Except this movie lived up to the hype.

Are fan-boys that ...... I won't even say it.

That's what I said last week about Mummy III and TDK.

I think TDK will hold up quite well. By next Friday it should surpass Star Wars and take the number 2 position on the unadjusted chart. By the end of that weekend it will be aroung $478 mil. the SW cartoon may take #1 next weekend and TDK will be close to being tied with TT but still should be #2.

It may not get to $600 but it sould come close in the neighborhood of at least $550 mil. It could stay in IMAX longer and it may likely get rereleased around Oscar time. I think it has a slight chance of reaching titanic levels.

Has anyone considered that the Olympics may take a bit of steam away from TDK?

If I have to choose between seeing TDK again or watching the US Men's 4x100 free relay fall behind the french by nearly a body length on the last 50m against the world record holder and still somehow close the gap and break the world record by 4 seconds bringing home the gold, I'll choose the olympics.

The Olympics are quite boring and have been losing ratings each year for some time. Who really wants to watch people swim back and fourth in a pool over and over again?

Uh, TDK's weekend take (estimated) was off by only 39% from last weekend, that is outstanding legs for the film's 4th weekend. The Olympics are a non-factor for TDK's box office performance this weekend.

sorry i dvr the olympics.

watching the tdk several times is more historical.

I don't see him doing it out of spite, but I've always assumed a Titanic re-release was in the cards. I can see him going the 3D / IMAX route.

Yes, I'm sure James Cameron would be really sad and would be wiping away his tears with hundred dollar bills. Honestly, I think that these days the movie fans appear to be more obsessed with box office figures than the people who actually worked on the films.

It sometimes looks that way, Seantn.

I wonder if inflation-adjusted figures mean just standard inflation....

Maybe they should be looking at ticket-price inflation, then factor in relative population sizes at each time, how many cinema seats were available then and now, and perhaps a further adjustment for the number of films on release at the same time then and now i.e. if they only had a handful of films on release then, the narrow market itself might be a distortion. Furthermore, there's the fact that you may have had repeat viewings back then because there was less to see on television. And some people holding back seeing it again these days because they know they can soon watch the DVD/BD on their home cinema system. Not to mention the relative production cost of films then and now.

What a can of worms! []

I think TDK will make $500m easy but maybe not $600m.

In my opinion, it really doesn't matter. The Dark Knight is in more theaters because of its popularity and isn't that what box office numbers are measuring anyway?

This is how they figure out the adjusted numbers:

Take the gross of the movie you're looking at and divide it by the ticket price of the release year. That number represents the number of tickets sold. Now, take the number of tickets sold and multiply it by the average ticket price today (2008 isn't out yet, but 2007 was $6.88). http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm

So for Titanic it would be:
$600,788,188 / $4.59 = 130,890,672
130,890,672 * $6.88 = $900,527,828

If it were standard inflation it would be: $786,561,558

But when people do all these calculations, the one thing that is missing is the demand elasticity of the ticket price, then and now.

It's fine to say that Titanic garnered 130.89 million tickets sold at an average price of $4.59, but would Titanic still garner the same amount of tickets sold at the higher price of $6.88? No one knows.

Yeah, I know. And I highly doubt it would. So that's the best we can do. Personally, I think using adjusted numbers are overused. Would Gone with the Wind make over $1 BILLION if it were released today? Of course not.

I see him going the 3D/IMAX route as much as a extended cut theatrical release. (uh, I don't see it)

I love how fanboys assume everyone in the world is as emotionally shallow and oversensitive as they are.

Yes, it would. Never underestimate the power of teenage girls.

Perhaps a better way to compare films would be # of tickets sold / population at that year?

I think, perhaps, that you may not fully understand the purpose of publishing adjusted numbers. It isn't intended to posit the notion that a film from a bygone era would have made X dollars if it were released today, any more than it is intended to say that a contemporary film would have made X dollars, had it been released in that bygone era. Would Gone with the Wind have made over a billion dollars if it were released today? Probably not. But then, it was written, produced and directed by 1930's artists for 1930's audiences. Would The Dark Knight have earned $200 million if it had been released in 1939? Not a chance.

The purpose of adjusted numbers is to provide perspective and context with regard to the relative success and popularity of films from different eras. By showing that Gone with the Wind has an adjusted domestic gross of $1.4 billion, it reminds us that many, many more people went to see that film in theaters than have seen The Dark Knight, despite a much smaller population, difficult economic times, significantly fewer available venues, and no internet to fan the flames of fanboy love.

The Dark Knight is an unqualified success. No one disputes that. It has far exceeded any predictions or expectations prior to its release, both critically and financially. But to claim that Gone with the Wind was somehow less successful in its day is absurd.

Oh I know the purpose but some people don't use it that way. And did I say Gone with the Wind was less successful in its day? I merely stated that it would not make $1 Billion if it were released today. I can't see any movie doing that unless ticket prices get really high, but with the advanement of home theaters, there has to be a ceiling, right?

Are you kidding? If The Dark Knight was released in 1939 it would have made billions dollars because of its technical advances. IMAX in 1939 would be a pretty big draw.

I definitely think the population would and should be a factor.

Listen, I don't have a problem using adjusted numbers but the way some use it in other ways that draw the question of whether a movie released today would actually make that adjusted amount.

If that isn't what you meant then I apologize. I (mis)interpreted your assertion that it could not have made over a billion dollars today as an implication that the only reason it made as much as it did was because of cheaper ticket prices.