While reports a few months ago indicated that the team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman were coming back to write Star Trek 3, it seems that was only half right. The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that Kurtzman is out and a new duo of J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay are joining Ocri on writing the script for Star Trek 3. Nope I have not heard of either of them and can absolutely nothing about them online about their writing history except they adapted the unreleased Boilerplate graphic novel a few years ago. Since two unknowns, kind of hard to even hazard half a guess is this is good news or bad news for the franchise. Clearly Orci, being the old hand at tentpole movies with around 6 to his credit, is there to help guide them through the process. Probably doesn't hurt that he is a bonafide Trekker so can help guide the pair through the more Trek-centric aspects of the movie. As always, time will tell how this will turn out. For now the goal is to get Star Trek 3 out by 2016, in time for the 50th Anniversary of the franchise.
Friday, December 6, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Benedict Cumberbatch is starting to make the rounds to promote The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug so IGN asked about JJ Abrams comments that maybe the efforts to keep the identity of Khan secret was wrong. His answer was probably a bit more truthful then he intended.
"What a dickhead! (laughs) I mean, the amount of times we had to lie for him and keep secrets, the amount of times I had to not talk about it being my character. God damn him. No, I love him. Maybe, I don’t know, it’s logistics, isn’t it? I don’t know if it’s a bad or good thing, it was his call. I was fine with it. I liked the idea of…the intention was to have a reveal in the audience that was going to be thrilling, where people go, “Oh, really?” and that worked to an extent, cause not everybody knew what they were in for when they went into the theater, and some people wanted to join in that thrill of seeing it, and experiencing it in the theater rather than having it spoiled for them in reviews, or got internet gossip or traders that gave everything away. So, who knows? For those people, I would say it was a good thing. And for anyone else who wants to find out, you know, there are always ways of finding out, and people have their hunches. But, I sat in a couple of theaters, and both times it was like, “Yeah! Oh, what!?” there was just a verbal and physical reaction to it, so I was like, “It kind of works."
Monday, December 2, 2013
The truth is I think it probably would have been smarter just to say upfront ‘This is who it is.’ It was only trying to preserve the fun of it, and it might have given more time to acclimate and accept that’s what the thing was. The truth is because it was so important to the studio that we not angle this thing for existing fans. If we said it was Khan, it would feel like you’ve really got to know what 'Star Trek' is about to see this movie. That would have been limiting. I can understand their argument to try to keep that quiet, but I do wonder if it would have seemed a little bit less like an attempt at deception if we had just come out with it.A few thoughts on this:
1) Nice job throwing the Paramount marketing department under the bus. Abrams has always held his cards close the vest, no matter how crappy some of those cards are (back to the mystery box approach). The decision to lie about Khan was clearly an Abrams and company decision and Paramount just went with it because their job was easy - don't mention Khan. But this is a production were something as simple as the name of characters where kept secret and not officially confirmed for a ridiculously long time.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Abrams is referring to CBS Television Studios which owns the rights to Star Trek and would be the ones that would produce any Star Trek series. CBS did reply to his comment saying "We love the Star Trek franchise, its fan base and the many possibilities for its future when the time is right." In short, they are saying not right now and no idea when.