Batman 89 will go down as the bigger classic than TDK

MartyMcFly

What's up doc, can we rock?
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
59,888
Reputation
9,212
Daps
161,033
Reppin
P.G. County
Batman 89 Worldwide Grosses
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $251,188,924 61.1%
+ Foreign: $160,160,000 38.9%
= Worldwide: $411,348,924

In 1989 THIS WAS THE HIGHEST GROSSING COMIC FILM OF ALL TIME. IT HELD THE RECORD FOR 12 YEARS UNTIL "Spider man" Dropped. "The Dark Knight" only held it's record for 4 years when "The Avengers" beat the dog crap out of it.

Devil's advocate breh: look at what came out after Batman though?

Batman Returns wasn't going to be as big as batman because of the parent backlash
Batman Forever wasn't going to be as big because it was the third movie and the novelty of seeing batman on film had worn off
Batman and Robin was Batman and Robin
Blade is a minor character
X-Men, while huge in its own right, isn't one of the famous three comic book heroes and studios were still kinda unsure about comic book flicks after batman and robin..which leads to Spiderman, one of the three most popular and successful comic book heroes of all time, coming out the summer after 9/11 and it was the perfect movie for the perfect time and the perfect character. It was lightning in a bottle, much like batman, and dark knight, and the avengers
 

Poetical Poltergeist

Precise and cold hearted
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
37,444
Reputation
5,507
Daps
121,845
Reppin
Mile in the Sky
:deadrose: love you too breh.

again I'm not saying Dark Knight wasn't huge, clearly it was...I remember the lines at the theater on opening night and the continued lines, but Batman was the Jaws or Star Wars of its time and the media landscape at the time helped it become that. Because of that movie, you get batman insignias etched in heads, tattoos, billboards, piggy banks, toys (of which I had most of) and even freaking batman cereal (which was terrible). The movie created the basic marketing campaign that movies still follow to this day, like how is that not impact and landmark status? We're not talking quality, we're not talking numbers because if we were, Gone with the Wind when adjusted for inflation, is still the single biggest movie of all time, but if we're talking cultural impact? It's batman in the same way Jaws and Star Wars did even though I'd argue those two films are bigger and had more of an impact but still

lts interesting how people so soon forget about Ledger's death being a huge plus of tdks success and the marketing.
http://adage.com/article/news/hyping-joker-exploiting-heath-s-death/126981/


Hyping Joker -- Without Exploiting Heath's DeathWarner Will Walk a Fine Line as It Markets Batman Flick 'The Dark Knight'

By Claude Brodesser-akner. Published on May 12, 2008. 0

LOS ANGELES (AdAge.com) -- "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain," declares Aaron Eckhart in the forthcoming Warner Bros. summer blockbuster "Batman: The Dark Knight." The late actor Heath Ledger plays one of pop culture's most iconic villains in the upcoming Batman movie.
Unfortunately, in the case of his co-star Heath Ledger, both possibilities came true simultaneously. And because of that, some rather intense marketing headaches developed for Warner Bros.

After the Oscar-nominated Mr. Ledger was found dead from an accidental prescription-drug overdose Jan. 22, he was lionized by the public and press as having been heroically fearless in his choice of roles -- and, at 28, taken far too young. But not, of course, before he had chosen to play one of pop culture's most iconic villains, the clown-faced, schizophrenic mass murderer the Joker, in "The Dark Knight."

His passing left studio executives with a conundrum not experienced since James Dean died before the release of 1955's "Giant": How to market around Mr. Ledger's death without sacrificing the $200 million picture or appearing crassly exploitative. Watch the Heath Ledger story on the 3 Minute Ad Age video report.

The answer: Hype with the Joker, but sell with Batman.

'Pulse check'
While the studio declined to comment on its marketing plan for the film, its promotional partners or even its official licensees of "Dark Knight" products, interviews with numerous marketing executives reveal a fascinating and, at times, counterintuitive strategy.

For example, several weeks after Mr. Ledger's death, Warner marketing execs conducted what is known in industry jargon as a "pulse check" on the film's awareness and interest levels. While the term took on a macabre tone given Mr. Ledger's passing, the film's vital signs were more than healthy -- they were stellar.

Insiders at the studio said that after the global media onslaught surrounding Mr. Ledger's overdose, awareness for "Knight" was at virtually 100%, and interest in seeing the film jumped roughly 20% to equally robust levels, easily making "Knight" one of the most anticipated films of the summer, secondonly to "Indiana Jones."

While "Dark Knight" enjoys a $150 million marketing budget, considerably less than that might actually be enough to sell it.

Explained one Warner marketing insider: "With each successive 'Harry Potter' [film], the media buy has actually gone down; we basically just wave an ad with the date in front of em, and they show up in droves." The global crush of Ledger press, coupled with the fact that the franchise had already been re-established with 2005's "Batman Begins," means that "absolutely the media buy for 'Dark Knight' could go down as well."

Plenty of Ledger
Ignoring or downplaying Mr. Ledger's role in the film didn't make sense, so creative materials give him ample space. The latest trailer is "wall-to-wall Joker," said one longtime Warner marketing executive.

Among the film's confirmed promotional partners are confectioner Hershey's, handset maker Nokia, breakfast giant General Mills, clothier Giorgio Armani, Domino's Pizza and even a Time Warner rival, Comcast, the nation's largest cable company.

Several of those promotional partners have been used in viral marketing campaigns that prominently feature the Joker -- but mainly in the service of hyping the picture and burnishing their brands rather than directly selling their products.

For example, Nokia phones were an integral if subtle part of the "Dark Knight" viral-marketing campaign conducted for Warner by 42 Entertainment, a Pasadena, Calif.-based company that specializes in alternative-reality games for motion pictures.

"Dark Knight" fans who went to whysoserious.com in December could find themselves invited to a treasure hunt. Instructions then directed them to 35 bakeries in 25 cities across the nation. After asking for an order left for "Robin Banks" (the Joker's favorite activity), they received a cake with a Nokia cellphone in it, which was used to send them more clues, prizes and, of course, garner scads of local media attention.

Joker bowling bags
Similarly, an April viral promotion via the websiteclowntravelagency.com directed people to bowling-alley lockers throughout the U.S. and in cities around the world. Those who got there first discovered limited-edition Joker bowlingball bags containing a ball with a telephone number scratched into it and, again, a Nokia phone with a note saying to call the number immediately. A report in the New York Post about Mattel's Joker action figures 'flying off the shelves' at a local Toys 'R' Us was pooh-poohed by retail and manufacturing executives as having ignored several key facts.
"While hundreds are playing, millions are watching," said an executive involved with the marketing of the film. The contests and the brand of the phone were widely covered, dissected and discussed on movie websites and local media.

Although Warner would not confirm a final list of promotional partners for "Knight," interviews with marketers show the studio did, sometimes even before the Ledger tragedy, go out of its way to make sure its massive footprint belonged to Batman, or Bruce Wayne, rather than the Joker.

For example, a spokeswoman for Hershey's confirmed that special dark-chocolate Reese's Peanut Butter Cups will be introduced in the coming weeks, to emphasize the "Dark Knight." It will also re-color Reese's Pieces in Batman-themed gray, black and white as replacements for the usual orange and yellow. An Armani magazine ad campaign will feature Christian Bale's Bruce Wayne donning the label's high-end clothing.

The studio has shown similar restraint with licensed products. Warner Bros.' Consumer Products has licensed "Dark Knight" apparel with companies such as Berkshire (hosiery), ACI (L.A. Gear shoes), Armitron (watches) and Fruit of the Loom (T-shirts), as well as value-price electronics maker Digital Blue, which will be selling "Dark Knight"- branded digital cameras at retailers such as Target, Toys "R" Us, Sears and Kmart. Armitron and Fruit of the Loom declined to discuss any changes to their licensing plans brought on by the death of Mr. Ledger. But Digital Blue CEO Tim Hall said the use of Mr. Ledger's image or the Joker's on its "Dark Knight" line of products was quickly nixed after his death.

Holding back
"We had a series of Joker-designed cameras," Mr. Hall said, "and while the Joker is an incredibly important character in the film, after the really sad tragedy with Heath Ledger, we came to decide not to take them to market.

"Depending on the comfort level of Heath Ledger's family, we may work with Warner Bros. to bring them out later," he added. Will speculators and collectors drive up the price of those Ledger-inspired Joker products that do make it to market? Possibly, but not likely, given the vast quantities of toys produced.

A report in the New York Post about Mattel's Joker action figures "flying off the shelves" at a local Toys "R" Us was pooh-poohed by retail and manufacturing executives as having ignored several key facts. For one thing, there are no known shortages of the Joker figure, they said, and if there were, they would be attributable to summer-movie toy shipments just now arriving at stores, not a lack of overall supply.

And as to the Joker toys allegedly flying off the shelves, Toys "R" Us spokesman Bob Friedland told Ad Age that what's been ignored is that "the entire line of ['Dark Knight'] action figures is selling equally well." In other words, consumer demand for the Joker has been equal to that of other "Dark Knight" characters, such as Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent and, no doubt to the great relief of Warner, Batman.
 

Rapmastermind

Superstar
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
10,719
Reputation
3,358
Daps
39,877
Reppin
New York City
Devil's advocate breh: look at what came out after Batman though?

Batman Returns wasn't going to be as big as batman because of the parent backlash
Batman Forever wasn't going to be as big because it was the third movie and the novelty of seeing batman on film had worn off
Batman and Robin was Batman and Robin
Blade is a minor character
X-Men, while huge in its own right, isn't one of the famous three comic book heroes and studios were still kinda unsure about comic book flicks after batman and robin..which leads to Spiderman, one of the three most popular and successful comic book heroes of all time, coming out the summer after 9/11 and it was the perfect movie for the perfect time and the perfect character. It was lightning in a bottle, much like batman, and dark knight, and the avengers

Yeah but that shows you how GREAT "Batman 89" was. Not only did no Comic Film in over a Decade could match it's box office (Even outgrossed Batman Begins) but no actor could Touch The Joker in 20 years. So saying, "Oh those movies were bad" takes nothing away form how GREAT "Batman 89" was.
 

MartyMcFly

What's up doc, can we rock?
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
59,888
Reputation
9,212
Daps
161,033
Reppin
P.G. County
Batman Begins is a landmark film just as much as Batman 89. It paved the way for more darker super hero movies like Man of Steel and all those new super hero movies coming out that will most likely have a darker story like Nolans films.

For filmmakers yeah but pop culture landscape? Nah. You gotta put everything in context breh: Batman was the first comic book flick since Superman and released in 89, right during the end of the cold war and in times of war, people always look to "heroes" plus you had the biggest actor on the planet playing the villain, a villain damn near the whole world was familiar with? That's huge. Jack Nicholson doing a comic book movie? That was unheard of at the time and no one thought it was possible, which also made it an event movie.

Yeah but that shows you how GREAT "Batman 89" was. Not only did no Comic Film in over a Decade could match it's box office (Even outgrossed Batman Begins) but no actor could Touch The Joker in 20 years. So saying, "Oh those movies were bad" takes nothing away form how GREAT "Batman 89" was.

I think it also shows the moment not necessarily the greatness of the movie breh. I like the film a lot but numbers don't always translate to quality. There are a lot of people who'd argue batman returns is a better film but it didn't make nearly as much. Batman Forever made more than Batman Returns and I don't know many people who'd argue it's a better film.
 

StraxStrax

I'm selling these fine leather jackets
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
8,810
Reputation
880
Daps
16,705
Batman Forever made more than Batman Returns and I don't know many people who'd argue it's a better film.

I'd take Forever over Returns now. When I was younger I liked Returns more but with age its become clear to me that movie just doesn't feel like a Batman movie except for the costume design, Batman straight up kills 2-3 people. I'm saying not Forever is a good movie but it's a fun campy romp
 

MartyMcFly

What's up doc, can we rock?
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
59,888
Reputation
9,212
Daps
161,033
Reppin
P.G. County
I'd take Forever over Returns now. When I was younger I liked Returns more but with age its become clear to me that movie just doesn't feel like a Batman movie except for the costume design, Batman straight up kills 2-3 people. I'm saying not Forever is a good movie but it's a fun campy romp

I can understand that. Not saying I completely agree with you but I definitely see the argument and understand it. Both movies, Batman and Batman Returns, just never feel interested in Batman to me but that's for a different day.
 

Poetical Poltergeist

Precise and cold hearted
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
37,444
Reputation
5,507
Daps
121,845
Reppin
Mile in the Sky
I can understand that. Not saying I completely agree with you but I definitely see the argument and understand it. Both movies, Batman and Batman Returns, just never feel interested in Batman to me but that's for a different day.
Joel Schumacher took campiness to a whole different level w. Forever and BR. shyt were terrible.
 

Uncle_Ruckus

We The North
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
10,339
Reputation
2,520
Daps
17,705
Reppin
T Dot
Batman and Batman Returns, just never feel interested in Batman to me but that's for a different day.

See breh this is what I meant yesterday. Those movies were more about the villans not Batman. You even said Jack being the Joker was a huuuuge deal. Nolans Batmans are the first Batman films to actually study Bruce Waynes character and origin. Those 80's 90's Batmans were all hyped and driven by the casting of the villans.

Batman 89 - Jack Nicholson
BR - Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny Davito
BF - Jim Carey
BAR - Arnold

No one cared about who played Batman in any of those movies. Maybe the comic book stans, but the majority of us didn't care.
 

spliz

SplizThaDon
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
61,396
Reputation
9,332
Daps
204,433
Reppin
NY all day..Da Stead & BK..
See breh this is what I meant yesterday. Those movies were more about the villans not Batman. You even said Jack being the Joker was a huuuuge deal. Nolans Batmans are the first Batman films to actually study Bruce Waynes character and origin. Those 80's 90's Batmans were all hyped and driven by the casting of the villans.

Batman 89 - Jack Nicholson
BR - Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny Davito
BF - Jim Carey
BAR - Arnold

No one cared about who played Batman in any of those movies. Maybe the comic book stans, but the majority of us didn't care.
We're u alive back then?..I remember people was heated when Michael Keaton left Batman...when Val Kilmer did it people weren't sure but he ended up doin a decent job....and we ain't even gonna talk about how people felt about George Clooney....till this day....Michael Keaton is the best Batman/Bruce Wayne combo...Christian Bale was a better Bruce Wayne than Batman...
 

MartyMcFly

What's up doc, can we rock?
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
59,888
Reputation
9,212
Daps
161,033
Reppin
P.G. County
See breh this is what I meant yesterday. Those movies were more about the villans not Batman. You even said Jack being the Joker was a huuuuge deal. Nolans Batmans are the first Batman films to actually study Bruce Waynes character and origin. Those 80's 90's Batmans were all hyped and driven by the casting of the villans.

Batman 89 - Jack Nicholson
BR - Michelle Pfeiffer and Danny Davito
BF - Jim Carey
BAR - Arnold

No one cared about who played Batman in any of those movies. Maybe the comic book stans, but the majority of us didn't care.

Word. I feel you..BUT, fans cared lol. Whether the directors did or didn't that's another argument buuuut...
"Batman" screenwriter Sam Hamm confessed that he was taken aback the day he walked into a comics shop "and encountered these diatribes against Michael Keaton--and a petition to stop the Batman movie."

Warner Bros.' now-filming $30-million "Batman" has been the subject of hard scrutiny from many fans.

The reason: They don't approve of the casting of non-macho comedy king Keaton in the title role. Some fans don't much like the notion of Jack Nicholson as The Joker, either. (They're worried that he'll camp it up.) Then there's the fact that comedy meister Tim Burton ("Beetlejuice," "Pee Wee's Big Adventure") is directing what is reportedly not a comedy.

The "Batman" protests recently captured front-page coverage in an unlikely place--the stuffy Wall Street Journal, which headlined: "Batman Fans Fear the Joke's on Them in Hollywood Epic."

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-12-11/entertainment/ca-537_1_bad-guys/2

Fans cared breh. Burton has always had a thing for the freaks so he goes with that. Schumacher actually made Batman Forever about Batman for all the faults the movie has
 

Uncle_Ruckus

We The North
Joined
May 25, 2012
Messages
10,339
Reputation
2,520
Daps
17,705
Reppin
T Dot
We're u alive back then?..I remember people was heated when Michael Keaton left Batman...when Val Kilmer did it people weren't sure but he ended up doin a decent job....and we ain't even gonna talk about how people felt about George Clooney....till this day....Michael Keaton is the best Batman/Bruce Wayne combo...Christian Bale was a better Bruce Wayne than Batman...
I'm talking about the hype behind those movies and the driving force to go see them was the casting of the villans not Batman. No one went to go see any of those movies to see Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney. They went to see how the villans were portrayed. Like I said, obviously there are stans who were heated with Batman's casting, but that wasn't the majority. No one I know cared about who played Batman. We were all just hyped to see the movie and the new villans. I'm not a stan, so I cant speak for people that protested Keaton being replaced. Also I was a kid/teen in the 90's so I didn't give a shyt. The villans are what creates the hype around any Batman movie. Hell any super hero movie. Without a good casting for the villan the movie will suck, doesnt matter who plays the hero.
 

MartyMcFly

What's up doc, can we rock?
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
59,888
Reputation
9,212
Daps
161,033
Reppin
P.G. County
I'm talking about the hype behind those movies and the driving force to go see them was the casting of the villans not Batman. No one went to go see any of those movies to see Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney they went to see how the villans were portrayed. Like I said, obviously there are stans that were heated with Batman's casting but that wasn't the majority. No one I know cared about who played batman we were all just hyped to see the movie and the new villans. I;m not a stan so I cant speak for people that protested Keaton being replaced. Also I was a kid/teen in the 90's so I didn't give a shyt. The villans are what creates the hype around any Batman movie. Hell any super hero movie. Without a good casting for the villan the movie will suck, doesnt matter who plays the hero.

I'd argue that's still the thing for the day tho breh. It's always been like that with superhero flicks. We're making a superman movie, who do we cast as the villain? Gene Hackman, one of the biggest stars on the planet. And for his dad? Marlon fukkin Brando, meaning we can just cast this guy who does soap operas as superman.

Then when superman 2 comes out, you build your movie off the star power your main guy has now earned which is exactly what happened in batman returns. I'd argue Danny and Michelle were on equal footing with Michael Keaton in 92, maybe a little lower because he was Batman and was in the biggest movie of all time. At that point, you build your movie off of that but Burton himself has always been more interested in the villains so that's where he puts the focus of his story and I'm almost sure the studio wanted to make sure Batman Forever actually had focus on Batman. But once again, same scenario: We've got Val Kilmer, not that big of a star so let's balance that out with Jim Carey and Tommy Lee Jones.

Not until the x men movie or maybe even spider-man do you see casts of relatively unknown or at least kinda famous actors being put in these movies in all parts because the filmmakers were more willing to trust the material and trust that the film is good, not rely on stars to put butts in seats. Now you do an x men movie and Hugh Jackman and Jennifer Lawrence are the biggest stars in it and they're both homegrown
 
Top