200? Obviously. 300? Probably. 400? Possibly.
The reviews are good. It's a popular franchise. Excitement is high. Heath Ledger's death makes for extra attention. I'd say Dark Knight being the #1 film of the summer is now the conventional wisdom in Hollywood
It will have to do more than 50% better than last time, but the old rule for sequels (that they make about 67% of the original) has long been out the window.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:29 AM
2 Comments:
I just saw it, and while I liked it a lot, it still suffered from the problem that plagued the previous series of Batman films: too much action, not enough talk.
A huge contrast to Iron Man. In Iron Man there were three or four characters who I knew almost nothing about (I have never read an Iron Man comic) whom I really got to know during the film. Whereas in Batman, my warmth towards characters such as Alfred and Jim Gordon was derived from my comic book reading; they really didn't get much characterization in the movie.
And worst of all, there were two supervillians (three, if you count a few seconds of the Scarecrow). That's the kind of silliness that Joel Schumacher pulled that utterly destroyed the earlier franchis. You can't put lots of villains on screen without it devolving into a nonstop action sequence. (Doesn't anyone remember why the second Indiana Jones movie sucked?)
Two supervillains? I only saw one. The other was quite something else.
Post a Comment
<< Home