The Dark Knight Kicks The Mummy's Ass - Headed for $480 Million!
As most readers know, we normally never cover box office stats, but considering history is being made this year with The Dark Knight, I can't help but mention the latest news. This past weekend resulted in an interesting turn of events, as Universal's The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ended up performing well below early estimates, only taking in $42.5 million. In comparison, The Dark Knight kicked Brendan Fraser's ass and earned another $43.8 million, beating The Mummy for the #1 spot this weekend for the third weekend in a row. However, the big news is that this puts the cumulative domestic total for Nolan's sequel up to $395 million. In just over two weeks, The Dark Knight has already pushed its way up to the #8 spot on the all-time box office totals list, right below Spider-Man - and this is just the beginning!
What the heck was Entertainment Weekly thinking when they only predicted $255 million?! The best part is that most of the movies that are up at the top of the all-time box office totals list only reach that point after months of showing in the theater. Steve Mason of Fantasy Moguls is already predicting that The Dark Knight is going to make enough on Monday to beat out Spider-Man for the highest grossing comic book movie of all-time. Mason's prediction is that The Dark Knight will end up with a domestic total of $480 million by the end of its run (which could be through to November). That would it put in the #2 spot directly below Titanic, which holds the record with an unbeatable $600 million domestically. That would also put it directly above Star Wars, which has earned $461 million since 1977.
The other great part about this news is that The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor got its ass kicked. On Friday, I was reading news saying that The Mummy might finally give Batman a run for his money and just barely nudge it out for the #1 spot. But anyone who was seen both of those movies knows that The Mummy doesn't even deserve one cent of the $42.5 million that it made. Thankfully The Dark Knight prevailed and is on its way to going down in history. It's truly gratifying to see The Dark Knight doing as well as I originally predicted and proving all of the nay-sayers wrong. However, I'm not going to start any fights about who was right or wrong. Instead, let's just focus on the incredible success of one of the best movies of the decade. And I leave you all with one last question… Will it beat Titanic?
Reader Feedback - 89 Comments
I F**king Hope So!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Shelby on Aug 4, 2008
why some people went to titanic 23 times i dont know, why im going back to tdk is because it is a movie making masterclass -all respect to james cameron. mummy is just a bad idea gone wrong
bassbin on Aug 4, 2008
Yawwwwn. Every one of these puff pieces brings to mind Martin Prince from The Simpsons skipping around the schoolyard singing "Told you so, told you so, told you so!"
Robert on Aug 4, 2008
Jeez will the Dark Knight love-fest ever end on firstshowing? Yeah we know you usually don't report box office numbers, so why don't you stick to that instead of unnecessarily kissing this movie's butt even more? With the endless Dark Knight and Watchmen coverage on here, sometimes I wonder if Warner Bros bought this website out or something.
Daas on Aug 4, 2008
I wouldn't necessarily call a $1.3 million difference an "ass kicking." It's more like a win by decision. I may be a bit of a minority, but I enjoyed The Mummy and think it did deserves it's gross. As for the all time box office thing. In my opinion, box office records are a joke. Ticket prices are like double from when Titanic was out, so even if The Dark Knight beats it, it wouldn't mean more people went to see it (it would quite possible be much less).
Sean Kelly on Aug 4, 2008
For everyone complaining you don't have to read these articles you know, why are you reading something that your so sick of hearing about it, maybe some people find this interesting.. The Dark Knight defiantly deserves it and even more so as for the Mummy i don't think it deserves its total for this weekend at all even though i haven't seen it from what I've heard its the biggest pile of crap ever. I have a feeling that Pineapple Express is gonna beat out Dark Knight next week don't know why but who knows will have to wait and see.
Curtis on Aug 4, 2008
#6 Stated perfectly. Some people just want to watch the world burn or in this case start unnessary and unwinable fights. This I believe is a movie site and I do believe a movie no matter what its contents shattering records should be mentioned. Also this is the first (not counting the contest) article since I believe the Monday after the premiere. Also its not really a ass kicking perse but certainetly a beatdown since TDK was in its third weekend. I would hope to see TDK show Titanic a magic trick but its (sadly) very unlikely. Maybe my Fourth viewing will help...
Darknight on Aug 4, 2008
The Mummy was absolutely horrible. Mindless dribble comparable to that of Journey to the Center of the Earth. Neither had any plot to speak of and the lackluster dialogue was only trumped by the horrible supporting actors. Complete waste of any one's time. The Dark Knight deserves every bit of it's praise, and people love to hate the winners. Whether that be a movie such as The Dark Knight or someone who gives their opinion on a website, people always love to hate success.
Will S. (Co. Springs) on Aug 4, 2008
Get a grip. Disliking a movie is one thing but to writing it does not deserve a cent is something else especially when you are talking about the "great and godlike" TDK (fanboy expressions not mine) in the same breath. You adore TDK we all get it. Writing a Second article about the box office, even when you normally do not do that (irony off) just gives you less credit as a neutral critic. I did not like Mummy but its a good kids and popcornflick and obviously enough people agree with me to put up with 40+mil for it even though it had less screens than TDK. Besides Mummy did great worldwide in its first weekend and its total grosses landed around 100mil US and World together so lets skip the asswooping talk.
Shige on Aug 4, 2008
#10 HaHaHaHaHaHaHa God I hope you arent serious
Darknight on Aug 4, 2008
I want TDK to beat Titanic for one reason and one reason only. Its called the ending... people went and seen a F"N boat sink 23 times i didn't see that coming it like watching the new king kong movie you know the monkey dies who cares... that why batman deserves to beat a boat that took on a glacier and lost batman went up a villain who was equally matched to a glacier in destructiveness....yes I know Titanic is a true story and the only true thing about that movie is the boat SANK....What if Joker killed of batman no one would have thought of that as a ending but it could happen because the next batman movie has a lot to live up to. So end it here with the ultimate villain. I just saying that Batman is Batman and he is King of the DC Universe.
maxxx on Aug 4, 2008
#4, I agree, it seems like a great number of fanboys are fixated on TDK's success (as if it validates something about them personally). It's a great movie, not the best of the summer, and not really all that truly significant. Next summer it will be as important as Spiderman 1 and 2 are today. Another factor a lot of people forget when they unfairly compare the latest box office records to Titanic's success is today's much greater concentration and therefore market manipulation of Big Media. Today most forms of media are just vertically integrated arms of the same monster. I think that has a lot to do with the big numbers we see today (and with TDK's eventual #2 position).
RG on Aug 4, 2008
#13 Not best of summer? What is then?
Joker on Aug 4, 2008
I'm a little lost as to how the semi-monopolization would increase a movie's revenue by this amount #13. I do agree that TDK did get a better marketing job that other movies this summer, but good marketing doesn't always translate to good revenue. However, the marketing for TDK wasn't as widespread or as commercially central. Instead, it was done virally with huge success over the internet. This appealed to a specific audience and didn't really reach a large portion of movie goers. If you attended any show of The Dark Knight on opening weekend, the average age would have been under 21 years old. Titanic's audience would have been inverse to this, appealing to a much wider audience and a demographic with much deeper pockets. I'd attribute the Dark Knight's success in it's second and third weekends to the older crowds hittin' the theaters, because they'd hoped it would die down by now. They were wrong. On a related note, this is why "Watchmen" will most likely not do as well at the box office. The extended footage made it clear that the film would release with an 'R' rating, which limits it's audience to adults when it appeals mostly to college and high school age guys. This doesn't necessarily mean that it will have a low gross, but it certainly will hinder it's potential for a box office success. Also, just arguing to argue at this point, but doesn't the integration of media generally produce a better product? More money to spend theoretically produces a better movie right? That's not to say that low budget movies can't be good, but the end product rarely will have the same value as one with a larger budget. Also, big budget blockbusters tend to appeal to larger audiences which would hypothetically increase it's revenue which motivates media to conglomerate in the first place. I guess my ramblin' and digressions got to me again... Oh well.
Will S. (Co. Springs) on Aug 4, 2008
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/04/23/ews-wacky-summer-box-office-predictions/ My prediction was $400 Million domestically, $800 worldwide. And I got laughed at. LMAO! WOOO!! It feels GREAT to be right.
SMY on Aug 4, 2008
Titanic did not deserve the $600 million it made, it was too long and too boring and too not good. Batman on the other hand does not deserve it because there was no Prince on the soundtrack, Dr Coolfella wasn't in it (my fave villain), and there were no nipples on the costume. I'm sure there were nipples UNDER the costume (atleast I hope so), but I dont recall seeing them.
Kail on Aug 4, 2008
Keeping to the subject here, I don't think it's impossible for TDK to beat Titanic's domestic take, but Titanic's international take ($1.2 billion out of a $1.8 billion global take) will be difficult to surpass. It think the question is can it get a billion global take the way Return of the King and POTC:DMC have previously?
sleepykid on Aug 4, 2008
let's go see it again so we beat f***** Titanic
Alex on Aug 4, 2008
Alex Billington - Seriously, how much are you being paid to praise the Dark Knight so much? The film was ok - historical!? I don't think so. Other than Imax, what else has this movie brought forward for the film industry? I think you're simply a big comic geek who loves to see a more gritty real experience than that presented on the written page. The film was fun, dark and often silly - nothing more, nothing less.
dom on Aug 4, 2008
TDK will easily hit #2....nothing is ever gonna beat Titanic. It just won't happen. $600mil is a lot to compete with
Mr. Pockets on Aug 4, 2008
I hope it does beat Titanic. Btw, is the DVD sale taken into account?
Gdn | TD on Aug 4, 2008
Everyone needs to let up a bit on Alex. He writes for the site, and reserves the right to say what he wants. If you don't like his opinion, then don't read his columns. The Dark Knight hype on this site has been excessive, but I'm glad. I can get all the info I need right here. Think about it. What Alex is doing is based on supply and demand. If there's still a demand for info, then he should supply it. That way we stay at FirstShowing, and not look to other sites for the same info. It's smart. Now, as far as The Dark Knight's box office totals, I gotta say that I'm surprised. I've seen the film, and I think it's a masterpiece, but I'm shocked at how much the main stream audience has embraced it. Some of it can be attributed to Ledger's death, but not much. The movie is amazing. All the performances were so good, it's just in a different league than other comic book films. You can't compare the Spider-Man movies to it. No one in a Spider-Man flick was deserving of an Oscar nomination. #13 RG - Saying it's not the best of the summer is fine. That's opinion. I get that Saying it's not significant is ignorant. The Dark Knight has taken a whole genre of films into new territory. Judging by your comments you appear to be educated, so I have to question this statement that appears to be completely biased by your personal opinion. I find $400 million very significant.
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
For those of you who's complaining about too much Dark Knight coverage on Firstshowing, Stop your whining!!!! If you don't like the article subject then don't read it, simple as that. Nobody is forcing you to read every single article that's posted on here. Read the ones that interests you and skip the ones that don't. Deep down inside, you know you love TDK coverages, otherwise you wouldn't have even read this one..... big babies!!!
Omega728 on Aug 4, 2008
to put in perspective what a phenomenon titanic was, if you factor in inflation, TDK would have to sell $900 million worth of domestic tickets to equal titanic's ticket tales. c'mon people, it's not going to break titanic's records. i remember titanic taking the #1 weekend box office slot --- in late march of 1998! remember, this movie was released over christmas of 97'. incredible. all of the fanboy repeat business for TDK just can't beat the insane leo-love, girl power that drove titanic.
Tom on Aug 4, 2008
Naysayers? Everyone knew "Dark Knight" was going to be huge! "The Mummy" has clearly underperformed because it didn't quite measure up to it's predecessors. Still, I had a great time watching "The Mummy". But let's not get superficial. Sure, it will make more bank. Will it beat "Titanic"? I doubt it. I agree with you Tom #24. Alex, don't get on your high horse claiming the quintessential, "told you so" attitude because you are bringing nothing that we didn't already know to the table. In fact, you're acting as if you'll be getting a share of the profits. For all your "Mummy" bashing and incessant bragging/promotion about, "The Dark Knight", I hope it's worth it!
Pickle on Aug 4, 2008
"The Mummy 3" did make 42.5 million and "The Dark Knight" made 43.8 million and these are just estimates. Nowhere near the ass-kicking as mentioned here on FirstShowing.net, the official "The Dark Knight" online site! Numbers could easily be manipulated and yet this is not an ass kicking. #5 Sean Kelly said it best "it's more like a win by decision". In boxing terms, you would never, ever consider going to the score cards(box office numbers) with no knockout and calling it an ass kicking! ** All in all, "The Mummy" has made $101.9 million worldwide on a 145 million budget. Does "The Mummy 3" suck? Depends on who you ask? Media says it sucks.(Who really listens to the media?) Will it be considered a flop? Hardly. I liked this flick though.
Spider on Aug 4, 2008
As much as I want it to beat out Tit (antic), 600 million domestically is quite an achievement. Here is the problem with that. Women. Women went to see Titantic with their girl friends, and then brought their boyfriends, or husbands. Then again, then it was the date movie of the century, with everyone going out on dates to see Titantic. Women mainly ruled the Titanic as the number one movie of all time in box office sales, but it really was not a great movie. The special effects kept the men involved the the sappy romance kept women coming for more. You also had more teenage girls wanting to see this movie, and they could continue watching the move several times over. The Dark Knight is definitely not a date movie, but it is by far the best movie of its genre and of multiple genres. Who could ever think that a comic hero could achieve such a success. Unless, the comic book, video gamer who has a girl friend can convince their significant other to see Batman several times, the record achieved by Titanic will be unbreakable for a very long time considering how bad each year movies get because everything is a sequel or remake. Heath Ledger could only pull so many people into watching TDK. It is admirable that during an economic slowdown, gas prices up, ticket prices up that you could even conceive of people going miles to watch a movie and still maintain some momentum that TDK is maintaining. Unless you get die hard fans watching the movie more than 20 times each, the record achieved by Titantic will not fall anytime soon. I plan to watch the movie again in IMAX, but near the end I may go and see it again if their are no other movies to watch. I was happy to see Hancock, but it fell apart on Charlize Theron. A simple spoiler, of having powers, but no explanation other than gods, or special or whatever, did not do much for me to see that again. Probably not even worthy of buying it on Blu-Ray. Though Will Smith made sure that movie did well, I could not see another actor pulling that movie off. Now, you have to account for future movies eating into TDK's sales. Not sure of the future prospects. I am glad that TDK achieved what it achieved in Sales, but the true achievement was the reboot of a classical franchise, the development of a story without special effects, a cerebral movie, a less campy crappy version of a wonderful story.
Bishopsring on Aug 4, 2008
Let's clear this up. If Dark Knight had 43.8 million in ticket sales, and Mummy 3 had 42.5 million, then Dark Knight wins by 1.3 million. It may not seem like much, but when you consider that the No. 10 movie this past weekend was Space Chimps, and it only had 2.8 million, then you have to give it up to Dark Knight for beating Mummy 3. Maybe it wasn't a complete ass-whipping, but it was an ass-whipping none the less. Maybe it won't beat Titanic. Maybe it will. It probably won't, but that's just my opinion. Another thing to keep in mind is the actual box office numbers themselves, as broken down on a daily basis. Dark Knight is only in it's 3rd weekend. Batman Begins was in theaters for 4 months, and it only did 205 million. No one knows exactly where the numbers will end. It could all end next Friday, or it could continue on and set a new record. #28 - The biggest difference I'm seeing between the people going to see Dark Knight, and Titanic is that it's pretty equal between the men and women who want to see it. Many of the people I've talked to that have seen it (men and women, young and old) have expressed interest in watching a second time. The Titanic movie-goers were fairly equal, but most women went back to watch it again. The fact that most people (both male and female) want to watch Dark Knight again, could be a factor in it's chances of taking the top spot from Titanic. #24 - Inflation is always going to be a factor. There's nothing we do to change that. Titanic is untouchable when you adjust for inflation.
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
I read a story on CNN about TDK and people we're critizing Bale's Batman voice, as too horse and kind of hard to understand, now isn't that the point of Batman to have a very dark and disturbing voice to scare you, into not fucking with him, Keaton did it, Val Kimmer did it, Clooney not really, but without the dark voice, Batman wouldn't be Batman.
Xerxex on Aug 4, 2008
#32 - wrong, Titanic is not untouchable when you adjust inflation. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm?adjust_yr=2008&p=.htm
Omega728 on Aug 4, 2008
#29 The voice complaints are shared by many. I'm not one of them. I think it made perfect sense for him to use a growly, animalistic voice. If you want to scare criminals, it takes more than a bat-suit, and a cool HumVee. Bruce Wayne could not take a chance of someone recognizing him. He had to disguise his voice. Would you rather him just put on a pair of glasses, and act dorky like Clark Kent / Superman? The dude has serious pyschological problems. All his anger and frustrations are vented through Batman. I think the voice is very fitting. It's grating, and unnerving. It's not meant to be pleasant. Back to the numbers... Here's an interesting article I found on Yahoo about how the Dark Knight's box office haul compare's to POTC: Dead Man's Chest. http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20080731/en_movies_eo/c667ec7c_cf9b4f4a_a206_6f1183416885;_ylt=At2.JYlRZYDfkpAXOc6R8icwFxkF'
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
#33 - If you saying that's it's been beaten before, then you're right. I was referring to Dark Knight's chances of topping it. I read BoxOfficeMojo daily. I know the numbers.
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
I know a ton of people who still haven't see tdk yet and want to, and i know i myself am going to see it a few more times. What will stand in a fanboys way of making this the all time highest grossing film in history? If anyone deserves it, it's batman for all the things he's given us over the years.
Dustyman1505 on Aug 4, 2008
As was said by someone else, I also enjoyed the Mummy. Can't compare it to the Dark Knight. That's apples and oranges. I enjoyed all the Mummy movies. They are just goofy popcorn movies. They don't take themselves seriously and have a lot of comedy and action. At least The Mummy made up for my disappointment with Indiana Jones, which also made a ton at the box office, but doesn't mean it was great. The Dark Knight was a masterpiece and still has momentum. Just don't compare it with The Mummy. Two completely different movies. That would be like comparing Platoon to The Godfather.
Obiwopkenobi on Aug 4, 2008
#29 - The problem people had with voice is that it was stupid as hell, it wasn't dark and mysterious, it was campy as hell. When he first started talking at the beginning my first thought was "aww man another batman and robin" but then the movie kicked into high gear and became amazing. BTW I was joking in my earlier comment, as I often do, though I did enjoy Arnold Terminegger as Dr Coolfella
Kail on Aug 4, 2008
#36: "If anyone deserves it (to beat Titanic), it's batman for all the things he's given us over the years." I guess we have a different perspective. All I remember is a fairly okay #1, an awful #2, offensive #3 and #4, and a thrilling new beginning in #5. I don't own any of these DVDs and if someone gave me one of the first 4 I'd trash it. Taken as a whole, the film franchise doesn't even rate 1/100th of Aliens or Terminator.
RandyG on Aug 4, 2008
The main reason why Titanic made 600 Million was due to it ran in theaters for 41 weeks, I mean come on 41 weeks are you serious????? Let DK run for 41 weeks and see what happens!!!! Titanic makes me want to puke 600 million is alot but the way they did sucks a$$. I bet DK could run half the weeks and take them all down!! The source of my info (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=titanic.htm)
Dave on Aug 4, 2008
#39 "The main reason why Titanic made 600 Million was due to it ran in theaters for 41 weeks" Slowly now, do you think it might be possible that it ran for 41 weeks because the audience was there to keep it in theaters for 41 weeks? That's sort of how the business works. 38 weeks from now TDK and its record breaking numbers will be as culturally significant as Brad and Angelina's $14 Mil record breaking haul for 'the baby pictures'.
RG on Aug 4, 2008
#38 haha Aliens or Terminator? Seriously? I'll agree with you about the first 4 Batman films, but I'll disagree with you on the rest. BATMAN: I like the Keaton films. They are flawed, but watchable. Kilmer's flick was ok, but went too campy. The Clooney flick was just terrible. Bale's movies have been excellent. The 2 movies together are better than anything Terminator of Aliens has put out (minus Terminator 2) ALIENS: The first 2 were good, but everything else has been crap. The Aliens vs. Predator movies are some of the worst. Those movies killed 2 franchises. TERMINATOR: I like the Terminator flicks, but only Judgement Day is deserving of any credit. The first movie was cool, but ultimately not a great flick that you can watch over and over again. The 3rd felt like it was trying to rehash the same ideas used in part 2. Hopefully Terminator Salvation will be a great flick
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
What is the source of that Poster, pictured above the article? It looks totally awesome and is WAY more interesting than any of the posts on this Thread!
Djo on Aug 4, 2008
#35 - I'm actually referring to it having never been #1, with adjusted inflation. For it to have been beaten before, it had to have held the #1 spot, which it never did. Guess I misunderstood you when you said that "Titanic is untouchable when you adjust for inflation". But it's all good, I understand what you're trying to say now. I agree, TDK won't beat Titanic's record, though it will probably beat out star wars for #2. #39 - Come on now, you can come up with a better argument than that!!! Information in the wrong hands could be dangerous.
Omega728 on Aug 4, 2008
#39 you're a retard. titanic was playing in theaters for 41 weeks because there was an economic incentive for the theater owners to do so, i.e. people still kept wanting to go see it. economics 101, demand vs. supply. watch TDK's demand dry up soon enough and contrary to how things operate in your fantasy land, theater owners in the real world will not keep TDK in theaters just to prove your point.
Tom on Aug 4, 2008
#32 "Inflation is always going to be a factor. There's nothing we do to change that. Titanic is untouchable when you adjust for inflation." umm, that's kind of the point of my original post. in fact, i said as much in the first sentence...you know, the part where i wrote that TDK would have to do $900 million in business in this year's dollars just to equal what titanic did, thus implying that titanic was pretty much untouchable. reading comprehension, it's a wonderful thing.
Tom on Aug 4, 2008
I don't understand how you could put Titanic, inflation, and untouchable in one sentence. If you're talking about inflation and untouchable, you should be talking about Gone with the Wind. How could Titanic be "untouchable" (w/adjusted inflation) when it doesn't even beat GWTW?
Omega728 on Aug 4, 2008
Titanic was a good film and didn't get it's box office from silly girls seeing it 23 times. If this were the case then Romeo & Juliet and The Beach would have equally high numbers. Many like to hate it because it was popular and that's fine. You all love JC for creating Aliens and Terminator but suddenly turn your back on him and won't give him the benefit of the doubt in making a superb film in Titanic. Just because you didn't like the story surely doesn't mean you can't appreciate what a spectacle it was. At the end of the day a lot of people say Titanic because A. It was a good film B. It was a human tragedy story that everyone knew but had never really been done justice C. It had complete cross market appeal of males and females, 16 to 60 year olds. I loved The Dark Knight and thought it an amazing film especially compared to Batman Begins which I thought OK but not the second coming that many did. I'd like it to do well as all those involved deserve their efforts to be fully acknowledged but lets not get carried away people. I'm sure in 5 years time fans of TDK will take real umbrage when people sneer with contempt that the only reason it did well at the box office was because "14 year old geeks went to see it 23 times". Just as this denigrates Titanic, this accusation will also denigrate TDK.
Payne by name on Aug 4, 2008
Titanic WILL eventually be beaten. When in the future a movie ticket costs $25, it won't be as untouchable as it is right now. However I just don't think TDK can muster $600M. While we're on the topic of adjusting for inflation. NO film will EVER top "Gone with the Wind." Yeah it was a different time and new movies weren't being released every week, but if you want to talk about untouchable, talk about THAT movie. TDK was a great flick, and everyone involved in making it should be proud of what they made. The studios that financed this one are getting paid off for what I think was a risky film.
Icarus on Aug 4, 2008
#47 Very well said.
RG on Aug 4, 2008
I'm still laughing at #10's response. 🙂 Nice one, two punch..hehee. 🙂 Dark Knight was fine...not super great for me..but it was my own fault. I got just a bit too hyped. My imagination got the best of me. It was well made and entertaining of course...just not the "masterpiece" for me. I did not see The Mummy. I think I will wait until it heads to DVD.
Bry from Chi on Aug 4, 2008
Alex, I wouldn't call a win by a little over a million an ass-kicking, but THIS WILL NOT beat TITANIC or it will have a HARD time doing so. It is not possible for a film today with so many films coming out a week to survive as long as it needs to. Not to mention, if you look at the numbers and falls, even at it's low rate, it STILL won't wind up topping $600M. HOWEVER, it SHOULD atleast hit $500M and end up in the high 5s. I usually take Mase's word, but he is definitley wrong on this one. Here is one prediction though. DARK KNIGHT WILL BE NUMBER 1 NEXT WEEK! Though I LOVED PINEAPPLE, I don't see it making anything over $20M for TWO REASONS! 1. It is being released on Wednesday so a majority of the weekend money will be absorbed then and then on Thursday. This is done so it wouldn't be competing against the Olympics. 2. Stoner comedies don't have a high track record and being in the STEP BROTHERS/TROPIC THUNDER sandwich it is in also doesn't help...same with its R-rating. and do I even HAVE to explain why SISTERHOOD 2 will not make $20M opening???
Ryan on Aug 4, 2008
No way...as much as I wish it could, $600 just can't be beat....I still dont understand how Titanic made that much money domesticaly. I think we need a recount! That movie was good...but $600 milliion good?
Hch91 on Aug 4, 2008
The reason we criticize Alex is because of this kind of garbage. This past weekend resulted in an interesting turn of events, as Universal's The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ended up performing well below early estimates, only taking in $42.5 million. In comparison, The Dark Knight kicked Brendan Fraser's ass and earned another $43.8 million, beating The Mummy for the #1 spot this weekend for the third weekend in a row. Who estimated it was going to perform well below this number? This movie has a 9 on Rotten Tomatoes, a 9! For that kind of blasting it should have done no more than maybe 10 million like X-Files. Kicked it's ass, not quite, let's look at real numbers shall we. The Dark Knight $42,664,219 $10,001 $393,751,065 4,266 The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor $40,457,770 $10,760 $40,457,770 3,760 The second number is per screen, it didn't even win let alone kick ass. It was also in about 500 more theaters and lots of those were IMAX which costs up to $18 per ticket. Not as many people saw TDK as saw the Mummy this past weekend. Also by Alex's description the Mummy kicked the TDK's ass overseas, it made a few million more. Now back to reality.
Oldschool on Aug 4, 2008
According to TDK Fans their own opinion of movies is the only good one. Nevermind that women loved Titanic. What do women know about cinema right ? They should just be quiet and follow their boyfriends lead to go se Terminator, Iron Man, TDK and Godfather. Flicks like GWTW Titanic etc. should go straight to dvd to be watched by wives and gfs quietly when the mighty comic fans are asleep. Then the order will be restored to the world and the box office justice will prevail.
Shige on Aug 4, 2008
#42 & #43 - Why the name calling? I was agreeing with you about inflation, not arguing. My apologies if it read that way. No one knows for sure what the "supply & demand" will be in 41 weeks, so don't talk down to me like you have the inside scoop. BTW - I guess their was no economic incentive for theater owners to have 3am and 6am showings for The Dark Knight on it's opening night. The just did it because it was nice. Since this forum is basically a place for everyone to post their opinions, then I'll give my initial opinion of you: DICK #44 - Yes, Gone With The Wind is the big dog when inflation is factored in. The discussion was specifically comparing Titanic to The Dark Knight. Gone With The Wind was not a factor.
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
No. 32, I agree with you 100% that Batman's gruff voice is right on, but do you have to liken the Tumbler, a badass piece of modern engineering to a piece of shit Hummer?
JL on Aug 4, 2008
No. 36, You are way off base. You couldn't be more wrong about Batman #1. That's not trashable material. Keep in mind it was made in the late 80's. Now, I'll concede that it wasn't the best comic book movie ever made (and Batman Forever and Batman and Robin didn't help the franchise one bit). No, that's a spot that, until the Dark Knight came out, I reserved for Batman Begins. In my opinion. Alien was fantastic, but it was followed by an overly action packed, but lacking in significant plot, sequel (i very much dislike Cameron's work), an ok third film and a very shitty fourth that I haven't watched since I was in middle school. Also, I agree that Terminator was an amazing movie, but the two movies following it were mediocre at best, though I look forward to seeing Salvation.
JL on Aug 4, 2008
I hope so. I think so. It must! Viva la Dark Knight!!!! I love this movie!!! It WILL sink the Titanic, AGAIN!!!!!!!
Brian on Aug 4, 2008
I really can't explain how much I hate the movie Titanic, and I'm puzzled by those who talk about what a great film it is. I'm all for chic flicks, 4 of my all time favorite movies are really cheesy and cliche chic flicks (Serendipity, Waitress, Elizabethtown, and The Very Thought of You)....but I don't see how Titanic doesn't fall in that cheesy and cliche category. It doesn't deserve to be the #1 grossing movie of all time. It's terrible in so many ways, epic in others, but mostly epically terrible. The story is horrible, the acting is worse, it's cliche, predictable, and the only interesting part is when the boat sinks. I'm hoping Batman can beat Titanic, but I know that even if it does we'll get some "20th anniversary" re-release and Titanic will reclaim it's spot. If I had the money I would single handedly go see the Dark Knight enough times where it would beat Titanic. I would rent out whole theaters and show it to the homeless or something if I had to....not just because i hate Titanic, but because I think this movie is deserving of the #1 spot....even more so than previous #1's like E.T. and Star Wars.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 4, 2008
Does someone have an article I can read explaining why Titanic did so well? I know a lot of teenage girls went to watch it 8+ times but 600k? This movie hit all quadrants a movie reaches out for. Not to mention it was crazy internationally as well. Looking at the movies that were released during its impressive 15 weeks at #1 I can guess that lack of better movies was a reason why people chose to just watch Titanic again. I've been looking for an article online that fully analyzes why Titanic did so well, however I can't find one. So please, link me if you have one. I for one actually has never seen the whole movie, I've seen like the first 5 min. and like a few other scenes randomly when a relative was watching it. Thanks in advance if you have a link, or even your own explanation.
Marc on Aug 4, 2008
#54 - The Tumbler is Bad-Ass, yes. Comparing it to a Hummer isn't truly fair, but then again, nothing compares to it. The only other vehicles that can compare are the previous Batmobiles. Next to them, it looks like a Hummer on steroids. It's just an opinion. SPOILERS (if you're one of the 4 people left who hasn't watched it) That was one thing that dissappointed me about The Dark Knight. The Tumbler being destroyed was lame, but it served a purpose to the story. If the Joker hadn't blown it up, we'd never got to see the Bat-Pod. That was a little too much like "Batman Returns" for me. #57 - I was one of those guys who was drug to the theaters to watch Titanic. I can't say I hated it completely, because there was some entertaining scenes. My favorite is when the Titanic is sinking straight down into the water, and a guy falls, and bounces off a propeller. I almost got thrown ot of the theater for laughing. It's typical Hollywood fluff. Put a romance story in the middle of a terrible event. After Titanic, the tried to repeat this formula with Pearl Harbor, they just forgot about adding a funny moment with a guy and a propeller. With all the planes around, you'd think it would have been easy to do.
TCox on Aug 4, 2008
#59 Last paragraph is hilarious
Rodan8812 on Aug 5, 2008
I do love that part where the guy bounces off the propeller. I got a bruise on my arm from my dates elbow for laughing during that scene and when Rose tells Jack "I'll never let you go Jack" and then she....lets him go, and he sinks to the bottom of the ocean. God I hate that movie. To #58, I've been looking for the same explanation as you for quite some time, and haven't found much. But I think it's a combination of a few things. One being that the sinking of the Titanic is one of the most recognizable and overblown events in history so it already had a built in fan base of fanatics and intellects, but that alone couldn't carry a movie as high as Titanic went. The second big factor was the decade the movie was released. The 90's was pretty decadent, the economy was good, no wars, no big disasters, and we really didn't have much to pour our collective emotions into. I may be mistaken but I think it's called the "Contagion phenomenon" where people look to the media as a way of emotionally connecting to larger than life situations that are lacking in their own lives. It was a movie about a decadent generation made for a decadent generation. The third big draw would be that in the 90's the marketplace was overly focused on the teen market because they had such an enormous amount of expendable income (99 cents per gallon when I was a senior in HS) and a lot of what was released was youth focused. If you think about it Titanic is the cinematic equivalent of the Backstreet Boys. It drew the same type of audience and hysteria without declaring itself as "made for teens" (which youth markets tend to reject). It was an "adult" movie that really had more teen appeal than anything. I think if you were to release Titanic today it wouldn't be as big because since 9/11 we have a different definition of tragedy. The economy isn't as strong, and we're not as youth focused as we were in the 90's, but most importantly I think we're more cynical than we were ten years ago and we wouldn't buy the fluff of Titanic in bulk like we did then. But I think all of the reasons listed above are what are making Batman so successful. Not only is a great movie, but it's a cynical movie, and it plays on our new sense of terrorism and tragedy. It deserves the number 1 spot not just for being a good movie, but for being a smart movie. Unlike Titanic which was simply a decadent movie that had little to offer intellectually other than emotional escape from our own boredom.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 5, 2008
#61 - That's one of the best posts I've read on here in a long time. I think your theories are on why Titanic was so big, make absolute sense. I haven't heard anyone refer to The Dark Knight as cynical before, but it's a very good description.
TCox on Aug 5, 2008
#61 Is it really that hard to admit Titanic actually deserved its box office? It did almost entirely sweep the Oscars while you will probably agree TDK may win a couple but there's nothing exceptional about TDK that Batman Begins didn't also showcase and BB was pretty much ignored come Oscar-time. In comparison, William Goldman, one of Hollywood's most accomplished screenwriters, said in Rolling Stone that Titanic deserved the best picture because it was the best screenplay, period. And the calibre of films Titanic competed against was the best in years. I revere Titanic. I saw it in the theater 5 times and I won't watch it again until it either comes back to the theater or my home theatre is finally complete.
RandyG on Aug 5, 2008
Give Titanic it's due, if Titanic really sucked as bad as most of your are saying then there's no way that it could've made as much money that it did. So it had to be at least a pretty good film to accomplish all that it did. It is what it is, a good historical film? No. A good dramatic love story? Yes. Or are you just trying to say that it sucks to prove to everyone how much of a man you are, but secretly you cry every time you watch it? Stop it with the real men hates romantic movies routine now. Of course I would love to see TDK beat out Titanic, but that is highly unlikely going to happen.
Omega728 on Aug 5, 2008
#63 & #64 I don't hate it. I liked the storyline, and the special effects. Hell, I'm a fan of Leo. I'm just not a "Titanic" fan. Overall, it's a very flawed movie. The impossible love story thrown in to make the disaster more dramatic was too much for me. Like I said before, they tried the same thing with Pearl Harbor. It wasn't as successful.
TCox on Aug 5, 2008
#65 I think it is unfair to compare James Cameron to Micheal Bay. And to say it was very flawed as if that is supposed to mean something. To me, Angeline Jolie is very flawed' but that doesn't mean she's not the hottest (most successful) woman I've ever seen.
RandyG on Aug 5, 2008
For what it's worth, an analysis: http://news.yahoo.com/s/eonline/20080730/en_movies_eo/d33f8a140733_429b_ac2d_12a6e7522e74
RandyG on Aug 5, 2008
And while on the topic of how Titanic made as much as it made, I think a very important reason is the Oscars as mentioned in one of the links given above. Titanic ran till the Oscar Nomination announcements & the amount of nominations for the movie gave it a new opening after 2 months. Its said in that article that the movie had its second-biggest total on 58th day following the Oscar announcements. Another important factor as a few others mentioned, is the movie itself. Titanic was a simple, easy to understand movie done in a grand scale. It was for general audience & anyone would love it. The Dark Knight is more specific to a particular target audience, though the plot is a general theme. It needs something like the Oscar nominations in a lot of categories to show the people that the movie in general is a masterpiece and you don't have to know Batman to go watch it. And btw, y is it that most ppl consider the US Box office alone? I mean, these movies are released worldwide & US Box office is just around 30% of the worldwide earnings, right?
Gdn | TD on Aug 6, 2008
#64. It has nothing to do with it being a girly movie. I like chic flicks way more than I should, more than most action films to be honest, but I wouldn't consider any of the chic flicks that I like to be masterpieces. Simply romantic escapism. And yes, Titanic did suck that bad. I think it's horrible as a drama, as a period piece, as a romance. There's very little I like about it. I think it was an overblown fad, and no I don't think it deserved most of it's Oscars. Maybe best score, and I wouldn't object too much to best director, but I think As Good as it Gets and Good Will Hunting were both better films that year. I would not be surprised to see The Dark Knight load up on Oscar night because it's got the type of hysteria surrounding it that Titanic did. I don't think the Academy had much of choice when it came to Titanic. I think this country would have boycotted Hollywood had that movie not been nominated, and won oodles of awards. I think the general public at this point is going to expect the same for the Dark Knight, and we'll never hear the end of it if Ledger doesn't win. I have friends who still complain that DiCaprio wasn't nominated for an Oscar for Titanic, and I thought his performance was forgettable and replaceable at best. #62, I describe The Dark Knight as cynical because it's a dark spin on a positive ideal. It's the mindset of this country when it comes to politics, religion, the media. Rooting for the anti-hero has always had it's place, but I've never seen it defined with as much depth and detail as it was in The Dark Knight. I think the Dark Knight will be the defining film of the post 9/11 generation.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 6, 2008
#69 - I agree with everything you just said. Well done.
TCox on Aug 6, 2008
#66 Randy G "I think it is unfair to compare James Cameron to Micheal Bay" Why not? They both are directors, and they've both made some crappy movies. They've both made overblown sci-fi blockbusters, and they've both made big, overlong, period dramas. Cameron: Terminator, Terminator 2, The Abyss, Aliens, True Lies, Titanic Bay: Transformers, The Island, Armageddon, The Rock, Bad Boys II, Pearl Harbor Compare their bodies of work as a whole, and you'll find that there are many reason it's "fair" to compare them. I'm still having a hard time "not laughing" at your post #63. "I revere Titanic". That's fucking hilarious.
TCox on Aug 6, 2008
To #63 and #64. I don't think he was saying Titanic sucked and in general no one isn't giving Titanic its dues. However its more like, ok if you had to pick, TDK, LoTR 3, Star Wars IV or Titanic. I don't think Titanic will be #1,
marc on Aug 6, 2008
#69, What you think of Titanic is your own opinion and I respect that, at least you have some reasoning behind it. I'm talking about most guys who just put it down just because it's a chick flick and they have the need to bash on it for no reason. But I do disagree with you when you say that "Titanic does suck that bad." Again that's your opinion but obviously millions of other people seemed to have really liked it, so it couldn't have sucked as bad as what you're saying or it never would've made that much money and won that many Oscars. I thought the film was just descent, nothing mind blowing, but I'm not hating on it either. The reason why I say that it's not as bad as you say it is, is because it succeeded in what it was trying to do and that's to make the audience feel something, in this case sad, happy, romantic, etc... and I think that's the most important part of a movie, to make the audience feel and relate to what it's trying to portray. It'll suck, if nobody cared for the characters or story and the last time I remember while watching this movie is a whole theatre of women balling when Jack died, and yes even some guys were too.
Omega728 on Aug 6, 2008
#72, Of course if you're asking me then I would pick any of the other three, and I'm pretty sure that's what most guys would do too. It'll be rare that you'll find a guy who'll pick Titanic over the other three. If the #1 spot was base on a Man pole, then I guarantee that Titanic would be last. But if you were to ask a female that same question, do you really think the majority of them would feel the same? As I stated earlier, I myself would love TDK to beat Titanic's record,.... but that's unlikely it'll happen, if it does then Great!
Omega728 on Aug 6, 2008
#73 You are right that Titanic did provoke a lot of emotion, but I disagree that that makes it a great film. All films evoke emotion in some way, but really good films evoke emotion and provide the audience with something intellegent to think about. For me Titanic was all sappy fluff, and it had a paper thin plot that became water logged and sank with the ship as the movie went on and on and on. I mentioned in a post above that there's a reason the film evoked so much emotion. The first being that it's about an event that for some odd reason people are fascinated with, and already feel an emotional connection with. The second being, at that period in history there was nothing going on for us to relate to emotionally so when this movie came out it was like people lost their minds. It's a very average film set in an extrordinary setting released during a rather dull period in our history. It should not be the #1 film. If you look at the top films they're all movies that people went to in groups (ET, Star Wars, Shrek 2, Titanic). Herds of girls did carry that film, I don't care what anyone says. I remember being in that theater twice surrounded by massive clumps of girls who came by the car load. Shrek and ET obviously have the family thing going for it, and Star Wars has the fanboy's (not to mention 2 extra releases). What's impressive about the Dark Knight is that while it does have it's fanboy following, it's putting up these numbers outside of that norm of group outings. I've seen it 5 times now, and the theater hasn't been packed with large groups seeing it together that I've noticed (above 4 people anyway). Another interesting note on Titanic is that it really didn't have a lot of competition during it's stay at the top. These were the films that were released and ranked the highest while Titanic was at #1. American Werewolf in Paris Kevin Costner's "Postman" Firestorm (Howie Long) (1 month after Titanic's release) Spice World Great Expectations Blues Brothers 3000 Sphere Wedding Singer Kippendorfs Tribe, Dark City US Marshalls Man in the Iron Mask (13 weeks in, almost beat Titanic, short by 300,000) Primary Colors, Wild Things Grease Re-issue, Newton Boys LOST IN SPACE (16) (beat Titanic) April 3rd-5th Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets were also released during this time, but they started in limited release and hovered around 2nd-4th place once they were in wide release. While there are some good movies in this list....most of them are crap, and a lot of them didn't even reach #2 on the charts in their opening weekend. Titanic had very little competition. It was a big blockbuster sitting in a pond of crappy films for months on end. The Dark Knight isn't going to have that luxury.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 7, 2008
Wow, they should have made this a Sunday Discussion post!
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 7, 2008
#75 You did some homework. I think you need your own movie site. I'd read it. Wow, I guess Titanic had nowhere to go but up when all the competition didn't have much box office draw. Some of the movies where good (Man in the Iron Mask, Good Will Hunting, As Good As It Gets), but you're right about the rest. Crap. I want to hear from the Titanic lovers about this. How much evidence do they need? Again, I don't think it's a completely terrible movie, but if the best the studios had to offer, then no wonder it was a hit. Yes, The Dark Knight is going to have a lot of competition, but if you look at the amazing numbers it has posted, it's not completely impossible for it to knock Titanic out of the top domestic spot. Another thing to take into consideration is runtime. At 3hr 14mns, Titanic is a full 44mns longer than The Dark Knight. That's a long time to sit in a theater. I know. I did it. The Dark Knight has a slight advantage in that theaters can screen it more. The Dark Knight $405,699,734 (domestic) in 19 days Titanic $600,788,188 (domestic) during it's entire run (better part of 9 months) Sure, you can argue that Titanic's Foreign totals were huge. They were. It will probably take something bigger than Batman to top those numbers, but to be fair The Dark Knight has opened everywhere yet. Titanic's biggest foreign market was Japan. The Dark Knight hasn't opened their yet. Markets that The Dark Knight hasn't opened in (or are opening today): Japan (Titanic $201,389,568) Germany (Titanic $129,974,110) France (Titanic $129,127,181) Switzerland (Titanic $19,449,406) Austria (Titanic $11,666,369) Spain (Titanic $44,103,989) Poland (Titanic $14,078,241) South Korea (Titanic $17,287,679) I don't know about you, but I think that's a lot of potential $$$$ for The Dark Knight.
TCox on Aug 7, 2008
For those of you without a calculator, that's $560,076,543.00. It will be interesting to see how The Dark Knight performs in these markets.
TCox on Aug 7, 2008
#75 "Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets were also released during this time" And you're trying to say what, that Titanic's box office is due to the piddling competition? That Jack Nicholson's Oscar-winning role in As Good As It Get's was less popular with audiences than Eddy Murphy in Meet Dave, or Matt Damon's breakout performance in Good Will Hunting was a real let down compared to Brendan Fraser's in Journey to the Center of the Earth? Yeah, I'm really impressed that TDK has slayed all comers this summer. Films like the highly acclaimed and 9% rating-worthy The Mummy 3, plus The Wackness, plus American Teen, plus Space Chimps, plus the box office Gordian knot of Swing Vote (how did TDK ever make it through THAT weekend?), nevermind fanboi favorite Mama Mia. All together now, in your best Miley Cyrus-loving pre-teen exclamation, "OMG!" Your personal assessment of the merits of Titanic's screenplay amounts to little more than saying you think "It sucked". Get over yourself. William Goldman, the two-time Academy Award-winning screenwriter, said it was the best screenplay of the year. Period. Take up your concerns over the 'fluff' with him. Your 'insights' regarding Titanic being 'released during a rather dull period in our history' is revisionism and silly. Titanic generated $1B in foreign box office. So, by your assessment, the whole world was having a boring year? Your snide finger pointing at Titanic's appeal to teenager girls, as if that is the ultimate put down, is just a simpleton's attempt at making sense from an event too complicated for you to fully grasp. I was a 40 year old happily heterosexual middle ages man at the time and my guy friends and I lined up over and over to see it. True, my friends are avid movie goers, but none of us have seen TDK more than twice. To give TDK its due, it's a big hit, based largely on the curiosity over Heath Leger's performance/death. I'd be way more impressed if every single person I've spoken to didn't give the same assessment of TDK: "Great movie, wow wasn't Heath Leger amazing, damn Batman's voice was awful, who was that ugly chick they were supposed to be fighting over, and man was that makeup on Two Face ludicrous".
RandyG on Aug 7, 2008
.....haven't heard anyone assess the Dark Knight that way. I wasn't saying the Dark Knight has had steep competition as of yet (I wouldn't doubt studios released lesser movies to avoid the wake of the Dark Knight), but it's the summer movie season and you can't say the market is as weak as it is in January and February. The market is more crowded, and it's going to face better movies in the coming weeks than Titanic faced in it's entire run. I love both Good Will Hunting and As Good as it Gets, but those aren't films that appeal to everyone. Those are what common movie goers tend to refer to as "Oscar films" which is normally said with snide disdain, as if they feel the films themselves are looking down on them from their art house windows. Both films are well liked, but they had to receive a ton of good word of mouth before anyone gave them credit. Just because us movie buffs like the Oscar films doesn't mean the rest of the world considers them great movies. My issue with the script from Titanic is that there is no depth to the story. There's a reason the screenplay wasn't even nominated for an Oscar, not to mention the film itself didn't win one best acting oscar. It's a simple romance...er, a fling on a boat. It's sappy and it doesn't really have a lot to say about the human condition, or life in general that's realistic. Sure there's the "everyone's equal" class issue running throughout the film, but it's poorly delivered in a manner that's barely above the type of delivery you'd seen for the same message in a typical episode of Hannah Montana (which you seem to love so much). Not every film has to be that way, but I can't classify a film as a great film that deserved so many accolades when the only thing the film pointed out is how easily swayed we are by false whimsy. The script is so obvious it's like being beat in the head with a hammer, clunking dialogue, emotional prodding as big as the ship itself (and just as sinkable), cloppy horse plodding direction, historical inaccuracies leaking everywhere, a near total lack of editing, a soundtrack thats probably sold more pan pipe moods cd's than anything else, and a view of love that is little more than dramatic posturing. There isn't a message, a line, or a performance in that film that stands out to me. What stands out is seeing the spectacle of the Titanic on film, which stood out on it's own before the film was made. And if people are talking about Heath Ledger's death and how good he was in the Dark Knight, that's no different than hearing all the people talking about how amazing watching the Titanic sink was, or how hot they thought Leonardo DiCaprio was. To me the difference is The Dark Knight is a thought provoking movie in addition to being a spectacle with great acting, great writing, great direction, and to top it off it's incredible to think that this movie was based on a comic book, which as I've said in the past a lot of people pass off as the lower end of children's literature (I apologize to all the fanboys who think/know differently). It's a genre defining film that I think even minus the super hero aspects would still stand on it's own as a great crime drama. Take the Titanic out of the movie Titanic, and just put it on any old boat, or in any disaster type situation and I don't think that story holds water anymore. It's too cliche and predictable, and it gets passed off as any old chic flick. That's why Titanic is over hyped fluff. And I disagree that the Dark Knight's hype is living off of the death of Ledger. I'll admit it added to initial curiosity, but I think once the film was released and it started to get such great buzz, it took a back seat to people wanting to see what the movie was all about. The depth of the storyline is what people started talking about, and what an incredible acting job Ledger did came second. No one is going to see that movie over and over again just because it's his last film. Not even the teen girls. And yeah Titanic did survive on an audience of teenage girls. I'm sure you and your film buddies went to this movie as did many males, but you were probably doubled if not tripled in group size and in trips by teenage girls. Cameron himself said he researched the psychy of teenage girls for the roles of Jack and Rose to make this film as appealing as possible to that demographic. I've been searching for a stat that I put in a review when Titanic was nearing the end of it's run, and it was something to the effect of an estimated 40% of the films revenue was generated by repeat female business. That's A LOT.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 8, 2008
#79 - Are you serious? The competition in theaters right now is pretty thick. Don't forget that Indy 4 and Iron Man are both still in the top 20, as well as Wall-E, and Kung Fu Panda. You also have The Incredible Hulk, Hancock, Wanted, and Get Smart. All have broken the 100 million mark (the least being Get Smart's 126 million). The competition is definitely tougher than you think. Titanic was one of only 16 movies in 1997 to cross the 100 million mark with 600 million. 2nd place went to Men in Black at 250 million. There were only 3 movies that year to break the 200 million mark. 5 of the 16 barely broke 100 million. We've had 12 break 100 million already this year, 3 of which broke 300 million, and of course The Dark Knight broke 400 million. ImaginaryVisionary's theories on Titanic's success are just that; theories. They make sense to me, and I believe them to be true. You don't have to, since you've previously stated that you "Revere Titanic". 🙂 Even if you factor in inflation, The Dark Knight has more competition at the box office. Especially since it's a comic-book adaptation. With Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Wanted, Hellboy II, and the non-comic superhero flick Hancock, The Dark Knight has direct competition. Being the last film released has helped, but with those films already making so much money ($871,191,403.00) in such a bad economy, I still find it amazing how well The Dark Knight has done.
TCox on Aug 8, 2008
Found my stat! The Times (Feb. 10), says the film is “a chick flick with muscle,” and then adds "exit polls show that 40% of viewers are male, and approximately 60% of the audience is female, with the number of female viewers increasing the longer the film stays in theaters." So I actually remembered the wrong number. I said 40% were female in my post above, when it was actually 60%....more than half, and a number that definitely grew the longer the movie was out. And those exit polls were done in February, almost 2 months after the films initial release.
ImaginaryVisionary on Aug 8, 2008
When are they going to make a live action Care Bears movie so I can drop like ten hits and travel to Care Bear land for like two hours.
Care Bear Fan on Aug 9, 2008
vu on Aug 9, 2008
Thanks to all those who participated in the "why titanic did so good" response. It's been insightful and fun reading on people's different views. I just watched TDK this past week on IMAX and although it was great, I can't help but think "Great movie, wow wasn't Heath Leger amazing, damn Batman's voice was awful, who was that ugly chick they were supposed to be fighting over, and man was that makeup on Two Face ludicrous". - RandyG But definitely an amazing movie that didn't disappoint considering all the hype. How come Batman didn't throw a single batarang?!?! that's his signature weapon!!
marc on Aug 10, 2008
All that being said, I just want the "Dark Knight" to surpass "Titanic".
RSH on Aug 12, 2008
marc on Aug 12, 2008
uh thats not what you call ass whooping the dark knight wouldnt have made that much money if (not trying to be mean) heath ledger wouldnt have died.....the mummy 3 could have made double of the opening weekend total if rachel weisz were to have been in it. the dark knight cannot beat titanic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the dark knight isnt doing as good at the international box office expect the mummy 3 to beat it in that category on the overall results.
john on Aug 14, 2008
Hard to believe but not really after a nearly a month DARK KNIGHT was beaten this weekend by TROPIC THUNDER, now it probably won't last long, TROPIC THUNDER will probably drop to second with PINEAPPLE EXPRESS following in third, and DARK KNIGHT taking number 1 again. But wait until DARK KNIGHT'S D.V.D. release then TITANIC will be removed and DARK KNIGHT will take it's place.
Xerxex on Aug 17, 2008
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.