‘The Dark Knight’ Hits $1 Billion Milestone

COMMENTS (18)

• That is spectacular. “Dark Knight” was truly an event picture for the new decade. Here’s hoping that Nolan does a good job at wrapping his Batman trilogy for 2011.

  Comment by Matt C — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 6:50am PST  Reply to this post

• marion cotillard as catwoman
  $$$$$$

  Comment by al pennyworth — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 6:53am PST  Reply to this post

• This is terrific news. Now perhaps this will help pay down the red ink on “Batman,” “Batman Returns,” “Batman Forever,” “Batman and Robin” and “Catwoman” that Warner Bros. was telling the producers they have been carrying for twenty years.

  Comment by Buddy Bing — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 10:07am PST  Reply to this post

• Well, it’s nice to see that the Best Picture of the Year was recognized by the people. Too bad the Oscars couldn’t see it through their rose-colored glasses. What a bunch of losers.

  I predict that this year’s Oscars will be the least watched ceremony in it’s televised history. That is, until next year’s show.

  Comment by RDO38 — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 11:20am PST  Reply to this post

• Awesome!!!!!

  Comment by Alboone — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 11:45am PST  Reply to this post

• Very well deserved. This is a pleasing reminder of the power and the universal entertainment value of the American film industry.

  Comment by jd — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 11:48am PST  Reply to this post

• Congratulations to all involved. TDK definitely deserves the 1B mark!

  Comment by Average Movie Guy — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 1:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Yes, and I suppose that the studio that released Paul Blart:Mail Cop will take 150 million over an OSCAR any day of the week as well. Boxoffice has nothing to do with a film’s quality but I suppose a blockbuster bad film keeps a lot of people employed. IS THAT THE POINT YOU ARE MAKING.

  Comment by jdls08 — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 1:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• Batman was a $400 million movie with a less than $40 million budget. Batman Returns was a $266 million flick with an $80 million dollar budget. Batman Forever was a $336 million film with a $100 million price tag. Batman and Robin was a $238 million boondoggle with a $125 million budget. I don’t see where any of these films lost money. It’s possible that the income was divided in a way that Warner Bros didn’t get a big enough cut to pay down the expense but I doubt that for the first three films. Catwoman was -$18 million at the box office but it still made some money back on DVD. If these movies weren’t making money they wouldn’t keep getting made.

  Comment by The Mullet — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 2:47pm PST  Reply to this post

• Another terrible movie makes a billion dollars, all thanks to hype and the death of a overrated performance by a dead junkie.

  Comment by redmenace — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 4:46pm PST  Reply to this post

• @redmenace:

  TDK, terrible? Are you blind or something?

  And Ledger wasn’t a junkie, his death was an accident through a lethal combination of prescription drugs he was taking at the time. Why people keep thinking that he was a junkie just angers me, he was anything but that.

  Comment by Matt C — Saturday February 21, 2009 @ 5:34pm PST  Reply to this post

• @redmenace:

  Don’t you think you should watch it before you bad mouth both the movie and Ledger’s performance, because it is obvious from your comment that you are one of the 5 people on the planet who haven’t seen it. TDK was a great movie and Ledger’s performance propelled it from a great movie to an epic movie, ’nuff said.

  TDK is great because it has layers. If you just want a popcorn flick it can be that but if you want something more meaningful it has deeper and more thought provoking meanings too.

  Comment by TheaterFan — Sunday February 22, 2009 @ 12:29am PST  Reply to this post

• @Matt C

  Ignore redmenace. It’s just typical troll type talk to come in and trash talk something people are heaping praise on. It’s how they make up for living in the basement.

  Comment by Sean P. Aune — Sunday February 22, 2009 @ 1:04am PST  Reply to this post

• “Ignore redmenace. It’s just typical troll type talk to come in and trash talk something people are heaping praise on. It’s how they make up for living in the basement”

  Why do fanboys all have the same rationale when it comes to defending whatever crap movie they love?

  Apparently, everyone who disagrees with their junk vice, must live in their parent’s basements and trolled internet forums.Newsflash, some people just don’t like to ride the collective penises of mass mediocrity.Some people will actually say what they really feel, rather than go alone with the crowd because that’s what’s popular.Matt C, Heath Ledger was a junkie.A man of his age, who had more prescription pills in him than my elderly grandmothers when he passed, wasn’t some clean living everyday man who just happen to overdose.As for your post TheaterFan, if you think The Dark Knight was a great movie, then your definition of great has to be that of a 12 year old.The Dark Knight had all the intelligence and cinematic genius of a Michael Bay movie.Explosion, bus crashing through bank, stupid dark voice by batman(bale),explosion,stupid dark voice by batman,car chase,trunk flip,fight scene, explosion…My god, it’s like the Casablanca of it’s time…

  All in all, it was a two hour and thirty minute movie that was thirty minutes to long and undeserving of the acclaim it has received.It it wasn’t for Ledger’s death, I doubt anyone would be giving it high praise besides the usual suspects (fanboys,comic book geeks,etc.

  Comment by redmenace — Sunday February 22, 2009 @ 5:10am PST  Reply to this post

• Dear Mullet: with your hopeful example of Hollywood bookkeeping, would you like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn? I got my information from a studio insider.

  Comment by Buddy Bing — Sunday February 22, 2009 @ 7:24am PST  Reply to this post

• @ redmenace:

  Despite your feelings on TDK, Nolan is by far and away much more talented and professional than the music-video hack Bay. Maybe it was the smartly-plotted script that made you mad? TDK has more tact and sublety than all of Bay’s films combined. (It has much less fireworks and wrecked real estate than Bayformers too.)

  And the Ledger comment — out of line. He wasn’t a junkie at all… the closest thing he came to a junkie was his chain-smoking.

  Comment by Matt C — Sunday February 22, 2009 @ 6:54pm PST  Reply to this post

• Some observations.

  First, box office talks and BS walks. I seriously doubt there’s anyone in Hollywood who wouldn’t trade an Oscar for Dark Knight’s phenomenal numbers. The five nominees COMBINED didn’t even make HALF of TDK’s box office.

  The new millenium’s Best Picture nominees, with few exceptions, are like Mark Twain’s definition of classics: everyone praises them and nobody sees them.
  Who can name the top five picks from last year without looking them up? How about the year before?

  Don’t answer, it’s a rhetorical question.

  You know why box office earnings are far more important than Oscars? Ask yourself, what would you rather be, an Oscar winner or a box office winner? And which is more likely to get you backing to greenlight your next project?

  Lastly, I beg to differ with redmenace, based on the evidence I’ve read, that Heath Ledger was a junkie or drug addict, but there is a place in film for them. Anyone ever see Dennis Hopper in Blue Velvet ;-0

  Comment by ScreamWriter — Tuesday February 24, 2009 @ 1:06am PST  Reply to this post

• screamwriter, I would rather be an Oscar winner than a box office winner. Box office winner has nothing to do with talent or quality. It’s like asking if you would rather be Daniel Day Lewis or Shia Labeouf.

  Comment by James — Thursday October 1, 2009 @ 7:18am PDT  Reply to this post