The Dark Knight Rises The TDKR General Discussion Thread - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 146

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, but that is all part of the discussion here. Film is a business. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There'd be tons of great Batman films getting made every year by people who "get it". Shoot, maybe we'd all get to make our own Batman movies.

If WB wasn't at a loss for what to do with the character, then how do you explain the 8 year hiatus on something that by all accounts should have been a bankable and reliable tentpole property?

The thing I give Nolan a ton of credit for is being able to navigate the business side of things, gain the studio's trust and find a winning artistic/commercial balance. It's important to remember that the reason WB even went the more kiddy Schumacher route in the first place was because they were scared off by the reaction parents and sponsors had to Batman Returns.

Oh lord, I've probably opened a whole 'nother can of worms there though...
 
Last edited:
The point is, yes, eventually Batman would've rebounded but it took a while, and it took years of trial and error before WB stumbled upon a winning combination. It was a different time then. Not everything attached to a comic book property got an automatic greenlight. And even Batman Begins was probably considered a risk.

Very good assessment. Indeed BB was a risk. They had a director with three well-received films under his belt and a lead actor who was proven in smaller roles but not yet a mainstream name. Any huge film project is going to be a risk, but the challenge for BB was to simply get people to forget B&R and reconnect with Batman's darker, more cerebral roots. Like you said, WB tossed around various ideas and directors' names until they felt comfortable with a particular combination.

I think Bale pretty much reflects that general sentiment in his award acceptance speech here:

[YT]i5kHTJcjZpw[/YT]

Nolan's films brought back a little dignity to the film property. One can argue it would have happened eventually anyway, but I don't see anything wrong with giving the guy who did make it happen some credit. The "never said thank you" meme is just a joke that people interpreted too literally as representing the mindset of rabid Nolan fanboys who think Batman owes everything to Nolan and would otherwise never have recovered from B&R. It's just people's way of saying thanks to Nolan for making a great trilogy and doing right by the character.
 
If WB wasn't at a loss for what to do with the character, then how do you explain the 8 year hiatus on something that by all accounts should have been a bankable and reliable tentpole property?

Spiderman, more than anything else. Anyone controlling budgets is liable to be cautious, but the success of an alternative but comparable IP entity would likely persuade them caution should be overcome.

Enter Nolan, good news for the fans.
 
Yes, but that is all part of the discussion here. Film is a business. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There'd be tons of great Batman films getting made every year by people who "get it". Shoot, maybe we'd all get to make our own Batman movies.

9IR4knH.gif
 
Spiderman, more than anything else. Anyone controlling budgets is liable to be cautious, but the success of an alternative but comparable IP entity would likely persuade them caution should be overcome.

Enter Nolan, good news for the fans.

And the first 5 years before the release of S-M where they were trying to figure out how to proceed?



That gif is priceless :funny:
 
And the first 5 years before the release of S-M where they were trying to figure out how to proceed?
I'm not sure we are disagreeing about anything at this point. With B&R being a box office liability, the studio decided that other projects were a safer investment. Success for comparable properties encouraged them to reconsider.
 
I'm not sure we are disagreeing about anything at this point. With B&R being a box office liability, the studio decided that other projects were a safer investment. Success for comparable properties encouraged them to reconsider.

Okay then, we're pretty much on the same page. As long as you're acknowledging that the studio saw Batman as a risk for a little while there. That's all I've been trying to say- no matter how iconic a character Batman is, that was not enough for the studio at a certain point in time. And if BB had bombed...that could've easily led to another long dry spell.

Ultimately, I feel it was a bunch of happy accidents that brought the Nolan trilogy into existence. And I feel the realism he injected the character with was the perfect shot in the arm. The fans wanted dark, but not necessarily something more realism based. Remember the first reactions to The Tumbler? I know I was revolted by it at first. I guess what I'm saying is, the guy had a vision...and the franchise was ripe for somebody with a new vision. It was a very fortunate turn of events.

I'm hoping we'll be as fortunate the next time around.
 
Last edited:
Potentially, yes, but I think there is a tendency to imagine studio execs are a bit more Batman-centric than might be the case. I suspect that they may have just considered Superhero stuff have diminishing returns, and therefore to be a poorer investment than other genres. Comicbook movies weren't really the flavour of the late 90s. Sci Fi became a fad with the Matrix, and when we got the X-Men, that seemed like a comic-book property being sneaked in through the back door.

As I said, I imagine whoever signs the contracts and raises the finance for big movies is likely to err on the side of caution. Better to sit on their hands with Batman, for sure, but that doesn't mean it was considered a busted flush.
 
Speaking of The Matrix, it's interesting to note that as soon as that became a hit for WB, the Wachowskis were offered the Batman franchise, but ultimately turned it down despite being huge fans of the character because they wanted to finish their own trilogy. I always think about what could've been there. I always give credit where it's due, WB learned their lesson after B&R and they were right to exercise caution and seek out edgier types of filmmakers. Just like I give them credit for trusting their baby with a young Tim Burton back in '89.

But yes, there are always trends in pop culture. But sometimes when things go out of style, one particular release can be cited as the "shark jump" moment when it becomes uncool. I think for the CBM genre, that moment was B&R. It's like when a band releases a blatant 'sellout' album and everyone turns on them. It happens.
 
True, though after the explosive success of the first Batman, the franchise had already peaked and diminishing returns were probably seen as inevitable.
 
Solid point. In that light, it's pretty impressive that each Nolan Bat-film grossed more than its predecessor.
 
Solid point. In that light, it's pretty impressive that each Nolan Bat-film grossed more than its predecessor.

TDKR did make less than TDK domestically, though it edged out TDK in worldwide box office.
 
Really? Never knew that TDKR out grossed TDK. After the massacre, I assumed that it's box office had been truncated. I'm glad it rebounded.
 
People didn't like the tumbler? Wow, I didn't know that. I first saw it in the movie since I didn't even see a trailer for Begins beforehand. But I loved it the moment I saw it.
 
Yeah, TDK outgrossed TDKR domestically but TDKR just edged it out in WW B.O. by something like $80 million.

People didn't like the tumbler? Wow, I didn't know that. I first saw it in the movie since I didn't even see a trailer for Begins beforehand. But I loved it the moment I saw it.

Yeah when the first pics were released:

batman%20begins%20batmobile%201.jpg


batman%20begins%20batmobile%202.jpg

I remember a lot of people were like "WTF", "It looks ugly", etc. Admittedly I was one of them, but by the time I saw it (and HEARD it) in action on the big screen I was in love with it. I think that's how it went for a lot of people. That's how I learned to not judge something prematurely when it came to these movies.
 
Can anyone find a textless version of this poster?

HKjKvde.jpg
 
Really? Never knew that TDKR out grossed TDK. After the massacre, I assumed that it's box office had been truncated. I'm glad it rebounded.
Inflation and more theaters/IMAX screens helped it, but it didn't sell more tickets than TDK or B89. It still did good, though.

Estimated domestic tickets sold:

B89- 62,954,600
BR- 39,236,600
BF- 42,306,000
B&R- 23,382,400
BB- 32,034,900
TDK- 74,455,400
TDKR- 57,601,400
MOTP- 1,350,800 :csad:
 
Inflation and more theaters/IMAX screens helped it, but it didn't sell more tickets than TDK or B89. It still did good, though.

Estimated domestic tickets sold:

B89- 62,954,600
BR- 39,236,600
BF- 42,306,000
B&R- 23,382,400
BB- 32,034,900
TDK- 74,455,400
TDKR- 57,601,400
MOTP- 1,350,800 :csad:

They were talking about worldwide box office, not domestic.

Really? Never knew that TDKR out grossed TDK. After the massacre, I assumed that it's box office had been truncated. I'm glad it rebounded.

Its box office was truncated in North America. Probably lost $30m or so in the domestic market. Overseas, I wouldn't think the shooting had any impact. What did hurt it overseas compared to other recent films was the lack of 3D, which would have given it a boost of around $100-125m overseas.
 
Last edited:
They were talking about worldwide box office, not domestic.
Yeah, I know, but box office mojo doesn't use WW, and I don't feel like sitting down and crunching the numbers. I could do it, but I rather not. That's why I explicitly said "domestic". Sorry...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"