Greenwood: Farewell To Pike



Actor Bruce Greenwood is sad to see the end of his participation in the rebooted Star Trek franchise.

The actor shared his thoughts on finding out about the fate of Pike, the reception of Star Trek into Darkness, and his “not-so-secret” wish about his participation in a third Trek movie.

Greenwood found out about Pike’s demise before he read the script that had been sent to him. “The script was delivered and then I got a text from J.J., who wrote, ‘Call me before you read the script. Call me right away.’ I went, ‘Oh, what does that mean? Have they decided they’re going to do a different script? Something that doesn’t have Pike in it at all?’ I didn’t know what was happening. So I called him and he said, ‘I’ve got good news and I’ve got bad news. The good news is that he’s integral part of the show and a lot of the action hinges on what happens to you. The bad news is, well…you don’t survive.’ So that’s how it went down.”

At first, Greenwood was sad about the news. “Oh, I was crushed initially, but that was before I read it,” he said. “Once I read it, I realized it was a good way to go out, and we had a lot of fun doing it.”

Although Star Trek into Darkness did well at the box office, some fans were not happy with the movie. Greenwood dismissed the criticism of this group. “[There was a] disaffection of the ‘hardcore fans,’ and I’m not really sure what the percentage of hardcore fans who wanted something different really is,” he said. “I think people can focus on that, but I think by and large fans of the franchise were happy with it.”

Greenwood certainly was. “I thought it was great,” he said. “I’m so part of it that it’s very difficult for me to be objective. I’m so connected with the people who did it and I know the phenomenal amount of work that into it. So I’m predisposed to liking it…and I do.”

What’s next for Greenwood?  “WildLike is a little movie we shot in Alaska last year, and it’s a beautiful story,” he said. “Endless Love, we had a lot of fun shooting that in Atlanta this summer. Devil’s Knot is at the Toronto Film Festival. A project that I’m incredibly excited about isn’t a film, but a play. It’s actually a musical that I’m about to start rehearsing, and it’s written by Stephen King and John Mellencamp. We’ll be taking it on tour in the Midwest in the middle of October. It’s called Ghost Brothers of Darkland County. It’s about this guy who has a secret that’s torn him apart for, lo, these forty years. He brings his family together to tell them about the secret and he imagines that when he finally reveals this thing that’s tortured him for so long his warring sons will lay off each other. Of course, it doesn’t go according to plan.”

If he could, would Greenwood return to Star Trek for a third movie? “My not-so-secret wish is that somehow there’s a memory lane scene where Pike gets to come back and talk to Kirk in some way,” he said. “I don’t think they can give me a drop of Khan’s blood because that would render my death somewhat meaningless if they could reanimate me. But of course I’m hoping they’ll reach into memory lane and bring me back.”


What do you think? Chat with other fans in the at The Trek BBS.




Up Next
  • choomster

    That was something they didn’t have to do.

  • JWPlatt

    It continues the bloodlust Trek writers seem to have for putting their mark on the franchise by snuffing characters. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, such thinking, that death is easy drama, cheapens lives in the story and eventually runs out of characters. I’d prefer good writing to death mongering: “Who can we kill this time?”

  • choomster

    What do you think of this new “timeline?”

  • Mike

    “I don’t think they can give me a drop of Khan’s blood because that would render my death somewhat meaningless if they could reanimate me.”


    So, in the first breath he explains how he loves it. In the second breath he explains how, of course he loves it, he’s too close to be objective. And in the third breath he explains how killing a major character and then giving them a miracle cure through Khan’s blood destroys the impact of the death once reanimated…………….

    Yes, Bruce, but tell us how you really feel.

    If that’s not a coded, “This was total shit”, I don’t know what is.

  • Ben Gunn

    One can think whatever one wants of the merits of the movie itself (I neither praise nor condemn), but my gut instinct is that if Trek continues in this vein and form there won’t be a Trek 20 years from now.

  • Mike

    Then why not condemn it? Otherwise, you’re just fiddling while Rome burns…

  • JWPlatt

    I feel like even if they are good movies, it doesn’t matter because they aren’t in my universe; they’re in someone else’s. So it is more difficult to care about the characters and what happens. They are easily dismissed. I only recently began to realize this and it makes me a little sad. It’s still fun to watch, but I wanted Pike to be a continuing mentor. Now, there’s less to care about because life is cheap.

  • Theragen Derivative

    When Pike told Kirk that Starfleet had put him (Pike) back in command of the Enterprise, I started to get excited because I actually WANTED to see that. Silly me. I should have known that the Bad Robot Brain Trust had no plans to keep their only good character around beyond the first half-hour.

  • choomster


  • James

    *sigh* Here we have the most successful Trek Movie of all time – even adjusting for inflation. We have a 91% fresh rating of over 200,000 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. Also, ST09 is the 3rd highest selling blu-ray – EVER!

    Star Trek was DEAD in 2002, totally run into the ground. Sure, some of the hardcore fans dont like the reboot. But guess what? I remember the hardcore trekkies totally disrespecting TNG when that was new.

    Star Trek is in rude health, sir. I am confident that it will be around 20 years from now with all the new fans that these movies have made.

  • Mike

    Why are you continually so convinced that JJ Abrams and the abandonment of Star Trek was the only way to save Star Trek? Why can’t you accept that someone that actually likes Star Trek, and JJ Abrams has literally said he doesn’t, given the same budget, would do a far superior job without having to gut the source material?

    To be honest, I don’t agree with Ben Gunn that Star Trek won’t be around in 20 years. Real Star Trek certainly will. JJ Abrams? Not a chance. JJ Abrams’ actors? Not a chance. JJ Abrams’ offshoot universe? Not a chance… These actors aren’t going to be doing this 20 years from now. They aren’t interested in being Star Trek actors… They’re using Star Trek to advance their careers… and I don’t begrudge them that at all. But it’s entirely delusional to think any of these people, in front of the camera or behind, will be with this franchise a score from now. So, at some point, we’re going to have to return to the prime timeline… at which point, the people that have been with Star Trek for decades will probably mostly still be with Star Trek proper… Will the new “fans”? Who cares is my answer. Simple minds, simple pleasures. The fact that we’ll be returning to Star Trek’s legitimate timeline is the most important part… And the undeniable fact that we will one day return there, whether it’s into the past, a middle section, the “present” of post-TNG or the future well beyond TNG like they did for TNG in relation to TOS, the original timeline will return supreme… and WHEN it does, one wonders who will care? Will anyone be upset that the JJverse will be done? I wouldn’t hold my breath.

  • James

    Well, I dont think the source material is ‘gutted’ or abandoned. Here’s why:

    I very much doubt that a new TV show would go back to the TNG or beyond era, but I dont have a crystal ball like you seem to have. All I know is that we will definetly get another movie (probably 2 more) and that if the films continue to make money then there is a possibility that we’ll get another TV show. I can say with certainty that the 90’s Trek, which you and I know and love is in no way diminished by the new films, just as TOS wasn’t diminished by TNG.

  • SJStar

    What? You’re acting (yet again) like a complete obnoxious deadshit.
    You can’t say anything for yourself, but your more than happy to shit on everyone else. Just anyone here who disagrees with your own twisted and warped opinions, and you act like a dickhead.
    One thing is for sure, Star Trek would be much better off without stupid stinking turds like you.

  • SJStar

    Ben, don’t listen to this stinking egotistical dickhead here.

    The only thing that should be condemned is a turd who pretends he knows the ins and outs of Star Trek, when it is clear he doesn’t have a clue. No one seems to be able to make even a sensible comment, without this deadshit making some snide derogatory remark. It is all about him and to always want to be the centre of attention.

  • Mike

    If he’s worried that Star Trek won’t be around in 20 years because of this incarnation and what it’s doing to the franchise, but prefaces that by saying he won’t condemn it, that’s not overly helpful to righting the ship of Star Trek. I wasn’t disagreeing with him. I was agreeing and questioning why he wouldn’t, then, say the truth, which is that it’s total shit… Why else would his gut be telling him this will destroy Star Trek if this isn’t crap? My only point is, if you think it’s going to destroy Star Trek, and you don’t want Star Trek destroyed, why not call it out for what it is…

    But, somehow, that’s me attacking him or being derogatory, when really I’m just agreeing with him and trying to encourage him to flatly state his opinion of the material if his opinion suggests it’s going to destroy that which he likes. Moron.

  • Mike

    “I very much doubt that a new TV show would go back to the TNG or beyond era, but I dont have a crystal ball like you seem to have.”

    They deemed it the PRIME universe for a reason… After ST2009 came out, the fans, knowing how time travel in Star Trek works, knew they had destroyed the timeline that had existed for 40 years at that point. The executives scrambled to make sure that wasn’t the case by insisting that this was somehow an offshoot of the timeline. I won’t argue that at this point, as it’s somewhat irrelevant to my point here… except that it clearly indicates they aren’t rebooting Star Trek. This is a side adventure in something that isn’t what they themselves deem the PRIME timeline.

    You very much doubt that they’ll go back to the Prime timeline… Why? If that, by their terminology, is the Prime timeline, then what are we in now? The Secondary timeline? The Lesser timeline? The Alternate timeline? Any modifier you put there doesn’t hold up next to Prime timeline… which suggests to me, just logically, that they don’t intend to remain outside the Prime timeline forever.

    Secondly, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I do pay attention. When JJ Abrams took over Star Trek for the 2009 movie, he and his cronies pitched a follow-on series to CBS set in that timeline. CBS politely declined. Why? If CBS, and by that I mean the corporation, not necessarily the broadcast network, was going to do a Star Trek series set in this offshoot Abrams timeline……… why didn’t they do it when JJ Abrams wanted to do it? They’re going to do it later? Without the cache of Abrams attached when they could’ve had him?

    Okay, let’s make that leap from the lion’s head… They make another movie, per all their contracts. You seem to think they’ll make another movie after that, even though they aren’t contracted for it. I guess that’s your crystal ball… But anyway, so they make one or two more movies… at that point, with Star Trek having been off the air for probably15 years, the plan would be what? You seem to think they’d stay in the Abrams timeline… and do what? Are the film actors currently starring in Star Trek going to suddenly decide to take ST to the small screen? Or would we get to see ATNG?

    And what’s the point of that? They claim the point of going back to Kirk’s era was to free them from the mythos that had been established and was somehow constraining these hacks rather than inspiring them with the most realized fictional universe ever created… I think we can dismiss the idea of the film actors reprising for a tv series… So, we’re talking about a series that would be introducing characters or reintroducing characters, as the case may be… And what’s the point?

    If they’re going to the trouble of creating a new series, set in a new era, why wouldn’t they return to what THEY have deemed the PRIME universe? You know, the one that actually has an ancillary market for CBS and Paramount to profit from?

    I don’t have a crystal ball, nor am I making huge leaps in logic… It seems to me that you are… I didn’t dub it the Prime universe. I didn’t turn down JJ Abrams when he pitched a ST television series set in his timeline. I didn’t cause there to be zero market for products and imagery with these people rather than the TOS actors. I didn’t think we needed to go back in time to free ourselves from continuity only to rehash previous characters, themes, and happenings. None of these things were done by me, but they all indicate that Star Trek will one day return to where it started.

  • SJStar

    Who cares, dogpoo.

  • SJStar

    Added a whole lot more text to justify somehow you are not a prick doesn’t change the fact you are a deadshit, dogpoo.

  • Mike

    Everything I say is me saying it for myself… just to be clear, catpiss.

  • Mike

    Apparently you, catpiss.

  • Mike

    Actually, not one word there was me suggesting I’m not a prick… learn to read.

    I, unlike you, actually discuss the topic… pssst, it’s Star Trek, asshole.

  • SJStar

    Just making sure that everyone else know you’re a dickhead with form, dogpoo.

  • James

    Chris Pine is signed for two sequels after Into Darkness:
    source is here:

    Like I said I have no crystal ball.

    I think that this Star Trek is set in an alternate universe just like we saw in the TNG episode Parallels. Wouldn’t it be cool if in the remaster of that episode one of the many Enterprises was an evolution of the enterprise seen in the Abrams timeline.

    As for a new Trek show – no-one knows what’ll happen either way. The fanboy in me wants a USS Kelvin series, but that ship has sailed.

  • Oswald Carnes

    Don’t you Australians ever bathe? I can smell your mom from here!

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Oh certainly. Box office success is such a valid measurement of quality. This is why the Transformers movies are hailed as masterpieces of modern cinema alongside Citizen Kane.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Children, children! Don’t make me have to stop this thread.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    That would have probably forced the character of Kirk to grow and mature before getting command back by actually earning. This being too much like work for those knuckleheads, they took the lazy route and just killed off Pike and almost everyone else who ranks higher than Kirk.

  • Kang the Unbalanced

    Indeed. it should not be done lightly. Amanda’s death in the previous film served a purpose by making a tragedy that is overwhelmingly huge personal to Spock, in a way the audience could easily understand. (I sincerely hope today’s audiences aren’t so jaded as to watch an inhabited planet be destroyed and say, “So?”)
    To be fair, (again… must be the meds) Pine’s death does serve a purpose by motivating Kirk to take something seriously besides yiffing and Beastie Boys. It is built up and handled very well; it serves its purpose to a T. Pike is a mmm, somewhat safe-ish character to snuff at this point. However I think we all agree killing characters should not be done lightly. Eventually Spock will run out of relatives and Starfleet will run out of capable, intelligent, competend officers. Well– officers, at any rate.

  • Mike

    lol a dickhead with form…. So, I’m not a liquid or gas? That makes me a solid as opposed to a changeling… I’ve got it! I’m human!

    Riddles with SJStar… Surprisingly fun.

  • Mike

    He’s from New Zealand, not Australia… and, to be fair, I don’t remotely hold him against the rest of the Kiwis… even though they should’ve held him under the water as an infant.

  • Mike

    We can do duelling statements on what he’s signed for, if you like:

    I laid out a pretty logical set of steps as to why I don’t think Trek will continue in this universe beyond these films. Your answer is basically, “nuh-uh, don’t believe it”… Which is fine if that’s the extent of the conversation you’re prepared to have… But I went through a number of areas where it makes far more sense for them to return to the Prime timeline, and you’ve basically ignored each and every one of them. Again, that’s cool if you don’t actually want a discussion. If you do, well, discussion requires each party to actually acknowledge what the other has said. I’ve offered a considered analysis of the future of Star Trek based on what we know… care to join in that discussion? Or should we both just put our fingers in our ears and hum so we can’t hear the other as seems to be the case now?

  • Mike

    Oh, but according to Roberto Orci, the reason for busting Kirk back down from command was to address the fans’ reaction to a cadet being given the captaincy of the flagship in the first place in the first movie……….. Yeah, because that really addresses that. lol Let’s promote this guy beyond Ensign, beyond junior grade Lt, beyond Lt, beyond Lt. Commander, and beyond Commander, and when he’s not prepared to be Captain, let’s bust him back down to the ACADEMY!?!?! LMAO And Roberto Orci actually thinks he was doing us a favor. The only favor he could extend to us at this point would be his leaving the franchise and taking his little sewer rat partner with him.

  • Mike

    One last thing that just occurred to me…. You want a USS Kelvin series… Wouldn’t that, by definition, be a series set in the Prime timeline?

    This line opens a whole can of worms……….

  • James

    LOL – you win 😉

  • James

    Your source is much older than mine – it really does seem like Chris Pine is signed on for two more.

    Maybe you are right and the alternate universe wont exist beyond these films, I just don’t know. I did want a discussion man, but we aren’t going to change each others minds. I think that the barrier to a new Trek series is really because the franchise rights are now split – which is why I think any new Trek series wont happen for a while.

    With respect, some of your arguments boil down to ‘I don’t like JJ Abrams’ new Trek’. That’s fine, I for one, don’t think the writers of the most successful Trek Movie ever are ‘hacks’, I wouldn’t describe Abrams’ Bad Robot colleagues as ‘cronies’ and I don’t think the new Trek films are a rehash of the old ones. Obviously my opinion is not more or less valid than yours, but what I think is fairly indisputable fact is that Trek was dead in 2002 and JJ Abrams has revived the franchise by making it accessible to a wider audience. The fact is that Trek is popular and making money once again, this guarantees it’s future.

    I loved your post about the Kelvin series – very clever!

    I dunno, I guess I just can’t see a return to 90’s Trek happening any time soon.

  • trekfan

    I doubt that information is true. That seems to be more like Pine’s wish. As far as I know, the cast of these movies signed the contracts for only three movies. That means, one more and that’s it.

  • Mike

    How is my source “much older” than yours? The date on your article was May 5, 2013 and the video I posted where Quinto says they have 1 more was from May 10, 2013… Which makes mine 5 days newer than yours, doesn’t it? How is that “much older”?

    Secondly, my comments don’t just boil down to me not liking “JJ Abrams’ new Trek”. Do I like it? No, but I didn’t really like the first one in 2009, I still reconciled myself to the fact that a lot of people did and that they would continue with this… It doesn’t change my thinking as to the reality of them doing a third one of these. But, not based on my emotions, but from everything I’ve read, everyone was signed for 3 movies, no more, no less. So, it’s not wishful thinking that has me thinking that will be it, it’s the nature of the business. But, let’s assume you’re right and they do 2 more… let’s even assume that they do 4 more over the next decade… And? Will Chris Pine be playing Kirk at 50? Or Quinto playing Spock? I think, aside from some stunt casting here and there, the answer is resoundingly a likely no. Certainly film actors aren’t likely to go to tv with Trek for the long term… And since CBS already quashed an Abrams Trek series, I think it’s safe to assume they’ll eventually take us back to the Prime Timeline. I could be wrong, but I haven’t seen a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. And does that upset me? No, it pleases me, but I didn’t draw my conclusion based on what pleases me… if I was doing that, STD wouldn’t exist.

    Third, here’s a partial list of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman’s body of writing work:
    The Island (That Michael Bay movie with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson)
    The Legend of Zorro (not to be confused with the first Zorro movie with Anthony Hopkins that was passably good)
    Mission Impossible III (Was it McG level bad? No…….. but was it good?)
    Transformers (a modern classic)
    Star Trek (2009)
    Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen (an even more modern classic)
    And… wait for it……..
    Cowboys and Aliens (I don’t even have a caption)

    What part of their body of work isn’t hackery?

    As for the new films being a rehash of the old ones… They went back to Kirk and Spock. How is it not inherently a rehash of the whole damned thing? And then, when they were supposed to be freed to tell whatever story they wanted, they decided to retell the story of Khan? And, regardless of your feelings about STD, you will agree that it doesn’t compare to TWOK, right? So, why do it at all? And based on everything we now know, it wasn’t Khan, then they shoehorned him in after they’d already decided the plot of the movie… and then they just asked, “okay, can it be Khan doing this?” Well… it COULD… but why?

    And yeah, I am pissed about that. I’m pissed that they had Spock go back in time, see his planet destroyed, and yet does nothing to arrest those events. In The Voyage Home, if you rewatch it, SPOCK IS THE ONE TO RAISE TIME TRAVEL. He’s the one who concludes that if they can’t get what they need in the present, they must return to the past. And yet, the events of ST2009 don’t inspire him to properly reset the timeline?

    I’m pissed that they essentially lied to us about why they’re doing what they did. They said they had to go back to Kirk and Spock in order to be freed from the constraints of the established continuity. So, why not tell fresh stories? It was just a bit of PR bullshit in order to get their grubby hands on the franchise, which, after they did, they thought they could do with it whatever they pleased and everyone would just go along because we’re rabid Star Trek fans… what a misreading and misunderstanding of the fanbase. Would I be as pissed if they were honest? If they said they were going back to Kirk’s era because he’s James T. Kirk, the most iconic ship captain since Ahab, that wouldn’t bother me nearly as much as the lies to get their hands on the property in the first place.

    And lastly, you keep referring to going back to 90’s Star Trek. I’m sorry, and I don’t mean this to be condescending, but it does somewhat age you. Neither I, nor anyone I have ever read, has ever suggested a return to a 90’s format of Star Trek storytelling. Star Trek isn’t from the 90’s. It isn’t from the 80’s or 70’s or even from the 60’s… Star Trek happened in those periods, but it isn’t tied to them inherently. I’m sure there were people in 1986, when they heard about Gene Roddenberry doing another Star Trek series, who conjured notions of a 1960’s show done in the late 80s and recoiled in abject horror at the thought… and the thought would’ve been wrong. TNG wasn’t a 1960’s production, even though the people that were at the core of TNG at the very beginning were many of the people who were involved in 60’s Trek… But it was still 80’s Trek in the 80’s. So, yeah, in 2013, I want a 2013 Star Trek, but you seem to think the only person capable of producing a modern Star Trek is JJ Abrams. Nobody is suggesting we return to 90’s Star Trek… the 1990s were 20 years ago. But, you accuse me of being the same kind of fan who poopooed TNG prior to seeing it… when, in fact, you’re the one exemplifying that position by being unable to conceive of a Star Trek that holds true to its roots but updates accordingly. It happened before without need of a reboot, why are you so convinced in the mediocrity of Star Trek that you think it impossible to update again without said reboot?

  • Mike

    I chucked to myself when I realized what you’d actually requested lol 🙂

  • James

    Wow! that’s quite a post – sorry if I got the dates wrong there. I don’t have time to respond to all those points, so here goes:
    JJ Abrams’ Bad Robot team have produced some great stuff, Alias, Fringe (man I loved Fringe), Super 8 and more…
    Orci is also creator of Fringe – oh and I also really liked ‘The Island’ even though it flopped.

    Actually, I do think the film compares with TWOK – which has it’s share of flaws, just like STID.

    The whole 90’s Trek thing – you’re right, I had you pegged as a lover of Berman Trek – apologies.

    Maybe there will be one more sequel, maybe there will be more – we just dont know. My guess is that so long as its making the big bucks….

    Finally, the last part of your post is offensive to me personally. I believe that Star Trek Into Darkness does hold true to Star Trek’s roots and I do not believe that it is a mediocre movie – that’s a minority view as the Rotten Tomatoes reviews show. Search for Wil Wheaton’s blog review of STID, maybe he can influence your thinking.

  • James

    Kang, dude – did you read my post.

    Star Trek Into Darkness has a 91% fresh rating of over 200,000 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

    This coupled with Box office gold means that Star Trek is more likely to live long and prosper – for another 20 years. I totally get that some dont like the new films, but they are critically and commercially succesful – FACT. Unlike Insurrection and Nemesis, which were critical and commercial failures – also – FACT.

    I think it’s funny that I get voted down by four people, not for being rude, swearing or personal attacks, but for stating facts.

  • Mike

    James, not to be an ass, but dude – did you even read his post.

    Transformers has an 85% fresh rating with over 2,000,000 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

    Using the masses to gauge the quality of a franchise movie is kinda silly, isn’t it? Yes, I don’t think anyone would argue the fact that JJ Abrams’ incarnation of Star Trek has brought in a boatload of fresh faces to enjoy Star Trek. The question the rest of us have, which you seem to be content with, is whether the downgraded storytelling in favor of ‘splosions and “romance” will ever end? Because, quite frankly, they could be bringing in 50 million new people. If the cost of doing that is gutting Star Trek of any sense, intelligence, or actual thought and meaning, I’d just as soon it remain one of the biggest niche properties in the world.

    And, unless you think Transformers is going to be a cultural bedrock 20 years from now, nothing you’ve shown indicates that STD will be little more to us then than The Final Frontier is to us now, 25 years after that debacle.

    If STD and ST2009 are so good, why isn’t Paramount or CBS basically making a dime in the ancillary market that is the home to MOST of Star Trek’s historical profit? FACT

  • Mike

    I don’t know why you’d find that offensive. All I did was flip your accusation against me on its head. Previously you had stated that I was like people in the 80’s that dismissed TNG before it came out. I wasn’t. But in the same breath, you basically suggest that nobody but JJ Abrams could’ve done anything for the franchise. I submit, given the budget he had, in the hands of someone who actually liked Star Trek we could’ve gotten a far better product without any attempt at rebooting or resetting the franchise. You seem to reject that over and over again by repeating how dead Star Trek was in 2002… what that has to do with anything is beyond me. Star Trek might quote Spock in that instance, “I’ve been dead before.”

    You find my lack of enjoyment of something I consider barely mediocre unfortunate.
    I find your lack of faith that Star Trek could have continued beyond the stardate of Nemesis unfortunately sad.

    The difference there is that my disappointment comes from what I know the franchise to be capable of… Your perspective comes from the limits you yourself have placed on what ST without JJ Abrams can achieve…

    In that framework, I’m hardly the one with the closed mind.

  • James

    Crikey! of course I read the post. Kang had written that box office success isn’t an indicator of quality – I agree it isn’t. Reviews however, are. Lots of people liked Transformers – for what it was, a fun popcorn movie. Actually, Transformers only has a 57% fresh amongst critics, compared to STID’s 87% rating amongst critcs. So Star Trek Into Darkness is a critical success amongst reviewers (87%) and the general public (91%) – unlike Transformers.

    I dont think I’m superior to ‘the masses’ or to anyone else for that matter. Everyone is entitled to an opinion.

    Sure, Transformers will likey be around in 20 years time in one form or another.

    The toys and other products for STID are not on the market because as I stated elsewhere, CBS own Star Trek for TV and Paramount for movies. Apparently, licensing deals were complicated by this factor, which is also why a return to TV is likely to take a long time.

  • James

    I am sorry that you didn’t like the recent movies. I did and so did a lot of other people. You write that:

    “I find your lack of faith that Star Trek could have continued beyond the stardate of Nemesis unfortunately sad.”

    My lack of faith can be dated to Insurrection and beyond. It couldn’t survive much beyond Nemeis – it tried to with the Enterprise TV show. It failed to connect with a large enough audience (sadly) and it died.

  • Mike

    You really do insist on putting Star Trek into a very tiny box. Notice, I said, and you quoted, “stardate”… That was intentional. Were Rick Berman and HIS cronies in a position to do something with the franchise mythos intact? Obviously not. Does that mean no one could have? The only way to continue Star Trek was, instead of actually continuing it, to pseudo reboot it under false pretences?

    The same sort of short-sightedness was exactly on display prior to TNG debuting. People couldn’t imagine Star Trek without Kirk, Spock and McCoy’s adventures being integral. They weren’t. People were clucking about saying that going into the future of the future was stupid… and yet it provided us with a TON of quality Star Trek. Were there diminishing returns? Certainly, but I don’t think the entire TNG period is devoid of quality Star Trek…

    Now, you might be thinking that this would be without precedent and just wouldn’t work, to take Star Trek itself and leave behind the method of doing Star Trek… except, that’s exactly how Star Trek worked for four decades just fine. When they made The Motion Picture, did they simply take TOS and cut out a few lights and give them black uniforms like they hackishly did in Generations? No. They took what TOS had been and expanded it… They certainly didn’t need to destroy what came before. But before, Star Trek had been akin to a sitcom, with each episode ending with nothing really having changed. TMP changed that by acknowledging, by necessity, the passage of time. The Wrath of Khan was another departure wholly. Because TMP was seen by many as too cerebral, they handed things over to Harve Bennett and Nicholas Meyer, ultimately. Now, while TMP is the most spiritually true Star Trek movie to Gene Roddenberry’s pure vision, TWOK is widely considered the best hardcore Star Trek movie. Today, the aspects GR didn’t like, we consider pretty integral to Trek. The portrayal of the Academy, the militarization of Star Fleet in more than just fluffy concept, etc. Trek again changed when Gene created TNG. The Klingons of The Undiscovered Country in 1991 were certainly informed by the Klingons as established in greater detail within TNG. When they created Deep Space Nine and went that route both in terms of being on a space station and being darker, did they ignore that previous Trek existed? No. Did they do episodes exactly like TNG? Again, no… Star Trek isn’t as stolid as you suggest. None of these things were ignored or had to be written wholly out. Are there issues within Star Trek continuity? Of course, but they made efforts not to entirely violate what had come before… why? Why would they? A fully realized world that started in a slightly fictionalized 20th Century and went through 2379 with Nemesis had been created. Were there realities within that fantasy world that constricted some storytelling? Sure. Like you couldn’t beam from planet to planet rendering the entirety of Star Fleet pointless, for instance… But yeah, any writer that I know of worth a grain of salt would see the world of Star Trek as an opportunity to play in a GIANT sandbox of creative freedom… except the people that didn’t really like it to begin with, who wanted to change fundamentals of bedrock characters for no apparent reason, other than to make them resemble characters from a franchise they did like, and generally crib from the quality writers that came before, while not feeling the need to actually stay true and build upon what they had done… all the while, actually saying that they’d prefer, when all was said and done, for people to think of their variant of Star Trek when they think of Star Trek… that what came before should be secondary…….. someone should remind them: They’re in the alternate reality, not the stories with meaning and substance we cling to.

    No, in the end, anyone who actually liked the material could’ve used the world of Star Trek as a whole and taken us into a new perspective or viewpoint, visually and interpretationally, without ignoring or sacrificing the source material… and certainly with the massive budget JJ Abrams got. It has been done before, I guarantee, it will be done again… within the Prime timeline… which, eventually, will itself become a quaint term once we actually return there.

    Lastly, I’m open to admitting errors I’ve made. Feel free to point them out. I just wish the errors you were seeing were actually done or said by me rather than your perception of how I feel, which continues to seem to be how you’re basing your comments when I’m going out of my way to use reason and examples… I mean, at this point, we’re at something of an impasse if you can only perceive my position to be Berman or bust…

  • Mike

    Why do you conclude that licensing deals were complicated? They still seem to be licensing the original series actors likenesses… And there are plenty of items that actually are from the new group, they just don’t sell and aren’t flooding the market for Trek fans accordingly. They did a toy line. It didn’t sell. Are you just making up the notion that CBS and Paramount being divided constricts the market, or do you have some source for that? Because I’ve seen plenty of products, I’ve just not seen people buying them and thus causing other new products to emerge. Even if CBS had their hand in the jar, you think Paramount is going to forego merchandising for Star Trek if they could make that money? Come on now… At what point does reason actually kick in here?

    The critics and audience at Rotten Tomatoes also gave Iron Man 3 a 78% and 82% respectively, with almost twice the reviews of STD… And if you want to go through what a shit movie plotwise that is, or even STD, I’d be happy to do so. Neither remotely stands up to a moment of scrutiny…

    Lastly, do I think I’m superior to the masses? Depends what you mean by superior? Do I have a better handle on Star Trek’s mythos than the average person who enjoyed STD? Indeed. Does that perspective inform me as to certain weaknesses over, say a casual fan that has been aboard since 2009? One would think. More broadly, and seriously here, do I actually think I’m smarter and more discerning than TRULY the AVERAGE HUMAN? Yeah. Sorry. I do. I try never to stoop to the mediocre… and mediocrity is defined by the averages… So… am I better than anyone else? Not in the eugenics or rights or freedoms capacity, but do I know myself to be smarter than the average bear? We all are. The true mouth breathers aren’t on here talking about this… But I think it’s unfair to suggest that because I have issues with the movie that I’m declaring myself superior to anyone, with the connotations that implies.

  • James

    The licensing deals are complicated, just Google CBS viacom split and then type star trek. Here is an article explaining the lack of Trek merchandise:

    I haven’t seen Iron Man 3 yet, so please don’t spoil it for me.

    If I’m honest mate, I’m an average Joe – I’m a land surveyor. I didn’t suggest that because you had issues with the movie that you were declaring yourself superior, you did that yerself!

  • James

    Thought you said you didn’t have a crystal ball!

    “t has been done before, I guarantee, it will be done again… within the Prime timeline… which, eventually, will itself become a quaint term once we actually return there.”

    You can’t guarantee anything – does this constitute you making an error 😉

    In all seriousness chap, I’m off to the Goodwood Festival of Speed tomorrow, so I wont see any replies until Monday. You’re certainly passionate about yer Trek, even if we disagree on some aspects. So I’m gonna make like a Vulcan, say live long and prosper and chalk this up to IDIC.

  • Mike

    I can guarantee something. I might be wrong, but that won’t be the case until it either is or isn’t… But I didn’t need a crystal ball for this, that’s what I’ve been trying to illustrate. There’s virtually no logical means by which Trek continues forever in this offshoot… and the alternative to that, pun intended, is a return to the Prime timeline. It’s like me guaranteeing the sun will come up tomorrow. Might it not? Sure, I suppose there’s the possibility that something will happen in the interim and this planet doesn’t survive until the next sunrise…… but chances are…… and that’s what I’m doing here: Playing the numbers. Might I be wrong? It’s possible… and when they make a 4th or 5th movie in this universe or anything else beyond a return to the prime timeline when the current contracts are up, please, point out how wrong I’ve been… But I’ve laid out a huge array of reasons for my conclusion… yours is based, apparently, on ticket sales and rotten tomatoes… fair enough. Time will tell who was right here.

    Enjoy your festival 🙂

  • Mike

    From your own article, a quotation that sums up exactly where we are, why we’re here, and why we will definitely be returning to the prime timeline:

    “Bad Robot went to CBS and asked them to cease production on original series products so consumers wouldn’t have to choose between buying something with William Shatner’s face on it and something with Chris Pine’s face on it. But CBS wasn’t about to give up the $20 million it earns from Trek merch every year, and in response Bad Robot put many of its transmedia plans on hold.”

    So, basically, here’s what happened: Bad Robot took over Star Trek. When they did that, their plan was to take over all of Star Trek, rendering what had come before outdated and obsolete in toto. They went to CBS, who apparently owns all the marketing rights and has to sign off on merch. Bad Robot had determined that in order to sell their stuff with Chris Pine on it, they needed to unfairly and unnaturally purge the marketplace of actual TOS memorabilia… that the new stuff simply couldn’t compete. CBS, who gets a piece of the action regardless, said no. They didn’t want to give up their $20,000,000 per year they could bank on for a lesser possible payout.

    If CBS remotely thought that this variant of Star Trek would make them more money, I assure you, they aren’t loyal to Gene Roddenberry, William Shatner or Rick Berman… they’re loyal to their bottom line. And, if, in their estimate, they would make more money using Pine’s likeness as Kirk, I assure you, Pine would exclusively appear as Kirk. But, CBS knows which side their bread is buttered on. As I’ve said earlier, the massive new crowds flooding Star Trek now won’t be around and generating that cash 20 years or 40 years from now, but hardcore Star Trek fans will be, if they service them correctly, and in so doing, they aren’t going to divest themselves of the most lucrative merchandising franchise Paramount or CBS has ever seen…

    And, in the end, the fact that these people aren’t in a position to compete in the aftermarket ruins their chances for replacing the prime timeline at all… to do so, CBS would have to conclude that their golden goose is JJ Abrams…. and they’ve already passed on that notion… by your own article.

    And that’s not just my conclusion… here’s how your article ends:

    “So, if you’re a fan of Abrams’ work in the Trek universe, and you were hoping to get more of it, it looks like you can blame CBS.”

    But, even after this article, I will note, they did do merchandising, and that merchandising failed to sell. If Pine’s Kirk can’t compete with Shatner’s Kirk, when you have all these wonderful new people exposed to the franchise who are supposed to adore Pine’s Kirk and Quinto’s Spock, why aren’t they spending their money on the items that do exist? Why was Bad Robot’s research correct? Why will people not buy stuff with Pine when stuff with Shatner exists? Surely, if there are so, so many more new fans and us old fans are pointless, useless, and obsolete to the health of the franchise, surely these newbies are taking up the slack, right???? To quote the real James T. Kirk, “Oh my.”