matthooper said:
That's strange, because in my experience general/regular filmgoers thought very highly of Batman Begins and liked it very much.
And that's why anecdotal evidence is mostly worthless.
It seems a bit odd to defend and excuse the box office performance of a movie -- Batman Begins -- that was, afterall, a big hit in the end, as it showed very good legs after its underwhelming opening and went on to gross a little over $200 million domestically. That still qualifies as a bonafide, genuine blockbuster. And going back to the issue of how the general public responded, its good legs indicate that it had very good word of mouth among regular moviegoers as there are not enough 'fans' to carry it week after week. Obviously it didn't carry over with the general public like Star Wars or Spider-Man, but $200 million still means a lot of business with non-fans.
But there is no denying that that performance was a far-cry from Spider-Man and the inflation-adjusted gross of 1989's "Batman." It also came up short to X-Men 2 (and will likely come up short of X-3, even though that movie sucks and will probably drop fast even by modern standards). But BB had some factors going against it that were completely independent of BB itself; namely that franchise-wrecking, public-alienating, trainwreck known as Batman & Robin. If any of those other franchises had a steaming turd like that as the most-recent installment, then the next in the series would suffer for it as well. BB only had an eight year buffer zone from that monstrosity, so the joke that Batman had become was still a strong image for many. Still, the quality of BB was such that it managed to overcome that for the most part, as its inflation adjusted gross was about $60 million more than B&R, which equals about 7-10 million more admissions.
Plus, BB did take a decidedly darker, less kid-friendly approach that made it less appealing to families with young children. It was also less of a special effects extravaganza that comic-book movies have become known for.
I think this was a good thing, though, as such an approach lends itself to a more faithful interpretation of Batman. In fact, I hope that the WB execs don't make the mistake of thinking that Batman should (or even could at this point) make Spiderman-level money. I hope they continue down this path, and go for hard PG-13 movies. This means it will never again have the mass appeal as Spiderman or Superman, but again, it makes for a better Batman movie, and it could probably be just as profitable in terms of margin. By that I am of course talking about budget vs revenue. Other than raises in pay for the cast and director, why should the next Batman film cost as much as BB? Since the scope will no doubt be smaller, I don't see why the production costs couldn't be reduced, especially if they forgo and avoid the doomsday scenario where Batman must save the world, or entire city of Gotham. Batman lends itself to a smaller story, so they should take advantage of that in the sequel.
GREAT 
GREAT!
Don't you start!
