Re: Batman Begins' sequel: The Dark Knight (Merged)
Quote:
|
What your not taking into account is, Indy 4 feels 20 years too late and in those years, Harrison Ford has completly proven himself to be great at picking crap movies. No one even remembers his last 3 movies at the box office, and outside of the video game/ comic book nerds, the Indy brand is pretty much out of the public radar. Batman has never gone away. People are still watching all the time on TV.
|
That will only help Indy at the box office.
Indy clearly hasn't faded away over time, its a series of movie that has staying power without constantly having a new movie in the works. That's the kind of circumstance that fuels anticipation.
To put it simply, there have been no Indy movies since '89. This will be the sixth Batman movie in that time. What are people gonna be more eager to see?
Quote:
|
And Batman89 outgrossed "Last Crusade".. so what's your point?
|
This is a great point.
"Batman" '89 was the first "Batman" movie in 23 years. Furthermore, it was the first one to take the character seriously in any way. That was more exciting to moviegoers than another Indy movie after only 5 years.
But you're right, "Batman" '89 outgrossed "The Last Crusade" and "The Last Crusade" outgrossed "Batman Begins". That is a great illustration of how audiences feel about "Batman" today. I mean, it's right there in the numbers, in black & white.
Quote:
|
Not to get into an Indiana Jones vs. Batman debate because I'm sure Indiana Jones will do amazing this summer as well but... give credit where credit is due... Batman Begins was ALL about legs. Meaning that its opening weekend might've been the regular Batman fans but its following weekends brought in new audiences.
|
Once again, I'm gonna disagree here. I think it was the die-hards that kept going back over and over again, but there's really no way of knowing.
Quote:
|
As well as its DVD sales.
|
Like the theatrical performance I believe "Batman Begins" had a solid but unremarkable performance. I know a lot of people bought it on DVD, I own the 2-disc edition with the comic, but I don't think it was like a must-buy Holiday item that year like the "Batman" '89 VHS was and I believe most of the stuff I already mentioned like the "Spider-Man" movies outsold it by a wide margin.
Quote:
|
Case in point the best way to look at this is "X-Men" and "X2". The first opened to 54 M and went on to gross 156 M and because of that stellar word of mouth, the second opened to 85 M and went on to gross 215 M. The same will be for "The Dark Knight".. it will only expand on what "Batman Begins" brought in.. simple as that!
|
I agree, "Batman Begins" is a terrific indicator as to how "The Dark Knight" will perform at the box office.
Quote:
|
The reason Begins opened the way it did, was the same reason Spider-man 3 opened the way it did. Peoples pre-perceptions of the latest installment in a franchise are based on how entertaining the last movie was.
|
In regards to actual box-office business I don't think it's that simple. If that was the case, "Returns" woulda outgrossed "Batman" '89 (which was enormously popular at the time and has only recently been the target of significant criticism), "Forever" woulda bombed based on how most audiences didn't dig "Returns" and "Robin" woulda been huge (again, "Forever" was actually pretty well-liked at the time).
People didn't dig "Batman & Robin" and it was a well-known fact that "Batman Begins" would be pretty much the polar opposite. I don't think anyone saw anything "Begins"-related and expected another "Batman & Robin".
Quote:
|
I think both IJ and TDK are going to perform under expectations, because (especially in the case of TDK) expectations are starting to go thru the roof and will eventually asphyxiate in the ether and threaten to fall back to earth with painful thud.
|
I don't think "Begins" is a bad movie by any stretch, and don't think there's any debating that it's the best "Batman" movie ever. I do agree that the expectations are unreasonable but I think that has more to do with people just really wanting great "Batman" movies after 4 or 5 that weren't and I don't think most people really look at "Begins" and whatever "Dark Knight" developments that emerge with any rationality but again, I don't think what you see online is really indicative of what the general public thinks about the movies.
Quote:
|
I see IJ faring even worse, since the last film was so derivative and this one could likely be even hoakier (with the son Shia angle and the re-hashing of the Ark motif, all with a long in the tooth HF and the done to death dolly up for a close up while the music swells Spielberg shots).
|
But another "Batman" movie that features no new villains isn't gonna seem derivative in the eyes of audiences?
When it comes to both series I don't think audiences really expect much variation and I don't think either one will hurt as a result of being "derivative".
If anything, Indy will benefit from being derivative. So far it seems to have more continuity and connection with previous films (well, with "Raiders") and coupled with the long period of anticipation that should connect with people.
Quote:
|
I think if Hulk is a good popcorn movie this time (as opposed to being just a good semi-intelligent movie), then Universal will benefit enormously if they soft peddle it. It would have the opportunity to seemingly come from nowhere and capture kids imaginations in a way the previous one failed to.
|
I disagree. Like "Batman Begins" those who see it will probably see something superior to the last one but to most people it's another "Hulk" movie and the last one wasn't really all that long ago.
Quote:
|
I don't have faith that Iron Man has the budget behind it for a large enough amount of spectacular set pieces. The vibe I get is this is another X-men. A decent expositional chapter that paves the way for a more bombastic follow-up. Hannah Montana is going to make almost as much I would bet.
|
I think "Iron Man" will probably gross more than "The Dark Knight" but less than "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull".
It's certainly aimed at the "Dark Knight" audience but I just think the "I've never seen an Iron Man movie before" mentality will put it over the top. "Iron Man" has the "new" factor and Indy has the "incredibly long period of anticipation" factor and "Dark Knight" really doesn't have either.
Quote:
'Last Crusade' pulled in $197.2 million in '89 ($340.2 million today).
'Begins' earned $205.3 million in '05 ($219.7 million today).
|
"The Last Crusade": $474,171,806 worldwide in '89
"Batman Begins": $371,853,783 worldwide in '05
Quote:
I really don't get this whole Indy vs. Batman thing because both movies are poised to be huge blockbusters next summer. Indy IV will probably end up being the biggest (non-inflation adjusted) hit of the franchise, while I have no doubt that TDK will end up being a bigger hit than 'Begins' was. I wouldn't be at all surprised if TDK also ends up being the best performer (non-inflation adjusted) of its respective franchise.
These two movies should prove to be gigantic at the box office.
|
But "Batman Begins" just wasn't a "blockbuster". It was a solid hit but it certainly didn't live up to previous "Batman" movies inflation-wise. When dealing with a current movie factoring inflation into the equation can only hurt it and this is a series where even without inflation "Begins" ranks towards the bottom, and I just can't see "The Dark Knight" all of a sudden getting into "Batman" '89 and "Batman Forever" territory at the box office, I just don't think that's a reasonable expectation.
(at the last two posts)
