The Dark Night Owns Midnight

Tools    





That's okay. Nobody's perfect!
From The New York Times

July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight Owns Midnight
Compiled by Julie Bloom

“The Dark Knight” earned an estimated $18.5 million in gross revenue at its 12 a.m. opening screenings early Friday morning at 3,040 screens, the most ever for midnight shows, The Associated Press reported. The film, directed by Christopher Nolan, moved ahead of the previous record set in 2005 by “Star Wars, Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith,” which took in $16.9 million at 2,915 screens. Warner Brothers reported that the $18.5 million did not include revenue from subsequent 3 a.m. and 6 a.m. screenings.



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
The Dark Knight has estimated 155 million, if true that breaks Spider-Man 3's record of 151 million.

This movie is huge.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



There are those who call me...Tim.
I did NOT see this coming at all, I thought Spider-Man 3's record was going to last for years, not 14 months!

Still, after hearing everything about it, it's nice to know that such a great movie managed to break it.

I still can't get over the fact that 3 years ago Revenge of the Sith blew everyone away with an opening day of $50 million, which in itself destroyed the previous holder (Spider-Man 2) by $10 million, and now the record is in the mid 60's. Madness!
__________________
"When I was younger, I always wanted to be somebody. Now that I'm older, I realise I should've been more specific."



I did NOT see this coming at all, I thought Spider-Man 3's record was going to last for years, not 14 months!

Still, after hearing everything about it, it's nice to know that such a great movie managed to break it.

I still can't get over the fact that 3 years ago Revenge of the Sith blew everyone away with an opening day of $50 million, which in itself destroyed the previous holder (Spider-Man 2) by $10 million, and now the record is in the mid 60's. Madness!


Not that these numbers aren't off-the-charts sick and mind-boggling, but so much of it is due to ticket prices (over $10 a pop in many places now) and that they get these flicks onto more and more screens all the time - over 4,300 for The Dark Knight this weekend. But if you adjust for inflation and go by the number of tickets sold, nothing will ever come close to Gone with the Wind. In 1939 tickets averaged about fifty cents a piece, but if you adjust their take for inflation it puts it at almost 1.4 Billion in today's dollars. Star Wars, which in 1977 had about a $3 per ticket average, adjusted for inflation is about 1.25 Billion for domestic box office. The adjusted all-time top ten only includes one movie from the 1980s, E.T. at #4, and one from the 1990s, Titanic at #6. You have to go down to the #29 spot to find an adjusted film from this new century (and embarrassingly it's Shrek 2). Spider-Man 3 is barely in the top hundred after adjusting for inflation (#92).

So The Dark Knight's numbers are going to be impressive, for sure, but in the perspective of film history hardly a blip on the radar.
__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra



Man, that's really something. Imagine how far people must have traveled to see Gone With the Wind, I'm pretty sure they didn't have it on 4,300 screens back then.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



That's okay. Nobody's perfect!
The New York Times:

July 21, 2008
Batman Rules the Night, and the Whole Weekend
By Michael Cieply


Los Angeles — Fevered fans pushed “The Dark Knight,” the sixth of the Warner Brothers series of “Batman” movies, to record three-day ticket sales of $155.3 million over the weekend, shoring up what so far had been a wobbly year at the box office.

By Warner’s estimate the film narrowly eclipsed opening-weekend ticket sales last year of $151.1 million for Sony Pictures’ “Spider-Man 3,” the previous record holder.

Including a solid $27.6 million for the musical “Mamma Mia!” from Universal Pictures, the weekend’s Top 12 films took in about $249.6 million, according to the box-office consultant Media by Numbers. That lifted the domestic box-office total for the year to $5.36 billion.

That is still down about 1 percent from last year, and the number of theatergoers is down 3.7 percent. But the weekend performance gave studios and theater owners alike reason to take heart, as it proved that even a familiar franchise like “Batman” can still bring surprises.

“It just took on a life of its own,” said Dan Fellman, Warner’s president for theatrical distribution. “You never expect anything like this.”

Excitement around “The Dark Knight” began to build sharply weeks ago, much of it fed by anticipation of the performance as the Joker by Heath Ledger, who died in January.

Theaters began adding midnight and then early-morning screenings of the film as fans scooped up advance tickets online. At sellout shows around the country, audiences — including more than a few viewers who came made up to resemble Mr. Ledger’s evil clown character — pushed Friday ticket sales to an estimated $66.4 million, including an extraordinary $18.5 million from the midnight showings.

That the film’s opening took on an event status that previous “Batman” movies never quite achieved apparently owed something to its strong presence in Imax format.

The film — directed by Christopher Nolan and starring Christian Bale — was filmed partly using Imax cameras and opened on nearly 100 Imax screens in the United States. That meant a boost at the box office because Imax tickets cost an average of $12.80, about 80 percent more than the overall average ticket price of $7.08, as estimated by Media by Numbers.

Imax screenings contributed $6.2 million to the “Dark Knight” box office, beating the previous Imax record, $4.7 million for “Spider-Man 3,” by more than 30 percent, said Greg Foster, the president of filmed entertainment for Imax.

The summer box office had been solid but not spectacular, with tickets for the season up slightly at $2.76 billion, thanks to price inflation, and attendance down about 2 percent. Films like “Iron Man” from Paramount Pictures and Marvel Studios and “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull” from Paramount and Lucasfilm have topped the $300 million mark.

But “Hancock,” an off-center superhero movie from Sony Pictures and the star Will Smith, came up short of last year’s “Transformers” box office over the July Fourth holiday, and several releases, including “Meet Dave” from Eddie Murphy and 20th Century Fox, fell flat.

This weekend Fox suffered another embarrassment with the animated “Space Chimps,” which took in just $7.4 million and placed seventh.

The box-office take for “Mamma Mia!,” starring Meryl Streep, was almost identical to that on the equivalent weekend last year by “Hairspray,” a New Line Cinema musical that took in $27.5 million in first-weekend sales and went on to make $118.9 million.

Other top-performing films over the weekend included “Hancock,” with $14 million (for a total of $191.5 million); “Journey to the Center of the Earth” from Warner, with $11.9 million (a total of $43.1 million); “Hellboy II: The Golden Army” from Universal, with $10 million ($56.4 million total); and “Wall-E” from Walt Disney with $9.8 million ($182.5 million total).

For all the records the weekend’s performance also underscored how much harder studios have been working for their hits in recent years. The 1989 “Batman,” with a reported budget of $35 million, opened to about $40.5 million and went on to take in more than $251 million at the domestic box office.

“The Dark Knight,” by contrast, has been reported to cost more than $180 million. Given the pattern of contemporary blockbusters, the film appears unlikely to match the performance of “Batman,” whose domestic box office would be on the order of $450 million if adjusted to reflect ticket-price inflation.

Today’s event films tend to open bigger, and disappear more quickly, than those of the past. Thus, “Spider-Man 3” took in about 45 percent of its $336.5 million in total sales on its opening weekend, and “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” took in 37 percent of its $309.4 million on the first weekend last year.

“Batman,” by contrast, relied on the opening weekend for just 16 percent of sales.

Mr. Fellman said he believed “The Dark Knight” would continue to outpace “Spider-Man 3” in coming days, thanks to a midsummer run when school is out. “Spider-Man 3” was released in early May and had to fight harder for midweek business.

By week’s end, Mr. Fellman said, “The Dark Knight” will probably take in more than the $205 million in total domestic ticket sales for its predecessor, “Batman Begins,” in 2005.




That's okay. Nobody's perfect!


Not that these numbers aren't off-the-charts sick and mind-boggling, but so much of it is due to ticket prices (over $10 a pop in many places now) and that they get these flicks onto more and more screens all the time - over 4,300 for The Dark Knight this weekend. But if you adjust for inflation and go by the number of tickets sold, nothing will ever come close to Gone with the Wind. In 1939 tickets averaged about fifty cents a piece, but if you adjust their take for inflation it puts it at almost 1.4 Billion in today's dollars. Star Wars, which in 1977 had about a $3 per ticket average, adjusted for inflation is about 1.25 Billion for domestic box office. The adjusted all-time top ten only includes one movie from the 1980s, E.T. at #4, and one from the 1990s, Titanic at #6. You have to go down to the #29 spot to find an adjusted film from this new century (and embarrassingly it's Shrek 2). Spider-Man 3 is barely in the top hundred after adjusting for inflation (#92).

So The Dark Knight's numbers are going to be impressive, for sure, but in the perspective of film history hardly a blip on the radar.
Very interesting Holden. Thanks for those comparisons. Do you have a source for converting dollars adjusted for inflation? I could use it other things such as the cost of gasoline from 1972 to today or the cost of war WWII vs Iraq.



I think many more movie fans would have seen this film if they had the cash to do so. I am a sap for my kids and I did not want to go see this without them, so yeah I could have afforded the 8 bux it would have cost just me, but if the whole family went it would have been well over 70 smackers. Maybe they will take me on my B-day. Hope so.
__________________
“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton



That's okay. Nobody's perfect!
To answer my own question and from The For What it's Worth Department I googled Inflation Calculator and found 2 sites that calculate this using the Consumer Price Index (CPI):

Using $0.50, the price of a 1939 ticket for GWTW, here are the results:

From Tom's Inflation Calculator: http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
$0.50 1939 = $7.35 2008

From http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
$0.50 1939 = $7.87 2008

So, $155,300,000.00 2008 dollars = $986,527,400.00 1939 dollars.

Yikes!!!!

P.S. I'm going to see The Dark Knight tommorow so it's box office $$$ will be going up.



That's okay. Nobody's perfect!
Actually, if you had a dollar printed in 1939, which was a silver certificate or something, it would be worth a lot more than today's dollar. (Completely off topic but it's not as bad as Zimbabwe, which Monday will issue a 100 billion dollar bank note! 2.2 million dollar inflation rate!)



There are those who call me...Tim.


Not that these numbers aren't off-the-charts sick and mind-boggling, but so much of it is due to ticket prices (over $10 a pop in many places now) and that they get these flicks onto more and more screens all the time - over 4,300 for The Dark Knight this weekend. But if you adjust for inflation and go by the number of tickets sold, nothing will ever come close to Gone with the Wind. In 1939 tickets averaged about fifty cents a piece, but if you adjust their take for inflation it puts it at almost 1.4 Billion in today's dollars. Star Wars, which in 1977 had about a $3 per ticket average, adjusted for inflation is about 1.25 Billion for domestic box office. The adjusted all-time top ten only includes one movie from the 1980s, E.T. at #4, and one from the 1990s, Titanic at #6. You have to go down to the #29 spot to find an adjusted film from this new century (and embarrassingly it's Shrek 2). Spider-Man 3 is barely in the top hundred after adjusting for inflation (#92).

So The Dark Knight's numbers are going to be impressive, for sure, but in the perspective of film history hardly a blip on the radar.
I like looking at adjusted numbers, I've found myself many a time idly checking out Box Office Mojo's adjusted for inflation list when I've got nothing else to do.

I don't use the list to make comparisons between films released today and films released many decades ago though, there are just too many other factors to take in, with the most obvious being piracy and home video. If I miss a film in cinemas chances are it'll be on DVD 4-5 months later, maybe sooner. Or if I were Knock-off-Nigel I could probably catch it on the internet within a week of it being released.

Using Gone with the Wind as an example, that film wasn't released on home video until 1990 (or so I've read, I haven't found an earlier release). If I'd been alive in 1940 (when it was released in the UK) and the same age as I am now, I would've been in my 70's before I could see it in the comfort of my own home. The only other way to see it would be at a cinema. Today's blockbusters don't have that luxury.

Gone with the Wind's 200 million+ tickets in the US alone is mind boggling, but to dismiss today's successes as blips on the radar (or a drop in the ocean maybe ), for not measuring up to the successes of decades past, is a little unfair I feel and doesn't give today's blockbusters their due credit.

Dead Man's Chest sold over 64 million tickets in America 2 years ago. Throughout movie history, only 42 movies have sold more.



Originally Posted by Ash_Lee
Using Gone with the Wind as an example, that film wasn't released on home video until 1990 (or so I've read, I haven't found an earlier release). If I'd been alive in 1940 (when it was released in the UK) and the same age as I am now, I would've been in my 70's before I could see it in the comfort of my own home. The only other way to see it would be at a cinema. Today's blockbusters don't have that luxury.
Well, you could see Gone with the Wind, and just about every other movie made, on broadcast television starting in the 1950s to today, and many decades before it or anything else was on home video.

Of course all the generations of moviegoing have their own specifics that contributed to ticket sales, and you didn't even mention that before the popularization and boom of television in the 1950s that it was just radio and the movies competing for the disposable entertainment time, much less dollar. EVERYBODY went to the movies back when Gone with the Wind was released, and not just once or twice a year but more like once or twice a week. Yes, the fact that movies are legally available on other media within months effects a film's staying power and ticket sales. Sure.

But whatever laundry list of reasons, as I say nothing will ever come close to Gone with the Wind again.



Significant dropoff from Friday to Saturday, as expected given the Midnight grosses, but surprisingly steady from Saturday to Sunday (which is why the final numbers came in a few million higher than the mid-Sunday estimates).

Should have a fair bit of staying power, but there are quite a few films vying for attention from weeks past, and plenty of others coming out. Still, it'll be a shocker if this isn't the year's highest-grossing film.



There are those who call me...Tim.
Well, you could see Gone with the Wind, and just about every other movie made, on broadcast television starting in the 1950s to today, and many decades before it or anything else was on home video.

Of course all the generations of moviegoing have their own specifics that contributed to ticket sales, and you didn't even mention that before the popularization and boom of television in the 1950s that it was just radio and the movies competing for the disposable entertainment time, much less dollar. EVERYBODY went to the movies back when Gone with the Wind was released, and not just once or twice a year but more like once or twice a week. Yes, the fact that movies are legally available on other media within months effects a film's staying power and ticket sales. Sure.
Fair enough, you seem to know more about this than I do. Personally I still wouldn't compare a film's opening weekend with the total sales of history's biggest selling film, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Guess I'm just touchy because I have to wait another 2 days before I can see it. Twice now I've almost had the ending spoiled for me

Originally Posted by Holden Pike
But whatever laundry list of reasons, as I say nothing will ever come close to Gone with the Wind again.
Agreed



I think both are fine points. Inflation should certainly be taken into account, but it's an entirely different environment now. The number of entertainment sources competing for our time and money is absurd. And home video changes everything.

I don't know precisely what the norm was when Gone With the Wind was released, but I'm guessing that, as Holden says, movies were the primary form of entertainment and people went often. If they were both cheap and largely unrivaled, I'd imagine going to the movies is something you could do pretty much on a whim, even if you weren't terribly interested in the movie. I see little hints of this in older films like 12 Angry Men, where the characters talk about seeing several films in a single day, and one can't quite remember what he saw.

Now, going to a first-run movie is a little mini-event, given the cost, the fact that most people don't live within walking distance of a theater, and the number of other things you can choose to do instead.

The effect of home video really can't be overstated, either. Gone With the Wind made less than $1 million in its opening weekend; it ended up grossing almost 200 times that. Your average blockbuster ends up taking in about a third of its eventual domestic gross in its opening weekend. Imagine how our moviegoing habits would change if we didn't think we'd ever get to see a film for years (or ever again!) after it left theaters?

Persuading casual moviegoers to plunk down the extra time and money for a new release is a terribly impressive feat, when you think about it. I'm tempted to say that dominating even a fraction of the public's attention today is just as impressive as dominating most of it back then. Really, though, the two are impressive in entirely different ways.

To my mind, the only really relevant comparison for most modern films is, well, other modern films. I'd go as far as saying that we can't even really compare today's films to anything released more than a decade ago, as anything pre-mainstream Internet is apples to oranges.