• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Star Trek Beyond

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear lord, please no. He hasn't directed anything and wants to direct ST3 as his FIRST movie? What kind of madness is this.
 
Oh god no. That dude is crazy. It's telling that all his "buddies" (JJ, Lindelof, and now Kurtzman) have moved away from him.
 
Last edited:
I think it would be a big mistake. His political leanings were obvious in Star Trek into Darkness without being smart about it.
 
:doh:
Just stay away from beloved childhood franchises you cannot treat properly and respect the lore. Just stay away dude. You might be somewhat worthy to play an obscure extra in the next film. But as a writer and a director? You and that partner of yours, suck plain and simple.
 
:barf:

So many promising names have been thrown around and studios keep coming back to these guys. Just why? Do they have extra-fast turnaround times on their scripts or something?

I was gonna say maybe they're really chill, nice guys, but then there's always...
As I love to say, there is a reason why I get to write the movies, and you don’t.
 
Last edited:
:barf:

So many promising names have been thrown around and studios keep coming back to these guys. Just why? Do they have extra-fast turnaround times on their scripts or something?

I was gonna say maybe they're really chill, nice guys, but then there's always...

Exactly. It makes you wonder why cinema has hardly any creativity today. Well, at least for the big recognisable franchises anyway.
But you know what, I put the blame on the audience also. If we keep giving them our money they will keep producing mediocre unoriginal crap from the same writers over and over again. It's time we take action and boycott what ever is not worth our money and time.
 
To be fair, Orci co-wrote the preceding two films, which were stellar. He's definitely earned having his name in the hat. However, having said that, there are two reasons why I would prefer he not direct the film: (a) The first films of most directors' are messes. I would prefer his first film not be a Star Trek film; the series does not need to be jeopardized. (b) I said he deserved to be considered, not selected. Paramount handing over a two hundred million dollar film to a first-time director is a risk, and Star Trek does not need to be marked with another flop. If he is keen on directing, he should direct a few small films and then lobby for the gig. He's a good writer, but, inexperienced as a director.
 
Even if he's done some decent stuff I can't stand this "homogenisation" for the lack of a better word that hollywood does. The same writers for multiple and distinct franchises, when there are many more talented guys out there that deserve a chance. I just don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Dear lord, please no. He hasn't directed anything and wants to direct ST3 as his FIRST movie? What kind of madness is this.

Well, J.J.Abrams's first film was freaking Mission Impossible III, which was bigger than Star Trek is at the moment.
 
But at least JJ had directed something before. (MI3 is a just Alias with a bigger budget.)
 
I absolutely hate the idea. If Paramount is smart they will tell him to take a hike. How did giving first time director Wally Pfister a 100mil work out for everyone? Oh yeah it didn't work out at all.

I loved Star Trek and liked Into Darkness because of Abrams and the cast. The scripts have hindered the films. I honestly think it's time to take the franchise in a smarter less explosion based direction. It can still have action but I want more intelligence now. Orci and Kurtzman nonsense needs to die.
 
I just feel like Orci might be like Wally Pfister, and look what happened to that fool.
 
Btw, Mission Impossible 3 was a bad movie.
 
Btw, Mission Impossible 3 was a bad movie.

I don't think so at all. In fact, the worst one was MI 2.

MI3 benefited from JJ's directing and Phillip Seymour Hoffman who still reigns as the BEST villain in the series.
 
It's a fun movie even when the plot doesn't seem coherent near the end (the MacGaffin was never ever explained.) But it's lightyears better than MI 2.
 
I really enjoyed Mission Impossible 3. I thought it was miles better than the previous two films.

But regarding Roberto Orci and Star Trek 3, I don't think he should direct. Let him write the script as planned but get a more experienced director to take command of the film.
 
It's a fun movie even when the plot doesn't seem coherent near the end (the MacGaffin was never ever explained.) But it's lightyears better than MI 2.
Being punched in the face 15 times is better than watching MI2.
 
I have yet to watch MI3, but MI2 was just a fun and dumb early 2000s movie, i think it was pretty entertaining for that. Up until now, all of the Mission Impossible films have had a different tone, even though i have yet to watch the 3rd one.
 
I haven't watched MI:II or MI:III because a) the first one sucked, b) I can't stand Cruise, c) there are far too many 'I's involved in the titles, but this has nothing to do with Orci wanting to direct ST(X)III. He is a decent writer who clearly loves the franchise, but a big tentpole movie for a directional debut with absolutely no experience in that field is a very, very bad idea.
 
Yeah, he should try to direct something else first before tackling something like Star Trek. And R_Hythlodeus, i just want to warn you that each Mission Impossible film is completelly different in tone, style and plot from the other, plenty liked the 4th film without liking the other ones, and the same goes for each film in the franchise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"