‘Gladiator’ screenwriter and card-
carrying Trekkie John Logan pumps
passion into a venerable sci-fi franchise.

by Mike Russell

This is an exclusive Web-only, uncut version of the interview that appeared in the print version of In Focus.

If there’s anything unique about me doing this movie, it’s that it’s the only one written by a fan who was literally weaned on ‘Star Trek,’” explains screenwriter John Logan. “It wasn’t a job; I’ve had plenty of jobs. I could work with anyone. I chose to do this because I am a fan.”

One of Hollywood’s most in-demand scenarists thanks to his work on the 2000 blockbuster “Gladiator,” Logan was brought into the Trek franchise by friend Brent Spiner, who plays “Next Generation” android Data. Spiner also brought Logan into “Trek” czar Rick Berman’s office – “a big fan going into the wizard’s lair,” as Logan puts it – and the trio set about trying to inject a little sex, violence and, with any luck, fan passion into the 10th “Trek” feature, “Nemesis.”

Directed by Stuart Baird – whose credits include the actioners “Executive Decision” and “U.S. Marshals” – “Nemesis” certainly seems destined to delight fanatics: For one thing, its script very consciously evokes the submarine-battle structure of fan-favorite “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.” Set against the backdrop of a civil war within the shadowy and much-feared Romulan Empire, the new film features Captain Picard (Patrick Stewart) matching wits with Shinzon (Tom Hardy) – a charismatic villain with a curious resemblance to the Enterprise commander – and it culminates in a prolonged space-battle climax designed to put fannies in seats.

“I would like to think that ‘Nemesis’ hits all the right buttons – that it is eminently satisfying to the fans,” says Logan. “Because frankly, that’s my concern. I chose to do this because I am a fan. If the fans embrace it, then I have done my job, and I can say I’ve done right by ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Star Trek’s’ part in my life. If they reject what I’ve done, then I’ve made a serious miscalculation about what other fans like me want.”

Here’s what Logan had to say about his love affair with “Trek,” his rapid journey from Chicago playwright to Hollywood big-shot, and the curious announcement that he will be writing “Gladiator 2.” Yes, “Gladiator 2.”

From other interviews I've read, you sound really jazzed to be involved with "Star Trek: Nemesis."

Yeah. You know, I must say that I am. Because the reason that I wanted to do it is that I'm absolutely a lifetime fan of "Star Trek." I'm an absolute, to-the-core Trekkie. My introduction to "Trek" began with the original five-year mission, and it's been a major part of my life since then. And I'm very unapologetic about that - that it's always been a hugely important thing to me - and to get a chance to actually sort of go into that world and help shape that canon was really exciting to me.

Were you a collector at all? Do you have any memorabilia?

Well, yeah, some, I must confess. You know, when I was a kid, I just had everything. I always tell the story - and it sounds apocryphal, but it's true - that I was Captain Kirk for every Halloween as long as I can remember. I read the novels, and I watched the shows and the movies, and I just thought it was the best.

So that moment when you got the gig - when Berman's saying, "We want you to write the next 'Star Trek' movie" - and it's an even-numbered movie [Logan laughs] - what was that moment like?

Oh, it was very exciting. There was a lot that led up to that moment - a lot of serious thinking about it - because as you may or may not know, the way I got involved was through Brent Spiner.

Right. You met him during a performance of "1776" -

Right. And he brought me in. And so before I even went in to meet Rick, I thought very seriously about what makes an exceptional "Star Trek" story - because there are good "Star Trek" stories and there are exceptional"Star Trek" stories. So I had really thought about it, and how we could move the "Next Generation" crew along a bit in their journey. So when I went in to talk to Rick, I had a little bit of trepidation, because obviously he's the overlord - he's the guy - and I was suggesting some pretty radical concepts. So not only was I a big fan going into the wizard's lair, I was also going in to say, "You know, let's shake this up a bit." So both of those were sort of playing in my mind.
But the minute I first suggested my first idea, I could tell that he was really excited about it.

Were all the suggestions you had to "shake things up" used?

Yeah. They were the bedrock of what all three of us - Berman, Spiner and me - made into what is "Nemesis."

But the overarching concept I came in with was: "You know, time moves on, even for the crew of the Enterprise - and it should. Because we the fans are so invested in these characters, we want to see their lives go on - we don't want to see them trapped in a little time bubble. We want to see them grow, we want to see their careers advance, we want to see their personal relationships advance - and I think that should be the point of 'Nemesis' - to really totally embrace that, seize that, cherish that, and celebrate that."

As you know, that's a pretty scary concept for a quote-unquote "franchise" movie. But [Berman] loved that idea - because Rick is a very bold thinker about the "Star Trek" world. He never feels himself bound too much to convention; he's willing to do radical things. And so I could tell immediately that he was excited about all of these ideas.

And so when we finally said, "Let's do it," I was overjoyed for two reasons: First of all, here I am - a fan - getting to sit in the captain's chair, essentially; and that Rick and Brent were so excited by my ideas. And from that point on, it was nothing but pleasure as I sat in the room with Rick and Brent and we worked out the story.

And it really was collegial; the story credit reads "Story by John Logan and Rick Berman and Brent Spiner" - and that is entirely true. All three of us - it was a triumvirate that shaped the entire story.

How many ideas did Brent Spiner have?

Oh, a lot. He was absolutely involved all the way through it; he was in every single story meeting, and was invaluable about things that definitely made it into the film and were important elements.

It was interesting in the breakdown of the three of us, sort of trying to define our roles: I was the writer - I was the one who wrote everything down, who was trying to keep continuity to the whole thing and kept an eye on the big picture. Rick was the provocative thinker, in terms of, "Okay, what if we do this? Is that more exciting? What's the most compelling character arc for Picard, and how can we dramatize that?" In football terms, Brent became my "go-to guy" - when you're back there and you're the quarterback and you're being rushed and there's three wide receivers out there, you know who your go-to guy is: He's the guy who will help you out when you need it.

It's nice to have someone in your corner when you're meeting with the producer.

Absolutely. And Brent was invaluable whenever we'd thought ourselves into a corner; that's when I'd call Brent or sit down with him and say, "Okay - Picard and Data are trapped on the villains' ship; they can't get off. What the hell do I do?" And he was just great about coming up with interesting ideas.
And what's great about Brent is his absolute lack of ego about Data - wanting this to be the best possible "Star Trek" movie, and what Data did was entirely secondary to any of that. Which is surprising in an actor. And I found the exact same thing to be true about Patrick Stewart, which was very rewarding.

At least up through "Insurrection," Stewart had massive input into the story process.

Oh, yes: He had tons of influence here. As soon as we had a rough story, we sent it to Patrick, and he and I got on the phone - this was even before we met face to face - and talked it through. Because of course it would be the height of audacity for me to say, "I understand the character of Jean-Luc Picard better than you do."

He's known for taking a tremendous amount of ownership of that character.

Yes - as well he should. And his ideas were tremendous. I expected him to be savvy about Picard - but he was savvy about everything, about every element of the script. He'd say, "Is this right for Geordi?" or "Is this right for Deanna?" "Can't we give Beverly more?" Not only shaping the story in terms of Picard's journey, but shaping the totality of the whole, which was incredibly rewarding. And then we had a bunch of face-to-face meetings where we would work through the scenes, and he was great in that.

It strikes me that - especially having been a fan and holding Patrick Stewart up in that iconographic sort of way - that having to get face-to-face with him in a meeting would be sort of colossally intimidating.

It was. It was. [laughs] You know, I've dealt with my share of heavy hitters, so I know how to do my job and I'm a professional - but you've got to think, "You're about to meet Jean-Luc Picard," and as much as you say, "It's only an actor and it's only a part," he'd walk in the room and it was still a little bit like, "Wow."

Of course, he makes it his job to put you at ease - and because we share a theater background, particularly a Shakespearean background, we were able to communicate very quickly in shorthand in terms of character intention, dialogue, meter of lines, rhythms, things like that.

My friends - who are all Trekkies, of course - say, "What was it like being on the bridge when you're shooting the movie?" I said, "All of that was great - but the most overpowering fan experience I had was when we did screen tests for the various actors playing Shinzon. And they were done on-set in costume. And so I was there early, and then Patrick walked in in his Jean-Luc Picard uniform. that's when I was overwhelmed and I thought, 'Oh, my God - I am really shaping the destiny of these characters.' And there's Patrick as Jean-Luc Picard, and he's now going to do a scene that I wrote." So that for me was the biggest sort of fan/professional synthesis.

I just interviewed the guys who wrote the next Bond film - and it strikes me that "Star Trek" and Bond share a lot in common in terms of the limits placed on creators. Both are controlled by producers; both have long-term production staff; both come freighted with a lot of "mythology" - I mean, you have certain marks you have to hit to remain consistent with what's come before. In many ways, both franchises evoke the classic 1930s Hollywood studio system.

Mm-hm. That's a very good point. Very good point.

How much did you feel constrained by that?

Well, I'll tell you: I thought I was going to feel very constrained by that. My feeling was, "Man - this is a billion-dollar franchise for Paramount. They're not going to let anyone monkey with it too much." So I walked in with a certain amount of trepidation.

I quickly found out that was not going to be the case with "Nemesis" - and it's all because of Rick. As I've said, he's a very daring thinker, and his mind can immediately leap to the significance of small character moments and how they affect the whole canon of "Star Trek." And he, as I said, was very excited about really pushing the envelope with this movie - and even encouraged me to push further. And Paramount respects Rick so much, they said, "Look, you're the guy - you know how this works. If this is what you want to do, by all means do it. You know, there's nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and shaking things up a little bit."

So the very fact that they brought me in with radical ideas, fully supported me, then brought a director from the outside in, I think shows Paramount's and Rick's enthusiasm about trying to do something a bit different. Not that there was anything wrong that had come before - obviously, I honor and celebrate the work of all those hundreds of writers and directors and actors who have come before me in the continuum of "Star Trek." And I would like to think that "Nemesis" hits all the right buttons - that is, that it is eminently satisfying to the fans. Because frankly, that's my concern. Because I'm a fan, and if there's anything unique about me doing this movie, it's that it's the only one written by a fan who was literally weaned on "Star Trek" and has such an incredible affection for it. It wasn't a job; I've had plenty of jobs. I could work with anyone. I chose to do this because I am a fan.

So for me, the litmus test is: How are the fans going to respond to it? If they embrace it, then I have done my job, and I can say I've done right by "Star Trek" and "Star Trek"'s part in my life. If they reject what I've done, then I've made a serious miscalculation about what other fans like me want.

I think a lot of fans probably have an image in their heads - because there have been so many series at this point - of an official "Star Trek" archivist sitting over your shoulder and telling you, "Well you can't do that, because this button does that." [Logan laughs.] Is there a sense that you're weighed down by the history?

Well, no, not me - because what was hysterical, in the meetings with Rick and Brent, is that it soon became apparent that I knew a lot more "Trek" minutiae than they did. They would be sitting there, and I would totally go into what they called "Trekkie mode" - like, suddenly say, "No, no, you can't do that - because in Episode 54, we learned that Dr. Soongh made two prototypes, and the positronic network…." And they would just sort of roll their eyes and wait for me to finish. So that was absolutely never an issue, because I was so versed in that. You know, before I sat down to write the first draft, I watched the entire "Next Generation:" series over again.

The TV series?

Yeah.

Wow.

And they pay me for this! Hello? I watched it for two reasons: to make sure that what we were doing was appropriate to the canon of "Next Generation," and also to get the characters' voices in my head a bit more.

Sure. To get the larger arcs and maybe pick out some things that might have been lost by the wayside.

Right. And of course, no "Trek" movie is going to satisfy every "Trek" fan - because we all have our different fascinations. I've always been fascinated by the Romulans, so therefore we don't have Klingons [in "Nemesis"], we have Romulans.

And it's high time, I say.

And it's high time, I say, as well! But you know, all those Klingons are going to be camping out on my front lawn protesting -- you know, saying, "Where are the Klingons?"

And also, as you know, every fan has their favorite characters. You know, I've always been a big fan of Picard, Data, and Deanna. So they get the most plot and character attention in this movie, because they're the ones I always liked and wanted to explore a bit more.

It strikes me that "The Next Generation" and the original "Trek" both sort of ended up embracing that id/ego/superego triumvirate - where you had the guy who acted, who was Picard or Kirk; then the superego guy, who was Spock or Data; and then the id, who was Bones or Worf.

Yeah.

But you didn't do as much with Worf in "Nemesis" as some of the previous films have done.

Yeah. Well, two comments: First, you're dead-on right about that id/ego/superego thing, and that's why I think "Star Trek" works - because I think that is absolutely universal; that is a universal archetype that everyone responds to. And if you talk to fans like Bryan Singer, that's all they talk about - they're like, "That triangle is what makes" -

Bryan Singer?!

Oh, yeah. Big, big "Trek" fan. He has a cameo in "Nemesis." [He says,] "That's what makes these stories universal - we all, every living person on the planet, have an id, ego, and a superego, and we understand the dilemmas between them. that is why the show has survived."
So of course that is something that, as a dramatist, I gravitated toward - but I would also say that's not just because it's a "Trek" film, but because it's good drama. And whether you're approaching "Gladiator" or Abraham Lincoln, you're just a dramatist; you have to find where the strength lies.
The other part of the question is, "How do you treat all the characters fairly?" And that was a truly wrenching situation - because you have the original gang of seven; we also have a villain that demands a fair amount of screen time, with a very complex back-story where we're introducing a new element to the Romulan world - so that took a fair amount of screen time.

The Remans.

Yes. The Remans. Which is why there was even less time for our crew. And hard choices had to be made about who to focus on. And in original draft of this, all of the characters had a lot to do, and they all had story arcs - Beverly was involved, Worf was involved, Geordi was involved - they were ALL involved and they all had significant character moments all the way through.

You had a part for Wesley Crusher.

Absolutely! And as the process went on, and as the editing continued, it became apparent we did not have time for all that. As much as, idealistically, I had hoped that there would be time and I could please all the fans - I could please all the Beverly Crusher fans as well as all the Worf fans and the Data fans - it became just obvious in course of editing and working on the movie that there simply wasn't time for all this, and we had to focus on the core story.

So if I have a regret about "Nemesis," it's that those story arcs - which are really good and fun - didn't make it to the screen.

Yeah, I always feel bad for Geordi and Crusher in the movie series - I guess feel bad for them in the same way I feel bad for Walter Koenig, who always basically has one scene where he gets injured in every "Trek" film.

Mm-hm. But it's a hell of a bind.

Are the actors pretty philosophical about it?

Oh, entirely. They're complete pros. I just talked to Marina [Sirtis] yesterday, in fact, at great length - and every one of them, God bless them, has the same reaction, which is: "I just want a great movie If I'm not featured, fine; I just want a great movie." And that comes all the way down from Patrick to every member of the cast. They're very philosophical about - and so far, incredibly supportive of everything.

Now you and [director] Stuart Baird are both sort of arrivistes in the "Trek" universe.

Indeed.

What advantages did that give you when you entered the room?

The difference between Stuart and I is that I'd never done a "Trek" movie, but I had lived "Trek" for all these years, so it was absolutely in my blood - I knew every permutation that had been done before me. And I was desperately aware of these characters, and I felt a sense of responsibility to these characters because I care for them so much - I've lived with them for so long that I wanted to treat them well and treat them with respect and dignity. So I was new to the world of Paramount doing a "Star Trek" movie, but I certainly wasn't new to the world of "Star Trek."
Stuart came to it totally fresh. I don't think he'd even seen "Star Trek" before they started talking to him about doing this.

There was a set report about him thinking Geordi LaForge was an alien.

Yes, I've heard that. So in a way, we were a great pair: He came in totally fresh, wanting to make an incredibly exciting and moving motion picture. And I came in with the same goal, but with a slightly different tactic.

Now, the film is now in the test-screening stage, and you're pruning and tweaking it. How are the test screenings going?

There haven't been any official test screenings - and I hope there actually won't be. But there have been a ton of screenings for Paramount executives, and I've seen the movie, like, five times - since the very first cut, which was like three hours long, to the most recent cut, which I think will be the release cut. And it's been going great. Everyone has been very involved. Paramount has been tremendously involved in terms of Sherry Lansing or John Goldwyn watching the movie, giving notes, watching reels when they're being re-cut, and having just wonderful suggestions for how to make it the best possible movie. Because I THINK - I HOPE - they realize this could be a really exciting "Star Trek" movie. They are giving extra money for optical effects, for example.

You may be the first "Trek" movie to have a larger budget than the previous one.

That may be true; I actually don't think it's true. I think "Insurrection" will actually have had a bigger budget than "Nemesis" - which, when you see the movie, you won't believe. Because "Nemesis" looks huge. And when you realize how much everything costs, and how cleverly Peter Lauritson put it all together, working with Stuart and the editors, it's just astounding how big the movie looks for what it cost.

Now, by this point you've finally checked out that fantastic new "Trek II" DVD.

Oh, yeah.

One of the best features is Harve Bennett talking about how they got so much for so little - recycling set elements and so on. Does that still go on?

[LAUGHS] Oh, my God, yes. Yes yes yes. Everywhere you can possibly save money, it has to be done - because it's an expensive proposition, and Paramount's looking toward the bottom line: What can this movie cost so it can actually make some dough?

And it's very clever, the things they've done. There are sets that are re-dresses of other sets. Like there's Engineering, which is this mammoth set - but we re-use Engineering like five times as different things, and you never in your life realize that behind that panel is the warp core. Because there are certain elements that you can shift, and move the graphics, and move this, and it looks like an entirely different location.

And also, one of the things that helped us is I specifically wanted to go in writing a "bottled" show. To me, I like the shows where they're on a ship and they're battling another ship. I like big ship battles. My initial pitch to Rick was, "It's a war movie, and the entire third act's a battle. It's the Enterprise and another ship, and blasting each other to pieces. that's the movie." And it has a sort of momentum of these two forces, Picard and Shinzon, coming together in this massive conflagration, which is the final battle.

But where that helps is that you spend a lot of time on ships, which are all sets. The Enterprise sets were almost all pre-existing. The Scimitar sets - which were the sets for Shinzon's ship - were magnificent, but they were one soundstage of sets. And the only location footage we did was Kolaris 3, the desert planet - and that was a week of shooting location in the desert; the rest was soundstages. So that was good for the bottom line - not that that was the intention, but it was a happy benefit.

Bennett got in right on the "Wrath of Khan" DVD when he said it doesn't matter if you re-dress the set, because the film's not really about the set.

Exactly right. Because as we discussed, it's about the characters.

Now I suppose you've also listened to Nicholas Meyer's fantastic commentary on that disc. Did you take his lead in terms of turning it into sort of a submarine film?

Well, Nick Meyer and Jack Sowards, who wrote "Star Trek II," are my gods. I mean, to me, that's not only the best "Trek" film - I think it's one of my favorite movies ever. And it's the only movie I've ever seen where I'm guaranteed to cry every time I see it. The only movie. To me, it's the model of everything - of how a "Star Trek" movie should be made.

And my initial impulse - "Let's see these characters move on with their lives" - is directly inspired by "Star Trek II," with Captain Kirk getting glasses on his birthday and realizing, "Where am I now, and where do I want to be?" That absolutely was the inspiration for everything I've done.

Also, the idea of the protagonist and the antagonist having a very personal relationship was inspired by not only years of classical dramatic literature, but also specifically by "Star Trek II" - where Kirk and Khan, because of their history, have a very intense and important emotional relationship. And to me, that was essential. It's essential in any good movie; it is particularly essential in a "Star Trek" movie. Captain Picard has to have some unique, personal emotional connection with the antagonist for the movie to work. End of discussion.

I must confess, I've seen the "Nemesis" script that was briefly posted online, so I know what that relationship is, specifically.

That's a very old script.

Now, that script was leaked online; it was online for a couple of weeks; and then it finally got yanked. But a lot of people read it. Now, I know that the Internet for you has been something of a double-edged sword, because this early script got online, but the Internet also helped create an advance buzz for "Gladiator." So what were your feelings when your early-draft script was posted out there?

It's not double-edged sword at all for me. It's a single-edged sword: It's theft. It's the theft of intellectual property.

I was outraged, I was angered, I was saddened. I was anything that you can possibly be toward that happening, for two reasons: One is that no one wants to have their work judged in an incomplete state - and a screenplay turning into a movie is a very fluid animal, and it changes and it goes this way and that way. It's like someone going in to an artist when a painting is half-done and judging it, and you want to say, "Wait wait wait! You don't understand! It's not done yet! You can't evaluate it!"

And the second thing is I just think it's reallyunfair for the fans, because we spend as dramatists a lot of time figuring out how to tell a story and be surprising - coming up with the most surprising plot turns and surprises that you can possibly have. And one hates to think that all that is being taken away in the very cold version of reading words on a page as opposed to the living version of seeing images and actors on a screen.

Right. And the way your script unfolds, there are surprises.

Yeah. Is that going to keep people from seeing the movie? No, I don't think so - because everyone knows things change, and I think if it whets people's appetites to see the movie, I guess that's good. But as a writer, I think it's abominable.

I was warned it was going to happen. Rick said, "Look - just be prepared that this is going to happen; there's no way to stop it. We can do red-colored scripts, we can do numbered scripts - it's still gonna happen just because it happens." And so I was prepared for it. Frankly, it just hurt. I would rather my friends who are the fans judge me on the basis of the final movie.

And how different IS the final movie from the script?

Very. Very. It's changed a lot in both production - where we would cut scenes and write new scenes and shift relationships - and in the editing, where things were moved around and punched up. So I think it's changed a lot, yeah.

Did it ever occur to you to resurrect an old villain from the TV series?

No, because "Star Trek II" did that so magnificently. As much as I am honoring "Star Trek II" with every line of this movie, I can't honor it that far, because that would almost be theft. And also, I wanted specifically a young, sexy, male villain, because we've never seen that in "Trek" before - so I wanted that as a good counterpoint to Picard.

I've heard nice things about Tom Hardy as Shinzon.

Oh, he's tremendous. He's tremendous. He went for it, and he's young, and he's exciting, and he's sexy - and the scenes with him and Patrick are, I think, absolutely dynamite. I mean, talk about intimidation: I mean, can you imagine, as a green actor, going in and acting three intense scenes with Patrick Stewart?

Well, not only that, but you basically are playing a reflection of Patrick Stewart on a certain level.

Oh, yes. But I think he did a terrific job; he just jumps off the screen.

I mean, our intention was, how can we make a villain as good as Khan - as memorable as Khan? And the thing about Khan is, he has justification for what he does; he is not motiveless evil in the Coleridge/Iago sense. He absolutely believes he has a reason for what he is doing, based on the pain he has suffered, which he blames Kirk for. And we also thought it was important that Shinzon also have what he believes is a reason for everything he is doing.

Was there any trepidation about re-visiting the concept of cloning in the wake of, well, "Attack of the Clones"?

Well, no. I'll tell you why: It's because Rick and I liked the idea of a surrogate father/son relationship between Picard and the villain - and that's the important thing. The fact of his specific relationship with Picard as it's dramatized in the movie is less important than what we're trying to present, which is a surrogate father/son relationship. And for a while, I thought maybe Shinzon was a long-lost son of Picard's - but obviously that is so against the canon of "Trek" that we could never get away with it. But that surrogate relationship is what we were looking for.

Will we be seeing … ah, the name escapes me, the former security officer….

Tasha Yar -

She came back later on as a sort of blonde half-Romulan -

Right. Seela, the half-breed Romulan.

Thank you. Will we be seeing her in the film?

No, we will not - for reasons that are too complicated to go into in terms of what the Romulans have to do in the story.

Gotcha. Now, the way the geek media's spun it, "Nemesis" and the TV series "Enterprise" are really tasked with sort of saving the "Trek" franchise. Both come on the heels of the disappointments of "Voyager" and "Insurrection." Did you feel burdened by the responsibility? Did you feel the pressure?

No, not at all - because I'm a big "Voyager" fan and I actually think "Insurrection" is underrated, so I didn't feel that at all. Because that responsibility, I couldn't….

Yeah, I guess you can't really think about that stuff.

No, you couldn't - because how am I going to sit down thinking, "I have to save this franchise I love"? No, I never felt that at all. I mean, I hope when fans see the movie, they'll be excited about it and say, "Wow! I can't wait for the next movie like this!" But I don't think it was ever my job to save the franchise because I don't think it needs saving.

I mean, I understand your question - I've been asked it every time I've talked about "Nemesis." But quite honestly I didn't feel that way.

Now, is this the last "Next Generation" cast film?

The on-the-record answer is: It depends on how many fans see the movie. If the movie is popular, I guarantee you there will be a "Star Trek 11," and I hope I will be involved in it. But it all depends on the realities of the marketplace, which is if Paramount looks at the box-office reports and says, "You know what? We did really well with this. Let's take a risk on another."

Well, I think that shot in the trailer of the Enterprise plowing into another ship is going to put fannies in seats.

Let's hope.

Now, in this script you guys drew a lot from "Trek" history - even beyond the obvious vibe and structure of "Wrath of Khan." I know they tried to pack in as much of the larger "Trek" universe as possible. I know, at least at one point, you had Wesley Crusher showing up at a wedding, and you've got a cameo from Admiral Janeway from "Voyager." Are there any other little surprises in store?

There are a few little surprises - mostly in terms of references the fans are going to enjoy. You know, one of the fun things for me is winking at the other fans and saying, "They just said this?" and most of the general public doesn't know what that means, but you and I get it - and it's really fun, because you and I know what a Tholian is, or what Romulan Ale is. And so there's a fair amount of that sprinkled all the way through, which I think is just really fun texture.

Clearly, the biggest way I seized "Trek"'s past is by inventing the Remans, because it's something that's mentioned once in [the classic "Trek" episode] "Balance of Terror." And I said, "Wait a minute - the Romulan Empire is two planets. We see them in the bird of prey's claws in the Romulan logo. What the hell is Remus?" And I thought, "How fun to explore that?" and to reveal what Remus is and what Remans are. And so in terms of pure "Trek"-dom, that was the most fun for me.

And then, as an added bonus, you get Ron Perlman as the lead Reman.

Yep. He's terrific - and he's so scary in "Nemesis." Ooh. He would walk in with that makeup, and I know Ron and he's a great guy, but I'd go, "Ooh! You're scary! I don't want to sit by you! I'm going to go sit by Brent, who's not scary!"

Now, let's talk about your career for a minute. From reading your IMDb listing, here is your astonishing career arc: You write two TV movies.

Uh-huh.

You write the Lou Diamond Phillips camp classic "Bats."

Uh-huh.

And then, within a year, you're working for Oliver Stone on "Any Given Sunday." And co-writing "Gladiator." And now you're working on "The Last Samurai" with Tom Cruise. Was the speed of your ascent a bit shocking?

Um, to a certain extent. I mean, the chronology of those works doesn't represent the reality. Because the reality is that I'd been working on "Any Given Sunday" for years, and I wrote "Bats" as a sort of little toss-off thing. And so that chronology doesn't reflect what my life really was.

My life was that I was a playwright in Chicago - and I still live in Chicago - for years and years and years, and thought it would be really cool to write a movie. And through various permutations, I met with some agents at CAA with some film ideas, and one of them was "King Lear" in the NFL. And they said, "Is that a football movie?" And I said, "Yeah." And they said, "Well, write that."

And so I spent a year writing "Any Given Sunday." And in the course of that year, I also worked on "Tornado!" - exclamation point! - and various other things to make money while I was working on "Any Given Sunday." And once Oliver read it and said, "I want to do your movie," then that was the life-changing experience - because then I was the unknown playwright thrust immediately into a big-budget movie with an A-list director. And from that moment on, the choices I made and what I did just sort of led inexorably to one project or another.

Now, Chicago's Mamet country.

Yes, it is!

Did you run in those circles?

Not as much as I used to. When I graduated from school, I was, very much. I spent 10 years doing plays in Chicago, so I was intimately a part of that world. But my world is sort of between Chicago and L.A. now.

Is it frustrating when you go to Hollywood after you've been writing plays for years and people like me say, "Oh, look! He popped out of nowhere!"?

No, not at all. I'd spent 10 years learning my craft, and I'm just a professional writer, and how I'm perceived doesn't matter to me in the slightest - because I don't live in L.A., I don't go to parties, I don't go to openings - I just keep my head down and do my job. And the only thing that interests me is, "What story am I telling now?"

You know, I've been lucky enough to work with some incredible collaborators. And because I spent all those years working with directors and actors and producers on plays, I know how to collaborate and I know what my position in the Great Beast is. I'm comfortable writing with other people.

Have you directed any plays of your own?

No. No. I'm just a writer. And quite happily.

Now, I just heard the big announcement about "Gladiator 2." Good heavens.

Isn't that exciting?

Yeah. I must say, I share the world's curiosity …

[laugh] Yeah. My sister just called me and said: "But he died!"

Okay, now I know you probably can't talk about it too much, but: How do you do that?

Well, you know, "Gladiator" was a long and interesting process. And once we sort of realized what we had, there was a lot of talk even then about how this could be a multi-generational saga. The story of Rome could go on - because the things that happened after the death of Commodus are absolutely thrillingly exciting.

So there was even talk then. And then, when the movie did well and got the attention that it did, those talks began to become more … serious. So it was not a frivolous decision of, "Oh - the movie made a lot of money. Let's somehow ground out a sequel." There are frankly clues in the first movie about what the second movie is going to be - and threads that are left open to be picked up.

The one thing I would be thinking, off the top of my head, would be when they talked to Russell Crowe about the legions that could invade Rome and take it back - and we never saw that happen.

Maybe. [laughs] Because DreamWorks will hunt me down if I tell. But the development of the story, which we're deep into now, is just great fun.

Will the lead character be a character we saw in the last film.

I can't tell you. I mean, I could tell you, but I won't tell you. [laughs] Don't worry - you'll see a script on the Internet soon.

Oh, man. Now: "Last Samurai." Tom Cruise learnin' swordplay. How's that coming along?

It's coming along great. I mean, I've known Tom for years, and he's such a consummate professional, like everyone says, and when he commits, he commits. And working on that with Ed Zwick - I developed it with Ed to direct - was just incredibly exciting, because I've also known Ed for years; he's an old Chicago hand, I might add, as is Michael Mann. I've got all these Chicago colleagues. And now it's a big ol' movie.

Has Cruise fully immersed himself in learning to use a sword?

Yes. He's been training with a katana, with a long samurai sword, for months - on practically, I believe, a daily basis. You'll be stunned.

Is it strange when you've written something like "Gladiator" that enters the pop-culture fabric? When you've got a character on "The Sopranos" that loves "Gladiator" and quotes lines from it?

It is great fun. And I think all the writers - David Franzoni, Bill Nicholson and me, and I have to emphasize that it is all three of us - I think we were all absolutely shocked by that and amused by that. Because frankly, there was a point in the process where I looked at Ridley and asked, "Is any of this going to work? Is anyone going to go see this movie?" And he just smiled like the Buddha, because he knew exactly what the movie was going to be. Everyone is just tickled pink. How couldn't you be?

That Ridley Scott's a cagey fella.

Isn't he great?

Is he going to direct "Gladiator 2"?

We'll see. I certainly hope. I mean, as many great directors as I've worked with, I've never had more fun than working with Ridley. And as I always say, "All hail Ridley Scott" - because it was his vision that made that movie what it is. I mean, Bill and David and I did good work on the script, Walter Parkes and Doug Wick were incredible producers, we got phenomenal support from DreamWorks and Universal - but it was Ridley Scott who made that movie great.

Why do you think the "Next Generation" cast has endured beyond the casts of the other shows?

I don't know. I honestly don't know. Because I've asked myself that question. I think partly it has to do with the actors just being really dynamic, with really interesting conflicts set up between them, and we like seeing those actors grow. I think it has partly to do with the look of the show - the fact that it was so new and fresh - the fact that it was really brilliantly written over the seven years in terms of exploring all the characters. But honestly, I don't know. It's an ephemeral thing, in a way. Why do these people speak to more people than the "Deep Space Nine" story, or saga?

I have my own feelings, but finally maybe it just comes down to the "Next Generation" cast touching more hearts for whatever reason than the other shows, fond as I may be of them.

Do you ever wish you'd been able to take a stab at writing the classic "Trek" series?

Mm. Boy. Yes, of course. No, that's not true. I think what would make me happiest would be to write lines for Captain Kirk. Of course.

While we're geeking out on the arcane: Why do you have this new android, B-4, that's an exact replica of Data - when, in the TV series, Data already had another twin named Lore?

Because the original structural and thematic reason for the B-4 is to act as a parallel for the Picard story - where both Picard and Data, our twin protagonists, have to deal with a "family relation," if you will - he says cleverly - that they didn't know existed … and they both deal with it in different ways. And that's classical dramatic form, to have your protagonists deal with the same problem in different ways. And so the B-4 had to be a different thing that Lore could not be. So that was the real reason, much as I love Lore - I always love seeing Brent use contractions. Always love seeing Brent being evil. And Brent, of course, loves playing Lore.

But who knows? There's always "Star Trek 11."