The Dark Knight dropped to number three behind Tropic Thunder and Star Wars: The Clone Wars this weekend, but it also jumped into #2 on the all-time chart, behind Titanic, and it'll probably stop there.
Until people factor in inflation, at which point it needs to make roughly 1.2 quadrillion dollars, or some shit.
apparently factoring in inflation it is number 6 of all time
gone with the wind is number one at 1.4 billion dollars on that scale
DJ Eebs on
0
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
the best version of this song was performed by a mummy in a disney channel original movie
DJ Eebs on
0
Options
RingoHe/Hima distinct lack of substanceRegistered Userregular
edited August 2008
Looking at the box office reports for the end of '97, the only other big budget movies that came out around Titanic were Tomorrow Never Dies and The Postman, both of which were terrible. The only critically acclaimed movies out then were As Good As It Gets (dec) and Good Will Hunting (Jan). Everything else was crap like Mr. Magoo, Home Alone 3, and Mouse Hunt.
Forgetting the fact that millions of young women were still in love with Leo from Romeo+Juliet the year before, and that thousands of young men would sit through the whole film for Kate Winslet's tits it doesn't surprise me that Titanic was #1 for two months straight - there was nothing else worth seeing.
Here is my problem with the approach that they are taking with Batman.
It's too "real world"
Let me explain. Road to Perdition or History of Violence. Both movies based on comic books, but in a real world setting. I have NO problem with them. But when you take a movie like Batman which is based on fantastical elements, an iconic comic book character and you take away those more fantastical elements it loses something for me. Example: making Joker just a psycho without getting his skin bleached out by chemicals.
I mean they way they are approaching the movies could you picture Superman crossing over with Batman? Or what about characters like Clayface, or Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc?
I could see them doing a Poison Ivy as a femme fatale, with poison on her lips or nails but not commanding plants and so forth. Killer Croc would be a psycho with a skin condition. In a way I think they are limiting themselves.
As far as COMIC BOOK movies are concerned I think that Marvel hitting closer to the mark.
I am not saying I didn't enjoy the film,I thought Ledger did a great job with the Joker and overall enjoyed the film immensely!
Here is my problem with the approach that they are taking with Batman.
It's too "real world"
Let me explain. Road to Perdition or History of Violence. Both movies based on comic books, but in a real world setting. I have NO problem with them. But when you take a movie like Batman which is based on fantastical elements, an iconic comic book character and you take away those more fantastical elements it loses something for me. Example: making Joker just a psycho without getting his skin bleached out by chemicals.
I mean they way they are approaching the movies could you picture Superman crossing over with Batman? Or what about characters like Clayface, or Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc?
I could see them doing a Poison Ivy as a femme fatale, with poison on her lips or nails but not commanding plants and so forth. Killer Croc would be a psycho with a skin condition. In a way I think they are limiting themselves.
As far as COMIC BOOK movies are concerned I think that Marvel hitting closer to the mark.
I am not saying I didn't enjoy the film,I thought Ledger did a great job with the Joker and overall enjoyed the film immensely!
You're right, Clayface, Freeze & co wouldn't work - but that's why they would change them to fit. There's nothing wrong with another interpretation of Batman, a character whose work has spanned the goofy happiness of Dick Sprang to the grim rat-eating of Frank Miller.
Here is my problem with the approach that they are taking with Batman.
It's too "real world"
Let me explain. Road to Perdition or History of Violence. Both movies based on comic books, but in a real world setting. I have NO problem with them. But when you take a movie like Batman which is based on fantastical elements, an iconic comic book character and you take away those more fantastical elements it loses something for me. Example: making Joker just a psycho without getting his skin bleached out by chemicals.
I mean they way they are approaching the movies could you picture Superman crossing over with Batman? Or what about characters like Clayface, or Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc?
I could see them doing a Poison Ivy as a femme fatale, with poison on her lips or nails but not commanding plants and so forth. Killer Croc would be a psycho with a skin condition. In a way I think they are limiting themselves.
As far as COMIC BOOK movies are concerned I think that Marvel hitting closer to the mark.
I am not saying I didn't enjoy the film,I thought Ledger did a great job with the Joker and overall enjoyed the film immensely!
I disagree, the removal of the fantasy elements is exactly what comic book movies need. I wouldn't want to see some broad commanding plants in a batman movie or see supes fly around. I think Dark Knight shows that the superhero genre can produce some truly enjoyable films that aren't just popcorn-munching blockbusters. Besides, the thing that makes Batman so popular is that he is a normal dude, no powers, mo magic, no gammarays/spider-radiation, etc. He shows what a man could accomplish with enough determination (and money). To put him up against real-world elements such as organized crime and, a corrupt police force, and a psycopathic, anarchist, murderer stresses that he is a normal dude. The viewer can relate to:
fighting a guy that didn't care that you were knocking the shit out of him
The viewer can not relate to fighting a shape-changing mud monster.
It just seems that the mindset of "embrace the fantastical" when dealing with superhero movies is what led to the fantastic four flicks, the sand monster scene in spider-men 3, x-men 3, etc.
either way, I hate what his inclusion does to the batman character in the movies. because of Fox, batman has little need to be any sort of competent scientist or even a detective.
Besides, the thing that makes Batman so popular is that he is a normal dude, no powers, mo magic, no gammarays/spider-radiation, etc.
Actually, I'd argue that Batman definitely has a super power in the new movies.
It's Lucius Fox.
the creation of his character is probably what I despise the most about the nolan films.
Yea... Lucius has been around for a while. Apparently he was first introduced in 1979. Which means he has probably been around longer than you.
now that you mention it, i feel like even more of a doof since I remember his character being in the bruce timm animated series. still, while I understand the need to give batman a realistic way to obtain all his tech, i dislike how they down play batman's intellectual side.
Guek on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
either way, I hate what his inclusion does to the batman character in the movies. because of Fox, batman has little need to be any sort of competent scientist or even a detective.
Batman does some pretty sweet detectiving with the ballistics tests and piecing the bullet together (although I'm not sure how the Joker assumed he would do all that, but hey, whatever).
either way, I hate what his inclusion does to the batman character in the movies. because of Fox, batman has little need to be any sort of competent scientist or even a detective.
Batman does some pretty sweet detectiving with the ballistics tests and piecing the bullet together (although I'm not sure how the Joker assumed he would do all that, but hey, whatever).
didn't he essentially cut out the block from the wall, scan it, and then give it to fox to figure out? or am i not remembering correctly?
Guek on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
either way, I hate what his inclusion does to the batman character in the movies. because of Fox, batman has little need to be any sort of competent scientist or even a detective.
Batman does some pretty sweet detectiving with the ballistics tests and piecing the bullet together (although I'm not sure how the Joker assumed he would do all that, but hey, whatever).
didn't he essentially cut out the block from the wall, scan it, and then give it to fox to figure out? or am i not remembering correctly?
I'm pretty sure you're misremembering. He cut the block out, then shot a bunch of similar blocks in the batcave to test the different bullets, then scanned the right one to figure out how the bullet shattered. I'm sure he got help from Fox since I think they used the sonar gadget to scan the bullet pieces, but the tests were definitely done in the batcave.
I think Lucius and the R&D division of Waynetech helps to humanize Batman in the new flick. It takes away the near-god-like level that he is often portrayed as having in the comic. Bats obviously has extremely high deductive reasoning skills, but to also make him so tech-savvy that he can single-handedly design and construct a plethora of post-military grade equipment and technology is unbelievable- -especially considering how young he is the Nolan movies.
ManonvonSuperock on
0
Options
Garlic Breadi'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm a bitch i'm aRegistered User, Disagreeableregular
edited August 2008
He's actually older in the movies than he is in most comics. He's 31 in The Dark Knight.
In a recent Batman issue (I think the first issue of RIP), Jezebel Jet says, "You're over 30 years old!", which someone really only says when the person is in their early 30s (otherwise it'd be "You're almost 40 years old!"), so they're pretty similar in age, I guess (also i think Batman in the comics being younger than 40 is bullshit)
Garlic Bread on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
He's actually older in the movies than he is in most comics. He's 31 in The Dark Knight.
In a recent Batman issue (I think the first issue of RIP), Jezebel Jet says, "You're over 30 years old!", which someone really only says when the person is in their early 30s (otherwise it'd be "You're almost 40 years old!"), so they're pretty similar in age, I guess (also i think Batman in the comics being younger than 40 is bullshit)
Yeah that line made me chuckle a bit. Guy sure has been busy to just be in his thirties.
yeah, that'd make sense. he turned 30 in begins and DK takes place a year afterwards.
I agree with the silliness of him being under 40 in the comics. Then again, I never really keep up with canon, so what actually has or has not happened to him, I don't know.
Here is my problem with the approach that they are taking with Batman.
It's too "real world"
Let me explain. Road to Perdition or History of Violence. Both movies based on comic books, but in a real world setting. I have NO problem with them. But when you take a movie like Batman which is based on fantastical elements, an iconic comic book character and you take away those more fantastical elements it loses something for me. Example: making Joker just a psycho without getting his skin bleached out by chemicals.
I mean they way they are approaching the movies could you picture Superman crossing over with Batman? Or what about characters like Clayface, or Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc?
I could see them doing a Poison Ivy as a femme fatale, with poison on her lips or nails but not commanding plants and so forth. Killer Croc would be a psycho with a skin condition. In a way I think they are limiting themselves.
As far as COMIC BOOK movies are concerned I think that Marvel hitting closer to the mark.
I am not saying I didn't enjoy the film,I thought Ledger did a great job with the Joker and overall enjoyed the film immensely!
I disagree, the removal of the fantasy elements is exactly what comic book movies need. I wouldn't want to see some broad commanding plants in a batman movie or see supes fly around. I think Dark Knight shows that the superhero genre can produce some truly enjoyable films that aren't just popcorn-munching blockbusters. Besides, the thing that makes Batman so popular is that he is a normal dude, no powers, mo magic, no gammarays/spider-radiation, etc. He shows what a man could accomplish with enough determination (and money). To put him up against real-world elements such as organized crime and, a corrupt police force, and a psycopathic, anarchist, murderer stresses that he is a normal dude. The viewer can relate to:
fighting a guy that didn't care that you were knocking the shit out of him
The viewer can not relate to fighting a shape-changing mud monster.
It just seems that the mindset of "embrace the fantastical" when dealing with superhero movies is what led to the fantastic four flicks, the sand monster scene in spider-men 3, x-men 3, etc.
No, terrible scripts and shitty directors are what led to those scenes. There were good movies about superheroes with powers, and there were terrible movies about unpowered heroes. Style and tone are independent from quality.
Posts
now go away and tend to it.
PARKER, YOU'RE FIRED! <-- My comic book podcast! Satan look here!
That's better.
apparently factoring in inflation it is number 6 of all time
gone with the wind is number one at 1.4 billion dollars on that scale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVKv6PdBR-I
the best version of this song was performed by a mummy in a disney channel original movie
Forgetting the fact that millions of young women were still in love with Leo from Romeo+Juliet the year before, and that thousands of young men would sit through the whole film for Kate Winslet's tits it doesn't surprise me that Titanic was #1 for two months straight - there was nothing else worth seeing.
I will murder you.
It's too "real world"
Let me explain. Road to Perdition or History of Violence. Both movies based on comic books, but in a real world setting. I have NO problem with them. But when you take a movie like Batman which is based on fantastical elements, an iconic comic book character and you take away those more fantastical elements it loses something for me. Example: making Joker just a psycho without getting his skin bleached out by chemicals.
I mean they way they are approaching the movies could you picture Superman crossing over with Batman? Or what about characters like Clayface, or Mr. Freeze or Poison Ivy, or Killer Croc?
I could see them doing a Poison Ivy as a femme fatale, with poison on her lips or nails but not commanding plants and so forth. Killer Croc would be a psycho with a skin condition. In a way I think they are limiting themselves.
As far as COMIC BOOK movies are concerned I think that Marvel hitting closer to the mark.
I am not saying I didn't enjoy the film,I thought Ledger did a great job with the Joker and overall enjoyed the film immensely!
WEBCOMICS: UPDATED EVERY FRIDAY!!!
Which terrible movie did you like more, Mouse Hunt or Clone Wars?
You're right, Clayface, Freeze & co wouldn't work - but that's why they would change them to fit. There's nothing wrong with another interpretation of Batman, a character whose work has spanned the goofy happiness of Dick Sprang to the grim rat-eating of Frank Miller.
Fix't.
I ain't watching Titanic for the titties
There are two reasons to watch Titanic: titties, and Billy Zane. Choose wisely.
Actually there is no unwise choice.
I disagree, the removal of the fantasy elements is exactly what comic book movies need. I wouldn't want to see some broad commanding plants in a batman movie or see supes fly around. I think Dark Knight shows that the superhero genre can produce some truly enjoyable films that aren't just popcorn-munching blockbusters. Besides, the thing that makes Batman so popular is that he is a normal dude, no powers, mo magic, no gammarays/spider-radiation, etc. He shows what a man could accomplish with enough determination (and money). To put him up against real-world elements such as organized crime and, a corrupt police force, and a psycopathic, anarchist, murderer stresses that he is a normal dude. The viewer can relate to:
The viewer can not relate to fighting a shape-changing mud monster.
It just seems that the mindset of "embrace the fantastical" when dealing with superhero movies is what led to the fantastic four flicks, the sand monster scene in spider-men 3, x-men 3, etc.
Actually, I'd argue that Batman definitely has a super power in the new movies.
the creation of his character is probably what I despise the most about the nolan films.
Yea... Lucius has been around for a while. Apparently he was first introduced in 1979. Which means he has probably been around longer than you.
TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
d'oh
either way, I hate what his inclusion does to the batman character in the movies. because of Fox, batman has little need to be any sort of competent scientist or even a detective.
now that you mention it, i feel like even more of a doof since I remember his character being in the bruce timm animated series. still, while I understand the need to give batman a realistic way to obtain all his tech, i dislike how they down play batman's intellectual side.
Batman does some pretty sweet detectiving with the ballistics tests and piecing the bullet together (although I'm not sure how the Joker assumed he would do all that, but hey, whatever).
didn't he essentially cut out the block from the wall, scan it, and then give it to fox to figure out? or am i not remembering correctly?
In a recent Batman issue (I think the first issue of RIP), Jezebel Jet says, "You're over 30 years old!", which someone really only says when the person is in their early 30s (otherwise it'd be "You're almost 40 years old!"), so they're pretty similar in age, I guess (also i think Batman in the comics being younger than 40 is bullshit)
Yeah that line made me chuckle a bit. Guy sure has been busy to just be in his thirties.
I agree with the silliness of him being under 40 in the comics. Then again, I never really keep up with canon, so what actually has or has not happened to him, I don't know.
I imagine him this old.
No, terrible scripts and shitty directors are what led to those scenes. There were good movies about superheroes with powers, and there were terrible movies about unpowered heroes. Style and tone are independent from quality.