THE DARK KNIGHT RISES BOX OFFICE REPORTS

Apologist Puncher wrote:
I am going to track down all his posts regarding 'Rises' beating 'The Avengers', and start a whole new "Laugh At Comicbookfan-V2's Idiocy" thread.

I hate to rain on your parade but I have never quoted that TDKR will beat out "The Avengers" through box office domestics, except stating that it may or may not be so in other words... I specifically stated that it's unpredictable which either film makes more money or hit over a billion, as I once stated best... It's anybodies ballgame!!!

BTW good luck looking up those threads, your going to need it!!!

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:I hate to rain on your parade but I have never quoted that TDKR will beat out "The Avengers" through box office domestics, except stating that it may or may not be so in other words... I specifically stated that it's unpredictable which either film makes more money or hit over a billion, as I once stated best... It's anybodies ballgame!!!

BTW good luck looking up those threads, your going to need it!!!

Actually, numbnuts, it was pretty easy to find. And FYI, when you REPEATEDLY say "'TDKR' MIGHT make more than 'The Avengers'", you are stating where your allegiance lays. So you aren't fooling ANYONE, dink.

Comicbookfan-V2 wrote:Maybe or maybe not either way we won't know until July, for all we know TDKR will probably end up tieing with "The Avengers"! Who knows?

Passive-aggressive much?

Tdkr box office update:
http://superherohype.com/news/articles/172203-the-dark-knight-rises-surpasses-800-million-worldwide

The Dark Knight Rises Surpasses $800 Million Worldwide by SuperHeroHype August 12, 2012 Share this story

How much do you think it will earn worldwide?

With another $19.5 million domestically and $34.2 million overseas this weekend, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises has surpassed the $800 million mark worldwide after three weeks of release.

Having earned $835.4 million so far, Nolan's third and final Batman movie has climbed to the 30th spot on the all-time worldwide blockbuster list. The film, made for $250 million, has earned $390.1 million domestically and $445.3 million internationally.

In 2008, The Dark Knight earned a total of $1.001 billion of which $533.3 million came from North America and $468.6 million from the overseas box office.

How much do you think The Dark Knight Rises will earn in total worldwide?

Tdkr box office update:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/BatFreak/news/?a=66689

BOX OFFICE: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES Surpasses $1 Billion Worldwide

Christopher Nolan's epic conclusion to his Dark Knight Trilogy has officially passed $1 billion worldwide,becoming only the 13th film in history to do so and grossing slightly more than 2008's The Dark Knight. Hit the jump for more details. Paul Romano - 9/2/2012

After about a month and a half in theaters, Warner Bros.' The Dark Knight Rises has officially crossed the $1 billion mark at the worldwide box office. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the Christopher Nolan-directed superhero epic has now grossed $431.2 million domestically and approximately $574 million internationally, for a total $1.005 billion through Sunday. This is slightly more than what The Dark Knight's $1.0003B worldwide gross back in 2008. The third and final installment in Nolan's Batman trilogy is officially the 13th film in history to surpass $1B, and only the third comic book movie to do so.

The biggest difference between The Dark Knight Rises and The Dark Knight is that the former has been more successful overseas, but not quite as successful at the domestic box office as the latter. The Dark Knight made $533M in North America and $469.7M internationally during its theatrical run. Many believe that TDKR didn't make quite as much money in the United States due to the tragic Aurora theater shootings on July 20th.

The only other film to gross $1B worldwide this year is Marvel's The Avengers, which today has surpassed $1.5B, becoming the third highest grossing film of all time.

comicbookmovie.com wrote:Many believe that TDKR didn't make quite as much money in the United States due to the tragic Aurora theater shootings on July 20th.

Anything to excuse mediocrity. I've broken this down so many times it hardly seems worthwhile anymore. But let's say against all odds and logic, the shooting somehow cost TDKRises $20 million it's opening weekend (an argument NOBODY is making). Even IF you could somehow make that argument, it still leaves TDKRises $27 million short of what Avengers did on opening weekend.

On top of that, you have to figure that the people turned off at first still would've gone to see TDKRises eventually. Let's assume they did so add the $20 million onto the current domestic theatrical numbers. And let's also assume they each brought an armed body guard with them so he needs a ticket too. That's $40 million we should add to TDKRises total.

That STILL leaves a $148 million gap between the Avengers and TDKRises.

Fact it Nolanites, Avengers won, pure and simple.

Someone should make a new picture.

TDK Batman to Downey Iron Man in the summer of 2008- "I have a viral marketing campaign, a bravura performance by an Oscar winning villain and a superstar director."
Downey Iron Man (surrounded by his teammates) to TDKRises Batman in the summer of 2012- "We have a Hulk."

or

TDK Batman to Downey Iron Man in the summer of 2008- "My movie made more than yours. Next time, bring your friends."
Downey Iron Man (surrounded by his teammates) to TDKRises Batman in the summer of 2012- "Okay."

Yup no way around it marvel still the big winnerr for the summer. And also colors your right if the shooting really did effect numbers within time it would be back. But the real deal is tdkr just didn't have the big legs avengers did or the wom/repeat viewing avengers did.

webhead2006 wrote:Yup no way around it marvel still the big winnerr for the summer. And also colors your right if the shooting really did effect numbers within time it would be back. But the real deal is tdkr just didn't have the big legs avengers did or the wom/repeat viewing avengers did.

It did however have this:







YOU GOTTA LOVE IT!

^ Ugh...

Both films made a billion dollars, it's hard to brag about which one "won". One would think you were all placing bets on these flicks like a horse race.

Yes both films did make a bill but we where looking at more factors then the money. Like enjoyablitity, take on characters, wom and so forth. With that avengers was the better movie vs tdkr.

What he said. Sure, maybe TDKR made a billion & Avengers made 1.5 billion so some people will split hairs & say 'apples & oranges'. But look at the whole enjoyability angle. Who was that a few posts back, AP possibly? That quoted some major guy 'in the know' as far as comics are concerned, who when asked what he thought of TDKR, that his opinion was that it was a really well-made film about a character whom they're ashamed to call BATMAN. Think about that for a moment. They're not just Nolanites, they're also apologists. How so? They're 'apologizing' for a making a 'comic booky' film, of which they're really ashamed. So why then did you make the film dude?! Why Nolan? You're ashamed of 'not real' characters so why did you ever tackle Batman in the first place?! Is it because you felt that out of all superheroes that he was the 'most human', therefore also the 'most realistic', so you decided to give the 'detective' angle a shot? But take note you guys. The film hasn't been called BATMAN since BATMAN BEGINS! Ashamed much huh?!

But look at MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS. It admits to being a 'comic booky' film even before the fact, as evidenced by the build-up for the past few years. And from the opening frame it goes forth full throttle & never 'apologizes' once for being a 'comic booky' film. It made no attempt to 'rename' the characters or 'change' the characters (like Nolan did with Hardly Bane). The HULK was simply the Hulk & he rocked! No 'real world' explanations to explain it away! And they fought aliens for crying out loud! As well as a character like LOKI who Nolan would never have used! And guess what? The audience couldn't get enough of it! Add to it that it was a 'family friendly' film & there you go!

So the bottom line is, this ain't just 'betting on horses'. This boils down more so to whether you're ashamed to be called a superhero film or not.

Right on the nose non.

Frankly I enjoyed both on different levels. All this talk of "Nolan is secretly ashamed of comic books" means nothing to me. Tim Burton didn't really give much of a shit about the comics and went with his own prerogative but that fact doesn't necessarily make them automatically inferior to other superhero movies. But I do understand that a director going on his own prerogative CAN be the kiss of death, a great example being SUPERMAN RETURNS.

James Stocks wrote:Frankly I enjoyed both on different levels. All this talk of "Nolan is secretly ashamed of comic books" means nothing to me. Tim Burton didn't really give much of a shit about the comics and went with his own prerogative but that fact doesn't necessarily make them automatically inferior to other superhero movies.

Not trying to split hairs over something that isn't even your point but I have to take exception to this. Burton gets a pretty bad rap sometimes when it comes to not using comics as a vehicle for his Batman movies. Below is a link that shows a pretty clear comic influence on B89.

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2008/7/19/comic-influences-on-tim-burtons-batman-1989

Full disclosure- I have a contributor's credit to the piece. I personally think it's undeserved since at least 95% of the images and words come from someone else. All I did was throw in a few old school Detective Comics scans and connect the dots on how those things come off as influences on Burton. But either way, I think the point stands on a lot of that stuff.

Did Burton adapt what was at the time the modern Batman? No, he adapted the earlyearlyearly Golden Age Batman. But if he's going to get beat up for that, Nolan ought to be next in line for adapting the Golden Age Joker and Golden Age Catwoman.

James Stocks wrote:But I do understand that a director going on his own prerogative CAN be the kiss of death, a great example being SUPERMAN RETURNS.

There's a tendency at WB to want to let the director do whatever the hell he wants to do. That's just how they make movies. And it's not always a bad thing. But WB errs in giving a filmmaker lots of freedom when it might be more prudent for them or someone else to exercise oversight on certain things. Singerman is a prime example. Frankly, and I know this is totally a Monday morning quarterback thing to say, I don't think Bryan Singer ever had it in him to make a great Superman film. That said, the stuff related to the character leaving earth for years on end, the bastard kid and Kate Bosworth shacking up with Cyclops are issues that really pissed a lot of fans off. To this day, I'm a little surprised WB apparently never challenged Singer about that stuff. A skinny bartender in a pleather cape... yeah, I guess I could see some movie exec letting that slide by. But never bringing up franchise-killers like the above? Mind-boggling.

James Stocks wrote:Both films made a billion dollars, it's hard to brag about which one "won". One would think you were all placing bets on these flicks like a horse race.

ACTUALLY, one film has barely passed $1 billion dollars, the other has made more than 50% MORE i.e. $580 million dollars.

I fail to see how that doesn't deserve some "bragging rights"??

Apologist Puncher wrote:

James Stocks wrote:Both films made a billion dollars, it's hard to brag about which one "won". One would think you were all placing bets on these flicks like a horse race.

ACTUALLY, one film has barely passed $1 billion dollars, the other has made more than 50% MORE i.e. $580 million dollars.

I fail to see how that doesn't deserve some "bragging rights"??

When the numbers are that crazy, people tend to lose focus. "Eh, they both made a billion". Um, well, there's clearing the one billion dollar hurdle (no easy trick to be sure) and then, as you say, there's a billion and a half. Obviously there's no chance in hell of Avengers hitting the $2 billion mark but at the same rate there's no chance of TDKRises hitting $1.5 billion.

It's funny, all the box office prognostications sure made TDKRises sound like it would be the runaway success of the summer, steamrolling anything and everything in its path. Funny, then, how far behind Avengers it is by half a billion fucking dollars.

And there is no comparison to ever be made between the two movies domestic box office grosses.

And remember, even though TDKR has a higher international gross than TDK did, it's still lagging behind the domestic gross of TDK by what, a good 100 million give or take? Which proves to me that the American audience didn't like it as good. Look at BATTLESHIP. It was supposed to be a big hit here since internationally it was already doing so well but instead it bombed, here. And with some films it's vice-versa. Anyway, as for Batman, the lack of Joker no doubt had it's affects here as well. Hardly Bane was hardly a substitute.

http://www.batman-online.com/features/2008/7/19/comic-influences-on-tim-burtons-batman-1989

That's an interesting read & an eye opener to say the least. I may not have time to finish it tonight due to work but will definitely have to get back to it.So Burton was more influenced by the original comics than people believed huh? The parallels are amazing besides the ones that you've pointed out previously. So we basically got a Golden-Age Batman with a modern day costume.

And what comics influences does Nolan draw off from? BATMAN: YEAR ONE? Loosely at best? And discard the rest because, after all, it's not realistic?

http://badassdigest.com/2012/07/16/batman-fans-lose-their-minds-over-negative-dark-knight-rises-reviews/

I thought this was kind of informative and funny. "You either die a geek... or live long enough to see yourself become a total asswipe."

Go ahead & spoil it. I'm not likely to buy a comic book any time soon but would still like to know what this version is about.

James Stocks wrote:Yeah, another example of when Burton is given complete control and a huge budget to ride on. He wanted to go for that 1920s German expressionist style, making the film look like it was shot on ink well. It doesn't even resemble the Gotham seen in 89. It's cool Burton got to really indulge in his own style, but it only makes me more happy that he did not return to work on a third Batman picture. As interesting as that might have been if he stayed, I'm glad he went onto make ED WOOD instead which is probably my favorite film of his ever. BR and ED WOOD are indications that Burton had more interesting places to go beyond Batman.

That's where you and I kinda part ways. I can take or leave basically anything Burton did after BR. I recognize and respect the guy's talent but I'm not hip to much of his work after Batman.

I just enjoy his non-Batman films a lot more, probably because there's no restraints for better or worse. After hearing how terrible DARK SHADOWS was, I'm hoping Burton and Depp take a break from eachother and maybe reunite with Keaton after 20 years.

It appears duh Nolanites have reached at least one milestone that Avengers didn't:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/172521-the-dark-knight-rises-surpasses-100-million-mark-in-imax

The Dark Knight Rises Surpasses $100 Million Mark in IMAX

by SuperHeroHype
September 04, 2012

IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that The Dark Knight Rises has passed the $100 million global box office mark in 557 IMAX® theatres worldwide after its 7th week of release. As of Sept. 3, 2012, the film reached a total of $65.1 million from 332 IMAX screens domestically and $37.3 million from 225 IMAX screens internationally. These figures include box office receipts from China, which began playing the film on Aug. 27 in 75 IMAX theatres. The Dark Knight Rises represents the second IMAX DMR® film to cross this milestone, after Avatar.

"The Dark Knight Rises: The IMAX Experience" is still playing in IMAX theatres worldwide. For theatre locations and showtimes visit IMAX.com/Theatres.

While making the 2008 blockbuster The Dark Knight, Christopher Nolan was the first filmmaker to use IMAX cameras in a major motion picture release. Nolan employed the extremely high-resolution cameras even more extensively on "The Dark Knight Rises: The IMAX Experience" —including the film's prologue — incorporating a record of more than an hour of footage filmed with IMAX cameras. These specific sequences, which expand to fill the entire screen exclusively in IMAX, deliver unprecedented crispness and clarity and a truly immersive experience for moviegoers.

Sequences filmed in 35mm have been digitally re-mastered into the image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience® with proprietary IMAX DMR® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. The crystal-clear images coupled with IMAX's customized theatre geometry and powerful digital audio create a unique environment that will make audiences feel as if they are in the movie.

I wonder how long before duh Nolanites beat this one to death?

"TDKR made more than Avengers at IMAX!"

Ad nauseum.

Not long probably. But to wb congrats forr them making imax mark.