Roberto Orci Not Directing Trek XIII
- Thread starter MvRojo
- Start date
Edgar Wright or Joe Cornish would be excellent choices with some new writers brought in.
Paramount's decision to go ahead without Orci at the helm (though retaining him in whatever capacity) seems to be a result of the reaction (critical and commercial) to Into Darkness.
Maybe fan objections were not as inconsequential as some believed.
Maybe fan objections were not as inconsequential as some believed.
The Variety piece does mention a few paragraphs into it that Deadline Hollywood first reported the story, but in the first line of its story, Justin Kroll of Variety says, "...sources confirmed to Variety." So, is that the second independent report? If so, the rule of thumb would be to treat it as real news.
I'm not saying Hollywood has to make sense, but if Paramount was doing this now supposedly based on reaction to STID, then why did they wait to do it until after he wrote another script and was named director of the next movie?
If the script was the problem, why didn't Paramount fire the writers? I think there is more going on, as it is reported that Paramount shut down production last month and demoted Orci to a producer. I don't know of many films with a troubled history succeeding at the box office, so I am worried.
is wright the right type of director for a movie as big as star trek 3,most of his movies are manly comedy.
Hopefully they're just going to start from scratch with a competent team and push the release back to 2016 for the 50th. I can live with waiting an extra year if it means the film will actually be good.
I'm not surprised for the simple reason that Orci doesn't have the experience.
How are you going to hang ST3 on an amateur director for the film's 50th anniversary?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Nimoy arguably did an amazing job with STIII, (which I loved), but Orci directing didn't have the same ring as Nimoy directing.
How are you going to hang ST3 on an amateur director for the film's 50th anniversary?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, Nimoy arguably did an amazing job with STIII, (which I loved), but Orci directing didn't have the same ring as Nimoy directing.
I think they're intertwined. The Orci report is likely because of that story concept and battles over the screenplay.
It will be fascinating to hear more about this, because Paramount can't just be reacting to Into Darkness. If they were, they wouldn't have hired Orci as a first-time director - they clearly thought he was the magic ingredient they needed regardless.
So what changed? Was the script so bad or Orci's behavior so poor that it finally woke them out of their 'that'll do, JJ's producing it' stupor?
Yes, all three trades refer to independent reports that they've received, and Devin Faraci has heard independent intel too. I understand why some will prefer to wait for a new-director press release, but this is as real as it can be.
Because Orci is not only one of the three writers, but undoubtedly the driving force behind the story. If Paramount hated the story and script and Orci wouldn't change it, firing the two other writers wouldn't have achieved anything.
As far as speculation goes, this makes a great deal of sense. For a big tent pole movie that was supposed to go into production this February, things had been awfully quiet until now (even more than JJ quiet). Maybe Paramount started having regrets about Orci's first directing job being "Star Trek", or maybe Orci wasn't exactly exuding the confidence they hoped to see.
I just hope to God they get it right. Screw any time table. I'll celebrate the 50th anniversary of TOS myself at home by going through all 79 episodes in one sitting (reserving the right to fast-forward through parts of "Spock's Brain", "And the Children Shall Lead", and a couple of other episodes) and be satisfied if I thought a holiday-time 2016 or even late spring 2017 Trek would mean they didn't compromise quality just to meet a date.
It'd be interesting if this mirrors Episode VII and gets pushed back from May to December. Just as that film had to be in December to keep a promise the shareholders, Trek III would need to be to capitalise on 50th anniversary promotional opportunities. Of course, that factor probably won't be as important. If it needs to be pushed back to 2017, it will be.
Nimoy had also directed three episodes of TV and a TV movie. Orci, despite all these TV shows he produces that could have gotten directing practice on, has directed nothing.
Forgive me for so many posts, but you might want to check out Devin Faraci's Twitter feed, albeit with the requisite grains of salt until everything's official: he's claiming Orci is completely gone and that the producer credit is just contractual.
Meyer or Frakes!! (j/k)
I would seriously like that!
Meyer or Frakes!! (j/k
I was tempted to say that, for symmetry's sake, they should bring in a Star Wars veteran to direct the next Trek film. Unfortunately, the only Star Wars feature director to date who's still alive is George Lucas. (And technically Dave Filoni, since the Clone Wars debut got a theatrical release.)
What do you mean? STID has an 87% critical ranking on Rotten Tomatoes, exceeded only by TWOK, FC, and the '09 film. It also has a 90% audience approval score. It's at 72% on Metacritic. According to Wikipedia, while it performed lower than its predecessor in US box office, its returns were still satisfying to Paramount, and it did better than its predecessor overseas, enough to make it the highest-grossing Trek film of all time. The people who dislike the film may be vocal, but they're a tiny minority of the overall audience.
Because that's not how feature films work. In television, writers are the ones in charge, but in features, they're seen as nothing more than hired help, interchangeable contractors whose job is simply to construct scripts that fit the director's vision. The director is the one coming up with the ideas and shaping the story, and will often go through multiple different writers, taking ideas piecemeal from their various drafts to assemble the final script, which will then be altered still further in shooting and editing. There are Writers' Guild rules for determining who gets credited as a film's screenwriter(s), but the process is so convoluted and dysfunctional that the credits may have little connection to the reality of who wrote the film. (For instance, Speed is credited solely to Graham Yost even though nearly every line of dialogue in the film was written by Joss Whedon.)
So as long as the same director's running the show, then he or she is likely to keep pushing for the same basic story no matter which writers are brought in to tweak the details. If the movie just isn't working the way the producers or executives want, they need to bring in a new director.
That's all true and I don't disagree, but I would wager that after the goodwill the first film got, Paramount weren't expecting the backlash against the second one.
With a franchise like Star Trek, the narrative surrounding it regarding quality and fidelity is surely more important than one like Transformers, and the negativity got quite a bit of press (the Las Vegas con voting it the worst film, the widespread mocking of the direct lifts from Wrath of Khan, etc became part of the cultural conversation for a while). Maybe they learned that while you can get away with a poorly constructed script on Transformers, you can't on Star Trek and not hear about it, and so filming whatever Orci came up with suddenly didn't seem so palatable, hence now that the script is in, the dispute began.
And while it can't be verified, I expect Paramount considers Into Darkness a slight underperformer in the way that Amazing Spider-Man 2 was: when you spend that much on the production (probably more than officially announced) and who knows how much on marketing, even going into the red isn't a victory. You need to go way into the red and significantly outperform the first film when spending that kind of money. Earning significantly less than the first film domestically is not something to be happy about.
This.
Abrams is a competent director, but he also tends to lack any sense of personal vision. I'd love to see what somebody with a strong sense of style could do with Trek.
Holy crap, if true this could be the best thing to happen to Trek since the reboot.
I don't have a problem with Orci staying on in a production capacity, though.
If he's willing and the execs agree, I'd say give him a chance. His movies tend to have a lot of heart and good character work in them, but I was impressed with the surprisingly kinetic action scenes in The World's End (he went so far as to get one of Jackie Chan's top stunt coordinators to choreograph the fights!).
Besides, Nimoy also directed Trek and comedies, too, and that worked out pretty well. And he'd get to direct Simon Pegg once again.
