Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

But, if you add in the World Wide Market, I bet the TDK/TDKR come out at least even or ahead as far as Tickets sold.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

That's a fine comparison... with 1989, when movies were in theaters for months on end (Batman was still playing well into the fall), there was MUCH fewer competition from other pictures, and there was barely any home video market.

With DVD/Blu-Ray added in (as well as the international market), TDKR will be a far greater revenue-generator.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic. Batman '89 played in the theater for 6 months, it is true, but TDK played in the theater for 9 months, so the "movies played in theaters longer way back then" argument is a straw man. I have no doubt, when TDKR closes, its run will have been as long as '89 was.

Also, it should be noted that '89 played in fewer than half the number of theaters that TDKR is playing in, and still is ahead in domestic ticket count. And, although we didn't have DVD or Blu-ray in '89, we did have this little thing called VHS, and at that time the VHS sell-through market was at its peak, with titles routinely releasing at $20+ prices, and consistently selling out.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

But there was less competition. I mean..it was fucking 1989. There wasn't as much variety as there is today in the mainstream.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

But there are also many more people, and many more theaters available today. TDKR opened in over 4400 theaters (and on probably over 9000 screens in those theaters). You can't seriously believe they would open it that wide if they didn't think they could fill all of the seats.

Yes, movies are more front-loaded today than they were then, but they also open much wider today than any movie ever did then, so it evens out in the end.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

RoboDad, the "movies played in theaters longer way back then" isn't a straw man, it's an observed fact. Theatre-to-Home-video windows were larger back then and VHS tapes weren't always priced to own on release day; I still remember $110 VHS tapes. People would routinely see movies in theatres several times during a run. This isn't opinion.

Contrast that with now, where movies generally have a very short run, usually with a four-week run in most multiplexes, and longer with larger multiplexes and second-runs (they do still exist; somewhere someplace is still playing The Avengers). The attitude has changed thanks to smaller theatre-to-home-video release windows, now about three months on average, and a better quality home experience - DVD is so much better than VHS, never mind Blu-ray and HD broadcasting. The moviegoing audience very rarely watches a movie more than once in a theatre. Exceptions happen, of course - I would routinely see some people seeing The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises more than once, but this was far from the majority. Moviegoers like to see a film while it's still new and being talked about, and after a couple of weeks, when most movies stop being a hot commodity, attendance wanes.

The Dark Knight playing for as long as it did was an anomaly, and part of why it was such a special case. Meanwhile, I have The Dark Knight Rises down to two screens a month after its release, one regular (with only three shows a day) and one IMAX. It's done better than most of our other summer releases, which I'm happy for, but it's been no match for its 2008 predecessor.

While it was funny telling Hokeyboy about VHS tapes, I am curious to know what point you were trying to illustrate.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I'm about as big of a Batman fan as they come, and I only saw '89 once in the theater, on opening day. In fact, aside from the Lucas/Spielberg blockbusters of the late 70s / early 80s, I never saw any movie more than once. But I did buy Batman '89 on VHS at sell-through pricing, and I didn't have to wait a year for it. VHS sell-through became a viable revenue stream for studios starting in 1988, and by 1990 it was insanely popular. I remember seeing people attacking the video tables at Costco like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

Look, I'm not trying to say that there are no differences between 1989 and 2012 in the way movies are perceived and consumed by the public. There are, But there are also still many similarities, and as I said above, some differences do average out over time. But it is kind of silly for people to get so bent out of shape that TDKR might not sell as many tickets as Batman '89. Unless someone wrote, produced, directed, or starred in the movie, why should it bother them so much?

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

We're not bent out of shape. We're just stating the facts.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Facts = Internet Kryptonite

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

So what? Many other people did.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

What's important is that we all recognize that anything that is more popular is also better in quality.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Like one of those Transformers films.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Stop getting all bent outta shape, ya hot-head. :mad:

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

The market has changed and is now flooded with movies and choices as well.

The Dark Knight was released July 18th, 2008 and played through March 5th, 2009, so a little under 8 months. This included it's re-release for Oscar/IMAX purposes, by the time the movie was released on Blu/DVD in December of 2008, it was only playing in about 269 dollar theaters and pulling about $250k a week. It hit the cheap seats on November 14th, 2008.

Batman was released June 23rd, 1989. It played through December 14th, 1989.
It officially hit the cheapseats on October 27th, 1989.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is. Batman did well, it opened to $40m and had decent legs. $40m just happened to be a lot more tickets back then, but there were also fewer choices for both movies and overall entertainment back then. You can weigh it all out forever. Batman 89 hype vs. Batman and Robin's stench vs. Heath Ledger death vs. Aurora shooting... good luck.

Adjusted Box Office:
27 Marvel's The Avengers BV $617,595,391 (Because it came up earlier, just as a reference point I guess, I dunno. wait I know, I'll throw in Avatar too!)
14 Avatar Fox $779,987,300

29 The Dark Knight WB $595,742,300
50 Batman WB $504,896,000
92 The Dark Knight Rises WB $412,665,020
140 Batman Forever WB $339,294,100
167 Batman Returns WB $314,677,200

Internationally, I'd estimate Batman at around $850m. TDKR has about $900m now, TDK had $1b.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

We went to see this again this past weekend, and it was sold out at the 4:00 show we wanted to go to. We waiting and went to the 8:00 instead, and it was still a pretty full theatre. Granted, it was in one of the smaller rooms on a smaller screen.

I enjoyed it more the second time around; I felt like it moved at a much better pace knowing how it was all going to unfold.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Yeah, let's see. Summer 1989. There was...

Batman
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Ghostbusters II
Lethal Weapon 2
The Abyss
License to Kill (Bond)
Honey I Shrunk the Kids
Look Who's Talking
Casualties of War
Dead Poets Society
Do the Right Thing
Karate Kid 3
Nightmare on Elm Street 5
Parenthood
Sex, Lies, and Videotape
Star Trek 5
Uncle Buck
UHF
When Harry Met Sally

I'd take that line up over everything that came out this summer.

Also, Batman '89 set the record for sell-through VHS when it came out.

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Noticably missing from this list is the Yahoo Serious movie. Pure variety right there! :D

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Sheesh! I think I saw all of those in the theater! :eek:

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

There was ALSO Turner & Hooch and Weekend At Bernie's. :)

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I wouldn't take any of those movies over Avengers or Dark Knight Rises. Lot of mediocrity on that list for me too. :shrug:

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Saw those too. :up:

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I was contesting Snake's rediculous statement that 1989 was the dark ages and there was nothing else to see in the theater and that Batman didn't have any competition. The list shows a very diverse landscape of films available in what was actually the biggest and most competitive summer movie season ever up to that time. Look at the list. Batman was a new movie and it went up against a bunch of established franchise powerhouses: Ghostbusters, Lethal Weapon, Star Trek, and Indiana Jones. It ended up #2 for the year behind Indy.

If you would pick two comic book movies over all this diversity (and Weekend at Bernies and Young Einstein to boot) that's your choice, but I think you're crazy.

Say what you will about mediocrity; you had Lethal Weapon, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones, Batman, Star Trek, Bond, a James Cameron film, a John Hughes film, a Brian DePalma film, and if that's not enough the winner of the Palm d'or at Cannes...ALL IN ONE SUMMER!!!!

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

Batman was #1 that year, in terms of gross (unless I'm misunderstanding your statement about Indy).

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I'm not comparing 2 movies versus that entire list, I'm just saying I would take either Dark Knight Rises or Avengers over any of those movies individually on that list, with Indiana Jones coming in a close 3rd. Just contesting your own opinion that "I'd take that line up over everything that came out this summer."

I don't think much of a lot of those movies listed, but I agree that it looks like there was plenty of competition for Batman.

http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=1989&p=.htm

Re: The Dark Knight Rises (Nolan)
 

I was mislead by Wikipedia's list which shows top grossing films worldwide that indicates Jones beat Batman. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_in_film

Looks like domesticly Batman won the year.