Wknd Estimates: Nolan = 50M | BH6 = 56M+(pg 72) (who cares, our forum lives!)

[Rudolf]

I think Paramount was also expecting between 50 M - 60 M.

that is what they say ( I don't believe it)

If IS ends with $45m, will they cry?

[kayumanggi]

INTERSTELLAR shouldn't be compared with GRAVITY. I'm saying this because I've seen the film. They are both set in space with characters in astronaut suits but that's it.

[filmscholar]

"Interstellar" numbers:

 

 

 

Lower than "Gravity" and "Prometheus".  Wow.  It's ok.  The film will gain a cult following, I'm sure of it. 

[Ezen Baklattan]

Was hoping for a bit of a higher increase for BH6, but this could potentially indicate more adult/teen demand from the film than initially expected.

[A Marvel Fanboy]

So IS is the second CONTACT.

[Sal]

I feel (and I have always felt) that the problem with Interstellar is that sci-fi (expecially if they are in space) is not what the public is not interested in. Unless you count Gravity as sci-fi it has been quite a while for the last succesfull one (I do not know what film thta would be). Interstellar is obviously not a flop, but I do think that is even harder for this kind of films to be made in the future.

 

Gavity IS sci-fi.  And GotG might have been Marvel but it's also sci-fi. Avatar is sci-fi too.  You can't say that the public doesn't like sci-fi.  You just have this unreleastic view that only hard sci-fi is actually sci-fi which isn't true.

 

According to the defintion: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life."  A lot of popular movies fall into this category.

[Dementeleus]

Ok, so the things we talked about on the phone....are you with me or do you have your own different complaints?

I'm mostly with you.

[Sal]

In principle you are right, but the success of Gravity contradicts you!

I think there should be a big distinction between sci-fi adventure movies (like StarWars,StarTrek, AVATAR,...) and classic sci-fi movies (like Prometheus,Gravity,Interstellar,...) The former have far better BO chances than the later.

 

There is a distinction, though I'd hardly say that 'classic' sci-fi is only movies like Prometheus and Interstellar!  Some of the earliest sci-fi movies (and indeed a great many of sci-fi movies through the years) are adventurous (and in some cases even campy).  Look at Flash Gordan.  It's one of the older sci-fi films out there.  Does the age not make it classic?  Or if you're going by older films which are popular, the original Star Wars came out in 1977 and has endured in popularity to this day.  Is that not a classic?

[Dementeleus]

Just out of curiosity whose expectations is Interstellar opening under?

Read my club thread. I had 5 original members (who joined before the trailer) against something like 30 people.

[Dementeleus]

I'm surprised fishnets hasn't coined the term McCornaughey yet.

 

I still can't get over with cornography. lol

Reading some reviews last night, I saw David Edelstein coined the term "Nolanoids".

[Rudolf]

Gavity IS sci-fi.  And GotG might have been Marvel but it's also sci-fi. Avatar is sci-fi too.  You can't say that the public doesn't like sci-fi.  You just have this unreleastic view that only hard sci-fi is actually sci-fi which isn't true.

 

According to the defintion: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life."  A lot of popular movies fall into this category.

A lot of succesful movies have plots, that are not real in our everyday 21st century world. These are either historic films, set in the future or they deal with fantastic events like magic. If some (today) impossible feature is explained by science (or at least what Hollywood thinks, it is), we call it science fiction. For me if they fight with swords it is fantasy (like StarWars(light sabers) or HarryPotter(magic wands)), if they fight with guns (like StartTrek (ray guns)) it is science fiction.

 

I know that is oversimplification.

[Rudolf]

There is a distinction, though I'd hardly say that 'classic' sci-fi is only movies like Prometheus and Interstellar!  Some of the earliest sci-fi movies (and indeed a great many of sci-fi movies through the years) are adventurous (and in some cases even campy).  Look at Flash Gordan.  It's one of the older sci-fi films out there.  Does the age not make it classic?  Or if you're going by older films which are popular, the original Star Wars came out in 1977 and has endured in popularity to this day.  Is that not a classic?

What is classic?

I meant primarily those in the first pulp fictions, where rocketmen were the protagonists.

[Sal]

A lot of succesful movies have plots, that are not real in our everyday 21st century world. These are either historic films, set in the future or they deal with fantastic events like magic. If some (today) impossible feature is explained by science (or at least what Hollywood thinks, it is), we call it science fiction. For me if they fight with swords it is fantasy (like StarWars(light sabers) or HarryPotter(magic wands)), if they fight with guns (like StartTrek (ray guns)) it is science fiction.

 

I know that is oversimplification.

 

This is what it says on the wiki definition:  Science fiction is largely based on writing rationally about alternative possible worlds or futures.  It is similar to, but differs from fantasy in that, within the context of the story, its imaginary elements are largely possible within scientifically established or scientifically postulated physical laws (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

 

It's really hard to define what is and what is not sci fi, but if it's got space ships it's at least sci-fi fantasy (fantasy within the sci-fi genre).

Edited November 9, 2014 by Sal

[Master Scottb]

I feel (and I have always felt) that the problem with Interstellar is that sci-fi (expecially if they are in space) is not what the public is not interested in. Unless you count Gravity as sci-fi it has been quite a while for the last succesfull one (I do not know what film thta would be). Interstellar is obviously not a flop, but I do think that is even harder for this kind of films to be made in the future.

 

I think the difference between this and Gravity is that Gravity was kind of a 3D event movie similar to Avatar where the 3D experience was a major part of what made the movie work. The 3D experience of floating in space and stunning visuals were what drew people to Gravity.

[stuart360]

Gavity IS sci-fi.  And GotG might have been Marvel but it's also sci-fi. Avatar is sci-fi too.  You can't say that the public doesn't like sci-fi.  You just have this unreleastic view that only hard sci-fi is actually sci-fi which isn't true.

 

According to the defintion: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life."  A lot of popular movies fall into this category.

 

4 of the top 10 biggest films of all time are space/sci-fi films, including the no.1 biggest of all time.

 

Some of these excuses need to stop. Make a space/sci-fi film that people want to see and they will see it in droves.

[The Stingray]

4 of the top 10 biggest films of all time are space/sci-fi films, including the no.1 biggest of all time.

 

Some of these excuses need to stop. Make a space/sci-fi film that people want to see and they will see it in droves.

 

I doubt Nolan's ambition here was to break records. If it were, I'm sure he would have made a very different movie.

[forg]

I'm guessing with a darker palette (it didn't look as glossy as Inception was) some  casual  viewers might feel the movie is too dreary so they were not enticed to watch, could have affected the box office.

[stuart360]

I doubt Nolan's ambition here was to break records. If it were, I'm sure he would have made a very different movie.

 

Oh i agree. Its just many excuses are coming out now for Interstellar and one of them is that space/sci-fi films don't make big business which is total bullshit.

[forg]

BoxOffice ‏@BoxOffice now11 seconds ago

INTERSTELLAR opened with an estimated $50.0M this weekend. 5-Day domestic total stands at $52.15M. #Interstellar

[stuart360]

I'm guessing with a darker palette (it didn't look as glossy as Inception was) some  casual  viewers might feel the movie is too dreary so they were not enticed to watch, could have affected the box office.

 

Its very sterile looking, almost black and white in some scenes.

 

I was expecting a lot more lush looking planets, maybe even alien life found. I also expected a lot more exploration once they went through the worm hole but the film was definitely more a character piece than a space opera.