Weekend Estimates: Gravity - 55.5M; CWACM - $21.5M ;RR - 7.6M;

[forg]

Correctty me if I'm wrong (and I probably am) but hasn't every Bullock film since 2007 (the proposal.) Had at least a 4.5 multiplier?

 

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close two years ago didn't do that well although she's not the lead there

[chasmmi]

Yeah and heat ' only' had a4 too. Fact remains that even ignoring the film it goes against pretty much her entire career for this not to hit x3

[StarSaber]

Gravity was AMAZING! It doing so well is even better now!

[kowhite]

Saw this today...wow, amazing. Amazing movie, easily my best of the year. I see this having great word of mouth too (yes, that's some prediction I made there ).200m here we come. I wouldn't have believed it just a few days ago.

[kowhite]

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close two years ago didn't do that well although she's not the lead there

Well, technically it had way more than a 4.5x multiplier....Yeah, yeah, limited release blah blah blah

[lilmac]

I kept wondering just how they made this movie, especially without use of the vomit comet (ala Apollo 13).  Having read about the puppeteering, I was even more surprised.  

 

I am so happy I avoided the ad campaign.  Having seen the trailers now, I never saw the space shuttle/space station getting shredded by the debris so that came as a pleasant surprise.  There are alot of other scenes and plot points that I'm glad were new to me.

Edited October 8, 2013 by lilmac

[DeeCee]

I managed to avoid the trailers as well. The little I know about a movie the more surprising and enjoyable it can be.

[kowhite]

I managed to avoid the trailers as well. The little I know about a movie the more surprising and enjoyable it can be.

Well, might I suggest not reading lilmacs post then...heh...

[Leyla]

well i couldnt avoid trailers that played before movies I saw in the cinema 

maybe i should have shut my eyes

Edited October 7, 2013 by Leyla

[rockNrollaDIM]

I kept wondering just how they made this movie, especially without use of the vomit comet (ala Apollo 13).  Having read about the puppeteering, I was even more surprised.  

 

I am so happy I avoided the ad campaign.  Having seen the trailers now, I never saw the space shuttle/space station getting shredded by the debris so that came as a pleasant surprise.  There are alot of other scenes and plot points that I'm glad were new to me.

 

Me too. I saw the teaser trailer a few times but otherwise I didn't see any of the money shots.

Edited October 7, 2013 by aDIM

[Leyla]

my poor gal Gemma

I still love you bb  Still love you bb even with all the bo fails & working with 2 blandest actors around

Edited October 7, 2013 by Leyla

[ladyevenstar22]

lilmac spoiler tags ?

 

ok i just woke up but now i remember i saw an early trailer which must have shown that bit but still its a huge spoiler if you haven't seen the movie or trailers , but it must have been a sneak peek because i don't remember seeing anyone's face sandra or george just people in space suits in space 

[4815162342]

The trailers/TV spots didn't spoil too much, but they do clearly show Bullock wearing two different space suits so it's obvious she goes inside somewhere at some point to change them.

[RichWS]

After months and months of rejecting 3D, analyst believes we've fallen in love with it all over again after one weekend.

 

http://www.thewrap.com/gravity-represents-turning-point-3d-box-office-analyst-says/

[kayumanggi]

The 3D share was higher than AVATAR's. That's crazy!

[zackzack]

The 3D share was higher than AVATAR's. That's crazy!

 

I think the project was initially conceived as a pure 3D showcase.

[Emma1420]

After months and months of rejecting 3D, analyst believes we've fallen in love with it all over again after one weekend.

 

http://www.thewrap.com/gravity-represents-turning-point-3d-box-office-analyst-says/

 

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.

[lab276]

After months and months of rejecting 3D, analyst believes we've fallen in love with it all over again after one weekend. http://www.thewrap.com/gravity-represents-turning-point-3d-box-office-analyst-says/

I've tracked the box office long enough to know that there is never a turning point. Edited October 7, 2013 by lab276

[A Marvel Fanboy]

"The 3D share was higher than AVATAR's. That's crazy!"

 

that's not crazy at all:

 

3150 of Gravity's 3575 theaters have 3D screens ---- 87%

2037 of Avatar's 3452 theaters have 3D screens ---- 59%

 

Avatar had only 3129 3D screens on its OW. Gravity had way more 3D screens, maybe 6000 of its 7600 screens.

 

Avatar OW 3D box office 55M with a way longer runtime, Gravity OW 3D box office 44M with a way shorter runtime. In other words, Avatar had way higher 3D per show attendance.

Edited October 7, 2013 by firedeep

[babz06]

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.

Yup. 3d works for certain films when it enhances the viewing experience.