Well...?

email this story
read comments (20)
post a comment

"The water cooler has frozen over. Twittering on the interweb has dimmed to faint chirps. A scan of the horizon reveals no bat signal on any building. I'm referring, of course, to the debate over whether The Dark Knight will beat Titanic's $601 million (U.S.) record take at the North American box office.

"TDK is just past $527 million, still in release and still in the Top 20 for current pictures. It has just $75 million to go to sink the ship, which should just be chump change for Hollywood. Yet I spy no cheerleaders garbed in sexy bat leather. Am I the last guy on the planet who still cares about this?" -- from a 10.24 article by the Toronto Star's Peter Howell.

Alarm<< previous | next >>French Love

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 24, 2008 at 5:02 PM

comment #1

Nick Rogers says ...

I don't think it has a chance in hell of grossing $75 million in a re-release. I had asked Poland a few weeks ago whether he thought it would get to $1 billion total worldwide and he blew it off. Well, a few weeks later, it's still $10 million short of that, and I'm pretty sure it's opened damn near everywhere it possibly could. Not that anyone at WB is crying, I'm sure.

Maybe - and that's even a big maybe - a re-release could push it to the $1-billion total. But "Titanic's" domestic gross was, and is, safe all along.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 24, 2008 5:15 PM

comment #2

btwnproductions says ...

It has until Dec.9, when the DVD comes out.

Posted by btwnproductions at October 24, 2008 5:17 PM

comment #3

Nick Rogers says ...

But from what I've heard, any re-release would be timed with awards season, which would be after it hits DVD. Again, not that anyone at WB is crying over all the Blu-rays they'll sell just in time for Christmas. I just am skeptical it will hit $1 billion in theatrical box office.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 24, 2008 5:20 PM

comment #4

DarthCorleone says ...

"Am I the last guy on the planet who still cares about this?" -- from a 10.24 article by the Toronto Star's Peter Howell.

Yes, Peter. Yes, you are.

Posted by DarthCorleone at October 24, 2008 5:30 PM

comment #5

JD says ...

Star Wars added tens of millions to its total many years after it was released on video. Why not The Dark Knight? This is especially valid as it was partially released in IMAX, a format where films regularly make lots of money year after year (ie. The Polar Express). If they did an IMAX re-release a month before the third Batman movie, I bet it would make a fortune.

Posted by JD at October 24, 2008 6:08 PM

comment #6

renorambler says ...

Though I enjoyed the film, ultimately I found it a bit muddled and longish. Funny, the same thing could be said about Titanic.

Posted by renorambler at October 24, 2008 7:03 PM

comment #7

Jake says ...

"Star Wars added tens of millions to its total many years after it was released on video. Why not The Dark Knight?"

But in the case of Star Wars, the films had new footage added and were still largely unavailable in widescreen (for the home video market). The latter fact was even used as part of the re-release marketing campaign.

Posted by Jake at October 24, 2008 7:11 PM

comment #8

vulgar71 says ...

I believe Nick Rodger (and perhaps others) mention it above: Why would WB waste money on "relaunching" the Dark Knight now when they could use that money during awards season?

Posted by vulgar71 at October 24, 2008 7:32 PM

comment #9

Doug says ...

If it wins the Oscar for Best Picture it will get some new box office traction, but it's tough when the dvd is available.

Posted by Doug at October 24, 2008 8:16 PM

comment #10

The Winchester says ...

This may sound like a silly question, but are the IMAX totals included in that $527 million? I heard somewhere that they were included differently.

Regardless, they should totally just play Dark Knight in IMAX whenever they have nothing else to play.

Posted by The Winchester at October 24, 2008 10:40 PM

comment #11

lazespud says ...

Of course the real race is with the foreign box office. Titanic did 600 mill US, but did another 1.25 BILLION worldwide. Batman Again will probably top out at 1.1 billion or so, which will put it in third (or possibly second place), but it will have another 700 million dollars to go to even match the haul of Titanic, which came out more than a decade ago Adjusted for inflation it would be about 2.5 billion wordwide).

Really the only true standard is to adjust these numbers for inflation. Over at BoxOffice Mojo they have an imperfect but serviceable formula for adjusting the domestic haul for movies:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

As you can see, Dark Knight is behind Jaws, Mary Poppins, Forrest Gump, the Sting, Grease, even the Graduate... 26 movies in all. Basically Dark Knight is about as successful as the average top movie in a given year, nothing more.

Adjusting the top film, Gone with the Wind, gives you a 1.5 BILLION domestic haul, triple the Dark Knight. And the US had half the population back then...

I really liked the Dark Knight, but let's not make it out to be anything other than a very successful film. It's nowhere near an all-time box office champ.

Posted by lazespud at October 25, 2008 12:22 AM

comment #12

Dan Revill says ...

It doesn't matter. Nobody cares. I'm watching Batman Begins right now. It's fantastic. I can't wait to geek out and watch both back to back at home on Blu Ray. I'm easy to please.

Posted by Dan Revill at October 25, 2008 12:38 AM

comment #13

iamwhoiam says ...

I really hope TDK won't pass Titanic. $527 million is already way too much for such an overrated movie.

Posted by iamwhoiam at October 25, 2008 12:54 AM

comment #14

thevisceral says ...

Splice in some freaky sex and release it in porno theaters.

Posted by thevisceral at October 25, 2008 1:28 AM

comment #15

Nick Rogers says ...

^^^

Scat-man, the Poker and Harvey Two-Finger.

Posted by Nick Rogers at October 25, 2008 5:20 AM

comment #16

Brian R says ...

Why does it have to beat Titanic? It's already achieved a stunning amount, both artisically and financially for a genre film. It's better than Titanic, so just enjoy it for what it is. Let it be and don't force so much damned pressure on the filmmakers. They might not come back if expectation is higher than it already is.

Posted by Brian R at October 25, 2008 10:16 AM

comment #17

corey3rd says ...

People would rather save their money at this point and buy the Blu-ray in a couple weeks.

Ultimately the only people who care if the film makes a billion are those with Time-Warner stock. They need some good news as their shares go in the tank.

Posted by corey3rd at October 25, 2008 11:13 AM

comment #18