When I said, 'NEXT!' I meant it. As in 'Next question' or Next person'. I was treating it as it should be. Cuaron's style worked for that movie; Star Trek is a different kettle of fish. And as somebody said to me (last year) about that, the fans would be bitching about him being involved just as much as they bitch about Abrams, Orci, & Kurtzman now. As above, now below. Although I made those choices in a naive spirit, I realize what others told me about said idea of both men doing it was flawed, and that people would be bitching about both men doing it. For the most part, Jackson won't leave New Zealand to make movies (how he was able to make King Kong without Universal objecting to it, I have no idea), and as another person already said here, JMS is yesterday's man in Hollywood, making him a quite unlikely writer of a Star Trek movie even with the pedigree of having created and written Babylon 5 ('you're only as good as your next trick' is how he'd be seen by Paramount brass.) To put it another way; I dream of an ideal Star Trek, so I'd hire JMS & Jackson, but I live in this world, so I'd be hiring Abrams, Orci & Kurtzman. (I'm not totally dismissing the idea out of hand; after all, it could happen, and maybe Paramount would let Jackson film a Star Trek movie in New Zealand [with the script tailored to it] but I'm not holding my breath.) Newsflash V, buddy; I know that. (I've posted the info here before.) To me, it's what I call a 'popular failure' in that it was a critical success and made money, yet was not followed up with a sequel because it disappointed the film company in some way. Unlike you, I still love it. Conjecture and speculation on your part, the second movie made millions at the box office and got a lot of critical acclaim like the first one.