machine. This is from a perspective of watching films for over 50 years. Things are actually worse for independent producers now, not better.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Jones is doing WARCRAFT now, which also releases in 2016. Think he'd probably be a little tied up with a huge postproduction element on that one.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Naah, I think Robert Meyer Burnette had it right when he imagined a QT DS9 movie, with hot sweaty klingon sex and lots of greatness.
If QT had gotten to make CASINO ROYALE his way, we'd've had a faithful and absolutely amazing classic instead of the schizophrenic mess that so many of you ate up like it was actually tasty vittles.
The question shouldn't be "can Orci direct a big budget film?" but rather "can he direct a film at all?". TIME AFTER TIME wasn't a big budget film, but it showed that Meyer was capable of successfully directing a film and sometimes that's really all you need. A good comparison can be Steven Spielberg. Before working on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, he never directed an action film and wasn't known as a guy who could deliver a film like that. Another good comparison from today can be the Russo brothers. Before directing CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLIDER, their only work so far had been comedies and TV sitcoms.
Unlike those directors I mentioned above, Orci had never directed anything. No short film, no TV episode, no film, nothing. I can see why Paramount would be hesitant in hiring him, hence why Bad Robot seems to be working really hard on lobbying for Orci.
Unlike those directors I mentioned above, Orci had never directed anything. No short film, no TV episode, no film, nothing. I can see why Paramount would be hesitant in hiring him, hence why Bad Robot seems to be working really hard on lobbying for Orci.
Except you'll never get all fans to agree on what the spirit of the source material is, or on anything else about it. That's part of the danger with trying to chase after the approval of other people -- which people do you choose? If you try to pander to everyone, to satisfy all the conflicting "notes" about what the work should be, you'll end up with something created by committee, something trying to go in several directions at once or something that's bland and homogenized to avoid offending anyone. Heck, the reason so many movies and TV shows are weak to begin with is because they have to try to please the conflicting demands of multiple studio, network, or advertising executives all at once and are often forced into incoherence as a result. Having to answer to the opinions of millions of viewers as well would just make the interference exponentially worse. Ultimately you have to base the work on your own vision, your own inspiration, your own interpretation of the meaning of the work. There's no guarantee others will respond to your vision, but at least your vision will be honest rather than a hollow attempt at pandering, and that's the only way it has a chance of being really great.
And I've seen instances of writers/directors saying that and having it be to the benefit of those works. Obviously it's impossible for every work of a given type to be equally good. It's always going to be a gamble. The key is not to cherrypick the failures -- because there are many ways to fail, often through no fault of one's own -- but to focus on the successes and examine what made them work.
- Status
Similar threads
