Bruce Greenwood Talks Star Trek Sequel Sets & Secrecy |
jump to navigation

Bruce Greenwood Talks Star Trek Sequel Sets & Secrecy July 27, 2012

by Staff , Filed under: Celebrity,ST09 Cast,Star Trek Into Darkness , trackback

Bruce Greenwood is returning to the role of Admiral Christopher Pike for the 2013 Star Trek sequel. The actor was at the Saturn Awards last night and tried to stay within the confines of the film’s secrecy but did say some thigns about sets, the mood on the set and more. See excerpts and video below.       



Greenwood Talks Trek Sequel Secrecy, Sets and Effects

Bruce Greenwood was at the Saturn Awards last night and he spoke to some outlets about the Star Trek sequel. He opined about the secrecy surrounding the project with IFC, saying:

“So the audience can have an experience that isn’t complicated by having to pretend they don’t know what happens,” Greenwood answered. “It makes it trickier to conceal things so that when you see it for the first time you don’t know what’s coming, but that’s okay. You can’t blame people for being interested and excited, trying to find out. But everyone who’s involved in the film is committed to keeping it under wraps.”

Speaking to Collider, Greenwood spoke about his time in the Star Trek sequel, including the "great vibe" on the set. Greenwood also noted that "very little was green screen" and much more was done with practical effects for the sequel.

Found video: Greenwood talks about his action figure – I look like Picard with hair

Just released online this week by Houston PBS was an interview (from 2009 or 2010) with Greenwood where he talks about his whole career, including Star Trek. Watch the Trek segment below starting at around the 10:30 segment where he talks about how exciting and daunting it was to get involved with such a big franchise, and his views on how his action figure just looks like "Picard with hair."



1. Red Dead Ryan - July 27, 2012

Glad Admiral Pike is back for the sequel. The father figure aspect was really well done. Bruce Greenwood lent some gravitas in the last film.

Greenwood was also great in “Thirteen Days”.

2. Vultan - July 27, 2012


Agreed! Thirteen Days was excellent… well, if you ignore Kevin Costner’s wonky Bhaaaw-ston accent.

3. RAO - July 27, 2012

NuPike is awesome. IMO, the only character/actor in the 2009 movie who was actually BETTER than the original.

4. Red Dead Ryan - July 27, 2012


Agreed about Costner. He sure can’t do accents very well. He struggled with the British accent in “Robin Hood Prince of Thieves”.

5. CmdrR - July 27, 2012

Bruce is definitely a class act.
It’s just my personal guess, but I’m thinking either in this movie or the next… somebody we care about has gotta die… and (not that I want this to happen) it could well be Pike. It’ll be some situation that gets Kirk all charged up emotionally, so he can order double red alert and blast the bad guys outta space.

6. Lord Garth, formerly of izar - July 27, 2012

I want him drooling and beeping this time or I call bullsh$t

7. Andy Patterson - July 27, 2012


And my favorite comment of the day,…. any site.

8. Nony - July 27, 2012

Man, Bruce is like semi-spoiling stuff all over the place, gotta love him! We can now assume Pike’s role won’t just be a one-minute your-mission-is transmission a la Admiral Janeway. :D

9. Dee - lvs moon' surface - July 27, 2012

So What??… ” Maybe we shot a trailer that had nothing to do with the movie.”… he said to IFC…

Ummm…………………………whatever… I want to see this trailer anyway… ;-) :-)

10. RetroWarbird - July 27, 2012

Pike is wonderful, and despite his initial circumstances, frankly, the “previous Captain of the Enterprise” always deserved a little more showcasing. Knowing “The Cage” and what “The Menagerie” attempted to do is fun stuff, but there’s definitely story for a guy who is ultimately Spock’s mentor and Kirk’s predecessor. I’m glad to have more Greenwood, this go around.

11. Jonathan - July 27, 2012

I would just like a TITLE!

12. RAO - July 27, 2012

11. How about “Star Trek: To Be Announced”? TOS, TAS, TMP, TBA

13. This is going to be a long year - July 27, 2012

Greenwood says he did some 3D, so it sounds like something substantial. Maybe an action scene?

14. sean - July 27, 2012


Struggled? I don’t think he even tried! :)

15. Andy - July 27, 2012

Just out of curiosity, but has this ever happened before? I mean, a big, hollywood, summer film that still hasn’t announced a title with less than a year till release? This sort of represents the absurdity of the situation. I can understand keeping plot points under wraps, but the title?

16. Uberbot - July 27, 2012

LMAO@ #6!! HAHAHAHAHA!!! Too funny!!!

17. Gary Makin - July 27, 2012

I loved the lens flares too.

18. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - July 27, 2012

4. Red Dead Ryan – Saying Kevin Costner “struggled” with the accent in Robin Hood is like saying an ant struggled to drag a Volkswagen to its nest. It ruined the whole movie for me. Truly embarrassing.They should have just had Little John introduce him as “Robin, my cousin from Kansas,” so he didn’t have to worry about the accent. It may even have been worse than Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but I’m not sure. I can’t watch either movie.

But Bruce Greenwood is nothing but a class act! I want him in a live action Trek series. He was one of the best things about Abrams’ Star Trek.

19. T'Leba - July 27, 2012

@3 “NuPike is awesome. IMO, the only character/actor in the 2009 movie who was actually BETTER than the original.”

I so agree! I’m very glad to see Admiral Pike is back in the sequel.

20. Dr.Kirk - July 27, 2012

Oh, a new Star Trek movie is coming around? I just do not know anything about it. Don´t believe it until I have seen the trailer :P

21. Thorny - July 27, 2012

We already have a trailer for the next Superman movie coming out a month after Trek, but do we even have a title for Trek 12 yet? Nope. I am starting to worry that this Top Secret non-promotion campaign is going to come back and bite Bad Robot on its shiny metal ass.

22. Devon - July 27, 2012

#15 – At last report, they are still deciding on titles.

23. Plump Spider - July 28, 2012

I would like a TV series about Pike’s time on the Enterprise, starring Greenwood.

24. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - July 28, 2012

23. Plump Spider – Absolutely. I think that’s a no-brainer, and I’ve mentioned the idea before. Nobody ever runs with it. Glad to hear it being mentioned by somebody else.

25. boborci - July 28, 2012

23. Me, too!

26. RetroWarbird - July 28, 2012

I see a lot of title-speculation that focuses on Star Trek “Something” or Star Trek: Something.

But not a lot of “Something Star Trek”. I think I’d actually dig it more should they add something before the classic title rather than after. So long as it’s not “Another Star Trek”.

27. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2012

Agreed on 13 Days, then.Motion carries.
Also a motion that Kevin Costner never play in any movie requiring more than a flat or Southern accent [see Hatfields and McCoys- really- see it– it’s very good]. Second?

28. Shilliam Watner (Click for Trek Ships Poster) - July 28, 2012

25. boborci – so make it so!

29. Spockchick - July 28, 2012

@5. CmdrR
Not my Pike! Noooo, they better not kill him! You wash your mouth out!

@23. Plump Spider
I think a LOT of ladies would be glued to that TV series.

30. CaptainSMAW - July 28, 2012

Bruce Greenwood is spectacular. He seems to have this ethereal humility about him combined with a distinct presence of command, both perfect for the role of Captain/Admiral Pike. Hunter-Pike was from what is briefly known of that character, via “The Cage” and “The Menagerie, Parts I & II,” intelligent, charismatic, and cerebral, all in ways and styles different from Shatner-Kirk; Greenwood-Pike has those qualities and more. Greenwood-Pike has from what I see a paternalistic badassery, that is your more than run of the mill badass father figure, and a man with a sharpened sense of wit, perfect for command. In my opinion Captain Pike and to an extent Captain Robau made Star Trek 2009 great, both are captains I want to know more of.

31. Ciaran - July 28, 2012

21. I completely agree with you! The whole sense of “non-promotion” is one that the Bad Robot producers seem to think will be a clever one, but it WILL bite them in their shiny metal asses. If they’re not telling anybody that a movie is being made, then how in the Hell are people supposed to know about it?

32. Jim Nightshade - July 28, 2012

Cant have a series about pikes time on the enterprise before kirk cuz it didnt happen.,,enterprise was new when pike took it out in trek 09…..he had her for one half mission bfore spock n kirk took over puttin him outta work….so no cage….no aliens with bulging butt head brainsv..sigh….no susan oliver as a she hulk slave babe..damn..there goes my aolescence fantasies….

33. Jim Nightshade - July 28, 2012

how can we fix that mr orci sir?

34. DiscoSpock - July 28, 2012

#21/31 – I love how people complain that nobody will know this movie is being made while fans, the stars, and various media outlets keep talking about it–even though it’s a year from release. I know non-fans who have asked about the sequel, so clearly people are hearing about it.

It’s not uncommon for films to get little official promotion until a few months before being released–in fact, that is fairly standard–so you’re complaining about something that is COMMON PRACTICE.

A lot of concerns are legitimate–worries about them using Khan (please no, please no, please no) and so on–but the constant whining that they aren’t promoting it enough yet is both laughable and really, really annoying.

Ooooh, we don’t know the title yet! SO WHAT?! That doesn’t take away from the anticipation, nor from the trepidation, over the sequel. Awww, we don’t have the villain confirmed! BIG DEAL! Lots of great movies exist where the audience doesn’t even know who the villain is until the end of the movie, or partway through it (think back to some Kevin Spacey films, for instance).

Knowing the title will just give you something new to gripe about, which is your real motivation–more griping! Abrams & crew earned a lot of trust with their success on the first film (except the godawful lens flares), so why not just go along with the ride?

Whining that the mystery is still a mystery, and saying that this secrecy is going to harm the film’s success, is just ridiculous. Relax, cupcakes.

35. Enterprisingguy - July 28, 2012

Saying that it’s normal for a big movie that’s due out in just 10 months to not have a title and little promotion is just crazy!

Marvel knows how to generate buzz for their movies without giving away the plot. The new Iron Man just started filming and they released a gorgeous set photo the first week. It got me anxious for the new movie and didn’t give away anything about the story. They’ve already announced the titles for the next Thor and Captain America installments and they aren’t even filming yet. Even the latest Batman movie got people talking way back at the beginning of shooting just by releasing a picture of the back of Tom Hardy’s Bane character.

If JJ thinks that his mystery will get people talking up the movie to their friends and family he’s mistaken. One well chosen set photo will do a lot more to generate anticipation than all of the actor interviews where they do the expected complimenting of the story and reassurances of how awesome it will be.

36. La Reyne d'Epee - July 28, 2012

6. Even if he’s not drooling in the film, I’ll be drooling in my cinema seat. Will that do?

More Silver Fox!…*sigh*

37. CmdrR - July 28, 2012

“If JJ thinks that his mystery will get people talking up the movie to their friends and family he’s mistaken.”
–posted by a person talking about the movie to his friends

But, I agree that we’re well past the point where the studio should have started the build-up. Half-billion dollar box office takes don’t just happen. They take work.

38. T'Cal - July 28, 2012

How do you not have a title by now? That’s really hard to believe but if it’s true, it shows a lack of direction and a goal.

I’m getting worried about how this film is being handled. I’m not demanding anything and I know that we aren’t entitled to anything from the producers. What I’m saying is that it’s things like them not having a title less than a year out, that the actor who was to play the lead bad guy was replaced by two other guys and the one who was finally chosen is substantially different in appearnce that the first and second, and that they are keeping so much hidden about the story and plot makes me suspect that they are having problems. That the cast & crew is fawning all over this film means nothing. Like in many movies that are only fair or worse, TNG’s cast did the same thing about Nemesis and even they have since expressed disappointment with that film. Transformers 2 was awful; didn’t these guys write that one? Are JJA & Co. worried and that’s why they are keeping everything under wraps? By releasing a title and a general plot, they could make such concerns go away. Until then, I’m worried…

39. Janice - July 28, 2012

I’m so delighted that Bruce Greenwood will be back as Pike in the sequel.
I’m looking forward to seeing him in MANY scenes. At least as much airtime as the last movie. I’ll be on pins and needles as the opening date gets closer. So excited! It’s PIKE I want to see!

40. Uberbot - July 28, 2012

Greenwood’s comments in a nutshell:

“We don’t want you going into the movie with any preconceived ideas or expectations about the villain you’ve see before, therefore we won’t tell you who he is. We want you to re-discover the character our way.”

There ya have it, folks!

41. Killamarshtrek - July 28, 2012


So would I & if anyone can ‘Make it so’, it’s you Bob!

42. Robeeb - July 28, 2012

Although he didn’t really bear a physical resemblance of JFK, he still had me totally convinced that he was indeed JFK in the film 13 Days. That’s what I consider to be great acting.

I was very happy when I first heard he was going to be in Abram’s first Trek film, and I’m equally happy to hear that he’s returning as Pike in the second.

43. Sebastian S. - July 28, 2012

Glad Greenwood is back; I really liked his interpretation of Pike. I used to watch (and enjoy) his 1990’s series, “Nowhere Man”; it was kind of a updated attempt at “The Prisoner” (1967), one of my favorite series of all time.

When I first heard he was Pike, all I could think was ‘Perfect fit!’ ;-)

44. denny cranium - July 28, 2012

Just call it Star Trek- that JJ thing-

45. crazydaystrom - July 28, 2012

43. Sebastian S. –

‘Nowhere Man’ was a great show that like so many genre shows, never got the chance to achieve full potential. Greenwood was great in it as well as in ‘St. Elsewhere’ before that. SE was for years my favorite non-Trek show, until ‘The Sopranos’ came along.

No doubt a Pike show would be something we’d all like to see.


I wanted to keep this post 100% positive but the frustration’s set in again. With STAR TREK there is a universe (or more) of potential that, from the outside looking in, seems to be wasted (the operative word being ‘seems’). And more and more this appears to be the result of ‘over-calculation’ for the sake of control. Now I’d never begrudge artists control of their work but I’ll state the obvious here – Enough is enough. And too much is too much. All I want is a title (we’ve already got the stars the steer her by). But I’m not fooling myself. Once I get that I’ll only want one other thing, and then another.

But seriously – TOO MUCH! The time is right, seems to me.

46. Sebastian S. - July 28, 2012

# 45 crazydaystrom~

The secrecy is, for me at least, beginning to create a bit of apathy (the hype will be so high that NO movie will be able to live up to it). And I still think the movie’s lack of representation at this year’s Comic Con (with less than a year to go) was a really BAD idea….

47. Thorny - July 28, 2012

34. DiscoSpock… I thought the idea was to appeal beyond the fanbase. I run a Library and see the Trek 2009 DVD come and go quite often, and I usually tell the patron, “you know, they’re filming the sequel” (now its “you know, the sequel is coming next summer”) and I can guess that maybe 1 out of 10 knew about it before I told them. If Bad Robot only wants die-hard fans to know about the movie, then they have done an outstanding job.

And it is absolutely nonsense to proclaim that not having the title of the movie <10 months out is "Common Practice". We already know about "Thor: The Dark Worlds", "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" and "Captain America: Winter Soldier" coming in late 2013 and early 2014. For what presumably is expected to be a summer tentpole film for Paramount, we know distressingly little about it.

Name another Summer 2013 film that we know less about than "Untitled Star Trek Sequel".

48. DiscoSpock - July 28, 2012

#47 – So, you “guess” that 1 out of 10 know about it. Meanwhile, I’ve had lots of non-fans mention the sequel to me (“I guess you already know about the sequel, huh?”), so I can “guess” that 5 out of 10 know about it. Or 3 out of 10. Or 47 out of 122–whatever guess you like.

Non-fans don’t care what the title is. They’d be as happy with “Star Trek 2″ as anything else because they’re not obsessed with the title, as so many of the fans here seem to be. And do you really think they could sustain full-bore, wide-open, no-secrets publicity of this film for an entire year?! Get real.

You say that “we know distressingly little about it.” Really? You’re distressed about not knowing the title? You’re distressed about not knowing exactly who the villain is? If you’re really distressed by this lack of detailed information, then I’m really sorry for saying anything since it’s probably just adding to your distress.

“Distressingly” little….wow! I guess I’m one of those fans who doesn’t get too worked up about NON-ISSUES that shouldn’t distress ANYONE.

If knowing so little is really distressing…get a life!

49. Enterprisingguy - July 28, 2012


Wow! Way to sail over all of Thorny’s post and obsess over a single word and be a total d!ck about it! We knew what he meant even if you didn’t.

His level of “distress” is nothing compared to your level of “hysteria” about it!

But I’m glad to hear that all non-fans voted you to be their official spokesperson to pass on their unanimous opinion about the lack of a title!

50. This is going to be a long year - July 28, 2012

The creative team of this movie have created a few blockbusters. They have some ability to plan and pull off a good marketing campaign.

No need to panic, unless Mr. Orci posts here and reveals chaos, procrastination, and absolute anarchy within the team.

Maybe their plan is good, maybe it is bad. We will find out opening weekend if their strategy worked.

We should stick to worrying if the movie will be any good :)

51. Dom - July 28, 2012

The film will turn up and will have a title when it turns up. Everyone take a chill pill!

And, yes, a series about Pike would be great.

52. T'Cal - July 28, 2012

40. Uberbot – July 28, 2012
Greenwood’s comments in a nutshell:

“We don’t want you going into the movie with any preconceived ideas or expectations about the villain you’ve see before, therefore we won’t tell you who he is. We want you to re-discover the character our way.”

There ya have it, folks!
While that is probably their reasoning, it’s not very…well…logical. The general public won’t know the old characters so they won’t have any preconceived notions about them, and while we the fans would recognize character names from TOS, we expect that JJA’s take on them will be different. So if this film is about the augments, we here know that they are being discovered sooner and under different circumstances than in Space Seed so it might not be Khan that they deal with. Or if it is, it will be in a different way. Same thing if it’s any other TOS character.

53. D-Rock - July 28, 2012

I think the producers are trying to re-capture the pre-Internet days where you learned about everything through magazines like Starlog or on Entertainment Tonight. I just don’t think that works anymore. Whether the release of any spoilers small or large, will have a significant impact on BO is probably speculation. And probably what isn’t JJ’s main interest. I believe he wants to re-create a time and a sense of discovery like early Spielberg, but that just doesn’t fly anymore.

54. DiscoSpock - July 28, 2012

#49 – Were you responding to me? I don’t see a post #122 yet, so…

Calling me a d**k is rather extreme, and you need to back way, way off, buddy. We can have differences of opinion and arguments, but save your personal insults for your personal life. Nothing I said warranted your hateful little insult.

Hysteria? You’re funny…and, apparently, unaware of what words mean. Distress, hysteria–look ’em up. And while you’re at it, chill out. Also, don’t bother replying to me unless you apologize for the insulting name calling.

#51 – Well said, Dom.

55. Commodore Adams - July 28, 2012

@ D-Rock
I agree.

Personally I am going to try and keep myself away from articles regarding spoilers unlike the 2009 movie. I will watch trailers when they are released but keep curiosity in check, it’s refreshing and exciting not knowing what is going to happen.

56. Azrael - July 28, 2012

@47. I did not know about those upcoming films yet. I only really care about Thor and Cap, could not give a crap less about POTA. Star Trek is the only franchise I pay attention to when it is this far from release. Most movies I learn about when trailers start airing on tv, not before. To say that “we” already know about those films is both incorrect and annoying. On top of that, thanks to your careless posting, I have just lost much of my enthusiasm for the Cap sequel, because as a comic book reader with a massive knowledge of the associated “canon” I now know what the Cap sequel is about and I did not want to, now I have to try to convince myself the film will be better than the unimaginably disappointing story it comes from.

57. Vultan - July 28, 2012


Thanks for the heads up about “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.” Had not heard about the title until now. Looking forward to it. Glad that Andy Serkis is returning as Caesar.

58. Bob Tompkins - July 28, 2012

After 3 years, I finally figured out what really bothered me about the FX shots in the 2009 movie- aside from the gawdawful flares and the funkyklunky exterior design of the Narada.
While in warp, the Enterprise was treated like a ping pong ball in a hurricane. During battle sequences she was used like a TIE Fighter. The scene of the turnaround in the maw of the singularity reminded me of the RV ship in Spaceballs pulling a U Turn, all that was missing was the tire screech…
I realize that the universe has changed, but this change in the physics of it is a bit much…
Even the grandeur that should have been our first sight of the grand old lady was lost in favor of making it too big to fit on the screen. While I agree that the money shots of ST:TMP were overkill, another 15- 20 seconds to look her over lovingly would not have harmed the pacing of the 2009 movie. Unfortunately, too many filmmakers today take the assumption that we all have the attention span of a flea and dash off to the next big thing without giving us the chance to digest whether or not they got the previous scene right- and all we are left with is a general impression of what we actually saw even though freezing a frame indicates a vast wealth of visual information is present.
We have all these great capabilities in SFX these days. I wish filmmakers would find a way to use them more wisely.
The Enterprise is comparable to a great sailing ship of yore- they got that right until lately, got it completely right in The Wrath of Khan and surprisingly so in Nemesis.
The Enterprise is a character in the movies as much as Kirk, Spock and the rest, not simply something to use as a frenetic visual placeholder to transition the audience into the next set of scenes. It’s similar to the sort of thing that was done in Battlestar Galactica to hide the fact that they didn’t have the budget to do a couple more renders by making scenes look shaky and handheld to conceal a multitude of sins. In that case it was a creative solution to a big problem and should be applauded. Not so much when the money is there to finish the effect.
I hope they sort of go back in the direction of power and grandeur of the Enterprise somewhat in the upcoming movie- even a little bit would help a lot- but I suspect they won’t. That die has been profitably cast.

59. Uberbot - July 28, 2012

True, T’Cal! :-)

60. Harry Ballz - July 28, 2012

Hey, I’ve got the title for the next movie!

If Cumberbatch’s character kills Kirk’s love interest (Alice Eve), and our dear captain is out for revenge, it’s got to be called……

Star Trek: The Wrath Of Kirk

You heard it here first!

61. Tom - July 28, 2012

Glad Bruce Greenwood is back as Pike. However when they announced it I was a bit sad that Bob and Co couldnt write something for Kirk Prime too

62. Thorny - July 28, 2012

49. DiscoSpock… I’ve said what I came to say. You can insult me with the old “get a life” potshot all you want. I think Bad Robot is making a mistake, you don’t. We’ll have to agree to disagree.

56. Sorry. Not a comic book fan. The Captain America 2 title meant nothing to me. But the point I was trying to make is that those who want to know, can find out. If you don’t want to know, you can just avoid the “2014” page on UpcomingMovies (you probably wouldn’t be looking anyway.)

63. Azrael - July 28, 2012

@33. Easy and simple fix, Pike commanded a different ship during those events.

64. Azrael - July 28, 2012

@62. The reason it is such a give away is that there is only one character in all of the Marvel Universe that is known as the “Winter Soldier”. I don’t honestly think there is any title that could be used for a Trek film that could give that much away about the movie. I probably overreacted a little by calling your post thoughtless, but the only doable (without hopelessly confusing the audience) story arc using WS is one of the single worst (IMO) in all of comics, ever, for any title. I am sure there are those people who disagree with me about it and such people could tell you that it is great and all, but to me its the equivalent of Star Trek V for Captain America, maybe Insurrection.

65. Jack - July 28, 2012

Jesus. Again people are griping about Abrams being the only filmmaker ever to try to keep his plot private — anyone here notice that the actual villain of The Dark Knight Rises wasn’t revealed in advance?

Nor was it mentioned that Bruce Wayne ____ in the end. Or that ____________________ becomes _____.

Yet, everyone grouses about how JJ isn’t all sharesey like Chris Nolan (who, in reality, revealed very, very little about his plot in advance) or Peter Jackson (who’s doing the freakin’ Hobbit)

It’s still over nine months away — if it were a baby, it wouldn’t have even been conceived yet… and here we are demanding to know the kid’s name, sex and his/her college GPA, well in advance.

The ‘those who don’t want to know don’t have to find out argument’ is bunk — once it’s revealed, it’s on every TV show, website, facebook page and radio news show, everywhere. You’re sister-in-law will be tweeting it. Crap, the Khan and Gary Mitchell news was in the bloody local small-town paper where I live.

Not to mention that the nonsensical argument that giving away key details nine months in advance will somehow make people flock to see the movie in May, and if they don’t know the plot twists now, they won’t go see it.

People are aware of it. If someone out there doesn’t know a Star Trek movie is coming out next year by now, well, what exactly will the revelation of the identity of the villain do. People who already know it’s coming out and are interested, aren’t going to decide not to see it just because the whole plot hasn’t been handed to them a year in advance — even though you guys constantly threaten that on here. We all know it’s bullshit.

I wish people would just admit that they’re entitled and impatient and pissed off that somebody would keep these details private — in other words, it’s all about you – and not make these half-assed claims that spoilers are somehow essential to selling a film. “They’re really hurting teh film by not telling me who the villain is and by making me wait to see the freaking movie like everybody else.” Really — how?

Instead it’s me, me, me. But, “wait”, you say “I don’t want spoilers or a synopsis, I just really deserve to know who the villain is because I’m a really big fan, and JJ would have jack sh*t without me, and Star Trek wouldn’t exist without me” — ever stop to think that maybe there are some surprise plot twists in the film? Maybe the freaking characters don’t know who the villain is until later either (a la, yes, the Dark Knight Rises). What’s the point of a movie even having a surprise twist if the entire planet knows about it a year in advance, thanks to some nosy, entitled, impatient, whiny fans. Jesus, even in Space Seed, they don’t realize the bloody guy was a 20th century dictator until half-way through the episode.

66. Stephan Ur-Kel - July 28, 2012

I am pleased that boborci seemed to confirm that he thinks a series revolving around Pike would be awesome (of course this doesn’t mean it is or will be planned).

I hear about how the prime Trek was “diluted”. I don’t dislike animation, but to me, if Trek is coming back to TV, they need to go in all or nothing. Animation would make some money, and be cost effective, but it’s somewhat of a niche audience. I would rather see live action. For me and I would think a few more people, who WOULD faithfully watch live action, would simply not have the same devotion to animation. I would DVR it, sure, but TRY to cater to it with my daily schedule? Probably not. Not to offend anyone, because I feel any new Trek series would be enjoyable, but I feel animation would ‘dilute’ the new universe right off the bat.

I know the actor that played Robau did a VERY small role on LOST. He would seem to not mind TV work. A live action series with Pike and maybe even Robau on the Enterprise WITH him sounds enticing. If nothing more, bring Robau back for the season 1 finale… a nice nod to those following the new universe, and a bit of self-referencing. Bits that that would build the mythos and franchise feel of the new timeline.

It’s exciting to speculate about new Trek on TV. Hoping the new movie does well to propel that forward…

67. rose by any other name - July 28, 2012

#65 Jack – Very well said!

68. DiscoSpock - July 28, 2012

#65 – You nailed, it, Jack! Now if only some of these “entitled and impatient and pissed off” folks around here will read your words and take them to heart. (sigh) Yeah, right, and if my grandmother had wheels, she’d be a wagon… :)

69. Daoud - July 28, 2012

@66 Faran Tahir, the actor who portrayed Captain Robau… is recurring on SyFy(llis)’ “Warehouse 13″. Faran could portray Robau’s son… in a new Trek series, setting him as captain of the… Yorktown… until the last Pine-as-Kirk movie is made, at which point he could become captain of Enterprise.

70. Daoud - July 28, 2012

And I think it wouldn’t hurt to do animation in the Filmation style as a continuation of the Prime universe’s TAS… but maybe with TNG. That could include DS9 and VOY characters… and not interfere with nuTrek movies, and a nuTrek live action series.

71. SirMartman - July 29, 2012

Kelsey Grammer as Captian on the USS Bozeman,continuing their adventures in the 24th century,, (and mixing in the new trek)

would be a neat tv show too !

72. George Lazenby - July 29, 2012

Well since they are having a hard time naming the title they could name the movie ‘Star Trek: The Unknown’.

73. Marja - July 29, 2012

#12: I think we should all adopt that as XII’s unofficial title! Star Trek: TBA


And, folks, even though I bitched and moaned at the thought that this movie would involve KHAAAAAN [b/c I feel “his” plot was already done with Nero] …

As of this day I disavow all personal attachment to and “ownership of” ST:TBA. Now that the film’s been made, we may as well “chill” as several folks have said above.

I didn’t know a single thing about STXI until I saw the first preview for it … about six months before the movie came out. I couldn’t wait … and got such a WONDERFUL surprise! Except the damn lens flares …

I trust that a good flick is coming our way. I could wish for no lens flares, but it’s JJ’s baby. He gave us a pretty one last time, so let’s try to relax and enjoy the anticipation.

And yes I like Spock/Uhura [for me that was the best surprise of all]!

74. Marja - July 29, 2012

Forgot to say, Bruce Greenwood as Pike was another delightful surprise. His captain was very true to senior military officers I have known… business-like, with flashes of humor and a ton of dedication. Amazing what a good actor can do with just a few minutes of screen time.

75. Dom - July 29, 2012

66. Stephan Ur-Kel

‘I am pleased that boborci seemed to confirm that he thinks a series revolving around Pike would be awesome (of course this doesn’t mean it is or will be planned).’

Me too, although I’d be happy to see Pike as an Admiral in the era of the films.

‘I don’t dislike animation, but to me, if Trek is coming back to TV, they need to go in all or nothing. Animation would make some money, and be cost effective, but it’s somewhat of a niche audience.’

I disagree: it’s a brilliant way to build up a younger audience and they’ll retain the backstories for the films. Eight-year-olds who saw ST09 will be 12 when the next film shows up. Imagine there were 150-odd cartoon episodes running in syndication worldwide. They’re the best trailer you can have as the kids will drag their parents along to see a movie!

‘I would rather see live action. For me and I would think a few more people, who WOULD faithfully watch live action, would simply not have the same devotion to animation.’

To be honest, live-action spaceship sci-fi on TV seems to be out of fashion right now, likely in part because of the 25 seasons of TNG/Berman Trek shows still doing the rounds! Live action Trek on TV probably shouldn’t come back until about 10 years after Enterprise was cancelled (not that far away now) and studio bosses can be convinced there’s an appetite for it. Given that Trek became niche viewing years before Enterprise finished, it’ll take a fair amount of convincing. We’d need at least one more Trek movie to knock the ball out of the park with the mainstream audience, IMHO.

‘I feel animation would ‘dilute’ the new universe right off the bat.’

I disagree. As with all cartoon shows, be they Batman, X-Men or GI Joe, it comfortably falls into ‘the feel free to ignore’ category! Star Trek isn’t a special case: it’s just another franchise (but one we all happen to be rather fond of!)

76. CarlG - July 29, 2012

re: the whole secrecy thing…

I find it kind of refreshing, to be honest. I can’t remember the last time I went into a movie knowing absolutely nothing.

Bruce Greenwood is awesome. That is all.

77. Captain Dunsel - July 29, 2012

@25. boborci – “Me, too!”

Every writer has a “vision” for each character they write, and for each line of dialogue they put in that character’s mouth. And every actor who plays that character and speaks those lines changes the writer’s vision in some way – for better or for worse.

I would love to know how Bruce Greenwood has affected your vision of Christoper Pike between the page and the screen. Did the iconic line, “Your father was capatin of a starship…” play that way in YOUR head before he said it?

(For example, until Quinto said it to the Vulcan Science Council, I [as a viewer] had never even remotely imagined “Live long and prosper” as a synonym for “[Bleep] You.”)

78. Charla - July 29, 2012

“Bruce Greenwood is spectacular. He seems to have this ethereal humility about him combined with a distinct presence of command, both perfect for the role of Captain/Admiral Pike. Hunter-Pike was from what is briefly known of that character, via “The Cage” and “The Menagerie, Parts I & II,” intelligent, charismatic, and cerebral, all in ways and styles different from Shatner-Kirk; Greenwood-Pike has those qualities and more. Greenwood-Pike has from what I see a paternalistic badassery, that is your more than run of the mill badass father figure, and a man with a sharpened sense of wit, perfect for command. In my opinion Captain Pike and to an extent Captain Robau made Star Trek 2009 great, both are captains I want to know more of.”

#30- Excellent post, Captain SMAW

79. CoffeeProf - July 29, 2012


This is the greatest comment ever posted in the history of this website.

80. Thorny - July 29, 2012

65. Jack…

Thank you for your well-written and civil comments. For what its worth, all I’ve ever written in this thread is that we know less about Star Trek 12 than any other major movie coming out in the next year. We don’t even know its title, and that I think Bad Robot is making a mistake by being so secretive. I’ve NEVER said I want to know who the villain is and every plot twist of the upcoming movie (although I have frequently commented that I hope it isn’t Khan). If wanting to know a little about the movie makes me “entitled” and “impatient” so be it, but does your complaint not strike you as a tad silly on a website which is theoretically intended largely for discussion of the next Star Trek movie?

81. D-Rock - July 29, 2012

@ 80

What he said.

82. Vultan - July 29, 2012

I’d be interested to know the title of the next Trek movie, and nothing else. I watched “The Dark Knight Rises” without knowing much about it and I think my enjoyment was only increased by willfully ignoring all spoiler articles about it beforehand.

Unless the plot is laid out in the title, like “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” then yeah, they should probably keep it a secret for as long as possible. ;)

83. DiscoSpock - July 29, 2012

I hope the title is just “Star Trek 2″ with no subtitle. That’ll piss off sooooo many fans! :) (I’m mostly kidding.)

Knowing the title can backfire, as Vultan pointed out with plot-describing titles or as happened with the second Star Wars prequel. Once we heard that it was called “Attack of the Clones,” one of the dumbest titles ever, many of us were unable to give it a fair chance as a movie. (I’m not speaking for everybody, but there was a HUGE outcry against that title at the time.)

If the Trek sequel is about Khan, maybe there’ll be clones involved. “Attack of the Khans” or “The Wrath of Clone” sound so awesome! (He said, tongue in cheek, trying to lighten the tone.)

84. Uberbot - July 29, 2012

#65 — As Nomad would say — you are in error. I recall reading about and seeing photos of Bane from DKR MONTHS before the reel ease of the film. Ditto for Catwoman. This was not a well- kept secret…

85. rose by any other name - July 29, 2012

Why does JJ Abrams and his Bad Robot team have to do what everyone else does? Different producers, directors et al have their own style. I am not knocking how TDKR was promoted (that’s Nolan’s call/choice) and I am not knocking the way this untitled Star Trek sequel is being promoted, or not so much, at the moment. As I recall Roberto Orci noting in a thread or two back, giving this sequel a title has to happen soon anyway. No doubt this is coming from Paramount, the franchise owner and Bad Robot’s boss.

All in good time!

86. rose by any other name - July 29, 2012

I don’t really care what the title is. A good working for me, personally, would be – Star Trek: My Captain’s Small Tight Arse. Now there’s a winner…:)

87. Jack - July 29, 2012

84. Yep, everybody did. That’s because that wasn’t a secret. Have you seen the Dark Kight Rises? Neither Bane nor Kyle is actually the main villain. My only point with mentioning Nolan is that people here have used him as the shiny example of how to share with the fans, because of mentioning Bane and Kyle,, and there are plenty of suprises in the film.

And, Thorny — that was pent-up frustration directed to the folks who are constantly arguing that these guys are dooming their own movie by refusing to tell us who the villain (and the complaining started before the script was finished, when casting was announced, during filming and ever since). Maybe it’s because, with filming done, some fans think maybe this is the one way left for them to get their way. But, really, these exact same complaints were made daily here up until Trek 2009 was released — they haven ‘t released enough clips, photos or plot details and it means they have no confidence in the film and it’s going to bomb. People here were complaining how crazy JJ is because, during filming, he put up a wall to keep out paparazzi.

The people who don’t know yet that a Trek film is forthcoming probably either don’t care, or don’t follow entertainment/genre stuff or regularly visit sites like RT, onion AV club or EW, and the title being released probably won’t make a big difference for them. People either seek this info out (like us) or wait for the commercials, trailers and what’s playing listings on the local paper (or the new releases section at whatever rental chains still exist).

If we’re weeks away and there haven’t been trailers, TV spots, print ads, billboards, EW covers and endless talk show appearances and Chris Pine hasn’t been on The View — well, then we can start to worry.

88. DiscoSpock - July 29, 2012

#87 – Jack, stop being reasonable. It’ll never work around here! :)

89. Jack - July 30, 2012

I know, it’s the nature of the Internet. People have opinions and want to share them. But sometimes I get frustrated and respond a little harshly. Sorry.

Total aside, but a while back a buddy from high school, a smart engineer and great dad of two kids, died in a hiking accident (a snowy cornice collapsed underneath him) and a lot of the public comments on the news stories said he deserved it for partaking in such a dangerous activity (he wasn’t free climbing Denali — he was hiking on a Sunday afternoon on a well- travelled, very popular public trail 40 minutes from his house with a friend) when he should have been at home with his family, that his family should have paid for the costs to recover the body because the guy was so reckless and irresponsible and that if you live dangerously, you deserve to die. In other words, utter bullshit.

It’s the kind of stuff grumpy dads used to say while reading the paper at home, and have their wives or kids chastise them (hopefully) — but now it’s shared with everybody — it becomes part of the story.

I know. None of this is new. And, Thorny your comment was fine.

But as fans, we become so involved in these films that we stop thinking of ourselves as merely the audience — we get a personal stake in it and think we have or deserve influence. Look at RT shutting down comments on The
Dark Knight Rises to prevent death threats and the like against critics who don’t like it…

And it takes no effort or second thought.

90. Randall Williams - July 30, 2012

Let’s see now …

If the villain kills Kirk’s love interest as was speculated earlier in this
post, has anyone given the thought that Alice Eve is playing Doctor
Carol Marcus? Another idea being thrown in …


91. falcon - July 30, 2012

Here’s my thought on this whole non-promotion promotion thing:

JJ and Bad Robot seem to be acting like the New York Yankees of the late 1990s and early 2000s. In other words, they think any move they make will work anyway, because they think “Star Trek” is a franchise that people will flock to see, regardless of the content. If it was 105 minutes of the Enterprise flying across the screen, people would see it.

Sad thing is, they’re probably right. But there were those who saw the Yankees’ trades for big names in the ’90s and ’00s as gutting the farm system, leaving them vulnerable for the future. This same type of thing – this “non-promotion” thing that Bad Robot is doing – will likely backfire as they attempt to build up buzz with too little time left before the premiere. They should be doing what DKR and Man of Steel have done – tease the thing 12 months out. That’s what they did with ’09 Trek.

I have a feeling, though, that all these actor appearances (Pine, Greenwood, Urban) are leading up to the beginning of such a blitz. Stay tuned…

92. Daoud - July 30, 2012

“Bad Robot, sit.”
We’re 10 months out… it’s time for the trickle to begin, not sit on the hands. The film’s in the can, the FX are coming along… so even with master edits, there isn’t going to be any major plot revision now. So, put something out there. Tell us about Noel’s and Nazneen’s new-to-canon characters. Put them out there as “a family” we can all connect to. After the Dark Knight Rises ending up also being one of the darkest nights of modern American history… we need LIGHT! We need positivism! We need the “future is bright” that Star Trek brought all us children of the 60’s… we need that muse again.
As the editing continues, lighten it up. Make it as family-friendly as possible. As next year’s movie season (hard to call it ‘summer’ when it starts in May, not the last week of June) begins… let Second Star (Trek) be a rising tide that lifts all boats, and all spirits….
And for us in the U.S., Bruce Greenwood still exudes that spirit of leadership that another poster commented on… much like many of the great men and women serving in leadership ranks in the military…. Bruce is Star Trek’s George Clooney…. get him out there, ‘introducing’ some of the non-canon new characters and the talk-show circuit. Trek’s always been part of American ‘exceptionalism’, and the time is ripe for that to happen again, just as it did in the late 60’s and 70’s in the sciences and engineering…. and politics too. Equality on the screen from the get-go…. even MLK agreed on that….

93. Shannon Nutt - July 30, 2012

I have to agree with Falcon…the three biggest films this summer (Dark Knight, Spidey and Avengers…and you can throw Hunger Games in there too if you’d like) had tons of pre-release press and footage. Heck, I don’t think there was anyone going into any of those films who didn’t already have a pretty good idea of the story, if not the endings themselves. Compare that with, say, last summers Super 8, which Abrams was pretty mum about press-wise. Did it do good box office? Yes…but it still wasn’t in the top 20 moneymakers in the States. If they think they can go into next summer keeping the plot under wraps and still be a huge moneymaker (ESPECIALLY overseas, where Trek historically has not done as well), they’re making a big marketing mistake.

94. Phil - July 30, 2012

@23, 25. Not possible. Capt. Pike was taking Enterprise on her first trip out of drydock in Trek 2009. No issue with Greenwood doing Trek on TV, but the vessel will need to be the USS Some Other Ship…

95. DiscoSpock - July 30, 2012

#94 – That would make it to USS S.O.S.! Not exactly a promising name…but fun to say!

96. dmduncan - July 30, 2012

A Pike series could be interesting if it avoids the mistakes every other Trek series made in trying to out-TOS TOS.

I wouldn’t like to see the same TOS 5-year mission premise for Pike. And I would like to see an earlier version of Starfleet that may have a different attitude and mission.

In ST.09 Pike felt Starfleet had gotten stale. So it would be nice to show the experiences which create that opinion.

Pike is a different character than Kirk, and I would like to see him played that way. If Pike out-Kirk’s Kirk, then Kirk doesn’t look so special.

And if it’s a much younger Pike, then it’s too bad they won’t de-age Bruce Greenwood for the role, because he’s the one who made it interesting. A younger Bruce Greenwood would be a fantastic star of that series.

Jeffrey Hunter’s Pike does not make me wish to know more about his adventures. He was a grumpy ass captain.

97. Robman007 - July 30, 2012

“Yep, everybody did. That’s because that wasn’t a secret. Have you seen the Dark Kight Rises?”

@ 87: Actually, it was still zero surprise who the villian ended up being. Anyone who knows a tad bit about Batman could see that coming a thousand miles away, especially when the casting of that person was announced. Zero surprise.

I don’t care about not having anything released for this film. Won’t keep me from seeing it. I just hope the lack of any sort of marketing 9 months from release won’t hurt the film where the “general viewing” audience is concerned. These new films are marketed towards non trek fans because the series can’t survive off of just Trek fans alone. Not promoting the film at least a year out could very well hurt an otherwise good flick.

The last flick that tried this level of hardcore secrecy was a little film called “The X-Files: I Want to Believe.” That marketing style hurt a film that could have used some promotion (as the film was not that good as it was). That film killed the franchise. Poor marketing and a crazy high level of secrecy (sound familiar?) helped as well.

98. Jai - July 30, 2012

DMDuncan, re: #96:

A series with Bruce Greenwood in the main role would be fantastic.

But if the powers-that-be decide to make a series is about a much younger Captain Pike instead, I’ve been thinking Jon Hamm post-Mad Men would be perfect for the lead role.

As you said, Pike’s a different character than Kirk. So Hamm wouldn’t need to out-Kirk Kirk again, Don Draper-style, but he’d definitely be able to bring the required Bruce Greenwood-style gravitas, charisma and leadership presence to the role.

99. shpock - July 30, 2012

The premise of a Pike show could be Spock Prime chronicling the adventures of Pike Prime on the Enterprise.
Spock and Pike were tight.

100. Robman007 - July 30, 2012

Also, regarding The Dark Knight….Nolan released just enough to keep people enticed. Alot of the plot was secretive and a nice surprise, yet the film started promo at least a year and a half before release. Didn’t ruin it for me. I didn’t see fans complaining. It got folks hyped.

Total secrecy, just like with X-Files 2, could hurt this film, future films and future TV shows. I have a ton of non fan/big sci-fi fan friends who really enjoyed the first film, and they all ask if there will ever be a sequel and/or if it got cancelled, simply because marketing has been zero. Interested generated by non-fans from the first film has all but disappeared.

This is why folks complain about not knowing anything about the film. Not because there is a “entitlement” or such….fans want to see this film succeed. The lack of marketing could very well kill this film with the general, non fan audience (which is the important group, since us fans alone can’t keep the film series alive)

101. Red Dead Ryan - July 30, 2012


I’m more concerned about the overseas marketing. North America has enough Trekkies so Paramount doesn’t have to worry about us as much as they do about the European and Asian audiences, who didn’t exactly come out in droves to watch the last one. The dvd/Blu Ray release no doubt helped a little in that regard, but there is still a lot of work to do, unless Paramount has given up marketing its brand in Europe/Asia.

As for “The X-Files: I Want To Believe”, that movie was marketed just as badly as “Star Trek Nemesis”. And just like “Nemesis”, it was dumped right in the middle of a blockbuster period, getting squashed like a bug by big movies such as “The Dark Knight”, and “Mamma Mia”.

102. Jack - July 30, 2012

The actors are appearing now because of other projects. They’ll keep mentioning Trek because they keep getting asked (which shows that there’s plenty of interest, among the press, anyway). Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never heard of movie actors doing press tours (outside of say maybe convention appearances) for a movie 9 months before a release.

And I’d wager that most people seeing the DKR (especially), The Avengers and even the Amazing Spiderman, at least in the first few days of release, didn’t know the entire plot or — especially, the ending — going into it.

We knew what we knew from clips and trailers — Bane defeats Bruce Wayne, the Avengers battle Loki and there’s an attack on Manhattan, Spidey fights the Lizard.

Personally, I found all three films had surprises. All three were not the films I thought I’d be seeing based on the trailers.

During press junkets, news reports said the Avengers cast had PR people with them in all interviews, and the actors had to check with the flack to see if they could answer a question or not. The bulk of the DKR footage in trailers comes from the early parts of the film.

I think Super 8 was a different kettle of fish entirely. Look at other Bad Robot productions, like MI4 or Star Trek 2009. They had plenty of promotion. And both did well. Does anyone here think Trek ’09 was badly marketed?

Would more people have gone to see Super 8 if the nature of the menace was revealed before the release? Who knows? There were trailers, footage and plenty of promotion before the release. I don’t know where this idea that they didn’t promote it comes from. No they didn’t show the alien in the trailers. But the film itself builds suspense all the way through because the characters (and ideally the audience) don’t know what the monster is.

MI4 and Star Trek both had plot twists that weren’t revealed in the trailers.

And it’s not always about how much — look at John Carter of Mars… they had plenty of marketing, ages in advance, but it was apparently for a completely different film…

I’m honestly not defending Bad Robot here, or at least not trying to — but I just think the ‘Nolan did this, how come these guys don’t’ comparisons aren’t fair — because Nolan’s marketing avoided plenty of spoilers (and he didn’t confirm fan speculation that characters from Batman Begins would be appearing).

A lot of us seem to be saying that they’re refusing to market the film. We’re also assuming that spoilers are good marketing, and that buzz among fans (even if it’s vehement complaining about, say,Khan being the villain, were that to be confirmed), good or bad, is good marketing. How do we know that?

If you’re worried, you’re worried. But this armchair quarterbacking ain’t helping to build a positive buzz, if that’s what you’re hoping for. At some point, there will be a “fans think Khan (or whoever the villain is) is a bad idea” based on comments on here. Or “fans worried sequel will suck.” How’s that good for marketing?

103. VZX - July 30, 2012


That’s a great idea for a TV show and keep it in the same universe and time. They could even cast all the characters from first pilot “The Cage” like Number One, Dr. Boyce, Colt, and keep Greenwood as Pike. I wonder if they could get Zach Quinto as Spock even!

Wow, this is sounding like a win-win to me! Make it so!

104. Basement Blogger - July 30, 2012

Is it too much to ask that Paramount at least shoot down rumors? They could say “No Khan” or “No Gary Mitchell.” That’s okay. It would not ruin the movie for me. We knew Catwoman was going to be in The Dark Knight Rises a long time ago once they announce that Anne Hathaway was cast as Selena Kyle. Didn’t hurt the box office.

105. Robman007 - July 30, 2012

@ 101: Yes, The X-Files was released next to TDK, and yes it was marketed horrible, BUT, as a huge X-Files fan I remember that they had kept everything about this film ultra secret, and went as far as to “leak” information about Villians and plots and characters that were all false, yet fans latched onto and thought were true. Sounds pretty familiar so far (Gary Mitchell, Khan..etc). Very simliar marketing strategies, so far.

The marketing on this film should be up and running, especially for the overseas market, which is always harsh and on the fence with Star Trek. The North America market could use a bit more marketing too. Not enough Trek fans to support a film they way that films need supporting nowadays (if that were the case, the TNG movies would not have been considered a failure, especially the last two).

106. Robman007 - July 30, 2012

and lets be honest here….Star Trek 11 did not succeed JUST because of Star Trek fans. Trek 11 was a success because it managed to grab ahold of the average, everyday movie goer who thought the film was a great summer film. Those same folks don’t pay attention to online spoilers and news, and expected that a sequel would have been released within 2-3 years. As far as the general audience is concered, this film is in development hell or even cancelled all together. Gotta start getting this movie out there a bit more…

107. Jack - July 30, 2012

‘As far as the general audience is concered, this film is in development hell or even cancelled all together.’

People here keep saying that. But how do you know that? It’s a pretty bog assumption. The actors have been talking about it on talk shows and entertainment tonight-style shows for months. Cumberbatch had plenty of mainstream press.

I’d suppose that the average moviegoer who went to see Star Trek and enjoyed it is too busy living life to fret that, gasp, three years have passed. All that matters is that people know when it’s opening (and the reviews) — and they’ll know.

And Blogger — Kyle and Bane both appear in the first 5 minutes or so of the movie, so there are no secrets there… and Nolan didn’t address certain rumors like, say, that Ra’s al Ghul or his relatives appear. And we certainly weren’t told Gordon-Levitt’s character’s full name. Again, all these comparisons don’t really work — we don’t know why they’re keeping it under wraps. Again, maybe there are plot twists they don’t want to give away.

There will be trailers. When the trailers are out, people who go to movies will know that a Trek movie is coming. When the commercials come out, people who watch TV and don’t fast forward through TV commercials will know that a Trek movie is coming. When the magazine covers come out, people who go to drugstores and grocery stores will know… etc.

This is how most movies work. At this point nobody but us cares exactly who Alice Eve is playing.

108. Jack - July 30, 2012

I’ll stop now — the theories and constant pronouncements of box office doom really bug me. I get that you’re worried and anxious for news. Hey, I wish this thing was coming out tomorrow.

109. rose by any other name - July 30, 2012

Star Trek (2009) is being screened again (third time, I think) next Monday night, TV3, 8.30pm. The local TV Guide gives the movie a 4 out of 5 star rating and I guess the movie must rate well because they are repeating it again this year. I have no doubt that viewers here will see the movie again on television not long before the Star Trek sequel gets released here next year.

Every time an article is written about an actor, who was also in Star Trek, his role in the movie, is mentioned, even if the article has nothing to do with Star Trek. There are different ways to advertise and promote something.

Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban and Zoe Saldana have all been in movies since making Star Trek and when those movies get a mention, the actors’ roles in Star Trek also get mentioned! So, even if a person is not into Star Trek, they still get to read about the upcoming Star Trek sequel, the (main) characters, and the actors who play them…

I could be wrong, but I swear that Star Trek and Captain Kirk got mentioned in connection with Chris Pine, even though the article was actually about the television and movie career of Olivia Wilde. His name came up when the article wrote about her appearing in (what was then still called) Welcome to People, playing Pine’s character’s girlfriend.

Is this not some sort of “grassroots” advertising or similar?

Come Christmas/New Year, I feel positive that people the world over will likely see the first Star Trek sequel trailer. It is just too early for that to happen at the moment.

I saw the first trailer to the Rise of the Guardians (released in the US, 21/11/12, NZ 6/12/12) before watching Prometheus and thought that was possibly a little too early. Looked pretty impressive on the BIG screen though!

110. Azrael - July 30, 2012

@101. Yeah but the X-Files sucked anyway, David (Mulder) is alright (I loved Evolution) but that is the only good point of that show IMO, so when their movie failed I for one was not surprised.

re: “general public thinks the movie is cancelled”
What planet are you living on? There are tv news stories, late night appearances, and all kinds of other things (shuttle enterprise in NY springs to mind) that keep reminding people that the sequel is coming. Every time the cast goes anywhere they get asked about Star Trek, and everyone watching sees it and hears it, Star Trek is currently “Popular on Netflix” (meaning lots of Netflix subscribers are watching the shows). There was a special Star Trek event on XBox Live last weekend, and so on ad nauseum. I could keep up to date on Trek without this site at this point, something I could not have done before the 2009 movie (at least without far more difficulty), and the “general public” is very aware of it.

Due to my Star Trek tattoo I often have random people say to me “Hey did you know they are making another Star Trek movie” when waiting in lines and the like, believe me more people are aware of this movie coming than you know, and the numbers are just growing.

111. Jack - July 30, 2012

True story. I got in the car about an hour ago and, as soon as I put the key in, a clip from Star Trek 2009 was playing on the local all news station — they were doing a story on diving from the stratosphere — and they played and described the drilling platform scene in detail before launching into an interview. People know about Star Trek.

Not quite what grassroots means — but, generally, Star Trek is a big property and interviewers talk about it to the actors involved. Just like Tom Cruise gets asked about the next Mission Impossible flick in plenty of interviews, when he’s not being asked about Xenu or his divorce. or how Kristen Stewart gets asked about Twilight all the time, when she’s not being asked about her affair with a director.

112. rose by any other name - July 30, 2012

I think the problem with marketing the first Star Trek was that it had nothing to work off, other than what people knew of the 60’s television TOS series or the TOS movies, the last of which was released in 1991 – Star Trek VI. (I am talking about the last movie with all the TOS cast appearing).

This time, there is the first new Star Trek movie, with its new cast, to work with when it comes to promoting the sequel. That is already happening.

113. rose by any other name - July 30, 2012

#111 – re “grassroots”. I have heard the word/expression used, but I am not sure what it means. I just thought that someone here might have a better idea.

114. Azrael - July 30, 2012

re: grassroots, this means that the marketing is driven by the community (in this case us) who get out and tell people about what is coming. The term comes from the concept of grass sprouting up naturally and spontaneously. It is an extremely common saying/term in the US.

115. Azrael - July 30, 2012

@87. From what I hear there are 3 other villains in TDKR besides Bane and Catwoman (who isn’t really a villain and hasn’t been since the late 80s early 90s). Just tell me one thing, does Batman beat down Christopher Judge’s character? That is all I want to know right now, cause Christopher Judge is also known as Teal’c.

116. Jack - July 30, 2012

the tea party and the occupy movement are often called grassroots movements — although both, especially the tea party, were engineered/organized tpo a degree

The tea party spread thanks to backers with deep pockets and a lot of publicity on Fox — so it wasn’t so much the people organizing on their own…

117. Red Dead Ryan - July 30, 2012


Actually, the “The X-Files” series was great. Well, at least for the first five or six seasons. The sixth and seventh seasons were mediocre, and the final season was just awful. “Fight The Future” was good.

118. dmduncan - July 30, 2012

98. Jai – July 30, 2012

I’m not that familiar with Hamm, except for his hosting on SNL, which he was really good at.

I can’t think of anybody who is Greenwood-like right now. When I try to think of someone who could bring the same instant likeability and command presence that Greenwood effortlessly projects, I’m at a loss.

119. dmduncan - July 30, 2012

Loved The X Files. That show had some monster-of-the-week episodes that were truly great TV.

And what villain was better than Cancer Man?

120. Red Dead Ryan - July 30, 2012


Agreed about Cancer Man. Hated the way they killed him off in the series finale, though. A blatant parallel to Osama bin Laden.

121. Jai - July 31, 2012

DMDuncan, re: #118:

“I’m not that familiar with Hamm, except for his hosting on SNL, which he was really good at.”

Jon Hamm’s poised, commanding Don Draper persona in Mad Men is very different to his jokey behaviour on SNL. In many ways Draper’s demeanour and “command presence” is much closer to Greenwood. Think of a quieter, younger version of Cary Grant’s “Roger Thornhill” character from North by Northwest.

You’ll see what I mean if you check out some Youtube clips of Hamm as Draper, like this very famous scene showing Draper giving a “sales pitch” to executive clients a few seasons ago:

The final three minutes of Mad Men’s most recent season finale is a really good example too:

“I can’t think of anybody who is Greenwood-like right now. When I try to think of someone who could bring the same instant likeability and command presence that Greenwood effortlessly projects, I’m at a loss.”

Hence my suggestion of Jon Hamm, who really is capable of being Greenwood-like on-screen.

The other guy, of course, is obviously George Clooney, but he may be too old for a “younger Pike” role now and he’s probably not interested in going back to television anyway.

122. dmduncan - July 31, 2012

120. Red Dead Ryan – July 30, 2012


Agreed about Cancer Man. Hated the way they killed him off in the series finale, though. A blatant parallel to Osama bin Laden.


Well…y’know…it was time to bring that story arc to a close. I mean the bin Laden one. :-)

123. morz - July 31, 2012

the Villian IS….and hear me out on this…

Finnegan…gone wrong.

first it’s cold soup in someone’s bed, or a bucket of cold water propped over a door…then it’s the hard stuff…destroy the world.

124. rose by any other name - July 31, 2012

The Jon Hamm and George Clooney types seem a little too “smooth” for me – something that Bruce Greenwood’s Pike does not have, which, to me, makes Greenwood’s Pike more trustworthy and likeable.

I agree that finding a good replacement for Bruce Greenwood playing Pike could be a hard call.

125. dmduncan - July 31, 2012

121. Jai – July 31, 2012

Wow! Hamm actually reminds me of Shatner. He sold that “carousel” idea like Kirk.

I’m starting to think maybe Simon Baker would make a good young Pike. And look, he already knows Spock:

126. DiscoSpock - July 31, 2012

#122 “Agreed about Cancer Man. Hated the way they killed him off in the series finale, though. A blatant parallel to Osama bin Laden.”

Um…how so? Osama wasn’t talking about aliens, nor was he killed in the same way, nor was there anything else that paralleled the Smoking Man’s death, so where’s the parallel?

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to figure out your comment, which makes no sense to me.

127. Red Dead Ryan - July 31, 2012


Cancer Man was holed up in a cave in the mountains in the desert. At that time, the belief was bin Laden was hiding in the mountains in Afghanistan/Pakistan. Plus heavily armed helicopters were used to blow up the cave Cancer Man was hiding in after he was deemed a dangerous fugitive, which he was. That is what I meant when I said he paralleled Osama bin Laden. They were both fugitives pursued by the U.S military.

128. DiscoSpock - August 1, 2012

#127 – Okay, I get it. And I just realized I replied to the wrong message, when dmduncan was quoting you. Sorry ’bout that, and thanks!

129. Phil - August 1, 2012

@124. Gary Sinese and Ronnie Cox come to mind. Though it would not happen I could see Sean Connery or Kevin Coster in the role, too…

130. Jack - August 1, 2012

BTW, just read the last couple of Trek comics — some interesting stuff (especially in the second Archons issue). I’m feeling better about the next flick.

And the art in the Tribbles story is fantastic.

They’re still a little too connected to Star Trek 2009 with the characters referencing those events constantly, which is a bit silly. Almost: “Hey Scotty, remember that time you transport beamed into that coolant pipe that wasn’t water but Chekov called it water? You do? Cool. Pass me the coffee.”

131. Xplodin_Nacelle - August 1, 2012

He’s right about not having a pre-conceived notion about the plot ruining the surprises…………………………………………….but, it’s so hard to wait – lol

132. Jai - August 1, 2012

DMDuncan, re: #125:

“Wow! Hamm actually reminds me of Shatner. He sold that “carousel” idea like Kirk.”

That classic scene has become one of the most famous “Don Draper moments”.

You’ll find this trailer for Mad Men pretty entertaining too, showing Hamm/Draper out-Kirking Kirk in a range of other situations:

Simon Baker is an interesting suggestion, by the way. There’s even a strong physical resemblance to Greenwood.

133. dmduncan - August 1, 2012

132. Jai – August 1, 2012

I like Hamm. He must be a fan of Shatner or just have a naturally similar personality.

Baker I think is another actor who isn’t a gigantic star but who, like Greenwood, is very likeable. The Margin Call clip also shows he can wear the command personality easily.

I’m not sure if it’s my imagination, but it sounds like Baker’s voice goes a touch higher in pitch when he puts on the American accent. If he could manage his tone so that when he speaks with the American accent it sounds more like his natural voice, which sounds lower to me, I think you’d have a good approximation of Greenwood’s Pike.

Another thing about Greenwood’s Pike is that you instantly trust him. He’s solid. Someone you can rely on.

A good actor trying to become Pike should be able to put all those qualities together and come out very Greenwood-like.

134. Phil - August 1, 2012

RE: Secrecy – lets not forget that Mr. Orci mentioned a six month promotional window, so we should be seeing stuff sometime in November, at the latest. The more I think about this, it’s starting to make sense, Trek does not have the name recognition that Avengers, Dark Knight, or Bond, so it makes little sense to be pounding the promotional drum very early for a movie that outside of Kirk and Spock, most of the characters are unrecognizable

….even so, Skyfall seems to be starting it’s promotion very late. Very cool trailer, BTW…..

135. rose by any other name - August 1, 2012

Casting Simon Baker as Pike might work.

136. dmduncan - August 1, 2012

HIlarious. Don Draper is Captain Kirk.

137. Jai - August 2, 2012

…In more ways than you may realise, DM:


138. rose by any other name - August 2, 2012

So Captain Kirk was supposed to be a serial womanizer getting any woman he wants, alien or otherwise.

Please list all these conquests, because I am not convinced of this and never have been.

139. Azrael - August 2, 2012

@138. And you will always be wrong.

140. Phil - August 2, 2012

@138. Well, since 1960’s television showed a conquest as not much morre then a tight lipped kiss, do you really need all of them, or just a few?

Ruth… (Shore Leave)
Edith Keeler…(City on the Edge of Forever)
Rayna…(Requiem for Methuselah)
Shahna …(The Gamesters of Triskelion)
Kelinda..(By Any Other Name)
Deela..(Wink of an Eye)
Miramanee…(The Paradise Syndrome)
Elaan of Troyius …well, from (Elaan of Troyius)
Janice Rand….it was hinted at enough.
Carol Marcus…who also hinted that Kirks extra-cirricular activities were an open secret.
McCoy seemed to think Kirk was getting busy with Martia in STVI-TUC.
Generations was crappy, but Kirk apparently had a thing for Antonia…
Yeah, it’s safe to assume JTK had committment issues…

141. Robman007 - August 3, 2012

@ 138…seriously? You must have been watching only episodes like Doomsday Machine, because Cap’n Kirk was always the ladies man. Just look at the beginning and ending of Immunity Syndrome. Both the beginning and end of the episode had the good Cap’n looking up and down on two different, but nice looking junior officer ladies. Hints alone of his serial womanizing…

Very, very much so was the good Cap’n a womanizer. Now, you must be thinking of Captain Picard….

142. Azrael - August 3, 2012

@138. Now before you go off on one of your patented Keachick rants (cause we DO know it’s you Kea) remember we are not talking about Chris Pine. We are talking about James Kirk, a FICTIONAL CHARACTER (imitates Holden McNiel’s made up sign language), understand.

143. Phil - August 3, 2012

@142. Pine’s Kirk seemed pretty frisky, too. Staying in character, perhaps?

144. Azrael - August 3, 2012

@143. Naturally, never meant to imply otherwise, just pointing the above fact out for certain people who have in the past taken a statement about Kirk to be a criticism of Pine.

145. rose by any other name - August 3, 2012

I guess the question could be – Is Kirk’s “womanizing” necessarily a bad thing? Heterosexual people can be attracted to each other and want to act on that. In fact, from the biological sense, they are MEANT to! Anyway, although I suspect that a young Kirk may have done a little boy scouting, I seriously doubt that he ever spent time in a monastery, not of his volition.

You say that Kirk seems to have commitment issues. Maybe, but after how Carol Marcus behaved towards him once their son was born, that is not necessarily surprising. Anyway, although I suspect that a young Kirk may

It is all very well to reel off a list of names, but they only mean something if those relationships are examined and were they all really “conquests” in that Kirk was only using them for sexual gratification? Hardly! Edith Keeler and Miramanee are at least two women who would not fall under that category (Kirk was very much in love) and in the case of Edith Keeler, it is very doubtful that they would have got that far, given the times and circumstances. Rayna also.

Shahna possibly – since their masters probably figured that she might as well get banged up by Kirk as by anyone else (they were all captives).

In the case of Deela and Elaan, Kirk was THEIR conquest!

Deela had chosen him to be her mate and give her babies and then trapped him (along with all the other crew) in order to make this happen. Kirk used this to his advantage. As far as “womanizing”, “using a female as merely a sex object” – well – I would say it was mutual. By the end of the episode, he clearly had developed fond feelings for her, as did she for him.

I doubt that Elaan was even on his radar until she wept those tears, which, among other things, could easily seduce a male, sexually and otherwise. She used him because she did not want to marry this other guy and was seeking a way out.

It is the superficial way that so many people see his various relationships and the wretched pigeon-holing that irritates me. It is not a holistic approach to understanding a person (fictional or otherwise) and just diminishes all concerned.

#142 – “Now before you go off on one of your patented Keachick rants (cause we DO know it’s you Kea) remember we are not talking about Chris Pine.”

Wow! Well, I should think you would know that it is me, Kea(chick) since I told everyone on a previous post somewhere that the kea bird had flown off. Kea flew off, got laid and is now busy laying – can’t wait to see those little kea chicks!…:)

Did I mention Chris Pine, or indeed, William Shatner? I was talking about the fictional character James T Kirk, captain of the USS Enterprise, living in a fictional Star Trek world in the 23rd century, “understand”. Who else could you possibly think I was talking about?

146. rose by any other name - August 3, 2012

I cannot recall ever confusing the life that the actor Chris Pine lives with that of the Kirk character who he plays.

147. Azrael - August 3, 2012

Demonstrating yet again how you have a selective memory and only remember what you want. You did in fact go off on me and others several months back for brining up Kirk’s track record with women, and you specifically stated that we had no business talking about Chris Pine like that, even though we were not talking about Pine. You really are nuts, and not one bit of your supposed points matters, it is a fact of Star Trek history that James Kirk was a major womanizer and had a string of sexual conquests stretching across the galaxy, nothing you think or say about it will change that.

148. Red Dead Ryan - August 3, 2012


It’s interesting that the “Kea” flew off once Anthony disappeared. I’ll bet by Monday it returns, still a chick. Otherwise, Anthony will make “rose” disappear, too. :-)

149. rose by any other name - August 3, 2012

#147 – I suggest you find the relevant posting(s) and post them here. Prove what you have said is actually correct.

The reality is that Kirk did NOT have a string of sexual conquests (anyway, so what if he did) except in your own imagination.

#148 – Why should
Anthony do that? I had no idea that Anthony disappeared. Everybody knows who I am. I am not a sockpuppet. Grief.

Has the trekmovie format changed for you guys as well. I don’t like it at all. What is going on?

150. Azrael - August 3, 2012

I don’t need to prove sh-t, especially not to you. It must be a very strange world you live in, I will stay here on Earth. Fly away now, stupid bird.

151. rose by any other name - August 4, 2012

Lose your rude, accusatory attitude, Azrael

“You did in fact go off on me and others several months back for brining up Kirk’s track record with women, and you specifically stated that we had no business talking about Chris Pine like that, even though we were not talking about Pine. You really are nuts, and not one bit of your supposed points matters”

I asked you to prove the above, that I confused Chris Pine with the character of Kirk that he plays, especially given that you chose to call me “nuts” with all the derogatory associations that the word “nuts” implies here. Clearly you are not able to, hence making your post at #147 something of a lie and not only that you call me “stupid bird”. Frankly, your earthly terrain does not look so good from up here, me being the “stupid bird” able to see further than her nose/beak or some character’s every kind of relationship with a female as simply being a “conquest” of a mere womanizer. What a narrow-minded twat.

Why the word “conquests”? Some of the relationships could be better described as mutually beneficial, others not. Elaan and Deela initiated a (sexually) exploitative association, and I even think that Carol Marcus saw Kirk as no more than a hunky stud who she could get a kid from, with little or no thought for the needs of either Kirk or the child.

If anyone is stupid, it is YOU, Azrael, not to be able to see and understand what has been patently obvious since whenever, certainly since 1982! Duh!

152. Azrael - August 4, 2012

I would say something about the obviously delusional stuff you are spewing, but it just isnt worth my time, enjoy your fantasy world you schitzophrenic.

153. Azrael - August 4, 2012

I will say this, you are the ONLY “Star Trek fan” I have EVER interacted with who believes Kirk was not promiscuous, and certainly the only one who has ever suggested that Carol Marcus was using him to “get a baby”. Talk about an attitude from the 40s.

154. rose by any other name - August 4, 2012

Why has my post been deleted?

I will just say that Azrael has insulted me by referring to me as being “nuts”, “delusional”, “schizophrenic” – all terms that are derogatory in nature, as well as being used incorrectly.

“Demonstrating yet again how you have a selective memory and only remember what you want.”

If I say that I cannot recall something, then I cannot recall it – simple as that. I do not operate on “selective memory”. Azrael, speak for yourself. Do not presume to speak for me on such matters. You do not have my memories, or lack thereof, presumptuous so-n-so. You have failed to prove your accusations because…oh that’s right – “I don’t need to prove sh-t, especially not to you.” Yet another insult and cop out.

As far as me being the only person who has interpreted Kirk’s various relationships in a different way from anyone else (according to you) does not make me “nuts”, “delusional” or anything else. I never said that Kirk was not promiscuous. In the strict definition of the word, Yes, he was and in fact the vast majority of people today would be described as promiscuous as well. Promiscuous is the word that refers to someone who has had more than one sexual relationship. However, the word also comes with derogatory associations and can have the affect of unfairly pigeon-holing people. If only male-female relationships could be so easily defined and stuffed in a neat square box.

“Carol Marcus was using him to “get a baby”. Talk about an attitude from the 40s”
(Carol Marcus pushed Kirk away. She wanted him out of her and the son’s life. She raised David alone, because she was able to/allowed to, by the 23rd century. Remember – she even lied to David about his father, telling him that he was conceived as a result of a very casual affair and that David’s father died – a downright LIE!)

Assuming you are not baiting me, that must be one of the dumbest, most ignorant statements I have read.
I assume by “the 40s”, you are referring to the 1940s. Sometimes a woman might risk getting pregnant in order to get the man to marry her, but it was a big risk (remember – no reliable contraceptives then). Being single and pregnant meant that you were at the bottom of the “pecking order” and that could be a very vicious “pecking order”, what with being sent away, disowned, and forced to put the baby up for adoption and so on…Clearly, NOT Carol Marcus’s situation.

May I point out that Azrael has been the one here to throw the first insults, baits whatever, starting with “patented kea(chick) rants” while he accused me of something I do not remember saying and something he has not seen fit to prove otherwise.

-rose by any other name is really keachick anyway. Given that I am Rose, as in Rosemary, I guess I should know…”A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…” so said the Bard.

155. rose by any other name - August 4, 2012

OK – what is happening? I saw my post at #154 show up, then disappear and now appear again…

Oh well, it sure is a funny old world!

156. Azrael - August 5, 2012

Would you please stop using the norms for your country to make statements about mine. As it happens there was a widespread negative stereotype about women trapping men into marriage and emasculating them in the US back then, it was even used as the reason why Superman couldn’t marry Lois Lane in a comic book. IMO your statement about Carol fell under the area of that negative, and false, stereotype.

Aside from that how am I supposed to take anything you seriously? You just contradicted yourself, you stated that Kirk did not have a string of sexual conquests, except in my imagination. Now you are saying that you never claimed he wasnt promiscuous. The two statements are mutually exclusionary, and contradicting, especially by common American usage.

This is my last post on this subject. Oh and if you dont want me to be insulting, dont give me orders, especially not about how to “talk” to people, NOBODY gives me orders, with the exception of Anthony himself at this site.

157. rose by any other name - August 5, 2012

Using the norms of my country? No, I am not. You dunderhead, Carol Marcus was NOT trapping Kirk into marriage by getting pregnant – quite the opposite! Watch the bloody movie and listen this time!

Once again, I never said that Kirk was not promiscuous. I simply asked if he was as promiscuous, as big a womanizer as people seem to think. I also asked why you choose to use the expression “sexual conquests”, as if Kirk set out to conquer women sexually, with little or no thought or regard for their feelings or welfare, because that is what “conquest” means to me. Clearly, not all of Kirk’s relationships were of that nature, anything but.

#142 – “@138. Now before you go off on one of your patented Keachick rants”

No, it is you, Azrael, who sought to direct me as to how I should respond to your posts, referring to what I say as a rant. I was not giving anyone orders unless you think it is OK to speak for another person and their memories, which I asked you not to do.

You have obviously not been able to prove your assertions/accusations while, at the same time accusing me of using “selective memory” and only remembering what I want to remember. So you don’t think you should have to back up your rude and erroneous statements made about/towards me on a public board and don’t like being told to do so. Well, I guess this is the Internet where we all come here with our various pseudonyms and lose all sense of personal accountability and conscience.

You have no right to insult anyone, including me. I was not insulting to you. I simply made a statement about not recalling something and there began your insults. You are a very rude, arrogant and bossy individual.

158. Azrael - August 6, 2012

I have every right, it is called freedom of speech. I am also far from the first to make a reference to a patented keachick rant, in fact I am about the 20th to do so, get you own damn facts straight. I also do not need to watch twok again, as I can quote every line in the film from begining to end from memory. Take your opinions and shove them into the nearest convinient orifice. My rudeness and arrogance are a natural reaction to your stupidity.

159. Azrael - August 6, 2012

One last thing. I NEVER said that any kind of implications about Carol Marcus were made in the movie, I said YOU made the implications in YOUR statement, blockhead.

160. rose by any other name - August 7, 2012

God, you are SO DENSE! Now you take yourself away where the sun don’t shine, Azrael.

Kind of explains a lot really… is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.