But I'm not complaining. Soon we can read more cool answers from Sly, like "The spilling of mayo on Sylvester Stallone by the coward Richard Gere".

A new low. Congratulations. Who the hell is running the show over there???

A new low. Congratulations. Who the hell is running the show over there???

A new low. Congratulations. Who the hell is running the show over there???

Now you gonna pay sucka.

Whatta ya bet me, in fact, that the entire SCRIPT pusses out in the same way as Superman Returns? Y'know, a couple of n00b tools hit the jackpot and get handed the next installment of an entertainment franchise that has gone beyond itself into the realm of myth, yet either they don't have the feel for what made Star Trek what it was or they don't have the stones to write it like it should be. So instead of a balls-out, thrilling revivification of a franchise that's become moribund BECAUSE OF stale, safe, P.C. writing, we get more of the same, which though serviceable with the kind of special effects brought to bear, ends up being *deeply* unsatisfying and leaves Star Trek as betwixt and between as it was before. I'd REALLY love to be wrong about this theory, but I've got a very bad feeling that I'm dead on.

Well, will it?

That and I FINALLY looked you up in the IMDB and saw you and your partner were co-writers on one HELL of a great ride last summer, Transformers. A movie that FAR exceeded my expectations in every way. I take back the "n00b tool" line and beg your pardon, sir.

'Course, you know that if THIS movie sucks in ANY way, I'll be at the front of the torch-and-pitchfork wielding crowd with a couple BIG ol' crosses and a sack of nails, right? ;)

What makes you better than me? I read that Transformers script, and then I looked at my own treatment (that I had done in my spare time with no intention of submitting) for a TF trilogy, and I just couldn't see what made yours so great that Spielberg gave it the greenlight. It had numerous plotholes as I've mentioned already, and story was sacrificed in favour of action, with the title characters being pushed into the background, and that was just the script, that was before Bay decided to blow more stuff up.

So what makes you better than me or a thousand other guys who have read your scripts and realised that what we were doing was equal, and in a lot of cases, better than your work.

Now I don't like criticising fellow writers, so maybe it's just frustration coming out here, and I'm certainly willing to give Trek a chance. But the Transformers script was certainly below par. It may just be a toy robot movie but source material is no excuse for bad storytelling, and I'm sre you'd agree.

Having said that...can you give me a job? :P I'm actually working on something right now, something big I'm hoping to give to Warner Brothers once the strike is over.

Any advice? I can't really go into what the project is yet, because Warners own the property I'm writing for and talking about it now could lead to some complications, especially with the strike and all.

I'm not based in the US, which could prove to be a big problem in submitting, though it does mean that I'm not bound by any WGA rules preventing me from writing (though I obviously wouldn't submit until after the strike, at which time I'd seek to join the WGA. The last thing I want is to be blacklisted for working as a scab).

So if you are the real Orci, any advice on breaking in to Hollywood would be appreciated...obviously I need to be a good writer...though if Dougherty and Harris can get the Superman job, standards wouldn't appear to be that high.

As far as the creativity/talent of the players involved, that's a valid point of contention. I'm not all the way behind Abrams & Co. myself. I love Lost but Alias left me cold, and after watching the first Mission: Impossible movie, I have no need to see THAT particular franchise fucked up the ass anymore. But as I said, I enjoyed the hell out of Transformers. Does that mean that Orci and Kurtzman can do Star Trek right? Dunno for sure, but that was a pretty balls-out and fun movie, so if we can get even half as much of that into a Trek movie again, I'd be more than grateful!

Which brings us to the eternal struggle of Holly-weird productions: art vs. commerce. Again, I can't say for certain where this'll come down. I had sky-high hopes for Superman Returns, and they were brought down to Earth quite decisively. But taking Boborci at his word, it seems like there's the requisite passion involved to make this Star Trek movie worthy of the name, something I haven't seen in over 16 years. And let's face it, it's in all of their best FINANCIAL interests to have this be a BIG ol' success. The careers of Messrs. Singer, Dougherty and Harris didn't exactly get lit on fire after Superman Returns, and it was by all measures a financial success. Was it a success by the measure of the critics, and more importantly, the fans? Do I even have to answer that question? And exactly *when* is that next Superman movie coming out?

Do you see what I'm getting at? I thoroughly understand your reservations (to say the least!) about this new movie, but I think you're being too hard by half on it. And if it doesn't turn out to be worthy of the name Star Trek, what are any of us not involved in the production or stockholders of Viacom out? The price of our movie tickets, at most. As I mentioned previously, Star Trek has gone well beyond it's profit-oriented, entertainment industry origins into the realm of modern myth. If it survived the tenure of Rick Berman, Brannon Braga, and yes, even the mystifyingly obtuse direction of Gene Roddenberry himself, it can survive yet another poor movie. Anything that comes out on December 25th won't take away the original series or even the original cast movies. If you don't like it, pay it no mind. That's what's worked for me for the last 20+ years!