The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR Box Office Thread V

[Bruce Malone]

I'd say a very small percentage. There has just been no evidence that an actor dying drives people to see a movie. People who don't generally see comic book movies made up a huge portion of TDK's audience but that was due to the the film itself and not any outside factors.

Had he lived his performance and the films content would have still been very well known and publicized. He was getting oscar buzz before he died and like i said having him around to promote the film would have had an effect as well. He was on the verge of big stardom.

Honestly i can picture in an alternate reality people arguing that leo dicaprio dying before titanic was the only reason it did so well.

 

[jmc]

His death gets you a one time viewing, not a billion dollars worth. I had an argument with someone on here ages ago who thought Ledgers death contributed $300 million, TDKR kinda throws that estimation out the window.

 

[Alex Logan]

We were clearly wrong. Can't blame us for looking at things with a level head.

Looking at it with a level head would have been staying neithal and not making a judgement until the film was out.

With adjusted inflation taken into account has TDKR sold more tickets than TDK and Batman 1989?

How can anyone compare Batman 89 to ANY film today? The cost of going to the movies has doubled since then.

 

[The Joker]

How can anyone compare Batman 89 to ANY film today? The cost of going to the movies has doubled since then.

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/08...on-fewer-tickets-than-tim-burtons-1989-batman

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/batman-89-sold-more-tickets-than-the-dark-knight-rises

http://www.businessinsider.com/dark...ckets-than-tim-burtons-original-batman-2012-8

 

[Alex Logan]

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/08...on-fewer-tickets-than-tim-burtons-1989-batman

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2012/08/22/batman-89-sold-more-tickets-than-the-dark-knight-rises

http://www.businessinsider.com/dark...ckets-than-tim-burtons-original-batman-2012-8

Yes, I know people ARE doing it, but why? With the cost of going to the movies doubling there is no way a comparsion like that is relevant.

 

[marcvader]

But it's not like salaries are the same as 1989 in 2012 either.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, I know people ARE doing it, but why? With the cost of going to the movies doubling there is no way a comparsion like that is relevant.

It's a dick swinging contest to see which Batman movie was more popular by selling more tickets.

 

[stlblues84]

It's a dick swinging contest to see which Batman movie was more popular by selling more tickets.

We also need to consider other factors, such as increased outside entertainment. Internet, other movies as competition, you can now pretty much watch every sporting event on the planet on TV now. There's a lot of things competing for people's time and dollar.

 

[Alex Logan]

It's a dick swinging contest to see which Batman movie was more popular by selling more tickets.

Exactly.

We also need to consider other factors, such as increased outside entertainment. Internet, other movies as competition, you can now pretty much watch every sporting event on the planet on TV now. There's a lot of things competing for people's time and dollar.

Exactly.

 

[Fenrir]

It's a dick swinging contest to see which Batman movie was more popular by selling more tickets.

Inflation-adjusted figures are, in the context of economic reality, are completely pointless. Sure the price of tickets is different, but you also have a greater number of substitutes now battling for a moviegoer's time and money - TV shows, videogames and number of other entertainment alternatives. Then you have the fact that movies used to stay in theaters much longer than they do today. The 4-6 month DVD/Blu-ray release gap for the newest theatrical releases also affects cinema attendance. Compounding the effect are things like piracy, fuel prices, greater number of films with massive budgets, rising advertising costs and the fact that on average, an individual's real disposable income has been declining consistently over the past 50 years, all essentially make the figure of number of tickets sold pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Bruce Malone]

It's at $443, domestic tight now what're the odds on it reaching 450?

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Zero?

 

[litobirdy]

It's at $443, domestic tight now what're the odds on it reaching 450?

look at the daily gross on boxofficemojo. I Think if anything MAYBEE and its a big MAYBE $445

 

[Dr.]

Yes, I know people ARE doing it, but why? With the cost of going to the movies doubling there is no way a comparsion like that is relevant.

Well… for those interested in/curious about (fair) comparisons, adjusting for inflation or counting number of tickets sold (versus raw $) is the way to do it.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Has enough juice to reach $445M.

But that's it.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Did my 8th viewing today (sadly in regular 35mm since its no longer playing at Navy Pier).

Theater had about 20 people in it.

 

[Squaremaster316]

Based on how TDK performed when it reached similar dailies, I'd say 450 is a go.

 

[Iceman]

I'd say a very small percentage. There has just been no evidence that an actor dying drives people to see a movie. People who don't generally see comic book movies made up a huge portion of TDK's audience but that was due to the the film itself and not any outside factors.

Had he lived his performance and the films content would have still been very well known and publicized. He was getting oscar buzz before he died and like i said having him around to promote the film would have had an effect as well. He was on the verge of big stardom.

Honestly i can picture in an alternate reality people arguing that leo dicaprio dying before titanic was the only reason it did so well.

But Leo's death at the time of Titanic would have increased Titanic's billions by some unknown factor, no question. Probably by even more given his death in the film. Would certainly have made it a sadder event and even most guys who laugh off the event in the film would have treated it a bit more seriously. I bet I would have gone to see it that one extra time. [I also think you underestimate the sheep mentality of a large proportion of the population. t: ]

And yeah, I'm sure the same TDK style arguments would have been made that the reason Titanic did well was because of his death. It's just common lazy analysis to completely overweight the 1st reason that pops into someone's head for something doing well.

Essentially though we're splitting hairs here as we all agree that the death was not the reason TDK made big bucks.

 

[Alex Logan]

Well… for those interested in/curious about (fair) comparisons, adjusting for inflation or counting number of tickets sold (versus raw $) is the way to do it.

That method is in no way fair.

 

[Alexei Belyakov]

Based on how TDK performed when it reached similar dailies, I'd say 450 is a go.

People are still watching it in theatres.

My screening today had alot more people than I expected on a Thursday morning 10 weeks into release.

 

[Iceman]

Well… for those interested in/curious about (fair) comparisons, adjusting for inflation or counting number of tickets sold (versus raw $) is the way to do it.

Ticket sales don't cover that definitively. Would you not see it more times if they dropped the price to 2c? In fact maybe every serious Batfan would see it at least one extra time at that price. But would those extra viewings really count towards extra popularity or are they a pure function of price? If the studio objective was maximising ticket sales rather than accumulating dollars it would be another matter.

 

[Dr.]

That method is in no way fair.

Books and music, for example, have always been listed according to units sold (and promoted as “best sellers,” “Top 40 hits,” etc.) - not by $. So in general terms, it’s more straightforward to compare, say, a Beatles single from the 1960s with the latest from Lady Gaga. Movies, on the other hand, are traditionally tabulated by box office gross. Over time, of course, this is complicated by the rate of inflation. So an appropriate adjustment is necessary in order to get a fairer, apples-to-apples comparison. Now if you disagree... I’d be curious as to what you think is a better measure of their relative success/popularity.

Ticket sales don't cover that definitively.

I agree it’s not perfect. Undoubtedly, the “home video factor,” makes a fair box office comparison between, say, Gone With The Wind and Titanic problematic. But the playing field is more even for Batman 89 and TDKR (both well within the home video era).

Would you not see it more times if they dropped the price to 2c? In fact maybe every serious Batfan would see it at least one extra time at that price. But would those extra viewings really count towards extra popularity or are they a pure function of price?

I’m not sure how useful that hypothetical is. If you want to go back in time to when a movie ticket was, say, 7¢ (1910), then you also have to figure that the average income was $750, a house cost $2500, etc. In other words, a movie ticket - then as now - was not an insignificant expenditure. So, again, “number sold” seems to be a fair barometer of relative popularity.

 

[Alex Logan]

Books and music, for example, have always been listed according to units sold (and promoted as “best sellers,” “Top 40 hits,” etc.) - not by $. So in general terms, it’s more straightforward to compare, say, a Beatles single from the 1960s with the latest from Lady Gaga. Movies, on the other hand, are traditionally tabulated by box office gross. Over time, of course, this is complicated by the rate of inflation. So an appropriate adjustment is necessary in order to get a fairer, apples-to-apples comparison. Now if you disagree... I’d be curious as to what you think is a better measure of their relative success/popularity.

I agree it’s not perfect. Undoubtedly, the “home video factor,” makes a fair box office comparison between, say, Gone With The Wind and Titanic problematic. But the playing field is more even for Batman 89 and TDKR (both well within the home video era).

I’m not sure how useful that hypothetical is. If you want to go back in time to when a movie ticket was, say, 7¢ (1910), then you also have to figure that the average income was $750, a house cost $2500, etc. In other words, a movie ticket - then as now - was not an insignificant expenditure. So, again, “number sold” seems to be a fair barometer of relative popularity.

That's just it though, you can't get a true messure of anything these days. Back in 1910 there was only one way to see a movie. Today there are hundreds of way sto see movies, many of which are free and illegal. A lot people would rather steal than pay for it. The music business is even worse, no one sells records anymore.

 

[Dark Knight]

Hahahhahaha, yeah, lots of humble pie around these parts

Nolan delivered, like he always does.

Yep! This inspite of the tragic events in Colorado that probably reduced the domestic box office take by 50 million....at the very least that is.

Plus the film was not released in 3D (thank god) and was not a kid friendly (under 12 year olds) film per say.

Team Nolan delivers....again!

BTW...TDKR had more depth than the TDK IMO.

 

[rashad]

Domestic: $444,388,000 41.3%
+ Foreign: $630,800,000 58.7%
= Worldwide: $1,075,188,000

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=batman3.htm