Deseret News | Reader comments: 'Dark Knight' is raking in lots of cash

Reader comments
'Dark Knight' is raking in lots of cash

Paul | 1:09 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

"When a kids' movie makes big bucks, it's worth noting that most of that money comes from half-price admissions for children.."

I dont know if this is meant to serve as a general supporting statement unrelated to the film 'the dark knight' but IF you've seen the movie, i highly doubt it can be called a "kids' movie".

Ronald | 1:17 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Actually adjusted grosses mean very little to me because it's a very different day and age for movies. It's all about the first weekend or two, after that it's all gravy and the movie companys are just waiting for the DVD realease.

If The Dark Knight ran for as long as Titanic (8-9 months) or other movies did it may have brought in over 800-900 million or more at the boxoffice, but it will only be out till mid October at best instead of Febuary or March (when it would be bolstered by the oscar nominations it will recieve) and will top out around $550 million.

BTW to date about $40 million of it's take is from Imax screenings, so doesn't play as big a part as your making it out to.

Anonymous | 2:02 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Wow welcome to the show latecomer. I pretty much said the SAME EXACT THING about the older movies (gone with the wind) being out before the home theater explosion like a week ago. Last weekend at work I read the yahoo article about the Dark Knight possibly taking the #3 all time grossing spot. I went on to talk about how adjusting for "today's dollars" isn't a fair comparison because those older movies were out back before DVDs, blue rays, plasma/lcd tvs, and home theater surround sound. Way to go for being almost a week late with your *brilliant* insight Mr. Hicks. Please quit your dayjob.

Comments continue below

To Anonymous | 8:15 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Who's the real latecomer? Hicks has been making that point -- about adjusted when attention turns to a big box office performer -- for his whole career as a movie reviewer/commentator. It's just a new take as a result of the success of "The Dark Knight". Give Hicks a break-- it's far from his first time at the rodeo. He's still one of the best columnists around about movies. DesNews is lucky to have him.

The Authority | 9:42 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

I would love to see something knock Titanic off the top spot for domestic gross. I remember loving that movie, and going to see it in the theater twice ...

But now I just can't stand to watch it. The acting is so Star Wars-prequelish. No wonder Hayden and Natalie acted like boards, they were trying to follow Kate and Leo's footsteps.

And Titanic is sooooo slow and boring.

To Paul | 11:03 a.m. Aug. 15, 2008

I'm fairly sure Hicks wasn't implying that The Dark Knight should be considered a kids' movie. Remember, until recently, when The Dark Knight hit $400 million in 18 days, the fastest movie to hit that mark (if I remember correctly) was Shrek 2 with 42 days. He's simply stating that kids' movies seem to do alright despite the fact that their target demographic brings in less per ticket than the average movie.

Of course, a movie aimed at kids that parents can watch too has one the largest audience pool you can imagine, since it encompasses all of them. So if you want to make money on a movie, a *good* kids' movie is the way to go. (Note the emphasis on *good*.)

Paul Gibbs | 6:10 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

Making a completely 100% accurate list of the most popular movies ever made is obviosuly impossible. Until we can retroactively catalogue how people have seen which movie how many times, and whether they liked it, box offices estimates are really just a rough estimate.

l | 10:42 p.m. Aug. 15, 2008

The point he was making is that tickets to kids' movies are cheaper, so it's not fair to judge their popularity on how much cash they bring in. It's also not fair to judge Dark Knight on how much money it brings in since some of its money comes from IMAX showings are more expensive. The cost of the ticket skews the results, so comparisons should be made on number of tickets sold, not dollar amount brought in. Did you read the article, Paul, or perhaps only half the story was posted at 1:00 a.m. when you commented?

Anonymous | 5:01 p.m. Aug. 18, 2008

Best movie I've seen in a long time...solid acting (great for Ledger), great action sequences, great special effects, great storytelling, great plot twists, great commentary on society and many hidden messages that will be discussed by viewers for a long, long time.

What I am saying, this movie should rake in the cash because it had it all! It will go down as one of the best artistic and box office successes of all-time!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.