2008 at the Box Office (1 Viewer)

[Pete-D]

The Batman films through 1997 were pop-culture films ... the Nolan films are really very different. It's just a different beast.

I think the key to TDK success is really just building upon Batman Begins and keeping that audience happy. If they can do that it will spur strong word of mouth.

Because I don't think the other summer blockbusters are as edgy/dark as TDK, that could work to its favor if the movie is well received by the fans and the critics like the first one was.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Bingo. The rest of this argument is nonsense.

1) Indy will gross more. I say this with all love to SW fans on HTF, but the Lucas fans are Pavlovian. They respond to nostalgia, so Indy will be a big hit.

2) Indy IV will be a decent film, I'm sure.

3) I think TDK will be a significantly better film. Nolan is working something unique and passionate. I see Indy coming from a different place (again, nostalgia).

Revenge of the Sith made a lot more than Batman Begins...but I thought Begins was a better movie

$$$ comes down to demographics...not quality.


EDIT: And this all started from Bill (who is a long-standing member of HTF) having an issue with the "Sorry Indy" in the TDK thread. And his response was about box office. Not quality. But the "Sorry Indy" was NOT about box office...it was about general excitement. And no matter what, plenty of us film fans are more excited about TDK than Indy IV. It doesn't mean TDK will gross more...it won't. It just means it's a more exciting prospect for my moviegoing dollar.

 

[TerryRL]

Well said, I completely agree with you.

 

[Malcolm R]

Does anyone under age 30 even know who Indy is? I was one of the first in line at "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade," but even I'm not particularly looking forward to the new film. After nearly 20 years it just seems like a cash-in to prop up what's left of Harrison Ford's career. The trilogy was neatly wrapped up with LC. This film just feels completely unnecessary.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I think a lot of kids grew up with Indy. I think it'll have great recognition among the younger fans. It has a pedigree The Mummy and National Treasure don't. And many in my age bracket will be excited for a new trip down memory lane. And it is a fun summer film with a great cast, by the guy who invented the summer blockbuster (Jaws), with a story by the guy that perfected the summer blockbuster (Star Wars).

The 80's are in again, and this is prime Indy territory

And what's more...it'll be a good film.

 

[GuruAskew]

Of course they do. Like I said, the "Indy" series is the kind of series that maintains a constant presence without a current movie.

And 30 certainly wouldn't be the cutoff. I was born in '81 after "Raiders" came out and I was too young to see "Temple" theatrically but I still remember seeing "Crusade" in the summer of '89 so its not as if its a 30 and over thing.

You know, Chuck is right, it really doesn't matter which one grosses more, what really matters is which one you like more, but I've never in my life seen a fanbase online as sensitive about box office performance as I have with "Batman Begins" fans.

Trying to cast doubt on the huge cultural presence of the "Indy" films while simultaneously trying to cover up the less-than-stellar box office performance of "Batman Begins" really cements it.

I think "Batman Begins" righted all the wrongs of the previous films but it has its own flaws as well and the more you watch it the more apparent they become. I don't think its a great film (though I'd say it's a good one) and Nolan isn't exactly doing much to make me think the next one will be different.

That said, a lot of people seem to think it was the greatest thing to ever happen to movies and if that's how you think why does it matter if it didn't make a ton of money? It was successful enough to spawn a sequel that you'll probably like too.

As I've said before, I don't expect the box office performance of "The Dark Knight" to radically deviate from the box office performance of "Batman Begins". It might make a little more and it might make a little less but I really don't think a huge jump (or drop as that Mummy guy suggests) is in the cards.

And before anyone suggests it, I'm not some die-hard "Indy" fan. I've literally watched the DVDs once, on the day they came out. I've been meaning to watch them again but my point is that its not as if I'm some nerd that watches an Indy movie every day.

I'm truly unbiased when it comes to Indy vs. Batman and to me its pretty obvious that Nolan's "Batman" doesn't have the same wide appeal that Indy has.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I'm sorry, did I wake up in a parallel universe in which Batman Begins was labeled a box office disappointment?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Well, most of us have readily pointed out that Indy will very likely gross more, so I don't think you can call BB fans sensitive about BO. We spent two weeks in 2005 wondering if we'd even get a sequel. And the BB box office was stellar. The opening weekend gross was very weak, but the overall BO was quite strong. I do disagree that BB established the "band" for new Batman films. The DVD sales indicate otherwise. Most of us believe, BO only, that BB established the bottom end of a Batman gross.

Is TDK going to bank $300M? Of course not...no one is claiming it will. They are claiming that it's probably going to outgross the original by a low double digit percentage, which I think is quite probable.

And no one cast doubt on Indy's (pop) cultural presence...they simply expressed more excitement for TDK.

As for $-sensitive fanbases, that's the SW fans, my friend. And even they aren't that bad anymore. Once they got a good movie (ROTS), they were chill on the BO

 

[GuruAskew]

No, but we do live in a universe where "Batman Begins" didn't pull in the money that "Batman" and "Batman Forever" did. We also live in a universe where "Batman Begins" didn't do nearly the business that its peers like "Spider-Man" and "X-Men" did. Even "Superman Returns" grossed more than "Batman Begins" worldwide.

I say that as pure fact. A lot of movies that "Batman Begins" could be reasonably compared to had grosses that were significantly higher. That's just the way it is.

In my last post I pointed out that "Begins" was successful enough to warrant a sequel. It's not as if it was a box office bomb.

I just think the incredibly hyperbolic enthusiasm towards "Batman Begins" you encounter everywhere on the internet sorta makes it seem like it was more financially successful than it really was. I mean, who would know that "Batman Begins" was only the 8th highest-grossing movie of 2005 by poking around on the internet? But like I said, if the internet was a reliable indicator of interest and success "Grindhouse" and "Snakes on a Plane" woulda made a lot more money.

 

[Andy Sheets]

In final numbers, sure, but I think you're ignoring trends too readily. I don't have time to give examples (stupid office work) but all I will say is that if you went to any exec or bean counter in Hollywood, I think they'd look at you funny if you tried to argue that Batman Begins had a "less-than-stellar" box office performance.

 

[GuruAskew]

I don't think so. Hollywood is full of examples of movies that turn a profit but are still considered a box office disappointment. "Superman Returns" is a great example. "Batman Begins" was profitable but there's no denying that Warner Bros. were expecting it to be a lot more profitable.

But yeah, for what it's worth "Batman" was the #1 movie of '89, "Batman Returns" was the #3 movie of '92 and "Batman Forever" was the #2 movie of '95. In reality "Batman Begins" is closer to "Batman & Robin" (#12 of '97, also a profitable movie for Warner) box office-wise than those three, and this is the box office thread.

For one, that proves that there's really no correlation between the quality of the films and their box-office performance.

I think there are probably at least 5 films in 2008 that "The Dark Knight" has no hope of outgrossing. I think the movie would be incredibly lucky to crack that top 5.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

But the excitement in the TDK thread isn't over how much money the movie would make. The visual comparisons people threw out were "Heat", a 1995 film that didn't gross a quarter of what Batman Forever did...but it's a movie much loved by cineastes 12 years later. Because of the FILMMAKING, not the box office. I agree there will be 5 movies that outgross TDK...my point is (and the point many of those in the thread were making) that TDK is a more intriguing experience than all of those (save WALL-E, speaking for myself). I don't get excited for what my film makes...I get excited for how good it looks. That was the enthusiasm in the thread for the movie (not the box office), and you responded by simply pointing out which films will gross more, Bill. Nothing wrong with that, but it diminishes my enthusiasm for TDK none whatsoever.

Homages to classic crime films make me think the director is trying to do more than sell toys and break opening weekend records.

As for the BO, the moviegoing industry is very different now than it was even in 1997. Frontloading is so prevalent. That's why the legs BB showed were amazing. Because it's a new world at the theater.

In retrospect, it's not a big deal. If your point is that the mainstream won't take TDK to $300M, then that's fine. It's no referendum on how much TDK excites me as a movie fan (not even as a superhero fan).

 

[Kevin Grey]

X-Men grossed less than Batman Begins. I think most people are expecting TDK to follow in the pattern of the X-Men franchise and consecutively gross more each pic.

 

[GuruAskew]

I meant the top-grossing movies in both series. I should have been more specific.

I don't think that "grossing significantly more" model necessarily works for Batman. We all know that "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" are part of a new continuity but in the eyes of most filmgoers they're just new "Batman" movies.

"X-Men" was unproven at the box office and actually has an excuse for having that kind of slow-build box-office penetration.

 

[Kevin Grey]

I can't agree with that at all. Even ignoring continuity, the entire approach to the films is radically different. It's as absurd as saying that the 1960's Batman film is a part of the series as well. Further, most of my non film-buff friends and family like BB precisely because it's not like the Burton-era films. Probably one of BB's most difficult challenges was proving to a skeptical audience that it would turn out better than the Schumacher films and I think that the movie ultimately did that.

But we can play that game too if you would like- even adjusted for inflation, Batman Begins significantly outgrossed Batman and Robin so we can extrapolate that the series is now growing in popularity...

 

[GuruAskew]

Or we can arrive at the simpler conclusion that "Begins" performed in 4th place out of 5 "Batman" movies in 16-year period.

 

[Kevin Grey]

And Forever managed to outgross the second film so the franchise is all over th place at the box office...

I guess I just don't agree with your viewpoint Bill- I think the general public mentally separates Nolan's series with those that went before it and I think anyone looking to do an estimate on how TDK will perform would be better suited to look at the history of X-Men and X2 than looking at the previous Batman films. Especially since the prior Batman films were pre-DVD and widespread home theater which IMO has had a huge impact on theatrical habits and is a big reason why I generally discount using inflation adjusted grosses for anything before 1998.

I also think using a film's ranking for the year as a barometer of success is silly. For example, the year that Forever released the top grossing film of the year was Toy Story with $191 million. But it was bracketed by years where the top grossing films grossed over $300 million. The Lion King being #2 in 1994 with $312 million doesn't mean it was less successful than #1 Toy Story at $191 million.

 

[Pete-D]

I have to disagree that word of mouth or perceived quality doesn't have an impact on the Batman movies' box office.

Batman '89 was obviously a cultural phenomenon for that whole summer (well really the whole year). 'Batmania' extended well into 1990, really.

Batman Returns had monsterous hype and should have easily been the no.1 movie of 1992, but poor word of mouth really put the brakes on that idea. The movie wasn't a disaster but it wasn't as much of a crowd pleaser as the '89 film.

Batman Forever had better word of mouth, even if it took the franchise in a direction loathed by a lot of the hardcore fanbase, it was more of a straight forward "please the mainstream audience" (and McDonalds corp) type of approach with the red hot Jim Carrey. Had a cast that appealed strongly to adults and teenagers.

Batman & Robin had disasterous word of mouth, obviously and died at the box office quickly. This film caused grave damage to the Batman franchise. Superman III and Spider-Man III would be offended being compared to this monstrosity of a picture. I will go even further and say the summer of 1997 in general really fed up the mass audience with disappointing sequels, and set the stage for Titanic as part of the backlash against summer blockbusters with no substance/heart that year.

Batman Begins had good word of mouth, if it didn't IMO it would've sputtered at $150 rather than going on to make over $200 million and restoring some of the franchise's luster. In this day and age, a superhero/summer event movie going on to quadruple it's opening weekend in total B.O. is definitely a rarity.

Word of mouth really IMO is key to the Batman films. Batman is a character the mass audience knows and for the most part likes, but they've been burned by this franchise before and are more cautious now with new installments. A lot of people wait to hear what the word is on the new Batman before going to see it. I had friends who didn't want to see Batman Begins at all because of Batman & Robin, but I convinced them to see it and they enjoyed it, bought the DVD, etc.

 

[Russell B]

I think TDK will do $250m just on the fact there is a villian that people care about and people will want to see how Ledger compares to Jack.

 

[DavidPla]

I would like to add that "Batman Begins" DOES have the best legs of any Batman film since the 89 movie. There's no denying that. So although it didn't sell as many tickets as the first three, in the end it did better that it stuck around much longer than the other two in a world today where your film is usually gone in the second week.

And Pete brings up a great point about the megastars the first four films had. "Batman Forever" had Jim Carrey at the peak of his career which I know attributed to a lot of the Box Office (I can still remember opening night when his name went across the screen in the opening credits the crowd errupted in applause!). Begins didn't have any megastars. All well known actors but none that can bring in the Box Office alone.