"Dark Knight Rises" Hits $1 Billion Worldwide, "Avengers" Re-Assembles in Theaters

[CBR News]

Christopher Nolan's "The Dark Knight Rises" surpassed $1 billion worldwide this weekend, while Joss Whedon's "The Avengers" came back to theaters for a significant bump to $1.5 billion worldwide.


Full article here.

[DebkoX]

I'm shocked it took DKR that long.

[Alex]

I'm shocked it took DKR that long.

Takes longer because it's 5 hours long.

[cookepuss]

I'm shocked it took DKR that long.

I'm not. I know that I'm going to be in the minority here, but I thought that TDKR was just terrible. Not Batman & Robin bad, but certainly the worst of the trilogy.

- Lackluster villain
- Sagging 2nd act and general pacing issues
- Wussification of Bruce AND Batman
- No real reason for Catwoman
- Cliche plot which partially rehashed from Batman Begins
- Unnecessary cameos

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a hater. I wanted to like it. I really did. I just couldn't. I really hated it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story was the best thing. The character was likable. The arc was interesting. It reached a nice conclusion. JGL was a good addition to the cast. That said, to me, it still felt as if Nolan had been grasping for straws just to close things out. Again, I know that I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.

Avengers wasn't without its faults either. However, being used to Whedon's "talking head" style of moving things along, I found it to be a far more enjoyable movie. Even with stumbles like Ghost Rider or Daredevil, I think that Marvel's much more in tune with what viewers want. The Nolanverse Batman? Not bad. Great in TDK even. Still not my favorite cinematic version though, big or small screen.

Takes longer because it's 5 hours long.

Hmm... It felt longer.

[Gray Ghost]

I'm not. I know that I'm going to be in the minority here, but I thought that TDKR was just terrible. Not Batman & Robin bad, but certainly the worst of the trilogy.

- Lackluster villain
- Sagging 2nd act and general pacing issues
- Wussification of Bruce AND Batman
- No real reason for Catwoman
- Cliche plot which partially rehashed from Batman Begins
- Unnecessary cameos

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a hater. I wanted to like it. I really did. I just couldn't. I really hated it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story was the best thing. The character was likable. The arc was interesting. It reached a nice conclusion. JGL was a good addition to the cast. That said, to me, it still felt as if Nolan had been grasping for straws just to close things out. Again, I know that I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.

Avengers wasn't without its faults either. However, being used to Whedon's "talking head" style of moving things along, I found it to be a far more enjoyable movie. Even with stumbles like Ghost Rider or Daredevil, I think that Marvel's much more in tune with what viewers want. The Nolanverse Batman? Not bad. Great in TDK even. Still not my favorite cinematic version though, big or small screen.


Hmm... It felt longer.

Unfortunately I have to agree with pretty much all of that. But that aside there are two other aspects I think are noteworthy:

1) Word-of-mouth was not as good as with TDK. At least to me it felt as if the most common description was "good,but not great/good but not as good as TDK"

2) We will never know for sure obviously but I do believe the buzz surrounding Ledger's death piqued the curiousity of many people who might not have watched the movie otherwise.

[cookepuss]

1) Word-of-mouth was not as good as with TDK.

I'm sure that the shooting in Aurora didn't help either. That alone put a damper the opening weekend. Instead of making the $190M+ that was projected, it pulled in a smaller $160.8M - along the lines of TDK's opening.

At least to me it felt as if the most common description was "good,but not great/good but not as good as TDK"

And I think that's a fair assessment. The fact is, as much as people hate to admit it, Bane is NOT a Joker caliber enemy. With such a rich supply of top tier baddies, Nolan made the mistake of going for a character who was best remembered (by movie fans) for having been the steroid case in that 1997 Schumacher disaster. Worse than that, he didn't even put together a decent version of Bane either. It's a real shame.

2) We will never know for sure obviously but I do believe the buzz surrounding Ledger's death piqued the curiousity of many people who might not have watched the movie otherwise.

Well, here's the thing. The Joker's the Joker. Whether you're a fan of TAS or the 60s TV show, the character of the Joker is known worldwide. His popularity bridges the generation gap. All you have to do is add Joker and the ticket sales jump. Remove him and they slump. Look at the Burton movies:

Batman (1989) Ticket Sales: 62,954,600
Batman Returns Ticket Sales: 39,236,600
The Dark Knight Ticket Sales: 74,282,100
The Dark Knight Rises Ticket Sales: 53,355,400 (so far)

You lose the Joker and you lose a lot of fans. Ticket sales say otherwise, but Batman Returns really wasn't a horrible movie. It was a whole lot of fun. Shockingly, it still holds up well too. No Joker? No deal, for some fans. The drop in ticket sales for TDKR wasn't that surprising. I don't think that anybody in their right mind expected TDKR to be a super massive phenomenon. It did very well, but predictably less so.

Ledger's death did a lot for the movie. I won't disagree there. There will always be people who'll speculate whether or not he truly deserved to beat Philip Seymour Hoffman or Robert Downey Jr. for the Academy Award that year. We'll never know for sure. All you can do is speculate.

Also the dip in ticket sales over TDK has a bunch to do with TDKR being the 3rd movie in a series. Hate to pull that "3rd movie curse" BS, but it's by the 3rd movie when most franchises reaches a point of diminishing returns, creatively and monetarily. Nolan made all of the classic mistakes that tend to come with 3rd movies. Too many bad guys. Too many supporting players. Cheap tricks & shock tactics. Artificially inflated tension & drama. Returning to the well one too many times. Too much familiarity. You can make the most of the same claims of X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, Batman & Robin, and so on.

I "get" why a lot of people love this movie. To me, TDKR is just under 3hrs of meh.

[maskedavenger]

I'm not. I know that I'm going to be in the minority here, but I thought that TDKR was just terrible. Not Batman & Robin bad, but certainly the worst of the trilogy.

- Lackluster villain
- Sagging 2nd act and general pacing issues
- Wussification of Bruce AND Batman
- No real reason for Catwoman
- Cliche plot which partially rehashed from Batman Begins
- Unnecessary cameos

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a hater. I wanted to like it. I really did. I just couldn't. I really hated it. Joseph Gordon-Levitt's story was the best thing. The character was likable. The arc was interesting. It reached a nice conclusion. JGL was a good addition to the cast. That said, to me, it still felt as if Nolan had been grasping for straws just to close things out. Again, I know that I'm in the minority, but that's my opinion.

Avengers wasn't without its faults either. However, being used to Whedon's "talking head" style of moving things along, I found it to be a far more enjoyable movie. Even with stumbles like Ghost Rider or Daredevil, I think that Marvel's much more in tune with what viewers want. The Nolanverse Batman? Not bad. Great in TDK even. Still not my favorite cinematic version though, big or small screen.


Hmm... It felt longer.

I think you'll find more people agree with your assessment of TDKR than you think.

[Alex]

I think you'll find more people agree with your assessment of TDKR than you think.

I don't think it was a terrible movie, i think it was easily the worst of the trilogy.

[Legato]

I think you'll find more people agree with your assessment of TDKR than you think.

Speak for yourself. It was good but when compared to the other two I find Rises to be a little lackluster. To put it in a Star Wars perspective The Dark Knight Rises is to the Batman Trilogy as what Return of The Jedi was to the Original Star Wars Trilogy

[Tar22]

- Unnecessary cameos

?

Not sure what you're referring to.

[Legato]

?

Not sure what you're referring to.

I think he was talking about the Scarecrow Cameo

[Lord Bravery]

Scarecrow's cameo was one of the best things about the film. It added a much needed bit of humour, albeit black, to a predictably grim and "look at me i'm super serious!" tone of the film.

[Alex]

Scarecrow's cameo was one of the best things about the film. It added a much needed bit of humour, albeit black, to a predictably grim and "look at me i'm super serious!" tone of the film.

When i thought that the scarecrow bit was one of the best parts of the movie, it was one of the things that helped me decide it was the worst of the trilogy.

[Legato]

When i thought that the scarecrow bit was one of the best parts of the movie, it was one of the things that helped me decide it was the worst of the trilogy.

I cant say I didn't see it coming cause I was wondering when Scarecrow was going to be shoehorned into Rises.

[cookepuss]

Scarecrow's cameo was one of the best things about the film. It added a much needed bit of humour, albeit black, to a predictably grim and "look at me i'm super serious!" tone of the film.

Funny? Yes. Necessary? No. It's bad enough that they kinda mangled scarecrow in BB. Then to shoehorn him into the sequels? No thank you. It's a shame too because Cillian Murphy is such a fine actor and he's been wasted each go around. Nolan could've improved the movie and given it much more focus had he not bloated it.

With respect to the issue of inflated tension... Watching the flick, I felt that the "pit" scene with Bruce could easily have been edited into a Rocky style montage. I mean, there was never any sense of peril or doubt. He's frickin' Batman. I could practically hear Survivor playing in the background. =) it just felt like so much filler and fluff, added in a futile attempt at giving Bane some villain cred.