The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (
-   Star Trek XI: The Movie (
-   -   Really? So not cool on Orci's part... (

Quark 05-07-2014 09:39 AM

Really? So not cool on Orci's part...
I'm sure most of you know about the recent outburst by Roberto Orci when responding to a fan's criticism of the new Star Trek universe created by him and the others, most notably in Star Trek Into Darkness; but for the ones that don't, check out the link here. I was astonished and amazed for all the wrong reasons.

kevin 05-07-2014 10:55 AM

Didn't this article come up when it was new?

Either way, because it goes back to September 2013 I'm simply unwilling to read the entire thread to get the full context of Orci's comments (since the writer of the 'article' couldn't be bothered either why should I?) amongst them. In isolation he seems a little annoyed. In context I might see them differently. And it isn't as if there aren't deeply unpleasant 'fans' out there who wouldn't know the meaning of politeness and civility any better.

It'll have to remain one of life's unknown's.

samwiseb 05-07-2014 05:19 PM

I came across several 'articles' referring to the same incident a couple weeks ago as I was Googling to verify other things Horatio had mentioned him saying. To the latter, my search was unsuccessful (allegedly he dislikes Roger Ebert and has a bone to pick with the previous generation).

I too am about the context, and I doubt I'd have the inclination to go back and look for what might have provoked his comments.

However, I also can't picture Abrams, Berman, Braga, Moore, Bennett, Meyer, Roddenberry or even Shatner responding in such a way. And if Orci does end up directing the new movie (still not a done deal at this point), which he has also written along with a couple newbies, he will essentially represent ST for the time being. In a capacity similar to when Meyer/Nimoy did after Bennett moved on.

Under such conditions, it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard. And I strongly doubt he's the only one in Hollywood who's had the unfair misfortune of being ridiculed or provoked on the internet.

kevin 05-07-2014 11:41 PM

Absolutely................a part of me doesn't believe even that the likes of Orci or even any of them should really be as close to fans the way the internet now allows for. There's a point I think where the creative types need to stay out of the fanbase's internal bickering and say 'No' to being drawn into it. In that respect if I were any of them (past or present) I wouldn't even be on Trekmovie where I could impusively post things.

If I were to be taken to task for everything I've ever thought of writing or actually written I'd be up the river without a paddle in no time.

But knowing Orci has been on Trekmovie for a while and having read some of his previous comments on it my guess is there was some kind of provocation made towards him he was too rash to prevent himself from replying to in the manner he did. Which is basically playing right into the hands of certain elements of fandom. They may have given him the rope and he took it.

Quite possibly though it was some relatively unprovoked comment based on him being in a bad mood that day. Been there myself. In which case, he should know better than to make those kinds of remarks in his position.

horatio 05-09-2014 10:26 AM


Originally Posted by samwiseb (Post 330525)
I came across several 'articles' referring to the same incident a couple weeks ago as I was Googling to verify other things Horatio had mentioned him saying. To the latter, my search was unsuccessful (allegedly he dislikes Roger Ebert and has a bone to pick with the previous generation).

When I goggle "boborci ebert" this ( is the first result and when I google "orci ebert" it is the sixth.
Let me just pick some Orci quotes Stuff from this TM post (the stuff put in bold is by me):

138. boborci - March 30, 2010

Here is why this thread is not off topic. Ebert hated the movie because he felt it had no relevance. I would argue he us too old, too drugged, and too set in his ways to see the world we are reflecting, because he can?t see the world as it is today. And I dont blame him. It is a difficult task.

146. boborci - March 31, 2010

I consider myself a part of a culture war that will be more defined as time rolls on. I am perfectly within my right to defend myself against a man who has made part of his living attacking my work ( and thus my livelyhood). And my defense isn?t at all based on the fact that he is trying to take food off my table, it is based on a long time assessment of his work, which I have never found compelling or relevant. Fascinating that you would defend a critic from criticism.

154. boborci - March 31, 2010

151. Not tryng to insult the man. Quite the opposite. Giving him an excuse for what I consider to be his irrelevance.

And I dont consider his attacks personal. Doesn?t change the fact that if he had his way, I wouldn?t be working. May be hard for you to understand since you don?t have an industry based on attacking your work.

161. boborci - March 31, 2010

157. Well it?s so nice to hear about your coninued growth.

What are you, my guidance counselor?

I think one of he themes that?s been overlooked that Ebert may have a hard time with because it?s aimed somewhat at him is that the previous generation or two have been asleep at the wheel and have utterly failed to leave this world a better place than they found it.

?whatever our lives might have been, out destinies have changed..?

why? ?because I failed.?

Three things stroke me back then. First, for a writer this guy's spelling is pretty appalling. Second, his ramblings about the previous generation having fu*ked up everything (his style, not the content which might have some merit) seem like something out of conspiracy nut's radioshow and his belief that critics want to make him unemployed is equally unintelligent. Third, his remark about Ebert is disgusting.


Under such conditions, it would be fair to hold him to a higher standard. And I strongly doubt he's the only one in Hollywood who's had the unfair misfortune of being ridiculed or provoked on the internet.
The article to which Orci responded in such a pathetic fashion (I think the article above is akin to a child acting out against his parents. Makes it tough for some to listen, but since I am a loving parent, I read these comments without anger or resentment, no matter how misguided.) is just an analysis of Trek. This (A lot of critical barbs were aimed at the writers of Star Trek Into Darkness about the script and plot of the film. I won’t join in that chorus, because writing a multi-billion dollar film is something I have never had to do) is not provocation but perfect gentleman behaviour.

So there is simply no way to excuse Orci's behaviour. Now smart dick or a dumb nice guy are kind of OK, the dick is at least intelligent and the moron is at least friendly. But if someone is lacking intelligence as well as manners, well, then I won't push him out of the airlock but I wouldn't want him at the helm of Trek either.

samwiseb 05-09-2014 12:33 PM

I think something like "Bob Orci hates Roger Ebert" (without quotes) was my search. On the assumption that such a point would already have been cited by multiple fangeek sources, and at least one of them would latch itself onto those five words in a search. Thanks for the link in any case, I actually am curious to watch those Ebert review clips.

I don't really want Orci as director either, if he's already the most experienced person on the writing staff. However it looks like we may be half a step closer to that happening.

kevin 05-09-2014 01:52 PM

Yeah I saw an article on Deadline that he supposedly has been lobbying hard and is now frontrunner. However, my issue is not with Orci's arguments with fans (they argue amongst themselves plenty as it is, yes he should probably stay above that but I could care less who he argues with on Trekmovie at the end of the day). He's entitled on a basic level to defend his work as much as anyone else, even if the manner he does it seems rash and hotheaded at times. And by that the Ebert comment was perhaps too far. However, as a pragmatist everyone goes too far sometimes in conversations so I would be a hypocrite to condemn him for it forever.

My problem is there has been a rash of large budget features (and even though I'm betting the budget will already be trimmed back in light of 'Into Darkness' not really performing financially as well as they hoped. Critical reception was fine) which have been driven into the ground by first time director's not knowing how to actually handle what will be a big and visual effects involves project. 'John Carter', 'Transcendence', '47 Ronin' and others have failed and part of the cause is inexperienced directors who can't pull everything together.

I don't think he has the experience to make a film this large as his debut. He's no Abrams but apparently I don't think it's unfair to say clearly no one else wants the job.

samwiseb 05-10-2014 11:08 PM

I've only had time to skim the threads, however it actually does look like Orci tried to instigate the flame-throwing himself. Even the fans who called him on it seemed reluctant to assume it was actually him. If it was, he's got real maturity issues. I dunno... even if he were a qualified director I'm not sure I'd want him representing ST in a senior capacity.

Back to the film itself, you've raised a disturbing point about inexperienced directors on big projects. I didn't see John Carter or 47 Ronin... were they both Transcendence-level bad?

kevin 05-11-2014 01:19 AM

I've not seen '47 Ronin' but because I follow some movie sites and magazines I had read it was a frequently delayed, reportedly north of $200 million visual effects film that was given to a guy who had I think really only directed commercials and music videos maybe. Not that giving a first time director a huge budget is bad entirely (Joe Kosinski has had some problems with story elements of Tron: Legacy and Oblivion but he was able to make two films that held OK, and obviously Abrams himself debuted with Mission: Impossible III - although he had at least directed on TV before and watching episodes of 'Alias' you could see he had big screen ideas).

'John Carter' I wanted to like so much more than I did. Andrew Stanton did two great animated films, apparently had a huge passion for the source novels but again debuting with live action (which is very different from animation) and a budget probably in the $250 million range what was supposed to be the movie version of one of the supposedly more influential books on later sci-fi adventures (read Lucas and Cameron) it became this leaden, uneven, lumbering mess that you felt you had seen every bit of before. It was supposedly troubled for a long time before coming out apparently the rumour being Stanton had the protection from Pixar's John Lasseter even though Disney knew production was having issues. And when both it and Ronin came out they flopped big time.

Anyway, if Orci instigated it then he should know better. If he doesn't then hell mend the mess he gets himself in as a result.

samwiseb 05-11-2014 05:11 PM

That's the thing, it didn't even look like he was getting flamed that badly even after the things he said. Go figure.

I avoided John Carter, but I think I told you my friend liked it. So it's interesting that you mention James Cameron. I know Avatar was (probably still is) his favorite movie.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.