RoboDad

I also found a YouTube video of the news reports about 89's VHS sell-through release, which was only 4 months after the film's theatrical opening (it set a new record for the smallest window at that time). So again, things were no where near as different from today in 1989 as some people want to misremember.

To sum up, it had nowhere near as wide of a release as the current film, it had plenty of high profile blockbuster competition in theaters, it had just as early of a sell-through home video release (and, as Mabuse pointed out, it was a wildly successful sell-through release) as is common today, yet it still seems to be ahead in numbers of tickets sold.

Internet kryptonite, indeed.

Hokeyboy

If you're going to argue that the film/movie-going dynamics and economics of 23 years ago are remotely comparable to 2012, well... let's just say we agree to disagree.

DaveyJoe

So the better film made more money, but sold less tickets? Interesting.

RoboDad

All I did was refute the stated reasons that others gave as supporting arguments for the claimed differences between 1989 and 2012 (long theatrical runs, less competition, longer sell-through window). Based on fact, those reasons are invalidated.

If you would care to expound on what you think makes things so different, I am willing to listen (well, read, anyway ).

RoboDad

Accounting for inflation, not really (at least, not domestically). And, in terms of ROI percentage, TDKR with its 250M budget pales in comparison to Batman 89 and its 35M budget.

DaveyJoe

So the better film sold less tickets and made less money after adjusting for inflation? Interesting. Did you adjust each budget for inflation also?

RoboDad

Note: I never said "the better film", you inferred that.

Adjusting for inflation, the budget of Batman 89 today would be around 65M.

DaveyJoe

I never implied that you did, it started in my post, so I take ownership of that opinion.

Mabuse

While you are right that 1989 and 2012 are very different, I think from all the evidence that is on display here one could easily argue that the movie going economics of today were very much spawned by the jugernaught that was Batman in 1989. It was a monster big film with monster big promotion, monster big box office, fast to video, monster seller on video, etc.

While things were very different back then, everything about Batman '89s release was just like today.

The Bus

lol

Dragon Tattoo

This finally passed The Dark Knight's box office take this weekend.

$1,005,196,000 to $1,003,045,358 currently.

2nd highest grossing movie this year, #1 without 3D.

DVD Josh

After having seen TDKR four times, I honestly prefer UHF. Really.

TheMovieman

Despite a slightly disappointing domestic take, still an impressive back-to-back success for Nolan (and a good effort, box office wise, for Batman Begins considering the stench from Batman & Robin still permeated in some minds).

Dr. DVD

Interesting that for total take it did better than TDK. I guess American audiences are more difficult to impress.

Dragon Tattoo

Yeah, just one guy in a ridiculous superhero costume isn't enough for them anymore.

bootsy

I still don't see how it can be labeling as slightly disappointing. With the shooting and the Olympics this movie will end up as the 7th highest grossing movie of all time domestically. There is nothing disappointing about that. I don't know that's just how I see.

RoboDad

Because, even with the memory of the shooting fading, and the Olympics long over, the current (i.e., the past 2-3 weeks) daily box office take for TDKR lags about 30% behind TDK, on a day-to-day comparison, despite still having command of many higher-priced IMAX theaters. TDKR will likely break $450M, but not by much. That will put it more than $80M behind TDK, even without adjusting for inflation. I have no doubt that Warner Bros had higher hopes for the trilogy finale than that.

And, let's not forget, the 2008 Olympics occurred during the theatrical run of TDK.

bootsy

I still don't see a movie that makes $450M as being disappointing on any level. Disappointing would be if this movie made $250M or $300M. You are comparing it to what TDK made but there are now only 3 movies that have made as much as TDK domestically. The Olympics started 2 weeks after TDK had already been out whereas TDKR it started a week after it came out.

Hokeyboy

It's only the #3 top grossing superhero movie of all time, over a billion dollars worldwide, and all this WITHOUT premium 3D pricing?

You're right. What a fucking disappointment.

Michael Corvin

Also there's a lot to be said for having a marquee villain. Heath Ledger death arguments aside, people love the fucking Joker. He's an easy sell. A no name villain that the bulk of society had never heard of, played by a non-marquee actor that mumbles through the whole movie is a tough sell.

I think it's silly to think this would have ever surpassed TDK, but to still be top 10 of all time? That's hardly a disappointment.

RoboDad

I was only pointing out the kind of thinking that might be going on at Warner Bros.

As a blockbuster movie, of course it isn't a disappointment. But to WB, as the successor to TDK, they might have expected a bit more.

bootsy

I think WB's pretty happy with the results especially after the shootings. People didn't know what to expect to happen after that opening day.

Dragon Tattoo

But it did.

Supermallet

Pretty sure he meant domestically.

Dr. DVD

Domestic or worldwide, there's no arguing that it made WB some major $$, and once the BR hits, it will most likely generate more as many who own the first two (like me) will probably buy it just to have the complete trilogy. While I know I pick on this movie a bit, it still shines above and beyond the average movie released nowadays, and it still ends the best adaptation of the Batman saga.

That said: