What is Digg?257 Comments
- MondoPest, on 07/24/2008, -4/+159Definitely enjoyed The Dark Knight a lot more than Titanic.
- DravenDakarr, on 07/25/2008, -7/+122Batman and Rachael did NOT free fall all the way down the building, apparently you didn't notice him deploy his Cape before hitting the bottom to slow their fall. And i remember seeing Bruce Wayne having several scars and injuries throughout the movie.
As for no Wayne Manor in the film, Alfred DID explain that Wayne Manor was being rebuilt as they spoke, as they mentioned it would be rebuilt in the previous movie. It wouldn't be very believable for it to have been completely rebuilt in the short time between films, nor could i see Bruce Wayne and Alfred Camping out at the Reconstruction site in a tent roasting marsh mellows over a camp fire. In the Batman Comics back in the 1970's Batman actually DID operate out of a downtown penthouse, with a safe house in the middle of the City as his Base of operations, as was depicted in the film as well.
As for the Shakey film, well for good or bad, this movie certainly isn't the only movie out there that uses a shakey cam while filming action sequences. And for being poorly lit, it was lit like that on purpose, Batman is a shadowy character and would NOT step out of the shadows and give up the cover of darkness, he's not Superman you know.
As for the Gothic Architecture, Nolan was going for a Realistic approach to the film, a Tim Burton-esque Gotham simply would NOT work in this film, and most of the Batman Comics do not Depict Gotham as it was shown by Burton either.
As for the Scarecrow, well he did manage to escape incarceration in the previous film, so seeing him captured at the beginning of this film did wrap up that loose end. And the Batman Impersonators were NOT his men, merely Copy Cats trying to crash the drug deal as well, as you would have KNOWN had you listened to the Copy Cat asking Batman what the difference was between him and Batman..Bruce Also stated this in the very next scene as well to Alfred about finding More Copy Cats, not to mention the Copy Cat explaining to the Joker what they were about in the interrogation scene before the Joker killed him. This was explained at least 3 times in the movie.
Well no wonder you think this is a crappy film, either you were sleeping or just not paying attention throughout the film and managed to completely miss the explanation for every little complaint you had about it...either that or you were watching and just lacked the attention span or intelligence to notice it. This probably explains your headache too, as your poor little brain was overloaded trying to make sense out of everything. - Falldog, on 07/25/2008, -3/+69Batman could easily take the iceberg in a fight.
- inactive, on 07/24/2008, -14/+63Holy crap I didn't realize Titanic was such a TITANIC SUCK-CESS.
I hope Dark Knight gets a billion. - atavena, on 07/24/2008, -8/+56People are never satisfied. TDK makes 18 million it's first night, well "it won't beat Burton's Batman by profit margin." TDK makes 200 Million in 5 days, well it won't beat Titantic. Whine whine whine. For the record though, Titantic sucks.
- darkchild82, on 07/24/2008, -0/+48I loved The Dark Knight and I'm seeing it for the second time in theatres tonight but I doubt it'll break Titanic's record. Titanic had far greater mass appeal and it was a film that really, anyone could have enjoyed. It was the only film at the time, when I, with my family went and saw it twice in the theatres. We weren't the only ones and I think this sort of appeal is what was behind the film's success. I doubt my mom will want to see The Dark Knight despite how much I might rave about it.
Now if only James Cameron would take a break from enjoying the gazillions he made with Titanic and just, at least come out with a teaser for 'Avatar'! - Cararan, on 07/24/2008, -6/+48I also enjoy enjoyed the The Dark Knight then Titanic.. But there is no way that it will beat Titanic....
- cinnie2218, on 07/24/2008, -2/+40The Dark Knight has the potential to beat Titantic...and I personally enjoyed The Dark Knight more than Titantic, but Titantic has the "historical value" of the story that attracts more than a niche crowd...I will be excited to see what happens
- mywhitenoise, on 07/25/2008, -1/+31"You could learn how to spell the name of the movie you're criticizing."
"The Dark Night won't beat it overall. " - joshuair, on 07/25/2008, -1/+26Not trying to be a dick here, but I was confused by your post at first. I thought your were defending the movie just for the ***** of it. If you're going to reply to someone, theres a link for that. Makes it much easier to follow the whole conversation. Props though on good D.
- EtherGnat, on 07/25/2008, -2/+27Actually Titanic doesn't even crack the top 5 if you adjust for inflation:
1 Gone with the Wind (1939).........................$1,430,476,000
2 Star Wars Fox (1977)................................$1,261,086,700
3 The Sound of Music (1965).........................$1,008,300,900
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)................$1,004,328,700
5 The Ten Commandments (1956)....................$927,480,000
6 Titanic (1997)..............................................$908,688,900
7 Jaws (1975)................................................$906,798,000
8 Doctor Zhivago (1965)..................................$878,879,000
9 The Exorcist (1973).....................................$782,826,200
10 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)....$771,720,000
Quite honestly I doubt anything will ever top Gone with the Wind. It played off and on for YEARS, something that just isn't possible today with home video. It might be more fair to compare box office + home video sales.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm - Noctem, on 07/25/2008, -0/+23I'm not sure I want to actually point this out, but that was Kate Winslet that got nude. She gets nude in lots of movies, though.
- Anth, on 07/25/2008, -0/+23I worked in a movie theater when titanic was released. The same 13 year old girls showed up EVERY WEEK to watch the movie. On top of that, it was in our 18-screen theater until May and it was released a week before Christmas - six full months. Tweens and young teen girls kept showing up to watch Leo DiCaprio drown. I didn't care because it was better than a bunch of rowdy teenaged guys but still. But how many times could they watch the movie?
- skittlebomb101, on 07/25/2008, -9/+31Titanic is the big winner.
TDK= Fiction-Obscene Violence-Weapons OF Mass Destruction-Numerous Committed Murders-Now Dead Guy- Great Score- Great Effects. It was a good movie. But all this will not appeal to the entire world.
Titanic= Fiction Love Story on the worlds most famous ship to ever exist. So much so that it was deemed unsinkable and it sank. Sank on its first journey across the Atlantic. Thousands died. Also the effects were great for that part in time. Tie all this together with an utmost excellent soundtrack/score and a tear jerking script and you got it all! - inactive, on 07/25/2008, -1/+22of course he's not superman, that was the major point of the movie. "I'm not the hero Gotham deserves, I'm the hero Gotham needs." The impersonators were there to fight scarecrow, the fight sequences were badass, and showing more bruce wayne is how the series is structured. And Gotham was more bright because now it has hope, hope in harvey dent. you sir are a dumbass.
- LocalDocal, on 07/25/2008, -2/+23I wonder if the fact that you got Scarlet Johansson and Kate Winslow mixed up is a clue that movie goers don't really care which actress gets naked, so long as an actress gets naked.
- disrupter, on 07/25/2008, -2/+22Are you like 9 years old?
- phyx726, on 07/25/2008, -0/+19Needs more Seal.
- sevvo, on 07/25/2008, -0/+17pwnd Well-played, suh!
- funk1999, on 07/25/2008, -1/+18You obviously did not have a girlfriend in 1997.
- Tsyndr, on 07/25/2008, -5/+22The problem with The Dark Knight beating Titanic is that Titanic with all it's sap, had girls watching the movie like 10 times! And a few of those times they'd drag their boyfriend with them. Even the most die hard Dark Knight fans will probably only pay to see this 2 or 3 times. That's how Titanic managed to stay at the top so long. I fear The Dark Knight won't be able to stay at the top long enough to reach the $600M mark, but I'd like to be wrong.
- GreatSunJester, on 07/25/2008, -3/+19Ugh... just had this image (and had to share the pain) of Batman standing on the hood of the tumbler, holding Catwoman up with her arms outstretched...
- freebird09, on 07/25/2008, -1/+16Joker > Iceberg
TDK clearly has the better villain. ;) - PueSi, on 07/25/2008, -0/+15Don't forget Kate Winslet's breasts.
- sandersdamnit, on 07/25/2008, -8/+21Titanic is the big winner because a bunch of thirteen year-old girls went to go see it ***** ten times a piece, otherwise the acting was terrible and it was too long other than that the special effects were pretty cool but I'm sorry the ***** Dark Knight doesn't have Celine Dion song so it ***** wins hands down just because of that alone, not to mention it is amazing from start to finish.
- AmyVernon, on 07/25/2008, -7/+20never saw Titanic, never have the desire to...
- EtherGnat, on 07/25/2008, -0/+12The BoxOfficeMojo site lists studios. I edited them out for clarity, and apparently I missed one.
- ConceptualTrap, on 07/25/2008, -1/+13I propose an IQ requirement to use the internet. Who's with me?
- swingerbone, on 07/25/2008, -1/+12two reasons to see Titanic: Kate Winslet's boobs
- cresswga, on 07/25/2008, -4/+15Titanic was hyped? As opposed to all of the "Heath Ledger should get an Oscar" hype before the movie even came out?
Truth was that Titanic was not hyped. With all of the problems on set (PCP laced food, budget over runs, Jim Cameron being Jim Cameron) everyone thought Titanic would flop.
It did not open that big but stayed open and kept drawing people to see it. - Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/25/2008, -4/+14You, sir, have just failed. Completely. Everything you said was either false or discredited by the fact that Nolan is making a realistic Batman meant to be set in a realistic time and city.
I congratulate you on your incompetence. - ConceptualTrap, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11Seriously? I'll take Maggie Gyllenhal over Katie Holmes any day of the ***** week.
- ravithepimp, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9It's the one where Luke does the barrel roll.
- Apocalyptic0n3, on 07/25/2008, -0/+9Dugg for the last sentence of your comment. It needs to happen.
- ohnoitstaylor, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11I know late teen to middle aged dudes that will go see The Dark Knight 30+ times.
- laughandsing, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11The two movies aren't even comparable.
- VigRoco, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11We all know that if it did claim that ultimate movie record, that would be completely awesome to have the top grossing movie of all time be about Batman. But let's be reasonable, The movie was extremely dark, which will probably not allow it to climb that high.
However, we can always hope. Let's all commit to seeing this movie at least four times in the theaters! - allodude, on 07/25/2008, -2/+11What the hell is Star Wars Fox...
- rblancarte, on 07/25/2008, -1/+9Based on what metric are you basing all of this on? I am just curious?
What Titanic did was do what few movies could do - increase as time went on. It's biggest 3 weekends were in order 6th, 5th and 3rd (it's 11th week was it's 5th biggest). It also was able to sustain over a long period of time, being in theaters for 33+ weeks.
What the Dark Knight has done is make a huge splash early. It is very safe to say that this weekend it will pass the $300 Million mark (that is with only half of last week's number).
The 50% fall you predict is where I have to question your guess. Because the numbers don't show that it will fall 50% (from last weekend), more like 20-30%. Movies make a big rebound from the weekly numbers, and DK is putting up monster weekly numbers. I figure that 80% will be closer.
If DK comes out of this weekend with a $350 Million number, I don't think Titanic's $600 Million would be out of reach. With the numbers we are seeing, DK could be around $450 by the end of next weekend. - aserer511, on 07/25/2008, -0/+8...Are you serious? Dark Knight's screenplay (better than the acting) was superb
- shutaro, on 07/25/2008, -2/+10Well played... I find your argument both eloquent and compelling. There is, indeed, no way any sane individual can rationally compare something as awesome as the Dark Knight to something as gay as Titanic. Modern science simply will not allow for it.
- ConceptualTrap, on 07/25/2008, -1/+8Titanic is a great film. It's a tad sappy and doesn't deserve the mass amounts of hype it got but it's a solid movie and something Cameron can be proud of having on his resume even from an artistic perspective.
- swingerbone, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7that's why he said "more than a niche crowd" in regards to Titanic...
- faceless323, on 07/25/2008, -1/+8@LocalDocal
Who the hell is Kate Winslow? I'm sure you meant Winslet. - SupaDawg, on 07/25/2008, -1/+8How about adjusting for inflation? Which would push things up to around $800m of todays dollars, and it's almost an absolute certainty that TDK has no chance whatsoever of beating those Titanic numbers.
- rblancarte, on 07/25/2008, -0/+7Where TDK has a major advantage is that it is about to crush all metrics for fastest to X.
Tied 1st fastest to $100 Million (tied w/ Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest).
Fastest to $200 Million (5 days, 3 faster than Pirates)
It SHOULD break the Fastest to $300 Million by Sunday, which would be day 10, beating Pirates by 6 days.
I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that TDK could hit $400 Million by NEXT weekend, shattering Shrek 2's mark by around 25 days (Shrek 2 took 43 days to hit $400 Million).
The real key is going to be how TDK sustains after the initial hit happens.
One thing to realize is that most people will want to see TDK for Ledger's final performance, which is being so highly talked about. That will count for a lot - wampastompa, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6Inaccurate comparison, the industry isn't what it used to be.
For example, in today's industry there are several big budget Hollywood movies released each and every week. This is why the opening weekend gross makes up such a large percentage of the overall box office, we simply have more variety. Home video is also a huge factor, there's very little reason to repeatedly view the same movie when it will be in stores or at the Blockbuster shortly after it completes it's six month run in theaters.
Compare that to the thirties and forties where a new movie wasn't released each and every week, and the big budget films were very few and far between. It wasn't uncommon for a movie house to only have one screen, or at most only a few. If you wanted to see Gone with the Wind you had to see it in theaters, and if you didn't, too bad it's the only thing playing near you. It sold an astounding number of tickets for sure, but it's theatrical run remained profitable for years due to the lack of an affordable home video format.
No movie released in this modern age of cinema has even a remote chance of competing with the numbers of films from that era when adjusted for inflation. That comparison detracts from the huge financial successes of films such as Titanic and LOTR achieved both domestically and worldwide. I'm not a rabid fanboy or anything but I believe films that put up Titanic numbers in a saturated marketplace, in the era of home media deserve the recognition, regardless of quality. - nevetssav, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6I haven't decided what's worse: the comment, or the +5 diggs.
- bknoll22, on 07/25/2008, -0/+6Thats what he said...read closer
-
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