Spiner Questions Trek’s Appeal

Brent Spiner (TNG: Data) is already on record as being against the prequel concept for Star Trek XI and now he is also questioning the ability for Trek to again break out to the mainstream. In an interview with FilmFocusUK, Spiner jabs at JJ Abrams and Paramount saying that they spent too much money on Mission Impossible III. He then questions whether they will do the same on Trek XI

And that’s the big fear with this Star Trek movie because this new regime at Paramount; I don’t know that they understand the franchise. Maybe [Abrams] will be able to do it, maybe he’ll be able to bridge the gap between the fans and the general public, but everyone’s tried to do that – that’s always been the intention – and they’ve never been able to do it. They’ve realised that if you spend any more than fifty million dollars on one of these movies you’re going to lose money. There are only so many fans that are going to go. If they come along and make an one-hundred and fifty million dollar movie they’re going to have problems. But I think he could be the guy to do it. He’s a perfectly capable guy and his shows are fun and he seems to know what he’s doing.

Even though he questions the films premise, its creators and the executives supporting it, Spiner is still open to playing a part…any part.

FilmFocus: Would you like to be involved in more Star Trek? I know Data had something of a goodbye in the last movie.
Brent Spiner: Well I wouldn’t necessarily have to play Data… I could play Worf! *laughs* I could play Counsellor Troi! I’d be happy to be in more Star Trek but I don’t think I could play Data again because I think I might look a bit ridiculous.

Spiner co-wrote the story on the last film, Star Trek Nemesis and it understandable why he has doubts. That film clearly couldn’t not break into the mainstream, however that does not mean it is not possible.

For the record, Nemesis cost Paramount a bit less than half of what M:I:III cost them, but M:I:III made 6 times as much. M:I:III is the 7th highest grossing film of 2006, outgrossing many films that cost much more (like Superman Returns). Any problems that Paramount has with making a profit off the last Mission is entirely due to Tom Cruise’s double wammy of a ridiculously lucrative contract combined with being a drag on domestic sales due to his behaviour. Paramount certainly saw this because after the film returns came in they signed Abrams to a multi-year deal and fired Cruise.

See the full interview at FilmFocus

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

They spent too much money on him. I mean he got 5mil for Insurrection??? I never liked him.

Um, hello? “M:I 3” cost $150 million to make and earned back nearly $400 million worldwide, plus who kows how much on DVD. Please don’t make me “Mojo” the results for “Nemesis” to compare.

That’s not to say that Abrams would spend the same amount on “Trek XI.” Given the success he had launching “Alias” and “Lost” and making them seem like mini-movies on the small screen each week, I’m sure he could pull off the same for XI with a relatively paltry amount (when compared to most studio tentpoles).

As for Spiner still being open to being in the film or other Trek, … it is a tad hypocritical. No, not hypocritical. Whorish? No, too strong. Sad? Maybe.

I’m just glad we didn’t end up with Justice League of Star Trek! Spock at least had to die and be reborn! How lame would it be for Picard to pull Data through a time tunnel just before his death? JLoST would have been the most appalling piece of ‘fan-wank’ ever made!

Spiner talks about bridging the gap between fans and the public. The TOS films did do that! Hopefully they can again.

To be honest, these comments sound like sour grapes because the film he co-wrote flopped and he isn’t being offered millions to play Data again. Daft thing is, since he is every member of the Soong family who ever existed, he, of all the TNG team, might yet get a shot at appearing in a TOS-redux movie!

Do I even have to comment???

#3 – On the “Justice League” version of “Star Trek” …

You are very correct. Watch the “New Voyages” episode “In Harm’s Way” for an example. It features elements from “The Doomsday Machine” and “City on the Edge of Forever,” it has on the screen at one time, Pike’s Enterprise, Kirk’s movie-era Enterprise-A, and an alternate Kirk’s TOS-era Farragut. And it’s plot spins all over the place from Pike’s accident on the training vessel to Earth with Commodore Decker to the Guardian of Forever planet and a starship-sized portal …

It’s a huge mess.

Spiner wouldn’t know good Trek if it bit him on the ass.

Spiner is the most overpaid actor in Trek history. I’ve never seen any evidence that HE understands the franchise.

Abrams is going to Kirk and Spock and hopefully will fix Generations by giving Kirk a future. That would be the ULTIMATE example of understanding the franchise.

Nice work with Insurrection moron!

Spiners done,

Move along, nothing to see here.

I feel bad for the guy though.
Maybe he could do some broadway shows or something…

How about Pinochio?
He already has the necessary montrous facial appendage, and he DID play Robo-Pinochio for almost 10 years.

Or how about a one man show; “Data, we hardly knew ye”

Or maybe he should just shut the F%#K up, move into a trailer, and smoke a few blunts with Blossom, Doogie Houser, Bob Sagat , and all of the other annoying 80’s has beens who just WONT, go away.

Brent Spiner is a decent actor who portrayed his role very well – he just got caught up in a very poorly executed film. I’ve always contended that it wasn’t the film (so much) but rather the political atmosphere that currently exists.
IF Nemesis didn’t come across as being so dark and instead was more of
a adventure driven film like Star Wars (The New Hope) was then we’d all be singing a song of cheer rather then one of doubt and despair.
Personally….I’d say that Brent Spiner has more then enough skills to do any role assigned to him IF he wanted to do it. I’d love to see him in Star Trek again so we should all remember for his past accomplishments in ST.TNG rather then the last film which he did well….just a poor story – atmosphere.

Spiner is right about Star Trek not attracting a mainstream non Trek fan audience to the theaters. If you compare any Star Trek film to good scifi films made by Lucas, Cameron, Spielberg or Scott youll see that they pale in comparison. Paramount has used 3rd rate producers, special effects and puny budgets on most of the films. Its often embarrassing for me to admit to people that im a Trek fan because of how bad and corny some of these films are. I dont expect much from the new one.

I may not agree with Spiner’s apparent bias behind his comments, but the man has a point: If you spend upwards of $150 million on a movie, you’re taking a big gamble.

The article Anthony published a few days ago, showing a graph of how each film did in terms of attendance (not money, but bodies in seats) shows that Star Trek has not been reaching the mainstream in the theaters for a long time. It’s going to take a lot to jumpstart the franchise with the mainstream audience. If Star Trek XI breaks $100 million domestic, that should be viewed as a very strong resurgence. People expecting grosses over $150 million are ignoring past trends, which I believe are essentiall and relevant to the discussion.

I don’t know that I see any bias in Spiner’s comments – I may not agree with them, but they’re well-reasoned and explained. It’s easy to think of reasons that he may be biased – several folks have already listed them – but they’re not evident in what’s quoted above.

It’s also entirely possible that “Mission Impossible III” made a great deal more money than “Star Trek” generally does because it was MI and not Trek.

I think Spiner has got it completely bass-akwards. Star Trek Nemesis sucked because it was trying too hard to be a “main-stream” box-office movie. Star Trek has become stale exactly because it has lost it’s cult/fan appeal. Before TNG being a Trekker was like knowing about a small hip boutique. In the 90s that store became a sausage factory cranking out indifferent product for the mass market.
Star Trek does not need to be lavishly produced. It needs an imaginative story that engages people like best episodes of TOS.

#12 DB,

By “bias” I mean that Spiner is insinuating that Nemesis failed at the box office because the mainstream doesn’t want to see Star Trek movies. He’s passing the buck for that movie’s failure onto the audience. I think that implication is biased to protect himself from (as being a co-writer and star) taking any blame for the movie’s huge failure to make money. In Hollywood, you have to cover your own rear in situations like that. I doubt Paramount and Spiner are close buddies given the way Nemesis played out.

I do agree that the mainstream has grown apathetic towards Star Trek (but I disagree as to who’s to blame for that being the case). Insurrection and Nemesis are meaningless adventures (that pushed away casual fans and a few loyalists like myself too), and Spiner was instrumental in planning both of those projects.

The ORIGINAL series managed to get the mainstream. Kirk and Spock are as mainstream as any franchise. It’s the TNG movies that only attracted the die hards, while Berman was pissing the die-hards off until they quit.

You want mainstream? Get Shatner and Nimoy as Kirk and Spock, fix Generations, while doing a parallel story with the younger versions of the same characters.

Well said, Mr. Spiner. Well said.

These TNG guys just hate the fact that they are out of work. They loved those ST movie paychecks!

Thank God some one gets it. Still Kirok is right on the money!! Star Trek got the mainstream and still has the mainstream. I wish people would stop lumping the failed Next Gen era of Star Trek into the same category as Classic Trek. They were and are two totally different animals. Brent Spiner’s Trek may have been a flash in the Pan with the mainstream but STAR TREK (No Bloody B, C, D, or E) has been socially relevant and mainstream for 40 years. Hell they even did a Hummer commercial homage to it. South park regularly parodies Original Star Trek, Xbox is showing original Star Trek to hollywood’s number one target audience. Shatner may be gameshowless but he is a larger culteral icon than ever with the mainstream. Brent Spiner, who i thought was supposed to be such a good guy has turned out to be a sour grapes weasel.

Amen #3. I’ve heard about enough of this moanfest from the TNG cast. Frakes is about the only one to have taken the high road since this project was announced. I’ll give him points for that. And from what I’ve gleaned from Internet gossip, his career is the only one of all of the TNG cast that could be considered a commercial post-TNG success, Patrick Stewart not withstanding. Spiner and Dorn should just guzzle a nice tall glass of STFU and get on with their lives.

Kudos to Data, uh, Brent.
I liked a lot of pieces of the STX, but the film as a whole seemed to focus too much on the effects (some of which looked pricey, but dull.)
Hey, maybe in STXI, they could journey to the planet that Tom Cruise comes from and that would explain his behavior.
(I know, I know, the planet Scientology is just too scary.)

Nemesis was also a disaster because John Logan’s script just wasn’t that great. The plot actually reminded me a lot of Gladiator. It was just to brooding and self-reflective. The TNG movies (especially Generations) were all too self-reflective and tended to be a little narcisstic (First Contact excluded) because of it.

Let’s keep the plot focused on adventure and the unknown.

Whatever else they do in STXI, they MUST bring back go-go boots and mini’s!

So let me get this straight,

Star Trek XI is a gamble and J.J. Abrams producing and directing could potentially be a mistake = Im out of work and I suck.

Alright, point taken Spiney.

Yea, I figured walking into this thread would become one big feast for the vultures that peck and peck at anything Non-TOS.
I will grant that Spiner has sour-grapes. I’d get tired of hearing about my failures too… over and over again on fan-sites, etc.
However, I do think that #9 Duane said it best.
On another note…
Did you read the whole article?
“But I think he (JJ) could be the guy to do it. He’s a perfectly capable guy and his shows are fun and he seems to know what he’s doing.”
Point taken?

more sour grapes from yet another tng actor

24 – LOL! Well said. What’s with those guys, anyway? Live and let live, why not.

#23, Hey Josh, how goes it?

I commented above about Brent, so I won’t repeat the whole thing, but basically whenever a studio spends over $100 million on any movie (aside from a hot franchsie like Harry Potter or Spider-Man) there’s going to be a gamble. I do agree that Spiner is probably motivated by sour grapes to make that comment, but objectively, I think its clear that blockbusters are less common than 20 years ago, and people prefer to watch movies at home more and more.

Goofy Bastards, TNG is a product of the 80’s. Kind of like the one hit wonders on the radio at that time. Great to hear a Tears for Fears song but “Mexican Radio” by who? By the time people want to see TNG again the cast will all be dead. I like how the secondary cast talks smack about Insurrection and Nemesis but their pie holes were shut at the time to collect a paycheck. Same with Spiner, what a jackass!

Darth “Open your Mouth” Ballz

Darth Ballz – best poster name yet!!!

Totally unrelated to Trek but a little cinema heads-up to the gang:

I saw Rocky Balboa last night and I was pleasantly surprised. It was very gratifying to see a movie that treats an iconic character with real human emotion. Stallone did a great job acting wise and the movie is a proper send-off to a character that has been a part of my cinema life for well, all of my life. Check it out!

Hopefully Trek XI will equally imbue the beloved characters of Kirk and Spock with the same love and care.

Bash, bash, bash, bash, bash!

Must we be so mean? Mr. Spiner was only answering a question. He was relating his thoughts, just as we all do here. Let’s not skewer the man just because he has an opinion.

Star Trek XI isn’t anything until the film is finished. Until then it’s just an abstraction, an idea. Let’s see how it develops before we get all wiggy (or not) about it. Sure, Spiner’s comments might sound a bit harsh, but overall he isn’t incorrect. Traditionally, the Star Trek feature films have had a tough time breaking the ceiling into the mainstream. TMP, THV, and First Contact were the only ones to really do so. Despite having iconic characters and a setting almost everyone is familiar with, at its core Trek is still a cult phenomenon. Paramount’s choice to put JJ Abrams at the helm is, financially at least, a good start for the new film. He has a knack for developing properties from a cult status into mainstream consciousness. His two shows, Alias and Lost, are perfect examples of this. He also knows how to interweave and layer character interaction in a dramatic, interesting way. And he creates wonderfully textured villains that the audience can despise yet still relate to. If Abrams is allowed to do what he does best, and if he sticks to concepts already embedded in the Star Trek mythos, I believe he can make one hell of a terrific movie. One that Trek fans will love and the general public will embrace as well.

Until 2008, however, we’re all just talking heads venting our spleens over soundbites and snippets of print. We’re starting to sound like the overstuffed pundits on CNN or FOX News. As Trek fans, let’s try to take the higher road and try to keep things civil. We’re all hoping for the same thing here, a return to greatness for Star Trek. Let’s remember that.

Does anyone remember that Nemesis openned just 5 days before The Two Towers. It may not have been the best Trek film, but part of the reason it lost money was because of the ill-timed release date.

Data is also not dead. They pulled the old Spock trick from Trek II. “Remember?” Data’s “katra”, if you will, is in B-4. All they have to do is upgrade B-4 or find a way to build a new android. It also goves the writers a way to bring him back even if they don’t bring back Spiner.

All of that said, I am more than happy to see a new direction for Trek. I do not think Mr. Spiner is out of line with his comments. The new movie will have to be exceptionally good to bring in more than your average Trek fan.

Data doesn’t have a katra. He’s just a computer program. So yeah, all they have to do is download him into his B4. But who really cares? Not like anyone saw Nemesis anyway. On to more important things, like the return of Kirk.

33 Oh, like you don’t talk enough about that as it is. (Rolls eyes)

32 Absolutely right about Two Towers, and it was a very packed release schedule throughout that holiday season.

At least with someone like Abrams behind Trek XI, there’ll be enough of a newness factor to Trek again that it’ll be able to compete for the public’s attention against other movies. Here’s hoping it’s a great success (but more importantly, that it’s great Star Trek).

I saw Nemesis when it came out and instantly forgot about it. I have little or no recollection of anything that happened in it. It was that forgettable. I don’t really blame anyone because I’m not sure what I would be blaming them for.
I do really hate thinking about how horrible the next one will probably be. The whole idea of other actors playing the classic roles is bad enough, but in all likelihood it will deviate too far from the original style in production design, costuming, music and style of filming to hold any interest for me.
I really don’t care how much or little they spend on it.

I know people bash Nemesis, but I really enjoyed the battle sequences. The dune buggy and B-4 should have been left out…and it should have delivered on its promise to delve into the romulans more. Movie trek is always klingons klingons klingons here they pulled a slight of hand of sorts as all the advance stuff made it clear it was about the severly underused Romulans..and yet it really wasnt. and that is the biggest crime of Nemesis.
Spiner had been moaning about growing old and playing Data for years, and here he had the chance to go out gracefully and they pull the rediculous B-4 crap. If B-4 and dune buggys are understanding the francise I think I’ll pass. Oh and showtunes too, lets not forget how well Patrick Stewart knew the francise when he had Picard sing showtunes in the ever dreadfull Insurrection-which he was very much involved in creatively. I’ll take Shatner’s Rockmen over showtunes any day.
I think i’ve rambled enough

re 36 (and previous posts)

As much as I like the characters of Picard and Data, I think the actors egos had a huge part to play in what was wrong with both insurrection and nemesis.

I believe Patrick Stewart and Brent Spiner were creatively involved with both scripts, and the scripts were filled with clones and twin robots of who else? Silliness. Terrible movies both.


This is a TOS blog only. Enjoy your new audience.

TNG was Roddenberry’s vision just as the TOS was. They actually do nicely contrast and compliment each other. Seriously. Some of my favorite Trek of all time are 2nd and 3rd season TNG. Then the Great Bird died and Berman ran all things Trek into the ground. During TNG’s zenith, my wife and I looked forward to Saturday nights to see new episodes with glee. By the time Nemesis came out, we left the theater both depressed and sad for what TNG had become. Spiner is wrong. There is a huge potential for Trek to crossover with the right script, the right cast and the right product. Now that Berman and his loyalists are out, there is hope again.

#31: Buckaroohawk – well said!

Although I’ve been a Trek fan since the early seventies, and seen every episode of every incarnation, I have little faith that the Powers That Be can pull off a mainstream Trek XI. (Of course I could be wrong – after all, the Doctor Who TV series was successfully rebooted after years of hiatus.)

But to me Trek seems quite spent. I loved both TOS and TNG, and can attest that today’s high school students still recognize references to each of those series. But the franchise slowly unraveled. DS9 was an interesting, if quite uneven, dark re-imagining. Voyager was derivative and Enterprise was simply desperate. Even the movie franchise fell apart when we finally had a disappointing “even-numbered” picture.

The XI concept of recasting a young Kirk and Spock is as disturbing to me as was infantilizing the Warner Brothers cartoon characters in their more recent incarnations. And it would be a mighty struggle to successfully integrate the look and feel of a 2008 theatrical movie with that of a 1960s low-budget TV show. The movies had an immense advantage in being allowed to assume that future styles and technology had progressed past TOS. I have never bought into Harve Bennett’s Star Fleet Academy concept: Shatner, Nimoy, and Kelley – not just Kirk, Spock, and McCoy – were what made TOS work so well.

Frankly, Trek just seems increasingly hokey compared to the technology of today, something that is unavoidable for a 40-year-old show. I find myself drawn much more to the dark glories of the new Battlestar Galactica. Trek is from another era, and I have grave doubts it will translate well into new movies. But here’s hoping I’m very very wrong!

Galactica Schmalactica

#34 You forgot to put the word “Sucks” between Trekweb and forever.

Anyway, since Roddenberry died I have been concerned about ANYONE understanding Star Trek. Say what you will about Roddenberry but at least when he was alive he could throw a fit and have at least SOME pull since he created Trek.

Nevertheless, I am holding out hope that Trek XI will be good….I am just not going to judge it until I see it. The fact that the old Paramount regime is gone — to me — is a positive until proven otherwise.


#14: “By “bias” I mean that Spiner is insinuating that Nemesis failed at the box office because the mainstream doesn’t want to see Star Trek movies. ”

Well, I don’t know that he’s wrong. Trek fans can complain about the movie all they want on the premise that they *know* why it failed, but pretty bad “Star Trek” films have made money in the past.

Spiner works about as much as he wants. I’ve always liked his attitude toward Trek and his own “celebrity;” he has a very dry wit and seems completely unimpressed with the Importance Of It All. He’s just about the opposite of the Trek supporting players who suck up to fans, usually by going on about the Meaning of Trek (but occasionally by making a practice of dissing those behind-the-scenes folks that they know fans don’t like).

I can’t dislike a guy who once listed his plans for a season’s hiatus as “touring with a one-man show as Lorne Greene reading the works of Graham Greene, with incidental music by Verde.” :lol:

OK…The Two Towers took a bite out of the box office for Nemisis. But remember…it didn’t even win it’s opening weekend. It came in second to a Jennifer Lopez movie for heaven’s sake! Bad movie? Fan ambivilence? Retread of TWOK? Whatever. It was a stinker.

40 – I completely agree with what you said about it being difficult to reconcile the look expected of a 2008 blockbuster with that of a 1960s low budget tv series.

I wonder if this is something TOS purists are really prepared for. If Trek XI is really going to take place in TOS era, and if Paramount is actually going to spend the kind of money Spiner is talking about here, there is NO way that the studio is going to allow replicas of the old bridge sets and passageways to fill up the screen. Yes, the old sets are classic, but if any Trekkers or Trekkies here think that the old style look will put butts in the seats opening night, you’re sadly deluded.

Keep in mind Abrams was willing to make significant revisions to the Superman mythos, back when he was working on that project (before it was stopped in favor of Bryan Singer’s version). Now while everything I hear makes it sound like Abrams is willing to keep this new movie in line with canon, I’m positive that only extends to the “history” of the Trek universe, not the look.

When the new movie comes out, it’ll be imperative that Paramount and everybody involved hits everyone between the eyes with the fact that this Trek is new and different. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if their ad campaign was something along the lines of “This isn’t your daddy’s Star Trek,” or something to that effect. Key to that effort will be showing people images of the Trek universe as they have never seen it before–radically different bridge, reflecting updates in current technology, different ship designs, and so on. Whatever new regime is out there has absolutely no vested interested in hanging on to the same old look and feel.

Brace yourselves, folks. It will probably turn out that TOS era looks nothing like we remember, come 2008.

Great, another commentary in which most of posters either ignored or misinterpreted what was said in the original article, skipping common sense and decency and moving right on to the ignorant bashing. At least READ and UNDERSTAND what the interviewee is saying first before commenting, rather than just glancing over the first few line and screaming “foul!”

Yes, I’m sure Spiner is sour that his movie wasn’t successful. We have all had major projects planned and have been greatly disappointed if they don’t work out well. I doubt Spiner is reeling too much, however, since he can pretty much come back to Trek whenever there is need for him (i.e. the Augment Crisis arc on Enterprise). He wasn’t putting the blame of the film’s failure on audiences, he was merely stating fact: there are only certain people who will leave the comfort of their own homes to see a Star Trek movie. In this day and age, it will take a LOT of effort for a non-Star Wars science fiction film — especially one without a name star — to bring in a large audience. Recent films such as “The Island” and “Serenity” suffered for much the same reason “Nemesis” did — there just wasn’t a huge enough audience out there interested in that type of film. Granted, poor reviews and word-of-mouth most certainly didn’t help it, but the main reason is a lack of audience — and it is this which Spiner fears may lead Abrams and Paramount to great disappointment should the spend a buttload of money on the next film.

Nowhere in the quotes above does Spiner put the blame for the failure of his film on the audience, he is merely stating that recent Trek has not been mainstream and that past efforts to make it mainstream (“Nemesis” included) have failed, and he thinks that Abrams may be able to accomplish that feat. But apparently some of you (but certainly not all, don’t get me wrong) are too dense to see that, and instead just go to the bashing just because you didn’t like the last movie. There’s a term for some of the comments I’ve seen here: they’re called temper-tantrums. Please. Grow up.

45 “there is NO way that the studio is going to allow replicas of the old bridge sets and passageways to fill up the screen. Yes, the old sets are classic, but if any Trekkers or Trekkies here think that the old style look will put butts in the seats opening night, you’re sadly deluded.”

I know one butt that won’t be in the seat any night if it deviates too far from the real thing.

People don’t want to see a Stra Trek movie because ther are …Bad.
STII & STIV were good movies and that’s want got the “Cross over” crowd to come and see them.

The Next Gen movies became increasingly about Picard, Data and Worf. If you were to edit out all the scenes in ‘Nemisis’ that did not include Picard, Data or Shinzon, the movie would be the same. it was their movie. Brent and his boyfriend wrote the story and no one wanted to see it, because it was bad, not ‘Too dark’ or ‘Too Star Trek’ just ‘Bad’. I can see why he is negative on Star Trek after pretty much everyone rejected his creative input into the franchise.

I make the point about Brent bringing in his boyfriend not to ‘Out’ him- as if everyone didn’t already know ala George Takei, but to make the point they became vanity projects for the main stars and the stories became weaker and weaker as a result. There was no creative force behind the scenes just accountants.

Star Trek as it stands now is one giant mossaic of 500 hours (there are a few good ones in there) of balnd story telling. J.J. Abrams has deminstarted his ability to tell agreat story AND have clout to to have final say over his story, and that is a very important piece of the puzzel.

47 And I’m saying Paramount will happily accept that outcome if they think they can capture a big piece of the mainstream audience by changing things up. Since the core fanbase is dwindling anyway, the studio will be more willing to gamble on developing a newer, younger fanbase from which to draw its cash flow from. Right now they’re hoping they can keep the old fans while drawing in new ones–but if it looks like they can’t have both, trust me, they’ll ditch the old ones.

They will back their money truck right over your prone body lying in protest if that’s what it takes to get to the bigger sacks of cash.

The “crossover crowd” didn’t really show up for ST:TWOK after the opening weekend. The film eventually made about 83 million dollars on first release, which was pretty good but beaten by a number of other skiffy films opening that Summer. After ST:TSFS made a little less than TWOK in first release, Bennett remarked that “the audience for ‘Star Trek’ doesn’t grow.” Of course, then came ST:TVH, which got butts into the seats because it was actually a great funny popcorn movie.