With the huge success that the movie is making so far, WB and director Chris Nolan might be talking sequel. So if a sequel is a go, who do you think would be the villian for the next film? My money is on Adrian Brody as the Joker.

This comes from Dark Horizons...
Meanwhile, Director Chris Nolan apparently spoke with Laceby News about whether he'd come back to direct a sequel - "If David's writing it, Christian's still Batman, and everyone else is returning.....me not returning would be like the only student of a graduating class skipping the big day to wash the car" said the British helmer.

He dropped some other hints such as "Like Begins, one clear cut villain isn't the plan [though]" and the likelihood of Robin appearing "The studio wasn't interested in Robin. We weren't either. This is a young Batman, so Robin's a few films....not for a few pictures anyway. Dick Grayson's still in a crib somewhere. I seriously doubt I will even be involved when Robin's in the franchise" says Nolan.

Thanks to 'Pint-Drinker', 'eRic' & 'Kenny'.

With the huge success that the movie is making so far, ...

When I saw the weekend box office, I was stunned at how poorly this movie had done.

I'm not a Batman expert but I just did some searching and it seems that pretty much everybody, including Warner Brothers, is surprised. They figured they had about another 20 million worth from all the hype and it just didn't materialize.

I'm sure it will still be a nice money maker...but a moderate one.

You are correct, Brent. It hasn't done the box-office WB was hoping for - but it hasn't done badly either. I think a sequel is about as sure a thing as is the sun coming up tomorrow. I've just got a feeling that this movie has "legs". It's too damned good not to.

With the huge success that the movie is making so far, WB and director Chris Nolan might be talking sequel. So if a sequel is a go, who do you think would be the villian for the next film? My money is on Adrian Brody as the Joker.
Do you mean Adrien Brody? (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0004778/) If so, interesting choice. Might make for a good younger Joker, I guess.

Steve Buscemi.

When I saw the weekend box office, I was stunned at how poorly this movie had done.

To be fair to "Batman” it's not the only movie to have under-performed this summer. The film industry is experiencing its worst box-office slump in twenty years (thus far the summer's only unqualified hit is Episode III).

Still waiting in the wings are blockbuster wannabes like "War of the Worlds", "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory", "Fantastic Four", and "Bewitched". Having seen the latter three, I predict they'll each generate decent business opening weekend, after which returns will diminish pretty rapidly (especially the numbers for "Bewitched", which not even Will Ferrell can save).

"WOTW" is a hard one to call both creatively and commercially -- and in any case it would have to do "Titanic"-sized biz to end the current B.O. slump.

For what it's worth, I hope I'm wrong about the aforementioned films' financial prospects. "Chocolate Factory" in particular is a film I'd love to see find an audience, but I have a hunch Johnny Depp's take on Willy Wonka is going to give a lot of people the willies.

"Chocolate Factory" in particular is a film I'd love to see find an audience, but I have a hunch Johnny Depp's take on Willy Wonka is going to give a lot of people the willies.

Based just on what I've seen in the trailer, it seems like Depp is playing him as Michael Jackson (with a hint of Edward Scissorhands), while made up to look like Helena Bonham Carter.

Would you say that's an accurate assessment? I'd hate to skip this movie based just on the terrible trailers that the marketing department came up with...

Joker? I'd like to see Crispin Glover.

Christin Bale has signed to do three Batman movies.

Possible titles for sequel -

Batman Begins II
Batman Begins Again
Batman Still Beginning
Batman Continues
Bats Again
Still Batty After All These Years
Batman II: The Wrath of Joel

They could go international:

Batman Comienza (begins)
Batman Regresa (returns)
Batman Se Queda Por Un Poquito (stays around for a bit)
Batman Se Fue (has left)

José

You are correct, Brent. It hasn't done the box-office WB was hoping for - but it hasn't done badly either. I think a sequel is about as sure a thing as is the sun coming up tomorrow. I've just got a feeling that this movie has "legs". It's too damned good not to.

I understand that the studios are making more off DVD's now than theatrical releases, I imagine WB will make a lot more off the disc.

I'm waiting for the DVD, I usually do, it's gotta be something really good to get me in a theater. I am making an exception tonight to catch the first showing of Land of the Dead, got my fingers crossed since reviews and word of mouth are mixed.

I was looking thru a BB book and it mentioned bits I don't remember from the movie. Last minute hold outs for the DVD?

Batman 2-b, or not 2b, depending on the system. Whether tis nobler to tell a story and quit, or milk it to death, and thereby end up rich.

Based just on what I've seen in the trailer, it seems like Depp is playing him as Michael Jackson (with a hint of Edward Scissorhands), while made up to look like Helena Bonham Carter.

Would you say that's an accurate assessment? I'd hate to skip this movie based just on the terrible trailers that the marketing department came up with...

glad im not the only one to pick up on the jacksonish thing going on there. considering the horrible fates of all the children except charley, and wonka's ho-hum attitude towards it, him being creepy is probably closer to the mark than wilders incarnation (who, now that i think about it, probably had to work very hard to lighten the character).

it wouldnt be the first time tim burton has delivered a bomb. "mars attacks" . nuff said. (now that i think of it, burton should really stay away from other peoples materiel. mars attacks, planet of the apes, now wonka. [even a chimpanzee could have directed a batman film in 89 and it would have been a blockbuster.. and a lot of people didnt like his take on the character.])

god i am SO sick of hollywood whining about their "slump". their "slump" is a decline of 6.5% percent compared to this time last year (potter 3, spiderman 2, shreck 2). so its not that they arent making money hand over fist, its that they arent making enough to satisfy their overwhelming greed in relation to last year.

by the way, according to the imdb, glover is the frontrunner for the joker. (although they also reported that mark hammel is in the running, which i dont believe for a second. i know hes the voie for the cartoon shows, but thats strictly star wars tie in p.r. b.s.)

It's really amazing when a movie grosses FORTY-SEVEN MILLION FRELLIN' DOLLARS during it's first weekend in the theatres, and it's considered a failure. I may be the only one in the country that hasn't seen it who can front money for a movie-ticket (fresh out of wheels and the nearest theatre is a ten-mile hike).

This is a bunch of millionaires whining that they made slightly less money this year. They never comment that the movie wasn't artistically satisfying, only about the money. If it is 20 mill short, wait a week or two.
A study came out last week saying more and morte people would rather see movies at home. So DVD sales need to be factored in from now on. What are they, stupid?

In the 1980s I worked with a guy who never saw star wars.

It's really amazing when a movie grosses FORTY-SEVEN MILLION FRELLIN' DOLLARS during it's first weekend in the theatres, and it's considered a failure.

The various net site put the estimated budget of Batman Begins at 140 million (give or take a few bucks). This kind of superhero action flick expects huge opening weekend results from the fans. I saw an estimate that, with all the hype, the movie might open with over 65 million in ticket sales. There tends to be a rather dramatic drop off after the opening so a big weekend is important.

Compare that to the teen girl movie THE PERFECT MAN which opened at the same time. It made a paltry 5.3 million bucks on the weekend. But the estimated budget was only 10 million dollars. It can break even with a few more days in the theater and then the DVDs are pure profit.

Oh...I've never seen a STAR WARS movie either.

There tends to be a rather dramatic drop off after the opening so a big weekend is important.


Batman might beat the dramatic superhero drop-off curse. A lot of big movies drop off quickly because word of mouth is bad. I haven't seen it it, but the reviews I've heard have been almost uniformly positive, unlike say, The Hulk, Elektra, or Daredevil. It might have legs, especially if the other summer block busters are disapointing.

Batman appears to have legs, it's been having good fill rates even during the day in the theaters.

Whether they're long enough to make sure they do at least $250mil remains to be seen

well it played to a packed house at the dearborn mi imax on wednesday at 6:50 in the evening.... so i think thats a good sign
batman begins take, according to boxofficemojo.com, as of wednesday june 22:
$90,446,984.00 domestic + $40,700,00.00 international = $131,146,984.00, with an estimated production budget of $150,000,000.00 (advertising/marketing budget not available)

Oh...I've never seen a STAR WARS movie either.

The spirit of Yoda compells you! The spirit of Yoda compels you!!

A study came out last week saying more and morte people would rather see movies at home. So DVD sales need to be factored in from now on. What are they, stupid?


Quite the contrary. If I had to make a guess, they are purposely omitting the DVD / overseas numbers. I wouldn't be the least be surprised to see them start using the RIAA's specious reasoning of "sales are down, so it must be because of online piracy!"

For example, RIAA is always quick to point out "the amount of CDs being shipped to retailers is down ___% from last year." Of course, they don't factor in sales from things like iTunes and other legal download sites; nor do they define who they are considering a 'retailer'.

the only time the entertainment industry doesnt complain is when they are making so much money that the complaint would be obviously ridiculous. its kind of like this gal i was in rehab with. whenever she was asked about her drug of choice, she'd simply answer "more".

We're in a transition period like in the 50s where studios were panicking "What can we give them that TV can't? The answer- Cinemascope (2.35:1) screens and 70mm photography.

Now that there's DVD and people can get a HD quality 10 feet wide with surround sound for under $5000, they're again stuck there.

IMAx is the new widescreen. Large as life pictures, and thanks to the well-silvered screens, polarized 3-D projection that looks bleeding fantastic.

Rodriguez and Cameron are already doing it, Lucas and Spielburg won't be far behind, and the IMAX hyperres process finally doesn't freeze the backgrounds (at least not on Batman) to squash the magnified grain. With digital cinema and IMAX the real revolution in "why you should see it in the theater" is probably 10 years away. But when 4K 50MP 24p cameras become standard, that is going to be something else and it'll pull people back to the theater.

Of course, the current thing to really get people going is to give them stuff they want to see. Give the Superheroes a rest for awhile, let spidey and X-Men rest after 3, let Bats and Supes have their shot but don't keep making movies like Fantastic 4 and Elektra. Good movies will get people to go, and some studios are figuring out that your $40 million film that makes $55 marketed correctly will between theatrical, foreign and video turn you a mighty profit with low risk.

I just hope Serenity will show them the light. It's magnificent, now people just have to see it

We're in a transition period like in the 50s where studios were panicking "What can we give them that TV can't? The answer- Cinemascope (2.35:1) screens and 70mm photography.

...

Of course, the current thing to really get people going is to give them stuff they want to see... Good movies will get people to go, and some studios are figuring out that your $40 million film that makes $55 marketed correctly will between theatrical, foreign and video turn you a mighty profit with low risk.

I just hope Serenity will show them the light. It's magnificent, now people just have to see it

Amen!

The creative bankruptcy at the studios is astonishing. In Los Angeles, a town of 8 million people where everyone has a script, all they can do is remake what has already been done?

I have to admit, due to its Friday time slot, I wasn't able to catch all of the Firefly episodes (I loved seeing the guy abruptly kicked into the engine in the pilot)... but after seeing the trailer, I'm definitely going to have to catch Serenity.

This is a bunch of millionaires whining that they made slightly less money this year. They never comment that the movie wasn't artistically satisfying, only about the money. If it is 20 mill short, wait a week or two.
A study came out last week saying more and morte people would rather see movies at home. So DVD sales need to be factored in from now on. What are they, stupid?Apparently so. Especially since they haven't figured out that most people would rather see movies at home because it costs too (insert favorite expletive here) much to see a movie in a theater these days!!! Why spend that much to see a movie one time when you can spend the same amount (or less) to buy the DVD or video and watch it as many times as you like? Just another group of people with more money than brains...

I heard on CNN that Batman was #1 again for the weekend. Only made 25 million.

There's an article online and I wish I could find it again, where they discuss how studios "sell" the rights to a movie to a German company and then lease it back and the way German law works the studios end up spending squat since the German company uses investors and they get mega tax breaks on it all.
The studio then actually makes money even if the box office isnt huge.
Ok that is a bit confusing but thats the rough idea. I wish I could remember it fully but it was a while ago I read so forgive me.

The article was on Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2117309/