As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

The Dark Knight

1101112131416»

Posts

  • ManonvonSuperockManonvonSuperock Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    The Joker totally looks like Quintin Tarintino there.

    ManonvonSuperock on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    billboardwhy.jpg

    See, now this is culture jamming.

    Smile made of tape is pretty lame, though.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • Garlic BreadGarlic Bread Registered User, Disagreeable regular
    edited August 2008
    that's so terribly photoshopped

    Garlic Bread on
  • Robos A Go GoRobos A Go Go Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Keith wrote: »
    that's so terribly photoshopped

    http://prolifecorner.com/node/2762

    Seems like an odd thing for a pro-life group to do.

    Robos A Go Go on
  • The Dark HillbillyThe Dark Hillbilly Registered User
    edited August 2008
    That's photoshop, or I'm a ninja doctor.

    The Dark Hillbilly on
  • ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2008
    i'm not so sure. the tape, at least, looks pretty real to me. if you get up close and take a look you can see those weird humps that tape get when there's air trapped under there. look at the joint beneath the baby's left nostril (baby is probably too young to be given joints)

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • The Dark HillbillyThe Dark Hillbilly Registered User
    edited August 2008
    Couldn't the tape be photoshopped into the frame ?

    The Dark Hillbilly on
  • RaynagaRaynaga Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    The Drop Shadowing on the Abortion in the sign looks pretty damn photoshopped, imho
    Keith wrote: »
    that's so terribly photoshopped

    http://prolifecorner.com/node/2762

    Seems like an odd thing for a pro-life group to do.

    Oh, and a nefarious yet ingenious explanation emerges. Quoted from the linked site:
    "Because abortion is murder." The sign must be replaced. Please open your heart and your wallets and donate to replace the sign and to help right this wrong.

    Raynaga on
  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Raynaga wrote: »
    The Drop Shadowing on the Abortion in the sign looks pretty damn photoshopped, imho
    What do you think they designed the billboard in?
    Yes, it does look photoshopped. I imagine this is because the billboard was designed by a compete hack using photoshop. I'm suprised there isn't a lense flare or some filters tossed in for good measure.

    see317 on
    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    Photoshopped or not, those news articles on that site were pretty badly written.

    KalTorak on
  • see317see317 Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Photoshopped or not, those news articles on that site were pretty badly written.
    When was the last time you read a local newspaper?
    Not the headline stories, but the crap that they cram into the back to fill up the space that hasn't been bought for advertisements.

    The news stories seem about par for the course.

    see317 on
    Ringo wrote: »
    Well except what see317 said. That guy's always wrong.
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited August 2008
    see317 wrote: »
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Photoshopped or not, those news articles on that site were pretty badly written.
    When was the last time you read a local newspaper?
    Not the headline stories, but the crap that they cram into the back to fill up the space that hasn't been bought for advertisements.

    The news stories seem about par for the course.

    Touché.

    KalTorak on
  • The Dark HillbillyThe Dark Hillbilly Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Dark Knight on IMAX was fucking awesome. I'm pretty sure that I love IMAX now and must see everything possible on it.

    The Dark Hillbilly on
  • wirehead26wirehead26 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Just read that Dark Knight passed the 500 million U.S. mark. I was really hoping it would pass Titanic eventually but then I realized it wouldn't be that fair to compare the two's box office receipts since back in 1997 ticket prices were cheaper.

    wirehead26 on
    I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator, Administrator admin
    edited September 2008
    I saw Dark Knight on the IMAX today and I don't think the difference was really worth the difference in price

    DJ Eebs on
  • The Dark HillbillyThe Dark Hillbilly Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Are you fucking crazy ? There was nearly two feet of extra screen on the top and bottom of the display. That's not worth two more dollars ?

    The Dark Hillbilly on
  • The Dark HillbillyThe Dark Hillbilly Registered User
    edited September 2008
    You're a fucking communist.

    The Dark Hillbilly on
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    wirehead26 wrote: »
    Just read that Dark Knight passed the 500 million U.S. mark. I was really hoping it would pass Titanic eventually but then I realized it wouldn't be that fair to compare the two's box office receipts since back in 1997 ticket prices were cheaper.
    Box Office - 'Dark Knight' Passes Half a Billion

    The big story in a little weekend at the box office is once again The Dark Knight. In a mere 45 days, the film has made $502 million, according to new weekend estimates by Box Office Mojo, meaning it is only the second film in U.S. history to gross that much money. Titanic, of course, tops the list, nearly $100 million ahead of The Dark Knight.

    It seems that whenever we mention to astounding success of this film, the most common reaction we get is, "But if you adjust for inflation..." There are several reasons that's not a valid argument. Look at the competitive landscape now as opposed to ten years ago when Titanic was making headlines and compiling records. Actually, you can't look at the competitive landscape then: As we've pointed out before, in the six months following Titanic's release, only five movies made over $50 million, and not one of them made $100 million. Titanic made $600 million because there was nothing else anyone wanted to see.

    Now, contrast that with The Dark Knight. By the time mid-September gets here, it will have faced four $100 million movies in less than two months, plus there's the carryover from Hancock ($50 million since The Dark Knight was released) and Journey to the Center of the Earth ($60 million since July 18th). Suddenly, it becomes abundantly clear that the Batman movie is, in fact, doing something that's never been done before. Consider that it will make close $100 million more than any summer movie in the past 10 years, and you'll begin to see how unprecedented this all is.

    "But if you adjust for inflation..."

    The trend in home video is quite a bit different now than it was when Titanic was released. The Dark Knight won't be in theaters nearly as long (nine months for the boat movie), because of the opportunity to make an ungodly amount of money with DVD sales for the Christmas holiday. Once it's out on DVD, of course, the studios don't make money keeping movies in theaters with rental fees and all the rest. So six months is the absolute longest you'd see this movie in theaters.

    Rewind to 1982, and E.T. was in the top five at the box office for the better part of six months. Though it was released in June, it was actually the top movie in the country for two straight weekends in November and December. It managed to hang around the box office for over a year. Two summers. How? No competition in theaters and no home video. There was one way to see the film for most of America, because even HBO, Showtime and Cinemax didn't have the number of subscribers they do today. That's true of cable television all the way around, particularly the pay channels. A lot of Americans had four TV channels then.

    So: Fewer films in theaters, no "I'll catch it on DVD" reasoning, fewer entertainment venues. The marketplace was so radically different then, you can't compare the numbers for a big movie in 1982 and a big movie in 2008. Do you think E.T. would have the same luck now? If you adjust for inflation based on its numbers for 26 weeks (which is the absolute longest The Dark Knight could hope to hang around in theaters), its domestic gross is about $625 million. Still very impressive. But again, what else was out there?

    The Dark Knight has made 80% of that in seven weeks against much, much stronger opposition. If you prefer a head-to-head battle of current numbers, let's look at where E.T. was after seven weeks ($150 million) and what that would translate to today (roughly $440 million). The only legitimate gripe is the total number of theaters, but even then the 4,000-plus The Dark Knight was in for a month is more than counterbalanced by the fact that Titanic popped up in more theaters two months into its run (it went from 2,700 to 3,000, and then after another month, was in over 100 more houses). So while the market now dictates that a movie is done after three or four months, Titanic was getting a bigger push than new releases at the same time in its run.

    "But if you adjust for inflation..." Yeah, well, adjust this.

    Elsewhere at the Labor Day box office, Tropic Thunder pulled off the threepeat, handling the challenge of Vin Diesel's Babylon A.D., a movie that lost what little steam it had on Friday. The Dark Knight managed a third-place finish, followed by The House Bunny and Traitor. Although we don't have the four-day numbers yet, it looks as though Tropic Thunder might make about $14 million to lead the way, while The Dark Knight and The House Bunny will be in the $10 - $11 million range.

    Death Race is officially a bomb; the $45 million flick has only made $23 million in two weekends, and will be lucky to hit $40 million domestically at this point. Disaster Movie, the worst movie ever made, finished in seventh place at $6.1 million.

    http://www.getthebigpicture.net/blog/2008/8/31/box-office-dark-knight-passes-half-a-billion.html

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • Mr PinkMr Pink I got cats for youRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Disaster Movie, the worst movie ever made, finished in seventh place at $6.1 million.

    Oh Disaster Movie, you scamp.

    Mr Pink on
  • LanglyLangly Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Mr Pink wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Disaster Movie, the worst movie ever made, finished in seventh place at $6.1 million.

    Oh Disaster Movie, you scamp.

    Wow, i think that makes it worse than New York Minute, the worst grossing film in history

    Langly on
  • BionicPenguinBionicPenguin Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It's about time people stop watching those shitty *insert genre here* Movies.

    BionicPenguin on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    It's about time people stop watching those shitty *insert genre here* Movies.

    To be fair, they've flourished in a really uncompetitive environment. Now that we've got people like Apatow reliably cranking out decent, reasonably entertaining movies that high schoolers and twentysomethings like, I bet we'll see a lot fewer of the "____ Movie" and "National Lampoon's _____" in coming years.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • DJ EebsDJ Eebs Moderator, Administrator admin
    edited September 2008
    They haven't ever made a whole lot of money, but they tend to come out in January and the budget is ridiculously low, so they tend to turn a profit. Disaster Movie tanking isn't going to stop them from putting out more

    DJ Eebs on
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The sole less-than-wholly-negative review listed on either Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes is by Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly, who remarked: "The movie is merciless sending up Juno's self-satisfied hipster gobbledygook, and it's quite funny to see Hannah Montana still promoting her tie-in products as she lies crushed and dying under a meteor."[5] Gleiberman previously contributed the only positive review listed on either site (out of 17 at Metacritic and 57 at Rotten Tomatoes) of Friedberg and Seltzer's earlier effort Epic Movie.[6][7]

    This is convenient, because now I know to immediately disregard any of Owen Gleiberman's comments that I may happen to read.

    Grey Ghost on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited September 2008
    Owen Glieberman's a smart guy and a good essayist - so what if he likes a couple bad movies? Even the best critics have their weird hang-ups and blind spots. Roger Ebert has a really obvious tendency to add an extra half-star to movies where the girl has giant tits.

    edit: And thinking about it, a guy who reviews movies for EW probably stands a way better chance at catching all the retarded spot-the-movie jokes in those things than you or I.

    Jacobkosh on
    rRwz9.gif
  • AngryAngry The glory I had witnessed was just a sleight of handRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    yeah, because they're usually really subtle in their execution.

    Angry on
Sign In or Register to comment.