Orci Directing.. Not A Done Deal

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Apparently, Roberto Orci's directorial début at the helm of Bad Robot's third NuTrek outing is not actually set in stone. Personally, I think it's all fluff, and it is going to happen.

From the man himself...

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/star-trek/31271/roberto-orci-not-confirmed-as-star-trek-director-yet

 

[xavier]

Truthfully I do not want orci to direct but I wish him the best. at the end of the day we all want trek to be a big success we just have different means of achieving this goal and to many people including myself orci does not look like the way to achieving this goal but I really wish him the best. I feel almost sorry for the man all the hate and attack he had to endure the past year because of Into Darkness. I did not like the film but in no way will I attack the writers directly. its A classless thing to do.

 

[Franklin]

It'll happen. All that's yet to happen up to it being official is basically perfunctory. Dotting "i's" and crossing "t's." Just imagine what would happen if Paramount saw the script and did say, "God no. Not this. Never."

 

[BillJ]

It'll happen. All that's yet to happen up to it being official is basically perfunctory. Dotting "i's" and crossing "t's." Just imagine what would happen if Paramount saw the script and did say, "God no. Not this. Never."

After seeing Transformers 4, I have a hard time believing Paramount is capable of saying 'no' to a script.

Whoever is in charge of this decision, needs to pull the trigger on whomever it is they want directing Trek 3. I don't think it looks good for the franchise when they are so uncertain, for so long about the path they want to go.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Whoever is in charge of this decision, needs to pull the trigger on whomever it is they want directing Trek 3. I don't think it looks good for the franchise when they are so uncertain, for so long about the path they want to go.

What's most interesting is that this flick isn't even greenlit, according to Orci. With nothing officially set, it would give the impression that Paramount isn't all confident in Star Trek.

 

[BillJ]

What's most interesting is that this flick isn't even greenlit, according to Orci. With nothing officially set, it would give the impression that Paramount isn't all confident in Star Trek.

I'm honestly not sure if Paramount has ever been 'confident' in the feature film side of the franchise. They do moderately well, but have never been 'home-run' hitters at the box office.

Plus, the competition over the next couple of years is pretty heavy.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think the movie has been greenlit (in the sense that a thirteenth Trek movie will be made), but not the script, which may still be a work in progress. Once Paramount has that and approves of it, then stuff like a budget can be determined and pre-production & casting can officially begin.

IMO, until that happens, the movie remains "in development."

 

[Enterprise is Great]

It'll happen. All that's yet to happen up to it being official is basically perfunctory. Dotting "i's" and crossing "t's." Just imagine what would happen if Paramount saw the script and did say, "God no. Not this. Never."

After seeing Transformers 4, I have a hard time believing Paramount is capable of saying 'no' to a script.

At this point all they care about is the money the Transformers movies make. They probably just tell Bay "Do whatever the fuck you want with the script...just make us oodles of cash."

Whoever is in charge of this decision, needs to pull the trigger on whomever it is they want directing Trek 3. I don't think it looks good for the franchise when they are so uncertain, for so long about the path they want to go.

Par for the course. Abrams wasn't officially official as director until the scripts for the each film was done.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

What's most interesting is that this flick isn't even greenlit, according to Orci. With nothing officially set, it would give the impression that Paramount isn't all confident in Star Trek.

I'm honestly not sure if Paramount has ever been 'confident' in the feature film side of the franchise. They do moderately well, but have never been 'home-run' hitters at the box office.

Plus, the competition over the next couple of years is pretty heavy.

I'd say up until the 2000s they were pretty confident in their flicks to make good business, as long as the budgets were kept in check. They did good enough to keep making them consistently between two to three years (wouldn't even allow the first TNG film to have time after the series ended). It wasn't until INSURRECTION underperforming that Paramount started to come off very wary over the film franchise. Now with Abrams gone, the films not making the kind of business that justify the big budgets given, and a guy with no directing experience lobbying hard for the job, I can understand why they'd not show too much confidence. Compare that to STAR WARS where everything seems hunky-dory even after Ford getting a broken leg. Maybe by the 50th anniversary coming closer, that will change.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Dammit Bob, you'd better be directing. I've already made the avatar!

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Now with Abrams gone, the films not making the kind of business that justify the big budgets given, and a guy with no directing experience lobbying hard for the job, I can understand why they'd not show too much confidence. Compare that to STAR WARS where everything seems hunky-dory even after Ford getting a broken leg.

ST'09 and STID did just fine - quite nicely in the black. $500m-ish takes plus home video (at which Trek usually performs exceptionally well) are more than enough to justify $150m budgets. Before anyone chips in, I'm well aware of how revenue is "divvyed up" - but I still believe the Abrams movies have been financially "successful" for Paramount. Obviously, not on the same scale as Star Wars. The portrayal of STID as some kind of "borderline" or fruitless financial venture is just plain wrong.

It's "hunky-dory" with Star Wars because, barring something truly catastrophic in terms of film making (120 minutes of C-3PO and R2D2 telling fart jokes), it's a lock for a billion dollars.

People will go in their droves no matter how weak a SW movie turns out to be. ATOC is one of the most bland, dull, stilted and lifeless Sci-Fi films I've ever seen - yet patrons flocked to it.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Now with Abrams gone, the films not making the kind of business that justify the big budgets given, and a guy with no directing experience lobbying hard for the job, I can understand why they'd not show too much confidence. Compare that to STAR WARS where everything seems hunky-dory even after Ford getting a broken leg.

ST'09 and STID did just fine - quite nicely in the black. $500m-ish takes plus home video (at which Trek usually performs exceptionally well) are more than enough to justify $150m budgets. Before anyone chips in, I'm well aware of how revenue is "divvyed up" - but I still believe the Abrams movies have been financially "successful" for Paramount. Obviously, not on the same scale as Star Wars. The portrayal of STID as some kind of "borderline" or fruitless financial venture is just plain wrong.

I'm not saying they were unsuccessful, just that they're not making the kind of money studios expect a film with a hefty $190 budget to make. This is why you're hearing of budget cuts for the next flick, because Paramount is now realizing Trek is never gonna do TRANSFORMERS business, so they'll be more realistic about how much they'll spend for the next flick in order to keep profits. They did the same thing after THE MOTION PICTURE.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Now with Abrams gone, the films not making the kind of business that justify the big budgets given, and a guy with no directing experience lobbying hard for the job, I can understand why they'd not show too much confidence. Compare that to STAR WARS where everything seems hunky-dory even after Ford getting a broken leg.

ST'09 and STID did just fine - quite nicely in the black. $500m-ish takes plus home video (at which Trek usually performs exceptionally well) are more than enough to justify $150m budgets. Before anyone chips in, I'm well aware of how revenue is "divvyed up" - but I still believe the Abrams movies have been financially "successful" for Paramount. Obviously, not on the same scale as Star Wars. The portrayal of STID as some kind of "borderline" or fruitless financial venture is just plain wrong.

I'm not saying they were unsuccessful, just that they're not making the kind of money studios expect a film with a hefty $190 budget to make. This is why you're hearing of budget cuts for the next flick, because Paramount is now realizing Trek is never gonna do TRANSFORMERS business, so they'll be more realistic about how much they'll spend for the next flick in order to keep profits. They did the same thing after THE MOTION PICTURE.

The proposed budget for the next movie is around $150m from what's been conjectured. A MASSIVE budget by any measure IMO - certainly one that easily qualifies it as an "tent-pole" major motion picture "event". The relatively small cut in funding will be achieved by means that allow the same production values to appear on the screen - filming outside L.A. etc.

Comparing that situation to TMP>TWOK just doesn't work IMHO. I would say the substantial cut in budget between those two films probably did demonstrate a "lack of confidence", but it's simply not the case for NuTrek 3.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Dropping it to $150 is more reasonable. Marvel gives that kind of budget to their lower tier names like THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA, whereas IRON MAN and AVENGERS gets $200+ because they're expected to do bigger. It's very smart to go that former route with TREK.

 

[Jax]

Dropping it to $150 is more reasonable. Marvel gives that kind of budget to their lower tier names like THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA, whereas IRON MAN and AVENGERS gets $200+ because they're expected to do bigger. It's very smart to go that former route with TREK.

The Thor & Capt America sequels had budgets of $170 million and you can bet your ass the 3rd movies for both will have bigger budgets. I agree STID budget was too high at $190 but we don't need to drop back to $150 so meet in the middle and make a good movie from $170-175.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Or just focus on making a good movie without needing to keep the budget too high. One way to do that is to cut down on the relentless action beats.

 

[HIjol]

...and make sure there is a "Flute" segment...

 

[MakeshiftPython]

To hell with that. Have Zoe Saldana do a fan dance for three minutes. Cheaper than having Kirk running away from a CGI monster like a screaming girl, and more satisfying.

 

[LOKAI of CHERON]

Those involved with the movie have stated the budget cut will not result in lower production values or less "bang for the buck" - which I've had no reason to doubt as explanations given have seemingly made sense.

Clearly, there are posters here who have deeper insight and can make a solid determination on ST3's status as a lower tier effort.

 

[HIjol]

God forbid we be allowed to witness some actual meaningful dialog and discourse that has to do with an actual plot...and like Python says, maybe leave out a few action beats...

...Prithy?