New director for Star Trek 3?

Damn good question isn't it?

I just really don't know. There are plenty of directors who could handle the effects and action and all that but I really don't know who to say I'd want to handle the true heart of trek, the ideas and the characters.

Personally I'm more interested in Trek wrestling free from its current "gate keepers" and further developments of a new series taking place than in new films as much as I like the first Abrahms film and am anticipating Into Darkness.

 

If I had to say though just based on the potential to do well with both sides of the equation and their own interest shown in the franchise, I'd have to go with Bryan Singer.

 

Bryan Singer would be good choice to eather take over as director or help guide considring he Is longtime fan of Star Trek.

 

Even if Abrams isn't going to produce (or at least executive produce) this third film, I nominate Drew Goddard to write and direct Star Trek 3.

 

Isn't he pitching a TV series?

 

My worry is that it will take another 10 years to get another Star Trek movie out there after Into Darkness is released.

 

True. I just want a live-action TV series more than anything.

 

Yeah. Chances are, Star Trek will remain a movie franchise from now on. I guess all the movies will take place in the Abrams-verse.

 

I came in here to say Duncan Jones but Singer is too good a choice to pass up. Make it so!

 

Bryan Singer is a big fan of the first Superman movie by Richard Donner. Remember how well Superman Returns turned out?

I don't want him near Star Trek.

How about Robert Zemeckis?

 

The best things I take away from the "JJ directing Star Wars" announcement

Or rather what I hope for...

1) No bloody lens flares (Sorry JJ, I hate them)
2) Less or no shaky camera work
3) A proper Engineering set
4) More thought and less bang (but perhaps STID will surprise)

I'm sure I will think of others, but those above are the biggest in my mind.

 

I like how all three threads in the "Sequels" forum are sort of Star Wars-related, since two deal with Abrams departure, and one is random as hell.

Honestly, I think it depend son how fast Disney expects these sequels (also, so far Abrams is on VII, but it isn't certain he'll do the other Sw sequels.) Remember, the SW OT had three different directors, so I wouldn't bet the farm yet that Abrams stays on for the entire trilogy, but if he makes a good VII, he may be kept. Its all about how Disney does business. With the rumor two other writers are already drafting the other two sequels, and Disney talking an SW film somewhere between every other year and every 2-3 years, they may want someone working on the sequels while Abrams is finishing VII, and he may not carry over.

tl;dr I wouldn't count Abrams out, but since Star Wars is supposedly his dream, he may stick around. time will tell I'm sure.

 

I don't see why he can't direct both. I don't think the companies really care about the fan war as long as both franchises make money.

 

He could direct both, it's just not likely. It depends on if Paramount will want to wait on him before moving forward with the third film. Or if he would even want to direct another one.

I think Singer would be a good choice.

 

He's more of a Star Wars fan, so chances are he will stick to that franchise. My worry now though, which has nothing to do with Abrams, is that both franchises will be releasing their own movies every other year, which could be seen as competition.

The 50th anniversary of Star Trek is coming up, and I think something big needs to be done. Probably a sequel to Into Darkness I suppose. Or a new tv series.

Which would mean that they would need to get a new director to come in an take over.

Unless they simply re-released the trek films in theaters as an event (like star wars).

 

I think it's more about do the fans really want two of the biggest franchises set in space to have the same feel as one another?

 

If a new director comes in, we could have a Star Trek film that really doesn't have that Star Wars feel, and goes back to the roots of Star Trek. Problem is that it won't appeal to mass audiences.

I think this is a sign that Star Trek needs to go back to television. I'm worried because I hear that it may be animated.

 

I like Bryan Singer, but I have this sinking feeling that we'd wind up with another Insurrection with him (a movie I liked, but most Trekkies think is one of the worst). Singer's best and worst trait is that he can take broadly powerful and fantastical characters and tell very small, human-centred stories with them, which is very much a hit and miss affair.

 

http://www.joblo.com/movie-news/jj-abrams-can-work-on-both-star-wars-episode-vii-and-star-trek-3

 

It means he won't be directing.This will be like his TV shows.His name remains as producer but he has little Involvement.

I would have no problem with Kurtzman/Orci and Damon Lindeloff writting next film without much Involvemnet from Abrams.While I didn't like the so called flashsideways of Lost's final season I have never joined In the hate on him.I didn't hate Prometheus.I didn't like the game they played or rathe ror not It was Alien Prequel.Just like I don't like the game they are playing with Into Darkness' villain.The three of them are responable for any real connection to real Star Trek.They were fans of various degrees.

Orci-Trekker
Kurtzman-Fan of original series and trek 1-4
Lindoloff-fan of original and Next Generation

 

SHH finally makes a Star Trek forum... helmer leaves for Star Wars