Roberto Orci to Direct ‘Trek 3′ (MAY 13 UPDATE: It’s Happening)

Last month's rumors that Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness writer Roberto Orci was in the running to direct the next Abrams-era film were heightened yesterday by a new report by Deadline Hollywood in which Orci is now described as the "frontrunner" to help the next sequel.

orci

This would be Orci's first time in the director's chair, though he has been involved in several big-budget film and television projects over the last several years which may aid in his job, should be be selected.

Deadline continued:

Orci could be an exception [for a first-time-director] because he has been involved for so long as writer and producer in shaping such big scale films as the Star Trek films as well as the Transformers and Amazing Spider-Man movies... Paramount’s partner, Skydance Productions, has been in Orci’s corner, but Paramount needed convincing. Now it all could happen at warp speed.

Orci worked with co-writers Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof for the first two films produced by Bad Robot; he will be joined by newcomers J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay for the third installment of the reboot film series. JJ Abrams will remain on-board as a producer.

.   .   .

MAY 13 UPDATE:

It seems that Friday's rumors have become fact as Variety is confirming that Orci has been locked in by Paramount Pictures to direct the next Trek sequel.

Everybody be good in the comments, you hear?

div_spacer

Order Star Trek Into Darkness on Blu-ray today!



Order Star Trek Into Darkness on 3D Blu-ray today!



  • Sykes

    When will the suffering end?!

    • MJ

      When you stop your negativity?

      • Sykes

        I’m not allowed to be negative about something I don’t like?

        • MJ

          You are the one who is claiming here that you are suffering constantly from this, not me?

          I am telling you how to end your suffering. Stop being so negative. It’s that simple.

          • Sykes

            I’m positive that I found STID to be disappointing.

          • OphidianJaguar

            Agreed. TOS fans complained about TNG, that it’s not Kirk and Co., that’s it not Star Trek. Well history is repeating itself. Granted it’s not the same Star Trek, it’s different, it’s new and I love it. I love all trek, even when I go to pop in TMP or TFF blu-rays I have a smile on my face, as shitty as they are, I love them, same with any other trek including the reboots.

            Good for Bob, I have faith in him and wish him the best, and that he is damn lucky as a Star Trek fan to be directing a Star Trek movie for its 50th anniversary.

          • Chris

            The criticism about TNG were largely not about quality. This discussion about the new movies is. Big difference. So history is not repeating itself.

          • OphidianJaguar

            Oh no doubt, guess I should have clarified. I know that the issues TOS fans had with TNG were different than the complaints about DS9′s darker side, VOY bubble gumishness and issues with ENT. One could also say that the issues with the reboot movies are more of a legitimate complaint, detrimental to fans and damaging to the essence of Star Trek. My point is that no matter what Trek it is, there is no pleasing all fans, someone will have a complaint about something. Then again Rick Berman did put the blindfold over Roddenberry’s bust decades ago signifying that Star Trek…had changed, it was no longer Gene’s exact vision.

  • Name

    So TREK 3 is lost even before it came together… Waiting for the 2018 reboot.

    • Chris915

      Well, technically, this is Trek 13… since it’s the 13th movie.

    • Allen Williams

      Please stop calling it 3. 3 is and always will be “The Search For Spock”

      • MJ

        No, that movie is III — Roman numerals, my friend. Big difference.

  • Trekkerhappy

    Let the pathetic haters who continually trash new Trek do their thing.Wheras those of us who actually like Star Trek look forward to the next movie

    • hypnotoad72

      JJ’s Trek films are essentially generic action flicks with Star Trek trademarks and copyrights thrown in.

      if you like the names, that’s great. But the soul, the uniqueness of Trek’s long franchise history, is not that apparent in JJ’s films.

      So it’s hard to call his films “Star Trek” on anything other than a superficial level. They may as well be “Die Hard” sequels.

      • Trekkerhappy

        What i think the new films have captured so well from the original series, is the theme of friendship and family.I grew up with classic Trek and with only two films, i think they have conveyed the friendship and loyalty between Pines Kirk and Quintos Spock very well.I hold them with as much regard that i have for Shatner and Nimoy.The same goes for the rest of the cast ( i was not really sold on Pegg as Scotty but thought he truly came into his own in Into Darkness ).Life is change.If you want Trek to stay the same then just stay at home and watch reruns.

      • AFX DS

        Welcome to TV vs Film. TV is about life, movies are about events. Because there are no current Trek TV shows, people are looking for Trek TV content in Trek Film. Trek film history is spotty on this, but the successful Trek films largely were the ones that anyone could walk in, watch, and understand enough to enjoy without being a fan. And we certainly saw with how the TNG films ended up what happens when you try to put TV style plot lines in Film.

        These films are fun, and are bringing Trek to a whole new generation of audiences worldwide. Just say thank you to them for keeping Trek alive, and when we get new Trek TV out of this eventually, thank them again.

    • Sykes

      Someone can dislike JJTrek without being “a hater”.

      • Trekkerhappy

        There is disliking JJTrek and then there is nasty and cynical trashing of the creators.To say that a film is going to be bad a full two years before the thing comes out is ridiculous.I absolutley loved Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness because they were very entertaining movies.I really like the cast, the humour, the action, the sheer fun factor.JJ Abrams and Roberto Orci and the other members of the creative team saved Star Trek and have succeeded in making it more popular than ever given that they are the highest grossing films in the series.I cant wait for the next movie.

        • MJ

          Yep!

        • Sykes

          That’s all cool, no one is trying to stop you from liking them. I’m glad you do. But my point remains the same.

    • MJ

      W E L L S A I D ! ! ! ! !

    • Allen Williams

      I love Star Trek, but into darkness wasn’t star trek. 2009 was barely star trek.

  • Dr. Cheis

    There’s far more reason to have faith in Orci than there was in Stewart Baird.

    • Ingo Ludwig

      I DON’T THINK SO.

    • hypnotoad72

      No argument from me. “Into Darkness” had moments of decency despite its problems, but the 2009 flick was just as bad as Nemesis.

      Still, audiences hated Nemesis copping other Trek movies. Abrams does the same thing, on almost every level, and is applauded. Bizarre…

      • bbock

        Into Darkness had a plot that made no frigging sense from beginning to end. It’s hard to say that it had plot holes when the holes are the most substanative part of this pale version of Star Trek. But as long as people keep buying tickets, they’ll keep cranking this crap out. Star Trek needs to go back to TV. Just not in JJ’s universe. Maybe a new animated series.

  • Victor Espinosa

    First Brannon Braga and now this lame excuse called ROBERTO ORCI – that deleted his twitter account… well, the guys at Paramout are truly enlightened…

    [COMMENT MODERATED]

    • Platitude

      Your thinking of Lindelof who deleted his twitter account…and Braga nearly destroyed the franchise whereas these guys have resurrected it. Not the best comparison.

      • MJ

        No, Orci did, after that crazy “Ahmed” poster over at Trekmovie.com baited him into a fight.

        • Platitude

          Ah, I didn’t realize that. He is back on twitter again now, however.

        • Ahmed

          MJ, Greetings from “Orci-basher”, Ahmed!!! I see that you are back to your old games but this time on Trekcore! Tell me, how many aliases did you made up this time? 8 like you did on Trekmovie or it is too early to do that :-)

          • MJ

            Hi Ahmed!!!

            Yes, I suppose that you and I are both infamous now in terms of famous Trek fan posters who got a lot of internet attention for bad behavior.

            Good to hear from you — I thought I might “smoke you out” with that remark above. LOL

            You have been really hard on me over at Trekmovie.com, but I deserve it. However, “my Sybil days” are behind me. I am just a single a-hole now who defends nuTrek.

            I still like you, and always have, but will understand if you don’t feel the same way.

            And I personally apologize to you for my multiple personality trolling.

          • http://www.trekcore.com/ TrekCoreStaff

            Guys, keep it cool over here, okay? Thanks!

          • MJ

            Thanks, we will. Just apologizing for my past behavior on another site. You will have no trouble from me on Trekcore.

          • Ahmed

            No problem!

          • Ahmed

            MJ,

            I was really pissed off when Matt told us about what you did, but it is all under the bridge now. Apology is accepted & maybe one day, things will be back to normal, who knows.

            Take care

          • MJ

            Thanks Ahmed. It means a lot to me!!!

    • MJ

      Wow, how nice. You probably think you get a free pass for making near-racist remarks about Roberto’s heritage because you are Hispanic. It doesn’t work that way.

    • Allen Williams

      Did you forget Braga brought us First Contact? And personally I loved Enterprise from day 1. It makes sense that in 100 years prior that everything was different. Look at us 100 years ago. Season 4 was starting to show us why things were so different.

    • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

      Why would you mention Mr. Orci’s nationality? Bashing someone on the basis of their nationality has NO place in Star Trek fandom. Star Trek taught you better than that!

  • Ingo Ludwig

    BRING THIS OUTRAGEOUS WRITER ON TRIAL. SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND LOSE HIS WRITING LICENCE IN HOLLYWOOD.

    • MJ

      LOL. Yea, some fans are definitely carrying pitchforks and torches here. I am embarrassed to be a Star Trek fan when I read a lot of the crap like that here.

  • Guest

    Either way, I hope he leaves out his 9/11 Truther propoganda this time.

    • danielcw

      Which 9/11 Truther propoganda?

      • Justin Olson

        For instance, the bombing of the Section 31 building in the film. The structure is ostensibly just a Starfleet memorial archive but, we quickly learn, houses a secret base run by Section 31 beneath it. 9/11 Truthers like Orci believe that World Trade Center 7 was artificially detonated by government conspirators in order to destroy evidence in a CIA office on the 25th floor that would have exposed said conspiracy.

        Then there’s Khan’s attack on the emergency meeting of Starfleet brass. It’s completely ineffectual as his target (Marcus) gets away unscathed while Pike is the only casualty. But it gives Marcus the excuse to send Kirk to wipe out Khan on Chronos and start a war with the Klingons. In the Truther’s mind, this is like the attack on the Pentagon where they believe a small missile (and not a plane) was fired at the building in order to inflame the military brass into launching an all out war in Afghanistan.

        In addition, Khan used a portable transwarp device to beam to Chronos which is conveniently found in the wreckage of Khan’s attack ship; it has coordinates which trace Khan directly to the Klingon homeworld. Again, to an avowed 9/11 Truther like Orci, this is like the discovery of the passport of Satam al-Suqami, (one of the hijackers of American Airlines Flight 11) on the street by a passerby before the towers collapsed, directly linking Middle Eastern, al Qaeda terrorists to the attack. Nevermind that passports belonging to Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al-Ghamdi were also found at the wreckage site of United Airlines Flight 93.

        No matter. To a Truther, every bit of evidence fits the conspiracy, even dis-confirming evidence. You can read more here: http://badassdigest.com/2013/09/11/how-star-trek-into-darkness-is-a-crypto-truther-conspiracy-movie/

        • MJ

          Justin, I will say this. If he goes on to become a major Hollywood director in the years to come, all of the “archived posts” of his ultra-radical political commentary and just dumb-ass conspiracy theory ideas will come back to bite him in the ass at some point down the road.

        • danielcw

          But those examples you list, did not play out a truther propanganda in the film.
          It would actually say, it did quite the opposite, because all these 3 examples were outside jobs, from a “terrorist”, not inside jobs, no truther conspirancy here.

          I could even go one step further, all 3 examples align with real world history, and wnot with truther conspirancies.

          The “terrorist” was previously used to work for the side, and was brought to power by the side, he is now attacking.
          Compare that to the real world history that lead to 9/11, Bin Laden/Taliban, used by the U.S.

          If Orci wanted to do truther propanganda, he failed, and actually did the opposite.

          In the end, he did neither, because all that stuff is normal conspiracy story plot.
          (don’t forget, that Orci & kurtzman started working wit JJ on Alias)

        • AFX DS

          I haven’t ever heard any of that, so good on you for exposing more folks to the conspiracy theories and getting them more wide coverage. That said, I think that does the opposite of your intention, as you are just giving them more creedance.

          I have to say the detail in which you recount all this makes me think it’s says more about an obsessive desire to find desperate ways to dislike the film, lol, than anything about the writer. I’m sure you are just parroting these from someone else’s crazy, but goodness…these are stretching it at best and no one but folks who follow such craziness are going to ever see these rather loose connections.

          All that said, if Orci does believe this stuff and worked it in – good for him, that’s what a writer does. I don’t care what someone making a film cares about politically – the only reason to be scared of that is if you think he’s going to change your mind about something, LOL. Sounds like a creative guy. I’m sure this film will do great box office like the last one did – and I’m sure I’ll enjoy it along with the millions and millions of other folks worldwide that are making these the most attended Star Trek films of all time.

  • http://www.scream-movie.net/ Charles Petrosky

    Why are Orci and Kurtzman so popular? All of their scripts are rubbish!

    • danielcw

      You read them?
      And you know what they contributed to other scripts, while being on the writing staffs?

      • hypnotoad72

        Good point.

        They are probably told what to do by a pallid marketing team that doesn’t want to take any risks or be true to the franchise’s more positive ideals out of namby pamby fear they’ll lose customers.

        • danielcw

          That’s actually not the point I was trying to make,
          but your “substitute” is a good point as well.

        • Sykes

          So Orci isn’t a terrible writer, he’s just pushed around by higher-ups? Why is that better?

          • danielcw

            better?
            If I understand hypnotoad correctly, he is not saying that it is better or worse.

            Whether Orci is a terrible writer or a good writer, is up for debate, and personal taste,
            but we can’t know from the outside.
            He is dong his job, and he is doing it well, or otherwise he would have been replaced, and not well payed.

    • danielcw

      And to actually try to answer their question,
      their scripts were mostly part of successes.

      And those who hire them, have better knowledge of their work then we outsiders do.
      They can actually judge their work, and see way more then the muddled endproduct.

      But the way: Kurtzman (and Lindelof, I guess) are out for the next Trek movie,
      and I guess JJ’s influence will be greatly reduced

      • Allen Williams

        I don’t think JJ put khan in. I heard it was one of the two of them, but I don’t recall. The other was opposed, but lost for some reason. I hope that Orci is the one that was opposed.

        • danielcw

          Orci, Kurtzman and Lindelof, discussed Khan in the beginning, but dropped him during writing the storyline. In the end Kurtzman and Lindelof thought Khna would fit the Story/Harrison, and they eventually convinced Orci.

          Source: Orci’s interview in the Mission Log/Roddenberry podcast (nerdist)

          I also read some where, that Orci thought about Harrison just being one of Khan’s men from the Bottany Bay, but I dont remember the source

  • QuasarM

    Tolerance: one of the key principles of Star Trek ideology. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.

    • hypnotoad72

      So is being true to ideals. You forgot to mention that.

      • MJ

        Yes, and he have been true to Trek’s ideals in the first two movies. Good point — I agree with you.

        • tangentmechanic

          They have been true to Star Trek’s aesthetic and characterizations, but they’re a far cry from it’s ideals.

          • MJ

            STID is not a great movie. But the whole movie is about sticking to Star Trek’s ideals. Honesty, integrity and doing the right thing.

    • Sykes

      Tolerance doesn’t mean you cannot express disappointment. Or annoyance.
      And it doesn’t mean you can’t hope (and plead) for better. Tolerance has nothing to do with settling for what is in front of you.

  • Star Trek lives

    good for him, he’s helped bring Star Trek back from the abyss after Nemesis and Enterprise almost destroyed it. Star Trek lives.

    • bbock

      Nemesis was an abomination. But Enterprise was fairly good and was getting better with each season (excluding the last episode, which was a Brannon Braga mess).

      • OphidianJaguar

        Agreed. I loved Enterprise, I tuned in ever week, I wanted 7 seasons. It was fresh, different, with all the right actors. Unfortunately the fourth season was slotted in the Friday death spot and caught up in the Viacom, Paramount, CBS, UPN fiasco. That is not the actors, producers, writers, or directors fault. They are all at the mercy of corporate executive suit wearing monkeys “oh do this..don’t do this.”….oddly enough the same people who say, “Yea, let’s give Star Trek another shot.”

        • Allen Williams

          You forgot to mention that UPN went from sci-fi/fantasy to ghetto programming. I recall Enterprise getting replaced by Britney spears. I’m like how long will that last? a week? I don’t recall, but it wasn’t long.

          • OphidianJaguar

            I never mentioned that because I am Canadian, Enterprise was on our Space channel, not UPN, same with all other previous Star Trek shows.

        • Chris

          Fresh and different. Yes, these might be some of the words that sold ENT to Paramount. But was it really different the first two seasons and beyond? Shuttle crashes, transporter, unlimited food supplies, Borg, Ferengi, Romulans and sometimes even the same stories from previous incarnations rehashed. Where the characters more real just because of a particular accent? What made ENT different was the large Xindi story arc and the (for the most part) splendid fourth season.

    • MJ

      Well said. I could not agree more!

  • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

    Paramount has made it clear since the beginning that they don’t really “get” Star Trek, so it’s no use expecting them to do the right thing by Star Trek. I had hoped, though, that they’d be able to find someone who is both an experienced director AND a Star Trek fan to direct the picture; it seems like that combination would be a no-brainer, even for a studio suit.

    • bbock

      From their perspective, what’s to get. They want money. It is a business. They don’t care if the plot makes any sense. They don’t care about character motivations, plot development, or building a believable universe. They believe in making movies that people will pay to see. And as awful as these movies are in terms of plot and character development and dialog, and just about everything else… the one thing you can’t argue is that they are making a lot of money from the corpse of Star Trek.

      • MJ

        “They believe in making movies that people will pay to see.”

        We can’t have that now. Bring in Terrance Malick or Lars von Trier — we need people in charge who will make movies that most people will not pay to see.

        LOL

      • danielcw

        Of course the studios care, about about character motivations, plot development, or building a believable universe, they just think, that they did good enough here.

        Have you never heard about studio notes,
        for example the ones paramount gave for Star Trek 5?

      • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

        But any intelligent studio understands that THE AUDIENCE cares about character motivations, plot development, and the like. Sure, the studios are in it to make money, but they understand that they have to deliver a “product” that the audience enjoys in order to get us to pay to see it.

        My point is that when the studio understands their franchise, they’re better able to deliver the quality that puts bodies in seats. When they don’t understand their franchise — and all the evidence is that Paramount does not — then they have no idea how to deliver quality EVEN IF THEY WANT TO.

    • MJ

      You have a point there. Voyager and Enterprise were just horrid, as were nearly all of TNG movies. So I am happy that Bad Robot is now largely running the show instead of Paramount. Good point!

      • pittrek

        I agree with Voyager, but I can’t understand why so many people hate Enterprise. I mean the last season was boring, just as many of the episodes in seasons 1 and 2, but season 3 was excellent, just as most stories in the first two seasons

      • Samis

        Voyager is the best star trek series. I do not get what some people have against Voyager.
        It is a great star trek series.

  • mjdavid

    I’ve always been a Trek fan who believes that Star Trek works best on television. Character development in Star Trek is key, and whether you like it or not, Star Trek is a morality play. That’s how Gene Roddenberry designed it. While they’re certainly not my favorite, I respect the Abrams films and I don’t understand the bickering back and forth. Kids today, this is the Star Trek they’re growing up with. When I was growing up in the 1980s and 1990s I had TNG/DS9/VOY and then ENT as I entered adulthood. I can look back on those shows and remember the magic; I can watch them today (especially the new Blus for TNG and ENT) and it’s like reliving incredible memories for the first time. I don’t like casting negativity toward Abrams’ re-imagining of Star Trek because I remember my uncle telling me that TNG was trash and that only TOS and those characters were Star Trek. Yes, I feel his films are most just action flicks with the name “Star Trek” slapped on to it, but having Star Trek out there is better than not having it at all … AND … we have to remember, the kids who are loving the Abrams films … how many are going to stumble on to the TNG and ENT blu-rays or on to DS9 or VOY on Netflix. One of Gene Roddenberry’s values was inclusiveness … the Trek universe is vast, there’s room enough for all of us and all of our opinions.

    • Allen Williams

      Agreed. Come to think about it Star Trek the Motion Picture, Star Trek 4 The Voyage Home, and Star Trek 6 The Undiscovered country are the most Star Trek of all the movies. Everything else is just filler content that may or may not be entertaining.

      • SpaceCadet

        I’ve never heard “The Wrath of Khan” referred to as “filler content” before. A lot of fans, myself included, consider it the best of all of the Trek films. I think “The Search for Spock” is pretty good too and better than most of the other films.

        • kadajawi

          Yes, but are they STAR TREK? ST 2009 was a good action flick, I just wouldn’t say it was Star Trek. Into Darkness was better in that sense…

    • OphidianJaguar

      Agreed, I feel character development is desperately lacking in the reboot movies.

      Im the same, I’m a child of the 80′s (30 yrs old) grew up with TNG as a child with TOS reruns, entering teenage-hood with DS9 and VOY and I was 22 when Enterprise ended. I feel the same way with TNG and TOS on blu-ray they both look gorgeous, Enterprise not so much.

      With regards to the kids growing up with reboot films, I can only hope it peeks their interest enough (the intelligent ones) that they will go back and watch the old shows and movies and be inspired and intrigued by them they way we were.

      Right now the reboot movies are all we have, and its just another version of Star Trek. I already grew up with a reimagining, TNG, it was not TOS, to people back then it was something so different and radical from Kirk and crew that there were haters.. back in the 80′s people saying TOS not TNG is the true trek, WTF. So I’m not going to damn these movies like people did TNG back in the day. I enjoy Star Trek 2009 and Into Darkness, their fun. Whether its The Motion Picture, The Final Frontier, or Into Darkness I have a smile on my face when I pop in those blu-rays. I FUCKING LOVE IT ALL!

      The point that all the haters are neglecting to mention is that this is just another form of Star Trek, just as TNG was in the 80′s and DS9 (dark trek) was in the 90′s and it will not necessarily stay this way. There is no doubt it will go back to its roots. Just like Star Trek, I’m optimistic, I’m not worried :D

      • danielcw

        “With regards to the kids growing up with reboot films, I can only hope it peeks their interest enough (the intelligent ones) that they will go back and watch the old shows and movies”

        The intelligent ones? So all of them?

        Are you trying to imply, that have to intelligent above average to like TOS & TNG Star Trek?

      • Tyler1976

        The JJ films remind me of an episode of SG-1 when they were depicting alternate versions of the events of the show, one of them being an all younger cast playing the characters a little more ‘edgy.’ At that time the idea of doing that was met with open hostility. And yet years later that is exactly what JJ did. We’re not talking about a new show with new characters that deviates from classic Trek. DS9 did that and did it well. What JJ did is take pre-existing characters that millions of Trekkies hold near and dear and said, ‘I’m going to crap all over everything we know about them and regurgitate it into something that only vaguely resembles what Trek is all about and slap the name Star Trek on it. While some people might like the new approach to it, and I have no beef with them, that’s why we all are allowed our own opinions, I personally found the JJ films, especially the second one, offensive and insulting. What SG-1 mocked more than a decade ago has become a reality that the majority of people accept as good enough. I’m personally going to go into Star Trek 3 with trepidation, hoping for the best but knowing that the bar is set very low.

    • Denise Dion

      Very well said. I agree with you. I grew up watching TNG, but saw the original series in reruns. You can’t expect things to remain the same. Give the new director a break. At least he’s a fan.

  • Trekkerhappy

    For those haters who point out plot holes in the JJ films, heres a newsflash….ALL Star Trek films and tv shows have plot holes and mistakes! Entire books have been written about them.If you cannot suspend your belief when watching Trek then i wonder how you were ever fans in the first place.

    • MJ

      Yep. In fact, it you look at Trek movie plots, Star Trek II and III have the most plot holes and bad science of any Trek movies done to date. But because of sentimentality and the passage of time, they get a free pass.

      • Justin Olson

        I’m not sure I agree with that claim. I would have to see a comprehensive breakdown of each movie, identifying all supposed plot holes and scientific errors. Take as much time as you need! ; )

        • MJ

          Protomatter and Spock downloading his soul and brain to McCoy via Vulcan wifi.

          Enough said.

          • Perplex

            And how are those “plot holes” in a world where kprotomatter and katras exist? Next time you see plotholes in The lord of the rings because it has dwarfs in it.

          • MJ

            Your statement has a severe logic fault in that you at trying to compare science fiction to fantasy. This is an apples to oranges comparison — INVALID.

          • Timothy

            You know what’s really invalid? A guy who won’t stand his ground. NEVER DISS KUBRICK BRO!!!

          • MJ

            Kubrick is overrated…nuff said.

        • James

          For me it’s Generations that has the biggest plot hole, specifically Guinans assertion that you can leave the nexus and go anywhere at anytime. Why not leave the Nexus a month earlier and save his nephew!

          But off the top of my head:

          TMP: Only one starship within range!
          TWOK: Ceti Alpha 6 exploded, yet the helmsman or computer never noticed that
          there is one less planet than there was when Kirk was there
          TSFS: Hang on a minute there! the Genesis planet is such a big deal that no-one can talk about it and yet…it’s protected by the Grissom and precisely one rogue klingon ship can invade it. Not only that, but there’s really only one ship (the crippled Excelsior) that can chase Kirk down!
          TVH: Those vintage apple-macs are sure powerful!
          TFF: Basically the entire movie.
          TUC: Can’t think of any off the top of my head.
          GEN: See above.
          FC: Why not just send the sphere back in time and fly to earth in order to assimilate it without all the fighting. Why only send one Borg ship? When did Picard become Mr Angry?
          INS: Can’t think of any off the top of my head.
          NEM: Many of the main cast are out of character. Why didn’t Shinzon go for Earth first? Picard would surely have come calling for him. Why does no one mention Lore? Why in Gods name do they do their reconnaisance in a dune buggy when they’ve got shuttlecraft? Why does Commander Riker lead the security team to fight the Reman
          invaders on the Enterprise? For that matter, why does he have a fist
          fight with a Reman on a catwalk over a bottomless pit? We even find out that the Remans are unusually light sensitive – if
          they’d beamed onto the well lit TV set of the regular show, they
          wouldn’t have been so effective in combat. Why do our usually quite
          intelligent heroes not turn up the blasted lights? I could keep going all day – but here is the last piece of illogic to
          trample on Roddenberry’s dream. The Enterprise is being shadowed by
          Shinzon’s cloaked ship and is desperate to rendezvous with the fleet for
          protection. On the way, they enter an area of space/plot contrivance
          where long-range communications don’t work. Data and Picard note this
          and then, well you can guess what happens.

          • Platitude

            I can think of a bunch for TUC, even though I thoroughly enjoy the movie. Why have we never heard of phaser alarms before? Why is there a kitchen? Why do they need big old universal translators to put to their ears? Would the Romulans really have an ambassador on Earth? And why would the Federation allow that Romulan to sit in in military discussions? “We are currently in Alpha Quadrant right now” Aren’t you all in the Alpha Quadrant? How come half the ship looks like Enterprise-D? (ANSWER: because we had a low budget) etc. Doesn’t diminish my feelings on the movie because its still a great movie. With something like Nemesis, its problems are on top of the fact that its a bad movie.

          • James

            Mostly fair points there, though – like my nit-pick for TVH though, none are really plot holes.

            With the Galley thing though, we saw this on Enterprise and I thought that replicators didn’t get introduced until 24th century time.

            I love TUC – it’s probably still my favourite movie of all time. It was the first Trek film that I saw at the cinema (I was eleven) and it had a pretty big influence on me.

          • Platitude

            Hey, first Trek movie I saw in the theater too! I love it, its just easy to nitpick it ;)

            I thought they had replicators before that, but you could be right.

    • Trek RULES

      Yeah, problem is it is hard to suspend disbelief in the JJ films when they get so much of the basics wrong. How can you watch the opening 10 minutes of Into Darkness and not think bad things? Oh let’s see, Spock is in the volcano but not on fire yet the shuttle or Enterprise can’t get close because they can’t handle the heat? The communications officer is on that shuttle why? Oh yeah, because her boyfriend is there, not because she is needed. When you don’t get the basics right, it is hard to suspend disbelief. At least the rest tried to be somewhat logical and believable. With JJ, it is whatever sounds cool. A transporter that works at warp? sure, don’t worry that the ship might not actually be there or that it makes starships a thing of the past. Need to bring back Kirk from the dead? just use Khan’s blood. And look, you cured death too! but those are minor, hardly worth even thinking about.

  • MJ

    Congrats to Bob Orci!

    I am really looking forward to his more focused take on Trek. There were just too many cooks in the kitchen on the last one.

    • Frost

      How long have you been engaged to Bob Orci?

      • MJ

        Dude, if the Internet was around in the late 1980′s, TNG, which got off to a really bad start with two lame initial seasons, would have never made it to season 3 with all of the know-it-all / overly judgmental types of people that we see today crapping all over JJ and Bob — the guys who save Star Trek.

        • Sykes

          What people say on the internet means nothing. TNG rated well enough to keep going, just as JJTrek makes enough money to keep going. The fan back-and-forth is just so much hot air.

          • MJ

            Don’t kid yourself.

    • Sykes

      He doesn’t actually have the job yet. He probably will get it, but a little early for congratulations.

  • OphidianJaguar

    I have no issue with this, there is a first time for everything and I will not judge until I have seen it. Couldn’t be worse than Stuard Baird…..could he?

    For what it was, the 2009 reboot was a fun and exciting movie. Into Darkness was not as good, but assessing it what it is (not classic Star Trek) its a fun explosive adventure, I enjoy it every time I see it. Its not TOS, its something different, the way Enterprise was. Yes Enterprise was about exploration (HARD CORE) but it wasn’t all gold tunics and delta shields. Enterprise was different enough that people didn’t watch it. I don’t care about that Friday night slot, if you were a fan and you enjoyed it, you watched it regardless of what day of the week.

    Will I ever disagree that the reboot movies (specifically Into Darkness) are lacking in writing, exploration and the essence, that certain je ne sais quoi of Star Trek? No.

    For me the new new movies have enough positive attributes that the essence of what is missing does not hinder it for me…too much. It is Star Trek, for me, another form, not the classic, but Star Trek none the less. Regardless if I watch The Motion Picture, The Final Frontier, or Into Darkness, I have a smile on my face.

  • SpaceCadet

    I have enjoyed these rebooted “Star Trek” movies. They are entertaining and fun and have solid production values and talent involved in their making. And yet I find these films are not “real” Trek. They are hyper-active action-adventure flicks with the name “Star Trek” slapped on them for the commercial appeal of the brand recognition and nostalgia factor. And they are directed by someone who had not a love for the franchise but for “Star Wars” and ironically, was later handed the reigns to that particular franchise. The rebooted films feel like to me an attempt to make “Star Trek” into “Star Wars” and that is not what “Star Trek” is. It’s about deeper more philosophical questions, “morality plays” as Gene Rodenberry so eloquently describes his creation. Any yet from a financial standpoint, I clearly understand the logic that Paramount took in resurrecting “Star Trek” which was pretty much dead after a box office bomb and an unloved and unwatched prequel TV series. A fresh but familiar take on Trek was necessary and like it or not JJ Abrams provided that and brought the franchise back to life, maybe not creatively but at least financially. But like others have stated, I agree that Trek ultimately works best on TV where the characters and stories can flourish. Now that Paramount sees Trek is again a viable property and since it’s been absent from the dramatic series format for nearly a decade, hopefully they will soon get going on such a project on TV or streaming online that we can all eagerly anticipate and rally around.

    • pittrek

      The new movies are great action movies, but at the same time they’re horrible Star Trek movies. Orci sucks as a writer, will he be a good director?

    • James

      Hi there SpaceCadet, I agree with you that these new movies are entertaiing and fun. I also think that they keep true to the spirit of the characters in the original series. Where I disagree with you is regarding the philisophical / morality argument.

      The movie acts as a metaphor for America’s descent into moral ambiguity following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The hunt for John Harrison is analagous to the search for Bin Laden and the debate about whether to launch photon torpedoes at the Klingon home world is relevant to current debates regarding the morality of drone strikes.

      The film concludes with Kirk realising that he lost perspective following the terrorist attack on Starfleet. He then rededicates himself to science and peaceful exploration and begins the famous five year mission, to explore strange new worlds and to seek out new life. The title “Into Darkness” refers to the moral state of American foreign policy following 9/11 (fear, vengeance, anger, and violence) and the
      final scenes state that it’s time row back from this.

      Star Trek Into Darkness opens with Kirk debating on whether to violate the prime directive in order to rescue Spock whose life hangs in the balance as he tries to save an entire civilisation from an erupting
      volcano. Roddenberry would be proud of these aspects of the film.

      • SpaceCadet

        Hi James, I agree with you that Star Trek Into Darkness did present a story with relevant topics. How successful it was with that is simply another matter. While I left the theater entertained, I didn’t feel like I had anything to contemplate either or find anything particularly remarkable or unique about the film. Perhaps because so many elements were borrowed from The Wrath of Khan, which was a vastly superior (and probably my favorite) Trek movie, I thought Into Darkness paled in comparison. But my main point is I think the dramatic series format is where Star Trek really excels at with its characters and storytelling.

  • Mr. Anonymous

    But, can he direct? Just because you can write doesn’t mean you can direct.

    • danielcw

      I have no idea, if he can handle a big budget movie,
      but he is running (with Kurtzman) a production company,
      and on TV shows he held highest rankings, and one could assume more responsibilities.
      But on TV, the budgets and time constrants were different, and the budget and risk is smaller.

      I also want to point out, that Orci is not alone.
      He has expereinced and talented people at his side, and beneath him.
      If he can lead, and not screw with their talent, it could be easy for him.

    • pittrek

      He can’t even write. Every movie he co-wrote sucks, the plots and scripts make no sense

  • Trek Rules

    Not a good choice but not surprising. People need to quit talking about how he and JJ brought Trek back – there were things in development before this movie but the restructuring of CBS/Paramount kept getting in the way since Star Trek was both a movie and tv franchise. And it was barely 6 years, not the near decade people like to say, between Nemesis and the first JJ film which is not that long – it was 4 years between Insurrection and Nemesis and there wasn’t the behind the scenes issues. Quit buying the hype and look at the facts.

  • Frank B.

    I’m just a little surprised. IIRC, Mr. Orci was involved in a heated debate not so long ago that made him a “controversial” figure, to say the least. Maybe Paramount doesn’t mind the controversy because it creates attention?

  • Trekkerhappy

    Whenever i read the mean spirited bashing and trolling of JJTrek by the haters on this site it always reminds me of this…http://youtu.be/02LgdXVkXgM

    • MJ

      Awesome! Yep — this really fits a lot of the negative bitching here, doesn’t it?

  • Allen Williams

    Please tell me he was the one opposed to using khan. I don’t remember who it was, but one of the two of them was opposed to using khan in the last movie.

    • MJ

      Yes, he was the one opposed to Khan. Kurtzman and Lindelof overuled him.

    • danielcw

      To back up what MJ wrote:
      Orci mentioned it in an interview, i believe on the Missionlog podcast

  • Alfredo deDarc

    If it keeps him away from writing it, why not?

    • Alfredo deDarc

      Orci is far too arrogant, with an orca sized ego….. I can understand why Kurtzman wanted away from him.

      • MJ

        Responding to your own post???

      • MJ

        So was Gene Rodenberry. And that worked out pretty good.

    • danielcw

      It does not, he is also writing it,
      and I guess also producing.

  • J Skagnetti

    I mean, yeah good for him, but bad for us probably.

  • Bryce

    I can’t see how this is good news… Unless, he has some spectacular directing skills that are vastly superior to the way his scripts fall apart upon inspection.

  • Hermann

    “Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse”
    William T. Riker in: Star Trek Nemesis

    • MJ

      Dude, your post is unintentionally funny — a wooden Star Trek actor in the worst TNG movie is definitely the worst it could ever get.

      • danielcw

        your post is unintentionally funny as well
        “a wooden Star Trek actor”

        who turned out to be a good Star Trek director :)

        I love Orci, but Frakes will be a hard act to follow

  • MJ

    THIS IS OUTSTANDING NEWS !!!!!

    CONGRATULATIONS TO BOB ORCI

    Also, for all of you detractors, just note that one key thing many of you seem to have forgot, and that I think will make people think better of Bob Orci in this role in the new movie, is that Bob Orci may have been perhaps the only person among JJ, Kurtzman, Lindelof and himself, who did not want Khan in the next movie. This is even documented on Memory Alpha as follows:

    “Co-writer Damon Lindelof said the jumping-off point for the sequel’s story was deciding whether Khan would be the villain, and he, Kurtzman and Orci weighed the pros and cons of using the character. Abrams commented that, in comparison to Nero from Star Trek, the writers wanted “a much more nuanced and complex villain” for Into Darkness. Due to the massive popularity of how Khan had been represented before, however, “there was a good year of debate,” explained Alex Kurtzman, over whether to include Khan in the upcoming movie. With a laugh, Orci phrased this issue, “To Khan or not to Khan.” Kurtzman observed, “The choice to play in that sandbox is really complicated because when a character was as beloved as Khan, you really have to have a reason to do it.” During the debate, Lindelof wanted to use Khan, while Orci was against this option.”

    I bring this up because I see a lot of people using the Khan issues of STID to try to say Bob is responsible for that. That is simply not true. Bob was overruled.

    • danielcw

      So I hope next time he fights harder :)

      • kadajawi

        Next time he is boss. It’s his decision.

        I think Orci and Kurtzman are good action writers, with problems in the dialogue etc. department (they did get better over time IMHO). So now Orci gets to direct… could be good. I don’t know. At least he is a trekkie, unlike the others who worked on the previous two movies. On the other hand Orci doesn’t have any directing experience, apart from being a spectator.

  • Douglasn7

    This is good because Orci is the only Trekkie in Bad robot who was involved in making Trek 09 and Into Darkness.

    • Anna Martin

      If he’s a trekkie, then why can’t he write the characters properly?

  • pittrek

    Can a miserable writer be a good director? Let’s wait and see.

  • Trekkerhappy

    Congratulations Mr Orci.Hope you and the rest of the team will deliver a great movie.

  • Matt Littledyke

    All we seem to get from some fans these days is negativity. We all wanted Trek to be revived and we got it regardless of the people saying this is not Star Trek I don’t understand that argument it has the name and yes it’s slightly different but it’s meant to be. In this day in age we need some different story’s. The classics were great but for the time they were filmed in and we are now in a new age where technology has moved on. I know the lense flare technology is not for everyone but I like it and also as a life long Star Trek fan now at 37 I still love it and will do so for a long time to come.

    • pittrek

      Revived doesn’t mean rebooted or turned into a heartless, soulless, brainless action flick

      • danielcw

        Neither of the movies was heartless,
        and while they may not have been as “brainy” as I would like, they still had some brain.
        For me Star Trek 2009 had everything Star Trek needs, except the required amount of brain,
        and while STID improved here, it did not meet my personal threshold.

        • Matt Littledyke

          Just the point i’m trying to make make here some of us like the reboot some of us don’t but all us who do seem to be getting bashed on all sides can’t we just agree to disagree after all it is just an opinon as for the heartless, soulless and brainless remark i have to agree with you when you say they wern’t

  • http://corylea.com/ Corylea

    Leonard Nimoy was a first-time director when he made The Search for Spock,
    and he was great, so brand-new directors CAN do a good job. I wish I
    thought that Orci had a tenth of Nimoy’s talent or a tenth of his
    dedication to making Star Trek good, but I suppose he could surprise us.

    • Justin Olson

      Nimoy had directed several television episodes (including a TV movie) before he was given the directing reigns on THE SEARCH FOR SPOCK. So he was not a first-time director — he had prior directing experience, just check his IMDb profile:

      http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000559/

      • MJ

        That’s overstating it a bit. Four 80′s era simple tv episodes/movies directing versus Bob Orci serving under JJ’s and other major director’s tutoring on major movies for years…that’s what we are really comparing here. And his one TV movie was a production based on his one person play, Vincent — so that hardly counts, since he primarily directed himself.

        Comparing directing an episode or two of TJ Hooker to being on the production and writing teams of mutliple major scifi movies where you learn from the directors — people can draw their own conclusions here on which is better???

        • Justin Olson

          I don’t think it’s overstating it at all. Directing is a very specific job requiring a very specific set of skills. And you have to actually do it to get good at it.

          Prior directing experience demonstrates that you can communicate with actors (very important!), guide their performances, establish an overall tone, tell a story visually (this is cinema, after all), work well with hundreds of technicians and crew, make your days and finish on schedule and — most importantly to the studio — on budget and deliver a finished product.

          Giving someone who has not previously demonstrated they can do any of that a $150-$200 million dollar movie is incredibly foolish. When Bond was ready for its 50th Anniversary film, the studio and producers went with an Academy Award winning director who had directed five feature films beforehand.

          • MJ

            Actually, I agree with most of your statement here about directorial skills. Where we differ here is that I just don’t see that directing a couple of TJ Hooker episodes and a TV movie where you are directing yourself NECESSARILY prepares you much better for directing a major scifi epic than someone who was both written and produced major sf movies under major established directors? I think this is open for debate — either view may be correct.

          • Justin Olson

            Yeah, I checked Shatner’s IMDb page before I posted the link to Nimoy’s. Just to be clear, I wasn’t making the argument that prior directing experience always guarantees that a film will be great (for that you also need a fantastic script) just that it demonstrates to the studio that the person in question can direct based on actual experience.

            I really have no problem with Orci pursuing a directing career. He just should have done it the proper way and followed the example of his former writing partner by directing a smaller film first — or by directing a few episodes on one of the many shows he’s created over the years instead of this blatant power move to jump straight to directing mega budget films (it’s rumored that he deliberately scared off the handful of directors who came in for meetings, leaving Paramount with no other viable choice).

            First time director working with writers with no produced credits? Star Trek’s 50th deserved better.

          • MJ

            “it’s rumored that he deliberately scared off the handful of
            directors who came in for meetings, leaving Paramount with no other viable
            choice”

            That’s either singularly brilliant by the guy who thinks he knows what’s best for Star Trek, or it’s the worst form of megalomania? I am hoping for the former.

          • danielcw

            “(it’s rumored that he deliberately scared off the handful of directors who came in for meetings, leaving Paramount with no other viable choice)”

            There are also rumors he is an alcoholic,
            but we should not forget, those are just rumors.

            Where does this rumor come from?

            By the way, why should the studio and other higher ups allow him to scare of directors?

          • danielcw

            “Prior directing experience demonstrates that you can communicate with actors (very important!), guide their performances, establish an overall tone, tell a story visually (this is cinema, after all), work well with hundreds of technicians and crew, make your days and finish on schedule and — most importantly to the studio — on budget and deliver a finished product.”

            I am pretty sure as the head of a production company, and being in charge of TV shows, he has much experience in all those things, except the actors part.
            But I would be very surprised, if he never was involved with casting or did see directors working on set, or even having some input there.

            Orci definitely had the chance to learn all those things, either by watching or by doing.
            Let’s hope he actually did learn some things :)

  • MJ

    All, check out this editorial from FilmSchoolRejects.com:
    ————————————————————–

    “It Doesn’t Really Matter Who Directs Star Trek 3″

    If there’s anything we’ve learned from the past two decades of blockbusting dominance, it’s that sequels are somehow not universally feared anymore. If there’s a second thing we’ve learned, it’s that studios are embracing franchising instead of stripping a popular movie for parts and hack-jobbing it into a 7-movie series composed mostly of direct-to-your-home schlock until it fails to turn a profit on diminishing returns.

    And if there’s a third lesson, it’s that the insulation of studio filmmaking has largely made the director’s name irrelevant. Particularly when we’re talking about a third or fourth entry. [...] But, okay, prevailing wisdom says it’s not smart to give a $200m budget film to a first timer. It also says that rookie directors will rely on their DPs and department heads heavily. With those competing ideas in mind, I’d be willing to bet that Orci will be learning on the job with the largest safety net possible. It’s not like he’s soldiering out with credit card debt and a dream here. He’s partnering with a corporation with a half-billion-dollar interest in getting the product they want.

    That’s not to say it’s impossible for him to screw it up or that directing a movie of that size is in anyway easy (because it’s insanely difficult), but there are a significant amount of safeguards in place here — including an established set of aesthetics — and Orci knows the Star Trek team and Paramount well enough to take full advantage of the veterans at his disposal.

    He’s within the sphere of talent that renders his name sufficient enough for the task. Beyond that, the studio very well may see him as a team player who won’t fight when they offer notes or guide him toward exactly what they want in order to sell the most toys. He’s a close cousin to the commercial spec director brought up to the big leagues. The bottom line being that there is a system at work here much larger than the director.

    The most interesting part of all of this will be how Orci does as the final arbiter of his own screenwriting. Maybe that’s what people are really afraid of.

    • danielcw

      Nice writeup, thanks for bringing it to my (our) attention.

      I am pretty sure the safety net thing is true,
      in addition to him being in charge of TV shows and having his own production company.

      “Beyond that, the studio very well may see him as a team player who won’t fight when they offer notes or guide him toward exactly what they want”

      Yeah, he looks like somebody is willing to listen and willing to give others a chance to convince him.
      (see the Khan in STID thing)

      “The most interesting part of all of this will be how Orci does as the final arbiter of his own screenwriting. Maybe that’s what people are really afraid of.”

      That’s what I am most looking forward to,
      I hope he does not blew it and continues the progression from Star Trek XI to Into Darkness

  • Anna Martin

    So, the 50th is ruined. Lovely. No need to bother wasting hard earned money on this then.

    • MJ

      Yes, please stay away then. This movie is for Star Trek fans, not whining, naysayer grouches.

      • Anna Martin

        I’m a second generation Trekkie, dude. I’ve watched every movie, almost every episode. I own the complete series, including the reboot movies. Because for some reason I’m just too damn loyal to this fandom for my own good. I’ve run rps and writen and created within the verse. I’m working my way through the novel series. I have been a part of this fandom for 30 years, my entire existence. So don’t you dare pull the ‘real’ fans crap. People have a right to get upset over things that they put effort into. You have no right to question if they are fans or not because they are displeased with what they are currently being handed. When they know there is better out there.

        How is wanting the 50th to be spectacular, like it should be, and not just another brainless action flick ‘whiny’, exactly? I’m not asking for a rehash of the last 50 years, but come on, they can at least try to give it something worth remembering. And I don’t think Orci has it in him. As a director or as a writer. Which I’m not even going to both going into, because I’ll break the charaacter limit. He treats members of this fandom as if they are misguided children for wanting something more, and he’s the ‘loving parent’ that must guide them to the right.

        He’s basically Gul Dukat.

        tl;dr : I’m not saying that Bob Orci is an egomaniacal, power-mad, Cardassian dictator…but at the same time, I can’t prove that he’s not. Also, you have no right to dictate who is a fan or not. No matter when, how, why, who or what they came into the fandom for.

        • MJ

          Please stop putting words in my mouth. You specifically said:

          “No need to bother wasting hard earned money on this then.”

          To which I responded, “Yes, please stay away then.”

          So for this part of my statement and yours, we are in full agreement.

          You also said:

          “So, the 50th is ruined. Lovely.”

          To which I responded, “This movie is for Star Trek fans, not whining, naysayer
          grouches.”

          To proactively state like it’s a fact that the 50th anniversary movie is already ruined for all of us, without even knowing much at all about the new production, is in my opinion something that is not consistent with what a true fan of Star Trek would say. It is what a naysayer-grouch would say — a person who complains and flames on Trek productions that they personally don’t like in an unnecessarily incendiary manner that is personally offensive to others who simply just have a honest and different opinion.

          You then proved my point further in your rant about Bob Orci being Gul Dukat (followed by a lame disclaimer after you had already name-called Bob as Dukat), someone who was responsible for mass murder and torturing of prisoners in Star Trek. What kind of a real Star Trek fan would make a comparison like that?

          So yes, I stand behind what I said here to you 100%, and I appreciate you providing further confirmation that my initial assessment of your post was indeed correct.

          • Anna Martin

            Again, sir, you remain wrong. You are in fact calling me a non-fan because you simply can not comprehend the fact that YES fans are allowed to be displeased with things. It’s part of fandom, especially this fandom as change is taken hard within it, and I suggest you learn that.

            I am a fan, a very proud fan, even if I find displeasure in the newer movies because I find them watered down versions of the shows that I grew up with. My excitement when they announced Trek’s return to the big-screen was so much that my non-trek friends actually disconnected from me for a while.

            As a lifelong fan, this is what I had wanted and longed for since the end of Enterprise and the last TNG movie.

            However with every interview my excitement died down. Every time Abrams opened his mouth to stay that he preferred Star Wars over Star Trek left me with the question, Why him? Then the answer came when the 2009 movie was released. It was nothing more than a summer action flick with pretty boys, pretty girls and special effects. To be a blockbuster, to make money.

            But I went to it and watched it anyways. Same with the 2013 movie.

            And probably the same with this one, because no matter how much I dislike Orci and his take on beloved characters, because I love the characters those pretty boys and pretty girls play with all my heart. And I even have a soft spot for the actors and actresses themselves.

            Now you are the one putting words into the other person’s mouth. I never stated it would be ruined for everyone. I know, and accept, that there are some that much enjoy the newer movies. I simply do not agree with the choice made. I am not, however, delusional to think that whatever mutters I personally have about it effects anyone else but me.

            Change is inevitable, but displeasure within parts of a fandom is just as unavoidable.

            We will simply have to agree to disagree.

          • MJ

            Well, thank you at least for explaining yourself better. Yes, we will have to agree to disagree.

            You know, the one way I can relate to your angst, is that I kind of felt the same way you do now with the poorly produced Trek TV series of Voyager and Enterprise. Both of those series, coming after the good TNG series, and the outstanding DS9 series, were huge disappointments to me. Like you with these new movies, I still slogged my way into watching most of those two series, but I was certainly not a “happy camper” Star Trek fan during those lame series runs.

  • mjdavid

    I do have to wonder how these writers/directors/producers would do with a Trek series. I’ve always believed Star Trek works best on television because you can only fit so much character development into a ninety minute piece of film. In order to sell that ninety minute piece of film and make a profit an excessive amount of action has to occur. The storyline also has to “dumbed down” to appeal to a mass audience. I’m not accusing Orci, Abrams, et al of dumbing down Star Trek; even though the Abramsverse is not my cup of tea when it comes to Trek I think they’ve done a pretty good job with what they’ve done.

    The directors/writers/producers of the TOS and TNG films had a huge advantage over Abrams’ team: TOS spent three seasons on television and TNG spent seven. There was already a HUGE amount of character development that had taken place before those actors launched their characters onto the big screen. I am happy to know that Orci was opposed to using Khan in ‘Into Darkness;’ I personally felt (and I know many fans loved it and I respect those opinions) it cheapened the story. I thought, “Great, the second film of the reboot franchise is going to take elements from the second Star Trek film.” If Orci really is a huge Trekkie I hope he doesn’t use any elements of previous TOS or TOS-film related plots for the 3rd reboot film. I want him to come up with some fresh and new.

    • danielcw

      both movies are over 2 hours,
      that’s longer than every ST TVshow’s pilot.
      So there is enough space and time, and no need to dumb anything down.