Batman biggest opening weekend ever

[patsopinion]

batman biggest opening weekend ever?

records
listhttp://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/weekends/

article1 (http://www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2008/07/the_dark_knight_has_a_bright_f.html)

article 2 (http://www.businesssheet.com/2008/7/warner-bros-wants-160-170-million-opening-for-the-dark-knight-)

im going with hell yes

fuck spiderman 3 and the assholes that saw it
it is such a better quality film i wish this film the best of luck

[nassue]

why wouldn't it be?
easily the biggest movie of 2008

[djjd]

i see dead people :glurps:













:laugh:

[yarpwizard]

Great reviews= lots of money, can't miss.

[KnoxHarrington]

We say reviewers have no impact on a "summer movie", but I think they do. I mean, there's a core of people who'll go to the big movie of the week regardless, but I think that good reviews get people who don't ordinarily go to these movies out. I mean, this will be the first of the movies this summer I go to see, and it's mostly because this one is getting reviews that make it sound like it's actually a really good movie, and not just another "popcorn movie" shitfest with elaborate special effects and an idiotic plot.

[DiabloSammich]

Popcorn flick + comic book movie + Heath Ledger's death + early oscar buzz = perfect cinematic storm.

This will break records.

Or maybe it won't. I don't think I care.

[Tall_James]

Popcorn flick + comic book movie + Heath Ledger's death + early oscar buzz = perfect cinematic storm.

I agree completely.

[midwestjeff]

I don't think I care.

I agree completely.

[Foster]

I predict Batman will come in third this weekend behind Hellboy, and a surprizing resurgence of Sex in the City.

[patsopinion]

batman takes all time opening weekend numbers
at 155
4 more then spidey (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b147161_dark_knight_reigns_1553_mil_weekend.html)

[fezident]

easily the biggest movie of 2008

Ummm... I think you're forgetting about a little movie called THE LOVE GURU.



Snarf.

[sailor]

even kev would have to be optimistic aboot this one.

[Kevin]

even kev would have to be optimistic aboot this one.

Eh, it only made it by a few million.

[sailor]

Eh, it only made it by a few million.

:lol:

[booster11373]

sure 155 mil is impressive and I saw and like the movie but how many people actually saw the thing?

NATO (National association of Theater Owners) lists the average US ticket price for 2007 as $6.88

Obviously that is higher now so lets say $7 is the new ballpark figure for 2008

155,000,00 I hope that is the correct number of zero's

divided by 7

equals 2214285.7 people

hmmm interesting

[Fallon]

even kev would have to be optimistic aboot this one.

Eh, it only made it by a few million.

At 2007's average price of $6.88, "Spider-Man 3" sold 21.96 million tickets over opening weekend. Box office tracker Media By Numbers estimates today's average movie prices at $7.08, which means "The Dark Knight" would have sold 21.94 million tickets.

[fezident]

sure 155 mil is impressive and I saw and like the movie but how many people actually saw the thing?



When you adjust the figures & crunch the numbers, SPIDERMAN only put about 30,000 more asses in seats than TDK did.

Having said that... it means TDK has more actual FANS.

SPIDERMAN was a kiddie film. Parents took their kids to see it and that inflates the attendance figures. This is why movies like DADDY DAY CARE or that one where The Rock and/or Vin Disel have to babysit a little girl make soooo much money. For every 7 yr old that wants to see it.... an adult has to purchase a fullprice ticket for himself too.


TDK has a smaller kiddie audience, therefore the tix that were sold represent a larger fanbase.

[HBox]

At 2007's average price of $6.88, "Spider-Man 3" sold 21.96 million tickets over opening weekend. Box office tracker Media By Numbers estimates today's average movie prices at $7.08, which means "The Dark Knight" would have sold 21.94 million tickets.

Ah, but you aren't factoring in IMAX are you?

[Hottub]

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/6968/giveahey2qtju2.gif

I'll wait for the DVD.

Plus the sales in dollars makes absolutly no sense.
How about tickets sold, like the rest of the world. When I saw Star Wars the ticket was 3 bucks.

[booster11373]

I wasn't trying to take anything away from TDK or compare to other movies, I just find it interesting to see how many people actually participated in this "cultural phenomenon"

:smile:

[fezident]

I always question it when I hear about "highest grossing" weekend or whatever because... the dollars are never adjusted.
The prices go up every year. It's 13 bucks to see a movie in midtown manhattan. At that rate.... you could have less and less asses in seats and STILL have a the biggest opening ever.

I agree that they should tally the actual number of tix sold. The GROSS has nothing to do with it. It also is not an idicator of how GOOD a movie is. In fact.... that little nugget can usually be determined by the numbers for the 2nd week of release.

[MisterSmith]

At 2007's average price of $6.88, "Spider-Man 3" sold 21.96 million tickets over opening weekend. Box office tracker Media By Numbers estimates today's average movie prices at $7.08, which means "The Dark Knight" would have sold 21.94 million tickets.

When you adjust the figures & crunch the numbers, SPIDERMAN only put about 30,000 more asses in seats than TDK did.

Having said that... it means TDK has more actual FANS.

SPIDERMAN was a kiddie film. Parents took their kids to see it and that inflates the attendance figures. This is why movies like DADDY DAY CARE or that one where The Rock and/or Vin Disel have to babysit a little girl make soooo much money. For every 7 yr old that wants to see it.... an adult has to purchase a fullprice ticket for himself too.

TDK has a smaller kiddie audience, therefore the tix that were sold represent a larger fanbase.

But there are 6 more hours left in the weekend (midnight Sunday), and these numbers have been out since this morning. Are they estimated numbers or are we only looking at a 2 day total?

If they are only looking at pre-sale tickets, then there could be a higher total by tomorrow morning.

And if you adjust for ticket cost, nothing is going to beat "Gone with the Wind."

[Kevin]

Ah, but you aren't factoring in IMAX are you?

Imax is a novelty, it does not matter. Anyone can sell on IMAX. Its all selling in the clutch, when it matters!!

[lleeder]

When you adjust the figures & crunch the numbers, SPIDERMAN only put about 30,000 more asses in seats than TDK did.

Having said that... it means TDK has more actual FANS.

SPIDERMAN was a kiddie film. Parents took their kids to see it and that inflates the attendance figures. This is why movies like DADDY DAY CARE or that one where The Rock and/or Vin Disel have to babysit a little girl make soooo much money. For every 7 yr old that wants to see it.... an adult has to purchase a fullprice ticket for himself too.


TDK has a smaller kiddie audience, therefore the tix that were sold represent a larger fanbase.

Kiddie films or shitty flims. Anyone that uses TDK is lame.

[MisterSmith]

For anybody interested, the adjusted gross for "Gone with the Wind" is $1,390,067,000 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm)

Still a long way to go for any movie to reach that.

[Kevin]

For anybody interested, the adjusted gross for "Gone with the Wind" is $1,390,067,000 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm)

Still a long way to go for any movie to reach that.

Movies were new back then, and people did not know better.

Whats so special about that movie.

[lleeder]

For anybody interested, the adjusted gross for "Gone with the Wind" is $1,390,067,000 (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm)

Still a long way to go for any movie to reach that.

Competition back then was alot different too. All these figures really are stupid.

[fezident]

And if you adjust for ticket cost, nothing is going to beat "Gone with the Wind."

That's not exaaactly true.
GWTW or THE WIZARD OF OZ or CITIZEN KANE etc etc were incapable of grossing a lot at the box office. There just wasn't that many prints.... enough theaters... enough seats.... enough showings... etc etc.
They are legendary films but, for various reasons, they simply were (are) not able to generate record setting grosses.

[MisterSmith]

That's not exaaactly true.
GWTW or THE WIZARD OF OZ or CITIZEN KANE etc etc were incapable of grossing a lot at the box office. There just wasn't that many prints.... enough theaters... enough seats.... enough showings... etc etc.
They are legendary films but, for various reasons, they simply were (are) not able to generate record setting grosses.

I said ADJUSTED gross, and I linked the site and data in my subsequent post. But you are right, looking at raw sales numbers there is no way a movie from 1939 could make enough cash.



And there are some really bitter people on this board. This is supposed to be a fun discussion.

[fezident]

I said ADJUSTED gross, and I linked the site and data in my subsequent post. But you are right, looking at raw sales numbers there is no way a movie from 1939 could make enough cash.



And there are some really bitter people on this board. This is supposed to be a fun discussion.

I think those figures are PROJECTED. Not ADJUSTED. That's if I'm understanding them correctly.


EDIT:
I wanna add something... just in case I seemed combative earlier.
This is a topic I've often wondered about. Specifically with GWTW.
In 1940 (or whenever that film came out) the studio couldn't afford to strike that many prints because Technicolor was such an expensive and elaborate process. Technicians were LITERALLY dying and tinting the film to achieve the color density. The process is amazing but... expensive.
I don't know how many prints were struck but, it was precious few. So few in fact, that Victor Flemming was unable to secure one for his own vault.
And... in 1989 or 90 or whenever Ted Turner bought it from MGM for TNT, there was exactly ONE print to strike from.
My point is, even if there was one print for every state (and that's being generous) there's just is no way for a movie get enough paying customers to generate a ton of money. The cost of seeing a movie was 25 cents. If a theater held 300... that's 75 bucks. Even when adjusted for inflation, there simply isn't enough copies of the film for it to compete on todays scale. The sheer number of people physically capable of seeing the film isn't nearly high enough.
I hope that explains why I'm so confused by any site claiming to have grosses that are "adjusted to inflation". I can't seem to reconcile the numbers.

[MisterSmith]

I think those figures are PROJECTED. Not ADJUSTED. That's if I'm understanding them correctly.

The numbers on the site I linked are adjusted for today's 'prices,' meaning they take gross ticket sales/prices from the year the film came out and they convert them to current numbers. It's a more accurate comparison, and why the adjusted total for GWTW is nearly $1.4 Billion.

Of course you probably knew what I meant and were talking about the weekend numbers for Batman, which I agree are likely estimated or projected. However, I am betting the total will be a little north of $155 Million by morning when all of the real numbers are tabulated.

And Fezident, I wasn't talking about you being bitter; I hope you didn't misunderstand. But there are a few other crotchety critters here.

[sailor]

but, we're talking opening weekend and i don't think that's what is being given for the olde tyme movies.

[MisterSmith]

but, we're talking opening weekend and i don't think that's what is being given for the olde tyme movies.

Oh, I know. I was just making conversation and mentioned the total gross for GWTW. Somehow it became a big issue. :laugh:




Edited -- to help clarify things, GWTW made $945,000 on it's opening weekend. That is pretty impressive for 1939.