digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at huffingtonpost.com

"Dark Knight" To Become Biggest Grossing Movie Ever?

huffingtonpost.com — There are even whispers starting whether Dark Knight can beat the incredible worldwide numbers posted by the all-time $1.8 billion benchmark of Titanic. "It can be the first movie that has a real shot," one rival studio bigwig told me cautiously.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • xrmb, on 07/26/2008, -10/+78Is Titanics $1.8 billion adjusted for inflation? If not, I'd like to the number of viewers, that tells me more than how much is grossed.
    • ippey, on 07/27/2008, -10/+1$1.8bil Worldwide gross sales.

      http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region= ...
    • Lukesed, on 07/27/2008, -10/+3It would be really time-consuming to accurately adjust international totals for inflation, so no one ever does it.
    • hmunkey, on 07/27/2008, -5/+8This article is inaccurate. Ticket prices have almost doubled since then and inflation isn't accounted for.
      • HOTM, on 07/27/2008, -4/+23I'm too young to know, but movie tickets seriously used to be 4 bucks?
      • Tanktunker, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4They used to be under a dollar 40 years ago, go to boxofficemojo and look at their inflation explanation.
      • Lukesed, on 07/27/2008, -6/+2Inflation and increased ticked prices are the same thing, of you accounted for it twice you would be way off.
      • dbhalla, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5But did titanic account for the people who bought tickets then and download movies now?
      • bovox, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2HOTM, when i was a kid, ticket prices at matinees were $3.75. This was in the late 80s.
      • pe5t1lence, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2What bovox said. It was under $4 until about '92 where I was.
    • sparkie, on 07/27/2008, -6/+1From IMDB:

      "All amounts are in USA dollars and only include theatrical box office receipts (movie ticket sales) and do not include video rentals, television rights and other revenues. Totals may include theatrical re-release receipts. Figures are not adjusted for inflation."

      Incidentally, I've always had the same exact question. If ticket sales were actually adjusted for inflation, Star Wars Episode IV would probably still be king (don't quote me on that)
      • w00master, on 07/27/2008, -0/+8Actually, if you were to go by # of tickets sold, "Gone with the Wind" would still be king.
      • cutchyacokov, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Frankly, w00master, I don't give a damn!
    • rnelsonee, on 07/27/2008, -0/+38No, it's not. Which makes the whole thing useless. Not 'weird' or 'slightly inaccurate' - completely useless. Unless all movies came out the same year. It's like saying Bill Walton is richer than Rockefeller (who owned 1.5% of US economy).

      Anywho, Gone with the Wind is still #1 by far. It was in theaters for over a year because home video and PPV didn't exist, and actual screenings in the theaters were the only way to make money on a film.

      http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
      • xrmb, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Thank you so much for that link... according to this list TDK is not even 2/3 of reaching place 100, and has 10% of #1. What a joke.
      • Lukesed, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Well, it will probably end up between #40-50
    • Fastfuud, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5I agree, due to the raising cost in movie tickets they need to have a count on the literal amount of tickets sold.
      • Lukesed, on 07/27/2008, -6/+4Ticket counts will favor newer movies because there are simply way more people now.
      • ledmonkey, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8Actually they will favor older movies since the only way to see movies back then were in theaters, so theaters would run old movies again, as that was the only way to see them.
    • Novakog, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I think it should be adjusted for inflation, but movie theater ticket price inflation may not exactly match the inflation of the dollar, and thus I don't think a ticket count is fair game. In other words, the inflation-adjusted value of a ticket may be less back then than it is today, in which case ticket counts wouldn't be as much an accurate assessment of "which movie people want to see more" (which I think is the ultimate question here?) as simple inflation adjusted box office gross.
    • EatingPie, on 07/27/2008, -2/+12First off, it's not "useless" because this is how Hollywood does it. Not adjusted for inflation. And why is that? Because otherwise they'd NEVER beat a movie from the 1930s. Ever.

      Movie with Adjusted Gross (Domestic Only)
      1. Gone with the Wind $1,430,476,000 1939
      2. Star Wars $1,261,086,700 1977
      6. Titanic $908,688,900 1997

      GWTW DOMESTIC gross is almost as much as Titanic's Worldwide unadjusted. And when Lucas re-releases the Star Wars 3-D versions (yes they're real), Star Wars will increase its numbers even more.

      -Pie
      • Fhwqhgads, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1>>>>>>> Because otherwise they'd NEVER beat a movie from the 1930s. Ever.

        So be it. It's not fair to say a new movie made more money than the old ones when the movie tickets are more expensive now.

        Go by number of admissions. That'll do it, no matter what the tickets cost.
    • meteorash, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2If ticket prices have gone up due to inflation, so has the cost of production. They should rather rank movies at the Box Office on profits rather than daily margins.
    • Fhwqhgads, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2They should go by number of tickets sold.
    • lebatte, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Why do people give a flying ***** about box-office sales as though it affects them somehow? Everybody turns from a filmgoer into an economist after they see the movie.
    • audrinacp, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Top 100 moments from Dark Knight in Pictures and Review -
      http://sunnysiteup.blogspot.com/2008/07/dark-knigh ...
    • TheUngod, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Remember you also have to account for the multiple viewings per person. With Titanic, many people who saw the movie saw it many times. It may have had less overall viewers with more total viewings. I'd like to think that The Dark Knight will have more total people who will see it, even if they don't go 12 times a piece.
  • subliminali, on 07/26/2008, -3/+347Nothing will ever beat the buying power of 14 year old girls with a serious crush on leonardo dicaprio. Nothing.
    • MrTwix, on 07/27/2008, -2/+119Well theres all the man crushes on Christian Bale....
      • Rodalli, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3I'd let him hit it, as long as he promises to do the sex poses from American Psycho during. Just sayin'.
    • jordanlgta, on 07/27/2008, -6/+28I just saw the film and dragged my mother along. It's my third time to see it. My brother came too. He's now seen it five times. We're doing our part. You do yours.
      • taffyhealscrowd, on 07/27/2008, -7/+14Why do you like the idea of them making money?
      • helikopter, on 07/27/2008, -8/+28"i'm throwing my money away. join me so i feel like less of an ass."
      • tattertech, on 07/27/2008, -9/+7How about you branch out and see some real cinema? There is a huge backlog of amazing films I bet you've never seen, yet you watch the same one over and over again at an inflated price compared to watch you could see it at in 5 months or so.
      • AlexanderCurtis, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3I'll probably see it again, but only to see the IMAX version. When I went to buy tickets for the IMAX showing it was sold out for 4 days straight already so I had to settle for the regular showing. After I see the IMAX version, next time I will see the movie is when it's released on DVD/Bluray.
      • TheMightyDane, on 07/27/2008, -3/+9You took your mom to the movies ?
      • qazwsx1298, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Because no 14 year old girls have serious crushes on Heath Ledger who is now also dead.
      • im2emo4myshrt, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Umm, any girl who had a crush on Heath Ledger would never want to see him as the joker.
    • acidity, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2Replied to EatingPie post below as its in better context.

    • Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2Not even the buying power of an entire species missing one of their own who was taken from them far too soon?

      (Note: I've seen the move three times. I would have seen it three times even if he was still alive just for his performace)
    • solfizz, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Except for all the 14 year-olds who are now in their mid 20s and loving Heath Ledger to death.
    • JasonCox, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2I think the majority of people who went to see Titantic 3 times (like I did) did it because it was about the RMS Titanic; not because DiCaprio was in it.
      • Seph7, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3...some things you should never admit to
      • RikkiTikki, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I saw it 5 times in theaters for Leo. So please don't speak for the majority.
    • audrinacp, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1See the Top 100 moments from Dark Knight in Pictures and Review -
      http://digg.com/movies/Top_100_moments_from_Dark_K ...
  • EatingPie, on 07/26/2008, -23/+188I would love Dark Knight to dethrone Titanic, but this is very difficult feat.

    Titanic opened to $28M. Based on this horrible performance, the movie was basically a flop in the US. However, the following week, Titanic made $35M... yes it went up! And for the next 14 weeks it bounced around between $20M to $30M per weekend... and it still ran in the multiple-millions for ANOTHER 10 weeks or more.

    I saw the movie THREE MONTHS after it opened, and it was sold out and I had to pick a later show!

    While The Dark Knight has set weekend records, it needs to keep making money -- lots of money -- for a long stretch of time (Titanic ran 6 months!)... and it still has to garner a HUGE international following (love story vs. dark comic book?) in order reach Titanic numbers.... $600 Million domestic, $1.2 Billion Foreign.

    I think it's certainly *possible*, but unlikely... still, I have my fingers crossed!

    -Pie
    • ippey, on 07/27/2008, -3/+20I blame Celine Dion.
    • t3hmyth, on 07/27/2008, -21/+176Don't sign your posts

      -Digg
      • mcottier, on 07/27/2008, -8/+40You must be new around here, Pie always does that. Nobody ever says anything, maybe because its only three letters?
      • MasterGrief, on 07/27/2008, -5/+9Yeah, if you sign posts, people remember you. I usually don't look at the username when I see a post, so when EatingPie signs his message "-Pie", I recognize it next time around. Now that I think of it, this is the first time I've ever recognized another user by their post on a front page article.

        Huh.
      • santaliqueur, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Hey you stole my line!
        http://www.neaveru.com/digg/stats/santaliqueur/max ...
      • DaHuuuuuudge, on 07/27/2008, -4/+27We stopped calling Pie out on that a long time ago. It's his thing.
      • MOJIRA, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4I'll forgive him just because he summed up what I wanted to say well.
      • acidity, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2@Mojira: Same here.

        In countries like India, where population is huge. people are still not used to sci-fi movies. Titanic was more family friendly and thus was hugely popular in India. I believe there was screenings in dubbed Hindi which makes a big difference.
    • akh4x0r, on 07/27/2008, -8/+2I like pie.
    • BrokenCircle, on 07/27/2008, -2/+24π
    • tech42er, on 07/27/2008, -4/+5TDK is also a pretty American movie, while Titanic was much more "international" or at least "European".
    • Tanktunker, on 07/27/2008, -2/+4The premiere showing here in Israel wasn't even sold out, that was pretty much the first time I had ever been to a premiere night showing and the movie hadn't sold out.
      Hell, most of the time the movie sells out for a week or two after it's released here.
      • ichbeineinrcg, on 07/27/2008, -3/+11I can no longer advocate for Israel's right to exist.
      • Risingashes, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4Death to Israel: Unappreciater of good movies.
      • CannedCorn, on 07/27/2008, -11/+4stupid jews?
    • p0ss, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3I am writing this from a lan cafe outside a movie theater, as i write, i am logging off to go see dark knight. It is STILL packed out, this thing aint stopping any time soon.
    • chroko, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8I saw "Titanic" on opening night. The theater was kinda dead. I didn't like the movie that much and was actually thinking that it was going to bomb at the box office.

      The next week (when I was back to see something else), people were lining up to get tickets for Titanic - and it sold out of all showings.

      It was very strange to see.
    • onux16, on 07/27/2008, -6/+0I think TDK might flop internationally. Don't get me wrong -- I absolutely love the movie and have seen it three times -- but I don't think voice dubbing could ever recreate what Ledger put into the character.
      • Tanktunker, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7They generally don't voice dub live action movies, just subtitles.
      • noreturn, on 07/27/2008, -3/+8Every time I read a comment like this, I think, "Americans really need to learn more about the world if they want people to stop calling them ignorant."
      • ricorodriguez, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2its not like foreign films are dubbed here in America anyway, not sure what you're trying to say
      • appleseed1234, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1What is he, the Second coming of Christ? Get over yourself.
    • 1337Guest, on 07/27/2008, -5/+0I can't believe people liked "Titanic." If you watched that movie you officially lost your balls.
      In other words:
      THAT MOVIE SUCKED.... DAMN.
      Even though the movie wasn't that great, Dark Knight deserves more money than that colossal crap pile that Titanic was.
      • BrokenCircle, on 07/27/2008, -1/+8You do not seem to remember what Titanic offered.

        Titanic allowed a teenage boy, BEFORE the widespread usage of THE INTERNET, to see Kate Winslet's ***** and 1000 immigrants and rich people drown / freeze to death (DiCaprio included) in the Atlantic ocean.
      • Rodalli, on 07/27/2008, -0/+5Those were some nice *****. Just sayin'.
      • pe5t1lence, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3Curse your Rocking *****!
    • BackEnThaWomb, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1Buried for signing your name.
  • tubaprodigy1192, on 07/26/2008, -8/+30Ta-daa!!
    • Inohavehalos, on 07/27/2008, -14/+5!!! YOU MADE THE PENCIL DISAPEAR!
  • MyDiggIsBig, on 07/26/2008, -18/+127so after i left the theatre, me and my new mexican batman buddy went out for some ice cream. I sat down at one of the tables when suddenly mexican batman got up and took off running. I thought that would be the last I ever saw of him. however, i look back at his seat and i see that he had left his "NEED TICKETS" sign behind. so i pick up up, and i notice it says something on the back. “NEED ARCH-NEMESIS.” At that point I realize that this two faced punk had tricked me. He was playing games with me. So I ran. I ran outside, and longbehold, he was standing in front of the theatre next to the hottttt girl. They were working together I assumed. They then went inside the theatre and went inside the bathroom. I waited outside and watch them come out. The mexican batman patched up his costume a bit and the hot girlllll came out in a Poison Ivy costume. I begin to feel sick. Not just because I was disgusted at the site of these traitors, but I actually began to really feel nautious. I then realize that I still had the red lipstick all over my mouth. At that point i realized that I was going to die. But I knew i wouldn't go without one last fight.

    So I mustered all my strength and headed into the next Dark Knight showing. Before I went in, I stopped by the vendors and stole a huge bucket a red slushy dye. I dragged it into the theatre and made my way to the very top of the seats, sitting right behind the phony mexican batman. I threw up a little in my mouth as I saw him and his slut making out. I looked up and saw the crowded theatre. I savored in the spine chilling atmosphere, the anticipation, and excitement. I stared into the loyal crowd, and I stood up on the back of the chair. I dumped the dye all over Mexican batman. He began to scream and flapped his arms as he dripped in bright red dye. I then leaped down in front of him and bit off his long fake bat ears. I tear off his mask and leave just a strip of fabric across his eyes. I then twist his nipples and hear him let out a squeal. Then I scream as loud as I can. “Robin is here!!!!!” The entire crowd lets out a ear piercing roar as they attack and tear Mexican robin to pieces. I stand alone, next to the poison ivy, former hotttttt girl. She looks at me. I look at her. I kiss her. We collapse on the ground. As I lay there dying I hear the crowd cheer. I lay there proud, knowing they were cheering because the Dark Knight was about to begin.
  • FasmTrout, on 07/27/2008, -8/+54Wow, what a quality article! Very in-depth and insightful. It wasn't short, pointless or ***** stupid at all!
  • clak, on 07/27/2008, -25/+5Yes, Joker was really great, but overall this movie was a total letdown.

    A few totally stupid things that killed this movie for me.

    *Spoilers*

    Joker blows up a freaking HOSPITAL in BROAD freaking DAYLIGHT and makes his escape in an ultra fast SCHOOL BUS, which no cop seems able to stop, even though they've been warned that Joker will, you know, blow up a hospital. You see, this is totally believable because the cops apparently set up a perimeter two freaking miles away, just to be safe. It's not like they could have used a helicopter or something for surveillance. That would just make too much sense. /sarcasm

    Batman falls several stories to the ground, not once, but TWICE and gets up without so much as a broken bone, but hey, that's okay because his super duper special armor, (which is so strong that a dog can chew through it) protected him from the fall. That's totally realistic! Right? What's that you say? The metal roof of the Taxi totally cushioned his fall. Well, that's even BETTER! How wonderfully realistic. If I ever have to jump out of a burning building it's nice to know that a kevlar vest and a strategically placed car will break my fall.

    Police Commissioner Gordon pretends to be dead so that Joker will chase after Harvey Dent instead of his family (huh?) and Joker proceeds to kill six innocent people in the middle of downtown Chicago, uh, Gotham City, but this is okay, because by drawing the Joker out, the police are protecting the public from harm. No reason to clear the streets of pedestrians and traffic and stuff while transporting Harvey Dent as bait for a sicko maniac killer.

    Joker manages to keep a pencil perfectly balanced on a table while a large gangster stomps across the floor to fight him. Cool, but stupid.

    Joker burns a pyramid of money, because you see, money is not important to him. What's important to him is blowing and burning stuff up, which is exactly why he robs banks for a living. Makes perfect sense, no?

    Batman speaks with an annoying rasp which hides his Bruce Wayne voice because as everyone knows, Christopher Nolan wants this to be a REALISTIC depiction of Batman, which is why we have sonar cell phones in this movie and magic armor and explosive laced Bat Mobiles that turn into motorcycles which do gravity defying 360 turns on walls.

    Other complaints: There was no Wayne Manor in this film. No Bat cave. Chicago looks a bit too bright and modern to be Gotham City. Seriously, what is Gotham City without, you know, Gothic architecture? The girl playing Rachel Dawes is completely ugly, but for some reason Bruce Wayne is so obsessed with her that he decides to have sex with the whole Gotham City ballet, just so she can't go on a date with Harvey Dent.

    I know lots of people got drawn into the hype of seeing Heath Ledger's last great performance, but besides Joker, there is no redeeming value in this film. There's no iconic battles. No real hero to root for (seriously, you will hate Batman in this movie).

    Christopher Nolan gets a special mention for trying to inject at least some intelligence into a summer blockbuster, but there was just one too many stupid things to justify the price of admission. If you haven't seen this film, just wait for it on DVD.
    • ippey, on 07/27/2008, -5/+9Forgetting the fact that you're watching a movie where a guy runs around fighting crime in a bat-costume, you're telling me that the "realism" of the movie bothered you?

      Guess some people just like to find things to complain about.
    • letmeshowyou, on 07/27/2008, -8/+0"seriously, you will hate Batman in this movie" Yes, it really seems like it so far, huh?

      It was a seriously entertaining and quality comic book film adaption, and hundreds of thousands of people think so too, it's just a certain few who have to give it a 0/10. Do you realise that no one takes critics like you seriously? How can we take you seriously when you call Maggie Gyllenhaal ugly in such a belligerent manner? You sir are plain and obviously a troll.
      • btschul, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1The dark knight was awesome, and most of clack's complaints are trivial or just plain incorrect, but he did get one thing right: Maggie Gillenhoweverthehellyouspellhername is ***** UGLY. She looks like a 50 year old woman who has had some of the wrinkles ironed out.
    • Typhoon2009, on 07/27/2008, -8/+3My friend, my friend...





      ...WHY SO SERIOUS?
    • xShifty, on 07/27/2008, -4/+0Swat van passenger = worst acting I've ever seen.
    • WeirdEdsel, on 07/27/2008, -1/+13"There was no Wayne Manor in this film. No Bat cave."

      Remember how in Batman Begins, Wayne Manor burns to the ***** ground? Yeah..

      To your other complaints:
      Meh.
    • btschul, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Just a few mistakes in your comment:
      He stabs the pencil through the tabletop of a fairly cheap looking folding table. Probably not that hard to do. Did you actually think he balanced it? Wow.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK80QKXHKZ8
      The schoolbus goes missing "remember the part where the cops can't account for 50 patients from the hospital), it is totally plausible that the joker hijacked it.

      He robs the bank to get the mobsters attention, so that they would take him seriously (serious....get it?).

      You are right about the cell phone thing, however. That was pretty stupid.
    • jcm267, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2I hate all of those comic book movies, but I did think that Heath Ledger's performance here was worth seeing once. It actually met the hype. The people who gave this movie a standing ovation at the Imax theater I saw this in were idiots.
    • card51short, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3i don't even watch movies...but Dark Knight was a good one. It was entertaining and Ledger was the man.
      Your reasons for not liking the movie are nitpicky and stupid.
      But, it's your opinion I guess.
      Only thing I didn't like is Batman's voice.
  • ehcropydoc, on 07/27/2008, -8/+1yep
  • cutekelvins, on 07/27/2008, -9/+1This movie is scary. It reminds me of how badly I was treated during my childhood. I shouldn't have watched it.
  • skoles, on 07/27/2008, -11/+4Alright. Enough.
  • tiggerdigger, on 07/27/2008, -15/+5people people people
    really?

    i mean the movie was good, but i personally thought iron man was better. and it will never dethrone titanic.
  • chkdg8, on 07/27/2008, -5/+7Read the first comment on here by subliminali. The "King of The World" will not be wrapped with the wings of a bat. Never. I would love for it to be true but Leo and Celine Dion were a little too busy this time around. Plus, piracy wasn't as big of a deal in 1997 as it is today.
    • stevealford, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Piracy doesn't negatively affect ticket sales, *****. If you're not interested enough or willing to pay 10 bucks to see it in a theater, you download it. If you enjoy the ***** cam version, you end up going to the theater to see it in a better scope or you stay home and continue watching the cam version til a dvdrip comes out. Either way, piracy only HELPS ticket sales (by getting downloaders who wouldn't have gone to the theater in the first place to go and see it on the big screen after they see the ***** version and realize that it's worth seeing in a theater), as can be illustrated by the MPAA's record ticket sales that continue to climb over the past several years.

      If piracy really hurts the box office, then why do ticket sales continually climb even as piracy becomes more prevalent? Don't worry, that was rhetorical. The numbers speak for themselves. You're a ***** idiot or a shill for the MPAA if you believe piracy hurts ticket sales. The only thing piracy affects is DVD sales. I won't argue that point, because it's true that piracy and the downloading and burning of dvdrips does indeed affect DVD sales numbers
      • TdiFFRob6876, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Agreed Piracy in my case helps to make a purchase by doing a form of sampling via p2p download then buying the license or ticket if I like it.
  • aekdbbop, on 07/27/2008, -12/+6and they say we are in a recession.. phh
    • gridbread, on 07/27/2008, -4/+6During hard economic times many seek escape in the form of entertainment.
      • aekdbbop, on 07/27/2008, -3/+2that's crap, i suppose the reason that Titanic grossed so much was because of the economic prosperity of the Clinton's huh? It sure as hell wasn't because it was a good movie..

      • hermmermferm, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3actually it aint crap, Gridbread knows what he's talking about, the Great Depression basically made the film industry (along with the invention of 'talkies').
    • santaliqueur, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5Nobody says that, because we're not in a recession yet.
  • crowbar77, on 07/27/2008, -18/+35Are you ***** kidding me.. Seriously this is getting ridiculous, who keeps digging this huffington spam? The whole frontpage is already filled with there "political coverage" (aka bash McCain, Obama is christ reborn), now they're branching out into movies?
    • daskro, on 07/27/2008, -1/+6It's going to keep on coming and it'll continue to make digg look like an easily manipulated website. Then again why is this surprising? 5% of digg users control most of the front page content. Web 2.0 is a joke.
    • CowboyBebop, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6I thought the same thing. And the reality is that this was only put up there to specifically drive traffic to the huffpo. Why else have an article from there that's not really from there but merely a link to the actual article itself.

      http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/amazing-dark ...

      I wish there was a way to filter articles from specific web sites from showing up on a user's front page of digg.
      • TheSuperunknown, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1-rawstory.com -huffingtonpost.com -flickr.com -metacafe.com -dailymail.co.uk -MrBabyMan

        What a wonderful world that would be...
    • BackEnThaWomb, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2their*
  • nynety, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1If it does, it would be well-deserved. It's nowhere near being one of the greatest movies ever, as imdb would suggest, but it's definitely one of the best big-budget blockbusters I've seen.
  • HappyScrappy, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2I think it's unlikely, given that this movie doesn't appeal to women very well. That cuts your market about in half.
    • CannedCorn, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Hi, I'm a dude, and the only reason i saw titanic was because i was sure i was getting my pepe wet after the show. Titanic was a chick flick.
      • HappyScrappy, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1See.

        You and your girlfriend (for the day at least) saw Titanic. That's 2 tickets sold.
        Is your girlie going to see The Dark Knight? My guess is no. That's 1 ticket sold.

        Plus, my father (age 58) and his wife saw Titanic. They're not going to see Dark Knight.

        Dark Knight is doing incredibly well with the crowd it's aimed at. But it'll saturate that market and ticket sales will fall off long before it matches Titanic on tickets sold. Depending on how ticket prices have changed since Titanic, it might be able to match Titanic based upon price inflation.
    • tau926, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0I would expect this movie to appeal more to women than Titanic did to men. And while I'm certainly not exactly an accurate representation of the average American female, I would most definitely rather watch the twisted plots and social commentary of a guy in makeup and a crazy suit than whatever it was that Leo DiCaprio did in Titanic.
    • NGliam, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I went to see The Dark Knight with 3 females, but, they wanted to see Mamma Mia.
  • gabrielbeug, on 07/27/2008, -4/+39Dark Knight + Huffington Post = Digg Orgasm!!
    • alaskanassassin, on 07/27/2008, -3/+6rofl

      buried as huff puff spam.
    • FearLess77, on 07/27/2008, -5/+10huffington post is worse then foxnews, i have it on adblock.
    • CountZepplin, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Diggasm?
  • nickbr00tality, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2I saw it twice...I liked it better the second time...
    That'd be cool if it dethrones Titanic.
  • jordanlgta, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2How do you become a bigwig?
  • AzraDarkness, on 07/27/2008, -14/+1WHY SO SERIOUS?????
  • DeFex, on 07/27/2008, -8/+3I hope not!
    It will take longer for it to come out on DVD so i can see what the big deal was about.
    • LuCiFer6, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Don't worry I don't think it's going to happen. What powered Titanic were mostly couples and those teenage girls seeing it over and over again.

      Also keep in mind that Titanic started off slow and was at the number 1 spot for 15 weeks before going to down to 2. Also it didn't open in the summer like TDK.

      Believe me I'm hoping that TDK is the movie that takes down Titanic but I just don't see it happening.
  • rob2oo4, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4Sink that ship! I much rather have a movie of this caliber take Titanic down
  • aresef, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6The film is still packing theaters. I was at a local place last night seeing it (again), and everybody was worried they'd sell out. A 900 seat theater, with $9 tickets, and people were worried they'd sell out. They very nearly did.
    • kinerry, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1try paying 20 quid in the UK and still having to wait a week
      • NGliam, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1What? 20 quid? What the ***** cinema are you visiting.

        Tickets are like.. 5 pound, or just over =/
      • aresef, on 07/28/2008, -0/+15 pounds? That's a really heavy ticket.

        :-p
  • Mononuclear, on 07/27/2008, -7/+5Major studios need to kill off more of their stars after filming. They will make much more money that way. They might even get away with not actually paying the stars.
  • fearlessfx, on 07/27/2008, -9/+7omg huffington post! fapfapfapfap
  • anachronaut, on 07/27/2008, -0/+7I think the MPAA is faking these numbers. Piracy killed their business, remember? They're just trying to put on a brave face and fool us into thinking otherwise.

    Have no fear, though. Congress is on their way to the rescue with drastic new IP/copyright laws so that Hollywood can once again make money and won't have to release fake numbers when movies like The Dark Knight flop badly due to everyone downloading illegal copies. I hope you thieves are happy, Christian Bale is probably eating out of a dumpster tonight.
  • cl0n3x, on 07/27/2008, -5/+11Are you ***** serious? WOW, barely a full paragraph and it gets to the front page. How about we digg the actual article instead of the one these assholes paraphrased from, posted on their site, and bought Diggs for, hmm?

    http://digg.com/celebrity/Batman_Killing_All_Movie ...
    • DrVonNugent, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2And somehow you're getting buried for your comment.....
    • tipexy, on 07/27/2008, -0/+3not by me he aint.
      I have jumped the sinking ship called digg and moved on to reddit. I just popped in for nostalgia. I came to digg after fark became too crap for words, now, it is time to move on again and strike new ground. Like Lee Marvin I was born under a wandering star.
      • cl0n3x, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2I'm currently in a Digg to Reddit conversion process. After viewing Reddit compared to Digg, Digg is becoming almost unbearable.
      • tipexy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1amen to that. I was made the fark/digg transition so long ago, people were still complaining about the demise of The Spark.
  • btschul, on 07/27/2008, -5/+5Holy *****. A huffington post article that isn't about obama? It must be shopped.
  • marson, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2So um, if I thought everything else Batman related was teh ghey will I not like this movie? Is this just a lot of hype or is it really that good? Please, non-fanboy replies only if any exist here on digg.
    • CannedCorn, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2your a ***** for not having seen it twice already
    • smashhell, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1dude, if it's just hype and no show, people would be bitching out here already.
      And do you see any of that here ?
      Don't think so.
  • reed311, on 07/27/2008, -4/+2Buried as spam. This is only the concern of the shareholders.
  • bross29, on 07/27/2008, -3/+8The Dark Knight was truly badass... and definitely really long like Titanic.
  • optoomistic, on 07/27/2008, -2/+7ill never let go
  • lava, on 07/27/2008, -3/+1You should have ended it at "sitting next to my mexican fake batman friend" in the earlier part of the story. That was good enough.
  • joltjake, on 07/27/2008, -2/+42"Dark Knight" to become the most submitted digg story ever?
    • timusca, on 07/27/2008, -0/+11It will NEVER beat the iPhone.
      • TheMightyDane, on 07/27/2008, -0/+6It will NEVER beat Kevin Rose doing some random *****..

        - or a cat looking funny..
    • FadeNoMore, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Windows vs Linux
  • appleseed1234, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4To me, it would be a sign that the 90s are truly dead.

    *long, hard sigh*
  • justiceape, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2Gone With the Wind FTW.
  • iDiggs, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Why So Serioussss? You Should put a smile on that face...
    • iDiggs, on 07/30/2008, -0/+0DARK KNIGHT BEST MOVIE EVER NO MOVIE WILL TOP THAT
  • ariez84, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Titanic had legs of a Nigerian; theres no way TDK would beat it in terms of total gross. I dont think anything in the next 2 decades would come close to Titanic, in fact if a film does beat it, it would be due to inflation.
    • HenvY, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2What kind of legs does a Nigerian have?
  • colosis, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3trust me, i wont beat Titanic.
  • robotto, on 07/27/2008, -2/+1the dark knight: cool title? check , using Digg for advertising? check, ah please stop this the movie way too overrated
  • Ronian12, on 07/27/2008, -3/+3I really hate all the Dark Knight articles that have been flooding digg lately, but after finding out that Titanic made more money...***** the Titanic, go Dark KNight. I'm going to buy 5 more tickets just to spite the Titanic movie.
  • heavystone, on 07/27/2008, -6/+3This is all mainly due to Ledgers death. The movie would never of been so massive as it is now if he had actually lived.
    • Schreck1, on 07/27/2008, -4/+4*****. If you know anything about movies, you'd know that everything in this movie, from the acting to the entire plot, screamed greatness.
      • kodax, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Alot of it is hype due to Ledger's death. The movie is ok but it is essentially a good crime drama that Nolan forced a superhero into. The batman character was unecessary for the film's theme or plot. Oldman and Eckhart alone would have made a better movie.
      • heavystone, on 07/27/2008, -2/+2Schreck1 you clearly don't know much about movies. Look up movies were the actor dies before it is released. Every one has a similar effect on the people. "Everyone" wants to see it.

        I am not saying TDK was bad, far from it. I loved the movie allot, and saw it 2 times on the premiere day. I am just pointing out it has gotten so much attention and news talk due to Ledger. Why people are digging me down for pointing this out is beyond me, but I guess that what you get when you try to point out a fact to kids that they don't want to realize.
    • Jkins019, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1You are claiming that because Heath Ledger DIED, this movie will make a lot of money. Yes that will be the reason, not the superb plot line and immersive story, or the 180 million dollars put into production, or hmm maybe Heath ledgers performance...have you even seen this movie?
    • LordSubtle, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1If ledger was alive right now the only thing that would be different is slightly less hype and slightly less media coverage. It would still blow everyone out of the water, his performance would still have everyone ***** bricks and it would still have made a ***** load of money. Every theater that had midnight showings sold out completely. Even if the 2/300 people who were there because ledger died didn't go, they still would have sold those seats and broken the records.
    • Schreck1, on 07/27/2008, -1/+1Heres what you don't seem to get; even if his death did get the movie more publicity, people aren't seeing it multiple times a day because of it. The movie is just that good. His death didn't make his Joker performance any better.
  • jstancom, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1I just got home from a showing tonight at 10:35, my second time. I got there a half hour before the show started and most of the seats were taken. I had to sit in the second row just to get a seat. The first time, I had to stand in line for a seat! This is crazy. I went the second time to watch The Watchmen trailer. I actually read The Watchmen this week because the trailer was so amazing. I hope it does the graphic novel justice!
  • Schreck1, on 07/27/2008, -2/+3What the hell is all the beef with the Titanic here?
    • frepnog, on 07/27/2008, -2/+0it is a mediocre movie that turned one of the great tragedies of all time into a stupid chick flick that made it seem if the whole voyage was simply so a woman could get out of marrying a man she really didn't love. By sinking the whole ***** boat. Oh and so she could ***** some guy she didn't know in a car.

      the movie just isn't THAT good. alot of people, me included, just don't understand how it made so much money.

      on the one hand, the movie is a testament to the fact that if you make a movie that women WANT to see, they will flock to the theaters to see it.

      on the other hand, it shows that filmmakers can feed women romance novel tripe and women will eat that ***** up. strange that no one has duplicated that success again.
    • happycat, on 07/27/2008, -0/+0The guys hate it because it made them cry at the end in front of their friends.
  • HaloZero, on 07/27/2008, -1/+5I'm calling bull only for the fact that Titanic was popular both INSIDE and OUTSIDE the US, which is why it raked up the money. Batman outside the US isn't that popular.
    • HenvY, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1Are you kidding? I can't remember this much hype about a film in the UK.
    • hebejebelus, on 07/27/2008, -0/+1What?

      I went to see it the other day. I didn't know there were enough people to fill a cinema in Ireland.
  • bleutuna, on 07/27/2008, -5/+5Titanic is the biggest piece of ***** ever.

    Horrible acting, trite and cliched love story, idiotic ending.

    Really, which one of us wouldn't have told her to scoot her juicy ass over and make room on that door? Dumbass film.
    • Jkins019, on 07/27/2008, -1/+2yes, but that's not really the point of this...never mind.
    • GorfTron, on 07/27/2008, -0/+2Titanic needed sharks at the end. Shark with lasers on their frakking heads.
  • Nutmegan, on 07/27/2008, -1/+4I dunno. Parts were gross, but it wasn't really the grossest movie EVER.
  • ShellShock11, on 07/27/2008, -1/+9Is this seriously the ***** Huffington Post?
    • cnot3, on 07/27/2008, -0/+4Obama must have played one of the extras in the dark knight.
  • nigdef, on 07/27/2008, -7/+2enough already it's a good film but it ain't that good....IRONMAN is so much better
  • FoxRacR17, on 07/27/2008, -1/+3Me and my girl just went to see it a second time tonight and people were STILL lining up waiting to see the movie. I freakin love it!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 80 of 80 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.