Roberto Orci to direct the next Star Trek film

News Simon Brew 14 May 2014 - 06:43

JJ Abrams' successor in the Star Trek director's chair? It's Roberto Orci, making his directorial debut...

Not much of a surprise this, given that it'd been rumoured for weeks, but Roberto Orci has landed the job of directing Star Trek 3/Star Trek 13. It sees Orci moving across from his previous writing and directing work to the director's chair for the first time. And it just happens to be on a nine figure blockbuster movie.

Orci's writing credits to date have included both films since Star Trek was rebooted, Cowboys & Aliens, Transformers and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and The Island. On the smaller screen, he's been one of the creators of Fringe and Sleepy Hollow. It's been widely reported that he'd been lobbying for the chance to direct the new Star Trek movie, and Variety now reports that Paramount and Skydance have given him the nod.

Orci is also writing the next Star Trek adventure, along with J D Payne and Patrick McKay, and it's expected to be in cinemas in 2016. JJ Abrams will be producing.

Variety.

Disqus - noscript

another mindless incomprehensible cluster f**k on the cards then, gene roddenberry will be turning in his grave at what these tallentless hacks are doing to star trek

If people could actually turn in their graves this might be of concern. But it's not. The rest of us are just enjoying the films. And yes, I'm a long time Trek fan since the early 80s.

but what about the lense flare? Star trek films wont be the same with out every single shot having one.

>Cowboys & Aliens, Transformers and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and The Island.

Wow, Hollywood producers are a forgiving bunch.

One day George Romero will pass away, which I hope will be many years away as we'll have to put up with that gag for every single zombie film released.

Cowboys and the latest Spidey movie were just utter shite writing wise.
I hope to god he doesn't screw up my next Trek film.

Ewan McGregor Phantom Menace style........."Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

Then you have to admit the 3rd act of Into Darkness (why is it called that because they needed something Darrrrrrrrrrrk) the whole 3rd act was a bad tribute act to Wrath of Khan.
When Quinto shouted Khaaaaaaan, The whole Cinema I was watching the film with laughed like it was an Aeroplane movie!

May the force be with him.

Not cool.

With James Earl Jones' "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo" from Revenge of the Sith overlayed.

Honestly, I admire your ability to enjoy the reboots. Speaking as a dedicated Trekker since the 70s, I personally find them to be execrable.

I enjoyed them, I thought they were great. But I haven't grown up with Star Trek - I've never watched the TV series. So I don't have anything for the films to ruin.

We have Star Wars Episode VII for that.

if you like incoherent screenplays, cartoon caricatures, lots of mindless shouting, no interesting character interaction or development, no original ideas and a bunch of boring action sequences thrown onto the screen, then these films are for you

the fact of the matter is that the reboots bare no resemblance to star other than in name, and are soulless cash grabs with so the sole intention of squeezing every last penny out of the franchise at the expense of any semblance of film making artistory

The first one wasn't too bad tbh, I've watched ST since the 80s and its really hard to put your finger on what is wrong. The technobabble is gone, but to be honest I really HATED the technobabble. In a crisis situation you would NOT give a long winded explanation of what you could do to fix the problem, you just do it and explain later on if asked. But the pew pew pew pew pew......pewpewpewpewpewpew! of the new movies shows lack of depth and soul which ST was famous for.
The characters themselves seem to be drastically different also from how they were depicted. They seem more OTT and douche like. ST into role reversals started out okay but them became a parody/bad joke of Star Trek 2. What also is annoying me lately with movies in general is that we are having the same plots over and over. In the Iron Man series we have a three rich billionaires who have a beef with Tony Stark because he used to be a douche. Star Trek we have two movies with a stupidly sized overpowered ship with a crazy wanting to blow everything up captain chasing down the Enterprise.

Cool! :) This is where they really work, imho - getting new people interested in Trek. I'm only sorry they have to deal with grumpy old gits like me though. ;)

I think Voyager and Enterprise probably got him spinning a long time ago.

I've been a Star Trek fan since I was five years old, raised on TOS and DS9, and I like the reboots. They're dumb action flicks, yes, but it's nice to see a new spin on an old property.

"both films since Star Trek was rebooted, Cowboys & Aliens, Transformers and Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 and The Island."

Well that's a mixed bag of quality if ever there was one.

Lets just hope he doesn't throw his toys out of the pram if any Trek fans dare to question his work!

Hopefully it will mean a few less lens flares.

Into Darkness (which wasn't exactly dark) was a mess - there are so many things I could mention - I honestly don't know how to feel about a new Star Trek film. I love Star Trek and really want to like the new films, but I think I'm done with them...

If they don't tie the new film in to all the "the Klingons are coming our way" foreboding of the last film then it's a massive opportunity wasted. It'd continue the threads nicely and a big space battle kick-off is just what the rebooted Star Trek needs... oh and Simon Pegg to have a convincing Scottish accent as well.

Simon Pegg needs something to do other than be the weak comic relief. Chekov and Scotty were so underwritten in the first two...

They should have had the guts to kill off a main character at the end of Into Darkness instead of the 'oh wait, no, we saved him at the last minute' happy ending nonsense... although I don't want to see a rehash of the Search For Spock any more than I wanted to see a harvesting of the best bits of Wrath of Khan.

Definitely. I think they got away with it in the first one because they were introducing the cast so it had that novelty factor about it, but the second one needed more. It's all about Kirk Spock and Uhura, with Bones lip curling in the background god'dammit.

There was zero peril in Kirk's "death" because you know they're not going to kill him and as you say, if they do, they just copy Search For Spock. At least with Spock's death in WoK it felt like it meant something - especially when you look at the back story of Kirk and Spock, who by that point had been each other's closest friend for 20 years. In JJ Trek they've known each other for five minutes...

BOOOOOO!!

With Zachary Quinto "Khhaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhnn" from Into Darkness overlayed

And someone doing DJ scratching with William Shatner's "KHAAAAAAAAAAAN" over the top of that.

so it'll be a mess plot wise? So just like the Lindeloff penned ones? I just hope he can give it the same vibrancy and sense of excitement the Abrams ones had

Sigh, just do a film that loops us back into the original timeline, there was nothing wrong with that sandbox with a trillion more stories to tell including going back into the tos era.

Urgh the missed opportunities, 5 crews to do TV movies, some great stories could of been told, i'd of loved to of seen, for just one example, "Federation" by Judith Reeves-Stevens, Garfield Reeves-Stevens turned into a mini-series or movie before everyone had died out or gotten too old.

Some great talent in the book world of star trek they could of mined to keep star trek feeling fresh by people who truly give a damn (Which Manny Coto did with Enterprise Season 4 to some extent, would of been interesting to see one more season with him at the helm).

Instead this... films that are trying to pander to the throwaway/"general audience", I'm not sure what the right term would be without being too insulting lol.

I really wish I could find a quote from those two writers, I believe it was around the the first transformers release they had discussed how they craft scripts. It amounted to being a formula that lazy college students perfect involving copy and pasting, digging through loads of scripts and choosing a film they want it to be like, taking the structure/framework and then using other scripts to fill the gaps while changing a few things.

Only thing that would give me hope is if Orci gets in another writer, but fat chance of that happening.

Sorry for this poorly written quick rant but to some of us Star Trek meant a lot growing up for various reasons, Dr Who fans etc will understand where I'm coming from there (?); horrible to see the death of "Star Trek" and the birth of whatever this crap (although first reboot movie was superficial but watchable imho, a decent platform for an original story to be told after rather than a cut and paste remix) is.

p.s. if it were me, id do a Section 31 series, ability to do all kinds of things from being starship bound sometimes, station or planet bound and visiting some of the more gritty aspects of the star trek universe, questionable morals etc etc, would of fit more into the current TV landscape and DS9 seemed to be going in that direction to some degree in terms of the themes explored.

Don't like to slate anybody but I'm not exactly bowled over by this news. The only think I like that Orci/Kurtzman have done is the first Star Trek film. Other than that, I find their stories to be quite contrived and, at times, totally illogical.

Whilst I was far from a big fan of Into Darkness, I certainly didn't think it was a mess. What was it that made you think it was?

To be fair, whilst a heck of a lot of credit must go to Gene Rodenberry for creating Star Trek, by the time he left ST:TNG, his influence was detrimental. The quality picked up dramatically around the time he left.

Very similar to George Lucas/Star Wars.

....would not at all be bad news, but he's still writing it. I mean, every time I see a movie written by these two, it might as well be "Snug as a bug on a rug", by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurzman, featuring. Akiva Goldsman.
They seem to have mad a name for themselves by writing children's books out of big movie properties
Which is a compliment only if you exclusively write children's books.

The Enterprise under water, Scotty resigning and being handily placed to sneak onto Buckaroo Banzai's starship (which had no security) the Khan reveal, Checkov being made engineer for no other reason than he was there. Carol Marcus being shoe-horned into the film (and the underwear scene). The way they killed off Pike. Kirk acting like an arse for most of the film. The act on Starfleet. Khan's ability to beam from Earth to the Klingon homeworld (making starships pointless). It was all so rushed - there was no time to breath, no time for character exposition.

They get across space in a heartbeat - look at Star Trek VI - the time it takes the Enterprise to travel is used to explore the characters and the story. Ditto with Trek II.

Trek 2009 and Into Darkness move as fast as they can, because if the films slows down the audience starts asking questions and then it falls apart...

There's more, but I don't want to rant! Too late...

This is the worse possible news ever. I just watched The Amazing Spiderman 2 last night and it was so bad it prompted me to write a 1500 word review. I was angry.

Things to bear in mind. Roberto Orci was the only member of the higher echelons of the reboot films production crew to be a fan of the previous shows and films. Hopefully this will help. Secondly this is the first film he has ever directed which means he will be putting ever ounce of effort and his very soul into getting this right. He's also very good at TV which considering Trek's roots can do no harm.

Get a life man...get a life

If you hate them so much, stop watching the movies they write

as is your grammar

i admire your optimism but unfortunately cannot share it

You win.

Get. Back. To. Prime. Universe. Continue. Story. Post DS9/Nemesis.

Indeed.

His own script, his first directing job, a 200 million budget...what could possibly go wrong?

I think you're all being snobby. If you don't like it don't watch it.

A very valid point. You're right about the quality of TNG picking up around the time Roddenberry ceased to be involved, although whether that's a coincidence or not is another matter. I would argue probably not, though. Also, Roddenberry would never have allowed the likes of DS9 and Voyager to be created, let alone the new Trek films. And I personally like all of them. Mind you, he would also probably never have allowed Enterprise to be made either...

I watch them because they're Star Trek. I enjoy them. But, apart from some good casting, they are nothing like the Star Trek I know and love.

Eight rotten films, three considered fresh at the Tomatometer, including both JJ Treks... more miss than hit then.

Scotty got more to do in Into Darkness than in any of the old ones!

That's just silly, some of us care about these universes and the soul they came with, we have a personal attachment and want to see it done right before we're dead; which may make us "Geeks" but then perhaps you are on the wrong movie website as this is "Den of Geek".

I can understand that... after all he had his part in screwing up the first two Transformers "live action" films (not that the following one was any better and I doubt the new one will be.) I just hope he asks Leonard Nimoy, Jonathan Frakes etc for advice...

Roddenberry would definitely have been against DS9's bleakness, but I personally found it to be brilliant (and the most rewatchable of the Trek's).

While I can understand some of the hatred for the star trek reboots (on a personal note: I really like the first reboot), it's not like the guys are the only ones to make bad star trek films. Half of the films set in the prime universe are utter crap.

People who post this argument seem to forget that Roddenberry disliked Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan and was "mostly ignored by the creative team". Don't get me wrong Roddenberry created a great universe, but ultimately, like Lucas failed to realise it's true potential.

Also Roddenberry's ashes were blasted into space in 2002, so I doubt he's "turning in his grave".

thank you, someone sees sense!

Lens Flares and Lightsabers....now there's a Geeky "Hipster" bandname!

Even at their worst at least they had great ideas to stimulate your mind with.

Don't care about ST3. Won't be watching after the last 2 piles of poo. They even managed to make 'Star Trek: Nemesis' look good in comparison & I thought that was an impossible task!

I had such a long response, and my laptop went off. I'll try to repeat it.

I started with the first JJ movie. I had been curious about ST before, and so I took the chance. I liked the movie and so I started from TOS this year. Now I've watched TOS and its movies and S1 of TNG and a few episodes of TNG S2. This is just to give you guys an idea of where I am coming from.

I think that what the new movies are lacking of is "soul". It may sound a bit stupid, but what made me fall in love with TOS from the moment I watched The Cage (the version with the female Number One, because yes, I started there despite the advice) was the nice optimism and idealism that, from what I have seen in TNG, is still there. There is an inherent faith in humanity, in the good in humanity: curiosity for the world, ability to put our rationality before our instincts, the need to go further and seek knowledge, the adaptability. TOS was problematic in many ways, and TNG keeps being problematic in some aspects (I've watched The Child a week ago and I can't think of a reason for that script to be considered suitable after the 70s), but that idealistic, optimistic view is still there.

I can't see that in the new movies. They jump at the opportunity of fighting, of using weapons. There is no bigger message. There is no big moment of "hey, we will do better". And I really like that about ST, because most of the fiction about hypothetical futures is deeply dystopic, while ST is saying that we can make it right. It shows what it thinks we should do.

The new movies are a product of THIS time: we like the flashy action, we don't want to hear idealistic solutions, just problems solved in a quick and easy way. We don't like heroes, but antiheroes with emotional conflicts and bad habits. When I say "we", I am talking about a general public, not about myself or anyone in particular.

I don't think there is nothing inherently wrong with the reinterpretation of the characters. When we meet Kirk & cia in TOS, they are older than in the movie (maybe with the exception of Chekov, who was already young). Kirk is already an established Captain, and his childhood was a bit different in that he had his father. In the movies, they depict a young Kirk who lost his father, and therefore had a somehow absent mother. The figure of his dead father put a lot of pressure on him. I can see how this new Kirk has all the bad in the old Kirk coming out in a period of rebellion. Ofc, the original Kirk was somehow idealised, so "the bad in Kirk" is very little and difficult to see, but I think new Kirk makes sense with the new context. Spock is a lot more emotional, but then again, he is a lot younger and he has suffered a terrible emotional trauma. Changes in Uhura were inevitable, because nowadays you have to make the female character more present, and even though I think that the new movies are not particularly good with females, I like that Uhura gets more to do. I am not sure how I feel about Spock/Uhura, but I won't get into that because it is not that important. Scotty has become more of a joke, but I enjoy Pegg's performance, and Scotty was always funny, so I am in. Chekov and Sulu haven't been very developed yet, so I don't have much to say about them.

And that is my view. Again, I have not such a long experience with ST, so I can be missing the point in the most terrible way, but this is how I see it.

>> Section 31 series

Why do we not have this in production already?

I don't mind this, They are just action fluff to me! The best Star Trek film for me is First Contact. Die Hard on the Enterprise! Yes please. On another note though there are one or two posts on here that imply because you like the reboots you are some kind of imbecile, which is of course bullshit.

so which bridge do live under again?

"spinning in space"?

London bridge.

No way, I think new fans and old fans of everything can learn a lot from each other. It is just a matter of being open minded, from both sides! =)

I have to say, though, that I enjoyed both of them. TASM 2 had the characters right (IMO) despite the messy plot, and Cowboys was just so funny, I went for stupid fun and God did I get that.
If the new ST film has half the heart that TASM 2 had, I am in. Heart is what the two other ones are missing.

I want to see more of McCoy. He's supposed to be one of the big three, but had very little to do in STID. I wouldn't have minded him being replaced by Uhura, if they had actually given Uhura a decent role. But she mostly got to stand around crying and looking pissed off about the fact that her boyfriend couldn't tell her he loved her. Please.

The person responsible for the script for one of the worst written films in Cinema history Star Trek Into Dumbness and some of the oddest scriptwriting choices in Amazing Spiderman 2 is going to write and direct Star Trek 3? Wow. Totally and utterly stupid. This will be the first Trek film that I won't see in the cinema since I was too young to see Wrath Of Khan as a kid. I am totally pissed off now.

as long as damon 'sorry about trashing lost' lindelof isn't involved - I believe that there is hope.

What, no lens flare?

Also, Mr. Nimoy played a blinder, leaving film-goers unsure as to whether he wanted to give up the role of Spock permanently. I remember it well. Lied? No, he implied.......
Much the same happened with Patrick Stewart at the end of ST TNG series 2 "Best of Both Worlds Part 1"

Star Trek The Motion Picture had a cool idea, I agree. But Search for Spock tho, and Final Frontier? I dunno, I felt that Into Darkness had equal sci-fi seeds germinating that never came to fruition. I think the first reboot had equal merits to say the Undiscovered Country. Both films were more about characters and the politics of the universe than about a sci-fi concept. Which is fine, at times that's what TOS was about as well. Balance of Terror (one of my favs) was basically Hunt for Red October in Space (or vice versa really).

Good post. I think you're bang on when you talk about the idealistc tone and feel of TOS and TNG, and how this is missing from the JJ Abrams movies.

I've been watching Star Trek for about 20 years (TNG is easily my favourite, followed by DS9) and that perfect 'we will do better' theme was not what drew me in. It was the great characters, good stories and all the cool bits (starships, Klingons, phasers etc).

That is probably why I loved the first Abrams film. The idealism may not be there but the great characters, good story and cool bits are.

Also, so you're onto season 2 of TNG?The quality goes up about 10 notches in season 3. Best of Both Worlds!

For me, by the time TNG came around, Roddenberry was less interested in storytelling and more interested in portraying the future as some sort of utopia towards which we should all aspire. An admirable sentiment, but it made for bloody awful TV.

Garfield and Stone both excellent in their respective roles but yeah, it was a bit all over the place. Far too much was crammed in which, to be fair, probably wasn't the writers fault. They were probably told what had to be put in there.

First contact kicks ass! Brilliant.

Love the scene where Picard goes mental in the meeting room.

Star Trek is a big deal. Surely there's some great directors out there who'd love the chance to do a Trek movie. Do they reallty have to get in somebody completely untested? Crazy.

No! No! Nooooaaaarrrrrrgh! The line must be drawn hereAAH!

Hahaha!!

III WIILL MAAKE THEM PAAAAYYY FORR WHAT THEYY'VE DONE!!!

Yep, right onto that, actually I've just watched "Elementary, Dear Data" (which was wonderful, by the way, although unoriginally Data is my favourite so I'd have loved it even if it was terrible). I'll have to slow down for a while, since I have finals at university, but then I will go right back into it, warp 9 at least! =P I am not really into Picard and Riker, unless not now... I am sure I'll like them better later on.

I liked the characters and the story in STID overall, except from Carol Marcus who was terrible to say the least... Not important to the plot, and not very developed as a person... Khan got a bit simplified in the script, but I think that with Cumberbatch's performance added to it, he turned out pretty well. Ofc, it is the first-time Khan together with the second-time Khan storyline of the original universe, which made his action less personal.
Kirk's death was also less emotional due to how new his friendship with Spock was this time around: in the original universe, they go back at least 20 years, so of course it hurts a lot more. And although I am still confused about the whole Spock/Uhura thing, I like how they portray the couple. It is an interesting addition to Spock's emotional development as a human. And I won't say anything more about romantic relationships because I know that it is usually a bad thing to get into with older male fans, and I am very happy with this conversation right now! =P
Despite the incoherences of the plot, it dealt with current themes such as terrorism, corruption and hidden information. Dealing with current topics is another ST thing, so I give them credit for that. A bit superficial, but not so bad! Again, I found that it lacked some final, idealistic lesson or message, but OK.

Classic! I'm all for an actor hamming it up and scenery chewing when it's done like this!

Data. Is. Awesome.

He's also my favourite, but I like pretty much all the characters. Can't stand Wesley, but that's a given.

You've got some awesome episodes to come like. And also some pretty dreadful ones to be fair haha.

I really liked the first Abrams film - it was like a Star Wars movie, which I love - but thought the second one was all over the place plot-wise. Rather confusing. Still quite enjoyed it but not as much as the first.

And don't worry, I'm 30 and wasn't about to start being a creep, if that's what you meant.

Amen to that.

Oh no, I meant just the opposite, that relationships is a discussion that usually ends up with the girls getting called "creepy" =P
I am 23, so we are not that far... I am not very fond of Picard right now because he's come out as a bit too "stiff" for my taste. I like him a lot better when he shows a bit of enthusiasm for something. Riker has had such a terrible attitude towards Troi in a few episodes that I can't get myself to like him, but I think that is due to the bad writing of S1 and of The Child in S2, so I have hopes for him too.

FFS. I have zero interest in this decision. I mean: ST1 was okay excepting that Lucas second act, ITD devolved into a mess and incredibly disingenuous creative decisions.... and just LOOK at that list of films he's written.Awful. Trans2 - Fallen is easily in my top five worst films of all time. Just abominably bad, and that's just the script. I want to see someone without the Abrams affiliation working on this. Sorry Orci, I'm sure you're a swell guy but I'm just not impressed with your work.

Including the horrible Land of the Dead and all subsequent Romero Zombie films.

Well, there's an outside chance he'll start making better zombie after he's died.

Method Directing ;)

Blasted into space? Dear God that's so much worse, have you not seen Star Trek III?

jeez another JJ Abrams stooge, Kurtzman also sucks!

It was such a good post until the last few lines when you talked about every characters of the main cast but McCoy. Why are people always forgetting about McCoy? Geez. TwT'''

Probably because the script of the reboot does, they have replaced him ith Uhura in the triumvirate over the Enterprise xP Seriously now, I think McCoy is mostly right, but they have turned him into a more... Bitter and angry man, haven't they? Maybe it is the way in which Urban delivers the lines. He does it exactly as he should, a nice tribute, but he comes out less sweet than DeForest did. His voice and eyes are not as soft, and so the effect is more of angry bitterness than past suffering and overwhelming emotion. Bones was the emotion in TOS, here the emotions are all over the place and so the character has somehow lost his role, I guess... I hope they will bring that Spock/Kirk/Bones thing back.

Did I made my amends properly? (and managed to write amends right? It is one of those words that I will never learn how to spell... Sorry about that and every other mistake or weird structure, my native language is Spanish, not English >.<)

The slashes there were platonic, btw.

Sponsored Links