Darth Snoopy wrote:

Master Ulic wrote:

Thurston McQ wrote:Third weekend is going to be tough to beat. That's when the first Spider-Man began to show all eight of his legs.

Fourth, fifth, sixth weekend and beyond will likely stay with Titanic. That movie didn't make under twenty million until its eleventh weekend of release. And the biggest weekend it ever had (its fifth) was just a little over thirty-six million.

It doesn't need to beat Titanic on any subsequent weekend. It got out to a much bigger start and with Spidey-like legs, it would add $118 million after this weekend, which would already put it into the $520 million range. And Spidey got that third-weekend record against a premiering AOTC, so there's no reason to think TDK can't do the same against much weaker competition. It should reach $45 million without difficulty.

Well Spidey did that BECAUSE of AOTC, not despite it. Spill over business.

That may be true to some extent, but even so, all those people thinking TDK can't get the third weekend record seem to be forgetting history -- and more importantly, TDK's history-making run. You have a film with unmatched word-of-mouth, peerless entertainment value and deep, complex themes going up against the latest installment of a mindless action franchise past its prime. The marketplace can expand to accommodate both. A $45 million weekend for TDK would be a 40% drop from the previous weekend, which would be more than Spidey's third weekend drop. So it could drop worse and still claim the record.

I have no doubt that The Dark Knight *can* beat 45 million for a third weekend. Typical number crunching would put its third weekend gross at somewhere between 35-40 million, though it's hard to say until this week's weekday grosses start to come it. It's also hard to say just because this is The Dark Knight. It hasn't necessarily followed all the typical patterns (with the exception of its second weekend falling pretty squarely where it was predicted to fall based on its first weekend gross and the positive tracking). The drop patterns are probably going to start being pretty consistent with summer blockbuster drop patterns--even if the numbers will be bigger than typical summer blockbuster numbers (since the initial numbers were bigger).

Again, Titanic more than likely has those fourth, fifth and sixth weekend records all locked up. Assuming The Dark Knight makes somewhere around 35-40 million (or even 45 or a little more), it would have to have a *very* small drop for it to touch those weekend records.

The Dark Knight will probably make it to 500 million. If it continues to perform well during weekdays and to have solid weekends, it even has a shot at the coveted 600 million. I don't think it will get there, but it would be neat if it did. Whatever the case, we are looking at what almost certainly will be the number two or number three (unadjusted) domestic grosser of all time. For a few summers, at least.

Darth Snoopy wrote:And yes, it would just be flat out strange for me to watch another actor play the Joker. Like I said. Take James Earl Jones out after ESB and put Morgan Freeman in ROTJ. That's how drastically different it would be to me. Don't know if I could ever really enjoy the movie.

Darth Vader is the worst example to possibly pick for an "irreplaceable" character. It was a guy in a suit with another guy providing the voice. Watch the movies and it's obvious that the voice syncing was way off, especially in A New Hope. The words just don't match up with the hand gestures and the timing in general. Makes it hard for me to watch Star Wars to this day because the bad syncing yanks me out of the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is so critical to any movie.

The only thing Vader has that is in any way distinctive is James Earl Jones for a voice and that voice is so distinctive that it's also easy for a good impressionist to imitate. Add in the electronic distortion they use and any good voice actor could do it. Tell me you've never heard a good Darth Vader impression.

That is the point I've tried to make before. They won't be looking for an actor to re-create the Joker. They will be looking for a character to re-create the Joker as he was portrayed in this movie. There is a difference.

I said it once before and I'll say it again: "It takes a great actor to create a role. It takes a merely good actor to play a role once it has been created." (that was a paraphrase, I may have worded it a bit differently in the original post.

The sad part is that so many people have invested so much into the "Ledger cannot be replaced!!!!1!!" idea that it won't matter who they get to replace him or how good a job that actor does. He won't be Ledger and, so, he won't be given a fair evaluation and, so, the movie will be deemed unworthy.

Too bad...

mycroft wrote:Darth Vader is the worst example to possibly pick for an "irreplaceable" character. It was a guy in a suit with another guy providing the voice. Watch the movies and it's obvious that the voice syncing was way off, especially in A New Hope. The words just don't match up with the hand gestures and the timing in general. Makes it hard for me to watch Star Wars to this day because the bad syncing yanks me out of the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is so critical to any movie.

The only thing Vader has that is in any way distinctive is James Earl Jones for a voice and that voice is so distinctive that it's also easy for a good impressionist to imitate. Add in the electronic distortion they use and any good voice actor could do it. Tell me you've never heard a good Darth Vader impression.

That is the point I've tried to make before. They won't be looking for an actor to re-create the Joker. They will be looking for a character to re-create the Joker as he was portrayed in this movie. There is a difference.

I said it once before and I'll say it again: "It takes a great actor to create a role. It takes a merely good actor to play a role once it has been created." (that was a paraphrase, I may have worded it a bit differently in the original post.

The sad part is that so many people have invested so much into the "Ledger cannot be replaced!!!!1!!" idea that it won't matter who they get to replace him or how good a job that actor does. He won't be Ledger and, so, he won't be given a fair evaluation and, so, the movie will be deemed unworthy.

Too bad...

Don't go there, Floyd.

Watch it first, and THEN you can go there. It does pain me to say that, but you need to watch it. This isn't the sort of performance you just plug someone into.

-----------------------------------------

Of course, if this is what the (inevitable) backlash will entail, then this movie will make millions!

-----------------------------------------

On a broader note, has anyone seen, read, or heard signs of a backlash yet? I thought it would have happened by now, honestly.

I don't know if this is necessarily a backlash, but its score is getting closer to slipping down a notch or two. It currently has a 9.4 if you are looking at the Dark Knight page, itself. If you click onto the Top 250 link, however, you'll see it's at 9.3.

There have been some news stories I've skimmed through where critics were getting violent letters from fanboys for having anything at all negative to say about the movie.

There probably will never be any real backlash for Joker's performance. There wasn't for Lewis's performances in Gangs of New York or There Will Be Blood. Those performances have gone on to be considered top notch acting by a top notch actor by the majority of the movies' viewers. Both movies have been criticized for other things, though, and quite rightly so. The Dark Knight is a flawed movie with a performance (or, to be a little more generous, maybe, more than one performance) in it that elevates it above its flaws. In that regard, it is very like Gangs of New York, Brokeback Mountain, Night of the Hunter, The Sixth Sense, Ed Wood, The Insider, The Big Sleep, My Left Foot, The Elephant Man, Midnight Cowboy and a host of other movies featuring performances so bright they blinded people to certain things that otherwise would have looked ungainly.

There will be a backlash.

Considering it's one of the highest grossing films ever, it will begin sooner than later.

And the backlash always starts with the people who haven't even seen it.

Corporal Hicks wrote:And the backlash always starts with the people who haven't even seen it.

That's going to limit the backlash, somewhat.

Thurston McQ wrote:

Corporal Hicks wrote:And the backlash always starts with the people who haven't even seen it.

That's going to limit the backlash, somewhat.

LMAO!!!!

mycroft wrote:

Darth Snoopy wrote:And yes, it would just be flat out strange for me to watch another actor play the Joker. Like I said. Take James Earl Jones out after ESB and put Morgan Freeman in ROTJ. That's how drastically different it would be to me. Don't know if I could ever really enjoy the movie.

Darth Vader is the worst example to possibly pick for an "irreplaceable" character. It was a guy in a suit with another guy providing the voice. Watch the movies and it's obvious that the voice syncing was way off, especially in A New Hope. The words just don't match up with the hand gestures and the timing in general. Makes it hard for me to watch Star Wars to this day because the bad syncing yanks me out of the "willing suspension of disbelief" that is so critical to any movie.

The only thing Vader has that is in any way distinctive is James Earl Jones for a voice and that voice is so distinctive that it's also easy for a good impressionist to imitate. Add in the electronic distortion they use and any good voice actor could do it. Tell me you've never heard a good Darth Vader impression.

That is the point I've tried to make before. They won't be looking for an actor to re-create the Joker. They will be looking for a character to re-create the Joker as he was portrayed in this movie. There is a difference.

I said it once before and I'll say it again: "It takes a great actor to create a role. It takes a merely good actor to play a role once it has been created." (that was a paraphrase, I may have worded it a bit differently in the original post.

The sad part is that so many people have invested so much into the "Ledger cannot be replaced!!!!1!!" idea that it won't matter who they get to replace him or how good a job that actor does. He won't be Ledger and, so, he won't be given a fair evaluation and, so, the movie will be deemed unworthy.

Too bad...

Not too bad, but accurate.

And doing an impersonation of an actor's character is the worst thing ever to me.

Ewan sucked trying to be Alec Guiness as Obi Wan in TPM

That guy for Superman Returns (and the whole movie) REALLY sucked in trying to impersonate a whole other movie.

And frankly, I just don't understand what you are refering to as far as "It takes a great actor to create a role. It takes a merely good actor to play a role once it has been created." If you're talking about The Godfather 1 vs 2 and Robert Di Niro playing a younger Brando, that is not the same thing.

I think of two occurances of this in recent history:

- Harry Potter - Dumbledore - Richard Harris hardly set a presidence or controled the gaxe of the viewer, and frnakly I like the new guy better. Not a comparrison.

- Matrix Trilogy - The Oracle - Absolutly horrible and part of a lot of things that killed the third movie.

Like I said earlier, if you haven't seen it, you just don't get it. It'll probavly go down as the best villanous performance of this generation. No, not "just because it's the Joker", or "because Ledger is dead."

So how about we just dump Bruce Willis and have Vin Diesel play John McClain in the next Die Hard? Same character, same script, just different actor trying to be Bruce Willis. Or Maybe dump Harrison Ford after ESB and get Tom Selleck to play Han Solo in ROTJ? That'd work like a peach. And those character are about 1/2 of the Ledger/Joker character.

Just my .02, but TDK is on a WAY different level from your standard summer crap we have been force fed for years. And then, on top of that, Ledger is about 2x greater than TDK alone, IMO.

Which is why I say, if you haven't seen it, you just flat out do not understand.

Leave the character alone, and leave him dead until the next "reboot" in 2025.

Here's your new Joker.

Bark wrote:Here's your new Joker.

Saw that one made me laugh. The guy looks like ScareCrow.

Darth Snoopy wrote:So how about we just dump Bruce Willis and have Vin Diesel play John McClain in the next Die Hard? Same character, same script, just different actor trying to be Bruce Willis. Or Maybe dump Harrison Ford after ESB and get Tom Selleck to play Han Solo in ROTJ? That'd work like a peach.

I want to see John McCain play John McClane as much older man in Die, Already!

(This is in no way meant to be seen as a statement of political preference. I just like that the names are so close.)

* * *

Also, Kurt Russell could have pulled off Han Solo if Ford had refused to come back for Return of the Jedi. I've seen his audition for A New Hope. It's right on the money.

TDK earned an estimated $10.5 million on Monday according to early figures from Showbizdata.com. In just eleven days, it has become the highest-grossing film domestically in 2008.

And I believe it broke another record by surpassing DMC's previous mark for most consecutive days with $10 million or more. It earned more on its second Monday than Spidey 3 did on its first.

Maybe the Warner Bros. have enough money to afford wasting some pocket change on making a real 2-D Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies movie. You know, one that doesn't include live action sequences or live actors.

Actually, I'd be happier with new shorts than a movie. And not like those shit shorts they put out a few years ago, either.

I want a Termite Terrace-like set up with some gifted writers and animators who aren't afraid of excellent timing, more than five frames a second or consciously bad jokes.

Master Ulic wrote:TDK earned an estimated $10.5 million on Monday according to early figures from Showbizdata.com. In just eleven days, it has become the highest-grossing film domestically in 2007.

And I believe it broke another record by surpassing DMC's previous mark for most consecutive days with $10 million or more. It earned more on its second Monday than Spidey 3 did on its first.

So it should be around $35 M-Th
If it can hit $40+ on the weekend it will be up to $390 area in just 17 days.

Still on target. Stay on taget.

Thurston McQ wrote:Maybe the Warner Bros. have enough money to afford wasting some pocket change on making a real 2-D Looney Tunes/Merry Melodies movie. You know, one that doesn't include live action sequences or live actors.

Actually, I'd be happier with new shorts than a movie. And not like those shit shorts they put out a few years ago, either.

I want a Termite Terrace-like set up with some gifted writers and animators who aren't afraid of excellent timing, more than five frames a second or consciously bad jokes.

Uh... what?

You know . . . for kids.

Thurston McQ wrote:You know . . . for kids.

And what does any of that have to do with TDK?

Master Ulic wrote:TDK earned an estimated $10.5 million on Monday according to early figures from Showbizdata.com. In just eleven days, it has become the highest-grossing film domestically in 2007.

Interesting why they are comparing TDK's numbers to 2007 movies, condsidering it came out in 2008!!

Master Ulic wrote:And what does any of that have to do with TDK?

It has to do with Warner Bros. and its unexpected, non-Harry Potter cash influx.

You may not have noticed, but I have a tendency to digress on occasion.

I understand that no one else on this board has ever digressed; I understand, too, how alien my digressions must seem to you in light of this. I understand it, and I respect it.

I'll do my best to seem less alien from now on.

Thurston McQ wrote:

Master Ulic wrote:And what does any of that have to do with TDK?

It has to do with Warner Bros. and its unexpected, non-Harry Potter cash influx.

You may not have noticed, but I have a tendency to digress on occasion.

I understand that no one else on this board has ever digressed; I understand, too, how alien my digressions must seem to you in light of this. I understand it, and I respect it.

I'll do my best to seem less alien from now on.

Sean is rubbing off...

Quasar wrote:

Master Ulic wrote:TDK earned an estimated $10.5 million on Monday according to early figures from Showbizdata.com. In just eleven days, it has become the highest-grossing film domestically in 2007.

Interesting why they are comparing TDK's numbers to 2007 movies, condsidering it came out in 2008!!

D'oh! My first typo in awhile. There won't be more, Lord Q, I promise!

Master Ulic wrote:D'oh! My first typo in awhile. There won't be more, Lord Q, I promise!

Don't you mean "a while"?

Since it is preceded by a preposition, I mean.

Master Ulic wrote:Lord Q

I like the sound of that.

I made an edit!