Dark Knight: Go see it. Go buy tickets for it. RIGHT NOW.

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SandEagle

Lifer
Aug 4, 2007
16,809
13
0
caught it again last night, this time in IMAX. You'll appreciate the movie more in IMAX...mind blowing!
 

Aikouka

Lifer
Nov 27, 2001
30,383
912
126
Closest IMAX to me with it playing is a couple hours away :(. There's an IMAX about an hour away, which I would see it at, but they're playing a bunch of Discovery channel reject material.
 

Adam8281

Platinum Member
May 28, 2003
2,181
0
76
I'm going to see it Friday night. IMAX is $12, normal theater is $9. Buying two tickets. Do I go for IMAX?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Finally got Imax tickets for Sunday night. Thank god, I almost caved and saw it in 35mm.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?

aren't only a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras, such that the other 90% of the film has an effed-up aspect ratio for an IMAX screen? Assuming this is true, this is why I would certainly not pay to see it at IMAX.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,665
21
81
I went to go see it last night (after it all ready being out 3 weeks) and the theater was still full.

It was an excellent movie and Heath Ledger, I thought, gave one hell of a performance. I think that movie was his "break out" movie. Such a shame to see such a young good actor go since they're so little in Hollywood. As for Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, you can't get any more loveable supporting acting than them.


As for Maggie Gyllenhaal...did she snort a lot of coke or somethin? Her face looks like it's falling off.

The story was a little choppy at first, but quickly smoothed out once they introduced the new elements into the movie. I also loved how they "Created" a new character near the end. Gave the plot a little more juice for the ending.
 

RaistlinZ

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 2001
7,470
9
91
Originally posted by: Regs
I went to go see it last night (after it all ready being out 3 weeks) and the theater was still full.

It was an excellent movie and Heath Ledger, I thought, gave one hell of a performance. I think that movie was his "break out" movie. Such a shame to see such a young good actor go since they're so little in Hollywood. As for Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman, you can't get any more loveable supporting acting than them.


As for Maggie Gyllenhaal...did she snort a lot of coke or somethin? Her face looks like it's falling off.

The story was a little choppy at first, but quickly smoothed out once they introduced the new elements into the movie. I also loved how they "Created" a new character near the end. Gave the plot a little more juice for the ending.

No, that's just how she usually looks.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?

aren't only a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras, such that the other 90% of the film has an effed-up aspect ratio for an IMAX screen? Assuming this is true, this is why I would certainly not pay to see it at IMAX.

there are these wonderful yet very old techniques known as letter boxing, pillar boxing, and cropping, none of which would 'eff-up' the aspect ratio...

when it comes down to it, the worst case scenario is a merely higher resolution/quality image per square unit of screen space...

A high quality IMAX setup will generally have a much brighter and more vibrant (as well as gihugant) screen as well as a much better surround sound system than even already really nice stadium seating digital projection theater setups
 

GRIFFIN1

Golden Member
Nov 10, 1999
1,403
6
81
The music was so loud in the theater where I watched it that it was difficult to hear the dialog. During the action scenes toward the end of the movie, the music was so loud that I couldn't understand anything the actors were saying. I don't really know how theater sound systems work, but if it's anything like a regular 5.1 sound system, then I'm going to guess that they had the center channel turned down and the surround speakers cranked up to the max.

After the movie, I complained to the 13 year old manager, but I'm sure he didn't do anything to correct the problem. About once a year, I'll go to a theater just to remind myself why I watch movies at home.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
New record broken - fastest to $400 million.

We're in uncharted territory right now. Monday's haul of $6.3 million was only 40% less than the previous Monday; that kind of drop means the film has strong legs and lots of repeat business. IMAX showings are still selling out.

$500 million could fall by the end of August.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.

A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
117
116
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.

A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...

Didn't they bring Titanic back once the Oscar nominations came out? They would just add that to the total wouldn't they? Same could happen here if Ledger is nominated.

I can't recall about Titanic, but for some reason I think that is what happened.

KT

Edit: That said I still don't think it will beat Titanic.
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.

A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...

Dude they ran Titanic for 24+ weeks or otherwords 6 months. If they run Batman that long it will easily surpass Titanic.
 

bunnyfubbles

Lifer
Sep 3, 2001
12,248
3
0
I think the deal with Titanic is that it had a slow start and picked up in popularity with time - its biggest weekend was valentine's day weekend, six weeks after opening... it was also the #1 movie for 15 straight weeks (signifying lack of real competition). It also had fairly steady business, which lead to it staying in theaters for 9 months...again, probably due to lack of competition as well as it still being the VHS era where home videos generally took much longer to make it to market, allowing for blockbusters to stay in theaters longer.
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
142
116
Nobody seriously expects it to hit $600 million. But box office numbers follow statistical models pretty well; back during it's 6th day of release, studio execs were predicting it crossing the $400 million mark on day 18th, and they were dead-on.

Given the 40% drops it is seeing week-over-week, plus the fact that no major PG-13 rated action movies are coming out in the next few weeks means that TDK should hit $500 million on the studio's projected date.

Titanic spent up to a entire YEAR in theaters in some overseas locations. It was also released in December, which meant no summer box office competition. It reaching $600 million was a combination of great-movie-making plus excellent timing. The fact is that a given number of people will always visit the theater on any given week; if a 4-star movie like Titanic runs without an adversary for week upon week, it will get those box-office dollars.

But if they ran TDK for 9 months, it probably would not reach $600 million simply because the release schedule over the next 8 months is very daunting. Those dollars would go elsewhere.
 

Descartes

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
13,968
2
0
I saw it last week. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and wasn't ready for it to end. It's definitely one of the better movies I've seen in a while, but for me personally I'm not sure I'd call it epic.

I thought the beginning stumbled a little. There were two scenes that, for whatever reason, struck me as just slightly cheesy enough to diminish the start: The bus crashing into the bank and the multiple batman fight. I can't even say why really. The entrance of the Joker and Batman just didn't seem grand enough. Maybe I'll have to see it again.

 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,125
30,076
146
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: sciwizam
Why would you NOT go for IMAX?

aren't only a few scenes shot with IMAX cameras, such that the other 90% of the film has an effed-up aspect ratio for an IMAX screen? Assuming this is true, this is why I would certainly not pay to see it at IMAX.

there are these wonderful yet very old techniques known as letter boxing, pillar boxing, and cropping, none of which would 'eff-up' the aspect ratio...

when it comes down to it, the worst case scenario is a merely higher resolution/quality image per square unit of screen space...

A high quality IMAX setup will generally have a much brighter and more vibrant (as well as gihugant) screen as well as a much better surround sound system than even already really nice stadium seating digital projection theater setups

eh, I should have re-phrased that, and said the scope, rather than the actual filmed aspect ratio. i was thinking in terms of IMAX scenes being shot with wider aspect ratio and higher resolution, then the rest of the flick giong back to standard. So, you'd have the actual scope switching back-and-forth.

meaning, IMAX scenes are takin up the full, IMAX screen, then the rest of the film is boxed on the sides, kind of like seeing a 4:3 flick (pre-cinemascope) in a modern widescreen theater, where they normally bring the curtains in on the sides to "mask" the unused screen space.

Either way, I'd be annoyed that the screen switches back and forth with boxes on the sides, or top and bottom, then goes full IMAX size for a few short scenes.
 

fallenangel99

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2001
1,721
1
81
Originally posted by: classy
Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
Man, nothing even comes close to Titanic...doesn't look good to hit the ~$601 million required to dethrone it...although considering all the other films, breaching $500 million would be a major accomplishment. If they could leave the movie in theaters for 9 months like Titanic enjoyed then I'd wager it could break the record, but that's not going to happen when they can be selling and renting DVDs and BluRays.

A lot of the other major blockbusters really start to fizzle out after the 3rd complete week...makes me wonder how long and strong TDK can keep going. Also, I wonder what the next major IMAX release is supposed to be - TDK may very well slow down in traditional theaters, but I could see it going strong in IMAX for months...looking it up, the next IMAX releases aren't until November (Madagascar 2 and Harry Potter), so who knows how much business TDK will be able to sustain...

Dude they ran Titanic for 24+ weeks or otherwords 6 months. If they run Batman that long it will easily surpass Titanic.

plus a lot of the teeny girls saw Titanic over and over and over again...
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
I would like to take this opportunity to rain on everyone's parade and say this movie was significantly overrated. Wish it weren't so but it most definitely is. I thought Iron Man was much better.

EDIT: Forgot to mention how fugly Gyllenhal is, DAMN
 

Reckoner

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
10,851
1
81
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I would like to take this opportunity to rain on everyone's parade and say this movie was significantly overrated. Wish it weren't so but it most definitely is. I thought Iron Man was much better.

EDIT: Forgot to mention how fugly Gyllenhal is, DAMN

You're overrated.
 

Muadib

Lifer
May 30, 2000
17,978
861
126
Originally posted by: PaulNEPats
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
I would like to take this opportunity to rain on everyone's parade and say this movie was significantly overrated. Wish it weren't so but it most definitely is. I thought Iron Man was much better.

EDIT: Forgot to mention how fugly Gyllenhal is, DAMN

You're overrated.

No, he's right on with his Gyllenhal comment. She was a big negative for me too.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
So when is this movie supposed to finally come out? I havent heard anything about it....