is "Into Darkness" Quinto's last as Spock?

[Sindatur]

The Keeper wrote:

---

I believe the 1st JJ Trek film is still getting plenty of exposure to the public eye.

Our neighborhood big box store keeps a rather large, double-sided display of new releases right near the entrance. It's almost 'in the way', so to speak, you cannot miss it as you enter unless you are looking at the ceiling.

Since ST09 video release they have kept at least one quarter of one side stocked with the DVD/Blu-rays. I was there last month and the stockage was down to only a few couple copies remaining and I remember thinking, like many time before when the supply was dwindling - well that's probably going to be it, it's long exposure is probably ending. Nope. This month, as has been the case for the last 4 years, that shelf space was restocked with tens of dozens of the black and white covers shining out at me again.

It holds the record for being the 'oldest' new release on the display. Hundreds of other films have had their short time on the display and gone away forever but not ST09, it remains a hot seller.

Heh, that is my exact experience at my Walmart. At first, I thought the movie must've bombed on DVD for them to have had so much stock left over for so long, but, when I paid closer attention, I noticed that the Quanity did indeed fluctuate up and down to show they sold and were restocked.

[The Keeper]

^Heh, yeeeeah... how about that, an amazing coincidence!

Actually I was talking about WM as well. I didn't want to name-drop, though.

[Sindatur]

The Keeper wrote:

---

^Heh, yeeeeah... how about that, an amazing coincidence!

Actually I was talking about WM as well. I didn't want to name-drop, though.

Heh, I didn't even realize you said "Big Box Store" instead of a name, I guess I just assumed

[The Keeper]

Eh, no biggie. Anyway, it is pretty cool to know that over all this time someone else has been seeing the same thing as I have regarding the displays. :-)

Btw, based on your location, we haven't been visiting the same outlet. This is a fairly widespread phenomenon we've exposed, greatly validating the original point.

[AllStarEntprise]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

By that logic, the 4 year gap between Quantum of Solace and Skyfall killed the Bond franchise as well.

The difference there is that MGM the company that produces and distributes Bond went bankrupt in 2010. Puting cold water on any film that may have been slated for release . Mgm had to merge woth another company before they could get the finances to start making more Bond films. Delays are to be expected because of the circumstances. These things take time. 4 year gap with company close to bankruptcy vs a JJ who deliberately prolonged starting to film his sequel. His reluctance to say whether he would return as director or not despite Kurtzman and Orci in the middle of penning a sequel and needing assurances from producers and directors they would be working with.

JJ was all well and happy teasing the fans earlier this month November 5th about confirming Cumberbatch as a villain and show that 3 sec frame from Conan O'Brien. Disney announced it bough Lucasfilm on Oct 30th and also announced the making of new films. Brad Bird the pixar writer is already penning the film and now it has a director. With something like 9 month filming operation and maybe 6 months for sfx and editing for the film. VII will be hear very soon. Disney is on the ball to have this out asap.

With Trek still being viewed as "lame and cheesy" by most general audiences. It had a hard slope to climb already. People would rather watch garbage like Twilight en masses before buy a ticket to Trek. Again this is reflective of box office tickets. It just seems to me this synopsis dump we got recently is telling that Paramount and JJ may be worried of losing the public eye and be lost as among other summer movies next year. They already have Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 to compete with and both of those are expected to make $500 million+. What are Trek's expectations? Top $350 million.

[SalvorHardin]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

The difference there is that MGM the company that produces and distributes Bond went bankrupt in 2010. Puting cold water on any film that may have been slated for release . Mgm had to merge woth another company before they could get the finances to start making more Bond films. Delays are to be expected because of the circumstances. These things take time. 4 year gap with company close to bankruptcy vs a JJ who deliberately prolonged starting to film his sequel. His reluctance to say whether he would return as director or not despite Kurtzman and Orci in the middle of penning a sequel and needing assurances from producers and directors they would be working with.

Nobody on the general movie going audience gives a crap about studio politics and why a gap between movies is however long it is. I doubt they even know about any of it.

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

With Trek still being viewed as "lame and cheesy" by most general audiences. It had a hard slope to climb already. People would rather watch garbage like Twilight en masses before buy a ticket to Trek.

This isn't 2008, your argument is old and tired.
We already had a movie come out in 2009, one that managed to overcome the stigma of old school Trek.
It got butts in seats, people and critics liked it and made a profit. Which is why we're getting another one.

If they managed to sell that one with all the Trek baggage, why on Earth would they have trouble selling the 2013 movie to people?

[AllStarEntprise]

Not everyone is a huge Star Trek fan like we the people on this board are. You look at all the other successful current film franchises today Twilight, LOTR, Harry Potter, James Bond, Mission Impossible, Tranaformers and all these comic movies and what they all have in common is the general public isn't turned off by them. A quick trip to Boxofficemojo will settle any doubts. Even the 2012 re-release of Star Wars The Phantom Menace made more money in theatres than Star Trek 2009. And the The Phantom Menace is regarded as the worst Wars film. ST09 was Trek's best ever showing at the Box-office and its still behind Star Wars' worst. If TWOK was shown in theatres for a limited time in 3D how much do you think it would make? It would need to make more than $450 million to compete with TPM 3D. Sadly we know Trek doesn't have that kind of Star Power.

I have high hopes for Into Darkness. I feel it could top its predecessor, but at the same time it needs to do $500 million world wide to fully break the mold.

[Greg Cox]

There was a ten-year gap between TOS and TMP.

A ten-year gap between RETURN OF THE JEDI and THE PHANTOM MENACE.

A nine-year gap between THE RETURN OF THE KING and THE HOBBIT.

Heck, going back in time, there was a seven-year gap between HORROR OF DRACULA and DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS, but the Hammer DRACULA series went on for another decade or so.

Even further back, there was a four-year gap between FRANKENSTEIN and THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, and another four years between BRIDE and THE SON OF FRANKENSTEIN. Didn't hurt the box office any.

This is nothing new . . . or anything to be concerned about.

[SalvorHardin]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

Not everyone is a huge Star Trek fan like we the people on this board are. You look at all the other successful current film franchises today Twilight, LOTR, Harry Potter, James Bond, Mission Impossible, Tranaformers and all these comic movies and what they all have in common is the general public isn't turned off by them. A quick trip to Boxofficemojo will settle any doubts. Even the 2012 re-release of Star Wars The Phantom Menace made more money in theatres than Star Trek 2009. And the The Phantom Menace is regarded as the worst Wars film. ST09 was Trek's best ever showing at the Box-office and its still behind Star Wars' worst.

STID needs to make a profit and be financially successful based on its own budget. Not in comparison to what other movies made.

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

If TWOK was shown in theatres for a limited time in 3D how much do you think it would make? It would need to make more than $450 million to compete with TPM 3D. Sadly we know Trek doesn't have that kind of Star Power.

All irrelevant to STID and its future success or failure.
TWOK scenario you described wouldn't make much money back in 2009 either. That didn't stop the new movie from being a success.

[serenitytrek1]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

The difference there is that MGM the company that produces and distributes Bond went bankrupt in 2010. Puting cold water on any film that may have been slated for release . Mgm had to merge woth another company before they could get the finances to start making more Bond films. Delays are to be expected because of the circumstances. These things take time. 4 year gap with company close to bankruptcy vs a JJ who deliberately prolonged starting to film his sequel. His reluctance to say whether he would return as director or not despite Kurtzman and Orci in the middle of penning a sequel and needing assurances from producers and directors they would be working with.

JJ was all well and happy teasing the fans earlier this month November 5th about confirming Cumberbatch as a villain and show that 3 sec frame from Conan O'Brien. Disney announced it bough Lucasfilm on Oct 30th and also announced the making of new films. Brad Bird the pixar writer is already penning the film and now it has a director. With something like 9 month filming operation and maybe 6 months for sfx and editing for the film. VII will be hear very soon. Disney is on the ball to have this out asap.

With Trek still being viewed as "lame and cheesy" by most general audiences. It had a hard slope to climb already. People would rather watch garbage like Twilight en masses before buy a ticket to Trek. Again this is reflective of box office tickets. It just seems to me this synopsis dump we got recently is telling that Paramount and JJ may be worried of losing the public eye and be lost as among other summer movies next year. They already have Man of Steel and Iron Man 3 to compete with and both of those are expected to make $500 million+. What are Trek's expectations? Top $350 million.

Man of steel will be lucky to make 500 million next year,if iron man made 500 million next year it will be a big disappointment as the first two films earned more than that.


I believe Trek should make about 500 million next year since the first film made 386 million. however with trek it will depend on the critical reception.Trek is not as bullet proof as the star wars or twilight films, if the critics gives the film negative reviews then it will affect its box office.


However I have faith that star trek will be good judging from JJ Abrams track record.


JJ is yet to make a film or TV series that most of the critics hate,i hope he continues his winning streak with trek 2013.

[AllStarEntprise]

I added the '+' when talking about Iron Man and Man of Steel to show that both have expectations to hit above that mark. With Iron Man 1 and 2 both grossing more than $600 million each.

Warner Brothers has said that if the 2006 Superman Returns had made half a billion dollars they would've pushed harder for a sequel to that film. Man of Steel has a $500 million dollar bar it needs to jump.

Ideally I would like Into Darkness to make as much money as Ghost Protocol with more than $600 million dollar gross, but that may be hoping too much. You're right about Trek not being as "bullet proof" as Twilight and Star Wars. Which was my concern. With Star Wars having such strong Star Power and JJ being so tight lipped about his sequel movie it's hard not to assume that at this moment and possibly 6 months from now Wars' fire will be burning brighter than Trek's. With both a successful writer and director so far. The next step is casting and story details which will further fan Wars' fires.


Back to Quinto. I feel if there wasn't such a delay in the release of the two movies Quinto wouldn't be so ready to leave after the next film. You look at Trek actors what have they done that's had the same success as Trek 09? Pine did unstoppable which had moderate success. Saldana did Columbiana which was panned by critics and wasn't a big financial hit. Karl Urban did Dredd recently and that flopped at the B.O. The only actor who had any success after ST09 was Simon Pegg and he's barely in the first movie. As an actor you're a type of artist and you go where the work is. Quinto 35, doesn't want his only notable things to be Sylar from Heroes and Spock from Star Trek. With the Trek films being once in a blue moon thing apparently I see why he is looking at other opportunities

[King Daniel]

Well, since Trek is so hopelessly doomed we should all just quit now and go watch Star Wars

[serenitytrek1]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

I added the '+' when talking about Iron Man and Man of Steel to show that both have expectations to hit above that mark. With Iron Man 1 and 2 both grossing more than $600 million each.

Warner Brothers has said that if the 2006 Superman Returns had made half a billion dollars they would've pushed harder for a sequel to that film. Man of Steel has a $500 million dollar bar it needs to jump.

Ideally I would like Into Darkness to make as much money as Ghost Protocol with more than $600 million dollar gross, but that may be hoping too much. You're right about Trek not being as "bullet proof" as Twilight and Star Wars. Which was my concern. With Star Wars having such strong Star Power and JJ being so tight lipped about his sequel movie it's hard not to assume that at this moment and possibly 6 months from now Wars' fire will be burning brighter than Trek's. With both a successful writer and director so far. The next step is casting and story details which will further fan Wars' fires.


Back to Quinto. I feel if there wasn't such a delay in the release of the two movies Quinto wouldn't be so ready to leave after the next film. You look at Trek actors what have they done that's had the same success as Trek 09? Pine did unstoppable which had moderate success. Saldana did Columbiana which was panned by critics and wasn't a big financial hit. Karl Urban did Dredd recently and that flopped at the B.O. The only actor who had any success after ST09 was Simon Pegg and he's barely in the first movie. As an actor you're a type of artist and you go where the work is. Quinto 35, doesn't want his only notable things to be Sylar from Heroes and Spock from Star Trek. With the Trek films being once in a blue moon thing apparently I see why he is looking at other opportunities

Saldana was the lead actress in a little movie called Avatar.

[Devon]

AllStarEntprise wrote:

---

And the The Phantom Menace is regarded as the worst Wars film. ST09 was Trek's best ever showing at the Box-office and its still behind Star Wars' worst. If TWOK was shown in theatres for a limited time in 3D how much do you think it would make? It would need to make more than $450 million to compete with TPM 3D. Sadly we know Trek doesn't have that kind of Star Power.

The 3-D Version of the Phantom Menace only brought in $43.5 Million this year. I think you're seeing the lifetime box office for "The Phantom Menance" since it came out over a decade ago on BOMojo.com

[Ovation]

KingDaniel wrote:

---

Well, since Trek is so hopelessly doomed we should all just quit now and go watch Star Wars

Might as well. That's the one with the cute little robots, right?