'Dark Knight...90% Sold Out; Batman Will Play In Record 4,366 Venues

While it was getting good vibes before Ledger's death there is no arguing that the event of his death is a factor in the buzz. Alomst every report on the film mentions it.

I agree that we can use what will obvious be an opening day success to promote a reboot idea.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/17/review.dark.knight/index.ht...

I am a little pissed i told my mom days ago i wanted to get midnight showing tickets for our local imax for tonight, but she wouldnt give me money then to go and get tickets, so when i went there today they said they were sold out a few days ago. So now i am stuck going to regular theater to see it tonight at midnight since they still have tickets, now i will have to wait a few days to see the imax scenes.

"WHEN is Warner going to realize Superman needs the same high quality rebirth?"

Maybe when TDK has made a boatload of money, maybe WB will weigh that against the return of Singer & Singerman? IF they have ANY common sense, they will, but I wouldn't recommend holding your breath!

I have one problem. If 90% of tickets are sold out, additional theaters were added breaking a record, and there are round the clock showings, why are they only estimating $125 to $130mil opening?? Shouldn't a 90% sell out with all those theaters and showings be well over what SM3 did at $150+ mil?? Something is fishy....

On another note, at the risk of upsetting Horn and Robinov, I personally find it very distasteful how they have exploited the death of Ledger to further the buzz on the film.

- Steve

Steve,

I agree, I saw that too about the numbers and thought something was off. With that much pre-sold I was expecting a summer high or better. I think TDK is going to benefit some from the Iron Man and TIH experience this summer. Both were fun movies so folks are in the mood for the genre.

Oh...by the way... anyone want to lay odds on the post-humous oscar? Virtual lock IMO.

Well i guess this is the best place to post this. I just got back from seeing the film. It was wicked sweet. I loved it alot. Not a dull moment lots of action, some humor, and a great story. I am going again to see it on imax in a few days.

Just got back home. Not a huge fan of the Nolan franchise but this is worth seeing. I'll say no more until more of you have seen it.

Man, this film was a masterpiece!!! It's the best film ever!!! I loved almost every scene in this film!!! Heath Ledger did like Jack Nicholson's, Mark Hamill's Joker, and even the comic version of Joker in one!!! He is the true and best Joker ever!!! Aaron Eckhart did a great job as Harvey Dent/Two-Face also!!! Of course, Christian Bale did an amazing job as well!!! All 3 were awesome!!!! Batman definitely totally owns Iron Man on this one!!! I'm wondering what Emi's reaction will be after she sees this film!!! This is a kind of film that Superman including Star Trek deserves also!!! A high quality film!!!

"On another note, at the risk of upsetting Horn and Robinov, I personally find it very distasteful how they have exploited the death of Ledger to further the buzz on the film."

I'll have to disagree with you on that one Steve. Since Ledger's death, (On television, and the articles I've read anyway) I have seen very little if anything at all that even hints at Robinov and Horn exploiting Ledger's death.

The only example I've seen I consider a nod to exploitation is that Pizza commercial, and I found it in bad taste.

Other than the praise reviewers have given Ledger and the film over all, news articles, reviews, and buzz over the film that I've seen has been very careful and respectful.

Perhaps we're not seeing the same stuff, but that's my view.

Yeah, this was truly great cinema. I had extremely high expectations going in and I wasn't disappointed. Ledger deserves every accolade that is being thrown his way. I don't believe his Oscar win will be a sympathy win. If he doesn't win, I really can't wait to see the role/performance that does. Great performances all around including Eckhart, Oldman, and Bale. Caine and Freeman were professional as usual. I don't think you can place this movie in the comic book/superhero genre. Its really too serious for that. I don't see how the filmmakers can top this one. Where can they go from here. I can't imagine what vilian could possibly top those in this film.

The wife wants to see the film, so I'll be going back this afternoon.

edited my post to remove a potential spoiler. posted the same thing at another forum and was accused a having a *MAJOR* spoiler

Well, NOW that some serious feedback is coming in on this film, I'll restate the question I asked in creating this thread,..

"WHEN is Warner going to realize Superman needs the same high quality rebirth?"

How can the studio execs at Warner view the success of Nolan's reboot of Batman, the successes of Marvel, and STILL look favorably at Singer's Dated, Donneresque/skewed Stalkerman, and leave the option open for this idiot to make a sequel?

If ANYONE from Warner is perusing this site, please get the word back to Robinov and Horn.

Dump Singer, reboot Superman, and maybe make some money in the process.

Yea as i said i thought the film was great and i wont say things about it for other users here who havent seen it yet, but yea the epic large scale, massive story is why better then the crap singerman was. I really hope this shows wb to drop singer and go with a great story that is big and epic.

My question regarding Warner and rebooting Superman is rhetorical of course, I don't expect an answer. It's the paradoxical/Bizarro thinking that goes on there I don't understand.
Batman gets rebooted, and becomes a seriously impressive box office performer.
Superman gets a thirty year old retro fit with some disturbing subtext thrown in, and is a dismal performer.

Both characters straight out of the DC stable, the films however miles apart in quality and intelligent content, and both green lit by the same studio.

I think the meeting between DC and Warner over the film franchises has been long overdue, (in the context that there's anyone at DC who has any common sense.)

I can't understand the apologists and Stinkerman supporters that habitually and continually (In comparing these films to Returns) dis successful entries like Nolan and Bale's Batman and Marvel's films, which over all are enjoying abundant critical and financial benefits, while Returns was (in the real world) a dismal disappointment.

How does that apologist attitude translate into being an actual Superman fan rather than in truth, really being a bunch of anal retentive jerks who want to argue the point out of sheer spite, pride, and self righteous nonsense? Logic and facts are discounted.

The fan base is divided and I really believe that crowd enjoys the division. Thrives on it. It can't be good for Warner, and it's not really good for the fan base either.

As Steve points out, I think Younis nurtures it to drive up hit counts.

I wish someone would come to their senses.

Superman needs to be rebooted, and Singer kicked out in the street.

Yea i totally agree with your post man, i really want to see superman rebooted. And yea makes you wonder with all the problem wb has getting characters to film flash/gl/ww/etc.... and superman, how the hell did BB/TDK ever happen with the idiots in charge with wb??

How does that apologist attitude translate into being an actual Superman fan rather than in truth, really being a bunch of anal retentive jerks who want to argue the point out of sheer spite, pride, and self righteous nonsense?

It's been my observation that Stalkerman fans tend to be relatively ignorant of the comics. It's true enough in general to say it's true.

The few times you can even find an Apologist who digs the comics, you'll get a remark along the lines of "if WB must reboot the franchise, they have to adapt Birthright into a film... but they have to keep Routh". Seriously, Birthright. Vegetarianism, soul vision, all that crap. And they're serious about it too; that's pure, unfiltered Apologist think right there!

looking forward to seeing this in the morning!

Well it was a great film phil if you liked BB you will love TDk.

I just got home from seeing TDK with my son, daughter in law, daughter and Grandkids..Ledger was OUTSTANDING as The Joker. I really enjoyed this film.

(Shaking of the head...) It's just very hard to believe this movie and Stalkerman came from the same studio.

yea how the hell did such a great series from nolan happen but then they crap on superman?????

Saw TDK last night. Stunning film and hopefully it highlights to Warners how much of a dud Singer and his film were.

"It's been my observation that Stalkerman fans tend to be relatively ignorant of the comics. It's true enough in general to say it's true."

Case in point. We know with the Byrne reboot in the comics, we got corporate Lex, which went over very well with fanboys in general, I'd say. That's no doubt why Michael Rosenbaum has been so popular in the role on Smallville. But behold! Singer chose to ignore the comics Lex & instead give us an evil Gene Hackman, sans the humor. At least Hackman WAS funny, & it's not that Spacey sucks as an actor, but he does blow in Singerman.

Interesting point here. Fanboys whining & complaining about Luthor being used in a Superman film again (IF you can call it that), like, AWAY with Luthor, give us a super-powered villain! Yet no doubt some of the same people eat up Rosenbaum's portrayal, so what gives?!

Rosenbaum's Luthor was new & fresh, like the Byrne version. Spacey's was just a cheap, twisted version of Hackman. But this is where the APOLOGISTS come in. Even though 'corporate Lex' technically was now the standard & the way to go, Singer chose to go the whole Donner/Silver Age route, & the apologists accepted that 100%. Try debating them on this point. I mean, to them, Singer's wisdom on this was infallible, so in their eyes Lex the Landlubber was the correct version, even though Rosenbaum, IN THE REAL WORLD, is clearly the FAVORITE!

Same with Supes. Instead of depicting the Byrne version, Singer had to ignore all of that & go with his love letter to Donner. The apologists bought this hook, line, & sinker also, & you can't reason with them. But what do you expect when Singer HIMSELF admits to NOT being a comics fan. His source material WAS Donner.

So yeah, I'd say apologists ARE NOT the comics experts they'd have you to believe.

Plastic Who?!

Hell i am not a dc comics fan as i stated many times but i do know info on most big characters of dc over the years and yea i totally hated that SR was pretty much just donnor's film all over again with some changes like the whole kid thing. When i heard Sr was happening i so wanted it to be a total reboot for supes like BB did for batman. And set up with the modern backstory/powers and were and what the characters are like a corp lex. But nope we got donnor/silver age superman that is 30 years old and no one wants to see that superman any more. We want modern not some 30 year old reharsh. Hopefully with the huge success TDK is likely to be getting and with the summit talks we can get some high quality films out there for other characters like flash, gl, ww, shazam, green arrow. And a total supes reboot and singer gone and never allowed to touch superman again.

it's not that Spacey sucks as an actor, but he does blow in Singerman.

Don't kid yourself here. Most people who suggested Spacey for the role over the years on message boards and stuff actually wanted a Keyser Soze-type character. Needless to say, that's not exactly what we got. If you think Spacey sucks in Swooperman (as you probably do, rightly so), you should see what Singer cut out. There's some behind the scenes stuff on YouTube where Spacey really hams it up but Singer evidently toned a lot of that crap down in the editing room. One wonders why he didn't take the easy way out and just direct Spacey differently on the set... but on the other hand nothing else Singer did ever made any sense so why should this?

I dunno about you guys but I'd sure hate to be in Singer's shoes on Sunday night when TDK's final weekend numbers come in. Prick...

Rosenbaum's Luthor was new & fresh, like the Byrne version. Spacey's was just a cheap, twisted version of Hackman. But this is where the APOLOGISTS come in. Even though 'corporate Lex' technically was now the standard & the way to go, Singer chose to go the whole Donner/Silver Age route, & the apologists accepted that 100%. Try debating them on this point. I mean, to them, Singer's wisdom on this was infallible, so in their eyes Lex the Landlubber was the correct version, even though Rosenbaum, IN THE REAL WORLD, is clearly the FAVORITE!

Yep. It's hillarious how even some of the Apologists will tacitly acknowledge the inferiority of Hackman Redux in Singerman by proposing Singer sequel ideas including a corporate Lex.

Personally, I can't see how the Spacey (or Hackman) Lex could ever have the wherewithall to manage Lexcorp.

The best part? TDK is going to kick ass this weekend and I can't wait to see how the Apologists weasel around that "superhero overkill/exhaustion/burn out" myth they use to excuse Singerman's absolute failure at the box office.

Plastic Who, eh Steve Wright?

Just got back from seeing TDK.

***** SPOILERS BELOW - DO NOT READ UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN THE MOVIE **********************************

I liked it. I loved Heath in the role (though if the unfortunate circumstances didn't exist and everyone didn't scream "Oscar" I probably wouldn't have thought that here). Heath did an outstanding job in the role, but it kind of left more to be desired (which I guess by some standards is a good thing). I have to say -- the bar was high, the expectations (prior to the circumstances and marketing) were low, but he really did deliver a great role-defining performance. It was a very nuanced performance and he did bring a psychotic mastermind to life brilliantly (even though the character himself claims he's not a "planner"). The scene in the hospital cracked me up, and the "magic trick" was brutal and brilliant ("look, and it disappears...")

I'm sorry to rain on the parade though -- I have 2 huge complaints about this franchise:

- Bale's "Batman" voice. I get the idea behind why a disguised/affected voice is necessary when he's in the cowl. But hearing this interpretation makes me wish someone else had the role while in costume. Sorry if I'm hurting some fanboys(/gals). It's just a ridiculous voice/interpretation of the character. I disdained the same thing from Batman Begins, but given the added dialogue in this movie, it was more painful to endure. I wasn't the only one turning to the person I went with to complain during the scenes where there was heavy dialogue to make a snide remark -- more than a handful of people in just my row alone were chattering to complain about the voice. Sorry -- just not "Batman" enough for me (and apparently other fans).

- Two-face. I love Aaron Eckhart. His Harvey Dent was awesome. The story arc was lean and tight. However, his Two-Face was hardly close to a "realistic" conflicted dual-persona. The CGI was great (and gruesome). But there wasn't any real struggle between his two sides. He just came off as a pissed off guy who got screwed over by himself and decided to take it out on others. There wasn't the psychotic struggle between his former self and the psychotic persona that was created via the accident. The creation of the character was pretty creative. The potential for greatness was there. The execution (probably not entirely Aaron's fault) misfired. I expected (and I've found I'm not the only one to think so) that Harvey would seriously doubt his inclinations to punish his "co-conspirators" and struggle outwardly to go through the motions of deciding what's "fair." The character of Harvey was built up to be this super-strong symbol of hope and unwavering goodness that it's hard to believe there was this singular, unwavering and pathological need to punish by the mere flip of a coin. It came off as though he'd keep giving chance a chance to allow him to punish. Not right. There should have been more struggle and more inner conflict between these 2 personalities.

Overall though, I think there were definitely a few "wow" moments, and moments where things were "scary" and thought provoking. It was a good movie, solid writing, and I think it was definitely a step in the right direction for the characters/franchise overall.

I also think the nods to (or I guess I should say, the additional seeds for) the generally-available JLA movie's storyline were interesting. I have a hard time believing Goyer and the Nolan camp weren't miffed by the JLA story given it lifted elements from this movie as well probably without consent of the brothers-Nolan and Goyer.

In my humble opinion, I think the ethical conundrums established in the movie, and how it ended, set up nicely a good, solid chance to introduce Superman to THIS franchise. I know that's not even something that would be done, but if the WB (or the Nolans) are reading -- the third film could totally bring in Superman and extend the overarching themes of this franchise to new depths. Batman has plenty of reason to be super-suspicious of everyone, he's now branded a pariah of Gotham, and he knows that there should be limits but doesn't completely know what they should be quite yet. Superman is a perfect complement to that, and without having to go through all the reasoning (which any Superman/Batman fan should be able to figure out themselves), a new, fresh interpretation of the Superman character would be a great (and welcome) introduction into a 3rd movie as a counterbalance to Batman and as another catalyst for change/evolution of the Batman character. It'd be very difficult to do a 3rd movie and bring in some lame-a$$ villains to top the depth of evil and suspense that this film brought without raising the bar a little with new and unexpected twists and turns for Batman. I really did think at the end that THIS Batman should be put in a situation to meet Superman because the chance for conflict and character-clashing is high (and would be interesting to see play out onscreen). But I digress...

This movie is very good. Not great. Not the best superhero movie of all time. But it was worth the wait, and well-worth the ticket price (and DVD price).

p.s. what was the point of the Wayne-Enterprise analyst-turned-journalist guy's story arc? Is there something there that I'm missing... is this a villain in the making? Other than the minor story-arc that played out (what a waste of a perfectly good Italian art), was there something more there that was meant to be a nod to something else? Seemed like this story arc could have been cut drastically and tightened up a bit (maybe to give screentime to other interesting characters) -- maybe the guy stumbles upon a certain someone changing and runs to the press...or he digs around (as he did in the movie) and quickly finds that a certain someone is a vigilante... and things can go from there. A solid 15 minutes went to developing this where those 15 minutes could have easily been used elsewhere. I get part of the idea was that this somewhat exposed a weakness in Batman's "cover story" in that a good accountant, if given enough access, can piece together the puzzle rather quickly. But did it need this much time?

Ahem. An interview from Dateline Hollywood, including priceless picture:
http://www.datelinehollywood.com/dateline_hollywood/2008/07/superman-mak...

Superman makes cameo appearance in The Dark Knight

SPOILER ALERT: Warner Bros. and DC may be laying the groundwork for Batman and Superman to meet on the big screen.

Dateline Hollywood has learned that Brandon Routh, who played the man of steel in "Superman Returns," has a cameo role in "The Dark Knight." Though the character, who is seen in the background for just a few seconds, isn't identified as Clark Kent, it could mean he's going to play a more prominent role in the recently announced sequel, "The Dark Knight Forever."

"At first when I asked if I could play a role in 'The Dark Knight,' Warner Bros told me 'No way. And how did you find our new phone number?'" Routh said in an exclusive interview. "But then my agents at Hollywood Extras Casting said I fit the description for a 'tall white male' they needed for a party that takes place in Bruce Wayne's penthouse.

"I'm really confident that all of the fans are going to notice that Clark Kent was a guest at Bruce Wayne's party and demand that Warner Bros. explain it by making Superman a prominent character in the sequel," he added. "And I'm really confident that when that happens, my landlord will get off my back and understand why I haven't been able to pay my rent the past few months.

(POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVE NOT CHECKED TDK YET)I was wondering the same thing and i can't help but to wonder if they could be trying to introduce Robin. Just a thought I'm not the biggest comic guy but love all of my childhood superheroes. And I know or at least think that Robin has the whole family circus thing or acrobat or whatever it was, but now this guy knows his identity and with dawes gone nobody other than Alfred knows this. And the guy was pretty bright like robin yet naive. Anyway just wondering what you thought of that, it was bugging me the whole time.

I'll let you know in a couple hours webhead =)

^ SkyHook

I have to admit, when the guy showed up on screen, he had that "chris o'donnell" look mixed with a bit more innocence. The thought crossed my mind that he looked like he could play Robin. But that quickly dissolved when I saw the role he was playing here -- if he is meant to be that character, then the brothers-Nolan are seriously revamping the history of the character. Ultimately, by the end, seeing what he tried to do, I didn't feel sorry for him and I kind of wished he got what was coming to him.