Atticus Chaos

Titanic was number one for about 21 weeks. That just would'nt happen now. TDK could have 3, possibly 4 weeks at the top at the most.

Not even disaster movie?

The X files movie picked a really bad time to come out. There doesn't seem to be the buzz for it there was once partly because all the attention is going to TDK, and I agree with people saying TDK is going to hold onto the top stop for a couple of more weeks.

The Vickie/Edge/Wedding planner angle struck me as unrealistic. It didn't seem like a regular invisible camera, just one HHH had planted in edge's hotel room. But then that raises the question of why HHH is going around putting cameras in wrestlers hotel rooms. Does he usually do this? Is he a pervert? Maybe if he'd said 'I've suspected Edge of having an affair for a while so I planted a camera to catch him in the act.' it would have made more sense. But it just seemed like HHH usually films Edge and just happened to come across footage of him and the wedding planner.

The studios usually have estimates about what a film will do on the sunday. Usually its quite accurate.

'Dark Knight' sets weekend record with $155.34M By DAVID GERMAIN – 16 minutes ago LOS ANGELES (AP) — A Warner Bros. executive says the Batman sequel "The Dark Knight" has taken in $155.34 million to top "Spider-Man 3" for best opening weekend ever at the box office. The figures released Sunday show "The Dark Knight" more than $4 million ahead of the $151.1 million first weekend for "Spider-Man 3" in May 2007. Studio distribution chief Dan Fellman says "The Dark Knight" also broke the "Spider-Man 3" record for best debut in IMAX large-screen theaters with $6.2 million. "Spider-Man 3" opened with $4.7 million in IMAX cinemas. I've read the record for fastest getting to $200 million is 8 days (pirates of the carribean dead man chest)...so the TDK might be able to beat that too. Especially since there will be lots of repeat viewings and some people were waiting 2 or 3 days to go see it till the crowds cleared.

I'd expect Vince to be a fiscal conservative, but really, there are a lot of republicans that would probably sell Vince down the river for credit with the family values groups if another child death happened and WWE got the blame.

Someone with entertainment weekly suggested the reason the wire kept getting snubbed because it was too realistic and too dark for the emmy people. Shows like Dexter and Lost are solely escapism, you can watch them and know that stuff isn't happening in the real world. The wire on the other hand...

The reason Spader always wins is because he submits the episodes where Alan gets the big, dramatic over the top courtroom speeches which the emmy voters usually go for. The episode he submitted this year had one where he argued against the death penalty for child rape. And it was very good. So, I wouldn't write him off and say he can't possibly win again.

Good to see BSG get another writing nomination. Although, why it keeps getting nominated for writing, but never even makes the best drama shortlist is beyond me. I really hope James Spader doesn't win again. He's a great actor, but even he seemed embarressed when he beat Gandolfini and Laurie last year. I'd love to see Michael C Hall win for Dexter, but I think he's at a disadvantage because his role is a lot less show offy than the other roles in the category. He doesn't usually get to show off a full range of emotions because Dexter is often shown to be so cold and emotionless. Bryan Cranston deserves to win as well. Glenn Close will almost certainly win best actress.

I know TDK will be huge, but I'm still not convinced of Bale's drawing power outside of Batman. I wouldn't call Tobey Macguire or Kirsten Dunst huge box office stars either just because the spiderman movies made money.

Well, obviously its his daughter too. Alanna is dissapointingly normal, I have to say. I always expect wrestlers to start taking after real celebrities and call their kids the weirdest names imaginable.

I don't think so. I remember hearing Superman returns cost $260 million, and after they threw in advertising it was $310 million. I think they might decide how much to spend on adverstising depending on whether they think it'll be a hit or not once they've seen the film. Personally I think its ridiculous the amount of money people spend on movies now. I remember when it was rare for a film to go over $100 million its budget, and now that seems to be the case for every other movie. I don't think films have gotten any better, so I don't see what the point is. You're telling me they need $200 million to make a good terminator film?

Randy Orton's wife had a daughter on Friday called Alanna Marie Orton.

Apparently, this film is budgeted at $200 million, even more than rise of the machines. Throw in advertising costs, and its going to have to do incredibly well just to break even, which probably explains the PG13 rating.

Titanic was basically a popcorn movie. Its probably the most shallow film to ever win best picture. The script for that film is terrible. You'd think if that can sweep the board, the dark knight could at least be under consideration.

$35.9 million for the weekend bearly beating hancock to the top spot ($33 million) Seems like a mild dissapointment, but I'm not sure what the studio was expecting.

One of the writers did an interview a couple of days ago and said they're weren't doing her or penguin. Maybe they feel she's been overexposed, I doubt that atrocious Catwoman movie helped and they might think the character's been tainted a bit.

Don't those two contradict each other?

I think Nolan is only doing one more (with Two-Face). But I think they can use a couple of the more far-out-there villians. The current incarnation of the Penguin could beleivably be pulled off (the debonair, yet short club owner that caters to the underworld). Poison Ivy could be done more simplisticly as a woman who uses chemiclay-infused products to seduce and kill, and who is also a eco-terrorist of sorts. They can do the Black Mask, they can do Scarface (but only as a comic relief, 5-minute cameo type villian. Guys like Clayface, Mr. Freeze, and Killer Crock probably wont be seeing the big screen though, I agree. Something I would like to see is Oracle- but the only way I think we would see that is if they cut out her whole background as Batgirl. I could see Poison Ivy being reimagined as a terrorist, and the Penguin is actually one of the more believable characters (but Nolan is probably put off by the Danny Devito portrayal in batman returns). They don't want to do catwoman either. They could just make up villains as well: Max Shreck was created solely for Batman returns and he was one of the better villains in the series, I thought.

Meet dave is going to be a huge flop, maybe at number 7 or 8. I can't believe it cost $100 million to make, either. You have to assume most Hollywood executives are at least moderately intelligent....why would you ever give such an obvious flop, with a fading star, such a huge budget? I actually do wish Eddie had won that oscar now. It might have set his career of in a different direction. As it is, his loss seemed to serve as excuse to go back to all these lame kids movies.

You can't just say 'its a comic book movie' and then use that to excuse every ridiculous plot device in comic book films. There should always be some realism there. That's the difference between Batman Begins and Batman and Robin. One movie tries to be gritty and realistic, and the other just accepts its a pantomine. And which movie is better? And seriously, if Heath Ledger ended up falling into a tub of dangerous chemicals in the dark knight, you'd probably be able to hear the collective groan in cinema's across the land. You could maybe suspend your disbelief and believe you have a Billionaire vigilante going around a crime ridden city kicking ass, and that he has all these cool gadgets, and stuff. But that a guy can fall into vat of dangerous chemicals, and emerge perfectly fine, apart from a messed up complextion? That's a bit more difficult. I don't think the happy ending really suits the film. If she'd died, it would have emboldened Batman and drove him on. The sequel's better because you don't have the copout ending.

I remember reading the film is doing 8 times the ticket sales that spiderman 3 was at the same point in the sales cycle, which is pretty amazing. It could do a $200 million in its first week easily. It wouldn't be that unusual either: Austin powers 2 made more in first weekend than the first one did for its entire theatrical run. I think it would have been huge anyway, but Ledger's death, and the phenomenal word of mouth its getting probably ensure it'll be one of the biggest hits of the year.

Eh, it might not be one of the best movies ever, but I can see it being the best batman film ever, at least that's what all the indications are. People used to to say how great Burton's two films were ( especially in comparision to shumacher's two) but they had they were quite flawed and Burton was always struggling to find the balance he wanted,I thought. Batman begins had its own problems, even though it was the best batman film up to that point. And I think TDK probably will be the best one since Nolan can only improve on what he's done before. In my opinon (just my opinon), I still fine the 1989 Batman to be the best Batman. I was watching Batman last week, and it occured to me, I know everyone says Nicholson is the best part of the film, but I actually think he's the worst. He's just hamming it up all the time and it doesn't fit the movie. And falling into a tub of chemicals? That's laughable by today's standards. If Burton had been smarter, he'd have done with the Joker character what Nolan has done i.e take away the comic strip factor and just make him a straight up sociopath. I think Burton wanted it both ways: the dark,gothic tone, but with the OTT, merchandise freindly characters and Hollywood conventions (Vickie was supposed to die at the end of the film, but they changed their minds, which is pity beccause it would have been a better than the tacked on happy ending)

Eh, it might not be one of the best movies ever, but I can see it being the best batman film ever, at least that's what all the indications are. People used to to say how great Burton's two films were ( especially in comparision to shumacher's two) but they had they were quite flawed and Burton was always struggling to find the balance he wanted,I thought. Batman begins had its own problems, even though it was the best batman film up to that point. And I think TDK probably will be the best one since Nolan can only improve on what he's done before.