The Dark Knight Billion Dollar Batman: The Dark Knight $tory

[batman11]

Just something quick and fun in honor of the milestone:

 

[Kargo Warrior]

***saves***

Great job man!That's awesome

 

[batman11]

Thanks dude.

 

[Rolf]

1. American audiences can handle mature story lines.

I did not think there was ever any doubt of this.

2. Actors don't need their looks to sell a character (I'm talking to you Ryan Reynolds/ Deadpool)

What do you mean?

3. Batman came and went all over Avi Arad's face (skeet skeet!)

If only we could hear his reaction to all this.

4. You don't need happy endings

I get the feeling that a lot of the numbers would not have been as high as they were if people knew about the sad ending.

5. CGI is just a tool, and shouldn't be a selling point of a movie.

Two-Face's face was CGI, and that was one of the better things about this movie.

6. It's ok to kill Characters (IRON MAN did this too with the man in the cave)

Rachel might, MIGHT return as the Phantasm.

7. You don't need to throw in a comic relief (Or have your protagonist have a stupid dance scene)

The Joker should have been comic relief, a bit like that Abys-"Smile" guy in Alladin.

8. The more tension, desperation, suspense, and hopelessness a movie has the greater the reprisal is.

I don't understand...

9. You don't need "young" actors to appeal to younger audiences (INDY IV)

Most of the actors were young...

10. Might as well make a smart action film

All films must have at least some action.

11. As long as the story calls for it, you can have as many characters/ villains as you want.

Yes, hopefully they will have the same amount of villains they had in the Long Haloween.

12. You don't need a hot actress to sell a movie

Did Ramirezz count?

13. You don't need celebrities or top of the chart sound tracks to sell a movie.

Actually you do, all actors are celebrities.

However you are right about the soundtrack, considering it was THE best thing about the movie.

 

[SuperFerret]

So what's the message?

Simple... kill the bull ****

1. American audiences can handle mature story lines.

2. Actors don't need their looks to sell a character (I'm talking to you Ryan Reynolds/ Deadpool)

3. Batman came and went all over Avi Arad's face (skeet skeet!)

4. You don't need happy endings

5. CGI is just a tool, and shouldn't be a selling point of a movie.

6. It's ok to kill Characters (IRON MAN did this too with the man in the cave)

7. You don't need to throw in a comic relief (Or have your protagonist have a stupid dance scene)

8. The more tension, desperation, suspense, and hopelessness a movie has the greater the reprisal is.

9. You don't need "young" actors to appeal to younger audiences (INDY IV)

10. Might as well make a smart action film

11. As long as the story calls for it, you can have as many characters/ villains as you want.

12. You don't need a hot actress to sell a movie

13. You don't need celebrities or top of the chart sound tracks to sell a movie.

But a rabid fanbase and an unfortunate coincidence helps.

 

[hatebox]

But a rabid fanbase and an unfortunate coincidence helps.

not to the tune of a billion dollars they don't.

 

[SuperFerret]

So your saying that the fact that the film is not only a Batman film, but the sequel to the highly successful Batman Begins had nothing to do with the huge box office? Or that Heath Ledger's death had no effect on people deciding to go see it? I'm not saying that they alone are responsible for it, but these things should be considered before we start with the pompousness shown in the "kill the bull****" post.

 

[Bat-Mite]

I get the feeling that a lot of the numbers would not have been as high as they were if people knew about the sad ending.

And yet, a good chunk of that money is from repeat viewings of the film.

The Joker should have been comic relief, a bit like that Abys-"Smile" guy in Alladin.

I don't know if you're joking here or not, but I can't recall the modern Joker ever being solely about comic relief. You're looking for Cesar Romero's Joker.

Most of the actors were young...

The only actor in a starring role younger than 30 was Heath Ledger. I think the original poster was talking about actors in their late teens or early 20's.

So your saying that the fact that the film is not only a Batman film, but the sequel to the highly successful Batman Begins had nothing to do with the huge box office?

Highly successful? It did a decent job at the box office, but Begins wasn't even considered to be that successful when it was in theaters. There are posts here on the Hype that go back to that time as proof of this.

Or that Heath Ledger's death had no effect on people deciding to go see it?

It had nothing to do with the fact that the movie's trailer had received millions of views when it was released.. because, of course, Heath was still living then. Did Heath's death prompt some people to go out of morbid curiosity? Sure, but those celebrity-obsessed types weren't the people who brought in the big numbers. The character of the Joker himself is what brought in the big numbers. Warner Bros. KNEW he was the big sell for this film (due to their experience with Batman '89) and that's why he was featured so heavily in the marketing.

I'm not saying that they alone are responsible for it, but these things should be considered before we start with the pompousness shown in the "kill the bull****" post.

I'm amused to see the many lengths people will go to to try to downplay the film's success. Heath's death is the most common tactic, but I'm going to be wondering where these same people are when Dr. Parnassus doesn't come close to making as much money as TDK did. It doesn't have a chance. Perhaps that original post was a bit over the top, but you can't really blame the guy for gloating when a movie he obviously enjoys broke so many records.

 

[hatebox]

^ of course they were factors. Did I say they weren't? I just stated they weren't the overriding factors.

edit - that was addressed to SF obviously.

 

[Anita18]

I get the feeling that a lot of the numbers would not have been as high as they were if people knew about the sad ending.

Two-Face's face was CGI, and that was one of the better things about this movie.

Word of mouth was terrific, so that refutes your first point.

And Two-Face was mostly CGI, but it wasn't a selling point. You didn't see his scarred side at all in the trailers.

But a rabid fanbase and an unfortunate coincidence helps.

Rabid fanbase helps, but we weren't the only ones to see TDK. EVERYBODY saw TDK.

And an unfortunate circumstance could have hurt them, a lot, if the marketing had handled it differently.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

I did not think there was ever any doubt of this.

No, there was. Look back in previous threads, people on this thread said that if this movie was too mature then it would hurt it's BO numbers. Around the world people tend to joke that the average-American-movie goer is only interested in explosions, sex, fast cars, action and violence.

What do you mean?

For reason I am not aware of, the character of Deadpool, played by Ryan Reynolds as a normal face. One of the Character's staples is that he is hideously grotesque, Whether they will show his face getting damaged or whether the director decided not to to show off the actors face, I don't know. My point was that there are times where an actors ego prevents them from playing the character to the fullest, because they want to maintain an image. Another example is Mary Jane Watson played by Kirsten Dunst. The costumer was not allowed to select her wardrobe because she wanted to maintain the "Kirsten Dunst look" (whatever the **** that means.) Heath Ledger was casted by Nolan based off of his performance in Brokeback Mountain, where he courageously and proudly played a homosexual. To kiss another straight guy in the mouth on camera for the world to see takes courage. And he sold it beautifully. Played the role like a true actor should, with honesty, integrity, and no ego, no fear. Then he disappears again for the Joker and doesn't care that he looks older then he really is, ugly, freaky. He was the Joker. There wasn't a single frame of footage where you could identify Heath Ledger. I only found one picture where he is not the Joker but still in make up and costume, and it looks and feels like someone else entirely.

If only we could hear his reaction to all this.

If only

I get the feeling that a lot of the numbers would not have been as high as they were if people knew about the sad ending.

Maybe, but plenty of people saw this movie multiple times who weren't Batman fans, just fans of the movie.

Two-Face's face was CGI, and that was one of the better things about this movie.

Yes, and it looked great. You couldn't tell it was CGI. Indy IV had CG monkeys that looked like ****. Well, most of that movie looked like ****. It's sad to say that out of the four best movies to use CGI, two of them are from the 90's. (Jurassic Park and T2 still hold up to todays standards. TDK and SM2 also had great CGI. Compare that to a movie like G.I. Joe and, well, there is no comparison)

Rachel might, MIGHT return as the Phantasm.

Wouldn't that be something. I think not though.

The Joker should have been comic relief, a bit like that Abys-"Smile" guy in Alladin.

What?

I don't understand...

Things only went one way in TDK, south. Everything went from semi-hopeful when the Mob was grounded out, to bleak when the Joker offed the Judge and Commissioner, to bleaker when Gordon got "killed", to DESPERATE when the Joker escaped, to OMFG THIS IS INTENSE when he blows up the hospital, to JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS OVER, Two-Face is in full swing.

The movie never let you go. You never had a moment to catch you breath. You never felt like Batman had the upper hand at all in the second half. When he takes the wrap for Harvey it feels almost like a sign of hope. A really jaded sign of hope. But you believed it could help, because it was the only breath you could take.

Most of the actors were young...

It's typical Hollywood formula to suggest if there isn't a teen star, or kid in the film, that they'll lose the "young" demographic. INDY IV had Shia Labeouf, because Lucas thought it would attract a younger audience. No one in TDK plays a character younger then 30. Heath was 28 when he died, but the Joker is probably older then 28.

All films must have at least some action.

I think you missed my point on that one.



Yes, hopefully they will have the same amount of villains they had in the Long Haloween.

Did Ramirezz count?

Actually you do, all actors are celebrities.

No.
Everyone in TDK is an actor. Non are "celebrities." Celebs are people like Ashton Kutcher, Angelina Jolie or Jessica Alba; who sell themselves in movies or whatever they do. Actors on the other hand sell their characters, not their day-to-day selves. Katie Holmes is a celebrity. Maggie G. is an actor. (Actresses are girls who think they can act. That's why awards are given to female actors)

However you are right about the soundtrack, considering it was THE best thing about the movie.

Your silly. But your humor made me clarify things for this pompous poster

So your saying that the fact that the film is not only a Batman film, but the sequel to the highly successful Batman Begins had nothing to do with the huge box office? Or that Heath Ledger's death had no effect on people deciding to go see it? I'm not saying that they alone are responsible for it, but these things should be considered before we start with the pompousness shown in the "kill the bull****" post.

My post was a jab pointing at how TDK won both a ridiculous amount of money and critical appraisal by NOT following conventional Hollywood blockbuster formulas. If you got offended and thought it was pompous then be my guest. I can't spell it out for you any clearer what my intentions were. This is what happens when you cast your pearls in front of bore.

 

[thedarks0ldier]

This is what happens when you cast your pearls in front of bore.

That was pompous

 

[usmcrice0311]

That was pompous

haha get some

 

[thedarks0ldier]

haha get some

WORD!!

 

[Daredevil_2003]

I'm amused to see the many lengths people will go to to try to downplay the film's success. Heath's death is the most common tactic, but I'm going to be wondering where these same people are when Dr. Parnassus doesn't come close to making as much money as TDK did. It doesn't have a chance. Perhaps that original post was a bit over the top, but you can't really blame the guy for gloating when a movie he obviously enjoys broke so many records.

I agree with everything you said, but this in particular. There's always that group that attempts to rain on the parade, for no perceivable reason other than riling people up or trying to be different, I guess... *shrug*

 

[Jokers_Wild]

I agree with everything you said, but this in particular. There's always that group that attempts to rain on the parade, for no perceivable reason other than riling people up or trying to be different, I guess... *shrug*

We all know they're just jealous little *****es who got nothing better to do than to try and hate on the Bats! You think I spend my time trying to rain on Iron Man's success, because I'm not a terrific fan of Marvel? No, I got better things to do.

 

[baerrtt]

TDK's immense success proves again that the times we live in inform our contemporary hits.

With the ironic exception of Burton's Batfilms family oriented summer blockbusters this tonally bleak would never have even been greenlighted during the gung-ho 80s and the optimistic 90s. Whatever TDK's flaws it's overall qualitative and commercial results ultimately also prove that:-

a)Talented, visionary directors mustn't be excluded from making popullist films because their 'vision' doesn't fit with the demands of merchandising deals.

b)If you do hire such talents leave them be to make the film they want to make(something Avi Arad should have done with Sam Raimi when SM3 was being conceived). Yes we get BATMAN RETURNS (not a bad thing imo), HULK or SUPERMAN RETURNS but quite frankly the risk is bloody worth it.

 

[Rolf]

For reason I am not aware of, the character of Deadpool, played by Ryan Reynolds as a normal face. One of the Character's staples is that he is hideously grotesque, Whether they will show his face getting damaged or whether the director decided not to to show off the actors face, I don't know. My point was that there are times where an actors ego prevents them from playing the character to the fullest, because they want to maintain an image. Another example is Mary Jane Watson played by Kirsten Dunst. The costumer was not allowed to select her wardrobe because she wanted to maintain the "Kirsten Dunst look" (whatever the **** that means.) Heath Ledger was casted by Nolan based off of his performance in Brokeback Mountain, where he courageously and proudly played a homosexual. To kiss another straight guy in the mouth on camera for the world to see takes courage. And he sold it beautifully. Played the role like a true actor should, with honesty, integrity, and no ego, no fear. Then he disappears again for the Joker and doesn't care that he looks older then he really is, ugly, freaky. He was the Joker. There wasn't a single frame of footage where you could identify Heath Ledger. I only found one picture where he is not the Joker but still in make up and costume, and it looks and feels like someone else entirely.

This... This I agree with 100%, ego is the main reason we rarely get true charecter interpratations, actors want people to be watching THEM not the charecters they are supposed to be playing. However, I do not think Nolan is completely imune to this problem, Alfred seems to have been needlessly altered to acomodate Michael Cane, for example: Lack of mostache, needless uterances of the word "bloody" and many more semingly needless departations from his origional charecter. Of coarse this may have been because Nolan didn't want to stereotype British people in front of American audiances. But you never know.

If only

Eventually someone will interview him and he will come up with some other ridiculous statement about how in a few years people will forget all about Batman.

Maybe, but plenty of people saw this movie multiple times who weren't Batman fans, just fans of the movie.

I guess you're right.

Yes, and it looked great. You couldn't tell it was CGI. Indy IV had CG monkeys that looked like ****. Well, most of that movie looked like ****. It's sad to say that out of the four best movies to use CGI, two of them are from the 90's. (Jurassic Park and T2 still hold up to todays standards. TDK and SM2 also had great CGI. Compare that to a movie like G.I. Joe and, well, there is no comparison)

I suppose thats true.

Wouldn't that be something. I think not though.

It would be something...

What?

Come on, just because he's the villain doesn't mean he can't be comic relief too.

Things only went one way in TDK, south. Everything went from semi-hopeful when the Mob was grounded out, to bleak when the Joker offed the Judge and Commissioner, to bleaker when Gordon got "killed", to DESPERATE when the Joker escaped, to OMFG THIS IS INTENSE when he blows up the hospital, to JUST WHEN YOU THOUGHT IT WAS OVER, Two-Face is in full swing.

The movie never let you go. You never had a moment to catch you breath. You never felt like Batman had the upper hand at all in the second half. When he takes the wrap for Harvey it feels almost like a sign of hope. A really jaded sign of hope. But you believed it could help, because it was the only breath you could take.

True.

It's typical Hollywood formula to suggest if there isn't a teen star, or kid in the film, that they'll lose the "young" demographic. INDY IV had Shia Labeouf, because Lucas thought it would attract a younger audience. No one in TDK plays a character younger then 30. Heath was 28 when he died, but the Joker is probably older then 28.

Don't feel like argueing.

I think you missed my point on that one.

Again, don't feel like argueing.

Everyone in TDK is an actor. Non are "celebrities." Celebs are people like Ashton Kutcher, Angelina Jolie or Jessica Alba; who sell themselves in movies or whatever they do. Actors on the other hand sell their characters, not their day-to-day selves. Katie Holmes is a celebrity. Maggie G. is an actor. (Actresses are girls who think they can act. That's why awards are given to female actors)

It really depends on your definition of actor.

Your silly. But your humor made me clarify things for this pompous poster

To me, the soundtrack is one of THE best thing about this franchise, if they reboot again than one thing I will be looking out for is good soundtrack.

Fun Fact: Did you know that before I watched it, I origionally thought that Batman Begins was a prequel and I thought (hoped) that Danny Elfman's soundtrack would be used?

 

[Anita18]

For reason I am not aware of, the character of Deadpool, played by Ryan Reynolds as a normal face. One of the Character's staples is that he is hideously grotesque, Whether they will show his face getting damaged or whether the director decided not to to show off the actors face, I don't know.

Just popping in here to say that over in the Wolverine/Fox forums, there's rumors that

Spoiler

Ryan Reynolds is NOT Deadpool. Someone found pictures of official Deadpool figurines and they look like some other guy in the trailer, the big guy with blades for hands leaping at Wolverine.

 

[frodawgg]

I'm only burning my Half...

you know, i got to thinking about that scene the other day. it's funny b/c, even though he poured gasoline on his share, the rest would burn anyway b/c it's paper. i found that quite interesting, especially since it took me so long to think about it.

 

[raynorWilm]

yea that thought came to me as well...

 

[redfirebird2008]

you know, i got to thinking about that scene the other day. it's funny b/c, even though he poured gasoline on his share, the rest would burn anyway b/c it's paper. i found that quite interesting, especially since it took me so long to think about it.

LOL, that's why he's the Joker. That was just one of his typically twisted jokes. t:

 

[CrimsonDeath]

So what's the message?

Simple... kill the bull ****
.......

3. Batman came and went all over Avi Arad's face (skeet skeet!)

.......

Every point you made in your post is dead on, great truths of something intelligent, but number 3 is my favorite of them all!
t:

 

[p4poetic]

So what's the message?

Simple... kill the bull ****

1. American audiences can handle mature story lines.

2. Actors don't need their looks to sell a character (I'm talking to you Ryan Reynolds/ Deadpool)

3. Batman came and went all over Avi Arad's face (skeet skeet!)

4. You don't need happy endings

5. CGI is just a tool, and shouldn't be a selling point of a movie.

6. It's ok to kill Characters (IRON MAN did this too with the man in the cave)

7. You don't need to throw in a comic relief (Or have your protagonist have a stupid dance scene)

8. The more tension, desperation, suspense, and hopelessness a movie has the greater the reprisal is.

9. You don't need "young" actors to appeal to younger audiences (INDY IV)

10. Might as well make a smart action film

11. As long as the story calls for it, you can have as many characters/ villains as you want.

12. You don't need a hot actress to sell a movie

13. You don't need celebrities or top of the chart sound tracks to sell a movie.

Unless that particular director's style IS consistent of campy moments...

 

[thedarks0ldier]

Unless that particular director's style IS consistent of campy moments...

WORD!!

If it's style then that's alright. But for directors like Michael Bay or Brett Ratner, it's not their style. They throw it in there because they think it will lighten the movie, and the only reason they do that is because they want more people to see it, as opposed to just letting the story dictate when it is appropriate to have humor.

Even when the story does not call for humor, they'll inject it, because to them market research shows that movies that don't have that cheap laugh generally don't do as well as movies that do.