‘Star Trek 3′: Roberto Orci Wants to Direct

[Christopher]

I'm trying to stay away from passing judgment on Mr. Orci's potential as a director, but I can understand a studio being reluctant to entrust a film with the mega-budget of the next Star Trek film to a novice.

Oh, I can understand the studio being hesitant in that regard. What I find problematical is the reaction of certain posters online jumping to the conclusion that he must be an awful director when there's no legitimate basis for forming a valid opinion on his ability to do something we've never actually seen him do. It's just the same kind of kneejerk negativity that I'm tired of seeing in fandom.

 

[Sindatur]

I'd say the Cuba parallel is way more on-point.

In the Operation Northwoods sense? Yeah, could be.

But, 9/11 Truther stuff was a direct attack on Pres. Bush and VP Darth Cheney.

Arguably it's become a subset of a larger "false-flag paranoia" culture. 9-11 Trutherism often overlaps with beliefs that the Oklahoma City bombing or the Sandy Hook shootings*, for instance, were Federal government plots.

(* Yes, really.)

Oh, sure, there's any number of Nutbars who buy Tin/Aluminum Foil to use for headgear, rather than for cooking with. But, when you leave out the distinguishing characteristic of linking it to the President, it doesn't make any sense to call it 9/11 Trutherism.

Otherwise, anybody who shoots a Hunting buddy by mistake in a movie or Television show could be called a swipe at VP Cheney, or a Middle Manager at an Advertizing Firm having someone working under their desk could be called a swipe at Pres. Clinton.

 

[JarodRussell]

Wasn't Abrams given a 150 million directorial debut with Mission Impossible 3?

 

[CaptPapa]

I'm trying to stay away from passing judgment on Mr. Orci's potential as a director, but I can understand a studio being reluctant to entrust a film with the mega-budget of the next Star Trek film to a novice.

Oh, I can understand the studio being hesitant in that regard. What I find problematical is the reaction of certain posters online jumping to the conclusion that he must be an awful director when there's no legitimate basis for forming a valid opinion on his ability to do something we've never actually seen him do. It's just the same kind of kneejerk negativity that I'm tired of seeing in fandom.

The older I get, the more I try to stay in the To Each Their Own camp. I used up a lot of energy trying to tell everyone that the sky was falling back when TNG was starting up. It was all revisited when JJTrek came along, and I had a flashback of how ridiculess I must have sounded. But a lot of people like the nu stuff, and sure as hell nobody's going to make the Star Trek movie or series I would most want. Just because I didn't like STID (does anyone else see Sexually Transmitted Disease when reading that in print?) it doesn't make Mr. Abrams a bad director.
And while I'm rattling on, my little pet peave is those who present opinion as fact - arguing against that is a Kobayashi Maru scenario if I ever saw one.

ME

 

[CaptPapa]

Wasn't Abrams given a 150 million directorial debut with Mission Impossible 3?

That was his feature film debut, yes - but he had directed 9 TV episodes prior to that (Felicity, Lost, Alias).
Info from IMDB

ME

 

[Yminale]

Oh, I can understand the studio being hesitant in that regard. What I find problematical is the reaction of certain posters online jumping to the conclusion that he must be an awful director when there's no legitimate basis for forming a valid opinion on his ability to do something we've never actually seen him do. It's just the same kind of kneejerk negativity that I'm tired of seeing in fandom.

Uhm how about his TOTAL lack of experience. Every other "first time" director had experience even if it was music videos or TV. Most of the good ones started small and worked their way up with ever larger projects. Many either studied film making or were mentored with someone with more experience. None of this applies to Orci.

Unless they plan to make ST3 a much smaller film (ala original Khan) the shear size of production will probably overwhelm him.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I don't understand this 9/11 Truther parable accusation?

STID features an internal Section 31 faction (represented by Admiral Marcus) that arguably schemes to generate false-flag terrorist attacks on the Federation in order to justify war with the Klingon Empire. The parallel with Truther theories about 9-11 and the Iraq War seems obvious to some... I can't really get there, but I wouldn't rule out that it's what they were going for.

But, 9/11 Truther stuff was a direct attack on Pres. Bush and VP Darth Cheney. There is no President, whatsoever involved in STiD, it was a Rogue Admiral doing it (presumably) behind The President's back.

If you're going to apply it to any Rogue Admirals and so on down the line, anytime, anyone in Government/The Military has gone Rogue in any movie, since the 9/11 Attacks could be levelled with that same accusation, and you could also accuse the 9/11 Truther believers of stealing the idea from any movies with a Rogue Government/Military official that were made prior to 09/11/01

I'd disregard the 9/11 truther stuff, but given Orci's involvement and the way things play out in the film, I'm not easy to dismiss it as a rehashed James Bond plot. They don't have to have the top president to make it a 9/11 truther parable, that would be too obvious and I can imagine the studio heads would have been hesitant to go that route. Instead it's someone who's the top head of Starfleet making the call. But then you have Khan using the Vengeance to crash into a city and in the credits there's a direct reference to 9/11. It's a sloppy parable, but it's close enough that I can't really get into it because it gets too close.

Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci, they're all guilty as far as I'm concerned.

They're guilty of making the first Trek movies in a decade that weren't boring-ass wankfests.

Reread what you quoted:

"As far as I'm concerned".

Emphasis on "I'm", as in me, my opinion, not anyone else's.

 

[Belz...]

I don't understand this 9/11 Truther parable accusation?

STID features an internal Section 31 faction (represented by Admiral Marcus) that arguably schemes to generate false-flag terrorist attacks on the Federation in order to justify war with the Klingon Empire. The parallel with Truther false-flag theories about 9-11 and the Iraq War seems obvious to some... I can't really get there (on account of the story is too murky to fully make out who's scheming for what or precisely why or whose actions are part of whose schemes), but I wouldn't rule out that it's what they were going for.

Though the greater message was "don't act out of revenge", which is fine by me, if a bit heavy-handed. The 9/11 connection nis very visible, but I wouldn't say the conspiracy connection it that present.

I didn't know Orci was a truther, though. That certainly lowers my appreciation of him. I've debated these guys for a few years, and Spock's head would explode if he had to do that.

 

[CaptPapa]

Oh, I can understand the studio being hesitant in that regard. What I find problematical is the reaction of certain posters online jumping to the conclusion that he must be an awful director when there's no legitimate basis for forming a valid opinion on his ability to do something we've never actually seen him do. It's just the same kind of kneejerk negativity that I'm tired of seeing in fandom.

Uhm how about his TOTAL lack of experience. Every other "first time" director had experience even if it was music videos or TV. Most of the good ones started small and worked their way up with ever larger projects. Many either studied film making or were mentored with someone with more experience. None of this applies to Orci.

Unless they plan to make ST3 a much smaller film (ala original Khan) the shear size of production will probably overwhelm him.

Every other first time director had prior experience; no exceptions? Hmmm . . . I guess the Internet Movie DataBase has it wrong.
We just went through this issue up-thread.

ME

 

[Christopher]

Uhm how about his TOTAL lack of experience. Every other "first time" director had experience even if it was music videos or TV. Most of the good ones started small and worked their way up with ever larger projects. Many either studied film making or were mentored with someone with more experience. None of this applies to Orci.

Do you know for a fact that none of it applies to him, or are you just assuming? I mean, he's been working alongside Abrams for many years now, so is it really reasonable to assume he's gotten absolutely no directorial mentoring of any kind? Maybe the reason he's pushing for this is because he's reached the point where he's learned enough about directing to be ready to take it on.

Now, granted, it would make more sense for him to start with episodes of his TV shows and build up to directing a movie -- but then, you can direct a whole lot of TV episodes in the time it takes to prep a feature film. Maybe he's already planning to do that, but he has to start pushing for the movie gig now because movie directors are generally hired so far in advance of filming.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What happened to Orci wanting to start a new Trek show? If he were ever to start directing Trek, that probably would have been the most obvious route to go as opposed to a multi-million dollar tentpole film.

 

[Sindatur]

STID features an internal Section 31 faction (represented by Admiral Marcus) that arguably schemes to generate false-flag terrorist attacks on the Federation in order to justify war with the Klingon Empire. The parallel with Truther theories about 9-11 and the Iraq War seems obvious to some... I can't really get there, but I wouldn't rule out that it's what they were going for.

But, 9/11 Truther stuff was a direct attack on Pres. Bush and VP Darth Cheney. There is no President, whatsoever involved in STiD, it was a Rogue Admiral doing it (presumably) behind The President's back.

If you're going to apply it to any Rogue Admirals and so on down the line, anytime, anyone in Government/The Military has gone Rogue in any movie, since the 9/11 Attacks could be levelled with that same accusation, and you could also accuse the 9/11 Truther believers of stealing the idea from any movies with a Rogue Government/Military official that were made prior to 09/11/01

I'd disregard the 9/11 truther stuff, but given Orci's involvement and the way things play out in the film, I'm not easy to dismiss it as a rehashed James Bond plot. They don't have to have the top president to make it a 9/11 truther parable, that would be too obvious and I can imagine the studio heads would have been hesitant to go that route. Instead it's someone who's the top head of Starfleet making the call. But then you have Khan using the Vengeance to crash into a city and in the credits there's a direct reference to 9/11. It's a sloppy parable, but it's close enough that I can't really get into it because it gets too close.

Eh...Agree to disagree. The Link to The President is the defining characteristic of 9/11 Trutherism. Definitely something there about Terrorism, no denying, but, not 9/11 Trutherism, without the link to the President. Far, far, closer to DS9 Admiral Leyton in Paradise Lost, IMHO.

 

[Mudd]

Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci, they're all guilty as far as I'm concerned.

They're guilty of making the first Trek movies in a decade that weren't boring-ass wankfests.

Reread what you quoted:

"As far as I'm concerned".

As far as I'm concerned your statement was so hyperbolic and intemperate as to be worthy of criticism. That you doubled down by invoking the hypothetical feelings of unidentified people affected by the 9/11 attacks to justify picking at a movie you don't like exacerbated that.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Untrue. I'm not looking for justifications to "pick at" these films. If that's how it came off to you, I'm clarifying to you now that it's not the case.

 

[M'Sharak]

What happened to Orci wanting to start a new Trek show? If he were ever to start directing Trek, that probably would have been the most obvious route to go as opposed to a multi-million dollar tentpole film.

Any new Trek show would fall under the aegis of CBS, the owner of Trek on television. Though Orci is supposed to have met with them last October to discuss the prospect, it apparently went nowhere; CBS continues to be uninterested in having a new Trek show anytime soon.


On another note, and as a general aside to all:

If we must bring up the subject of Orci's conspiracy-theory inclinations, let's make an effort not to wander too far afield with it. For purposes of this thread, please stick with the extent to which a 9/11-Trutherist element may or may not be present in the story told in Star Trek Into Darkness, and let's reserve discussion of the broader aspects of the conspiracy theory and its real-world participants for forums more appropriate to that topic.

.

 

[Ovation]

Where's the fun in that?

 

[M'Sharak]

Fun and fun! What is fun‽

 

[Ovation]

Fun is a pretty flower, that smells baaad.

 

[Noname Given]

Abrams, Lindelof, Kurtzman, Orci, they're all guilty as far as I'm concerned.

They're guilty of making the first Trek movies in a decade that weren't boring-ass wankfests.

I want Star Trek 3 to be all about staff meetings and updates of the Prime Directive, followed by a short presentation on the rapid proliferation of space herpes throughout the Alpha Quadrant.

^^^
So, you want to advance to the TNG timeframe, eh?

 

[Agenda]

Am I off base by saying that I'm just not a big fan of this guy's work in general? Many of the reviews for the recent Spider-Man flick say the plot's pretty much a mess. This is the same guy who scripted Legend of Zorro, Cowboys and Aliens, and Transformers 1 and 2. And yet he wants now to take more control of Trek. I don't know why this guy gets such a free pass in this industry.