SmallMediumLarge
Box Office Honesty PDF Print E-mail
Written by Lex Walker   
Thursday, 04 September 2008

Finally, the hype of The Dark Knight's booming $500 Million success receives it's context: inflation. Thanks to an article over at the New York Times, all of the idiots who think The Dark Knight was nearly as successful as the Titanic get their deserved kick in the temple.

Unlike the Titanic, which still holds the much coveted #1 All Time Box Office Grossing Hit position, The Dark Knight coasted to it's $500 Million earning by luring fewer viewers with considerably higher ticket prices. Remember how much a movie ticket cost in 1997? It wasn't $12 a pop, that's for sure. Hell, it was barely $7 and when it got raised to that we thought it was outrageous.

With a summer filled with hits: Iron Man, Dark Knight, Wall-E as well as considerable misses: Hancock, The Love Guru it's hard to wonder why this summer should seem to be so successful. Sure, there was large success - but there was equally large failure/disappointment when would-be hits flopped miserably. Let's be honest - Hancock only earned what it did thanks to it's July 4th debut date - any other date in the summer and the Will Smith feature would have gotten its ass kicked. Thoroughly. Severely.

The traditional Summer Movie Season (first weekend in May - Labor Day) of 2008 earned 4.2 Billion dollars compared to last years comparable 4.18 Billion. And yet...the number of movie viewers dropped by 4%. Weird, yeah?

Personally, I liked this summer's slate more than last year's, especially considering the painful happenings of all three threequels: Shrek 3, Pirates 3 and Spidey 3. There wasn't a genuine crowd pleaser in the bunch and the most fun I had at the movies that year was 28 Weeks Later. Yet, despite all three of those movies not living up to the hype, it was viewed as a highly successful year. As was this year - but mainly due to Wall-E, Iron Man and The Dark Knight. And yet, the year wasn't ALL that great when inflation is taken in.

It's sad, but the main reason I want our economy to improve is so I can once again afford to go to movies again. I went to Chicago last week (where tickets cost $6...hell, yeah). I spent 3 solid days in a cinema catching up on everything I'd missed.

I miss those days.

Trackback(0)
Comments (10)add comment

September 04, 2008, Aaron said:

0
 You do realize if inflation is accounted for Gone with the Wind is the most successful film of all time.
 

Votes: +0

September 04, 2008, Lex Walker said:

0
 I do! Which is why I'm irked at the current standing of the Highest Grossing BO charts. I didn't bring it up, since the web buzz was about beating out Titanic. But even if it had managed the $1 Billion, it still wouldn't have ranked against GWtW.

Good call.
 

Votes: +0

September 04, 2008, Vince said:

0
 First off, "Hanc--k" was successful because Will Smith is probably the most popular actor in the world right now, not just because "it opened on the 4th of July. Granted, had it opened after "The Dark Knight", it wouldn't have done so well, but there was a big audience for the film, and it shows.

Secondly, the "inflation" argument is kinda bollocks. At best, "Dark Knight" will stick around until December of this year, pulled shortly after the Blu-Ray/DVD release for the holiday season."Titanic" stuck around for some 10 months before it was taken out of theatres. And that was the time where DVD releases (hell, DVD's were just starting back then). And pirating movies was harder back then; it's not like now where you can just google the movie of your choice and watch a crappy version of it online. Plus, technology wasn't as big a part of our lives back then; we didn't have iPods, HD TV's with Xbox 360s attached; computers were pretty clumsy and slow- we had the movies to look forward too, and that's about it.

"Gone with the Wind"- of course it's the most watched movie ever- you could either see it in theatres when it came out in 1939, or you can see it when it was re-released....50 years later! There was no other way to see these movies back then (this goes for "Star Wars", "E.T." and all those top grossing movies that came out more than a decade ago) then to go to the theater.

In conclusion, yes "Dark Knight" will sell less tickets then those movies; but the fact that it's so successful at a time where there are much more obstacles to face (such as what I pointed out above) is incredible and unseen today. So at least, it should be commended for doing so.
 

Votes: +0

September 04, 2008, Vince said:

0
 Sorry, that line is supposed to be "This was a time before DVD releases were a big profit for movie studios; I guess I forgot to finish that line.

Good article, BTW, it definitely make me think about your argument. And I agree, I too thought "28 Weeks Later" was just straight up fun in a movie season that was lacking it.
 

Votes: +0

September 04, 2008, Tyler Barlass said:

0
 Haha. Hanc--k got censored.
 

Votes: +0

September 04, 2008, Lex Walker said:

0
 Hmm I would argue with Hanc--k's success. Granted it made $220 Million, but compared to the take it was estimated to earn - it disappointed Sony. So success in that it came out positive, but failure in that it didn't earn as much as was hoped (and it sucked).

Will Smith's reputation is starting to waver. After the less than popular I, Robot and I Am Legend, his undeniable star power is in question. In the days of Independence Day and then Men in Black - Will Smith equaled Awesomeness. Now...not so much.

I don't think we can blame the internet for the fall of the modern movie. The success of Titanic was simply because it WAS a good movie that presented itself incredibly well in silver screen format. It had romance, action, etc. I think it's success can be even more obvious when you consider it's length. People were willing to sit in a theater for numerous showings of a 3 hour movie.

3 hours.

Current attendance is at a low not because the movies aren't as good. God knows I enjoyed Iron Man and the Dark Knight more than Titanic. But movie studios have driven up the cost of movie tickets, driving audiences into the clutches of those internet movie escapes. It's a vicious cycle and the movie studios don't understand they're to blame.
 

Votes: +0

September 05, 2008, drbenway said:

0
 It's not as simple as inflated number vs. un-inflated numbers.

The industry has changed drastically since Titanic was released. That film was allowed to play for a year against next to no competition. TDK's faced enormous competition and will be out on DVD come December, just a few months after its theatrical release.

That is not to say I think it would have over-taken Titanic. I don't think it would have. I'm just tired of these simplistic arguments from people who were apparently born yesterday and haven't heard of DVD, yet.
 

Votes: +0

September 05, 2008, drbenway said:

0
 Here, why not read an article on the matter by someone who actually has half a brain:

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

Votes: +0

September 05, 2008, Lex Walker said:

0
 Yes the industry has changed - but that doesn't change Box Office grosses. Guess what, The Dark Knight is going to be in theaters for the next 3 months.

But that doesn't really matter anymore. Titanic had grossed its Billion within 3 months. That's what this really comes down to. You talk like it had 1 year in theaters to gross its Billion.

3 Months. Regardless of TDK being rushed to DVD - THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS! We had VHS, and at this point you have a pseudo-point (not a good or even valid one). It took Titanic 9 months to hit VHS. Pretty long compared to now. But again The part that matters is amassing it's Billion in 3 months with lower ticket prices.

TDK pales in comparison.
 

Votes: +0

September 12, 2008, Lex Walker said:

0
 Yes, half a brain is good...but I pride myself on a full brain.

I realize now that it's your 1/4 brain affliction that's making these kicks to your temple so ineffective.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

You think inflation has nothing to do with this? Look where The Dark Knight falls when you account for inflation. 29th!

Unfortunately the competition argument suffers from a "chicken or the egg" situation. Did the films that Titanic competed against suck? Or did they simply perform miserably in the shadow of Titanic? All arguments of competition are worthless.

Yes movie trends have changed...but why? Again, the answer is inflation. People are now less likely to go out to a movie because renting one costs significantly less. Hollywood shot itself in the foot. But even with doubling the ticket price TDK can't and WON'T match other films. Not for lack of trying though.

Grow the rest of that brain, and get back to me.
 

Votes: +0

Write comment

security image
Write the displayed characters


busy
< Older Article   Newer Article >
 




Top 10 Box Office

Sponsor