The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **Doc Jon** » Tue May 29, 2012 11:36 pm

...that there is no huge box office draw brought in for the 3rd movie?

I was just thinking about this and I have to say that I am surprised that no "huge" name was brought in for the final film.

The second film did fantastic numbers obviously (but admittedly due to Ledger's untimely demise) so are you surprised that WB didn't go out and get a big name for this final installment? I'm not saying the franchise needs it or won't do well, merely that it's a curious move.

Hardy isn't a draw and really isn't that well known.
JGL has a nice little fanbase, but it's not like you're counting on him to bring in huge numbers of people.
And Hathaway is pretty good on the cheesecake factor, so I guess that was ok.

Thoughts?

by **e_galston** » Tue May 29, 2012 11:44 pm

WB probably didn't think they needed a big name. Everyone and their brother saw the last movie at least once, so they probably figured they'd be fine if even half those people saw the third one once

by **Doc Jon** » Tue May 29, 2012 11:55 pm

Sitebreaker wrote:WB probably didn't think they needed a big name. Everyone and their brother saw the last movie at least once, so they probably figured they'd be fine if even half those people saw the third one once

Yet many people seem to be in agreement that this film won't even do as well as the Dark Knight.

by **guitarsmashley** » Tue May 29, 2012 11:56 pm

You really need something to worry about more than the Nolan Batman movies.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue May 29, 2012 11:58 pm

guitarsmashley wrote:You really need something to worry about more than the Nolan Batman movies.

And you really need to stop following me around if that's all you have to contribute...

by **guitarsmashley** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:01 am

You're dwelling on them. That's not healthy.

by **ReturnoftheMack** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:02 am

After the success of the first two, they probably let Nolan make all the decisions.

by **Keb** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:04 am

Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Kane aren't big enough names?

by **guitarsmashley** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:12 am

Keb wrote:Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Kane aren't big enough names?

Lets not forget Anne Hathaway's sweet ass tithes.

by **Doc Jon** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:16 am

Keb wrote:Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Kane aren't big enough names?

Read the original post more carefully...

by **Dragavon** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:29 am

Doc Jon wrote:
Read the original post more carefully...

The previous version made 800 million dolllars over production costs. Maybe the producers feel that interest is sufficient without the need for a marquee name.

by **Doc Jon** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:34 am

Dragavon wrote:The previous version made 800 million dolllars over production costs. Maybe the producers feel that interest is sufficient without the need for a marquee name.

I agree. I'm just wondering of people found it odd that they didn't go with any "names" to bolster the 3rd movie. After all, they can't be blind to fact that Ledger's death was a huge reason for the box office.

by **Dragavon** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:41 am

Doc Jon wrote:
I agree. I'm just wondering of people found it odd that they didn't go with any "names" to bolster the 3rd movie. After all, they can't be blind to fact that Ledger's death was a huge reason for the box office.

This seems more like an ensemble film despite it being about Batman. Bale, Freeman, Oldman, Caine, Neeson and Hathaway seem sufficient name draw.

by **Doc Jon** » Wed May 30, 2012 12:44 am

Dragavon wrote:This seems more like an ensemble film despite it being about Batman. Bale, Freeman, Oldman, Caine, Neeson and Hathaway seem sufficient name draw.

Has Neeson been a huge part of the advertising? I've barely seen him in any of the promotion and probably wouldn't know he was in the film if it wasn't for this site.