Batman Begins Why wasn't Begins more Profitable?

[returntovoid]

I didn't like Begins either, but then again, I don't like Batman, and I really don't like Bale's Batman.

Fair enough, if you're not a fan of Batman.

 

[Brother Jack]

To say that TDK was only as successful as it was because of Ledger's death is ridiculous. There isn't one factor that determined it's mega success, it was a combination of things that culminated into lightning in a bottle. I can say with confidence that the marketing had just as much to do with it as Ledger' death.

 

[Rincewind]

Ledger's death brought a lot of publicity to the movie, but that wasn't the sole deciding factor. TDK enjoyed a much better marketing campain than BB and there was hype about it before Ledger's death. Granted, the hype became bigger after he died, but it was there before that.
Also, TDK was a sequel to the relatively well-recieved BB, which made it easier. BB had to work with the public memory of B&R.
And the movie was great, to boot. Unlike BB, it felt extremely fast-paced and packed of action. Some of my best friends (who are not comic book fans) were bored by BB, but they loved TDK. Unlike BB, TDK was a movie that left the auciences wanting to see it again and again (which means $).

So, yeah, there were a lot of factors in the ultra-success of TDK. Ledger's death played a great role in spreading a lot of publicity about the movie, but its success does not rest solely on that.

 

[TheRookie311]

Well almost everyone I know, guys and girls and non batman fans etc. Loved Batman Begins. In fact, they were excited to see the next one, before it was announced.

Heres the thing. I saw it in theatres. A few of them did, but most said oh Batman movies suck etc. But when it came to dvd they watched it and their opinion completely changed.

Its mainly the poor performance of the other movies. I would bet that that is probably 90% of the problem with it.

The rest was probably marketing. The movie did do well in theatres though it was far from a flop. The numbers were big.

 

[TheRookie311]

One more thing, It had the Joker it it. Everyone loves the Joker and the fact that the 1989 Batman had the Joker and was probably the only batman that everyone had loved before (including non batman fans back then). People had to say yes the joker is back. ETC....

 

[El Payaso]

Never knew of them, and out of the three movies mentioned, I'd only heard of Memento.

Memento and Insomnia, while not huge blockbusters were fairly know.

And the movie wasn't made in the way a mainstream Batman movie would be made.

It's simpy impossible not to do a Batman movie in the way a mainstream Batman movie would be made. If Batman is in there then it is mainstream. There's no such thing as a non-mainstream Batman movie.

What are you talking about???

Batman Begins was a great Bat-Film and I think it's better than TDK.

Being movies from the same director with the same cast (almost) it is clear than most of the elements from BB were completely improved in TDK.

I'd take one-liners over plot-holes, any day.

Me too. Plot-holes like a microwave emitter that vaporizes water everywhere but from human bodies AND bad one-liners are not a good combination.

To say that TDK was only as successful as it was because of Ledger's death is ridiculous. There isn't one factor that determined it's mega success, it was a combination of things that culminated into lightning in a bottle. I can say with confidence that the marketing had just as much to do with it as Ledger' death.

Ledger's death couldn't have been everything. But it helped a friiiiiiiiiiiiigging lot.

 

[CJ]

Nolan? The director of Memento? And Christian bale? The Empire of the Sun? Patrick Bateman himself? No, nobody knew them. And what to say about such no-ones as Michael Kane (or it was Caine?) or Morgan Freeman. God, it was a miracle that movie wasn't released directly to dvd. And that bat-human character. Who in the world would see a movie about that? Yeah, thus it didn't make as much money.

Quit the sarcasm. Saying it was filled with unknown actors and an unknown director is a valid point. Yes, Nolan, Bale, Neeson, Caine and Oldman made some really good films before they got onboard the Batman franchise, but they were only well-known to movie-buffs. American Psycho had more of a cult following instead of being a big blockbuster. Nolan's previous films, like Memento, were movies critics loved, but I don't think a lot of people paid money to see. and Oldman mostly starred in movies that weren't big blockbusters. Oldman is a fantastic actor, but by no means a household name like Al Pacino or Robert De Niro.

Just because the cast was talented and had a long filmography, didn't mean they were household names, like other well-known actors like Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks or Leo Decaprio. For most people, Batman Begins was the first movie they saw with Christian Bale and the first movie they saw directed by Christopher Nolan.

I think if Begins had a more recognizable cast of actors, was directed by someone like Spielberg, and had more well-known villains, it would have made a lot more money, but definitely wouldn't have been as good of a movie as it was.

 

[The Joker]

Me too. Plot-holes like a microwave emitter that vaporizes water everywhere but from human bodies AND bad one-liners are not a good combination.

LOL

 

[returntovoid]

Being movies from the same director with the same cast (almost) it is clear than most of the elements from BB were completely improved in TDK.

In TDK, Batman was less menacing, had less focus on him, his ninja training was thrown out the window, was less confident, hardly any iconic Batman moments and he almost gave up being Batman (EMO crap), it had less of a comic book feel, The Joker won (I don't watch films to get depressed and go like "oh, evil wins", Rachel Dawes character didn't have much of a purpose for Batman/Bruce Wayne instead she was just there for the sake of silly love triangle, Gotham looked cleaner and was not film-noirish like the previous film etc.

I could go on and on about reasons why I disagree that TDK is an improvement over Batman Begins.

but from human bodies

Water hub under Wayne Tower, not human body.

bad one-liners

I got to admit that I liked the one-liners but films need comic relief.

Serious film like The Godfather has some funny moments and intense action film like Die Hard has funny moments.

Why so serious?

 

[Team Andino]

I remember back in 03 or so I saw a "behind the scenes" photo from Batman Begins an it was some crappy cop car that looked like it was around in the UK back in the 70's. I remember I hated it so much that I gave up on the movie all together. At the time I was on a break from comics an once BB was about to come out I only knew that Scarecrow was the villain an nothing else. Long story short I only went to see BB the day it came out cause my cousin said he'd pay an 4 minutes into it I loved it. It caught me off guard even if it had been 8 years since B&R.

I'd say the same thing happen to The Incredible Hulk based on how poorly "Hulk" got over in the box office back in 03. TIH suffered from Hulks bad reaction.

 

[petey]

I think that begins wasnt marketed as an event picture. Remember the last franchise marketed each film as one you couldnt miss. Everywhere you would turn there was the logo/title plastered somewhere. Tdk had some elements of the same push, where as BB got the crap end of the stick. Plus didnt the trailers and such display it as a character film rather then the beat em ups of the last franchise. Maybe that turned off many mainstream veiwers.

 

[returntovoid]

I had been following news about Begins on the net since 2004 and it got me really got my expectations high to see it in 2005.

Begins fulfilled my expectations when I watched it, it revived my interest in Batman after realizing how sh***y Batman & Robin was (which I sometimes used to watch as a kid ).

BTAS, Batman Forever and playing Batman action figures was what got me interested in the Batman character, as a kid.

 

[Travesty]

Me too. Plot-holes like a microwave emitter that vaporizes water everywhere but from human bodies AND bad one-liners are not a good combination.

The microwave emitter wasn't a plot hole, that's just you being overly picky. That would be like me saying TDK has a TON of plot holes, in how the bus aligned PERFECTLY after the bank heist, how Harvey can survive such a horrendous accident, how Batman was carrying another person, while falling from a 30+ story building and survived, how you can somehow obtain over a billion in CASH, and have it setup in a warehouse(like that money wouldn't be floating around in multiple accounts, deposits, stocks, and/or funds), or just The Jokers overall elaborate, but entirely impossible, plan.

Most of these should be overlooked, because it's a friggin Batman movie. If you're worried about a microwave emitter in a Batman movie, then I think you should be more worried about the guy dressed as a bat. I don't care how "realistic" Nolan's style is, if you worried about that, then you should be just as worried about all the other "plot holes" in TDK.

 

[Rincewind]

^ Not that I want to be picky, but the 68 million that the Joker stole at the beginning and the pile that he burned are not the same money. The pile at the ship was all the mob's money, which was hidden by Lau. Otherwise I agree with your points.

 

[Travesty]

^ Not that I want to be picky, but the 68 million that the Joker stole at the beginning and the pile that he burned are not the same money. The pile at the ship was all the mob's money, which was hidden by Lau. Otherwise I agree with your points.

I know, I was talking about just having a huge pile of cash like that. Nobody has that much cash laying around in one specific area.

Whoops, I guess I did say 68 million. My bad....

 

[returntovoid]

The microwave emitter wasn't a plot hole, that's just you being overly picky. That would be like me saying TDK has a TON of plot holes, in how the bus aligned PERFECTLY after the bank heist, how Harvey can survive such a horrendous accident, how Batman was carrying another person, while falling from a 30+ story building and survived, how you can somehow obtain 68 million in BILLS, and have it setup in a warehouse(like that money wouldn't be floating around in multiple accounts, deposits, stocks, and/or funds), or just The Jokers overall elaborate, but entirely impossible, plan.

Most of these should be overlooked, because it's a friggin Batman movie. If you're worried about a microwave emitter in a Batman movie, then I think you should be more worried about the guy dressed as a bat. I don't care how "realistic" Nolan's style is, if you worried about that, then you should be just as worried about all the other "plot holes" in TDK.

Great post.

 

[The Joker]

I know, I was talking about just having a huge pile of cash like that. Nobody has that much cash laying around in one specific area.

How do you know that? Read the comics. Carmine Falcone had a warehouse full to the brim with cash in The Long Halloween.

 

[Travesty]

How do you know that? Read the comics. Carmine Falcone had a warehouse full to the brim with cash in The Long Halloween.

I know in a comic book world it wouldn't matter, just like a microwave emitter, which was my point.

 

[david icke]

Imo, it wasn't just due to Batman and Robin, it was due to all the previous Batman films 89-97. Regardless of cinema gaps these are the Batman movies that would be played on tv all the time. They were all pretty average, and the general audience would have the feeling they'd already seen what a Batmn movie could offer, and weren't that interested in seeing another.
But unknown to them these movies were not representative of the best kind of Batman stories, and the ones who didn't bother going to check BB out had to wait to see either BB on tv or TDK to realise that.
Bond had at least a couple of great Bond movies before it reebooted, so audiences knew the reboot had the potential to be great. Batman had no such great movie previous to BB.

 

[El Payaso]

Imo, it wasn't just due to Batman and Robin, it was due to all the previous Batman films 89-97. Regardless of cinema gaps these are the Batman movies that would be played on tv all the time. They were all pretty average, and the general audience would have the feeling they'd already seen what a Batmn movie could offer, and weren't that interested in seeing another.
But unknown to them these movies were not representative of the best kind of Batman stories, and the ones who didn't bother going to check BB out had to wait to see either BB on tv or TDK to realise that.
Bond had at least a couple of great Bond movies before it reebooted, so audiences knew the reboot had the potential to be great. Batman had no such great movie previous to BB.

Begins was average in many senses too. Public might have gone to see a revolutionary action movie and ended up seeing average action sequences. And they felt Begins was more serious yet the dialogues revealed some average amount of cheese. That might explain it too.

 

[returntovoid]

Begins was average in many senses too.

If you like The Dark Knight more than Begins, that's fine with me.

Public might have gone to see a revolutionary action movie and ended up seeing average action sequences.

Neither was The Dark Knight a revolutionary action movie.

And they felt Begins was more serious yet the dialogues revealed some average amount of cheese. That might explain it too.

To be honest, I thought Begins had more memorable dialogues but if you didn't like them, that's fine with me.

 

[The Joker]

I know in a comic book world it wouldn't matter, just like a microwave emitter, which was my point.

Ahhhh ok, I didn't pick up on that.

If you like The Dark Knight more than Begins, that's fine with me but calling Begins average is just too much.

To be honest, I thought Begins had more memorable dialogues but if you didn't like them does not mean you have to bash it.

Geez man, you can't tell people not to criticize a movie just because you like it. Who do you think you are?

You're often making criticisms about TDK, but nobody tells you that it's too much and you shouldn't bash it.

Neither was The Dark Knight a revolutionary action movie.

TDK definitely was not a revolutionary action movie, but it was a huge step up from the action in Begins. The armoured car/Joker truck chase alone trumps any of Begins' action sequences.

 

[david icke]

Begins was average in many senses too. Public might have gone to see a revolutionary action movie and ended up seeing average action sequences. And they felt Begins was more serious yet the dialogues revealed some average amount of cheese. That might explain it too.

I'm talking about the people who didn't bother going to see Batman Begins. The same people who didn't bother going to see Batman Returns once they actually saw Batman89 and realised it did not live up to the hype.
I attribute Batman Forever's resurgence of Box Office to the fact that BTAS had been playing on tv since 92 and had got a lot of kids into Batman.

Batman Begins had an alright weekend opening of around 50mil, after that it stayed in the charts pretty steady because of good word of mouth.
I recall the reactions of people I know who were quite surprised at the quality of this Batman movie in comparison to the others.
Whereas I recall my schoolfriends(and some older adult friends, some fans of the comics) reaction to BM89 after all the hype, 'Was that it?', which was kind of my own once I got past my denial phase.

In other words, if Batman Begins had been the first serious live action BM movie, like Spider-man, it would have done a lot better I imagine.

edit: The thing about Batman Begins' word of mouth, is that it would have been up against a barrage of reactions like, 'Ah, I've never been that into the Batman films.', it really takes a watching for a person to get how different it is.
I appreciate the earlier first 3 BM films for what they are, but they didn't set up the series that well for an ongoing in depth universe, BB did, and it's this depth and attention to 'realistic' detail, character as well as practical, that surprised people.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Why are people linking quality with BO earnings ? Look at Transformers 2.

Begins didn't do giant numbers because of Batman and Robin and bad marketing.

Spiderman 4 won't do as well as 3 either.

 

[david icke]

Why are people linking quality with BO earnings ? Look at Transformers 2.

The people got what they wanted from Transformers though. Mindless action, giant robots fighting, just enough for the teens to keep interested inbetween talking and playing with their phones.
Transformers is a 'cool' geek movie for non-geeks who hate geeks, ie it's fashionable as it's mindless, not an embaressing sci-fi movie for the fashionable kids, ie one that you can take seriously or think about.

Begins didn't do giant numbers because of Batman and Robin and bad marketing.

So people should never equate quality with BO you say? Yet Batman and Robin had the lowest BO out of all the Batman films. Yes, we should never ever take these thing sinto account in our speculation and theories.

Spiderman 4 won't do as well as 3 either.

If it's good, it probably will. Spider-man was massive before he had movies out, mixed reaction to one movie is not going to change that.