Box Office Guru Wrapup: Gravity Stuns with Record $55M Launch

Oooo, a 2 minute scene discussing Bullock's life on home. Yeah, that's all the development there.

Oct 7 - 12:30 PM

I think it looks Amazing but what's with the 1940's Dialogue? A Woman in the Work Place!? HOW ABSURD! "HELP HELP I'M HYSTERICAL WOMAN! I NEED TO BE TOLD THE SIMPLISTIC TASK BY THE MAN OF MEN GEORGE CLOONEY! LIKE GRAB ON TO SOMETHING! THATS LIKE A MALE LIFE GUARD TELLING A HYSTERICAL WOMAN LIFE GUARD DON'T BREATH THE WATER! DON'T DROWN!" Seriously are the visuals worth all of that? Before you think of this as a Troll Rant. Would anybody accept Sandra Bullock giving a hysterical George Clooney these directions?

Oct 7 - 06:49 AM

Jared Leonard

I felt the same way at first but after discussing the beginning of the movie with my girlfriend she reminded me that it was established early on that Sandra's character was on her first space walk and was only there as a mission specialist to work on Hubble's software. Her initial incompetence was due to inexperience and high anxiety from *mild spoiler* her child's death. *end spoiler* This woman was so good with software troubleshooting that she was selected to do the space EVA repairs on Hubble despite her lack of experience in space. Also *major spoiler* her character is developed as she reconciles the death of her child and finds her will to survive under high stress. *end major spoiler* the believability that one character or the other would be hysterical is not established by gender but rather the personality and history of the individuals. It is unlikely that Clooney's character would be anything other than level headed as he is a space veteran. Taking all this into consideration your statements seem to imply imply that a female can NEVER be portrayed as hysterical or panicked which comes across just as sexist as saying females should only be portrayed in movies as highly sexualized. Also huge character development and a strong female character dominates this movie as she is courageous *spoiler* enough to survive * end spoiler* and find her focus putting all her training to use.

Oct 7 - 07:27 AM

yeah I'm sure it will be just as tense with all those spoilers you've given. Though I never thought any thing bad would happen to an A-lister like Bullock. Thanks for letting me know her mass hysteria is from a dead Child. Kind of like Clive Owen's character driven motivations in Children of Men. Alfonse Curon have experience with this theme in real life?

Oct 7 - 08:45 AM

Too bad JGL, Chris Hemsworth and Justin Timberlake are stuck with fists full of soft cume this fall. At least Paranormal Activity no longer has the October record. Justice has been done.

Oct 6 - 05:47 PM

Justin Timberlake? Oh, the gay singer.

Oct 6 - 07:01 PM

LKDJSLDJ sa;ks;fk;s

A real thinker, this Dr. Decker.

Oct 6 - 07:10 PM

Lyle Bandoquillo

He's actually straight

Oct 6 - 07:30 PM

Frisby 2007

All you guys keep forgetting that trolls don't have opinions. So Dr. Decker's excrement in letters mean nothing.

Oct 6 - 08:50 PM

Timberlake is straight but I think you know what many hard core headbangers really think about pop musicians!

Oct 7 - 11:46 AM

Wasn't he from Nsync? One of them was gay.

Oct 7 - 12:24 PM

It's not a contagion, "doctor".

Oct 7 - 01:10 PM

Actually, it is. Ever hear of the theory "Mad Homo Disease"? It's a virus that attacks the cerebellum and your prostate.

Oct 7 - 01:16 PM

Is that what "he" told you?

Oct 7 - 02:18 PM

Sorry, doctor, the word "gay" doesn't mean anyone who's more talented and gets more kooch than you do. "Gay" means someone who gets scared when they see a man they find attractive, and reflexively call that target of their desire "gay" as a defense mechanism.

Oct 6 - 07:37 PM

Josh Miller

I think you fucked up that last part of the comment... Derp!

Oct 7 - 11:02 AM

It's a complex sentence. It's deliberately designed to become a vicious circle. "Derp" is another kind of defense mechanism.

Oct 7 - 12:24 PM

King Simba

To be fair to Levitt and Hemsworth, their films just didn't have wide appeal (at least Stateside in Rush's case), so it's not like the performance of Rush and Don Jon will have an impact on their careers. I doubt those films would have done much better even if they had bigger stars behind them.

Oct 7 - 03:32 PM

Well, to be fair, I just couldn't resist.

Oct 7 - 04:04 PM

A critically acclaimed movie, possibly the BEST critically acclaimed movie of the year, which is not a sequel, not based on an already existing franchise, debuted at #1 at the box office AND set a box-office record. This was a great weekend for movies.�I loved Gravity. A simple yet very powerful movie. The technical side of the film was very big-budget and pronounced while the directorial side was small and sincere. What a great combination from a very talented director. The best 3D film I've seen and my favorite film of the year so far. Sci-Fi films usually don't get toofar with Academy Awards other than in the technical awards categories but it'll be amazing to see if it can get any others. I can't praise this film enough.

Oct 6 - 06:00 PM

Well, Avatar got similar praise and it was a smash during the Oscars. It nearly won Best Pic. Plus, Curon has had his fair share of Oscar buzz with Sci Fi (Children of Men). I can definitely see it getting at least a nomination for something big (Director). Though I wasn't fond of it, I can see the film getting some good Oscar buzz.

Oct 6 - 07:08 PM

King Simba

Sadly, it seems like the only time they seriously regard science fiction is when it becomes too huge to ignore. The only science fiction best picture nominees I can think of were E.T, A New Hope, Avatar and District 9 and all of those set the record for most succesful films of all time, with the exception of District 9, which let's face it probably wouldn't have gotten that nomination if there had been only 5 slot or so many of the oscar hopefuls that year hadn't ended up underwhelming (it was the year BlindSide also got a nomination don't forget). Even Children of Men for all of its acclaim could only get one non-technical oscar nomination.

Oct 7 - 03:28 PM

Typhon Q

GRAVITY FOR THE WIN

Oct 6 - 06:23 PM

andrew g

prediction- gravity wins 4 oscars (editing, effects, cinematography, directing), should win best pic but hollywood will give that to some fartsy pic

Oct 6 - 06:25 PM

Wesley Trentacosta

You're right, and it indeed deserves best picture. The effort went into crafting this film is unimmaginable.

Oct 6 - 06:41 PM

You do realize that "Gravity" was not the first film that was about someone becoming stranded in space, as their was many others- some are based on fact!

Oct 7 - 11:43 AM

Onion Rovirosa

12 years a slave will sweep including best director

Oct 6 - 08:12 PM

You've seen it! And how was it!

Oct 7 - 11:43 AM

Gage Kent

To early to tell. The effects and cinematography are certainly worthy of a nomination (at the very least).

Oct 6 - 08:19 PM

Good Looking RoHiT

Well, there are lots of good choices for best director .

Oct 6 - 09:11 PM

Typhon Q

It definitely has the technical awards all locked down. I have a feeling that it will be this year's Life of Pi.

Oct 6 - 09:17 PM

Good Looking RoHiT

Yeah, I agree on that.

Oct 6 - 10:15 PM

I think your required to have at least 30 people in your cast to get a Directing Nod. Not kidding, they do have some kind of strange rule about that. Same with Writing...lots a crazy rules from those old fuddy duddies.

Oct 7 - 10:51 AM

David Marsteller

I think Gravity and Pacific Rim are going to duke it out with the editing, effects, and cinematography category. They are both really well done.

Oct 7 - 01:16 PM

The Watcher

Saw Gravity in IMAX 3D, loved the shit outta it. Truly fantastic film. I don't think it's as good as Children of Men, but almost nothing post-2000s is, so I can't really fault it for that.

I'm not one to care about awards - hell, I haven't watched an Oscar ceremony or followed who won in probably a decade - but I would be shocked if Cuaron's latest doesn't win cinematography and sound design (is that what the categories are called?), at the very least.

Oct 6 - 07:28 PM

Ian Fastert

Have you seen Moon? Great sy-fy from 2009.

Oct 7 - 04:16 AM

The Watcher

Of course. Duncan Jones is a great director. Source Code, while not as good as Moon, is also a solid sci-fi flick.

Oct 7 - 03:24 PM

Dave Netherton

The 3D was on par with Avatar maybe even better. On the IMAX screen it felt like you were in space with the characters. Yes I too believe it could have been stronger with more back story for the characters but that is a small complaint. Budget was $100 Million dollars and you could see ALL of that on the screen. I think it will be nominated for Best Picture too but won't win. I do however think it will win for Special Effects, Sound & Sound Editing & be nominated for Cinematography. I think Sandra Bullock might have a nomination for Best Actress, it's her movie.

Oct 6 - 08:30 PM

Francesco Fortuna

If she doesn't at least get a nomination I'll be so shocked, it's easily her best performance of her career.

Oct 6 - 08:35 PM

Yeah and just like with The Blind Side, who else is there? Seriously there have not been raves about anybody this year except for her. Meryl Streep is a given no matter what she's in but I have not heard anything about anybody. Naomi Watts had some whispers for Diana until that filmed was recently to critical bashing in the U.K. I'd say Sandra is a shoe in for at least a Nomination.

Oct 7 - 10:50 AM

Josh Miller

Avatar wasn't even a great movie... so many errors throughout the film.

Oct 7 - 11:04 AM

Frisby 2007

Wonderful news to read about a movie done by a wonderful director. Will be checking this movie out tomorrow for sure.

Oct 6 - 09:06 PM

Chase Lehocky

Gravity is awesome and probably will win Effects, Editing, and Sound.

Oct 7 - 06:24 AM

William Ferreira

im a big sci fi fan how the hell havent i seen moon?, just saw the trailer and it looks good, saw gravity saturday and yes please go watch it, im not into comparing it to other movies 2001 moon whatever i think thats for scumbags, like whos better lebron or jordan please shut up!!! when you get something good embrace it and enjoy it, give thanks to guys like quaron for trying to set up the bar higher in visual effects without a major budget like cameron has. Best movie of the year far, as i saw for me the best movies are the ones that take you somewhere we regular human beings will never go!!! and this movie in imax 3d comes very close to that, hopefully we would get at least one of these once a year id be excited, but no too many pop corn garbage infiltrates the theaters. Awesome movie and by the way 2001 is good but almost 40 years later outdated, kubrick was good playing with other peoples mind but visually not that impressive

Oct 7 - 08:21 AM

I'd also like to add that as fas as winning the Best Visual Effects Oscar goes, I think the Academy goes for the film that uses the special effects in a "poetic" sense. For example, in 2011 both Transformers 3 and Hugo were up for the Oscar, but Hugo won. Now you can hate the Transformers movies in every way possible, but the one thing they've always done right was CGI. Hugo won over that film because the visual effects were poetic in nature whereas the CGI in Transformers 3 while better was just used to show off. Same thing in 2012 when Life of Pi won that Oscar, for that reason. With Gravity, I feel the Visual Effects were not only great, but used well in relation to other aspects of the film, which is something I don't think any other film in 2013 has done with their CGI.

Oct 7 - 08:26 AM

Not being able to tell what the hell is going on is Bad CGI m'friend.

Oct 7 - 10:47 AM

More like bad cinematography and film editing, not CGI

Oct 7 - 11:25 AM

J.K. Lee

"gravity" was pretty good. the "europa report" was even better.

Oct 7 - 09:42 AM

rh temp

boring movie with two people dangling in space for 90 minutes and similar reoccurring themes. there are only 2 actors in this entire movie. there's no story line. don't believe all the hype.

Oct 7 - 12:21 PM

More like "Don't believe you".

Oct 7 - 12:28 PM

rh temp

Don't believe all the hype. Really boring. Just special effects and 2 people dangling in space. Was it me or did anyone else think that the inside of the ISS looked spooky and kind of like the last century's technology? I wasn't impressed. They still have those large flip switches??! Only 2 actors in the entire movie from start to finish (except for a couple of dead people). Lot of yapping by Bullock and Clooney. Predictable reoccurring themes. No story line. What a plug for the Chinese! So ridiculous. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Oct 7 - 12:32 PM

Welcome to RT, Ben Affleck. I don't think this will help your movie, though.

Oct 7 - 01:12 PM

It's still labelled as fair criticism, for sometimes the best opinions to read are objectionable to a well praised movie!

Oct 7 - 01:18 PM

You're still an idiot after all this time, Dave.

Oct 7 - 02:19 PM

Look childish one, he's allowed to submit an opinion on the movie instead of you having to mock him you dolt! And you're one of the biggest "trolls" on this site who do not always know how to carry on a civilize conversation! By calling me an idiot, you appear to like a crying spaz who's still in diapers! Hope you took your medication Janson because I don't recall calling you anything derogatory first!

Oct 7 - 02:30 PM

I was trying to save your face by avoiding describing exactly how idiotic you are, but if you must:

1) The fact of having only two stars is not a valid reason for criticism. Moon has been mentioned on here. Think about that.

2) The ISS was built in the 20th Century. Duh.

3) "Talking" does not automatically mean boring, except to extremely boring people who need visceral stimulation more than conceptual stimulation. That the film has a lot of talking is not a valid criticism.

4) Anyone who opens an account without a real name solely to dog a film is usually a troll. You don't seem to really know what a "troll" means. I'm not a troll simply for pointing all of this obvious stuff out.

5) I'm still mad at you for posting a spoiler to the film on the Critics Consensus page. Because that's what either trolls or idiots do. Take your pick.

Oct 7 - 03:09 PM

God, you're an idiot! Let me address some of your blatant points that you made on here!

1) he paid money to see the film and now you're saying that he doesn't have the right to call this boring even though it's defined as a better film to be seen on 3D and Imax! And no, just because it has two stars doesn't mean that people can't see the film differently!

2)He was talking about the switches of the ISS and he thought it looked spooky, now what the f-cks wrong with that!

3) he said that the film bored him for he may have already been tired before he watched it, who knows! But that's still a valid opinion where people had seen movies but are too tired to watch anything or that he had different expectations!

4) You really don't know what a troll is, do you! If your comment has nothing to do with the article in question, but that your comment is directly to the user(whom you don't know who or what s/he looks like) then you're a troll? I mean what're you going to do, call someone an idiot every time someone doesn't like a movie? Furthermore, he asked general movie users whether or not anyone thought the exact same thing whether the ISS looked spooky! Now, what's so f-cking offensive about that?

5) Look idiot, I "only' repeated what some pre-paid RT critics thought about it which my so-called spoiler wasn't even much of a spoiler in the first place for it only played a small part in the actual film! I mean, did that hurt actual box office results? Did that prevent poor little ole you from seeing it out of the many users that did? you're not a f-cking baby, you know! I mean, if you want to blast me for that even though I hadn't even seen the movie yet, then blast some of the critics first, imbecile!

And I also think it's nice of you to showcase your true colors on here Jansen for users should take on account that you're the type of person who holds a grudge and spaz out way the way that you did like after an old comment is made!

Oct 7 - 03:47 PM

And isn't it ironic that I can get a more civilize movie discussion from user Jay then I can get from you! I mean, if you can counteract everything username "rrh temp" had made, the right thing to do was counteract him with valid points instead of mocking him, or had you even seen the movie yet! Do you know what movie discussions are? Do you even know how to have one?

Oct 7 - 03:57 PM

You said something about medication, didn't you? Projection is one hell of a bitch, and it appears only one of us is having a spazz attack. (Cue the EXCLAIMATION!!!!!)

1) I'm not interested in your silly little points. The problem you're having is this presumption that all opinions are somehow valid regardless of their qualitative merit. Criticism (at its best) is intended to parse through poor-quality opinions and root out actual faults in a film. Whether or not this "temp" was sleepy or not has very little bearing on the issue. The fact is that the specific complaints he/she had about this movie are not valid - only two stars, too much talking, "spooky" tech, ect, whatever. They may be subjective complaints, but hardly worth considering in any intelligent discussion.

2) Who gives a s**t about "rights"? Sure, everyone has a "right" to post whatever poorly conceived opinion on this site, after all, you're here. But no one has a "right" to a valid criticism, which is based on the quality of opinion being offered. For example, saying something "sucks" isn't valid by itself. This is what "discussion" means, Dave - comparing the merits and qualities of each others' opinions. "Temp" has a right to post here, and I have not obstructed that right. I exercised MY right to respond to that comment, and I might add, my response was pretty playful in retrospect, which just makes you look dumber and more humorless in comparison.

Go back to the arms of Jay, lil' puppy.

Oct 7 - 04:18 PM

Well, that's where you're wrong because a movie is only as good as you want it to be, they're more users who had called movies "overrated" and "it sucks" then users explaining why s/he did or didn't like it! Those are the most offensive because they're blatant while stating reasons no matter how valid you think it deserves a proper response or not is totally irrelevant and should be encouraged more on here! The only difference I see in this case is that although user "rh temp" explained why he didn't like it which who knows could be a 14 year old kid! You take it as an offense after I responded! Now, if you didn't like my initial response which my comment wasn't intended to be 'playful' while yours were, then that is my priority! It's very obvious on this particular circumstance who's more immature here if you can't provide a civilize response and instead resort to childish name calling!

Oct 7 - 04:39 PM

"a movie is only as good as you want it to be"

Yes, it's very clear who is most immature here.

Oct 7 - 04:58 PM

Infernal Dude 2.0

@ Dave J.

I'm not going to take sides in this convo, but my question is; Why do you use exclamation points at the end of every sentence? Just curious.

Oct 7 - 07:11 PM

Francesco Fortuna

Did you see this film in 3-D? I only ask because people who've said the same things you have, haven't....

Oct 7 - 01:49 PM

David Marsteller

I loved this movie. And what's really interesting is if you go and read articles on the accuracy of the movie. Of course, former astronauts and astrophysicists had a lot to say about the movie, but they didn't rip it apart or anything. They said it was fairly accurate, minus a few nit-pick things like the angle of the Hubble and what Bullock wore underneath her space suit. Overall, though, they enjoyed it a lot and praised it for its technical accuracy. I suspect we'll see Gravity a lot at the Oscars.

Oct 7 - 01:21 PM

Stan Taylor

Gravity was about survival not character development. I think the director specifically wanted to keep the story at the bare minimum.

Oct 7 - 01:21 PM