imperialscum said:

Film director (if not also a writer) is basically more or less an operational director. In general, I think writers should get more credit than the director since they are the real creative force.

This can be true, I suppose. But a bad director could turn a great script into a disaster, and a great director could technically take a lousy script and turn it into something enjoyable to watch. There are movies with awful writing that are still visually and stylistically engaging to the point of being a decent films. I feel the director is still the maker or the breaker.

I feel like film as an art form really shines when it is conceived, written, and directed by the same person. Not to say you can't have amazing films with different writers and directors (Blade Runner comes to mind, and I think that film's triumph is far more the direction that the script, the writing really isn't anything special, though it has its moments), but it seem the majority of films I feel are truly special are written and directed by a single creative force.

With Star Trek '09, I feel like Orci and Kurtzman have their stamp on it as much as Abrams does (which is a bad thing, IMHO). As much shit as I give Abrams, I do think the guy has some cool ideas, and I feel his directing style is far above most standard throw-away blockbuster directors. In other words, for what he is, he is better than average.