RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

TrekToday title image

No Trek 3 Director Yet

Posted by T'Bonz - 10/12/13 at 12:12 pm


Share |

CornishAndTrekWriters121013

Scratch Joe Cornish as director for Star Trek 3.

Several days ago, TrekToday reported that two new writers were joining Star Trek 3 in place of Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, and now comes word that Cornish, who had been discussed as a possible director for the movie, is out.

At one point Cornish was “in talks,” said Variety, “but he is no longer involved.”

Source: Variety

Tags:

  • milojthatch

    Oops.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Damn. I was imagining what a competent, creative director could do with this. We should resurrect Robert Wise as a cyborg.

  • Oswald Carnes

    Cyborg Robert Wise wouldn’t do anything different from JJ. But Zombie Robert Wise would make a movie with BRAINS! Lots and lots of them!

  • Ben Gunn

    Well, creative vision certainly matters. I personally would hope the next movie goes a little deeper than a fight against the James Bond villain of the month (which Trek movies have been all too satisfied with doing). I would also hope the next movie is something more than one designed to highlight action sequences in order to bring in the cash. 

    The movies can form a coherent trilogy if done right. First, there is the central figure, the only character with true room to grow now–Kirk. Pine’s Kirk is still not Shatner’s Kirk, and by that I mean the big-speechmaking Kirk, “E Plebnista” Kirk, the Kirk who told Mirror Universe Spock to find a way to save the Halkans and make it stick, a man who quietly reflected a self-confident, self-assured culture not looking to be agressive, but not accepting aggression, either. Doing no wrong to others, nor accepting it. Shatner’s Kirk was the hero, compulsively risking his neck to save others (not just defending his own people).

    How does this Kirk come about, if ever, because right now this is not Pine’s Kirk. This is not a knock on the actor. It is simply the character right now. The Kirk we have now is still interested a little too much in seeking out and finding strange new bed partners more than anything else, too much of a person who is good and clever at his job, but may not feel any more compulsion to being a starship Captain than being, say, a hedge-fund trader–this is not the Kirk to say “all I ask for is a tall-ship, and a star to steer her by.” 

    Shatner’s Kirk clearly wanted to be a Starship Captain his entire life. Alternate Universe Pine Kirk, on the other hand, fell into the job by being a clever young man (which is not to be knocked, because a lot of real military commanders start that way–they go the Academies for a challenge, not a career goal per se). But what is going to keep Pine’s Kirk in the center seat? Pine’s Kirk is like Ulysses right now–clever, tricky, a master tactician and strategist. But he can’t yet give the rousing orations. Will he ever? What makes him stay a starship captain (esp. If a Carol Marcus wants to settle down)? What makes him continue as hero, to the point where he one day tells Picard “out there, you can make a difference”. That Kirk, Shatner’s Kirk, was a careerist from day one, realizing the difference he made, all those times he saved the day, was the recompense for making Starfleet his wife and family. The knight in shining armor. What is going to make Pine’s Kirk be the same thing one day–if he ever does? What is going to change him from being the greatest frat boy of them all? 

    And then there is the mission. The Enterprise crew is about to head out into unknown space. What does ths mean? Is this a continuation of year-in, year-out Federation exploration, or is it a new push (as historically often has happened–bursts of georgraphic exploration, then long periods of quietude before the next). Why is it happening if new?

    And then there is the situation. There isn’t one culture expanding, but two. One looking to mainly explore space and see who is out there, the other mainly to conquer it when able (and an attempt to make Klingons into merely “misunderstood Iranians” should cause the writers to be shot). One civilization dedicated to something more than that which is evolutionarily valuable to animals,  another seeking to honor it above all–the regularization of aggression as a natural instinct. Two civilizations trying to be more than they are today, but in different ways. One emphasizing purely territorial growth via conflict, the other an advancement of a different kind. What happens when those civilizations collide out in the unknowns?  Can civilization win over “savagery”–the natural instinct of the predator? It’s a question as old as the Iliad, and still as valid today as ever. Historically, the answer has often been “not really”. What would the answer be between two peer competitors on the Final Frontier? The Klingons have been teased around with for two movies now. Perhaps it is time to engage them more closely. 

    I have no idea what the plot of the next movie will be, but for those that make it there is great room for both richness of story and Hollywood big bucks, if only their minds be so. 

  • The_Comic

    Truly great post Ben Gunn, I am sure Bob Orci or Simon Pegg would be quick to tell you to Fk off for writing it, so we can all sleep easy knowing Trek is in safe hands. Honestly, based on that post, I want you writing the next one.