An article in the New York Times from this past weekend spotlights Transformers screenwriters Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, who confess that they originally wanted to make films like Godard's. Well, some of the movies they have worked on may feature ridiculous editing patterns, but having written films like The Island and Mission: Impossible III, they didn't quite go in the direction they'd planned. Still, one thing they keep in mind on every script they write together is that they need to have a good story first and foremost, and that story has to be accessible to audiences who may not be familiar with the particular franchise or brand they're working on. This was an important thing to keep in mind with Transformers and it will be an important thing to keep in mind with Star Trek XI, which comes out Christmas 2008. We've already heard that the movie will be a prequel, detailing Kirk and Spock's early days at the Academy, and that it will be geared toward non-Trekkies, but the Times article makes me believe that Orci, a long-time Trek fan, and Kurtzman will be able to please the die-hards while also welcoming in the newbies.

I've never been a big Star Trek fan, but I have greatly enjoyed some of the television episodes and films that didn't make me feel like a totally lost beginner. The first Trek film I ever saw was Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, which I loved, mostly because I was a sea-life-obsessed kid. It really helped me out that it was a present-day, Earth-based story, which could have been the plot of a non-Trek movie. And for a short time, I thought I could maybe get into the whole Trek universe. I didn't, though, and I've still never seen all the movies, but I recently watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan for the first time in twenty years, and as much as I appreciate why it is so revered, I still felt like I was on the outside looking in. So, I'm really looking forward to what Orci and Kurtzman and director J.J. Abrams come up with for the new Star Trek movie. It may not be for Trekkies, but it probably won't turn off any of the fans, and it may just make new ones out of some of us.

We should have more on the next Star Trek movie once ComicCon begins next month. Stay tuned.

Someone get this gal a Delorean, because Scarlett Johannson has been doing a lot of time traveling lately. In Michael Bay's flop, The Island, she was trapped in a frightening vision of the future, but lately she's been dipping into the past with increasing regularity ever since Girl with a Pearl Earring.

She can currently be seen in the 1940s era The Black Dahlia, and will also appear in Christopher Nolan's turn of the century magic thriller, The Prestige. After that she has lined up The Other Boleyn Girl (1500s), Napoleon and Betsy (1800s) and now Mary, Queen of Scots (back to the 1500s), in which the gal will take on the role of Queen Mary of Scotland.

While we support Scarlett's love of the historical pieces, can we please see her out of a hoop skirt and in a t-shirt and jeans sometime soon?

You'll no doubt remember all the controversy and skepticism that surrounded the production of Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl... Oh wait, maybe you wouldn't remember it -- because it existed only in the deepest realms of mega-movie-geekery. Much of the skepticism and dismissive chit-chat came from the fact that the movie was based on an amusement park ride ... but the astute movie nuts knew what the problem was:

There hadn't been a good pirate movie in about three decades, and we had no reason to think that trend was about to be bucked. I know what I'm talking about, because I was one of the hand-wringers, one of the oh-so-brilliant movie nerds who knew that any sort of pirate movie was doomed from the word go. (Needless to say, in the case of The Black Pearl, I was dead wrong, and I was extremely thrilled to admit how wrong I was.)

So with Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest only a few days away (and AWESOME!), I thought it might be fun to dredge back over the past few decades and dig up some of the gold-plated mega-turkeys that managed to keep the pirate genre buried at sea.

In a little over a week, Mission Impossible 3 will crash-land in theaters marking the official start of the summer blockbuster season. Why are you not excited about this? C'mon, it's summer! It's time to escape the heat and cool down in front of a film that cost more money than you or anyone you know will ever see in their entire life. What's NOT fun about that?

While some feel this year's crop of popcorn flicks are a bit smarter than previous years, like with every summer, we're bound to walk away from it sad, lonely and depressed because that one film we were anticipating so much left an awfully sour taste in our mouths. Last year, Michael Bay's The Island tanked, despite its gigantic budget. And, even though it made a killing at the box office, some felt Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds just wasn't up to par.

This year, it's completely up in the air. Personally, I don't have a very good feeling about Superman Returns. Sure, you can throw a ton of good buzz my way, claim Brandon Routh will revive the Man of Steel in a way that would make Christopher Reeve proud and tell me Bryan Singer made a good choice when he stepped away from the X-Men series -- but it just doesn't feel right. I'm calling it now -- this film will disappoint.

So, that leaves me wondering: Which summer blockbuster do you feel will turn out to be the most disappointing?