it was deemed disappointing due to overinflated expectations. the first and second weekends close to half the overall take (75 mil), and the first two full weeks definitely made over half the overall take. pretty safely. :
Jun 17–19 1 $48,745,440 - 3,858 - $12,634 $72,896,986 1
Jun 24–26 1 $27,589,389 -43.4% 3,858 - $7,151 $122,511,813 2
Jul 1–3 2 $15,609,638 -43.4% 3,765 -93 $4,145 $151,070,575 3
Jul 1–4 2 $19,339,432 -29.9% 3,765 -93 $5,136 $154,800,369 3
Jul 8–10 3 $10,012,444 -35.9% 3,344 -421 $2,994 $171,901,777 4
Jul 15–17 5 $6,035,300 -39.7% 2,810 -534 $2,147 $183,140,850 5
Jul 22–24 9 $4,727,469 -21.7% 2,275 -535 $2,078 $191,105,194 6
Jul 29–31 13 $2,448,225 -48.2% 1,601 -674 $1,529 $195,875,532 7
Aug 5–7 13 $1,822,445 -25.6% 1,192 -409 $1,528 $199,088,386 8
Aug 12–14 16 $1,050,497 -42.4% 710 -482 $1,479 $201,149,986 9
Nice little uptick for July 4th weekend, but other than that, nothing too different from your typical blockbuster. Yes, being a good Batman movie helped, but the draw was still that it was a Batman movie. The appeal of the name never went down. The name was always what propelled it. "it's supposed to be a good batman movie."
None of those numbers came about because people were going "Oh, I heard it was a good movie about that one guy who dresses up like a rodent or whatever." They knew it was Batman.