‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[BillJ]

I still maintain that it is the script and the final edit that ruined Nemesis. The actual direction is fine.

I think the film has an overly dark look. Not sure if that is something that Baird had any control over though?

 

[Mudd]

Yeah, he had control over that just as Abrams has control over lens flares.

The direction is a great part of the problem with Nemesis - along with the script.

 

[Runetouch]

I don't have any confidence whatsoever in Bob Orci.

 

[Mudd]

Well, fortunately Paramount does.

 

[BillJ]

I don't have any confidence whatsoever in Bob Orci.

Since it isn't your money that Paramount is spending. What do you care? It'll either be a good movie or a bad movie, but the day after you see it, the Earth will still be spinning.

 

[Jeyl]

Since it isn't your money that Paramount is spending. What do you care? It'll either be a good movie or a bad movie, but the day after you see it, the Earth will still be spinning.

And if you're really, really lucky, the film will mostly take place on said planet Earth just like the last movie so you don't even have to call it a Star Trek film.

 

[The Doctor]

Since it isn't your money that Paramount is spending. What do you care? It'll either be a good movie or a bad movie, but the day after you see it, the Earth will still be spinning.

And if you're really, really lucky, the film will mostly take place on said planet Earth just like the last movie so you don't even have to call it a Star Trek film.

You've got an odd and particular idea of what 'Star Trek' is.

 

[Mudd]

Let's just call it "a lot more entertaining and successful than most of the oldTrek films..." again.

 

[Jeyl]

You've got an odd and particular idea of what 'Star Trek' is.

Oh, it's not my idea. It's the idea of a former writer and producer of the two JJ Abrams' Star Trek movies who also happens to be one of Roberto Orci's best friends.

“They’re in the 23rd century and these people are from Earth. The Earth needed to play more of a role in these movies, especially in the sense of giving the audience a degree of relatability. I think that in the same way that New York City becomes this anchor point for people in the Marvel movies; that’s Spidey’s stomping ground, that was the stomping ground for Tony Stark, that was the stomping ground for The Avengers, it’s New York. We wanted to do the same thing with Earth in the Star Trek movies.”

Source

It appears that Roberto Orci was all too happy to embrace that idea. I didn't see Spider Man go outside of New York in the last movie, so it's a safe assumption that the crew of the Enterprise will be back at Earth for a good chunk of the next movie.

 

[The Doctor]

You've got an odd and particular idea of what 'Star Trek' is.

Oh, it's not my idea. It's the idea of a former writer and producer of the two JJ Abrams' Star Trek movies who also happens to be one of Roberto Orci's best friends.

I was actually commenting on your assertion that a film that featured Trek characters and set in a Trek universe should not be labelled a 'Trek' film because it was set 'mostly on Earth.' You're attempting to get me to argue with Daemon Lindeloff, but since he's not here and I'm not actually talking to him, I think I'll decline your offer. As an aside, why would Orci's personal relationship to Lindeloff figure into this discussion?

“They’re in the 23rd century and these people are from Earth. The Earth needed to play more of a role in these movies, especially in the sense of giving the audience a degree of relatability. I think that in the same way that New York City becomes this anchor point for people in the Marvel movies; that’s Spidey’s stomping ground, that was the stomping ground for Tony Stark, that was the stomping ground for The Avengers, it’s New York. We wanted to do the same thing with Earth in the Star Trek movies.”

Source

It appears that Roberto Orci was all too happy to embrace that idea. I didn't see Spider Man go outside of New York in the last movie, so it's a safe assumption that the crew of the Enterprise will be back at Earth for a good chunk of the next movie.

Giving the audience something to relate to amidst a futuristic setting is what Star Trek has always done. Even though it's set in the future, TOS featured contemporary characters with contemporary attitudes. One of the reasons why TNG-era Trek got so boring was the people aboard the Enterprise stopped being human and became bloodless, moralistic automatons.

So again I'll say: you've got an odd idea of what 'Trek' is, since you're railing against the very basic building blocks of the Trek formula.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

With Lindelof on wanting to make the characters relatable, I don't think you need Earth to be part of that factor to make it work and it seems like a cheap way of trying to get audiences invested. Like how NEMESIS tried to put Earth in danger because it had nothing going for it. The best way to make the characters relatable is to casualize the future whether it's playing chess with Spock, poker with Data, darts with O'Brien and Bashir, ect. Of course there are more ways of casualizing beyond playing games.

 

[Jeyl]

One of the reasons why TNG-era Trek got so boring was the people aboard the Enterprise stopped being human and became bloodless, moralistic automatons.

Wait... The crew of the Enterprise D became boring, bloodless and moralistic automatons? Maybe, if you only watched the first two seasons of the Next Generation and absolutely nothing afterwards. The TNG era not only got better with Season 3 and onwards, but also told some pretty amazing stories that hold up even more so than the original series. I don't know why you think they devolved into what you say they did later on, because the early seasons of TNG was downright full of it.

Even though it's set in the future, TOS featured contemporary characters with contemporary attitudes.

I agree, and sometimes those made for some very memorable episodes... and sometimes it didn't. Regardless, that was never always the case, nor did "contemporary" stories make up the best parts of the series. Sometimes an episode featured contemporary issues, sometimes it just wanted to tell a story that fleshed out the Star Trek universe in it's own way.

Take the episode "The Trouble with Tribbles" for example. I don't really see what's contemporary about that episode since it's so ridiculous. You can say that the Klingons are the russians because we were in a feud with them and tribbles are rabbits eating all the food and breeding like crazy. That's really all you can say about it, and that alone doesn't make it contemporary because those details are too generalized. Plus, I don't think there's a moment in America's history where we used horny rabbits to route out Russian saboteurs who were out to poison our food. Also, Russians and Rabbits don't have an innate hatred of one another.

Being contemporary is just one of many things that Star Trek could do, not the only thing.

So again I'll say: you've got an odd idea of what 'Trek' is, since you're railing against the very basic building blocks of the Trek formula.

I'm not saying that having a story set on Earth is bad, or even a story where Earth is in danger is bad. The problem we have heres is that Star Trek Into Darkness is the third Star Trek movie in a row to feature a bad guy wanting to attack Earth, with the latter two films being mostly set on Earth. Once in a while is fine, but all the time isn't very "Star Trek" in my opinion. It's not contemporary, it's the same story told over and over again.

 

[BillJ]

And if you're really, really lucky, the film will mostly take place on said planet Earth just like the last movie so you don't even have to call it a Star Trek film.

Which makes sense, since two of the most popular Trek (films prior to the Abrams films) with general audiences take place on Earth, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home and Star Trek: First Contact.

 

[JarodRussell]

"Spock's Brain" is what Star Trek is all about.

 

[Amaris]

Since it isn't your money that Paramount is spending. What do you care? It'll either be a good movie or a bad movie, but the day after you see it, the Earth will still be spinning.

And if you're really, really lucky, the film will mostly take place on said planet Earth just like the last movie so you don't even have to call it a Star Trek film.

You've got an odd and particular idea of what 'Star Trek' is.

That's because it's anything that's not what it is. I mean, sure, First Contact, and The Voyage Home, took place almost entirely on and around Earth, and everyone knows those aren't Star Trek films. Come on, now, keep up.

 

[Franklin]

TMP: Story started on Earth, then went into space nearer and nearer to Earth; Earth was threatened.
TWOK: Story started on Earth, then went into space.
TSFS: Story started on Earth, then went into space.
TVH: Virtually the complete story told on Earth; Earth threatened.
TFF: Story started on Earth, then went into space.
TUC: Story started on Earth, then went into space; Earth threatened.

GEN: Story featured Earth in the Nexus.
FC: Virtually the complete story told on Earth; Earth threatened.
NEX: No Earth, but Earth threatened.

ST09: Story started on Earth; Earth threatened.
STID: Story started on Earth; Earth threatened.

I sense a pattern here. Even pre-Abrams, most Trek movies opened with scenes on Earth before taking off to space. Two took place mostly on Earth. Earth was directly threatened in some way in many of them.

How many Trek movies were actually set in unexplored deep space, far from Earth? Zero. Most took place in familiar space. TFF was the only one to go to an unfamiliar and unexplored part of space.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

GENERATIONS did feature Earth at the very beginning, although there's no scene set on Earth. NEMESIS did begin on Earth too, if you recall Riker and Troi's wedding in Alaska.

But yeah, INSURRECTION is so far the only film not to feature Earth. What's ironic is that aside from Pike being in an illusion of his home town for a brief scene, TOS went out of its way to never show Earth of the 23rd century. We only got to see Earth of the past or parallel Earths.

I think it would be refreshing to have the next film start off in deep space like any TOS episode would have started. They're finally in their five year mission, let's finally take advantage of that.

 

[BigJake]

Earth never* appears directly in and is never directly threatened in TUC. Gorkon's ship is supposed to be escorted there but this never actually happens. Which actually was kind of refreshing, though the rest of that movie was unfortunately a mess.

Adventuring on Earth of the past as we see in FC and the bulk of TVH is of course a tried-and-true Trek trope. Though I can kind of take or leave it. (I will say that as the threat-to-Earth storylines went, TVH did far and away the best and most atmospheric job of conveying an urgent sense of general disaster.)

Movies briefly mentioning or spending tiny parts of their screen time on Earth are not of course very relevant to what Jeyl is talking about. YMMV. In general though, I would say that arguing that this trope is a-okay because the movies have been leaning on it for thirty-five years instead of just five years is not very compelling.

(* EDIT: Correction, there are a couple of meeting scenes set there. So that would be one of the examples of Earth appearing very little.)

 

[Enterprise1701]

Earth never appears directly in and is never directly threatened in TUC. Gorkon's ship is supposed to be escorted there but this never actually happens. Which actually was kind of refreshing, though the rest of that movie was unfortunately a mess.

Wasn't that Starfleet meeting at the beginning on Earth?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Yes, it was. After that there's the scene in the President's office in France.