- View New Content
- Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming Video and Digital Downloads
- Home Theater Hardware
- Theaters, Remotes and Accessories
- Equipment Reviews
- DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Other Diversions
- Bargains and Deals
- Feedback and Testing
- Latest Blu-ray Deals
- Blu-ray Pre-Orders
- Shop Amazon & Support HTF
- Theater Photos
DVD & Blu-ray Reviews
- Equipment Reviews
- Shop Amazon
- Support HTF
some summer 2008 movie bets I made with a "friend"
68 replies to this topic
Posted September 09 2007 - 09:27 AM
Ok guys, I was only joking about that TDK thread earlier. so ya, my "friend" and I made a couple bets. I wanted the opinion of this forum regarding the bets. The main bet is that I believe The Dark Knight will not make MORE than Batman Begins did (we are talking domestically only). There's just no way. No way at all. First of all, I'm basing this on a really strong gut feeling. You know that feeling you feel when you're really full and need to go to the washroom? Well this feeling is stronger than that. Another deterrent to TDK is The Mummy 3. We all know that that series is one of the best series ever and that will cut into TDK's revenue. We also made some side bets: 1. I believe that Indiana Jones 4 will make DOUBLE The Dark Knight will make domestically. Indiana Jones is going to be huge! Everyone will want to see Harrison Ford ride off into the sunset! He's so old but everyone loves oldness. Also, that Shia LaBeouf is pretty cute. 2. Since my "friend" believes that he's a "good guy" he wants to give me a chance to make my money back! Ha! I scoff at that notion! He's saying that domestically, Iron Man will not make 80% of what The Dark Knight will make. That's just absurd. Again, no one cares about TDK and Iron Man is so cool because Robert Downey Jr. is really cute! Thoughts?
Posted September 09 2007 - 11:47 AM
I agree with your gut feeling about the TDK, because I know a lot of people including myself who felt Batman Begins was an over-hyped nearly 3-hour long borefest.
Posted September 09 2007 - 12:20 PM
Ok, so I'm willing to ignore the "no one cares about TDK" comment, but you went too far when you claimed that The Mummy is "one of the best series ever." I'm officially calling shenanigans. Maybe I'm missing the joke?
Posted September 09 2007 - 12:36 PM
I think BB's reputation has grown quite a bit since 2005. It was a slow film to be recieved because people were not sure of it but most seemed to enjoy it. Word of mouth spread and many people checked it out on home video. Now they want to see the sequel. I think TDK will do better than the first one, like many other unsure first films. Examples being the Pirates films, Bourne series, and Shrek.
Posted September 09 2007 - 02:28 PM
"Word of mouth spread and many people checked it out on home video. Now they want to see the sequel. I think TDK will do better than the first one, like many other unsure first films." Yup.
Posted September 09 2007 - 02:44 PM
Dark Knight will make some bank. People like The Joker just like they people (for some reason) like Venom. Oh, and also chicks think Christian Bale is hot lol. I look forward to Iron Man (a drunk/junkie playing a drunk) but I don't think it will come close to the domestic for TDK. I aslo don't see Indy 4 making double. 250 tops.
Posted September 09 2007 - 03:52 PM
Yes, the Joker is very popular, but when you screw up the character design and origin a lot of Joker fans are not going to apporve. You are probably right on Iron Man, only I am predicting it will take in less.
Posted September 10 2007 - 01:25 AM
If TDK is similar in quality to BB or better ... the movie will make a lot more than BB. Begins had the stigma of the horrid Batman & Robin to live down, and the popularity of the movie I believe has grown on DVD + HD-DVD. Warner Bros. should be looking to move it up at least a week IMO, but I think you're going to lose that bet quite handily. TDK will open much larger than Begins. The design differences in the Joker from the more recent pictures is not as extreme/gruesome as the initial picture of the character may have led people to think either. Agreed with the above analogy about Pirates 2, Bourne 2, etc. ... in franchise terms, right now Batman is once again on the upswing of that cycle. No way Indy 4 doubles TDK's domestic take unless Nolan really, really, (reeeeeally) screws it up or Indy 4 gets into the $400+ million range. We'll see with The Mummy whether or not they can repcature the more straight forward fun of the original one, because the second one was a big letdown and not having Rachel Weisz is going to hurt that franchise big time. I'm gonna say $320 mill for Indy 4 $280 mill for The Dark Knight $175 mill for The Mummy 3 Also Batman Begins had solid legs outside of its opening weekend ... which indicates good word of mouth built on the film as it played. It had % drops well under 50% for both its crucial 2nd and 3rd weekends, which is practically unheard for a superhero genre film. I don't see why you would think from an objective box office POV that the sequel is going to make less. The tell tale sign of a superhero sequel making less in that case would be the opposite scenario -- a strong opening, followed by a disasterous 2nd/3rd week drop off and a quick fade out of theaters. If ever there was a superhero movie where the sequel is going to make more than the original, The Dark Knight is probably one of the best bets for that. The first one got ball rolling and rebuilt confidence in the brand among the general movie going audience and $200 million in this day and age really is not that hard to topple.
Posted September 11 2007 - 01:02 PM
Wow, I definitely wouldn't want to watch movies with you and the people you know then if you thought Batman Begins was a "borefest". Also, like Colin said, 2 hrs. and 20 min. isn't "nearly 3 hrs".
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."
Posted September 11 2007 - 04:27 PM
I agree with Pete-D dead on with his predictions and those that "The Dark Knight" will make more than "Batman Begins". The word of mouth on that movie was stellar... in a world of opening weekends and huge drop offs, that film maybe opened a bit soft but its legs were amazing. And people have now discovered it on DVD coupled with the fact of Christian Bale's rising star and the villain being the Joker, this film will NO DOUBT outgross the original (unless it turns out Chris Nolan dropped the ball but I REALLY doubt it as he has yet to.) I will say that although I do think "The Mummy" franchise has waned in recent years, I don't think the departure of Rachel Weisz is going to have ANY affect on the film whatsoever, box office wise. To be honest, it's The Mummy that draws people in and to a lesser extent Brendan Fraser.
Posted September 13 2007 - 03:17 PM
It sure felt like three hours. What I cannot stand the most about movies like Batman Begins or even the latest Bond flick Casino Royale are the lousy, unrealistic fight scenes. Christopher Nolan needs to watch movies such as Point Blank, Hard Times, and the Warriors to get an idea on how to choreograph a decent fight scene. I predict The Dark Night will open larger than the first movie, but its total will be $20 million or $10 million less.
Posted September 15 2007 - 06:21 AM
When have Bond movies ever been about realism? I admit I didn't always like the close-ups, but overall this movie was quality, IMO. I also think Dark Knight will be strong. Batman Begins definitely had to overcome the previous Batman sequels, and I know there are those out there that waited until video and enjoyed it. Throw in a movie where you can get right to the action, a memorable villain, and it will be fine. Also as for Indy "riding off into the sunset," didn't he do that perfectly in Last Crusade. Anyway, that's not the point. It will open huge and I'm sure will make a ton. We will just have to see if the outcome is satisfying after all these years.
Posted September 15 2007 - 07:42 AM
Clearly this thread is some odd hoax.
The Hybrid System
The Music Part: Emotiva XSP-1, Thiel CS 3.6, Emotiva XPA-2, Marantz SA8004, Emotiva ERC-3, SVS PB-12 Plus 2
The Surround Part: Sherbourn PT-7030, Thiel SCS3, Emotiva XPA-5, Polk & Emotiva Surrounds.
Posted September 15 2007 - 11:17 AM
I don't know if The Dark Knight is a sure thing though. The first one had a great gimmick in that it showed in great detail how Batman came to be, and did so in an intersting, entertaining and (relatively) plausible way. Obviously you can't do that with this one so it can't be really anything more than a standard (for lack of a better term) Batman vs. a supervillian movie. Don't get me wrong, with the cast and director, that certainly has potential to great, but I feel Nolan an co. have their work cut out for them more with this one than the last one. Also, another thing that has me concerned is that the main villain will be the Joker. One of the good things about BB was that it had two main villains we've never seen depicted on film before. With this one, they have a villian that we've already seen depicted on film relatively recently. And while Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker might not be well liked among the more serious fans, he was definitely a big hit with audiences in general, so will the general audience member have a difficult time accepting another actor in the role when Nicholson's performance is still in the average moviegoer's conciousness? Also, will the Joker fit in this more realistic take on the Batman mythos? Does that character serve himself more to the tone and atmosphere of BB than to Burton's (or even the TV show)? Will he be just a psycho who paints his face white and is called the Joker for no other reason than to have a popular villian take center stage this time around? I have faith Nolan and company will come through, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have any skepticism about the second one. Oh yeah, is the Mummy such a revered film series that the general audience will be excited about a third movie so long after the last one came out? It's not like it has endured like the Indiana Jones series, has it?
Posted July 18 2008 - 08:04 AM
Guess you lost your bet Charles
Posted July 18 2008 - 08:06 AM
I haven't seen the Mummy movies, and I never will. The trailer for the new one played before "The Dark Knight" last night and I thought to myself I was VERY glad I never saw the first two movies. Yuck.
Posted July 18 2008 - 08:35 AM
"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932
Posted July 18 2008 - 08:42 AM
I have heard from two different people that the third mummy movie is terrible. Jacob
Posted July 18 2008 - 08:44 AM
I've heard from myself that the trailer is enough to make me not want to see it.
"If you're good at something, never do it for free."
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users