Film News

Roberto Orci is Out, Justin Lin is In, But Does It Really Matter Who Directs Star Trek 3?

So, Roberto Orci is out, Justin Lin is in, and we have a release date, July 8, 2016. That’s where we’re at with Star Trek 3 now.

Back in May when Orci was first announced as the director of Star Trek 3, things turned ugly pretty fast. That was to be expected. Orci is the same guy who’s co-written the screenplays for successful but divisive films like Transformers, Star Trek, and The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and his views as a 9/11 truther as well as his admirable but usually ill-advised habit of taking to the internet to engage with fans directly usually ends in shouting matches, like the time he told those critical of Star Trek Into Darkness to “FUCK OFF!!”

Karl-Urban-as-Doctor-Leonard-McCoy-Bones-in-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness
Oh, crap. Orci said what to the fans?

Now, here he was being handed the keys to the Star Trek kingdom just in time for the franchise’s 50th anniversary in 2016 even though he’d never directed anything before. Heck, when Paramount let Leonard Nimoy direct Star Trek III: The Search for Spock at least he’d directed a couple of TV shows episodes before that. Even William Shatner had directed 10 T.J. Hooker episodes before he got to step behind the camera for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Orci had none of that.

Did that really matter, though? At the end of the day, how much does it matter who directs Star Trek 3 or the third entry in any established franchise?

As FilmSchoolRejects argued:

“The insulation of studio filmmaking has largely made the director’s name irrelevant. Particularly when we’re talking about a third or fourth entry. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is a great example (quick, who directed it?) where the look and feel of the franchise’s universe were back in play because internal memory wasn’t going to let Gore Verbinski’s replacement start from scratch.

The Amazing Spider-Man and its sequel (which Orci was co-writer on) were further reminders that a studio can take a director with a unique vision and mute it sufficiently enough to produce something with mass market appeal. The second film has a few moments where Marc Webb’s touches shine through (particularly the romantic elements), but both movies feel more like Spidey was Mad Libbed into the standard superhero structure.

To be blunt, there’s not much room for directorial authorship in these movies, and there may be none at all with a Part III.”

This is an argument which has nothing to do with Star Trek, specifically, and everything to do with the way films are made these days.  However, I can immediately think of several franchises where it absolutely mattered who directed the third installment, Joel Schumacher with Batman Forever and Brett Ratner with X-Men: The Last Stand. Schumacher’s universe was an immense departure from the one previously established by Tim Burton, and Ratner was a competent shooter with none of the heart previously brought to the material by Bryan Singer. FSR’s point remains: How much does it really matter who directs third installments of modern film franchises? Get a good director of photography, lean heavily on your department heads, and find someone to simply steer the ship and do his or her best to keep the studio happy. That’s pretty much been the film studios’ dream ever since producers Jon Peters and Peter Guber ran roughsod over Tim Burton and forced him to make the Batman film they wanted, not the one he wanted in 1989. In recent years, Marvel Studios has placed an emphasis on bringing in directors who can provide a unique voice to the characters and story while allowing the actual visuals to mostly adhere to the Marvel formula, Joe Johnston’s sepia-toned Captain America: The First Avenger being an obvious exception.

Star Trek First Contact
Do you remember who directed this?

So, does it really matter that Justin Lin, not Roberto Orci, is directing Star Trek 3? Beyond being a bit of fan service, would it have even really mattered if they went and got Jonathan Frakes, who had been campaigning for the gig big time, having now established a career as trusted TV director after helming Star Trek: First Contact and Star Trek: Insurrection back in the day? Oh, the First Contact fan in me really, really wants to say it absolutely would have mattered, but I have to admit that I completely forgot that Frakes even directed that movie until looking it up while writing this article.

I would argue that it does matter that they hired Justin Lin because it signals what Paramount wants from Star Trek 3. They didn’t just go hire the guy who turned Fast & Furious into the 15th leading film franchise in the entire world to now come in and deliver something that performs on the same mid-range level as Star Trek ($385m worldwide) and Star Trek Into Darkness ($464m worldwide). No, this is them trying to really push Star Trek into the realm of the mega-franchise. Hire a guy who’s shown he handles ensemble casts and action scenes well, help him deliver the most blockbuster-y Star Trek film of all time, and hype it to no end during the franchise’s 50th anniversary. Maybe after that Star Trek will move up the franchise list, where it is currently ranked 24th after 12 films. The franchise in front of it? Toy Story, which only has 3 films. I should point out this list I keep referring to is ranked according to worldwide box office, and is not adjusted for inflation. That’s a pretty big variable considering that the first Star Trek came out in 1979, but the point remains that for as much as we all know Star Trek that’s more due to the TV shows than films.

Guardians-of-the-Galaxy
This is all their fault

Hiring Lin is not a move to placate the fans who voted Star Trek Into Darkness the worst Star Trek film of all time. No, if they wanted to do that they would have hired Jonathan Frakes, or maybe someone with serious sci-fi cred, such as Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code), who is believed to have been on their shortlist. Justin Lin is a guy who makes fun action movies and random, fun episodes of Community, and in a post-Guardians of the Galaxy world the key word for sci-fi going forward is probably “fun.” Perhaps moving things that direction is not really the best decision, considering that J.J. Abrams already did plenty to re-make Star Trek into a bonafide action franchise, but at the very least this should mean no more damn lens flare. If the rumors are to be believed, they are starting from scratch on this, throwing out the prior scripts Orci had shepherded. That means they now have roughly 16 months to get this film done in time for its release. Let’s hope they don’t move too fast through the most important part: Finding a good story to tell.

Wow. I can’t believe I waited until the very end of the article to make a lens flare joke. Isn’t that kind of the obligatory thing to do when talking about Abrams’ films? Either way, what do you think of the hire? Did I too quickly dismiss Frakes, who maybe could have done an amazing job with the ginormous budget the film will surely receive? Or is it actually more important that now neither J.J. Abrams nor Roberto Orci are directing this meaning that regardless of who the new guy is he can bring in a fresh feel to things? Let me know what you think in the comments.

Source: FilmSchoolRejects

7 comments

  1. Whoa I didn’t realize they threw out the script too. That’s an incredibly tight timeframe but less Orci influence is probably for the best.

    1. The part about the script is according to Devin Faraci of BadAssDigest: http://badassdigest.com/2014/12/26/star-trek-3-coming-july-2016-without-a-bob-orci-script/

      Their timeframe is going to be pretty hectic, and I wouldn’t be stunned if they had to delay, although they sure as heck won’t want to, likely centering all of their 50th anniversary celebrations for Star Trek around that July release date. But if Orci is truly gone this could easily be one of those situations where, cynicism be damned, it might truly matter who is directing Star Trek 3. If the Bad Robot guys are pretty much gone, present in name only, that means Justin Lin and his team can make some significant changes to the visual style of the rebooted franchise. This could be a quite literally different-looking version of Star Trek, much in the same way Wrath of Khan is a totally different than pretty much everything in Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Or they could be so rushed they won’t have time for any significant changes. Who knows. But with Orci out, devoted Star Trek nerd though he may be, I am a little more optimistic now.

  2. I guess the era of thought provoking Star Trek and science fiction is dead. I can understand this from a capitalist stand point because the last Next Gen films didn’t seem that appealing.

    I’m curious to know if non-Trekkers thought Into the Darkness was as bad as the Trekkers did. The reboots were meant to get the non-Trekkers back into the cinema – did it work then fail after Into the Darkness?

    1. “I’m curious to know if non-Trekkers thought Into the Darkness was as bad as the Trekkers did. The reboots were meant to get the non-Trekkers back into the cinema – did it work then fail after Into the Darkness?”

      In my experience, it seemed like Into the Darkness pissed off the Trekkers while inspiring mostly indifferent reactions from general audiences. However, if you go by box office alone the 2009 Star Trek absolutely succeeded in attracting new audiences. It sold more tickets than any prior Star Trek film, even Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and made $221 million more in adjusted domestic gross than the most recent Star Trek film (Nemesis). http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

      What happened with Into Darkness is largely the same thing that’s happening to box office in general: it made less domestically but more internationally than its predecessor. As such, it is technically the highest-grossing Star Trek film of all time, at least going by unadjusted, worldwide box office. A lot of is invariably written off as being a mere byproduct of the 3D surcharge Into Darkness enjoyed when no prior Star Trek film had been in 3D. However, it ultimately indicates that there is still a worldwide audience for a Star Trek film.

      The problem they encountered, beyond simply taking 1 year too long to deliver their sequel, was that they vastly underestimated how thoroughly they had alienated their core audience of convention-attending Trek fans. J.J. Abrams and company included Leonard Nimoy in the new films to appease longtime fans and bridge the gap between eras, but they pretty much gave the cold shoulder to anyone else who had anything to do with Star Trek prior to 2009. That’s fine if you want to get a fresh start and everything, but it looks bad when you have people like Jonathan Frakes and Levar Burton out there at conventions politely mentioning that it would be nice if the people making the new films had been more interested in honoring the franchise’s history, extended a professional courtesy of asking them for their input. Whether or not those people are actually due that kind of courtesy is an interesting question, but it has the effect of turning longtime fans against the new films. Beyond all that, the new films are clearly very different than the Star Trek of old, and to some changes they made, like destroying Vulcan or making Spock and Uhura lovers, is simply unforgivable. That means you have an angry core audience, and new audience who had to wait too long for Into Darkness to arrive. Then that films apes the story of Wrath of Khan, inviting unfavorable comparisons on itself. That all leads to Las Vegas Star Trek convention attendees voting Into Darkness the worst Star Trek film of all time. It’s not. Some of those Original Cast films are terrible. But the obvious anger and disrespect the trekkers appear to feel after Into Darkness is very clear.

      I personally grew up on Next Gen and the Original Cast films. My best friend, however, didn’t come to Star Trek until the 2009 film. We ended up really disagreeing about Into Darkness, and we put our debate about it into an article on the site. You can read it here: https://weminoredinfilm.com/2013/05/22/talkin-about-the-wrath-of-spock-and-puny-klingons-in-star-trek-into-darkness-spoilers/

  3. As a long time fan i hated both movies. I feel that they were made without caring one bit about the fans who have been watching the shows and movies for decades. I dont think that jj sat down and watched all the shows and movies to actually be able to present the new movies in such a way that would appeal to everyone. There were elements that could have been taken from the shows that would have given a more action orientated movie that would still have been star trek but instead they blew up up vulcan , turned Uhura, into a slut , and spock into an overgrown child . Do i look forward to star trek three….. i say to that what star trek the last star trek movie i remember was genesis.

Leave a Reply to Kelly Konda Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: