The Dark Knight - [spoilers ahead, ye be warned] - Page 17

innerSpaceman · 07-27-2008, 11:31 PM

oh, go ahead and get started, JW. Say what you will about its qualities as cinema, the Cameron Titantic was accurate to a surprising degree ... ya know, considering that its main characters were all fictional.

Cadaverous Pallor · 07-28-2008, 07:49 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if it had some legs, as those that I've talked to who haven't seen it all say "I plan on getting around to it before it leaves theaters, I'd hate to wait for DVD". I bet some who went to regular theaters are going to make time for IMAX (and those that saw it pretend-IMAX might want to see it in real IMAX, ahem).

innerSpaceman · 07-28-2008, 08:16 AM

It's not playing in real IMAX anywhere in the L.A. basin. The only real IMAX screen is at the Science Center in Exposition Park. They show the half hour museum-accompanying IMAX films.

The movie theaters that claim IMAX do indeed use the BIG IMAX film, but they show it on smaller screens than the conventional projection at The Village in Westwood, so there's no point.

Anyway, I was kinda disappointed with it the second time. It's just a bunch of neat stuff strung together. Repeat viewings is what guarantees big box office. That's what did it for Titanic. Sure, fan boys might see TDK multiple times ... but they've got nothing on rabid teen girls.

JWBear · 07-28-2008, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

oh, go ahead and get started, JW. Say what you will about its qualities as cinema, the Cameron Titantic was accurate to a surprising degree ... ya know, considering that its main characters were all fictional.

No, really... You do not want me to go into all the inaccuracies. We'd be here for days.

It may have been more accurate than the average Titanic movie, but it still had many things that made me groan outloud.

Alex · 07-28-2008, 08:33 AM

Another assist to TDK in beating Titanic in raw domestic box office is the fact that ticket prices are about 50% higher than they were in 1997 ($4.59 to $6.88). Box Office Mojo says the 2008 average ticket price is $7.08, but I don't know where they get their numbers.

So, $600 million in 1997 equals about 130 million buts in seats. For TDK it is only 87.2 million (84.7 million using Box Office Mojo's average ticket price).

Adjusting for Ticket Price Inflation (the number for TDK to beat to surpass Titanic is $908 million, though it is no longer the top film by that method)

Alex · 07-28-2008, 08:35 AM

And I liked Titanic, by the way. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies but I didn't feel like I was being presented with a historical film so I didn't really care.

But I only saw it once (ever, not even again on DVD) so I didn't particularly contribute to its success.

JWBear · 07-28-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

And I liked Titanic, by the way. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies but I didn't feel like I was being presented with a historical film so I didn't really care.

But I only saw it once (ever, not even again on DVD) so I didn't particularly contribute to its success.

Ah, but it was! At the time, Cameron claimed he was making an historicaly accurate film.

Alex · 07-28-2008, 09:10 AM

I don't care what he claimed. I care the expectation it created in me as a viewer. I did not feel like I was watching an attempt to tell history so I do not care if it was not historically accurate.

And conversely, even when the author/director claims to not be offering history I still care about inaccuracies if I feel they are creating the impression of telling it (such as with The Da Vinci Code).

Nephythys · 07-28-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JWBear

No, really... You do not want me to go into all the inaccuracies. We'd be here for days.

It may have been more accurate than the average Titanic movie, but it still had many things that made me groan outloud.

I'm curious- like what?

Not arguing- just curious.

innerSpaceman · 07-28-2008, 09:41 AM

Yeah, me, too. I'm pretty up on my Titanic stuff ... and I'm really not aware of many inaccuracies. What, pray tell, are they?

Hmmm, I appear to be on the LoT all year, perhaps all decade ... so I've got plenty of time.

07-27-2008, 11:31 PM	#161
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	oh, go ahead and get started, JW. Say what you will about its qualities as cinema, the Cameron Titantic was accurate to a surprising degree ... ya know, considering that its main characters were all fictional.
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 07:49 AM	#162
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I wouldn't be surprised if it had some legs, as those that I've talked to who haven't seen it all say "I plan on getting around to it before it leaves theaters, I'd hate to wait for DVD". I bet some who went to regular theaters are going to make time for IMAX (and those that saw it pretend-IMAX might want to see it in real IMAX, ahem). __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 08:16 AM	#163
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	It's not playing in real IMAX anywhere in the L.A. basin. The only real IMAX screen is at the Science Center in Exposition Park. They show the half hour museum-accompanying IMAX films. The movie theaters that claim IMAX do indeed use the BIG IMAX film, but they show it on smaller screens than the conventional projection at The Village in Westwood, so there's no point. Anyway, I was kinda disappointed with it the second time. It's just a bunch of neat stuff strung together. Repeat viewings is what guarantees big box office. That's what did it for Titanic. Sure, fan boys might see TDK multiple times ... but they've got nothing on rabid teen girls.
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 08:33 AM	#165
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Another assist to TDK in beating Titanic in raw domestic box office is the fact that ticket prices are about 50% higher than they were in 1997 ($4.59 to $6.88). Box Office Mojo says the 2008 average ticket price is $7.08, but I don't know where they get their numbers. So, $600 million in 1997 equals about 130 million buts in seats. For TDK it is only 87.2 million (84.7 million using Box Office Mojo's average ticket price). Adjusting for Ticket Price Inflation (the number for TDK to beat to surpass Titanic is $908 million, though it is no longer the top film by that method)
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 08:35 AM	#166
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	And I liked Titanic, by the way. Yes, there were historical inaccuracies but I didn't feel like I was being presented with a historical film so I didn't really care. But I only saw it once (ever, not even again on DVD) so I didn't particularly contribute to its success.
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 09:10 AM	#168
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I don't care what he claimed. I care the expectation it created in me as a viewer. I did not feel like I was watching an attempt to tell history so I do not care if it was not historically accurate. And conversely, even when the author/director claims to not be offering history I still care about inaccuracies if I feel they are creating the impression of telling it (such as with The Da Vinci Code).
	Submit to Quotes

07-28-2008, 09:41 AM	#170
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Yeah, me, too. I'm pretty up on my Titanic stuff ... and I'm really not aware of many inaccuracies. What, pray tell, are they? Hmmm, I appear to be on the LoT all year, perhaps all decade ... so I've got plenty of time.
	Submit to Quotes