Topic: So...the Dark Knight?

[ShyGuy]

Hipster meltdown...

[AV]

i thought you'd been on NWR long enough to know all threads end in stupidity

can't blame a guy for trying. 

[Maverick]

VOTE REPUBLICAN.

No politics.

[EasyCure]

Yeah but the difference is...it doesn't have the oh-so-dreamy Leo DiCaprio in it, it has the...oh-so-dreamy Christian Bale. Am I gay?

You might be

[mantidor]

Yeah but the difference is...it doesn't have the oh-so-dreamy Leo DiCaprio in it, it has the...oh-so-dreamy Christian Bale. Am I ***?

You'd be *** if you didn't have a man crush on Christian Bale

holy crap... I think you are actually right...

[BranDonk Kong]

Yeah, he's right. I don't get those gay.com ads though, because I use Adblock Plus in Firefox.

[EasyCure]

so wait. even though i have a girlfriend and get mine often... i'm still gay for NOT having a man-crush on Christian Bale?


What if i say i have a man-crush on him AS batman, does that help?

[DAaaMan64]

No, Christian Bale's batman voice was a cheesy gay p0rn horror flick voice.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I think Kevin Conroy should have been dubbed over Bale for Batman's voice.

[EasyCure]

No, Christian Bale's batman voice was a cheesy gay p0rn horror flick voice.

damn what should i do then!?!?!?

[DAaaMan64]

Stop caring what we think and just go out and have sex with Christian Bale already.

[EasyCure]

Damn i can't right now. its too last minute to find a Robin costume

[Khushrenada]

The last eight posts of this thread made me vomit in my own mouth.

edit: MONEY DOES NOT EQUAL QUALITY. YOU ARE BEING SOLD A GENERIC MASS-MARKET PRODUCT ENGINEERED TO MAKE AS MANY PEOPLE STUPIDLY HAPPY AS POSSIBLE. THESE FILMS ARE MADE BY MACHINES, AUTOMATICALLY CHURNED OUT COOKIE CUTTER BULL****. VOTE REPUBLICAN.

You're right money doesn't equal quality but if the film is good, more money to make it can definitely help make it better. The problem is that more money often means more people in a studio watching over a film and making decisions about it to make it more consumer friendly. They have to be more careful in what they are putting their money into.

And a question: You said the last 8 posts made you want to vomit. Is that because you don't like:

A) Gone With The Wind
B) Titanic
c) Forest Gump

Please let it be B and C.

[Maverick]

Stop encouraging him.

[Svevan]

b and c

GWTW is a pretty damn good movie, with some serious flaws (again a studio made product). Far from the best film ever made, which was what producer David O. Selznick stated he intended to make (so he poured millions into it and fired directors that didn't make it to his specifications).

I'm sure they're well aware of that, Evan. Your post reminded me why I don't come on NWR as often as before.

My post was semi-tongue in cheek, yours is deliberately cutting. Why is popular opinion allowed, but contrary opinion booed?

edit: the point of my post is that The Dark Knight does not deserve the acclaim or money it is getting. It's a good film, and nothing more. The second time I saw it I fell asleep. Too much moralizing, too little Heath Ledger. It may go on to be the highest grossing film of all time: what's funny is that we used to pay money to go see romances, dramas, and "auteur" or "art" films. Post-Jaws and -Star Wars we only go to see special effects and swashbuckling adventure. Check the top 10 box office reports for every year from the 40s to now and notice a SERIOUS shift around the late 60s and again in the 70s. Now movies are entirely marketed to the 13 year old boy, because he has the most disposable income, and if you don't share his taste, you are "weird." Notice that The Dark Knight wants to be a gritty Batman tale but is rated PG-13? The director signs a contract guaranteeing the studio that specific rating (because it has the most box-office potential), so either he deliberately sanitizes his vision so it does not cross an imaginary "R-Rated" line, or he manipulates the MPAA to give him the rating he wants (something Spielberg can do by just showing up at their offices and saying "I made this movie, give me my rating." see: Transformers, where he was a producer.) Money talks. Art is a whore to commerce, so this is the stuff that gets the most play (and let's not pretend that the "prestige" pictures released in Nov/Dec for Oscar consideration are any better).

Used to be a studio would release a film then let it play for weeks hoping that word of mouth would catch it. Now movies are advertised for months (or over a year, see: The Dark Knight) prior to release so the studio can get the most money out of opening weekend. There is no such thing as a "long-run" in the theatres anymore. Either you're an instant hit (which is directly correlative to the amount of money spent on advertising) or you're a flop. Notice that TDK had the biggest opening weekend ever: is this an indicator of quality or fandom? Those people went to see the film because of franchising and advertising, and they probably already knew they would love it no matter what.

edit again: case in point, 2007 box office numbers:

1   Spider-Man 3 $336,530,303   
2   Shrek the Third  $322,719,944
3   Transformers $319,246,193
4   Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $309,420,425   
5   Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix $292,004,738
6   I Am Legend $256,393,010
7   The Bourne Ultimatum $227,471,070
8   National Treasure: Book of Secrets $219,964,115   
9   Alvin and the Chipmunks $217,326,974   
10   300 $210,614,939

notice how many hundreds of millions of dollars that is? Is it possible that the product being sold here is generic enough to please everyone?

compare to 1967 (40 years earlier)

1. The Jungle Book $60.964 m
2. The Graduate  $44.091 m
3. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner $25.500 m
4. Bonnie and Clyde $22.800 m
5. The Dirty Dozen $20.404 m
6. Valley of the Dolls $20.000 m
7. You Only Live Twice $19.389 m
8. To Sir, With Love $19.100 m
9. Thoroughly Modern Millie $15.455 m
10. Born Losers $14.750 m
 
Not all of these films are great: some are sleazy, others are action films geared towards males, but we have a musical, an animated film (Pixar films routinely place high today, but in 2007 Dreck the Third and Alvin and the Shitmunks beat Ratatouille), two dramas starring an African American who is not wielding guns, a Bond film, and two studio-financed "art" films (Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde), both transformational films about their generation. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.

moral: the event film rules. if you want to make small films you have to put 'em on YouTube

[ShyGuy]

b and c

GWTW is a pretty damn good movie, with some serious flaws (again a studio made product). Far from the best film ever made, which was what producer David O. Selznick stated he intended to make (so he poured millions into it and fired directors that didn't make it to his specifications).

I'm sure they're well aware of that, Evan. Your post reminded me why I don't come on NWR as often as before.

My post was semi-tongue in cheek, yours is deliberately cutting. Why is popular opinion allowed, but contrary opinion booed?
(not all opinions have the same value)

edit: the point of my post is that The Dark Knight does not deserve the acclaim or money it is getting. It's a good film, and nothing more. The second time I saw it I fell asleep. Too much moralizing,
(That's an odd statement as I see people getting entirely different moral messages out of it when discussing the movie. It's like saying Million Dollar Baby was too preachy about euthanasia when Eastwood masterfully walked a tightrope between both sides of the subject)
too little Heath Ledger.
(Again, what? He had scenes with almost every name actor in the film. Did you want a one man show?)
It may go on to be the highest grossing film of all time: what's funny is that we used to pay money to go see romances, dramas, and "auteur" or "art" films. Post-Jaws and -Star Wars we only go to see special effects
(I realize this is where you spin off on a tangent here, but The Dark Knight intentionally has as little CGI as possible because Nolan dislikes it)
and swashbuckling adventure. Check the top 10 box office reports for every year from the 40s to now and notice a SERIOUS shift around the late 60s and again in the 70s. Now movies are entirely marketed to the 13 year old boy, because he has the most disposable income,
(according to who? Not market researchers)
and if you don't share his taste, you are "weird." Notice that The Dark Knight wants to be a gritty Batman tale but is rated PG-13? The director signs a contract guaranteeing the studio that specific rating (because it has the most box-office potential), so either he deliberately sanitizes his vision so it does not cross an imaginary "R-Rated" line, or he manipulates the MPAA to give him the rating he wants (something Spielberg can do by just showing up at their offices and saying "I made this movie, give me my rating." see: Transformers, where he was a producer.) Money talks.
(Okay, I can agree that the MPAA is flawed, but it's not wrong for Warner Brothers to want to keep Batman PG-13 or below. The character is also for children and there is a certain line they don't want to cross. It's like being mad that Disney won't allow a hard R Mickey Mouse movie.)
Art is a whore to commerce, so this is the stuff that gets the most play (and let's not pretend that the "prestige" pictures released in Nov/Dec for Oscar consideration are any better).

Used to be a studio would release a film then let it play for weeks hoping that word of mouth would catch it. Now movies are advertised for months (or over a year, see: The Dark Knight) prior to release so the studio can get the most money out of opening weekend. There is no such thing as a "long-run" in the theatres anymore. Either you're an instant hit (which is directly correlative to the amount of money spent on advertising) or you're a flop. Notice that TDK had the biggest opening weekend ever: is this an indicator of quality or fandom?
( It's not a qualifier, but it's certainly not a disqualifier either, which is the impression one infers when listening to your argument)
Those people went to see the film because of franchising and advertising,
(You always know peoples motives better than they know themselves don't you?)
and they probably already knew they would love it no matter what.

edit again: case in point, 2007 box office numbers:

1   Spider-Man 3 $336,530,303   
2   Shrek the Third  $322,719,944
3   Transformers $319,246,193
4   Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End $309,420,425   
5   Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix $292,004,738
6   I Am Legend $256,393,010
7   The Bourne Ultimatum $227,471,070
8   National Treasure: Book of Secrets $219,964,115   
9   Alvin and the Chipmunks $217,326,974   
10   300 $210,614,939

notice how many hundreds of millions of dollars that is? Is it possible that the product being sold here is generic enough to please everyone?

compare to 1967 (40 years earlier)

1. The Jungle Book $60.964 m
2. The Graduate  $44.091 m
3. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner $25.500 m
4. Bonnie and Clyde $22.800 m
5. The Dirty Dozen $20.404 m
6. Valley of the Dolls $20.000 m
7. You Only Live Twice $19.389 m
8. To Sir, With Love $19.100 m
9. Thoroughly Modern Millie $15.455 m
10. Born Losers $14.750 m
 
Not all of these films are great: some are sleazy, others are action films geared towards males, but we have a musical, an animated film (Pixar films routinely place high today, but in 2007 Dreck the Third and Alvin and the ****munks beat Ratatouille), two dramas starring an African American who is not wielding guns, a Bond film, and two studio-financed "art" films (Graduate and Bonnie and Clyde), both transformational films about their generation. SOMETHING HAS CHANGED.

moral: the event film rules. if you want to make small films you have to put 'em on YouTube
( There have been plenty of event films that failed, look at Speed Racer earlier this year. The reason for the Dark Knight's success is because it is an event film and a really well made movie that people want to watch again in the theater.)

[Khushrenada]

Whoa! Struck a a nerve with the Batman fan ShyGuy. Good Job Svevan.

Anyway's while you deal with that, I'll move on to a different angle.

Do you think the change in the way movies are released might have something to do with the way studios make their money? On opening weekend, a theater splits it's ticket sales with the studio 50/50 but after the opening weekend, the split is 80/20 in favor of the theater. (I may be off on the split but that's just what I recall). Moreover, most ticket sales drop off the following weekend. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that movies are built around having big opening weekends. It helps studios make the most profit on that weekend and get as many people to see it as possible so that next week, that crowd will then go see the next big opening.

Ticket prices may also to be to blame. The truth is, I really don't go the theater much with ticket prices so high. So, if I do go, I want it to be worth the money. I think a lot of people feel the same way. Hence, that's why so many special effects and action movies end up at the top of the box office. Watching a period drama or a comedy doesn't change much whether you view it on a small screen or a large screen. But the difference in picture can definitely affect a film with those kinds of features. I'm not saying that's a hard rule but I'd argue that is the case in the majority of films. For example, I rented a movie a few weeks ago called "Flawless" about a jewel hiest. I'm a sucker for hiest films. Anyways, I enjoyed the movie a lot. Definitely worth renting. Seeing it in a theater. Wouldn't recommend. I'd have said wait for it to come out on video.

Which brings me to my third point and the one that most ties into your point. Theater culture has changed. A lot of adults and senior citizens wait for movies to come out on video because they don't like the theaters. They're too loud, crowded and people can be rude. Like you said, movies may be marketed to 13-year old boys but the theaters have also changed to reflect this and to be more welcoming to a younger demographic.

I have to thank you for opening my eyes to the horror of Alvin and the Chipmunks. I don't know how that film actually made the top ten. There clearly is a problem.

[GoldenPhoenix]

The battle of the pompous begins. ::leaves forever from this thread::

[Maverick]

Where's my 50 cent bail out gif when I need it? 

[Plugabugz]

Comparing films and their totals to 40 years ago and to recent films is massively inaccurate - adjust them all according to inflation.

[Svevan]

The money's not the point (though adjusted for inflation would be interesting); the types of films present on each list is the point.

[Khushrenada]

The battle of the pompous begins. ::leaves forever from this thread::

Once again, no reading comprehension. We're talking about why movies have changed and what has caused it.

[UncleBob]

Hence, that's why so many special effects and action movies end up at the top of the box office. Watching a period drama or a comedy doesn't change much whether you view it on a small screen or a large screen. But the difference in picture can definitely affect a film with those kinds of features.

Totally agreed.  Unless it's a movie my wife is wanting to see (thus a "Date Flick"), I usually don't even bother to go see a movie unless it's a huge CGI whorefest on the opening weekend (preferably midnight showing) simply because I want the huge screen with the crowd that's into seeing the movie.  If I want to watch, say, Little Miss Sunshine, Diggstown or whatever, I'm not going to spend the $15 in gas and $16 for two tickets to see a movie that I can't pause, rewind, etc... I'll wait for the DVD.

[BranDonk Kong]

There's no problem with the top 10 movies of last year being in the top 10. People don't want to watch crap like The Dirty Dozen or the Graduate anymore. The people who watched those movies in 1967...are all dead now.

Confirmed: Evan is an 80 years old.

[NWR_insanolord]

Evan is to movies what Ian is to Nintendo, he's a fan of them but hates nearly everything about them and only likes the way things were a long time ago.