LOL that picture looks like a handyman arnold stwachenagger

So, does this mean we're not getting Shatner now?

Good riddance, Orci is shit

"So, does this mean we're not getting Shatner now?"
^ second that inquiry

Devin Faraci has previously made the point that Orci basically bullied his way into directing Star Trek 3, constantly using his clout to intimidate and stonewall others from stepping up for the directing gig. Plus, he's a hardcore conspiracy theorist and 9/11 "truther", and he has a history of interacting with fans in a very condescending and douchebag manner, both online and in person.

So basically, he's just a real shitty individual who had no business being in the directors chair. No one should be sad to see him go (though he's still serving as producer, apparently).

...nope still want this

I don't care who directs it, just [frick]ing make the movie!!

Yep it would be cooler to have a movie where the plot is Neil Patrick Harris go back in time and tell elementary school Doogie to create Google, eBay, Uber car, hipster glasses, Facebook, and then destroy G. Lucas before he ruins Star Wars. Of course NPH will play ALL the parts.

@cinnamon

why not both?


And throw Bones in the mix for play doctor

This sucks.

The Star Trek movies are already a cesspit of superficial mediocrity and I was hoping to quarantine Orci there. Now he's loose to screw up some new franchise. He's already shat all over Transformers and Star Trek, what's next?

So what do you guys think?

Are you liking the sound of this *possible* plot?

I honestly don't think it's a bad idea, but the entire story resolving around the Vulcans (no offense @Spocl0Clock ) sounds like they're really holding out for more that could be done within the film. However, I'm a huge time travel fan. :)

Oh god...time travel...again.


Look the Borg are out there and probably just got the signal from first contact. So they are on their way. Just do two movies of that setup and final confrontation. I thought I would never say use the Borg...but your "original" storylines suck. So just use what works.

Oh and bring back Q in anyway and you got my money.

If the Shat ain't in reboot Star Trek 3, I'm boycotting this movie...you know...on opening night.

@MCU4TheWin him and Kurtzman keep getting work because they're happy to oblige whenever execs give them "notes", no matter how shitty the notes are. Makes the execs believe they're reliable. It's well known.

The single paragraph synopsis of these Star Trek reboot plots have never been the problem. In general, I think they're mostly okay. It's the plasticky execution, rambling dialogue, painfully insulting appeals to the lowest denominator, and mouth-frothing desire for more BIGGER explosions and shoot outs and fist fights.

I'm not saying Star Trek has to limit itself to the subdued tone and physicality of the original series. I recently rewatched Wrath of Khan and (while the emotional arcs of various characters and especially Kirk are breathtaking), the meat of the film is slow, plodding, and uneventful. They can still do explosions and fist fights and all that, but it still needs that heart. That emotional journey.

Spock losing his home planet is not an emotional journey. It's an event, at best. Nothing in "Into Darkness" comes close to even that.

And thinking about the 2009 reboot again just makes me more worried about Abrams in Star Wars. Maybe he will be able to build on the great work done on the characters in Empire and Jedi (rather than trying to start from scratch as he did in Star Trek). And now... This talk of Edgar Wright...

Well, he knows his character arcs. He's a sentimentalist, which is essential for the soul of Star Trek. I hope it turns out good. Ideally it will be a fresh break from the first two films, with the Enterprise crew on their 5 year mission, with zero continuity call-backs to Abrams' disasters. That would make me a very very happy Vulcan.

@SauronsBANE- God, what an asshole. There are some directors who have made films I don't like but they at least turn out to be nice people. Orci, on the other hand, is somebody I can now hate as a writer and as a person. Bullying other filmmakers more talented than him so he could get a directing gig he is unqualified for is bad enough on its own. But the most disgusting thing about him is he uses a real life tragedy that killed thousands of innocent people and affected the lives of millions of others as a platform for his irrational propaganda and baseless speculation.

And to make it even worse (which is somehow possible), he shoves in these 9/11-truther themes into a Star Trek movie and turns Starfleet into the bad guys. If Gene Roddenberry were alive today, he would be ashamed. I may not be a Trekkie, but I know well enough to know Star Trek is suppposed to be about how advancements in technology can be used to make lives better and create a more optimistic future and how many civilizations across the universe can work together to achieve peace in pursuit of a universe everybody can be proud to live in.

But Orci says, "Nope! The organization responsible for upholding those ideas is inexplicably evil because I say so and 9/11 was perpetrated by people within our own government."

I hope Hollywood comes to its sense and realize Orci should never be allowed anywhere near a franchise or film ever again. That's a future I could look forward to.

@CaptainObvious

Don't get me wrong, I agree with 90% of what you are saying about Orci. But I'm not sure I agree with the 9/11 truther accusation.

Yes, there are some superficial elements of "Bush Admin-Inside Job-Iraq War" in it, but there have been political thrillers with similar themes for years. There are elements of that in the Winter Soldier (Hydra creating chaos from within the system to control people's behavior) and so on. Orci may be a truther, but I think Into Darkness is vague enough to avoid being labeled a screed.

If I may speak as something of a Trekkie (though, honestly I came to it late in life), I think there is room in Star Trek for any number of stories, including factions within Starfleet sowing dissension and war (Star Trek 6 explored that). The Post-Roddenberry Star Trek series have always struggled with finding the right tone and purpose. After all, there is no drama without conflict.

My problem with the 2009 reboot has always been that they were just bad movies. Loud, pointless, noise with flashing lights on it and no substance to speak of. If we get to a place where the movies are good, but vaguely betraying the spirit of the Roddenberry legacy, I'll have that conversation then.