How Guardians of the Galaxy led to changes for Star Trek 3

Contributed by
Dec 21, 2018, 11:00 PM EST (Updated)

What does Marvel's big summer smash hit have to do with Roberto Orci's departure from Star Trek 3? Everything, apparently. That’s what Devin Faraci from Badass Digest revealed in a new article.

According to him, this may have been one of the main reasons why Orci was relieved of his directing gig. Paramount was demanding “Star Trek 3 to feel more like Guardians,” and it seems that Orci didn’t agree with that -- so he was beamed off the project as director (as for who is now on Paramount’s shortlist as the next possible Star Trek 3 director, you can have a look here).

It's clear Paramount feels it has to take a page from Marvel’s really successful book when it comes to aliens (they were pretty awesome in Guardians of the Galaxy), and so it appears they may shove down our throats Scotty’s (Simon Pegg) rather annoying alien sidekick Keenser.

Here’s what Faraci said:

Guardians of the Galaxy. That's the movie that has a bug up Paramount's ass, and they want Star Trek 3 to feel more like Guardians. This comes on the heels of the first two movies being respectable, solid earners but not the kind of home runs Paramount needs. They want the third film to be huge, and they want it to be huge overseas especially. They look at Rocket and Groot and then they look at Keenser and they wonder why he doesn't have more of a role.

Weirdly, I think you could use aspects of Guardians as a template for a Trek movie. What made that film work was the way humor and characterization melded with strong action and big, fun ideas. The Enterprise crew aren't galactic ne'er-do-wells, but many of the best Trek stories have them bouncing off each other. Of course I'm sure that's not what Paramount means when they use Guardians as a reference. Still, this could be the moment we get Harry Mudd on screen.

If this is why Orci left I'm disappointed in him. If the studio is pushing to make a Trek movie that he feels won't be a proper Trek movie (and this is the guy who wrote Star Trek Into Darkness, the least Trek movie ever made), is quitting the right way to go? Why not stay and fight the good fight? Orci has said that he'll still be involved, but considering the film's current situation is all his fault - a year ago he set himself up as an obstacle to new directors coming aboard, his fights with the studio have left the film without a script very late in the process - I wonder how happy Paramount is to have his input. Of course a lot of this comes down to Bad Robot, who are still producing the picture, so perhaps Paramount only has so much say. It's also hard to imagine a guy who has no directing experience getting a shot at directing this movie - the 50th anniversary movie for a franchise he claims to love - and just walking away like this.

Do you guys agree with some of the things Devin Faraci has brought up? Should Paramount make Star Trek 3 more like Guardians? And what would that even mean?

(via Badass Digest)