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

[EHTNAMTAB]

I see that you're trying to come up with a categoric formula for why TDK did so well, but - IMO at least - you can't. If you could, every film would make a billion. It's literally lightening in a bottle, and a lot of elements helped. Not saying it wasn't a very good film (it was, depsite some flaws) but the amount of external factors contributing are unctontrollable - and plenty of excellent films have made little to no money.

Things like the lack of need for humour, the inisistence on a dark ending, more villains, less villains are determined by the context - Indiana Jones for instance (the 3 good ones) had lots of campy humour and they are classics. Less CGI is always nice though.

If there are elements that set TDK apart from recent blockbusters it's the director - an intelligent approach (and little studio intervention, i hear) and, considering it's a sequel, a lack of cynicism towards the audience - i seemed like a film not a mega budget marketing event - which, at least in my opinion, is such a refreshing change

 

[thedarks0ldier]

i see that you're trying to come up with a categoric formula for why tdk did so well, but - imo at least - you can't. If you could, every film would make a billion. It's literally lightening in a bottle, and a lot of elements helped. Not saying it wasn't a very good film (it was, depsite some flaws) but the amount of external factors contributing are unctontrollable - and plenty of excellent films have made little to no money.

Things like the lack of need for humour, the inisistence on a dark ending, more villains, less villains are determined by the context - indiana jones for instance (the 3 good ones) had lots of campy humour and they are classics. Less cgi is always nice though.

If there are elements that set tdk apart from recent blockbusters it's the director - an intelligent approach (and little studio intervention, i hear) and, considering it's a sequel, a lack of cynicism towards the audience - i seemed like a film not a mega budget marketing event - which, at least in my opinion, is such a refreshing change

word!!

 

[Anita18]

I see that you're trying to come up with a categoric formula for why TDK did so well, but - IMO at least - you can't. If you could, every film would make a billion. It's literally lightening in a bottle, and a lot of elements helped. Not saying it wasn't a very good film (it was, depsite some flaws) but the amount of external factors contributing are unctontrollable - and plenty of excellent films have made little to no money.

Things like the lack of need for humour, the inisistence on a dark ending, more villains, less villains are determined by the context - Indiana Jones for instance (the 3 good ones) had lots of campy humour and they are classics. Less CGI is always nice though.

If there are elements that set TDK apart from recent blockbusters it's the director - an intelligent approach (and little studio intervention, i hear) and, considering it's a sequel, a lack of cynicism towards the audience - i seemed like a film not a mega budget marketing event - which, at least in my opinion, is such a refreshing change

It's refreshing, but it still doesn't make a movie a mega-blockbuster. What it does is make a movie good.

Gawd, I still can't believe TDK made so much money. It's so weird, not being a general moviegoer for this. We hardcore fans didn't make this happen by ourselves - it was EVERYONE. Being stuck in our own little bubble...we have no idea how the general moviegoer was enticed into seeing this opening weekend, or to tell their friends and their friend's friends to see it.

I did overhear some random conversations in which people asked each other how good Heath Ledger was in TDK, so I guess a good chunk of the "must-watch" factor was Heath. Not the fact that he died, but was the Joker every bit as good as everyone was saying he was. As a bonus, the must-watch role was entrenched in a smart action blockbuster, so it wasn't even like people wanted to wait for the DVD.

 

[voyzovrezon]

Wow! A billion dollars and an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor. That's nothing to sneeze at.

 

[Voorhees]

TDK has broken a lot of barriers, especially with Heath winning the award. I suspect comic book movies may taken a little more seriously now than before.

 

[Two-Face]

TDK has broken a lot of barriers, especially with Heath winning the award. I suspect comic book movies may taken a little more seriously now than before.

I don't see Hollywood learning anything from this, they just go and make crap comic book movies like F4....

 

[Voorhees]

For the comic book movies that are done and taken seriously like TDK, they will see better reviews than before. If they want to make some superheroes look like crap, the reviews will reflect that.

 

[Tvar10]

hey, I've been a Batman fan my whole life and followed BB and TDK on this website when they were in their early stages....I know this might sound crazy but are any of you upset that the Dark Knight is so popular? I feel like theres a whole group of people who just like TDK because its the "in thing" now and they're just trying to conform with society. Its almost like their "fake" Batman and Joker fans just to be cool. Does that upset anyone else or is it just me?

 

[titan101]

hey, I've been a Batman fan my whole life and followed BB and TDK on this website when they were in their early stages....I know this might sound crazy but are any of you upset that the Dark Knight is so popular? I feel like theres a whole group of people who just like TDK because its the "in thing" now and they're just trying to conform with society. Its almost like their "fake" Batman and Joker fans just to be cool. Does that upset anyone else or is it just me?

it does bother me a little sometimes actually . mostly whenever people go on youtube and post on , say , a TAS vid and go " this sucks ! who the **** are these guys ? heath ledger OWNS !!! " and then all the fangirls who are everywhere now going " omg the joker is sooooo sexy " and **** like that . i've NEVER seen any fangirl saying **** like THAT before TDK came out .

 

[Tvar10]

it does bother me a little sometimes actually . mostly whenever people go on youtube and post on , say , a TAS vid and go " this sucks ! who the **** are these guys ? heath ledger OWNS !!! " and then all the fangirls who are everywhere now going " omg the joker is sooooo sexy " and **** like that . i've NEVER seen any fangirl saying **** like THAT before TDK came out .

I KNOW...I cant stand that stuff...then everyone goes around saying "why so serious?" that ***** pisses me off to no end

 

[Bathead]

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.

I was under the impression that entire pile of money WAS Joker's half. I don't think that foreign(Chechnyan, Russian?) guy would have been as calm as he was if he thought it was the mob's money burning, too. Then again, you may be right, that's just the twisted sense of humor the Joker would have.

 

[baerrtt]

I don't see Hollywood learning anything from this, they just go and make crap comic book movies like F4....

The problem is Hollywood execs have always had the tendency to overlook a film's quality when said movie makes HUGE amounts and insteads focus on superficial elements that they believe were the only reason the film grossed that much. Hence you get imitations on the back of big hits that just prove that certain 'creative' types don't, or claim they can't afford to, pay attention to why certain movies work.

For past examples:-

ET led to MAC AND ME, TITANIC led to PEARL HARBOUR, DIE HARD led to SUDDEN DEATHt:.

Fans shouldn't start thinking that TDK's success means that the studios will start ensuring that every scrap of source material will be treated without interference and reverence, that all the directors they hire from now on will be talented and independent minded filmmakers like Nolan.

 

[namtaB]

The problem is Hollywood execs have always had the tendency to overlook a film's quality when said movie makes HUGE amounts and insteads focus on superficial elements that they believe were the only reason the film grossed that much. Hence you get imitations on the back of big hits that just prove that certain 'creative' types don't, or claim they can't afford to, pay attention to why certain movies work.

For past examples:-

ET led to MAC AND ME, TITANIC led to PEARL HARBOUR, DIE HARD led to SUDDEN DEATHt:.

Fans shouldn't start thinking that TDK's success means that the studios will start ensuring that every scrap of source material will be treated without interference and reverence, that all the directors they hire from now on will be talented and independent minded filmmakers like Nolan.

No. It seems that way but its not, they don't overlook quality rather its supremely difficult to replicate it. The problem is a good script in conjunction with box office gold is as rare as getting hit by lightning. So when they set out to mimic such a film they focus on the superficial elements b/c they are much easier to replicate. Its a lot easier to load up a film with action sequences and a thin plot than it is to come up with another Dark Knight. The hope is that it will capture box office success, sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Studios take this into account that's why they manage tent poles the way they do, they realize that there are going to be a number of duds in there every summer. But business wise its much easier to do this than to try and get hit by lightning again. This is why fans shouldn't start thinking that TDK's success means that studios will meddle less in these properties. The opposite is true, they will meddle more thinking that now "dark" is the way to go with these films and it will become another superficial element like action sequences thrown into the mix.

 

[baerrtt]

No. It seems that way but its not, they don't overlook quality rather its supremely difficult to replicate it. The problem is a good script in conjunction with box office gold is as rare as getting hit by lightning. So when they set out to mimic such a film they focus on the superficial elements b/c they are much easier to replicate. Its a lot easier to load up a film with action sequences and a thin plot than it is to come up with another Dark Knight. The hope is that it will capture box office success, sometimes it does sometimes it doesn't. Studios take this into account that's why they manage tent poles the way they do, they realize that there are going to be a number of duds in there every summer. But business wise its much easier to do this than to try and get hit by lightning again. This is why fans shouldn't start thinking that TDK's success means that studios will meddle less in these properties. The opposite is true, they will meddle more thinking that now "dark" is the way to go with these films and it will become another superficial element like action sequences thrown into the mix.

That's pretty much what I stated though maybe I should have worded it differently. Yes quality is important but, to my cynical old eyes, when you see too many mediocre films greenlit on the back of one superior major hit you wonder if it's really that difficult to see that the possible key is allowing the hired creative talents the freedom the original writer(s) and director of say TDK or my other examples clearly had.

 

[namtaB]

That's pretty much what I stated though maybe I should have worded it differently. Yes quality is important but, to my cynical old eyes, when you see too many mediocre films greenlit on the back of one superior major hit you wonder if it's really that difficult to see that the possible key is allowing the hired creative talents the freedom the original writer(s) and director of say TDK or my other examples clearly had.

No its not what you stated. What you stated is that studios think the superficial elements are the only reasons why these movies gross so much, which implies that studios are ignorant to quality. They aren't ignorant to quality. Studios are well aware what constitutes a quality film and what doesn't. They've had decades of experience to grasp this.

The natural question is then why do they put out crap films? B/c box office success doesn't necessarily reflect a film's quality. They are a business and its much easier to take the risk and pump out crap films which may become box office gold than to spend time and cost putting together the perfect writer/director/actors for every single property. So for every Dark Knight there's 25 crap films and out of those crap films 10 become box office hits. If you focused solely on quality you would make less films in a given time period and even then quality doesn't mean box office success. So the better business decision is to put out crap films with the expectation that some will get box office success ie. the recent Fast and Furious movie b/c this can be accomplished at a swifter pace.