comment #1

Dan Revill says ...

Yay?! Now since the DVD isn't gonna be out until December, they need a huge re-release push to get past Titanic.

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

I just watched THE TOWERING INFERNO last night for the first time. It sucks. Absolutely sucks. And it got a Best Picture nomination. I understand that was because of the power of the man that produced it, but even so, if that got a nod in the year of CHINATOWN, THE CONVERSATION and GODFATHER PART II, then in this year, when it will surely be one of the best of the year, and is this big of a hit, there is no argument to be made against THE DARK KNIGHT as one of the final five.

comment #3

Edward says ...

Sometimes very good films do make oodles of money. Well deserved DK.

comment #4

frankbooth says ...

That's funny, Burma, so did I a few weeks ago. Kind of surprising that I never caught it on TV.

You didn't think it was cheesy fun? Sure, it has that Love Boat lighting, some horrible dialogue, and big stars who seems to be thinking about golf or craft services. But the model work is decent, the fire gags are impressive and there's a surprise death or two (glass elevator.)

I'm not saying it was good, but I wasn't in agony.

comment #5

NC Gary says ...

Re-releasing DARK KNIGHT just so it can surpass TITANIC would be cheating. If it can't do it on its first run, that's just too bad.

comment #6

broadstreetbully says ...

Besides, it's actually nowhere even close to Titanic's success. Don't get me wrong, I am a big DK fan, and I'm aware that it's done absolutely phenomenal box office, but it would have to almost double it's current gross to reach Titanic's adjusted for inflation ticket purchases.

comment #7

PastePotPete says ...

"Re-releasing DARK KNIGHT just so it can surpass TITANIC would be cheating. If it can't do it on its first run, that's just too bad. "

Star Wars and ET did just that.

comment #8

NC Gary says ...

STAR WARS and E.T. were re-released for their 20-year anniversaries, not so they could pass another film's gross. Maybe Paramount should re-release TITANIC if DARK KNIGHT passes it. Then, after TITANIC passes DARK KNIGHT, Warner Bros. could re-release DARK KNIGHT so it can pass TITANIC again. Then Paramount could re-release TITANIC so it can pass DARK KNIGHT again. And then . . .

comment #9

markj says ...

These B.O. comparisons are useless. Star Wars sold more than double the amount of tickets Dark Knight has.

comment #10

D.Z. says ...

N.C.: "STAR WARS and E.T. were re-released for their 20-year anniversaries, not so they could pass another film's gross. "

Star Wars was re-released to build up hype for Phantom Menace. I doubt the studio re-released E.T. just to celebrate its anniversary, though. It obviously hoped to get a quick cash grab from the nostalgic types who might be interested in seeing it again, after that "cameo" in TPM. And Titanic will never beat its own record, because people moved on to LOTR and POTC, and because Leo's considered too "old" to appeal to the next-generation of teeny-boppers.

comment #11

Dan Revill says ...

I was kidding. Sheesh. I think it's amazing that TDK did so well. Titanic is untouchable, and probably will be still untouchable for the time being.

comment #12

BNick says ...

"Star Wars was re-released to build up hype for Phantom Menace."

I know. I wouldn't even have been aware of the Phantom Menace's existed in May of 1999 had I not literally just seen the re-release of Star Wars in February of 1997.

comment #13

Pinko Punko says ...

Star Wars was re-released SEVERAL TIMES. It played before Jedi. It played before Empire. It played the Special Edition. It played before Phantom Menace (did it?).

comment #14

D.Z. says ...

BNick: You have to remember that TPM was originally going to be released a year after the OT. I think they even advertised it a year early, when they delayed it.

Pinko: I think the OT might've played a few times on TV before TPM...

comment #15

Rich S. says ...

Will they count the grosses for Star Wars when it's released AGAIN in the next couple of years in 3-D?

comment #16

D.Z. says ...

Rich: If it makes any money in 3-d, sure. Don't know if it'll count, though, since 3-d films cost more money than 2-d films, and they're in a different format. It'd kind of be cheating, since Titanic wasn't in 3-d.

comment #17

Rich S. says ...

As I understand it, Star Wars 3-D will be the same film. They'll just be using that process they used for Nightmare Before Christmas to make it 3-D.

Of course, the version of Star Wars as it currently exists has as many tweaks as Michael Jackson's face, so I don't know that it should count towards the boxoffice totals.

comment #18

Richardson says ...

"You have to remember that TPM was originally going to be released a year after the OT. I think they even advertised it a year early, when they delayed it."

Yes, if you make up memories, DZ's points almost make sense.

comment #19

Richardson says ...

"And Titanic will never beat its own record, because people moved on to LOTR and POTC, and because Leo's considered too "old" to appeal to the next-generation of teeny-boppers."

DZ lowers the bar again! Titanic will never out-gross Titanic!

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

Sorry. It was the trailer which got delayed.

comment #21

luck says ...

We have all sufficient strength to endure the misfortunes of others.Wealth Trigger Review

comment #22

affiliatesreview says ...

really good post :) Thank you
Best regards!
----------------
Free pc games
Affiliate review

comment #23

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of high availability database

comment #24

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of database high availability