Emma1420

For me it's Christian Slater. He was in the same league as Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise in the late 80's and early 90's. And now, he's basically a tv series worst nightmare. His last three tv series have been cancelled within the first season. I don't know what happened to him. I tend to think that 10 years from now Orlando Bloom will be in the same position as Slater. Actors who got a break on an ensemble movie (like the LOTR actors), I didn't expect to become big breakout stars. I think Orlando Bloom only managed it because he was also in the Pirates movies.

It isn't really, but I understand why the perception is that it is disappointing. In 2012 and 2013, Ithere have been 6 movies that opened over 100 million. It seems to becoming more common. We are now seeing openings over 150 million on a more regular basis. I think when you start to see those kind of figures more regularly then seeing an opening weekend for a big budget blockbuster in the 70 million or 80 million range does appear disappointing.

I think Clooney's quote in that article kind of sums it up “There has to be a reason for it, and there’s a reason for the 3D in this film,” I don't understand why analysts don't get that upcoming releases like Thor, The Hobbit, aren't going to do better at the 3D box office simply because Gravity did well. They are making a correlation where none exists. Gravity only reinforces that audiences will pay the extra premium for 3D if they feel like the 3D really makes a significant difference in the movie watching experience, and when it doesn't they won't.

I will be curious about the Sunday numbers for Gravity, because my showing this morning was packed, which is atypical during football season.The movie was excellent. The special effects were amazing, but the story and script were excellent, and Sandra Bullock's performance was top notch. So it's great to see such a well deserving movie do well at the box office.

I'm disappointed that PR isn't doing better. It's not a good film, but I thought it was a fun entertaining one. I thought the character development was lousy, and that the focus on the film should have been on some of the supporting characters as their backstories were the most interesting. However, most big summer blockbusters have the same problems. The biggest problem that PR had was that it had piss poor marketing. Because the film did have a human element that I think would have appealed to the GA if it had been advertised appropriately. Glad to see that DM2 is still going strong though.

I am assuming that 1.5-1.6 for TLR wouldn't be such a great start?

I think he'll be much better off if he does some roles where he gets a lot of critical praise and perhaps an Oscar nod. I think he will do better long-term. And he seems to be doing that with Foxcatcher, not putting all his eggs in one basket. Which is smart.

I'm looking forward to seeing WHD's numbers. Or at least see how dismal they are.

I also think that the studios marketed the differences pretty well, because the asteroid was the only thing they had in common. They also both had really strong casts. The few people I know who have seen it basically said WHD was a fun movie, but was trying way too hard to be like Die Hard.I also think that there is a probably some action movie fatigue with GA. Afterall, action movies of one sort or another have dominated the BO since May. So that probably contributed as well.

I do as well. Its great when everything is performing as expected or better, not so much if that doesn't happen. It is no wonder Sony released dates for the next two Spider-Man sequels, it seems to be the only guaranteed money maker they have at this point.

Depp, Downey, and Pitt aren't only A listers because they have had multiple 100m movies, but they have also all received multiple academy award nominations, and have been around for decades to develop that sort of status. While, I have no doubt that CT is a box office draw, he's still new to Hollywood. He's been around a few years. It remains to be seen if he'll become the next Depp or if he'll become the next Josh Harnett.

I think 45m is probably being a bit too generous with the Heat, but given it's production budget I think any opening over 30m would be fine.

I only ever pay to see a 3D version of a movie if it's available in IMAX, and even then I prefer the 2D format most of the time. Especially when the majority of movies don't really offer much more in terms of viewing experience when they are in 3D.

For me...STID 6/10IM3 7/10MoS 7/10WWZ 5/10IM3 would have ranked higher if they had gotten rid of a lot of stuff in the middle of the movie. That bored me to tears. STID I really wanted to like, but I had major issues when the last third of that film.

I think it has to be more than just Lex, and I have zero interest to see Lex obsessed with land.