Can The Dark Knight Truly Top Star Wars At The Box Office?

Considering that The Dark Knight has to stuggle in an age where home theater systems rival movie theaters, high ticket prices & internet piracy, the fact that it has still managed to drag people out of their homes to go to the theater, multiple times, as well as stay at the top of the box office for 4 weeks straight, is an accomplishment. In this day, to say that isn't impressive is just idiotic.

And cross-comparing different films from different periods is really just pointless. I don't care by inflation which film made more money or sold more tickets. There are simply too many things to factor in to know for sure.

If we could get all these films on their own terms, without bias or nostalgia, to show at the same time in theates & see which one is the greater success with audiences, then comparing their box office intake wouldn't be so dumb.

But just for the hell of it: if Star Wars were to be released today as a new film without the giant fanbase & such, do you really think it would pull in $840 million, even with all of the factors that TDK has to deal with? What about the same for Gone With the Wind & $1.4 billion?

And honestly, I just find this article kind of pointless when you consider all the factors involved. Really, this is the kind of writing I would expect from rabid Star Wars geeks on IMDb who get sick to their stomachs of the thought of another film beating their precious. This argument is seriously a last resort if I ever saw one.

Scott:

I can agree with that. I'm sure there are plenty of other arguements that would give GWTW more of an edge though, but for the most part I agree. My main point was just that you can't look at the numbers (adjusted for inflation or not) alone to determine which film was more successful overall (which I'm sure will always will be GWTW; but by how much is the gray-er area).

Dave:

I don't think you can cross compare them in each other's times. Granted GWTW wouldn't do as well today, but I doubt TDK would fare well in 1939 either. You can only look at them in their own contexts and use the adjusted dollar figures to get a sense of how many people actually went to see it.

By the dollars, nearly 3 times as many people went to see GWTW as have gone to see TDK. The only solid argument I see that gives GWTW an edge is the fact that these days people will see a movie once at the theater and then wait for it on DVD where as people in 1939 might be tempted towards multiple viewings since they only had the theater to see it.

I agree. Based on today's dollars, TDK does not compete. I know I am probably a minority, but I didn't think TDK was that spectacular. I preferred Jack Nicholson's joker and would have like to have seen more Batman in action. Before anyone has a fit, I'm not saying the movie wasn't good, it just wasn't THAT good.

I believe, if Heath Ledger hadn't died, the movie would not have done this well at the box office.

By the way, I am a Batman fan.

Scott:

True, but like Eternal Knight mentioned earlier, if GWTW came out at this day and age, I doubt it would make anything remotely close to 1.4 billion. So with the thousands of factors out there, I think it's safe to say that it's near impossible to compare a movie from back then to a movie now when it comes to absolulte success. Let's all just take off our clothes and have a party.

Knight Fan:

You have to finish looking at the whole side of that coin! Yes, movies were less expensive, but they were also more of a luxury in a sense. There were fewer theaters and with a running time of four hours the movie wouldn't have had more than a couple of screenings a day in each theater.

And of course they weren't the only form of entertainment. It was 1939, not the stone age. :)

I don't feel a huge need to give The Dark Knight any more credit than it's already getting. Has it done well at the box office? Sure. Is it something really spectacular? Not really. In fact, when you look at them evenly it's just barely keeping on par with a lot of other movies that have performed well in the last ten years. Honestly it hasn't really achieved anything that dozens of movies haven't already before. It's big claim to fame right now is breaking records, but those aren't bound to last long when prices keep going up the way they have. It just takes a good movie with a lot of hype and The Dark Knight fits the bill.

This article is EXACTLY right. You can argue that any movie on the list wouldn't make as much money today if it were released, but movies reflect the time in which they were made. GWTW is the winner. I'm a Star Wars fan and I don't like seeing it at #2, but oh well.

Thinks about it like this. If you made a movie and and set the ticket price at $1,000,000 and somehow you got 700 millionaires to buy a ticket, you would have the top grossing film of all time...but it wouldn't quite be fair now would it?

Dark Knight is great film but be realistic about it.

Of Course, you raise a fair point.
But let us look at the other side of the coin as well.
The days you are talking about, movies were the only form of entertainment. There was no plethora of channels on the telly, no playstations or x-boxes to keep you entertained, no HDTVs with Blu Ray and HD-DVD, no affordable 5.1 premium audio(heck even theaters didn't have those)...
And yes, the ticket prices aren't cheap anymore.. Which makes this an extraordinary achievement, to be able to draw crowds, packed houses, for 4 straight weeks.
So please, give a little credit where its due.
PS: I haven't yet mentioned the piracy that films have to contend with today.

All things being equal, would GWTW make that money today if released for the first time in our current technological and fiscal market? Of course not.

Right, because being in the top fifty all-time adjusted box office within four weeks of release is a "humbling" statistic.

And when the movie crosses $500 million it will be in the top THIRTY, and Batman will still be climbing. But that probably won't impress you, either.