Twilight bigger than The Dark Knight?! HAHAHAHAHHA

[1ICON]

I just had to post this. Comes straight from Yahoo Movies/E! Online.


There basically saying Twilight and a handful of other movies were WAY BETTER than the dark knight, only because they tripled or quadripled their revenues.
I think they were bored?


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/movies.eonline.com/76842-


"If only Wall Street had bet on Twilight. Or Hannah Montana. Or Kirk Cameron.

With a $167.3 million overall domestic take as Sunday, per Box Office Mojo, Twilight made more than four times its reported $37 million production budget—the best rate of return on any film in the 2008 Top 10, including The Dark Knight.

The Batman epic was a pretty good investment, too, very nearly tripling its gargantuan $185 million budget with a $530.8 million domestic take, Hollywood's second-biggest ever.

Still, The Dark Knight was nothing compared to these off-the-charts performers: High School Musical 3: Senior Year ($89.7 million), which grossed about eight times its $11 million budget; the Hannah Montana concert movie, which made about nine times its $7 million budget; and, Cameron's Fireproof, which cost $500,000 to produce, and made $33.1 million—or, more than 60 times its budget.

Other winners—and losers—of the box-office year that was, per stats from Box Office Mojo and The-Numbers.com:

Winners:

• Titanic. If The Dark Knight couldn't get within even $50 million of the big-boat movie, then maybe it really won't ever be sunk as Hollywood's all-time domestic box-office king. • Robert Downey Jr. Rising from The Shaggy Dog, Downey was the only star to score two Top 20 live-action hits, Iron Man ($318.3 million) and Tropic Thunder ($110.5 million). • Will Smith. With apologies to Downey, Smith was the only star to sell a Top 10 movie, Hancock ($227.9 million), solely with his name. • Women. Tween and teen girls flocked to Twilight. Actresses fronted, or helped front, four Top 20 hits: Sex and the City ($152.6 million), Mamma Mia! ($143.8 million), Wanted ($134.3 million) and Four Christmases ($111.8 million). • Paris Hilton. Her opus, The Hottie & the Nottie ($27,696), was so not the lowest-grossing movie of the year. In fact, it reigned over films starring Catherine Zeta-Jones (Death Defying Acts, $3,561), Heather Graham (Miss Conception, $1,503) and Nick Stahl (How to Rob a Bank, $711—yes, $711).

In-Betweeners:

• Hollywood. Despite The Dark Knight, overall revenue was down $86.8 million from last year, a drop of about 1 percent. Ticket sales fell even further—a dip of about about 4.25 percent, representing 59.1 million fewer admissions. But, given the nation's economic meltdown, things could have been worse, and, oddly, things got better after Wall Street's collapse in September. "I think the fact that the Industry held its own is remarkable," Exhibitor Relations' Jeff Bock said. • Speed Racer. In May, this looked like the flop of the year. Then came the $130 million Australia ($44.3 million gross), and the realization by Disney that Prince Caspian ($141.6 million) wasn't The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe ($291.7 million). In the end, Speed was still a bomb—$43.9 million gross; $120 million budget—but it wasn't the bomb. • Adam Sandler. You Don't Mess with the Zohan ($100 million) didn't bomb, but it didn't clear its $90 million budget by much. Bedtime Stories, which opened on Christmas, isn't bombing, but it isn't Night at the Museum. • Brendan Fraser. Put him in a $145 million movie, like The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, or a $60 million movie, like Journey to the Center of the Earth, and you get the same result: a so-so $100 million or so gross. • M. Night Shyamalan. His The Happening ($64.5 million) made more than it cost, but people disliked it about as much as Lady in the Water.

Losers:

• Wallets. The average ticket price hit $7.20, the National Association of Theatre Owners reported on its blog, a new all-time high. • Blockbusters. Of the year's 24 members of the $100 million club, four failed to match their budgets with their domestic takes alone: Quantum of Solace ($164.3 million gross; $200 million budget); The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian ($141.6 million gross; $200 million budget); The Incredible Hulk ($134.3 million gross; $150 million budget); and, The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ($102.3 million gross; $145 million budget). • Prince Capsian. "That one looked like a guaranteed $200 million-plus superhit, with a real chance of surpassing $300 million," Box Office Guru's Gitesh Pandya said in an email. Instead, it might have cost the Narnia trilogy its third leg. • The X-Files. Fox revived the franchise with a can't-lose $30 million investment only to lose when I Want to to Believe couldn't crack even $21 million. • 10,000 B.C. ($94.8 million), The Spiderwick Chronicles ($71.2 million), Hellboy II: The Golden Army ($75.8 million) and Mike Myers' The Love Guru ($32.2 million) and every other underperformer.

Here's a look of the top-grossing films of 2008 through Sunday based on numbers compiled by Box Office Mojo:

• The Dark Knight, $530.8 million • Iron Man, $318.3 million • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, $317 million • Hancock, $227.9 million • WALL-E, $223.8 million • Kung Fu Panda, $215.4 million • Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa, $174.9 million • Twilight, $167.3 million • Quantum of Solace, $164.3 million • Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who!, $154.5 million (Originally published Dec. 29, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. PT)"

[Edo]

:d

[BluLobsta]

Oh God, please, not Yahoo bloggers again. Those knuckleheads are the same people who said Blu-Ray is dying, yes I said 'dying'. Stuff like that makes you shake your head...

[xtop]

some cool stats.

misleading title

[mikejet]

Let's see:

530.8 Million - 185 Million = 345.80 Million PROFIT

167.3 Million - 37 Million = 130.30 Million PROFIT

I think TDK wins.

[P@t_Mtl]

Of course this will not be taking into account that in roughly 3-5 years when the generation of girls who are in love currently with Twillight & High School Musical have move on to other things and both are completly forgotten and selling in the 6$ BD bin at Wall-Mart and WB is still making millions with Batman, yes clearly the winner are Twillight & High School Musical, how could we not see that?

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Let's see:

530.8 Million - 185 Million = 345.80 Million PROFIT

167.3 Million - 37 Million = 130.30 Million PROFIT

I think TDK wins.

That's the total Box Office number not the studio's share. What do you think these theatres show these things for free?

[thedarkangel1975]

Actually the theater makes no money on the bos office. This is what i was told by my friend that works there. She said they only make money on concessions, that is why it is 5 bucks for a small soda.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by thedarkangel1975

Actually the theater makes no money on the bos office. This is what i was told by my friend that works there. She said they only make money on concessions, that is why it is 5 bucks for a small soda.

My understanding is they make a percentage of the BO, if they only made money off of concessions they would be far stricter on allowing outside food and beverage than they are.

[thedarkangel1975]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

My understanding is they make a percentage of the BO, if they only made money off of concessions they would be far stricter on allowing outside food and beverage than they are.

I am not surprised. But I am not shocked my friend would lie to me lol

[fighthefutureofhd]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Let's see:

530.8 Million - 185 Million = 345.80 Million PROFIT

167.3 Million - 37 Million = 130.30 Million PROFIT

I think TDK wins.

that is true, but twilight and high school musical made more money back than it cost to make. take clueless for example. that was one of the top 3 films of 1995 due to it making more money back than it cost to make. that's why blair witch is so huge too. both the dark knight and twilight made a huge chunk of change with each beating the other at the box office in different categories. that's why fireproof in some ways is a bigger success than the dark knight. making more on your return is a huge key here and very important. the article actually nailed this one good.

[Blu Titan]

Twilight Nuff said.

[Jeremy1983]

Originally Posted by kpkelley

My understanding is they make a percentage of the BO, if they only made money off of concessions they would be far stricter on allowing outside food and beverage than they are.

From my understanding, theaters and distributers split the box office about evenly.

Not to mention that Dark Knight will make much more money with DVD/BD sales, merchandising, TV deals, etc. than Twilight.

[dvd_mazter]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Let's see:

530.8 Million - 185 Million = 345.80 Million PROFIT

167.3 Million - 37 Million = 130.30 Million PROFIT

I think TDK wins.

That isn't even counting worldwide market

[ixlegitballinxl]

kinda funny, my gf loves that book series...

i go on bluray.com forum

she goes on the twilight forums!

[Truewitt]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1983

From my understanding, theaters and distributers split the box office about evenly.

Not to mention that Dark Knight will make much more money with DVD/BD sales, merchandising, TV deals, etc. than Twilight.

Actually, theaters get an absurdly small percentage of the box office. This is why theaters give out free tickets for ANY reason. I worked for a theater that would give out free tickets if, after the movie was over, you simply told them you did not like it. Giving you free tickets means the theaters lose nothing and make everything off your returning to their theater.

True and false on the second point. Twilight merch willl rake in far more than Dark Knight. And to the point of the OP, any money the movie makes from the things you mentioned is pure gravy for Summit's investment.

[statikcat]

Why does it matter one bit what multiplier the gross is compared to budget? If I make a movie for 10,000$ and it grosses 500,000 in the box office I am somehow more successful than TDK? That is laughable logic..

[ixlegitballinxl]

based on production vs revenue, twilight did beat tdk

but everyone knows the tdk is a better movie/more popular

this thread is about cost, not popularity

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by mikejet

Let's see:

530.8 Million - 185 Million = 345.80 Million PROFIT

167.3 Million - 37 Million = 130.30 Million PROFIT

I think TDK wins.

To a certain extent, The Dark Knight's box office take was a fluke. Maybe nobody want to hear it, but TDK was helped greatly by Heath Ledger's death. What percentage do you think went to see it because it was last film and not because it was the new Batman movie?

When it comes to making a sequel, which do you think a studio is more likely to invest in? A movie that grosses nearly 5 times its production costs (Twilight) or one that cost 5 times as much to make and grossed less than 3 times its production costs even with numbers that were artificially inflated by tragedy (TDK)?

[caliminius]

Originally Posted by statikcat

Why does it matter one bit what multiplier the gross is compared to budget? If I make a movie for 10,000$ and it grosses 500,000 in the box office I am somehow more successful than TDK? That is laughable logic..

If the studios thought that every $500K budget film would gross $60 million, how many $500K films would get churned out next year? How many TDK budget-size films would get made? If you were investing your own money, which would you feel is a safer investment?

You could produce one Fireproof-budget-sized film for each day of the year with TDK's budget. You'd only need 9 of them to match Fireproof's gross to beat TDK's gross. As an investor, would you rather risk losing $500K or $185 million?