The best movie of 2013 for me so far (taking into account I haven't seen every movie and it's my opinion) – it’s awesome.

The cinematography/visuals as I expected are beautiful, (CG) maybe, but still brilliant and I compel everyone to watch this in the full 3D experience – this is what 3D is made for.  This movie is just beautiful to look at with a wonderful score from Steven Price not to mention the silent moments of space – this movie can make you feel very claustrophobic at times.

The script I felt was well-handled, very piece of dialogue structured and giving the character life in the ambiance of the scenery that is supposed to take over the screen (which it does), but the characters still get out the emotions to drive on their character, obviously Bullock.

A brief: A space shuttle is docked at an International space station with its best, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) on her first mission, and commander Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), basically his final mission.

They get message of an incoming debris field in Earth’s orbit (some Russian thing) but before the crew (think it was five of them) get back to their shuttle, they’re obviously hit by said debris field which causes damage to the shuttle and leaves both astronaut’s missing communication's to Houston.

They then struggle to find a way back to Earth with the continuing debris field and lack of oxygen, and just every problem that could happen all mixed in with the loneliness of space.

It moves along at such a frantic pace with tension at every turn that I don’t think I’ve ever more wanted a character to survive and that said character is just brilliant.

I didn’t know Sandra Bullock had it in her but she is just fantastic in this movie. Don’t get me wrong, it’s made for her part/role but she does a wonderful job and her character is perfectly portrayed, she has some great moments which are so heartfelt that you can't help but wanna get behind her.

Honestly, I don’t really want to go on – more experience peeps will do that but for a movie experience, this beats most. Just check out the space station getting blown apart in silence as space has no sound – it’s more amazing than any action movie explosion you will ever see.

Not to mention the desperate attempts by our astronaut’s to save themselves by clinging onto every piece of machinery they can grasp.

Good stuff!

You beat me to it Coop. Great review.

Gravity is a milestone in cinematic history. While watching this, I realized this is what it must have been like to watch 2001 in theaters. Easily the best sci-fi film since District 9.

Thinking back on it, there are a shit ton of metaphors within the film. And its broad enough where we'll each interpret the events in our own unique way.

Kudos to Bullock. I honestly didnt know she had it in her. Clooney was great obviously.

And the soundtrack. Jesus tap dancing christ. Perfection all the way around.

Terrifying. Emotional. Awe inspiring. See this one in IMAX 3D. Easily the best 3D film ever made.

Oh and there's one scene that I think a few people are going to have problems with. I didn't have a problem with it because it was pretty obvious what was happening. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I'm curious what others thought.

A masterpiece. A+.

Quoted from albinopenguin A masterpiece. A+.

For reals?  I'm in.

Yeah, that good. And if you've read any of my reviews, I tend to be really harsh on movies. I might give out one A+ every two years. See it now and see it in IMAX.

For those who haven't seen it, if you're in proximity to a theater with IMAX, go see it in 3D. DO NOT settle! You'll regret it and even if you see it later in IMAX 3D, that initial viewing experience is lost forever. Go home or watch something else if you have to.

As for the film itself, all the hype is to be believed. Stellar.

Semi-spoilers ahead.

Undeniably beautiful, looks absolutely stunning. But... I was very underwhelmed with the story, similar to what I was expecting but I just felt there wasn't enough. After the first half hour, it just became a fight for survival, which is fine I suppose but it was basically devoid of all story. My biggest problem was that Bullock's character didn't even want to go back to Earth, which in turn, didn't really make me root for her. I'm not sure, maybe it was the hype, I thought this would be on par with Moon or District 9 but in the end, I was left underwhelmed.

Just my opinion though, it's pretty much a must watch anyway. A lot to be loved but I just can't help but think Cuaron could have done more with the story. I got a similar feeling after watching Children of Men, an awesome concept that wasn't used to its full potential - and again, that looked amazing as well. Maybe it's a movie that I need to sleep on, or perhaps watch again, I was a little distracted in the cinema. I'm a massive fan of Emmanuel Lubezki.

I personally loved Bullock in this, very surprising, had no clue she could handle such a role. Clooney is irresistible as always.

I can't wait to see this. I'm a big fan of Children of Men & I've really liked the look of everything I've seen of Gravity so far. Just a shame it isn't released here in the UK for another month!

Quoted from nawazm11 Semi-spoilers ahead. Undeniably beautiful, looks absolutely stunning. But... I was very underwhelmed with the story, similar to what I was expecting but I just felt there wasn't enough. After the first half hour, it just became a fight for survival, which is fine I suppose but it was basically devoid of all story. My biggest problem was that Bullock's character didn't even want to go back to Earth, which in turn, didn't really make me root for her. I'm not sure, maybe it was the hype, I thought this would be on par with Moon or District 9 but in the end, I was left underwhelmed. Just my opinion though, it's pretty much a must watch anyway. A lot to be loved but I just can't help but think Cuaron could have done more with the story. I got a similar feeling after watching Children of Men, an awesome concept that wasn't used to its full potential - and again, that looked amazing as well. Maybe it's a movie that I need to sleep on, or perhaps watch again, I was a little distracted in the cinema. I'm a massive fan of Emmanuel Lubezki. SPOILERS I personally loved Bullock in this, very surprising, had no clue she could handle such a role. Clooney is irresistible as always.

I had the same reaction to Gravity.  Jaw dropping visuals, incredible tension, but a rather thin story.  I like how it jumped right into the action, but the trade off is that we never really got to know the characters.  Basically everything we know about Bullock's character came in the form of dialogue.  I never "felt" her pain, at least her emotional pain.  The fact that she lost a child somehow felt superfluous and a rather obvious story choice.  

What I did love was the stacking of obstacles, each one more seemingly insurmountable than the previous.  Gave the narrative real propulsion.  It just never lets up.  Overall, I'd call this a must see, but I wouldn't go so far to call it a masterpiece in the league of 2001.

I just thought it was alright. Visually it was stunning and there were some intense moments, but I just found some things pretty ridiculous.

Semi-spoilers:

Like how the debris just decided to come flying by at random times, whenever it was the worse time possible for the character.

I don't know, I found some scenes a bit hokey as well.

I think Prisoners is the best movie from this year, that I've seen so far.

Quoted from albinopenguin Oh and there's one scene that I think a few people are going to have problems with. I didn't have a problem with it because it was pretty obvious what was happening. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I'm curious what others thought.

I think I know what scene you're talking about.  "It's a helluva story."  

Quoted from albinopenguin Oh and there's one scene that I think a few people are going to have problems with. I didn't have a problem with it because it was pretty obvious what was happening. I'm not going to spoil anything, but I'm curious what others thought. A masterpiece. A+.

Well, I won't spoil it either for those who've yet to see it. I didn't have a problem with that particular scene - I think it breaks the tension up perfectly - even if for just a few seconds/minutes -depending on how fast you cotton on - it's a clever bit of respite for a movie that really never lets up the whole way through.

And I second the 'masterpiece' comment. Loved it!

There's only one lil' scene in this movie that went on a little too long imh and that was the 'howling' scene... if you get which one I mean.

Good to see Sandra Bullock in a dramatic role too - when it comes down to it, it's her movie - prob. a nomination in this one. Was so sick of seeing her in movies like Miss Congeniality and The Heat - but I seeing they're making 'The Heat 2'   - no offence to those who like those kind of movies, they're just not my thing.

I'll just throw out there again that you'll really kick yourself if you don't see this in the biggest, 3D-est theatre possible.

SPOILERS SPOILERS

Quoted from Ryan1 The fact that she lost a child somehow felt superfluous and a rather obvious story choice.   What I did love was the stacking of obstacles, each one more seemingly insurmountable than the previous.

That's what the movie was about, though! Her overcoming the habit of self-isolation that had emerged from her depression after the death of her child. No?

I too loved the stacking of obstacles and the endless, unashamed laying-on of tension. This movie was just so much damn fun, in addition to being highly successful, for me, with its more lofty goals of examining grief, prayer, loss, etc.

Saw this at the weekend. There is very little for me to say which hasn't already been said, so I will keep this short and sweet: this was quite simply a masterpiece. I can't remember the last time that I left the cinema speechless. I seriously cannot recommend this highly enough, as it's easily the best film of the year for me, as well.

I had been giving my better half lots of excuses not to see this - guess I'd better have a rethink

Saw this on Friday, thought it was excellent.

There were two scenes/shots in particular that stood out to me.

POTENTIAL SPOILERS

Firstly, when she made it back into a pod, and she just floats there in a circular room, it was like she was a foetus in the womb. It looked excellent.

The second, and this wouldn't have been the same if it wasn't in 3D, but a scene where it appeared she had given up and she cried. The whole shot focused on a single tear drop that honestly looked like you could reach out and grab it. Just watching a single tear drop floating away I found quite powerful. The kind of shot that will probably stay with me forever.

As for the story being thin, I can understand that, but it didn't need to be anything more. It was about her own re-birth after the loss of her child. Having to fight through wanting to give up and realising that life is a struggle but it is what you make of it.

But that's just my opinion.

See it in the cinema and definitely watch it in 3D.

Oh, and one other thing, whilst I was thinking to myself that it's great writing for the obstacles to get bigger and more challenging, my friend who I watched it with kept rolling her eyes at the fact it just kept getting worse. I must admit I probably would have been the same until I started learning about screen writing, I just thought it was an interesting little point to make.

Quoted from Neighbour I just thought it was alright. Visually it was stunning and there were some intense moments, but I just found some things pretty ridiculous. Semi-spoilers: Like how the debris just decided to come flying by at random times, whenever it was the worse time possible for the character. .

it wasn't random. it was every 90 minutes... and trust me...that debris field orbiting the earth... is a very real and dangerous possibility.

if something like that really happened - it would prevent the launching of space flights and satellites for decades.

Saw this again last night. It was better in the cinema but it's still bloody good.

Even on a telly the size of a wall this film will never look as good as it does on a cinema screen.

It stands up well to repeated viewings. I'll be watching this many more times in the years to come. Well, as long as they don't stick too many ads in it. Actually, I'll just buy the bleeding thing and watch it when I want.

There was a clever little short on the DVD too by the co-writer. As well as a somewhat dry but informative doc on the Kessler effect.

All in all it's still one of the best films I've ever seen. Hard to imagine now Jolie and Downey in the roles.

R

Saw this a couple nights ago on Blu Ray. Definitely stunning visually, and tension filled. But what has stuck with me the most is this is really a story about Sandra Bullock recovering from the --

SPOILERS

-- loss of her child. It's metaphor-filled in that story line. At one point when she boards the ship and takes her suit off you see her curling up in the fetal position, then at the end you see her on the beach, on all fours. She stands and takes a step like its the first step she has ever taken. Hence, she begins her life anew. Brilliant. Also, at the point where she's re-entering the atmosphere I got the feeling that she felt alive, really alive, for the first time in a long time as she was facing uncertainty that could eventually lead to her death.

Great on every level for me.

Steve

Saw this last week, just before it left 3D, when Noah came in.

As others have said over and over, this is an absolutely beuaitful film.  A truly stunning motion picture experience.  The 3D effects were great and I was wide eyed most of the runtime.

Bullock and Clooney were also great, but IMO, they almost always are.  It's funny how Clooney can pretty much say anythign and his delivery makes it his own.  Sandra carreid the movie and she more than succeeded.

But, damn, you know what?  As a movie, I was far from impressed, in terms of story, plot, action...pretty much everything.

I'll sum this up in a few, but let me get this out of my mouth first...

I always have to laugh when peeps complain about a movie or script being slow here or there, because to me, a movie/script, or really anythign for that matter, has to have lows and highs to succeed.  When everythgin is a million miles a second, after awhile, it doesn't seem that fast.  Too much action and the action loses its affect.  Too much horror and the horror gets lost.  Too much nudity and you've got a porno.

It was shocking how fast things took off here, but it was also kind of silly how things went from one extreme to a more extreme, over and over, and over.  Just too much for me.  At 1 point, I remember saying to myself that I seriously needed some down time and if I had gotten that, the next adventure woudl have seemed that much more powerful, but things never slowed down and IMO, that's a mistake.

In tems of story and character, I saw very, very little.  The opening talky character building scene between Bullock and Clooney was a little hokey to me and maybe even a little cliche.  I didn't haev any problems with it, but since that was it, I definitely needed more, as I didn't know shit about these 2.  I really think things wuold have been so much more powerful if they both made it back inside at first and then had to make a decision, much like one of my favorite scenes in The Abyss bewteen Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio.

I also had some issues with the beleivability of Bullock's character surviving the abuse her body must have taken as she smashed into one thing after another.  It looked great and was super intense, but after awhile, again, it was just too much for me to buy into.

I see lots of peeps talking about the metaphors and symbolism and how this scene represented this and that scene represented that.  I guess so, but I sure didn't think about that while I was watching and it didn't do anything for me personally.

SPOILERS     SPOILERS     SPOILERS

When Clooney appeared out of nowhere, near the end, I rolled my eyes and thought 1 of 3 things is going on here and I don't like any of them - she's actualy been dead or unconscious the whole time, she's dreaming now, or this is really fucked, because Clooney wouldn't have been able to survive.  I bet most peeps liked this scene, but for me, it was weak and unnecessary.

At the very end, I rolled my eyes again, as I just couldn't buy into the fact that Sandy was able to survive all these insane situations.  Just a bit too much for me and I honestly hoped that we'd find out she was still on the space station thing and had no way to get back and live.  For me, that would have been much more powerful.

Did I dislike the movie?  No, definitely not.  It's extremely well done and ballsy in many ways, I guess, but it's nothing close to a masterpiece in my eyes, other than maybe a visual masterpiece.

Grade - B  

There was so much going for this story but they just seem to rush through it to get to the effects.
Out of the blue, a satellite is blown out of the sky and all radio communication is lost?

It was real "convenient"  when it could have been something bigger.

Perhaps an all out attack from the Russian on the U.S. or vise versa. You could have rouge missiles in several scenes. It would have also given a thickness to the radio silence along with the uncertainly of whether or not she even really wanted to go back to earth.

What really ticked my prick was the whole "the tether is breaking" so I must let so scene with Clooney.

WTF???

What was it pulling him away? He's in outer space.  Up until then, weightlessness was the rule.  

Then all the sudden, a riptide pulling him out? it made no sense.

Enough of the negatives.

Two FANTASTIC scenes...

1) When Sandy disrobes and floats in the fetal float.

It was really a cool moment in the story where she finally had a moment of peace and you felt it.

2) Then when she was at the end of her rope in the pod and begin to cry.

Are you kidding me? That was one of the best moments I have ever seen in acting...EVER!

And it was sexy. Don't hate me for saying that. It was!

I'll give the overall story a B-

I give Sandra an A

She proved once again why class can still rule in Hollywood.

Shawn.....><

Loved it. With exception to miss bullocks skivvies, it was right on point. And I'm glad they put her in short shorts for my viewing pleasure. The Kessler Syndrome is a very real possibility. Is the point when space debris is orbiting earth and making space travel impossible as well as rendering all communication. It's a scary thought.

I will second that this was a tad thin on story, buy it shits and gets. Before you know it you're holding into your seat. So a major thumbs up from this peanut gallery. It was my favorite film of the year.

James

Have to agree with the Pirate here. It was the best film I'd seen in ages. Holding onto your seat is right - a too rare thing in cinema of late. The last time I remember being that genuinely concerned was way back in Munich. The film, not the place. That bit where the bomb is triggered by picking up the phone and it looks like the little girl is gonna pick it up instead of their target.

You can pick parts of any film that aren't quite as strong as the rest of it. But overall it makes you hold your breath and really feel like you're out there with her. And that is quite something.

R

the story is a little weak...but that's besides the point.

this is a movie you're meant to experience in a giant Imax theater...in 3-D....

I haven't seen it... sounds boring to me. Two people in space. Just another contained film. I've had my fill of them. Producers only like them because they are easy to film, usually run cheaper and are more likely to turn a profit.

That's why I wrote, A Slave's Tale... a release from the containment that is also present in my own works. A part of me longs for the films of old... only modernised for today's standards... and if you read A Slave's Tale it isn't far off a concept one may have seen Errol Flynn starring in in the 40s.

Hearing Gravity also lacks a decent story (along with the head-aching containment)makes me want to watch it even less. I have no problem waiting for it to hit netflix, or even, never watching it at all.

Dusty? Do you own a paypal account? I will gladly send you six bucks so you can rent the film. And then you can spew on about how boring it is.

I thought this thread was for people who actually took the time to watch it before they ridicule it.

James

Quoted from jwent6688 Dusty? Do you own a paypal account? I will gladly send you six bucks so you can rent the film. And then you can spew on about how boring it is. I thought this thread was for people who actually took the time to watch it before they ridicule it. James

If I wanted to rent the film, I would do so.

Not sure why you're defending a film you don't have anything to do with. I have not ridiculed the actual film, merely the concept behind it. So stop twisting shit just because you liked the film. Good for you. Me... I can wait. Very few Hollywood films interest me due to all the reasons I mentioned. You don't like that... tough.

So you don't want me to send you six dollars?

You can send me six dollars if you want, J. I promise not to spend it on drugs. Well, not illegal ones anyway.

R

I thought this will be some kind of psychological drama, reflecting on one's mortality. The unpredictability and certainty of death. Loneliness on you deathbed. Concepts like that.

Instead, I got an action movie.

I didn't enjoy it. Found it a bit boring and uninteresting to be honest.

"Just another contained film...usually run cheaper...more likely to turn a profit."

Budget was $100 million - not too cheap.

So far, grossed $273 million - monster profit.

Quoted from Bogey So far, grossed $273 million - monster profit.

715 mil worldwide. The movie made a killing.

Quoted from Bogey "Just another contained film...usually run cheaper...more likely to turn a profit." Budget was $100 million - not too cheap. So far, grossed $273 million - monster profit.

That's why I put 'usually' in the sentence. I couldn't give a fuck how much it made.

Quoted from DustinBowcot That's why I put 'usually' in the sentence. I couldn't give a fuck how much it made.

You should care, Dustin, as it's very important to understand how movies make money, how much they make, and maybe even why they make money or lose money.

To me, it's very interesting.

$237 million? Holy f uck.

Deserves every penny. I've seen it three times and spent about $150 on this film (took a bunch of dates to see it). And honestly, I don't regret it. This movie wasn't just a film. It was an experience.

Quoted from albinopenguin $237 million? Holy f uck. Deserves every penny. I've seen it three times and spent about $150 on this film (took a bunch of dates to see it). And honestly, I don't regret it. This movie wasn't just a film. It was an experience.

If the film helped you get a root bro, then the budget is worth it

Nothing gets the ladies going like George Clooney, generic back stories, and vomit inducing special effects.

Quoted from Dreamscale You should care, Dustin, as it's very important how movies make money...

I know how they make money. PR. Most Hollywood films are sold before they come out... a little like a Mayweather fight. By the time the film comes out people are pumped ready to see it, and by that time only need the smallest of returns from the film to reinforce their belief.

Quoted from Dreamscale very important to understand how much they make

I already know it made a lot, just like many other must-see films people are suckered into watching. I just don't ride that train.

Quoted from Dreamscale and maybe even why they make money or lose money.

Hollywood makes money because of great PR and (often) a mediocre script. A shitload of CGI seems to help too.

Indie's make money because they are great films.

What else is there to know?

Dustin, I hear what you're saying, but it's so far from the truth.

So many big tentpole pictures do not make money - as in compared to their budget.  many, many films now rely on the overseas returns to turn a profit.

If you pay attention to sites like boxofficemojo.com, you'll find that the vast majority of releases, big or small, do not turn a profit in their theatrical runs.  DO they make it back when you factor in VOD, Blu-Ray, DVD, rentals, cable, satelite, etc?  Hard to say, really, but thta's the ongoing mystery and for me, it's a mystery that's very entertaining to follow.

I'm pretty good at seeing a trailer and seeing what the budget is and predicting whether or not it will do well.  Strange that all the powers that be can't do this, or maybe BO losers are OK in certain ways.  I don't know, nor do I get it.

Jeff tried to film himself when a sex toy experiment went horribly wrong and got stuck in his clacker.

He couldn't budget

@Jeff Well then perhaps you'd be suited as a producer. All it takes is an eye for what sells and what doesn't... initially, anyway.

Personally, I prefer to just write wherever my mind takes me, then let someone else figure it out and tell me what direction they want it to go in. Stories can go anywhere, so many different directions and not every producer will have the same vision.

As you pointed out also, there is no sure-fire remedy for success, aside from films that have had so much PR it's impossible to fail.

Quoted from DustinBowcot As you pointed out also, there is no sure-fire remedy for success, aside from films that have had so much PR it's impossible to fail.

You're absolutely correct.

It just comes down to how much these movies take in - some more than others.

Some flicks make lots of money, but are deemed failures.

Some flicks are critical darlings, but not BO winners.

Then, we have the pure crap remake horror movies that are made dirt cheap and can't help but turn a dime.

Then, finally, there are Stevie's scripts that hopefully won't see the light of day, because they'd be BO atomic bombs!  

I think it's called the 'dribble down ' effect.
You have a film, say MAN OF STEEL, it's gonna make money. Worldwide. This is their baby that is gonna give birth to a whole load of other things.  Come back to Superman in a moment. * Maybe

The Weinsteins, for example. DIMENSION and DIMENSION XTREME, their direct to DVD stable.

Blockbusters are meant to rake in the serious cash from all over the world. That includes DVD, Blu-ray, netflix whatever deals they have now. It's not just America, its GLOBAL.
Cinemas, theatres are unfortunately on the wane. Companies know this. They don't spend $20M on billboard advertising for nothing. Internet ads are probably cheaper so let's just wait for that one.

Point is, you make a BLOCKBUSTER. The profits from that film create budgets for smaller movies. Regardless of genre, these range from $40-20 - MEDIUM RISK or $20-10M - LOW RISK.

TONS of movies are made from these profits and loads are released within budget restrictions. They make profit, they fund the next blockbuster.

Goes round and round.

Jeff, it would be interesting to see results of a company over the scale of a year. Not one individual movie. A YEAR. Scale the profit and loss. You might be surprised.

But there's no guarantees.

Look at John Carter. And the Lone Ranger. I've seen neither but I've heard they are both awful. I've also heard they are both good, some say really good. But both lost a fortune.

They say to make their money back most movies have to take double their budget to cover marketing and other costs. So in that case, each would have had to take 400 mill to make money. Neither made anywhere near.

And then there's After Earth. I like Will Smith, He's good at what he does. And like most I used to like Shyamalan. I care not about reputation, though it's bound to have some effect. I watched this on DVD a few months ago just to see how bad it was. It's not bad. It's truly painful. Smith does what he can, but everybody in it looks terrible. It deserved to make nothing and it did just that.

All this is about there's no guarantees. Some will say Gravity was bound to make money. It could have been different. It could have flopped. I've seen plenty here who are indifferent about it.

The people who made Carter, Ranger and After Earth didn't think they would lose money. They would have been sure they were going to make lots and maybe more.

R

R,

They don't gamble anymore. That's what I'm saying, They used to. Now, it's not a gamble. It's a calculated choice made by several people in several different organisations. Think I'm lying?

Gravity was gonna make bank. It was nailed on, Promotion sealed that.

Look at THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and MAN OF STEEL. Newspapers give 5 out of 5. Come on, really? Both are fairly awful films yet they are "SPECTACULAR" and all this kind of media rubbish.

I don't follow you. I point out the flops but you just talk of success. Losing a load of money is a gamble that didn't work out.

I like both MOS and TDKR. The latter a lot. But that's beside the point. Reviews have known to be ignored. Look at Bay and Transformers. They were almost universally panned by critics. Yet made a mint.

If your argument is they stop a flop by promoting it why do so many films fail to profit. They spent a lot of money on Mars Need Moms, Green Latern.

They still do. 47 Ronin? RIPD. Both dead on arrival.

As far as how a film with do - Nobody knows anything.

A lot of money was spent on promotion of Green Lantern? I must have missed that one. And I've never actually heard of Mars Needs Moms, so they failed in promoting that one too.

Whereas Gravity was even on Lorraine masquerading as an important news item that people should not miss. There are levels of promotion. For some like Tarantino, it doesn't take much, but even he will promote himself through so-called news channels.

There are certain films that people cannot miss... like Titanic. Who hasn't seen that? I can safely raise my hand there. Never seen it, and have no desire ever to. There are quite a few Hollywood films I have avoided because we have been bombarded with the advertising too much.

Quoted from rendevous I don't follow you. I point out the flops but you just talk of success. Losing a load of money is a gamble that didn't work out. I like both MOS and TDKR. The latter a lot. But that's beside the point. Reviews have known to be ignored. Look at Bay and Transformers. They were almost universally panned by critics. Yet made a mint. If your argument is they stop a flop by promoting it why do so many films fail to profit. They spent a lot of money on Mars Need Moms, Green Latern. They still do. 47 Ronin? RIPD. Both dead on arrival. As far as how a film with do - Nobody knows anything.

Bay and Transformers carry a certain stigma and don't care less. They still rake in the dosh. They own their market. Media coverage is important, but they don't go for the same ones MOS and DKR aim at. You might think they would be all depressed by the critics reviews, but I doubt they really give a crap. They OWN the movie rights to something kids and adults enjoyed seeing as cartoons or in comics and they exploit that, regardless of quality. They know they will get a profit, which seems to be their main aim above producing a quality product. However, that is debatable. Many people love those films so...

The difference changes when you talk about MOS or DKR because the appeal is a different market. Completely different. Worlds apart.  Batman and Superman are the most iconic superheroes ever created, you can't really give them the same treatment as you would give something minor in comparison like Transformers or Green Lantern.

The kings of the ring always get the best treatment. Cut and nip a few but if a film is designed to be successful it will be.

I don't take much notice of what the press say about movies, particularly current events, but it is a vital tool in selling a product. They are as much a joke as the 5 stars they award to films day in day out, only for some television mag writer to rescind them years later.

Regarding Gravity, not seen it yet. I might watch it on the TV when it comes on cable. No need to see it in the cinema and become another sucker like I was with Prometheus. I have a feeling this will be the exact same thing.

Scoob,

I think you're being rather selective in your arguments.

Film criticism is not what it was. But there's still some good ones out there. The likes of Kermode will always have a job. I'm sure there any many equivalents in different terrortories.

The only certain hit coming out soon is Star Wars 7. A safer bet could not be had.

Even Avatar 2 and 3 could fail. They probably won't. But you never know.

For every other movie work, luck, good word of mouth. The main reason they do sequels is because they expect to get half of the audience they had, minimum. There's no guarantee of this, but it's a safer venture than a brand new film.

Superman failed before. Ask Bryan Singer about it. There couldn't be a bigger character. It's not like they forgot to market it or it was that bad. It wasn't good. But there's plenty of haters out there of the new one too.

Maybe the lady doth protest too much. So I'll stop.

You'll enjoy Gravity a lot more than Prometheus. Or perhaps not. I hope you do.

R

Fair enough.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Although I'm not a lady. At least not last time I looked. Crikey. Maybe I am.

Time will tell. Or time will not. Only the hands of a clock will spin and dictate to us what the time really is. Maybe we might then only know what the time really is. But will the clock ever be shown?

I 'm one of the few "Donner fan-boys" that enjoyed Superman Returns. I can't say I loved the idea of many aspects of the film but as a homage to what I regard as a true classic, I think Singer did an outstanding job.  Superman Returns, kid aside, is pretty much as dark as Superman should have got.  It is a quite beautiful film in some aspects but it is let down by the fact it never becomes it's own entity. It's too afraid to step out of Dick Donner's shoes. When it does - the kid - it comes across as shoe-horned and ridiculous. Some of the other stuff in Supe Returns is almost classic.
And it got 5 star reviews when it opened. Only later did it get panned.

After watching Man Of Steel, I was gobsmacked. I could not believe they had relegated Superman into this pile of shite. There had to be a reason - and the reason is this stupid Justice League movie which has now become Batman Teaming up with superman. Oh good god.
You know, Superman IV was shite. But I might just prefer watching... ENDLESS RANT....

Quoted from Scoob The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

I meant me, silly. I read back what I said and I was reminded of my days standing outside the headmaster's office. I mean when I was a pupil. Not that brief time I was a supply teacher. That did not go well at all. Oh, wrong forum.

You get philosophical later in your post. Indeed. Will it? And when will we know? Has it already happened and we missed it? Or thought it was something else. Something subtle.

Opinions. It'd be dull if we all agreed. We're in agreement on that. Maybe.

R

Quoted from rendevous Opinions. It'd be dull if we all agreed. We're in agreement on that. Maybe. R

Absolutely!
You are a nice guy, as is everyone here.
Everyone is beautiful. However, I need to determine a couple of things. Who is fit to write. Who is fit to DIE!!!
Mwhahahaha!!!!

In regards to Superman... he will always lose to Batman or Spiderman. I read a lot of comics growing up (graphic novels, whatever). Batman was a favourite, Spiderman was OK. Superman was gay.

Oops, there's that word again. Oh well... it's true. I still think Superman is gay and so do a lot of other people. Even making him fight aliens doesn't help... Heroes need to be flawed, they need to be like us. Spiderman though is cool... but could he ever outdo Batman? I don't think so. He's a close second, but will always be a close second.... because he has superpowers. Batman is just a guy... any of us could be Batman... Another good one though is X-Men, because they are human mutants. I liked those over Superman. Hulk is another one that is hit and miss... in a way, any of us could be Hulk, if we got hit with gamma rays... but he's never really in any danger.

None of us could ever be Superman though, we're all human. Superman is separate and will make money if played right... but generally speaking, people don't really like him. There's a lot to hate about Superman. Even the kids don't like him.

The best Superman film was Superman 2. He had to fight some more Aliens that were threatening Earth. Superman was actually in danger and outnumbered and... he could lose.

Yeah, I don't know.

I can understand and see the "gay" thing with Superman. But I was introduced to him by the movies. I don't know about the comics too much, so I lose a lot of cred there. No idea and to be honest no real interest in understanding the lore unless I need to.

I think I was attracted to Superman because he was so powerful but frail. His character in the first film is about someone that is not this STEEL PERSON but someone that is trying to find out what life it all about, despite his ridiculous powers. His father's death is powerful - all his powers and he can't prevent death for example.
He's a nerd. He's CLARK KENT. He's a homeboy that has no idea who he really is. When he finds out, he uses it to help people.  The first three Superman movies, or maybe the first two Superman is just a nice guy that HELPS innocent people. He's lovable and I miss that kind of hero in a way. You could relate to this bumbling idiot. And you would love it when said idiot turns into the greatest superhero of all time and then meekly returns to his desk with modesty and charm. * Excluding various criminal charges that could be brought against him.

Nowadays, heroes need to be vigilantes, killing people for revenge, reality etc. Yes, it reflects the times but that's kind of the point of having Superman. He is a fairy-tale character but holy hell, it makes you feel good watching him. It makes you wish you were him. To do GOOD. Watching Superman made you want to be like him and help other people.

Maybe not these days. And that's where he is misfitting. Batman, yes, Superman, not at the moment. To make a dark Superman is just ridiculous. He just does not fit. Nowadays, no one gives a shit about anyone. Batman fits right in.

Quoted from DB In regards to Superman... he will always lose to Batman or Spiderman.

Eh? He'd kick their bony asses.

R

Superman: The Movie all the way.

That is movie magic. It's a beautiful movie. Love it. Even now. It's a true classic.

Superman always lost out to the big two when I was a kid... and he will lose out now. He could push for third place... but he has to contend with X-Men, Hulk and Iron Man for that spot. Iron Man is a surprise, because as a comic character he wasn't all that popular... I think it's that human thing again. Anyone could be Iron Man.

But I don't like the Iron Man films... I think it could be Downey Junior, I don't like in the part. I don't like Spiderman either... the only reason I watch Batman is because I hope that one day they will make a film as dark as the old graphic novels were. However, they'd probably need to up the age rating to a 15.

Here are some fun numbers to check out: http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/budgets/

Forget 100 million dollar budgets, we're hitting half a billion these days. You can see the profits too.

Yeah, I agree Batman has a bigger draw than Superman. Always has had the potential.
I think even Iron Man is probably bigger than Supes right now. That's pretty sad, but understandable considering the times we're in and the films they're making.

The Iron Man film. Really liked it because, as Dustin says, Downey Junior stole the show. Really impressive. Great actor. Nice one liners. Shot well.
Not sure about part 2, got too bored. Saw bits of part three. Meh.

But yeah these things make serious money, haha.

From a personal POV, nothing will beat Superman. It's the perfect superhero movie for me. Those that say Superman has no opponent completely miss the objective of the films. Granted, things may be wrong with it. Few and far.  But the same as the Nolan Batman trilogy .Lots and lots.  Anyways, I get a massive kick out of watching them. I just prefer super to the Bat. Love 'em both. I like Superman's innocence being tested. I like Batman's darkness.  
So I always went with Supes. He would do the right thing to help others even if it meant sacrificing himself and was clever about doing it even going as far as luring the villains to obscure lands - unlike this imbecile MAN OF STEEL.... uhhg.
So even though Superman was incredibly strong, he was always weak as he had emotions. The original movies played on that part, at least the first did. The remake... I can't even talk about that mess.
Superman would ultimately outwit the villains by thought, not brute strength. That in itself said a lot. You don't need to be tough to be good. You just need to be clever, good. Simple, effective.
I still love Superman haha. I think he's great.