Yep.

This is all you got going for your side. Problem is, there were multiplexes in the 70's, the # just kept growing.

50 years of comics, TV shows and prior films. Batman had a gigantic base.

Ummmm, nope. Maybe not to the same scale as batman, but Batman was just following another trend set prior.

"In May 1980, one of the earliest truly popular movies to hold a midnight premiere was released at 12:01 on May 21 at the Seattle International Film Festival. It was called “The Empire Strikes Back,”."

Hell, they have 7pm, 10pm showings now. Batman ain't modern, it's ancient.

But, but, all these new modern movies are doing is following trends. Yep, that is all Batman did too.

If you want to be a trend setter, "the first modern movie", you better bring something better to the table than multiplexes.

People are taking this very personally

Nah, just bored.

Clearly.

A midnight showing at a festival is the same as midnight showings nationwide? Seriously?

What's this "no" business about Comic Con? Are you just saying no, in denial, or you have no knowledge of this? It's well documented, sorry.

What I got on my side was Batman having the biggest opening ever at the time, and it grew from there. You act as if that was a small feat, but it wasn't.

Your definition of trendsetter is pretty narrow. All I mentioned is that it was first as far as the modern roll out of so-called blockbusters. I never denied Star Wars, Jaws, E.T., etc. weren't, they were just different by today's standards. Look at how long they stayed in theaters compared to big movies today that stay in theaters for a much shorter period.

And per screen average is meaninglessness. Do you follow indie film roll outs at all?

http://portable.tv/film/post/how-jaw...n-blockbuster/

https://thescriptlab.com/review/cate...rn-blockbuster

http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/15702...st-blockbuster

http://whatculture.com/film/jaws-rev...-a-classic.php

The trends were already set. Yes, other films were promoted at comic cons prior to batman, just not to the same extent. Your trendsetter view is narrow as well. Batman brought nothing new to the table. Indy out performed it in 89. You want to make an argument for Jurassic Park, I can buy into it a bit, not Batman. Although JP had millions of years worth of hype and marketing.

Batman had an uphill striggle though despite being around for 50 years. The majority of the public at that point and time still thought of him as being like the Adam West version. I think the biggest thing that helped the movie besides the hype was how it was so incredibly different than the Adam West version and what people were used to seeing Batman as.

Indy was the second highest grossing movie in the US in 89. Batman was highest in the US.

So domestic is what matters? Worldwide Crusade was numero uno.

I still think JP was a bigger deal than batman.

Yeah, looked like Star Wars and Blade Runner did a panel, my bad.

Like I stressed before, the movie itself wasn't a game changer, but the way the movie opened made studio heads reconsider the opening weekend hype, and thus the modern day "blockbuster" was pretty common afterwards, which I use losely because if we have really think about it, there are very few blockbusters anymore due to the large number of screens.

I think The Dark Knight was the last movie around my neck of the woods that even had sold out shows. And before that the only movies that stand out where there was a decent line outside the front doors were Batman Returns and ID4. "Blockbusters" these days either open huge and drop off quickly, or they open well enough but have such great legs they become the biggest movies of all time. Movies and the frenzy for them just isn't there like it was for Star Wars or Jaws anymore, which is why I make the argument that they're not good examples of modern blockbusters. It's been an improperly used term for a while now. Plenty of big, even moster hits, definitely, but blockbusters are a rarity and I don't see anything on the horizon due to the decline of the must-see movies. Batman started the short window of release to home video.

There was a thread not long ago that asked if anything would be as big as Star Wars again, and the consensus was pretty much a no.

I'll make the argument that the suits made the decision to do that prior to Batman being released due to trends they already noticed.

It all depends on how the international distribution is set up. No surprise since it was heralded as the last Indy movie, so of course it would do well worldwide. Foreign audiences can be slow to warm up to unfamiliar superhero movies, and it might not have been distributed well on the foreign side. There's practically no information on Boxofficemojo about Batman's foreign breakdown. Batman I think outsold Indy with home video sales by a large margin, so there's that. The summer of '89 was filled with sequels to hit movies.

JP was bigger due to long legs, and it was literally the only big hit of the summer besides The Firm and The Fugitive that anyone wanted to see, which were not direct competition. Even if there had been, I still think JP would've been #1 easily. The Lost World's opening weekend was crazy. Too bad it wasn't nearly as good as JP. Kind of killed the franchise, though JP3 wasn't bad. Not many people cared about JP in 3D, but then again not many people are interested in seeing old movies in 3D, especially when they were never filmed in 3D to begin with and look terrible.

And whoever mentioned Batman's soundtrack as chessy is funny. It was a big hit, and sold 3 million copies in the US alone. And it's Prince.

What trends were those? It was made due to the success of Batman again with stuff like The Dark Knight Returns.

.

Seriously though, WB took a huge gamble on a character that, while well known, could have been a disaster. Superman was it, and by then people were nervous about releasing anything superhero related. Then after Batman, we saw the resurgence of event movies that we only normally saw with sequels.

He he, that don't make it the start of the modern blockbuster.

Right, it's huge opening weekend did. Also the first movie to gross $100m in 10 days.

So, the biggest opening weekend, not including inflation or available screens, at the time is your requirement for it being the 1st modern blockbuster? We already know marketing sure can't be claimed.

I'm still not convinced of the claim.

Inflation and available screens are irrelevant, since movie releases were very new in this context. Marketing can't be claimed? Eh..why not? Care to elaborate?

Because we have already shown that films prior to Batman were massively cross promoted.

No they weren't. Star Wars did not take advantage of cross promotion, certainly not with Jedi to the extent of Batman. And remember, the Star Wars toys were released after theatrical release.

Anyone else want to smack this before I do? Others have already shown pictures of McDonalds stuff, there was a ton more. Were you around at that time? Batman was Batman, I had Batman kiddie clothes in the 70s. Batman was a very popular character, had been for a long time.

Jaws I have no reference to, I was only 1.

EDIT: So, we have also learned that in your magical world that sequels don't count. Re-imagings do though right?

Since you said available screens is irrelevant, I am going to put forth that Batman did quite shitty in comparison to films that came before it then.

How did Batman do "shitty"? The per screen average was quite good.

Sequels had a built in audience. Batman did not. Sure, there were comics. Was it a sure thing? Hell no.

Your fixation of per screen average is laughable. Indie films open to better numbers. So what? It's not indicative of success of a film. Batman's opening weekend was great. To say otherwise is to be in denial.

McDonald's is the barometer of cross promotion?

With more than twice the amount of screens and higher ticket prices, Jedi shouldn't even be anywhere close to it.

That is Ruffledfeather territory.

From here, just push repeat and go back to the beginning of the thread.