Bond Bug
-
Posts
1,170 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Bond Bug
-
-
No. He keeps harping on "you feature space travel, you are sci-fi" nonsense. By that definition, we are living the sci-fi dream RIGHT NOW.
Btw, Gravity is not about science. Space just happens to be the setting.
The dictionary definition stated: "fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component."
Gravity is a fiction (an imaginary plot that involved things going wrong) dealing with the impact of actual science (shuttle and space walking) on individuals (the Clooney and Bullock characters). And certainly it has a scientific factor as an essential orientating component.
As for Cjohn's comment, he is right (space travel is a science and provides an essential orientating component in space travel movies). Therefore, the dictionary definition is in agreement with what he says. Why then, is it necessary for you to be offensive to him? Do you want to insult the authors of the Merriam-Webster dictionary too?
-
I think you should apologize to Cjohn. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science%20fiction Definition of SCIENCE FICTIONTHIS IS MADNESS!!!
Seriously, how can someone be so dense...
Sci-fi is real!!! We have astronauts after all... *lol*
: fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component -
Everything about making storytelling movies is fiction you know. Even Apollo 13 taking liberties with reality (so fictional in parts) and yet not called a science fiction movie.
But people are using different denominations for movies that have the same settings and display the same technology. That's what people are bickering about. Everything that appears in Gravity do exist in our reality and is performed in our present day. The only thing that is fiction is " Shuttle dysfunction, debris, astronauts drifting" but the premise is nothing "science fictioney".
When a movie that features present day technology and science as a backdrop would not be considered a science fiction movie then? In 50 years, in 100 years?
So a movie featuring Iphone 5 is scifi?
Okay, so if everything is fiction in the movies, when you used the example of movie with a dog in space, that would be science fiction too.
-
And if they'd just add "Based on real events", it is not despite being the same movie.
Take an example. 2 movies with the same premise: Sending an animal on Earth's orbit in a space shuttle nowadays.
Let's follow people's logic saying Gravity is scifi through and through:
- Movie A is about sending a dog in orbital space so by their logic Movie A is not scifi because it has been done.(See Laïka)
- Movie B is a movie about sending a raccoon in orbital space so by their logic it is scifi because it hasn't been done (Send a raccoon on orbit).
Both movies display the same science and technology that can send living mammals on orbit in our present day.
That classification is quite ludicrous.
'B' is science fiction, and 'A' is science fact. What is your problem?
-
Eric Bana needs a new agent.
-
Somebody told me this was about a ship that sunk.
-
Brad Pitt is set to get his first $200m movie.
-
2
-
-
Excited about this movie, but lots of opportunity for them to mess it up. I hope they keep it light, like the TV show. Good news about Hugh Grant.
-
1
-
-
What a fabulous clip. You know the technology of SFX has been very advanced that we could do anything we can imagine, but we haven't got any film like that untill now. It must've been a hell of a job, and I'm glad Alfonso managed to work it out and push the envelope. I remember there was an interview that Del Toro said Alfonso actually consulted Cameron during the shooting and Cameron called him crazy to even think of doing that. Yeah, when a crazy man calls you crazy, you know you are doing something astonishing.
I agree 100%, but I can't see it translating to a breakout box office.
-
Looking at the clips, this has 'borefest' written all over it. A big yawn means a box office flop.
-
"The Heat is tracking almost identically to Identity Thief and will likely finish in the same Box Office ballpark so I don't see how Bullock mattered."
Actually, The Heat is already tracking $20m ahead of Identity Thief.
BRIDESMAIDS
DAY 19
$1,937,490
TOTAL
$91,280,955
I.D. THIEF
DAY 19
$1,224,360
TOTAL
$95,778,355
THE HEAT
DAY 19
$2,175,635
TOTAL
$116,310,037
-
2
-
-
Not really. If an actor has worked for 20 years without being a draw and then suddenly has two big hits then it is illogical to assume that he/she was the prime mover. The Proposal was Bullock's first hit movie in 9 years. It was Ryan Reynolds second hit movie in two months. X-Men came out in may of that year. It was a movie that worked for some reason but no one can legitimately claim Sandra Bullock opened that movie.
The Heat is tracking almost identically to Identity Thief and will likely finish in the same Box Office ballpark so I don't see how Bullock mattered.
The X-men audience and The Proposal audience are mostly different. I doubt X-men had much to do with The Proposal being a success. However, I do agree that Melissa McCarthy has quickly established herself as a marketable brand and she should take most of the credit for The Heat being a hit. Her audiences know what they are getting for their money.
McCarthy is the most marketable movie star right now, but The Heat is a buddy movie and I can't think of better casting than Sandra Bullock who is well remembered in comedy and cop comedy-- Miss Congeniality was huge--and her profile has never been higher after The Proposal and The Blind Side were massive hits and the Oscar win. The combination of Bullock and McCarthy was needed to make The Heat as big as it is. There are no other actresses who could have delivered box office better than McCarthy and Bullock. To say Bullock didn't matter is to assume you could drop another female star into the Bullock role and the movie would be as successful. I don't think that is the case at all. Do you have any suggestions who could have replaced Bullock?
-
Um it depends comedies have no need to be over 1 hr and 40 mins and animation films as well.
Generic non comic book films should not be over 2 hours.
Comic books never longer then 2.5 hrs.
It depends I really like thold epic films of days past that were like 3 and 3.5 hrs long. The really told a grand story and by the end you go wow look at how the film started and where it ended.
That was my thinking when I watched films like Lawrence of Arabia, GWTW, Ben Hur and Godfather and such.
Do you think 1 hour, 35 minutes and 22 seconds would be good length for a comedy?
-
My ideal movie length is 1 hour, 53 minutes and 42 seconds.
-
4
-
-
Just when I thought it was time for the Office to come to the end because it was getting stale, one of the best shows in the series last night, and then next week it all ends. Oh, the irony.
-
Master bates isn't nearly as creepy as in Psycho.
-
This has so much potential. It could easily join the billion dollar club.
-
2
-
-
Their names were able to get the movie made. That's as far as it goes.
They should have had vetoed the trailer at least, and been pro-active in promoting the movie.
-
Oz number is about what I expected. The Call, while a little above what I expected (11-12 million), doesn't surprise me. I feel like almost every time here the urban demographic is underestimated. I have been to probably 6 advance screenings in the past few months and black women are almost always absent. However, at The Call, the audience was AT LEAST half black women. Take a very sellable premise, market it effectively and add in one of the few black leading ladies and they will come out, which is exactly what is happening.
The Wonderstone number, however, is truly baffling. I am a HUGE Carrell fan and even though I thought the trailers looked pretty bad the Carrell and Carey names together should at a minimum bring 20 million OW. Regardless of the premise. In my opinion, the most shocking opening of the year so far.
I agree that a movie like this SHOULD be a hit, but I blame the stars for resting on their laurels with regards to the marketing.
-
2
-
-
Those Burt Wonderstone numbers are fucking awful. The cast is great. How the hell can't the team Carrell/Carrey open a comedy to at least 15M?!
Bad trailer, bad marketing, bad reviews, total lack of buzz.
-
Thank you to Shawn and all the moderators.
-
2
-
-
Imagine if Tim Burton did it....
Impact, you always have the best ideas.
-
Where do you think the "buzz" for Skyfall initially came from? I'm talking about the buzz before the movie opened.
No, let me answer that Jessie, as you were so rude. It came from the media. You are telling me that 9 out of 10 people wouldn't know if Christopher Nolan was the new director? And you are telling me that the buzz in the media is going to build on Skyfall if the producers hire an old Bond director. I am talking about the producers having some control in the media story and building a higher sense of anticipation and excitement that can only come from making it fresh. Put an old Bond director in there, and what they did before is all that will be expected.
-
9/10 people who watch the bond movies have no idea or don't care who any of the directors are so this post is kind of irrelevant.
Where do you think the "buzz" for Skyfall initially came from? I'm talking about the buzz before the movie opened.
Gravity | Re-released on 2D and 3D January 17 | IMAX 3D on January 31! | 100M+ WW IMAX
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
Sandra Bullock's career is on fire! She should be firmly in the $20m club after this, along with Melissa McCarthy!