- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Roberto Orci Frontrunner To Helm ‘Star Trek 3'
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:07 pm
quote:
EXCLUSIVE: After an aggressive lobbying campaign, Roberto Orci has emerged as the clear frontrunner to replace JJ Abrams and direct Paramount‘s third installment of the Star Trek series. I’m hearing they’re in talks. This comes after Orci parted company with longtime partner Alex Kurtzman (though they continue on TV projects). This would amount to another first-time director taking on a massive project, which has been hit (Snow White And The Huntsman) and miss (Transcendence, John Carter, 47 Ronin).
Orci could be an exception on the positive side of the ledger 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. I’m told that Paramount’s partner, Skydance Productions, has been in Orci’s corner, but Paramount needed convincing. Now it all could happen at warp speed. Abrams helmed the first two films from his home base at Paramount, but surprised the studio by agreeing to relaunch the Star Wars franchise and direct the first film, at Disney. Stay tuned.
LINK
LINK his IMDB credits
3
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:11 pm to Dr RC
Everyone deserves a shot. This could be a good thing.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:41 pm to Freauxzen
Sure, you have to get your first directing gig sometime
I just think it's insane for a studio to give a guy his first directing gig on a CG filled movie that will have a budget of around $200 million dollars. This is the kind of move that could massively backfire and really set back the franchise
I just think it's insane for a studio to give a guy his first directing gig on a CG filled movie that will have a budget of around $200 million dollars. This is the kind of move that could massively backfire and really set back the franchise
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:45 pm to Dr RC
I guess it's risky, but he's been involved on high profile projects and more importantly with the Star Trek series.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 1:49 pm to Dr RC
Visually the movie won't fit without all the lens flare.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:27 pm to Dr RC
quote:
This is the kind of move that could massively backfire and really set back the franchise
I set Star Trek V as the "this is as bad as it can get" threshold.
As long as if this is better than Star Trek V, I'll be happy.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:30 pm to Dr RC
quote:
I just think it's insane for a studio to give a guy his first directing gig on a CG filled movie that will have a budget of around $200 million dollars. This is the kind of move that could massively backfire and really set back the franchise
He's cut his teeth on big projects. And outside of Malick films, what films aren't
quote:
CG filled movie that will have a budget of around $200 million dollars.
?
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:32 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
I set Star Trek V as the "this is as bad as it can get" threshold.
Is that the "Spok's long lost brother is kind of a God"?
I hated that one the most too, but the last two TNG movies sucked too.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
He's cut his teeth on big projects. And outside of Malick films, what films aren't
being a writer and producer is vastly different than directing.
and there are quite a few movies studios make that aren't massive effects driven tent pole flicks that would make far more sense to give to a first time director.
quote:
quote:
quote:
CG filled movie that will have a budget of around $200 million dollars.
?
the last Star Trek was budgeted at $190 million and filled with CGI effects scenes which are known to be difficult to direct. Star Trek 3 won't be any different.
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:38 pm to Napoleon
quote:
Is that the "Spok's long lost brother is kind of a God"?
I hated that one the most too, but the last two TNG movies sucked too.
That's the one. Although it does contain one of my favorite Star Trek lines.
"What does God need with a starship?"
Video
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 2:40 pm
Posted on 5/9/14 at 2:44 pm to Dr RC
quote:
being a writer and producer is vastly different than directing.
Of course. I wouldn't doubt that, but at least you're near to the process. And if he's in the running, then he must WANT to direct (at least I would assume so), and that could be a good thing.
quote:
and there are quite a few movies studios make that aren't massive effects driven tent pole flicks that would make far more sense to give to a first time director.
Some people can direct small scenes with dialog and no effects, some people have skills with loads of CGI and action sequences.
I wouldn't consider Star Trek tent pole, the cast is almost too popular now to keep doing this past a 4th film. They'd probably reboot in a few years.
quote:
the last Star Trek was budgeted at $190 million and filled with CGI effects scenes which are known to be difficult to direct. Star Trek 3 won't be any different.
Eh, I'm not supporting the move, but I'm not worried either. There isn't enough info either way to see this as a negative. I wouldn't bet against someone who's spent his time on action and science fiction to at least not have an eye for it.
Posted on 5/9/14 at 3:14 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Of course. I wouldn't doubt that, but at least you're near to the process. And if he's in the running, then he must WANT to direct (at least I would assume so), and that could be a good thing.
I just don't find that a very compelling reason to give him the directing gig.
quote:
Some people can direct small scenes with dialog and no effects, some people have skills with loads of CGI and action sequences.
it would probably behoove them to get somebody who is known to have the skills to at least do one of them.
quote:
I wouldn't consider Star Trek tent pole,
wat?
if they are spending damn near $200 million on a film its a tent pole flick.
no film company would invest that much unless they were expecting a massive return.
quote:
the cast is almost too popular now to keep doing this past a 4th film. They'd probably reboot in a few years.
as for the actors, even though many have done a lot of work and are much more famous, none of them have really had a massive breakout role outside of ST that should stop them from signing up for more films.
Pine's Jack Ryan barely turned a profit and This Means War while a modest success was a Reese Witherspoon vehicle. Quinto is still probably more known as a TV actor with his biggest movie hit being an ensemble cast w/Margin Call. Pegg's role hasn't really been big enough that it should interfere w/his own project or Mission Impossible appearances. I like Karl Urban but it's not likely we will be getting another Priest or Dredd anytime soon. Sadly pretty much everything he was the headlining actor in has tanked. Unless Guardians of the Galaxy is a massive hit I don't see keeping Saldana around being all that hard. John Cho should be a snap to keep around. Actually, for whatever reason I think keeping Anton Yelchin might end up being the toughest for them even though he has probably been dropped as Kyle Reese form the Terminator flicks.
all in all I think they should be able to squeeze a minimum of a 4th and 5th ST out of this cast (w/most everyone contracted for a 6th in case 5 is a hit) as long as 3 doesn't do significantly worse than 2.
BTW, I'm not saying this guy is guaranteed to suck.
I just think its nuts to put a franchise this valuable in the hands of a person who has never directed a film.
I dunno, maybe they think the ST franchise is strong enough to withstand a poor outing.
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 3:18 pm
Posted on 5/9/14 at 4:05 pm to Dr RC
quote:
I just don't find that a very compelling reason to give him the directing gig.
But I mean really, what are their choices? JJ's out for sure. Whedon and company are now owned by Disney pretty much. I assume Frakes doesn't want anything to do with it.
Maybe go crazy with McTiernan? Haggis (who just plain sucks)?
quote:
it would probably behoove them to get somebody who is known to have the skills to at least do one of them.
Fair enough.
quote:
wat?
if they are spending damn near $200 million on a film its a tent pole flick.
no film company would invest that much unless they were expecting a massive return.
Into Darkness cost $190 million as well, was fairly mediocre and netted $467 million worldwide. That's not really a big film honestly. Not close to massive. Not now when films routinely cross $650.
For comparison sake, a non tent-pole SEQUEL film in Captain America is going hit $700 million world wide. On a smaller budget.
LINK
Star Trek is a good solid property, but they aren't focused enough to make it something to build a studio off of.
quote:
as for the actors, even though many have done a lot of work and are much more famous, none of them have really had a massive breakout role outside of ST that should stop them from signing up for more films.
Pine's Jack Ryan barely turned a profit and This Means War while a modest success was a Reese Witherspoon vehicle. Quinto is still probably more known as a TV actor with his biggest movie hit being an ensemble cast w/Margin Call. Pegg's role hasn't really been big enough that it should interfere w/his own project or Mission Impossible appearances. I like Karl Urban but it's not likely we will be getting another Priest or Dredd anytime soon. Sadly pretty much everything he was the headlining actor in has tanked. Unless Guardians of the Galaxy is a massive hit I don't see keeping Saldana around being all that hard. John Cho should be a snap to keep around. Actually, for whatever reason I think keeping Anton Yelchin might end up being the toughest for them even though he has probably been dropped as Kyle Reese form the Terminator flicks.
all in all I think they should be able to squeeze a minimum of a 4th and 5th ST out of this cast (w/most everyone contracted for a 6th in case 5 is a hit) as long as 3 doesn't do significantly worse than 2.
Agreed, but it seems today that modern actors just want to move on to the next project without thought, unless something is massively successful (Avengers), or they just really like the role (Jackman). We had four years between Star Trek and Into Darkness. That's a lifetime in the film world.
quote:
BTW, I'm not saying this guy is guaranteed to suck.
I just think its nuts to put a franchise this valuable in the hands of a person who has never directed a film.
I dunno, maybe they think the ST franchise is strong enough to withstand a poor outing.
This. I assume that the Into Darkness return was enough to make them think that they needed something new and fresh, maybe Orci has that? They could certainly stand to make more than $467 worldwide on what SHOULD be (but isn't) a massive film series.
This post was edited on 5/9/14 at 4:09 pm
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News