Why do people think TDKR won't make that much money because of it's darkness?

[Ebon]

I've been saying this all along. Inception had no Batman in the title or in the movie, and it made $800k. I'd be surprised if TDKR doesn't hit the billion mark. Normally in a successful series (LOTR, Harry Potter for instance) the later movies do better.

Inception had a pretty modest showing over here, and historically Batman films do not do as well overseas as the do here. I look for it to do well, obviously, but I'll be very surprised if it hits 500M, much less 1B. People went to see TDK because of Heath Ledger, who was poised to be a breakout big-box-office star. In the time after that, though - and of course this is all anecdotal - I think people have significantly 'cooled' towards Nolan's interpretation of Batman.

[shark]

It was still hugely successful without a flagship villain. I completely agree with you however on all points.

As to the next poster. I dont think people really care this way or that about catwoman. If we think outside the fanboys nobody remembers that halle berry film. (if i can be so bold to call it that) I dont think many will go see it for anne hathaways catwoman. I may be wrong.

I know, but I think people are being intimidated by the huge success of Avengers and will be disappointed if Batman makes less.

Which is silly. Both movies will do great.

[Mat001]

There's still plenty of time for Warner Brothers to build up interest with marketing, between now and the release date.

[BFF]

Having Bane instead of Joker and having Nolan on the verge (or in the midst) of a popularity stlide mean TDKR won't do as well TDK. But it'll still do very well at the box office. I'm more concerned about the quality of the film. Parts 3s of film franchises generally stink.

[Mr. Holmes]

Inception had a pretty modest showing over here, and historically Batman films do not do as well overseas as the do here. I look for it to do well, obviously, but I'll be very surprised if it hits 500M, much less 1B. People went to see TDK because of Heath Ledger, who was poised to be a breakout big-box-office star. In the time after that, though - and of course this is all anecdotal - I think people have significantly 'cooled' towards Nolan's interpretation of Batman.

I don't know what "here" is. Inception made 800M in all.

[zur en arrh]

and having Nolan on the verge (or in the midst) of a popularity stlide

Huh? His last two movies are at an almost combined total of 2 billion.

[MajorHoy]

Having Bane instead of Joker and having Nolan on the verge (or in the midst) of a popularity stlide mean TDKR won't do as well TDK. But it'll still do very well at the box office. I'm more concerned about the quality of the film. Parts 3s of film franchises generally stink.

You know, it helps if you define how exactly he's "on the verge (or in the midst) of a popularity slide", because I have no idea if that's true or just pointless fanboy ranting from a few geeks from the middle of nowhere who don't have a real clue as to what they're talking about.

So, what is this claim based on?

[Lex Von Doom]

- No Joker, the villains in this movie don't have the same appeal he did
- No cast death prior to the movie release (and you know that helped)
- Not family friendly (then again, neither was TDK)

Could be the reasons why it won't make as much as the Avengers.

1. Loki doesn't have any sort of mass appeal either and The Avengers just made over $200 million, Iron Man 2 made a lot of money and to this day I'm not even sure who the villain was (I never saw it) so clearly not having a big name villain isn't so much of an issue.

2. if people were only interested in seeing TDK because Ledger died why did a lot of people go to see it more than once? I'm not saying his death didn't have a effect on the box office, it clearly did but people liked the movie and wanted to see it again.

3. I just listed in my op movies that were either as dark as this or darker that have made a lot of money so that shouldn't have any effect on how much money it makes.

[MajorHoy]

. . . I just listed in my op movies that were either as dark as this or darker that have made a lot of money so that shouldn't have any effect on how much money it makes.

Hunger Games was a bright and cheery movie, right?

Like the Smurfs movie?

[shark]

1. Loki doesn't have any sort of mass appeal either and The Avengers just made over $200 million, Iron Man 2 made a lot of money and to this day I'm not even sure who the villain was (I never saw it) so clearly not having a big name villain isn't so much of an issue.

2. if people were only interested in seeing TDK because Ledger died why did a lot of people go to see it more than once? I'm not saying his death didn't have a effect on the box office, it clearly did but people liked the movie and wanted to see it again.

3. I just listed in my op movies that were either as dark as this or darker that have made a lot of money so that shouldn't have any effect on how much money it makes.

1. I'm comparing TDK and TDKR. One of the reasons the former did so well was because of the Joker. You can't deny that Batman's villains are far more iconic than the ones that fight the Avengers. Not a lot of people went to see the Avengers because of Loki alone, but a lot of people went to see TDK because of the Joker.
2. I said it helped, not that it was the sole reason
3. How many of those are superhero movies?

[MajorHoy]

1. I'm comparing TDK and TDKR. One of the reasons the former did so well was because of the Joker. You can't deny that Batman's villains are far more iconic than the ones that fight the Avengers. Not a lot of people went to see the Avengers because of Loki alone, but a lot of people went to see TDK because of the Joker.
2. I said it helped, not that it was the sole reason
3. How many of those are superhero movies?

Well, if they're in the action/fantasy realm, they sort of attract somewhat similar audiences.

[Choppa]

Isn't it obvious? The movies are dark and complex. You can't sell toys for something like that or license a bunch of other merchandise. Kids will be turned off by how "frightening" it is, and people in general won't like to see a movie that doesn't follow the same generic formulas.

For most people movies are an escape and they want to see shallow characters fight the same obstacles in predictable fashion. Having developed characters deal with issues and themes in a realistic fashion would turn them off.

[iRacingRyan]

In my opinion, the only thing holding back Dark Knight Rises is the lack of 3D. 'The Avengers' had something like 52% audience in 3D showings, which adds up pretty quickly. I'd love to see the stat of what it would be without 3D screenings, not that it matters in the slightest. Just more curiosity. (Actual tickets sold will also be a fun number to track)

Also:
'The Dark Knight Rises' trailer was attached to 'The Avengers'. So $207 million worth of tickets also saw the trailer for the final Batman film. Word of mouth is quite positive, it will be a HUGE blockbuster but I seriously doubt it will hit $170 million, let alone $200 million. I'd be happy to eat my words, but like others have mentioned, having 52% of your audience paying a few extra bucks per ticket helped out 'The Avengers' quite a bit. TDKR doesn't have that extra luxury.

It certainly won't be a OH NOES, FAILURE! if it doesn't match 'The Avengers'. It'll just be what's forecast and expected. It won't be because it's too dark, it won't be because of a lack of buzz, it won't be because it The Avengers somehow turned the tide of comic-book movies.

I'm pretty sure that DC is pleased 'The Avengers' did so well, and Marvel will be pleased if 'The Dark Knight Rises' does well. They're in the same industry, and continuing proof that these movies and the characters that populate them are a HUGE DRAW is only a good thing for both companies, regardless if they're competitors.

[BFF]

You know, it helps if you define how exactly he's "on the verge (or in the midst) of a popularity slide", because I have no idea if that's true or just pointless fanboy ranting from a few geeks from the middle of nowhere who don't have a real clue as to what they're talking about.

So, what is this claim based on?

Just my opinion. I feel like the tide of public opinion has turned on him a bit recently and that a Nolan backlash is coming. My sense of it is that following Inception, the opinion of him has swung some from "oh wow he's brilliant" to "oh wow he thinks he's so brilliant." It's subtle (well, except when South Park parodied Inception) but I think it's there.

Like I said, though, TDKR is going to doing very well. Just not as well as TDK. Bigger concern is just Part 3s aren't usually good flicks.

[listenuscrewheads]

Inception had a pretty modest showing over here, and historically Batman films do not do as well overseas as the do here. I look for it to do well, obviously, but I'll be very surprised if it hits 500M, much less 1B. People went to see TDK because of Heath Ledger, who was poised to be a breakout big-box-office star.

In the time after that, though - and of course this is all anecdotal - I think people have significantly 'cooled' towards Nolan's interpretation of Batman.

Dude, I was just looking at the i tunes top 100 of film download rentals, and there are only two superhero films in the top 100, 'the Incredible hulk' at 22, obviously because of the Avengers, and because not many people saw TIH...and The Dark Knight, at no73...now, no73 might not sound remarkable, but, when you take into considertion the amount of people who already saw it at theatres, and have bought it on dvd, saw it on tv etc...it is remarkable, and it'll probably be because the people who have only see it at theatres, who do not own it on dvd, or those rare types who have not seen it at all, are renting the film as they are getting hyped up for the finale of the trilogy after seeing the new trailer.
So, I highly doubt people have 'cooled off' on this series of Batman films.