TV, Film, and Entertainment News Daily

‘Star Trek 3′ Director: Sequel Will Head Into ‘Deep Space’

The Star Trek franchise has already sailed forth Into Darkness, and the upcoming sequel could go even darker.

Roberto Orci, who will make his directorial debut on the untitled Star Trek 3, appeared on the Humans From Earth podcast recently and spoke about his plans to bring the franchise into uncharted territory for the upcoming sequel.

“In [Into Darkness] they set out finally where the original series started,” he said. “The first two films – especially the 2009 [Star Trek] – was an origin story. It was about them coming together. So they weren’t the characters they were in the original series. They were growing into them and that continues on in the second movie.  So in this movie they are closer than they are to the original series characters that you have ever seen. They have set off on their five-year mission. So their adventure is going to be in deep space.”

Star Trek 3 is expected to hit theaters in 2016.

(via Badass Digest)

News From Our Partners

Comments

  • MichaelSacal

    I thought the point was to take the series into a different direction. What’s the point if all they’re doing is making them closer to how they were in the TV series?

  • http://barkingschnauzer.net/ Spacedog2k5

    After Abrams feeling the need to reboot “Khan”, I’ve lost interest in the new series! Thank God, the original series and movies are still on Netflix!

  • Guest

    I wonder if by “deep space” he’s hinting at a OS-era DS9. I want to see original stories, but I also want to see the mythology leveraged in unexpected ways. Especially given that we’re hitting the 50th Anniversary.

    But really, my main ask: can we have a Trek film where the antagonist is not “Khan” or “Not-Khan”? We’ve basically had that from Star Trek: Generation to now.

  • Vizator

    Robert Orci is the worst. He has no respect for these franchises. Transformers, Star Trek and TMNT.

  • alistaircrane

    Why would you want them to go in a different direction?! Don’t fix what isn’t broken.

  • Daniel

    I can honestly say I am worried for this film.

  • alistaircrane

    Hopefully the third one will actually be a Star Trek film and not a Star Wars ripoff now that JJ is off working on his baby. Into Darkness was a slap in the face to Gene Rodenberry and Trekkies.

  • MichaelSacal

    I don’t want them to go in this direction at all. They shouldn’t have gone backwards, they should have continued to go forwards. It’s them and the supporters of these last two movies who claimed that creating an alternate timeline would allow them to go in a different direction than the original TV show. This article claims the opposite now.

  • SwagMeOutHoe

    “Why would you want them to go in a different direction?!”

    Because that’s the point of a reboot and was the supposed reason Abrams did the whole alternate universe thing.

  • MichaelSacal

    Exactly.

  • Duder

    It is still a different direction; the tone is different, the characterisations are different, the conflicts are different. Orci is just saying that now the characters will be in a similar setup to the original series, with its 5-year mission in deep space. Silly to split hairs over *how* different the reboot is, simply because this isn’t faithful to the old continuity.
    If what you wanted was the old continuity, then good news – it’s still there on DVD Blu-Ray. The new stories will go off in their own direction, still taking some queues from the classic series here and there. And we’ll all be okay. Right?
    Anyway – I hope ST3 is a *lot* better than into Darkness, which had only two bright spots: Cumberbatch and the beautiful Alice Eve.

  • Duder

    I agree the film left a lot (mostly everything) to be desired. But as a decades-long fan of Star Trek, it certainly wasn’t a slap in my face. Star Trek 5? Sure. Voyager? Maybe. But Darkness was just a poorly-thought-out film with blazing CGI. (To me, anyway.)

  • engineer24

    That’ the whole point…… their following the series…………. so i agree with alistaircrane, no point in going in a different direction.

  • MichaelSacal

    If all you’re going to do is rehash what’s already been done, you don’t need a convoluted reboot. They could have just set the movie in the time of Kirk’s youth and told stories that hadn’t been told which could fit within chapters of the series, like thousands of prequels have done before.

  • ForGodnCountry34

    You dont change the Horse, in the middle of a Kentucky Derby!

  • alistaircrane

    That’s dumb. That’s not what most Star Trek fans want to see.

  • alistaircrane

    The problem with your argument is that we deserve to have new stories told in the proper continuity in the form of tv shows and movies. We shouldn’t be relegated to watching repeats of classic episodes.

  • alistaircrane

    The movies would be a lot better if they followed the direction of the original series. The current films make a mockery of Star Trek and its fans.

  • alistaircrane

    Their opening scene made fun of the Prime Directive, the most important philosophical bedrock of Star Trek.

  • MichaelSacal

    Don’t give fans what they want, give them what they need. How can you give fans what they want when no two fans want the same?

  • alistaircrane

    That’s the most insane “logic” I’ve ever heard!

  • MichaelSacal

    I got it from reading something Peter David said about Hulk fans several years ago (at least the first part. The part about no two fans agreeing on what they want is mine). The thing with ideas and “logic”, as you put it, is that depending on who says it, the person reading it will either think it’s insane or genial. Unfortunately, we’ve reached a point in which ideas are not judged on their worth, but on who says them. I’m sure that if someone whose opinion you respected had said the same thing, you wouldn’t think it was “insane logic”.

  • alistaircrane

    Wrong. Fans should always get what we want. After all, there is no marketplace without us.

  • MichaelSacal

    Now that’s insane logic.

  • alistaircrane

    Not a tall. Without an audience to buy tickets to their movies, they won’t make $$$.

  • Joseph Carroll

    Actually, it depends on which fans you are targeting. The core Trek audience by and large hates both JJ Trek films and is beyond upset over the alternate universe. That they wanted to reboot is one thing, to complete change fundamental aspects was insanely stupid. Now, the other side of the coin, those who are new fans due to JJ Trek may be upset with what Orci just said. Which fan base do you cater to? The one that has been loyal and obviously is willing to spend money on not only the movie but memorbelia, or the new wave fans that only care about the movie and only care that thes pecial effects are great and maybe you might catch a little skin?

  • MichaelSacal

    You’re not talking about attracting an audience, though. You’re talking about keeping the audience you already have happy by giving them what they want, nay demand. That’s not how you expand your audience.

    The original Trek was a failure, a show that was on the air for three years. The first movie was blah, and to this day hardly gets much recognition.

    Trek didn’t become a hit until they killed Spock, and no one wanted that except for maybe Nimoy.

  • alistaircrane

    The Star Trek fanbase is already huge. No need to make an inferior product like the Abrams movies in order to “expand” to non-Trekkies who just don’t get it.

  • alistaircrane

    I don’t like the Abrams movies, but at least they take place in an alternate timeline where they can’t hurt or diminish the Prime Universe. That’s the only good thing about these films.

  • MichaelSacal

    And yet, that’s what they did. And now they want to backtrack from it.

  • MichaelSacal

    But they do diminish it. The method they used to create this so-called alternate timeline doesn’t differ from any of the previous time travel stories in Trek, dating back to the City on The Edge of Forever, which show that changing the past changes the future (Enterprise was a series built on that single premise, in which we saw multiple instances of changes in the past changing the future, and several conversations about the importance of maintaining the integrity of the timeline).

    What they wanted to create was an independent reality that existed separate from the prime one, like the Mirror reality does, but they didn’t accomplish that even if they claim they did.

    Look at it from within the narrative. Who is it that says that it’s an alternate timeline? Uhura shouts it out first, then Spock agrees with her. It wasn’t experts in temporal mechanics who came to this conclusion, it was the linguist and her boyfriend, whose race for the majority of Enterprise refused to acknowledge that time travel was even possible.

  • MichaelSacal

    I’m reminded of Little Green Men, when Nog shows his father and Quark an entry about Gabriel Belle that had a picture of Sisko. Time travel doesn’t create alternate realities..

  • alistaircrane

    The producers have come out and explained that the JJ movies take place in a separate timeline from the original. That’s why Nimoy is credited as Prime Spock. The Abrams films take place in their own universe, which means they can’t retcon/destroy anything that happened in the real universe.

  • alistaircrane

    Yes it does. You can’t override something that’s already happened. If you change something, it causes a new timeline to branch off from that point.

  • alistaircrane

    Because they realized the REAL fans are where the $$$$$’s at.

  • MichaelSacal

    No it doesn’t. It never has before, why should it now just because it’s convenient? Did you watch First Contact? If time travel worked as you say it does, Picard could have just shrugged his shoulders when he saw the Borg assimilate the Earth, said “that’s another reality, not ours”, and told Data to take them back to their own reality rather than go into the past to fix what the Borg broke.

    Sisko could have shrugged his shoulders about the death of Bell. Kirk and Spock wouldn’t have had to cross the threshold to stop McCoy from saving Collins’ character.

    Time travel has always had consequences, without exception except NOW, when it was convenient to a group of people who don’t get Trek.

  • MichaelSacal

    Yes they can, and they have. The method they used has never had the result they want it to have. There’s no difference between Nero attacking the Kelvin than the Borg assimilating Earth, McCoy saving Collins’ character, or Gabriel Bell dying, other than they WANT it to have a different result because it’s convenient for them.

  • alistaircrane

    For all we know, the rules of time travel are malleable in the Trek universe. Or maybe Spock thought he time traveled but simply accessed the multiverse without realizing it. All I know is, the new movies haven’t deleted the other films and shows from continuity.

  • MichaelSacal

    Two movies for fake fans. One movie for “real fans”.

  • alistaircrane

    Actually, it would be 11….

  • MichaelSacal

    In every single instance before now, that has never been the case. The only reason it is now is because it’s convenient for the people who made the last two movies, otherwise they couldn’t do what they’re doing.

  • MichaelSacal

    I’m talking about this set of movies.

  • alistaircrane

    I’m not even sure what side you’re arguing anymore. You started out seemingly pro-JJ and now you’re anti-JJ?

  • alistaircrane

    The inclusion of Prime Spock means they’re all part of the same set. Some events shown in 2009’s Star Trek take place in the main universe roughly 10 years after Nemesis. It’s a pseudo-follow-up to the first ten films.

  • MichaelSacal

    I’ve never been in favor of them. I clearly stated earlier “I don’t want them to go in this direction at all. They shouldn’t have gone backwards, they should have continued to go forwards. It’s them and the supporters of these last two movies who claimed that creating an alternate timeline would allow them to go in a different direction than the original TV show. This article claims the opposite now.”

  • alistaircrane

    Forgive my confusion. I guess we’re on the same page except for the fact that I accept that the Abrams films take place in an alternate timeline. See, this is why time travel sucks. We all need to have one firm viewpoint on this topic.

  • MichaelSacal

    The inclusion of Spock Prime is one of the most glaring mistakes in the whole movie.

    It starts in the post Nemesis timeline, yes, at which time Spock and Nero fall into a black hole that sends them back in time. Nero arrives the day of Kirk’s birth, Spock arrives 25 years later.

    If there was any truth to the argument that altering the past didn’t change the prime universe, then why did Spock exit the hole in the alternate timeline Nero created? Why didn’t he exit the rift in the past of his own timeline?

    Was it a hole that sent people back in time or through the multiverse, and only coincidentally spit Spock out in the same reality Nero was in?

  • MichaelSacal

    Indeed. Up to prior to the JJ movies, the way time travel works in the Star Trek universe was crystal clear. If you go back in time and change anything, that will have repercussions that will alter the future. At no point before that did anyone ever claim that changing the past would create new realities.

  • GregR

    They never said they were going to take it in a different direction. The alternate timeline was so that they could start over with the different cast. Star Trek is Star Trek. What different direction would it go?

  • MichaelSacal

    If they’re not going to take it in a different direction they don’t need a reboot or alternate timelines or anything convoluted like that. No offense, but saying that they did it so they could recast the characters with younger actors is a weak argument.

    Look at Star Wars, for example (a film series that’s been said inspired this version of Trek – go back and you’ll see countless remarks about how their goal was to make Trek attractive to fans of Star Wars).

    Let us start with Prowse and Shaw, who portrayed Darth Vader in the original trilogy with and without mask, and Guinness, who portrayed Kenobi. These two are comparable to Shatner and Nimoy, who portrayed Kirk and Spock in the original Trek series and movies.

    Did Episode I need to reboot the franchise to justify casting Jake Lloyd in the role of a young Anakin Skywalker and Ewan McGregor in the role of a young Kenobi?

    No.

    How about recasting the role of Anakin in Episode II with Christensen? Did a Wookie bent on revenge have to travel through time to the day of Anakin’s birth to rewrite the timeline to explain how two (or four!) different actors could play the same role?

    No.

    How about the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, in which four different actors played the role of Indy at different stages of his life?

    Nope, sorry. It’s a very weak argument.

  • GregR

    Well it wasn’t really an argument. I was just telling you what I understood was the reason they came up with the alternate timeline. They wanted to use characters from the Kirk/Spock era, but that history has already played out and all the actors are old and the timeline has proceeded all the way into the Next Generation. How could they reboot Star Trek using classic characters? Do an alternate timeline. Star Trek is Star Trek. it’s going to be the same, but different. Especially with different actors playing the iconic characters. Star Wars and Star Trek are two different things. Jake Lloyd was cast as young Anakin because in that episode, he was young. Episode II Hayden Christensen was cast because Anakin had grown up and was no longer a child. But it had nothing to do with a reboot. Episode I wasn’t a reboot. It was the beginning of the saga. Episode VII isn’t a reboot. It’s the continuation where we left off. Star Trek was a reboot. The original cast is no longer playing the characters. They even handed over the movies to the Next Generation. Now that it’s played out, they did the reboot. It’s the same universe, but an alternate timeline than the original series.

  • Guest
  • Bill Myers

    My view? The new Star Trek movies are fun cinema, poor science fiction, and terrible Star Trek.

  • alistaircrane

    But how does that take into account Yesterday’s Enterprise/Tasha Yar? That episode seemed to create an alternate timeline (my memory is hazy, though).

  • MichaelSacal

    That’s another example of how changing the past changes the future. First you start with the Enterprise E vanishing during the battle with the Romulans, which causes history to change. While the E is in the new timeline, Tasha joins the crew and goes back in time with them, which restores history, though leaving her as an anomaly since she is someone from another timeline.

    It’s what I’ve been saying. Changing the past changes the future. In Yesterday’s Enterprise it was the E vanishing in the midsts of battle, which resulted in the new timeline. In City it was McCoy vasing Collins’ character, which resulted in an Andorian being a member of the Enterprise’s crew. In First Contact, it was the Borg assimilating Earth. In Deep Space Nine, it was Sisko replacing Gabriel Bell. Voyager and Enterprise had countless episodes in which time travel was relevant.

  • MichaelSacal

    Harvey Bennett tried for years to do a Star Trek Academy movie set during the time of Kirk and Spock’s youth, and not once the need for a reboot due to the age of the actors who portrayed them in the movies ever come up.

    I’m not saying it’s your argument per se, but rather than whomever you heard it from it’s more of an excuse than a valid argument.

    I look at something like the IDW comics set supposedly in the time between the first and second movies and all I really see, for the most part, are rehashes of old episodes of the TV series as they might have played out in the new canon with the current actors.

    That’s changing the aesthetics, or as some say, putting lipstick on a pig, which is really a poor excuse for going backwards to that point in the story.

    If you or anyone else wants to see Mudd’s Women or something like that, then see Mudd’s Women, you don’t need to be bamboozled into purchasing a new version of something that already exists that is basically a rehash of the original.

    Or more to the point, let’s look at the “KHAN scream”. When Shatner did it, there was a point to it, there was subtext to it. Throughout that entire scene, Kirk was PLAYING Khan, making him THINK that he had won, when in reality he and Spock were one move ahead of him (i.e. hrs into days), so the “KHAN scream” was Kirk putting on a show, making Khan think that he had gotten away with it, when in fact he hadn’t.

    In “Into Darkness”, it was pure fanwanking, nothing more and nothing less. It was the most absurd moment in the entire movie that served no other purpose than remind people of the original version.

    That hardly justifies rewriting Star Trek continuity.

    But yes, you are right, it is the same universe in an alternate timeline that is rewriting the original, not a different universe that exists besides the original.

    It’s like in First Contact, when the Borg created an alternate timeline in which they assimilated the Earth, which required that Picard and his crew follow them back in time to stop them.

    That’s the fallacy in the argument, this notion that the two timelines/universes exists apart from one another, which going by the way time travel has always worked in Star Trek is entirely false.

  • BeeChevezubi

    before I looked at the check of $8543 , I accept …that…my
    neighbour woz like they say truley earning money parttime on their apple
    labtop. . there sisters neighbour has done this 4 only 19 months and by now
    cleared the debts on their house and bourt a gorgeous Ford . visit this site C­a­s­h­d­u­t­i­e­s­.­C­O­M­

  • GregR

    A Star Trek Academy could have worked without a reboot because even though there would have been different actors, the stories would have been pre-original series so, they wouldn’t have had the problem of the show overlapping the original series. I thought Into Darkness had a lot of problems. The story being the biggest. In the Wrath of Khan, the characters already had a long history together. The gimmick of the switched roles and the Khan yell didn’t work for me either because I didn’t feel that Kirk and Spock were that close yet for Spock to be yelling like that. This new Spock also is way too emotional. I also didn’t like the Khan magic blood solution to resurrecting Kirk from the dead. Also, since when does the Starship Enterprise descend to any planet and then go underwater? I did get a sense of the new actors actually being the characters though. They were more believable. As far as the two timelines existing. The first timeline has already happened (Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9, Voyager) but in JJ Abrams Star Trek Nero goes back in time and changes the timeline at Kirk’s birth, so now the same timeline will play out again, but differently. The new timeline would change everything including TNG and DS9 and Voyager too. With that in mind, I would have thought that we would get new stories, not remakes of what we’ve already seen. I don’t want to see Mudd’s Women remade. I didn’t care for that episode.

  • GregR

    In Yesterday’s Enterprise, that was Enterprise C that went through the rift and encountered Enterprise D. The timeline had changed instantaneously when that happened. Tasha was back because she never died and Worf was gone. But when the Enterprise C went back to their time and continued the battle, the previous timeline was restored. Or so we thought, until we found out that Tasha had a daughter by a Romulan, etc. So although the timeline reverted back to what it was, sort of. It was also changed. But we don’t know exactly all the ways it changed.

  • GregR

    They aren’t following the series. If they were, they would have already been off on their 5 year mission. Then they would have encountered the SS Botany Bay floating in space and met Khan for the first time. Then years later they would have had to deal with him again like in the Wrath of Khan. They don’t need to go in a different direction, they need to just come up with new interesting stories for these characters. I thought that was the point. If the point was to remake the movies or episodes, that’s idiotic.

  • MichaelSacal

    Based on the criteria of how alternate timelines are created as presented by this movie, an alternate timeline was created in First Contact when Riker and Geordie flew the warp ship with Cochrane. Just the presence of the TNG crew and the Borg would be enough for them to be alternate timelines.

    What they need to explain is what makes Nero’s attack here different than the Borg’s attack, or different than Sisko replacing Bell, or different than any other myriad instances of time travel in Trek, none of which resulted in alternate timelines.

    Even Time’s Arrow makes it perfectly clear that it’s all one temporal continuum.

    Yes, these movies are flawed in multiple areas.

  • MichaelSacal

    Yes, it was C :) I was mistaken about that. 99.999999% of it was the same as before. Like the fish in O’Neill’s pond at the end of Stargate SG-1. Close enough, heh.

  • Planetary

    IDIC is the philosophical bedrock of Star Trek, not a Directive that by Picard’s time made it so that captains didn’t have to lift a finger to save a single life of a civilization that was about to be wiped out. Luckily Data and Worf’s brother had different ideas and thankfully Kirk always had the attitude of “Lives are at stake? We save them, period”.

  • Planetary

    Most Star Trek fans didn’t want to see Spock killed either, then we got probably the best Trek movie when they killed him.

  • Planetary

    Wrong. With you’re thinking we’d never have gotten Wrath Of Khan.

  • GregR

    You’re right. Having TNG crew there with Cochran would have altered the timeline, so when they went back to their present, some things would have been different.
    That’s why I said that the reason for the alternate timeline was so that they could have new younger actors playing the characters from the original series in totally different stories that were different than what happened in the original series. They really shouldn’t have connected the new movies at all to the original series. They should have just rebooted fresh. Also, Star Trek works better as a television series anyway. Star Trek isn’t all about major space battles. It’s NOT Star Wars. It’s more philosophical sci-fi, not shoot ‘em up sci-fi.

  • MichaelSacal

    Indeed. Thing is that they could have done it as a prequel and told stories set in between episodes of the old show, without the need to reboot. At best, this series will last three movies. Don’t expect to see these actors still making Star Trek movies 10 years from now.

  • Knowles2

    Given the Orci wrote the last 2 disastrous films, my expectations for the third film couldn’t be lower.

  • nerdrage

    The reason for Abrams’ approach to Star Trek is putting butts in seats by throwing the most recognizable brand names at the audience: Kirk, Spock, Enterprise, Khan. There’s no other thought behind this besides mo money mo money mo money. They certainly aren’t going for quality.