Don't think it will end up making more then the first Iron Man but will be the highest grossing movie domestically by Friday and the only movie that is guaranteed to make more this year is the next Hunger Games movie. Interstellar has a outside shot at making more then Guardians. Also the trailers for it look great and I think that Matthew McConaughey has a shot at winning another Oscar and becoming the first back to back Oscar winner since Tom Hanks did it in 1994 and 1995.

I am excited about Interstellar, but I'd be surprised if it becomes a huge commercial hit.

I guessing there is a slightly better then 50/50 change it could become a huge commerical hit since Nolan had four of them before with the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception.  Also it will have a great A level score by Hans Zimmer which is good since his work in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was sub par but the score in the first Amazing Spider-Man movie wasn't that great either and not one of James Horners best scores either.  Which is kinda a shame since the score for the first movie in the first trilogy by Danny Elfman is one of the best scores in a super hero movie of all time.

From trailers it seems more like a 2001 type film with long shots and deep meanings about existence.  I enjoy those things, but not sure last time such a film was also a big hit with general audiences.  Nolan's Batman films had lots of action as did Inception.  Sure, they were not "dumb popcorn munching" type films, but I could see people missing layers still enjoying the superficial entertainment.  Like to be wrong though and see it be a hug ehit as I like Nolan's work (Momento being my favorite).

Intersellar will be a lot better then 2001 since that movie didn't really have much of a plot and is one of the most overrated movies of all time.  Its my clear choice for most overrated movie from the 60s.  On top of that Interstellar looks better then Gravity and that one made a ton of money.

The music in 2001 was decent would have been better if the original score that Alex North was working on would have been used instead.  The special effects and cinematography are very good the only other good part is Dave interacting with Hal  9000 and that is like 10 minutes in a movie that almost lasts three hours but seems much longer.

I never cared for how a work is "rated". 2001 demands patience as it is more about emotion than a structure with action; can watch 2010 to see a more traditional film.  The plot is broad strokes of humanity and our development.  I can completely understand it not being a fun viewing experience because of the long shots (I know people turned off in first five minutes due to long pan shots) and not explaining itself entirely, especially the end.

Good point. Gravity is a story of survival and base human emotion in a setting not explored as much. The camera work and effects brought people in and I thought it did well keeping it moving and sense of isolation and desperation.  I have high hopes for Interstellar so if it can strike that human chord I could see it managing a Gravity type result.

Obviously, but look at what brings in the big bucks past several years.

2014

2013

2012 

A person goes to movies for all sorts of reasons. People as in the general public have shown what they will support in large numbers. I am genuinely impressed when studios take on high concept works and back them financially.  I loved "Cloud Atlas", but it is clear I am in a minority regarding it.

Still want to see Cloud Atlas but overall the Wachowski's are very overrated. 

Fun movie, not really a super hero one in way I think of them. Felt more like old Star Wars movies with Han Solo as the lead.