What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.256 Comments
- insomniac8400, on 07/21/2008, -18/+3071285 million?
250-35million = 215 million profit
180+215 million = 395 million
So if it takes in 395 million it beats Tim Burton's batman.
And in checking boxofficemojo, they are only talking about domestic takes and ignoring international.
Spiderman 3 earned $336,530,303 domestically, so if the new batman can make an extra 59 million, it will beat Tim Burton's version.
Titanic grossed 600 million, so 395 is certainly possible.
It sounds like a fan boy of the 89 batman is upset over the new movies success, this "profit margin" is a dumb metric. Because using it means a movie made on a 100 dollar video camera that sells 100 copies on the street for 10 bucks a piece is more successful than the 1989 batman. And the blair witch project would be the most successful project of all time despite only making 140 million. - axisdelasal, on 07/21/2008, -35/+141Stop Digging everything that has Dark Knight in its title
- Paal, on 07/21/2008, -2/+87since when did $$$ determine how good a movie is?
- ZebraGoat, on 07/21/2008, -15/+93I could care less about profits, the movie was awesome
- iCoty, on 07/21/2008, -10/+69The '89 Batman was playing last night on TNT (or TBS) and having just watched The Dark Knight I thought I sit and watch for a little while. It made me realize how awesome The Dark Knight really was.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/21/2008, -4/+53The title is misleading/inaccurate. (surprise surprise...)
The article (and description) states that Tim Burton's made 7x the cost of production, so that to beat that 1:7 ratio Dark Knight will need to make $1285mil. So even if Dark Knight is more profitable, it still doesn't beat the ratio. - ChristophyBrown, on 07/21/2008, -8/+49I will be buying the DVD when it comes out and probably see it once again in theatres. Just doing my part as a consumer, ya know.
- wiesel99, on 07/21/2008, -1/+32The real problem is the arguments over whether cost to profit ratio is a better way to determine success than profit minus cost.
In theory the profit ratio is more important, because it's the interest you gain on the $1 you invested. The '89 batman was a better investment than the dark knight in those terms.
But in sheer volume of profit obviously the current blockbuster is the victor. - jsully, on 07/21/2008, -3/+34Then you *couldn't* care less about profits.
- suriyou, on 07/21/2008, -5/+33It doesn't matter to me which movie makes the most money. The Dark Knight could make nothing and I'd still like it.
Also, Batman '89 is an awesome ***** movie. Nicholson and Ledger both play awesome Jokers, they're just different kinds of Jokers. I'm tired of everyone screaming at how Ledger blows Nicholson out of the water with this one. Sure, maybe he plays a Joker that is more to your liking, and maybe it is his time to shine as the Joker, but that doesn't make Nicholson's any less awesome, at least to me. I love how they both portray the Joker, they both rock.
/rant, prepares to be buried by rabid Ledger fanboys. - MarshalBanana, on 07/21/2008, -2/+30exactly. Look at Spider-man 3!
- Stemnin, on 07/21/2008, -4/+29I'm going to make this comment.. disappear!
- FrizzleyFry, on 07/21/2008, -5/+28Well, then I buried your comment cause it has "Da** Kn****" in it!
- 1longtime, on 07/21/2008, -1/+23warning: TimDigg's above comment has a spoiler.
- wwwonka, on 07/21/2008, -11/+31you know, let's just change DIGG.com to ARTICLESANDUSELESSFACTSABOUTTHEDARKKNIGHT.com, shall we?
- YancyFryJr, on 07/21/2008, -0/+17Raking in money is not a mark of quality. Case in point:
Wild Hogs. $30M to produce. $216M made.
Hmm. Sounds like Tim Allen deserves an Academy Award. - bgrah449, on 07/21/2008, -0/+17Insomniac, that's not true, because the studio has opportunity costs on the $145m it couldn't put into other projects. You would have to go back and look at what the studio did with that extra $145m, as well, to see how well the studio did with $180m in '89 and $180m in '08. Ignoring inflation.
- donnie0darko0, on 07/21/2008, -3/+18because great movies are judged by their profit margins
- GiJoeBob, on 07/21/2008, -4/+18Wow, who cares?!?!?!
- hauntedchippy, on 07/21/2008, -8/+21Burtons' Batman is still a classic piece of cinema (Batman Returns especially).
It's a little unfair to compare both versions side by side but it is entirely possible to enjoy them both without needing to favour one. - Crushkilla, on 07/21/2008, -14/+25Even if the faulty logic here was true, it wouldn't change the fact that 89 Batman was ***** compared to TDK.
- paintaddict, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11Thats why I hate trailers now, they reveal too damn much of the movie.
- DiscoLando, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12Adjustments for inflation should be taken into consideration before we continue with this conversation.
- whandsfield, on 07/21/2008, -2/+12Red Herring. Studios don't care about the profit margin as a percentage, only the net income. By your dumb standard, if I spent $10 to make a movie, and somehow managed to get $100 in income, I would be some sort of grand success superior to Tim Burton's Batman? No, no, no, the bottom line is how much you make in the end, the only thing the studios consider with bigger budgets is the added riskiness of not making back your money, so they are a bit more meticulous with those films.
I take nothing away from Tim Burton, whose dark vision of Batman ignited this franchise, but I think Chris Nolan has really done a terrific job with translating the vision of Frank Miller to the screen. - fzammetti, on 07/21/2008, -1/+11Speaking of math... I was on the Tower of Terror ride a few weeks back at Disney, and I noticed something... the flash a bunch of images at you throughout the ride meant to scare you... ghosts and such... but, they also flash E=MC^2 three separate times!
Proof that math is, in fact, scary! - cryonix, on 07/21/2008, -1/+10yeah TNT and TBS were both playing batman movies at the same time, one was playing the 89 version, the other... Batman and Robin. So yeah, I can guess which one everyone was watching.
- Futurejunior, on 07/21/2008, -2/+11These calculations must have been done with new math.
- tacojohn48, on 07/21/2008, -2/+11I think I need to stop reading this thread; I haven't seen it yet.
- Ajajadude, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8It was probably a building that was slated for demolition
- jeb4, on 07/21/2008, -2/+10Since when is a good movie defined by profit margins??? Nolan had a vision for the Dark Knight, and spending the extra money in production ended up being more than worth it IMO.
- hipnerd, on 07/21/2008, -0/+8As long as they are just talking about the ratio of cost-to-box-office, no need to adjust for inflation. Adjust the original's production costs upward, and then you'll need to adjust it's box-office take by the same amount. They cancel each other out.
On the other hand, if you are doing the net profit comparison some are advocating above, then adjusting for inflation is an excellent idea. - cnot3, on 07/21/2008, -6/+14I thought the dark knight was a pretty good movie, but a lot of people/fanboys have unjustified raging boners right now because it is doing so well. Its not the best movie ever made, not by a ***** long shot.
- hauntedchippy, on 07/21/2008, -3/+10Burtons' Batman was like watching someone's nightmare unfold. Not a single daylight scene. Still creeps me out.
- mrshickadance9, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8It's funny, because I never thought Ledger was a particularly great actor. The movies I saw him in didn't impress me very much. He was just another pretty face in Hollywood.
However, he was absolutely astounding in this film. I'm thinking about going to see it a second time because I cant get enough of his portrayal of the joker. Does this make him a great actor? maybe.
If someone is a Ledger fanboy, they need to get a life. - tylerbreton, on 07/21/2008, -1/+8Even if they break even this movie is a gigantic success. Screw the titanic.
- fourty_two, on 07/21/2008, -11/+18Better than the political / huffingtonpost diggs
- cph1, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7why must we always compare penis sizes?
- physicsguy, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Yeah, exactly. It's been near impossible to avoid all the hype on Digg over the last months. People were even talking like they had already seen it months ago. In my opinion, hype and trailers ruin movies. I remember when I saw the Matrix. Maybe I had just had my head in the sand, but I hadn't even heard of it before I saw it in the cinema. It was a great pleasant surprise. I understand that some marketing is needed to make people aware of films but I wish there wasn't as much.
- wc3452, on 07/21/2008, -2/+8First, the description is all wrong. That is Profit ratio, not margin. Margin is simply Revenue - Cost.
Second, Profit ratio is a terrible way of measuring whether an investment was good or not. Finance classes basically teach that the best way to measure investments is by margins. If I can make much more money with a higher initial investment, it makes no difference what the profit ratio is on a smaller investment. More money = better choice. - qwertycopter, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6Ice to see you!
- sysop073, on 07/21/2008, -1/+7Where in this article does it talk about how good the movie is?
- MRintheKeys, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6Batman: Mask of the Phantasm
- bgrah449, on 07/21/2008, -0/+6Good's a rather relative word
With diff'rent meanings, depending who heard
To some, it means funny
For execs, it means money
For me, it means ***** are preferred. - insomniac8400, on 07/21/2008, -1/+6Opportunity cost may not exist. They can back movies with loans if they can get a bank to sign off.
- vinceislegend, on 07/21/2008, -0/+5Ya know what Burton's Batman will never do though?
Be better than The Dark Knight. - PCGCentipede, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4That would make the button way too big
- rollem, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Depends on how you measure it. I think the best measure would be in inflation-adjusted net profits. True, it may not earn the billion+ dollars necessary to beat Tim Burton's percentage return, but as long as it makes $180-$35= $125 million (which may be closer to $200 million due to inflation) more than the older film, than the extra expense of this production will have been worth it.
- StudlyDego73, on 07/21/2008, -4/+8Why So Serious?
- robbob, on 07/21/2008, -0/+4Wow, someone is actually trying to balance through the hype
You won't find it here -
Show 51 - 100 of 258 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is