That was my point, he doesn't in BB (or the original comics), someone else does. When and if the Joker gets introduced in this series his story will be different.
Looking at BB's opening day numbers, it better get some legs that most of it's comic brethren haven't or there might not be a sequel or rather the sequels will be decidedly different in tone (think much lighter) unless the DVD revenues are really huge.
As MBE says,all of the other Batman movies exist in an alternate universe--like the ones featuring different actors playing Dracula and Sherlock Holmes.Not everything has to be part of a grand saga.
Batman Begins starts a new series independent of what came before, with no ties to the past.This is a new and considerably more faithful interpretation of Batman than any of the previous movies have ever offered.I've been a Batman fan for a long time and I'm happy to see this taking place.For all of their style,Tim Burton's movies were (and always will be) about Tim Burton, and his Batman movies featured weak storylines and miscast actors.He'd even said in interviews while he was making his Batman movies that he "loathed" Batman-and it shows.Joel Schumacher's movies are all about set design and elaborate costumes. Both directors (and their screenwriters) gave disproportionate amounts of time to the villains,rendering Batman little more than a secondary character.There were characters called "Batman" in them, but he wasn't the real thing.In fact,sometimes all Batman was was a rubber suit.
I honestly think that's wrong, because when handled correctly --by people who really care--Batman is easily one of the most memorable of all the costumed heroes.He's a detective with an intellect that rivals Sherlock Holmes and a modis operandi influenced by Zorro and The Scarlet Pimpernel(indolent playboy by day-costumed avenger by night).This is incredibly dramatic stuff but until recently it was pretty much ignored in favor of gaudily costumed performers practically winking into the cameras as they overacted.
But Christopher Nolan and David Goyer got right.With Christian Bale they found an actor who LOOKS like Bruce Wayne and in this movie they told Wayne's story."The origin of the Batman and how he came to be"(to quote Bill Finger,Batman's cocreator and original scripter).Finally,after five attempts, the real Batman has come to the screen.Only the animated Batman tv series (of the 1980s)by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, rivals Batman Begins for respect and fidelity to the character.
See now, I thought the end was suggesting this was a prequel. I guess it could go the other way as well though...
My questions is how do we know this Batman is in an alternate universe...did they actually say that?
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
All I know is....
this movie sets things up for things to come. At the end we see the Joker card, hinting that either the Joker is the next villian, or Tim Burtons movie is the next in the series. Which can set up the next movie for Nolan. Remember, scarecrow escaped.
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
Looking at BB's opening day numbers, it better get some legs that most of it's comic brethren haven't or there might not be a sequel or rather the sequels will be decidedly different in tone (think much lighter) unless the DVD revenues are really huge.
MBE! Sorry, but I have to ask what is it with you and box-office records? Why do you keep looking at those? What do they exactly tell you about the movie's quality? Just wondering... 8-)
Well, unfortunately, it´s a big business. So, it doesn´t matter if the movie is good or not, if it doesn´t make money - and fast, it will have a tough time seeing the sequel light. That´s all MBE was saying: a fact.
Well, unfortunately, it´s a big business. So, it doesn´t matter if the movie is good or not, if it doesn´t make money - and fast, it will have a tough time seeing the sequel light. That´s all MBE was saying: a fact.
Bingo. Box office is by far not an indicator of quality but it's a big indicator of what studios will try to make next. If Catwoman was profitable it would have had sequels and it wouldn't matter how many Razzies it won. MGM pulled the plug on Jinx when it saw that other recent female driven action films weren't making enough to risk and justify the cost. They didn't do it out of artistic concerns for Bond. As that article just linked to points out they stopped making Batman films 8 years ago beause they stopped making enough money, not becasue they were embarassed by how bad they were.
As for BB's numbers being lower than expected yes really. That weekend prediction was off by 20-25%. This is a typically front loaded genre that traditionally performs better in the U.S. than overseas. BB needs to buck that trend and show legs to outperform most of it's predecessors and that will be hard because it has two weeks to make money before War of the Worlds.
As to what's ideal, depends on who's spin and when they're spinning it. Looking at history:
Previous Batman Numbers from Box Office Mojo:
U.S. Total/U.S. Opening Weekend (theaters) /Worldwide
Batman Returns: (1992)
U.S. $162,831,698/$45,687,711 (2,644 theaters)
Worldwide: $266,831,698
(Note the drop and then the change in tone from Burton's Batman's to Shumaker's camp fests)
Batman Forever (1995):
U.S. $184,031,112/$52,784,433(2,201 theaters)
Worldwide: $336,531,112
Batman and Robin: (1997)
U.S.: $107,325,195/$42,872,605(2,942 theaters)
Worldwide: $238,207,122
(The B.O. drops heavily again under the weight of too much camp and badness-- look at those short legs --and there's a long rest)
Batman Begins (2005)
U.S.(Wed-Fri) $39m (3,858 theaters)
(Fri-Sun projected): $45-50m for
(Wed-Sun 5 day Projection: $69-74m
With the budget, marketing and history of previous Batman films they were probably hoping for more than X-Men 2 numbers about $220-250m U.S. Right now they'd be probably be thrilled with $180m. Not happy that their 2005 film made less in the theater than their 1995 (unadjusted for inflation) film but hopeful it will make more after DVDs.
For the record, my favorite film this year was "Kung Fu Hustle" -- a bomb in the U.S. Luckily for it and me it doesn't need the U.S. to make tons of money and there will be a sequal and Stephen Chow will still be allowed to be brilliant and that's what really matters.
Well, I saw Batman, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins within the past few days, and believe it or not, I think Begins may be the best one (I don't count Forever or Robin). It "felt" exactly how I thought it would, but as far as quality, it definitely exceeded my already high expectations. The story was spot-on for what it should be, the tone was perfect, and the acting was great. Definitely worth seeing.
No good. The guys who do it best is those that did - Stan Lee, Frank Miller... the best characters. No point making new ones, they've all been done. Have Batman versus a Spidey villain.
Were there no more Batman baddies?
That would be waaay too hard to put together since we're talking about two different "universes". There's a chance with BB and with the upcoming Superman movie that DC Comics might get some legs under them in the film industry. I see little chance of DC giving Marvel a boost to its own franchises, and Spidey fans would probably be livid to see Webhead's trademark villians trading blows with anyone other than Spiderman.
And there's talk about BB de-throning Spiderman 2 as the best superhero movie. Having seen BB today, I disagree. It was definitely the best Batman movie, and maybe even #2 IMO, but for me Spiderman 2 still reigns in the comic book adaptations.
The resetting of a comic book univerise is a very common practice, infact Batman's world has changed countless number of times since 1939. case in point, Year One changes a lot of Bob Kanes origin story, but it is still fantasic. Do not veiw this as a perquel or even a new story but a reset. We are starting from scratch. On this note what villians would you like to see redone? I would love to see Bane, not the yellow gimp from the inert gas that was Batman and Robin, but the brilliant cunning warrior who broke Batmans back and came the closest of all the villians to killing him.
On this note what villians would you like to see redone?
As I mentioned earlier, Two-Face. He has two conflicting personalities... Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face had only one, and that was an exact copy of the Joker.
Might well have been talked about already but this is a huge thread...
So is this going to be a new series of Batman films re-doing it all? Because I was wondering why they had some random homeless guy kill his parents and not Jack Napier?? Does anyone know who killed his parents in the original comic? I always thought it was Napier.
Yes.This film marks the start of an all-new series with a greater concentration on the Batman character as opposed to highlighting the villains only.Among other things as the series progresses we'll see Jim Gordon move up through the ranks to become the police Commisioner.According to some reports the intended style of these newer films will be closer to those of the more serious James Bond movies--not hard to do since Bruce Wayne and the cinematic 007 aren't too far apart.
The Joker didn't kill the Waynes in the comics--it was alway Joe Chill, a meaningless thug.The Wayne's deaths were pointless--a random act of violence.And The Joker doesn't have a real name--however screenwriter Sam Hamm provided him with the "Jack Napier" monicker for the 1989 Batman movie.
And please look over some of this thread's previous posts.You might find some interesting and enlightening comments among them.:)
Than what's ideal for a movie like Batman Begins? ?:)
I´d have to say - considering the production budget + marketing costs - at least $200 million in domestic box office.
The only reason I pay attention to the numbers is because I loved BB and want Nolan and Goyer to make their planned trilogy. That´s all. It looks like it might struggle to reach the mark, but of course, that says nothing about the movie. Had this been released in 1989, it would have made just as much as Tim Burton´s movie, maybe more.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I FINALLY saw it on IMAX, and I loved it! It could've been because of the subwoofers and the 12000 watts of speaker power, but I felt that I would've loved it anyway. It was great to see characters from the books, like Flass, even though he is a tall, fit, blond man in the comics.
Than what's ideal for a movie like Batman Begins? ?:)
I´d have to say - considering the production budget + marketing costs - at least $200 million in domestic box office.
The only reason I pay attention to the numbers is because I loved BB and want Nolan and Goyer to make their planned trilogy. That´s all. It looks like it might struggle to reach the mark, but of course, that says nothing about the movie. Had this been released in 1989, it would have made just as much as Tim Burton´s movie, maybe more.
======================================
Full agreement here.It's good to remember that in 1989 ticket prices were cheaper(about half what they are today)and motion picture going was more popular with the general public compared to 2005.Home video hadn't developed to the point it is today.Also that the 1989 "Batman" film was long-awaited-- having been first announced in 1979 after Superman's success.And studios didn't always release their big movies on Fridays in order to get the first weekend numbers at that time.
"Batman Begins" was long-awaited too,especially by the diehard Batman fans who'd been disappointed by the quality of the other films.Probably no one among the execs at Warners thought that "Batman Begins" would somehow overtake the final Star Wars movie--a film many audience members had been waiting to see since "The Empire Strikes Back" premiered.I'm hopeful Warners will be patient andstay the course with the new Batman films and complete the trilogy David Goyer and Chris Nolan have planned.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
A couple of you have spoken of a planned triology. Is there any details of what villians will be in this triology?
Some people would complain even if you hang them with a new rope
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
I assume the Joker, since the movie ended with a hint of him.
Mr MartiniThat nice house in the sky.Posts: 2,707MI6 Agent
A couple of you have spoken of a planned triology. Is there any details of what villians will be in this triology?
It is said that they plan to have The Joker(which pretty much you can see now) and have Harvey Dent along the way. It was also said that when the dreaded Catwoman came out with not much to do with the comics besides the name that they were going to save the Catwoman from the Batman comics for a later Batman movie.
Well, I guess the Bats has legs--for the second straight week Batman Begins was #1 at the box office, but for the eighteenth straight week, total box office revenues are far below those of last year. I've excerpted some pertinent information below; otherwise, you can read the entire article on MSNBC:
‘Batman’ flies away with box office, but Hollywood sinks to lowest ever modern slump
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:10 p.m. ET June 26, 2005
LOS ANGELES - “Batman Begins” took in $26.8 million to remain the top movie for the second straight weekend, but it could not keep Hollywood from sinking to its longest modern box-office slump.
Overall business tumbled despite a rush of familiar new titles — “Bewitched,” a “Love Bug” update and the latest zombie tale from director George Romero.
Revenues for the top 12 movies came in at $116.5 million, down 16 percent from the same weekend last year, when “Fahrenheit 9/11” opened as the top movie with $23.9 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.
It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.
“Batman” lifted its 12-day total to $121.7 million.
Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.
If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.
Even with a big Fourth of July weekend expected from Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise’s “War of the Worlds,” which opens Wednesday, Hollywood still may not snap its losing streak. Over the same weekend last year, “Spider-Man 2” pulled in $180 million in its first six days, leading the industry to a record Fourth of July.
Now over to MBE, who'll really crunch these numbers!
Here's something that ties in with the ongoing conversation:
Adults still go the movies,but opening weekend?Forget it
Commentary by Anne Thompson-Entertainment News Wire 26/6/2005
Let's debunk a popular theory:Grown-ups don't go to the movies.
Truth is,they still go.Ray,Million Dollar Baby,Shall We Dance?,all played primarily to adults.And movies like Ray and Million Dollar Baby earned their audiences the old-fashioned way:They took their time.
But Cinderella Man,the most recent film to attempt to court the older than 35 crowd,is finding that time is a luxury it might not have anymore.Ron Howard's earnest Depression-Era boxing drama might have looked like a slam-dunk.Initial audiences liked what they saw,with the film winning a 99 percent "excellent" rating from Cinemascore and an 83 percent "fresh" rating from the Internet review site rottentomatoes.com.
But exit polls told a further part of the story:Fully 50 percent of the Cinderella Man audience was older than 50.That's a serious drawback for a movie that cost some $88 million to make and another $40 million to release because this group can't be counted on to rush to theaters on a movies's first weekend.
Cinderella Man opened on over 2,800 screens to $18.6 million,landing in fourth place,and fell to 46.8 percent on the second weekend.
Releasing a high-profile movie for mature moviegoers at the height of summer,was not a brilliant move."The farther away you get from age 35,the more difficult,"one marketer says."While the appetite for those films is there all year round,adults don't feel that sense of urgency to see the film.It's crowded,they wait to see it later."
Universal Pictures is now counting on DVDs to salvage Cinderella Man.Come late Fall,when star Russell Crowe's anger issues will have faded from the public's memory,Universal Studios Home Entertainment will stage a well-funded comeback for the drama(which has grossed about $43 million to date),aimed at DVD buyers and Oscar voters.
When it comes to DVD consumers,the studios are confident that if they build a strong adult movie,the audience will come.That feeling does not extend to theatergoers.
For that,the studios have only themselves to blame.They're driving that ever-loyal viewer home to watch HBO or DVDs by not keeping the movie-going habit going with movies aimed at adults.
"The movie business is pushing them away,"says producer Sean Daniel,"making them look for other things,like renting all the seasons of 'Six Feet Under'."
Since the dawn of Hollywood,a wide swath of the American public counted themselves among the faithful frequent moviegoers.Through the late 1970s,that throng was dominated by adults.Movie critics wrote their reviews for adults.TV,radio and print ads were targeted at adults.Movies were constructed for adults.There were always "youth market" movies but they were always ancillary.
Then came the wide-audience marketing revolution.With each succeeding decade,the Hollywood studios,driven by the relative ease of selling their movies to the dominant demographic(young men under 25)that showed up on opening weekends,increasingly aimed their movies at less demanding kids.Slowly but surely,they decreased the number of movies for more discerning grown-ups,leaving that headache to the likes of Miramax Films' Harvey and Bob Weinstein who specialized in building the drumbeat of year-end accolades that accompanies an Oscar campaign.
When the studios produce movies that adults might enjoy,like The Bourne Identity,Seabiscut or Gladiator,they try to make sure that the younger demo will like them,too.It has become rare to greenlight a big-budget studio motion picture aimed squarely at the over-30 set.
But the studios that take that gamble often score.Fried Green Tomatoes,Driving Miss Daisy,Cocoon,The First Wives Club,Training Day,Grumpy Old Men,The Truman Show and Braveheart,all come to mind along with a laundry list of Clint Eastwood movies.
But these movies were each surprise breakouts;they did not start out as summer tentpoles or wear their self-importance on their sleeve.They had time to earn word-of-mouth and media attention.
The real trick for these movies is to give them enough time to grow legs(Not the studios' strong suit).Take Crash,which has g\earned $46 million for Lions Gate Films since it opened on May 6 from 1,000 screens.It is scoring with the same cinemagoers that love Cinderella Man,but with a fraction of Cinderella Man''s print and ad costs.That means that it can afford to hang in for the long haul--even during the summer.It's playing and playing and playing,much the way Sideways did last year.That movie cost $16 million and grossed $71.5 million in North America.
Obviously,Cinderella Man is a different species.It's an A list top-of-the-line studio picture from Imagine Entertainment,the Tiffany production label on the Universal lot.It's from the so-called,"Fab Four" who brought you A Beautiful Mind;Howard,Crowe,producer Brian Grazer and writer Akiva Goldsman.This means that Cinderella Man can't afford to be modest about anything-budget,star,marketing campaign,release,PR and expectations.No wonder one of the best actors of our time lost his temper when he failed to deliver a $30 million weekend.
As more and more people settle into the Netflix habit,the studios might regret letting that sophisticated audience slip away.They need people to go to theaters to establish their titles in the first place.The audience that can't be counted on to stay loyal is playing with videogames and computers and cell phones.The younger demo could lose the moviegoing habit.
That's when the movie business will need adults again.If they haven't already fallen in love with their fancy home entertainment centers.
Hollywood has a lot of learning to do. And there are many factors that have cumulatively supported a box office slump. I'm one of those adults who really don't go to opening weekends anymore for a few reasons
1) I tend to lose a lot of faith that the film is going to be any good. I'm so often disappointed that I try to get some decent reviews first to find out what I'm stepping into.
2) Admission price. Theatres continue to raise prices but I still fail to see where that money goes. The cinema owners are lucky to make a profit from the concessions (and the popcorn is the one thing you can count on to be good) but ticket costs rise while quality, it seems, declines. It's not that I can't afford to go to the movies. It's simply that it begins reaching the point where I say "Is it really worth the $9 - $10 to see it?"
People with families are another matter. To take a family of four to the show, be prepared to drop about $50.
3) Lastly is the atmosphere. Perhaps its my age, but I tend to get irritated at the behaviour of fellow movie-goers, whose manners I find distracting and detracting from the movie-watching experience. More and more I start thinking "I'd rather watch this at home where I can get more out of it."
Batman, however, was an exception. I heard a lot of good reviews early on, and I was in a frame of mind to see a good old-fashioned blockbuster. And since the movie was so incredibly loud, I couldn't hear other folks behind me chatting away.
WG, that post struck me as downright eerie--I'm over 35 and saw Cinderella Man a couple of weeks ago (liked it very much, but not as much as did my 74-year-old father); and just yesterday I made a 50-mile trek to see Crash, which was well worth the time and money. What appealed to me about these films is that they are indeed for adults, and I could say the same thing for Batman Begins. In fact, Ebert and Roeper were recently on Jay Leno, and Roger Ebert mentioned that people have written to him saying they didn't like BB because there's "nothing in it for the kids." (Thank God for that--there are only so many fart jokes a man can take.)
I'm also in agreement with darenhat. I love going to the movies, but the experience has become such a drag. Even during yesterday's screening of Crash, an old couple was behind me, commenting on the movie--"Oh, that must be so-and-so," etc.--throughout. The experience of seeing a terrific film with an audience can be downright electrifying, but too often the theaters and the crowds are the pits.
Interestingly, when box office revenues declined in the 1950s owing to television, movie studios and theater owners went to new lengths to bring people back to the movies--CinemaScope, 3-D, novel effects in the theaters such as "The Tingler," and so on. Cheesy stuff, but at least they cared. In my opinion, studios and theater chains need to make similar efforts today. I'm very happy I went to see Batman Begins--and Star Wars III, Crash, and Cinderella Man for that matter--but wouldn't it be great if I could have come out of these movies feeling 100% satisfied by the experience and not thinking, "Great movie--I can't wait for the DVD!"?
3) Lastly is the atmosphere. Perhaps its my age, but I tend to get irritated at the behaviour of fellow movie-goers, whose manners I find distracting and detracting from the movie-watching experience. More and more I start thinking "I'd rather watch this at home where I can get more out of it."
This is probably the biggest problem. Theaters can fix any and all problems (seats, projection, prices, ads, etc), and current movies can be of higher quality, but there will always be rude patrons, which can ruin the enjoyment of any good movie.
In a recent visit to the theater, some idiot rested his legs on the seat in front. I´m sorry, I don´t wanna watch a movie with someone´s feet on my left, you know? We´ve all also met the commentators, who apparently need to speak aloud their thoughts.
Why was I not surprised to see 5 and 6 year olds when I saw Batman Begins? There will always be parents who don´t take the time to do a little research. BB is NOT a kids movie! When they lose interest, what do they do? They start talking and complaining and asking questions, and, of course, they´ll kick the back of your seat.
Well I am glad to see that Batman Begins does indeed have a decent pair of MBE's famous legs, since it has thus far made $126.5 million domestic and $84.6 million overseas. It has therefore comfortably surpassed its $150 million budget internationally, although I know studios expect a movie to cover its costs domestically - which Begins will probably do anyway.
As for BB's numbers being lower than expected yes really.
Perhaps I should have explained rather than leave a one word post. MBE is absolutely right - movies are a money business. Those involved creatively may do so for our enjoyment but studio execs understandably do not. A film has to make money - period. However, my point was that while Begins opening numbers were not overly impressive I was disagreeing with your suggestion that there might be no sequels or that there might be an altogether lighter tone as a result of 'disappointing' box office returns.
It was a brave decision for Warners' to go with Christopher Nolan and they appear to be more than willing to follow through on his vision (which I salute them for as a Batfan). The film has hardly been a flop: its five-day international haul eclipsed its Batman predecessors and good reviews and positive word-of-mouth will probably contribute to Begins sticking about for quite a while. Its no Spiderman - a character with wider kiddie appeal - however it is undoubtedly a hit. On the basis of its success there will be no need for "really huge" DVD sales; indeed a sequel was pretty much confirmed a week ago and Christopher Nolan is interested in helming number two. Warners' head of distribution had only positive things to say about Nolan therefore I'm expecting him to return.
I am indeed hoping Nolan returns, as what he and Goyer have produced with Begins is one of my favourite movies of all time easily surpassing the previous Batman cinematic canon. Its fidelity to the comics (the obvious Year One influences but also The Long Halloween in the hallicination scenes), engaging performances by all involved, magnificent screenplay and haunting atmosphere ensures this blows even Mask of Phantasm and Return of the Joker out of the water. Christian Bale has the dark edge to pull off both Batman and Bruce Wayne (he really is something quite great here), Michael Caine provides an abundance of well-written wit and an emotionally engaging turn as Alfred, Gary Oldman slides with ease into the role of Gordon and Freeman - as usual - is brilliant in the technological department. Even Katie Holmes wasn't bad, although her line "Isn't it convenient..." was delivered about as convincingly as one of Tony Blair's 'I care' speeches. Cillian Murphy was truly psychotic and owned the role of Crane/Scarecrow. Neeson, meanwhile, was succeeded in portraying the mentor gone bad. It is the cast, with excellent direction and lines to chew on, that make this the best superhero movie by far.
Like Hardyboy, one of the best aspects of Begins is the teamwork element - the crowd assembled by Batman to take on Gotham's decline into crime and corruption. Jim Gordon - effortlessly played by Oldman - gets a good slice of the action as he rightfully should. This is also the first movie about Bob Kane's character that actually has Batman as the focus of attention instead of some bystander to gothic {1992)/camp (1995-1997) theatrics. Again like Hardyboy it was great to see Bruce/Batman doing plenty of detective work - spying on Rachel at the courthouse, in the flat for the teddies stuffed with drugs and getting information out of Flass in a somewhat original manner.
In fact, I must have been chanelling Hardy's thoughts across the Atlantic as I am also in full agreement with regards to the look of Gotham and the idea that Batman's whole world of villainly is just beginning here. On the former, Gotham feels and looks recognisable - I know, I know its really Chicago - to the extent that one can empathise with it and its citizens in a way that one could not with the gothic architecture of Batman, the fascistic skies of Batman Returns or the neon lights of the dreadful Schumacher era. On the latter, I'll put it in spoiler:
Having Arkham Asylum emptied and thus allowing Mr Zsaz et al to escape was inspired. The fantastic little hint at the end that Joker is new in town and no-one - least of all Gordon - knows who he is really does set up the theme that everything, and not just Batman, is starting with Begins. Having the batsignal just being made at the end of the movie contributes to this, in fact I love the proto-type and 'rough edge' nature of the film altogether.
Batman Begins ends perfectly with some great dialogue between Oldman and Batman that sets up a good relationship for the rest of the series. Indeed the dialogue throughout is practically flawless. If you haven't seen this film I urge you to see it now - you don't have to be a Batfan to appreciate its magnificence.
Dark, brooding and inspired. Ten out of ten easily.
From the outset I was ambivalent about this film. I couldn't understand it from the trailers and it looked like it was a stellar cast for eye-candy reasons only. And OK, I confess that I thought the Batman franchise had become very tired, despite the fact this film was out to try and prove otherwise.
So with that in mind, I half-heartedly agreed to go see it last night. I'm really, really glad I did. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
First of all, the comic-book style and outlandish sets being ditched is all too welcome, as is the touch of realism of gadgets, outfit and car (Made In England, naturally, because no one else had the guts to realise it), even the "bat cave". All rather plausible explanations and not requiring a heavy suspension of belief. It's the real world, with real cars, real Gulfstream jets, real Chinese prisons - and therefore a world you can identify with. To match, Bruce Wayne's motives are also very believable, and the eccentricity gives way to a mucked up psyche.
Though it's hats off to Michael Caine (fabulous as Alfred), Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer and (I'd never thought I'd say this) Katie Holmes, I've never liked Liam Neeson, in fact I literally can't stand him (one of, if not the, worst actor to hit Hollywood in a long time), so my opinion doesn't change here - I think he's a one dimensional, unadaptable character. Christian Bale, well, though I still stand by the fact I think he's rather wooden, suits this role to a tee as Bruce Wayne/Batman is essentially acting all the time, so the wooden performance just seems to click, oddly enough. Though highlights of his performance were "acting the playboy" with the Lamoborghini and Swedish models, and acting drunk to tell his guests they were suck-ups and to get out of his mansion at his birthday party.
It was well-paced, impressive on the eye and intriguing, though I do think it fell short of being suspenseful. At no point was I sitting at the edge of my seat or did I get goosebumps over any particular scene.
However, one thing it did do, was breathe life back into the dying-if-not-dead Batman name and deserves to sit on the "comic book cool" podium with Spiderman.
Batman's back, and he's more promising than he's ever been.
Great review, Moonie. You mention that "no one has the guts" to realize that the car was made in England. . .well, it seems that not too many people have mentioned that almost the entire cast was made in the UK! Freeman and Holmes are the only Yanks in this tale of a Yank super-hero, and the director is a Brit as well. Looks like the British are keeping our end up as well. . .
Comments
That was my point, he doesn't in BB (or the original comics), someone else does. When and if the Joker gets introduced in this series his story will be different.
Looking at BB's opening day numbers, it better get some legs that most of it's comic brethren haven't or there might not be a sequel or rather the sequels will be decidedly different in tone (think much lighter) unless the DVD revenues are really huge.
MBE
Batman Begins starts a new series independent of what came before, with no ties to the past.This is a new and considerably more faithful interpretation of Batman than any of the previous movies have ever offered.I've been a Batman fan for a long time and I'm happy to see this taking place.For all of their style,Tim Burton's movies were (and always will be) about Tim Burton, and his Batman movies featured weak storylines and miscast actors.He'd even said in interviews while he was making his Batman movies that he "loathed" Batman-and it shows.Joel Schumacher's movies are all about set design and elaborate costumes. Both directors (and their screenwriters) gave disproportionate amounts of time to the villains,rendering Batman little more than a secondary character.There were characters called "Batman" in them, but he wasn't the real thing.In fact,sometimes all Batman was was a rubber suit.
I honestly think that's wrong, because when handled correctly --by people who really care--Batman is easily one of the most memorable of all the costumed heroes.He's a detective with an intellect that rivals Sherlock Holmes and a modis operandi influenced by Zorro and The Scarlet Pimpernel(indolent playboy by day-costumed avenger by night).This is incredibly dramatic stuff but until recently it was pretty much ignored in favor of gaudily costumed performers practically winking into the cameras as they overacted.
But Christopher Nolan and David Goyer got right.With Christian Bale they found an actor who LOOKS like Bruce Wayne and in this movie they told Wayne's story."The origin of the Batman and how he came to be"(to quote Bill Finger,Batman's cocreator and original scripter).Finally,after five attempts, the real Batman has come to the screen.Only the animated Batman tv series (of the 1980s)by Paul Dini and Bruce Timm, rivals Batman Begins for respect and fidelity to the character.
My questions is how do we know this Batman is in an alternate universe...did they actually say that?
Really?
Batman has several baddies that haven't been used yet. Here's a list with pictures of each one. http://members.tripod.com/~ajeewa/rogues.htm
Bingo. Box office is by far not an indicator of quality but it's a big indicator of what studios will try to make next. If Catwoman was profitable it would have had sequels and it wouldn't matter how many Razzies it won. MGM pulled the plug on Jinx when it saw that other recent female driven action films weren't making enough to risk and justify the cost. They didn't do it out of artistic concerns for Bond. As that article just linked to points out they stopped making Batman films 8 years ago beause they stopped making enough money, not becasue they were embarassed by how bad they were.
As for BB's numbers being lower than expected yes really. That weekend prediction was off by 20-25%. This is a typically front loaded genre that traditionally performs better in the U.S. than overseas. BB needs to buck that trend and show legs to outperform most of it's predecessors and that will be hard because it has two weeks to make money before War of the Worlds.
As to what's ideal, depends on who's spin and when they're spinning it. Looking at history:
Previous Batman Numbers from Box Office Mojo:
U.S. Total/U.S. Opening Weekend (theaters) /Worldwide
Batman: (1989)
US: $251,188,924/$40,489,746 (2,201 theaters)
Worldwide: $411,348,924
Batman Returns: (1992)
U.S. $162,831,698/$45,687,711 (2,644 theaters)
Worldwide: $266,831,698
(Note the drop and then the change in tone from Burton's Batman's to Shumaker's camp fests)
Batman Forever (1995):
U.S. $184,031,112/$52,784,433(2,201 theaters)
Worldwide: $336,531,112
Batman and Robin: (1997)
U.S.: $107,325,195/$42,872,605(2,942 theaters)
Worldwide: $238,207,122
(The B.O. drops heavily again under the weight of too much camp and badness-- look at those short legs --and there's a long rest)
Batman Begins (2005)
U.S.(Wed-Fri) $39m (3,858 theaters)
(Fri-Sun projected): $45-50m for
(Wed-Sun 5 day Projection: $69-74m
With the budget, marketing and history of previous Batman films they were probably hoping for more than X-Men 2 numbers about $220-250m U.S. Right now they'd be probably be thrilled with $180m. Not happy that their 2005 film made less in the theater than their 1995 (unadjusted for inflation) film but hopeful it will make more after DVDs.
For the record, my favorite film this year was "Kung Fu Hustle" -- a bomb in the U.S. Luckily for it and me it doesn't need the U.S. to make tons of money and there will be a sequal and Stephen Chow will still be allowed to be brilliant and that's what really matters.
MBE
That would be waaay too hard to put together since we're talking about two different "universes". There's a chance with BB and with the upcoming Superman movie that DC Comics might get some legs under them in the film industry. I see little chance of DC giving Marvel a boost to its own franchises, and Spidey fans would probably be livid to see Webhead's trademark villians trading blows with anyone other than Spiderman.
And there's talk about BB de-throning Spiderman 2 as the best superhero movie. Having seen BB today, I disagree. It was definitely the best Batman movie, and maybe even #2 IMO, but for me Spiderman 2 still reigns in the comic book adaptations.
As I mentioned earlier, Two-Face. He has two conflicting personalities... Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face had only one, and that was an exact copy of the Joker.
Yes.This film marks the start of an all-new series with a greater concentration on the Batman character as opposed to highlighting the villains only.Among other things as the series progresses we'll see Jim Gordon move up through the ranks to become the police Commisioner.According to some reports the intended style of these newer films will be closer to those of the more serious James Bond movies--not hard to do since Bruce Wayne and the cinematic 007 aren't too far apart.
The Joker didn't kill the Waynes in the comics--it was alway Joe Chill, a meaningless thug.The Wayne's deaths were pointless--a random act of violence.And The Joker doesn't have a real name--however screenwriter Sam Hamm provided him with the "Jack Napier" monicker for the 1989 Batman movie.
And please look over some of this thread's previous posts.You might find some interesting and enlightening comments among them.:)
I´d have to say - considering the production budget + marketing costs - at least $200 million in domestic box office.
The only reason I pay attention to the numbers is because I loved BB and want Nolan and Goyer to make their planned trilogy. That´s all. It looks like it might struggle to reach the mark, but of course, that says nothing about the movie. Had this been released in 1989, it would have made just as much as Tim Burton´s movie, maybe more.
======================================
Full agreement here.It's good to remember that in 1989 ticket prices were cheaper(about half what they are today)and motion picture going was more popular with the general public compared to 2005.Home video hadn't developed to the point it is today.Also that the 1989 "Batman" film was long-awaited-- having been first announced in 1979 after Superman's success.And studios didn't always release their big movies on Fridays in order to get the first weekend numbers at that time.
"Batman Begins" was long-awaited too,especially by the diehard Batman fans who'd been disappointed by the quality of the other films.Probably no one among the execs at Warners thought that "Batman Begins" would somehow overtake the final Star Wars movie--a film many audience members had been waiting to see since "The Empire Strikes Back" premiered.I'm hopeful Warners will be patient andstay the course with the new Batman films and complete the trilogy David Goyer and Chris Nolan have planned.
Should of put that in the spoiler window
It is said that they plan to have The Joker(which pretty much you can see now) and have Harvey Dent along the way. It was also said that when the dreaded Catwoman came out with not much to do with the comics besides the name that they were going to save the Catwoman from the Batman comics for a later Batman movie.
‘Batman’ flies away with box office, but Hollywood sinks to lowest ever modern slump
The Associated Press
Updated: 4:10 p.m. ET June 26, 2005
LOS ANGELES - “Batman Begins” took in $26.8 million to remain the top movie for the second straight weekend, but it could not keep Hollywood from sinking to its longest modern box-office slump.
Overall business tumbled despite a rush of familiar new titles — “Bewitched,” a “Love Bug” update and the latest zombie tale from director George Romero.
Revenues for the top 12 movies came in at $116.5 million, down 16 percent from the same weekend last year, when “Fahrenheit 9/11” opened as the top movie with $23.9 million, according to studio estimates Sunday.
It was the 18th weekend in a row the box office declined, passing a 1985 slump of 17 weekends that had been the longest since analysts began keeping detailed figures on movie grosses.
“Batman” lifted its 12-day total to $121.7 million.
Theater revenues have skidded about 7 percent compared to last year. Factoring in higher ticket prices, movie admissions are off 10 percent for the year, according to box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.
If the slump continues, Hollywood is on course for a third straight year of declining admissions and its lowest ticket sales since the mid-1990s.
Even with a big Fourth of July weekend expected from Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise’s “War of the Worlds,” which opens Wednesday, Hollywood still may not snap its losing streak. Over the same weekend last year, “Spider-Man 2” pulled in $180 million in its first six days, leading the industry to a record Fourth of July.
Now over to MBE, who'll really crunch these numbers!
Adults still go the movies,but opening weekend?Forget it
Commentary by Anne Thompson-Entertainment News Wire 26/6/2005
Let's debunk a popular theory:Grown-ups don't go to the movies.
Truth is,they still go.Ray,Million Dollar Baby,Shall We Dance?,all played primarily to adults.And movies like Ray and Million Dollar Baby earned their audiences the old-fashioned way:They took their time.
But Cinderella Man,the most recent film to attempt to court the older than 35 crowd,is finding that time is a luxury it might not have anymore.Ron Howard's earnest Depression-Era boxing drama might have looked like a slam-dunk.Initial audiences liked what they saw,with the film winning a 99 percent "excellent" rating from Cinemascore and an 83 percent "fresh" rating from the Internet review site rottentomatoes.com.
But exit polls told a further part of the story:Fully 50 percent of the Cinderella Man audience was older than 50.That's a serious drawback for a movie that cost some $88 million to make and another $40 million to release because this group can't be counted on to rush to theaters on a movies's first weekend.
Cinderella Man opened on over 2,800 screens to $18.6 million,landing in fourth place,and fell to 46.8 percent on the second weekend.
Releasing a high-profile movie for mature moviegoers at the height of summer,was not a brilliant move."The farther away you get from age 35,the more difficult,"one marketer says."While the appetite for those films is there all year round,adults don't feel that sense of urgency to see the film.It's crowded,they wait to see it later."
Universal Pictures is now counting on DVDs to salvage Cinderella Man.Come late Fall,when star Russell Crowe's anger issues will have faded from the public's memory,Universal Studios Home Entertainment will stage a well-funded comeback for the drama(which has grossed about $43 million to date),aimed at DVD buyers and Oscar voters.
When it comes to DVD consumers,the studios are confident that if they build a strong adult movie,the audience will come.That feeling does not extend to theatergoers.
For that,the studios have only themselves to blame.They're driving that ever-loyal viewer home to watch HBO or DVDs by not keeping the movie-going habit going with movies aimed at adults.
"The movie business is pushing them away,"says producer Sean Daniel,"making them look for other things,like renting all the seasons of 'Six Feet Under'."
Since the dawn of Hollywood,a wide swath of the American public counted themselves among the faithful frequent moviegoers.Through the late 1970s,that throng was dominated by adults.Movie critics wrote their reviews for adults.TV,radio and print ads were targeted at adults.Movies were constructed for adults.There were always "youth market" movies but they were always ancillary.
Then came the wide-audience marketing revolution.With each succeeding decade,the Hollywood studios,driven by the relative ease of selling their movies to the dominant demographic(young men under 25)that showed up on opening weekends,increasingly aimed their movies at less demanding kids.Slowly but surely,they decreased the number of movies for more discerning grown-ups,leaving that headache to the likes of Miramax Films' Harvey and Bob Weinstein who specialized in building the drumbeat of year-end accolades that accompanies an Oscar campaign.
When the studios produce movies that adults might enjoy,like The Bourne Identity,Seabiscut or Gladiator,they try to make sure that the younger demo will like them,too.It has become rare to greenlight a big-budget studio motion picture aimed squarely at the over-30 set.
But the studios that take that gamble often score.Fried Green Tomatoes,Driving Miss Daisy,Cocoon,The First Wives Club,Training Day,Grumpy Old Men,The Truman Show and Braveheart,all come to mind along with a laundry list of Clint Eastwood movies.
But these movies were each surprise breakouts;they did not start out as summer tentpoles or wear their self-importance on their sleeve.They had time to earn word-of-mouth and media attention.
The real trick for these movies is to give them enough time to grow legs(Not the studios' strong suit).Take Crash,which has g\earned $46 million for Lions Gate Films since it opened on May 6 from 1,000 screens.It is scoring with the same cinemagoers that love Cinderella Man,but with a fraction of Cinderella Man''s print and ad costs.That means that it can afford to hang in for the long haul--even during the summer.It's playing and playing and playing,much the way Sideways did last year.That movie cost $16 million and grossed $71.5 million in North America.
Obviously,Cinderella Man is a different species.It's an A list top-of-the-line studio picture from Imagine Entertainment,the Tiffany production label on the Universal lot.It's from the so-called,"Fab Four" who brought you A Beautiful Mind;Howard,Crowe,producer Brian Grazer and writer Akiva Goldsman.This means that Cinderella Man can't afford to be modest about anything-budget,star,marketing campaign,release,PR and expectations.No wonder one of the best actors of our time lost his temper when he failed to deliver a $30 million weekend.
As more and more people settle into the Netflix habit,the studios might regret letting that sophisticated audience slip away.They need people to go to theaters to establish their titles in the first place.The audience that can't be counted on to stay loyal is playing with videogames and computers and cell phones.The younger demo could lose the moviegoing habit.
That's when the movie business will need adults again.If they haven't already fallen in love with their fancy home entertainment centers.
Hollywood has a lot of learning to do. And there are many factors that have cumulatively supported a box office slump. I'm one of those adults who really don't go to opening weekends anymore for a few reasons
1) I tend to lose a lot of faith that the film is going to be any good. I'm so often disappointed that I try to get some decent reviews first to find out what I'm stepping into.
2) Admission price. Theatres continue to raise prices but I still fail to see where that money goes. The cinema owners are lucky to make a profit from the concessions (and the popcorn is the one thing you can count on to be good) but ticket costs rise while quality, it seems, declines. It's not that I can't afford to go to the movies. It's simply that it begins reaching the point where I say "Is it really worth the $9 - $10 to see it?"
People with families are another matter. To take a family of four to the show, be prepared to drop about $50.
3) Lastly is the atmosphere. Perhaps its my age, but I tend to get irritated at the behaviour of fellow movie-goers, whose manners I find distracting and detracting from the movie-watching experience. More and more I start thinking "I'd rather watch this at home where I can get more out of it."
Batman, however, was an exception. I heard a lot of good reviews early on, and I was in a frame of mind to see a good old-fashioned blockbuster. And since the movie was so incredibly loud, I couldn't hear other folks behind me chatting away.
I'm also in agreement with darenhat. I love going to the movies, but the experience has become such a drag. Even during yesterday's screening of Crash, an old couple was behind me, commenting on the movie--"Oh, that must be so-and-so," etc.--throughout. The experience of seeing a terrific film with an audience can be downright electrifying, but too often the theaters and the crowds are the pits.
Interestingly, when box office revenues declined in the 1950s owing to television, movie studios and theater owners went to new lengths to bring people back to the movies--CinemaScope, 3-D, novel effects in the theaters such as "The Tingler," and so on. Cheesy stuff, but at least they cared. In my opinion, studios and theater chains need to make similar efforts today. I'm very happy I went to see Batman Begins--and Star Wars III, Crash, and Cinderella Man for that matter--but wouldn't it be great if I could have come out of these movies feeling 100% satisfied by the experience and not thinking, "Great movie--I can't wait for the DVD!"?
This is probably the biggest problem. Theaters can fix any and all problems (seats, projection, prices, ads, etc), and current movies can be of higher quality, but there will always be rude patrons, which can ruin the enjoyment of any good movie.
In a recent visit to the theater, some idiot rested his legs on the seat in front. I´m sorry, I don´t wanna watch a movie with someone´s feet on my left, you know? We´ve all also met the commentators, who apparently need to speak aloud their thoughts.
Why was I not surprised to see 5 and 6 year olds when I saw Batman Begins? There will always be parents who don´t take the time to do a little research. BB is NOT a kids movie! When they lose interest, what do they do? They start talking and complaining and asking questions, and, of course, they´ll kick the back of your seat.
Perhaps I should have explained rather than leave a one word post. MBE is absolutely right - movies are a money business. Those involved creatively may do so for our enjoyment but studio execs understandably do not. A film has to make money - period. However, my point was that while Begins opening numbers were not overly impressive I was disagreeing with your suggestion that there might be no sequels or that there might be an altogether lighter tone as a result of 'disappointing' box office returns.
It was a brave decision for Warners' to go with Christopher Nolan and they appear to be more than willing to follow through on his vision (which I salute them for as a Batfan). The film has hardly been a flop: its five-day international haul eclipsed its Batman predecessors and good reviews and positive word-of-mouth will probably contribute to Begins sticking about for quite a while. Its no Spiderman - a character with wider kiddie appeal - however it is undoubtedly a hit. On the basis of its success there will be no need for "really huge" DVD sales; indeed a sequel was pretty much confirmed a week ago and Christopher Nolan is interested in helming number two. Warners' head of distribution had only positive things to say about Nolan therefore I'm expecting him to return.
I am indeed hoping Nolan returns, as what he and Goyer have produced with Begins is one of my favourite movies of all time easily surpassing the previous Batman cinematic canon. Its fidelity to the comics (the obvious Year One influences but also The Long Halloween in the hallicination scenes), engaging performances by all involved, magnificent screenplay and haunting atmosphere ensures this blows even Mask of Phantasm and Return of the Joker out of the water. Christian Bale has the dark edge to pull off both Batman and Bruce Wayne (he really is something quite great here), Michael Caine provides an abundance of well-written wit and an emotionally engaging turn as Alfred, Gary Oldman slides with ease into the role of Gordon and Freeman - as usual - is brilliant in the technological department. Even Katie Holmes wasn't bad, although her line "Isn't it convenient..." was delivered about as convincingly as one of Tony Blair's 'I care' speeches. Cillian Murphy was truly psychotic and owned the role of Crane/Scarecrow. Neeson, meanwhile, was succeeded in portraying the mentor gone bad. It is the cast, with excellent direction and lines to chew on, that make this the best superhero movie by far.
Like Hardyboy, one of the best aspects of Begins is the teamwork element - the crowd assembled by Batman to take on Gotham's decline into crime and corruption. Jim Gordon - effortlessly played by Oldman - gets a good slice of the action as he rightfully should. This is also the first movie about Bob Kane's character that actually has Batman as the focus of attention instead of some bystander to gothic {1992)/camp (1995-1997) theatrics. Again like Hardyboy it was great to see Bruce/Batman doing plenty of detective work - spying on Rachel at the courthouse, in the flat for the teddies stuffed with drugs and getting information out of Flass in a somewhat original manner.
In fact, I must have been chanelling Hardy's thoughts across the Atlantic as I am also in full agreement with regards to the look of Gotham and the idea that Batman's whole world of villainly is just beginning here. On the former, Gotham feels and looks recognisable - I know, I know its really Chicago - to the extent that one can empathise with it and its citizens in a way that one could not with the gothic architecture of Batman, the fascistic skies of Batman Returns or the neon lights of the dreadful Schumacher era. On the latter, I'll put it in spoiler:
Batman Begins ends perfectly with some great dialogue between Oldman and Batman that sets up a good relationship for the rest of the series. Indeed the dialogue throughout is practically flawless. If you haven't seen this film I urge you to see it now - you don't have to be a Batfan to appreciate its magnificence.
Dark, brooding and inspired. Ten out of ten easily.
So with that in mind, I half-heartedly agreed to go see it last night. I'm really, really glad I did. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
First of all, the comic-book style and outlandish sets being ditched is all too welcome, as is the touch of realism of gadgets, outfit and car (Made In England, naturally, because no one else had the guts to realise it), even the "bat cave". All rather plausible explanations and not requiring a heavy suspension of belief. It's the real world, with real cars, real Gulfstream jets, real Chinese prisons - and therefore a world you can identify with. To match, Bruce Wayne's motives are also very believable, and the eccentricity gives way to a mucked up psyche.
Though it's hats off to Michael Caine (fabulous as Alfred), Morgan Freeman, Rutger Hauer and (I'd never thought I'd say this) Katie Holmes, I've never liked Liam Neeson, in fact I literally can't stand him (one of, if not the, worst actor to hit Hollywood in a long time), so my opinion doesn't change here - I think he's a one dimensional, unadaptable character. Christian Bale, well, though I still stand by the fact I think he's rather wooden, suits this role to a tee as Bruce Wayne/Batman is essentially acting all the time, so the wooden performance just seems to click, oddly enough. Though highlights of his performance were "acting the playboy" with the Lamoborghini and Swedish models, and acting drunk to tell his guests they were suck-ups and to get out of his mansion at his birthday party.
It was well-paced, impressive on the eye and intriguing, though I do think it fell short of being suspenseful. At no point was I sitting at the edge of my seat or did I get goosebumps over any particular scene.
However, one thing it did do, was breathe life back into the dying-if-not-dead Batman name and deserves to sit on the "comic book cool" podium with Spiderman.
Batman's back, and he's more promising than he's ever been.