Gravity | Re-released on 2D and 3D January 17 | IMAX 3D on January 31! | 100M+ WW IMAX

[Cochofles]

I have a hunch this will be a hit. Funny how when Bullock first made it big, everyone called her "the next Julia Roberts," and she, for a while, had some modest hits, but seemed to always be in the shadow of her fellow brown-haired American Sweetheart. Now Roberts can't get arrested at the box office, and Bullock is having a great career renaissance with The Proposal, Blind Side, an Oscar, and The Heat.

Edited July 14, 2013 by cochofles

[A Marvel Fanboy]

So Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, Bullock, Nicole Kiddman, Cameron Diaz, Meg Ryan ... which one was the biggest draw ?

[Michael Gary Scott]

So Julia Roberts, Angelina Jolie, Bullock, Nicole Kiddman, Cameron Diaz, Meg Ryan ... which one was the biggest draw ?

Probably Roberts in her prime as much as I hate to admit that

[Dementeleus]

I'm with kowhite -- I have little doubt it'll be a solid movie, but I don't know whether it'll catch on much at all.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

Probably Roberts in her prime as much as I hate to admit that

 

 

why ?

Edited July 14, 2013 by firedeep

[Michael Gary Scott]

why ?

Not really a fan

[Gopher]

I've seen this trailer with all of WB's tentpoles this summer. Looks great- especially in IMAX 3D- but I really wish Cloud Atlas had this same level of exposure. I only saw that trailer with Argo. 

Edited July 14, 2013 by Gopher

[Cochofles]

 

 

 

why ?

 

 

The box office numbers are there. In her prime, Julia Roberts was a bigger draw than any of those other women: http://www.the-numbers.com/person/750401-Julia-Roberts

 

She's had 7 films (as a lead) that grossed over 100 million, and a bunch of others that adjust to over 100 million. In the summer of 1999 alone she had two 100-million-plus grossers (Runaway Bride and Notting Hill).

[Cochofles]

And by the way, Kidman was never really a draw. She was more of an It Girl with actual acting talent that Hollywood fell in love with, but she never really delivered the box office numbers.

[kowhite]

I'm with kowhite -- I have little doubt it'll be a solid movie, but I don't know whether it'll catch on much at all.

It's funny cause the one reason it might actually manage is Bullock...the one thing that makes me go huh on this flick.But this may be too far gone for her fans. And she's not sure fire box office, though she's certainly doing well as of late. I'd love for this to be her Blind Side of 2013, like how The Heat is her Proposal, if for no other reason than seeing Cuaron have a hit. Children of Men s box office was a crime against humanity, that movie was great.

[Mango]

I've seen this trailer with all of WB's tentpoles this summer. Looks great- especially in IMAX 3D- but I really wish Cloud Atlas had this same level of exposure. I only saw that trailer with Argo. 

 

Oh my gosh if WB fucks this up like they did Cloud Atlas I will be so pissed off.

[kowhite]

The box office numbers are there. In her prime, Julia Roberts was a bigger draw than any of those other women: http://www.the-numbers.com/person/750401-Julia-Roberts She's had 7 films (as a lead) that grossed over 100 million, and a bunch of others that adjust to over 100 million. In the summer of 1999 alone she had two 100-million-plus grossers (Runaway Bride and Notting Hill).

I really judge the power of a star by their muscle on not only delivering hits, but delivering hits that would've done nothing without them. Sleeping With the Enemy is pure Roberts star power...there's only one reason anyone watched that crap. Granted her peak was the 90s...funny cause she still managed to have a lull in the middle of that decade. New mega star to old hat in 5 years...right back to resurgence in just a couple more. impressive.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

No trust on GA for geek films like this. They dont flock to this kind of stuff.

[kowhite]

No trust on GA for geek films like this. They dont flock to this kind of stuff.

I dont even trust the geeks to come out for this one.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

I really judge the power of a star by their muscle on not only delivering hits, but delivering hits that would've done nothing without them. Sleeping With the Enemy is pure Roberts star power...there's only one reason anyone watched that crap. Granted her peak was the 90s...funny cause she still managed to have a lull in the middle of that decade. New mega star to old hat in 5 years...right back to resurgence in just a couple more. impressive.

Currently:

 

SB can pull $150~200m grossers for comedies, dramas.

 

JR can still pull $50~100M for each of her films.

 

AJ only has some solid powers in actions.

 

Diaz draws around $100m at her best, but only in comedies.

 

Nicole's films can not even get a wide release.

 

Meg Ryan totally disappears from big screen.

 

Time changes

[A Marvel Fanboy]

I dont even trust the geeks to come out for this one.

Yeah, two astronauts floating in dark space for nearly two hours in 119 long and boring shots is just too weird to take for pretty much most folks.

[TLK]

It's funny cause the one reason it might actually manage is Bullock...the one thing that makes me go huh on this flick.But this may be too far gone for her fans. And she's not sure fire box office, though she's certainly doing well as of late. I'd love for this to be her Blind Side of 2013, like how The Heat is her Proposal, if for no other reason than seeing Cuaron have a hit. Children of Men s box office was a crime against humanity, that movie was great.

 

Currently:

 

SB can pull $150~200m grossers for comedies, dramas.

 

JR can still pull $50~100M for each of her films.

 

AJ only has some solid powers in actions.

 

Diaz draws around $100m at her best, but only in comedies.

 

Nicole's films can not even get a wide release.

 

Meg Ryan totally disappears from big screen.

 

Time changes

 

Sandra Bullock is over-rated at the box office. The Heat was all Melissa McCarthy and both of her movies will probably finish with identical domestic and WW gross. TBS and The Proposal would've done as well at the box office as they did with any other actress. She has less than half a dozen Box Office hit movies in over two decades which isn't an impressive track record.

Edited July 14, 2013 by TLK

[Dementeleus]

Yeah, two astronauts floating in dark space for nearly two hours in 119 long and boring shots is just too weird to take for pretty much most folks.

 

You never can really tell, though. APOLLO 13 was a fairly low-key docudrama that slavishly adhered to facts, and everyone knew the ending. Plus it took place in 1970, a time no one really cares about today (in terms of movies, anyway). And it made $170m. In 1995 dollars, with no 3D.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

You never can really tell, though. APOLLO 13 was a fairly low-key docudrama that slavishly adhered to facts, and everyone knew the ending. Plus it took place in 1970, a time no one really cares about today (in terms of movies, anyway). And it made $170m. In 1995 dollars, with no 3D.

But Hanks was at his peak then .... when super star alone could carry dramas to top five hits, maybe even top three, of the year.

 

Now movies sell best on characters and concepts, not stars, not even visuals.

Edited July 14, 2013 by firedeep

[Dementeleus]

But Hanks was at his peak then .... when super star alone could carry dramas to top five hits, maybe even top three, of the year.

 

Now movies sell best on characters and concepts, not stars, not even visuals.

 

Hanks was big, but believe me, it was far from a sure-fire hit before it was released. There was a general expectation that it might appeal to space and NASA fans and people with historical interest in the period but would be a reach for the GA.