Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

As we have seen,it made all the difference in the world box office wise with The Dark Knight being the blockbuster it was at the theaters thanks to a brilliant marketing campaine by Warner Brothers.As we all know,Batman Begins was horribly promoted at the theaters.About the only kind of advertising and promotion it got back then was the airing of scenes from the movie during commercials for the superbowl and when Smallville aired scenes from the movie in their final two episodes of their show back then.That was about it.The movie was so horribly marketed many people didnt even know about the movie until it was out.

This time around,Warner Brothers seemed to have learned from their mistakes with Begins and had a MUCH better promotion and advertising campaine for The Dark Knight putting out posters months in advance in theaters.I said SEEMED to have learned, because I am wondering if Nolan had it planned this way?That he might have suggested that to Warners for Begins to be promoted so poorly because a lot of people at that time were still under the false impression that Begins was just another sequal to that horrible nightmare Burton/Schumacher travesty franchise series,instead of knowing that the franchise was being rebooted.That he might have had something to say to them about it being promoted that poorly back then cause he knew a lot of people still had the bad taste of Batman and Robin in their mouths and would be reluctant to see another Batfilm after Batman and Robin?

Like i said.At first,I just thought that Warner Brothers just screwed up and they were just being ignorant in their promotions for Batman Begins and that they learned from their mistake last time which is why they did a much better job by far on promoting this Bbatman movie than Begins.But then I got to thinking,maybe thats why Nolan saved The Joker for the second film instead of the first film because again,he might have known that a lot of people were going to be reluctant to see Begins cause they still had the bad taste of Batman and Robin in their mouths. So instead of using Batmans arch enemy -The Joker, to open up his movie franchise,he used Scarecrow,a villain that casual moviegoers arent familiar with for Begins and waited till The Dark Knight to use The Joker since moviegoers NOW knew that it wasnt just another Batman sequal and was a reboot to the series.When you think about it that way,it makes sense that Nolan didnt use The Joker in Begins and used Scarecrow-an unknown villain to just casual movie goers.what do you think? thoughts.

i just believed Batman Begins was poorly marketed, I didnt even know it was even around, i just saw a picture of Batman like, a still pic of right before katie holmes shot the taser at him, and i was like oh, batman, and then i saw it and it was amazing lol

i didnt really pay attention to the viral marketting of TDK besides the one where, a certain ticketmaster site was vandalized by Joker and those people all got free tickets. but i didnt really pay attention to the rest of it. Heath's death, led a lot of females, to go see the movie though, and was suprised at how "cool" it was.

yeah like I said,many people were like you,they werent even aware that Batman Begins was out till it was out cause of how horribly promoted it was.They didnt even have posters for the film out till like a month or so beforel it was released and you there werent very many trailers of it where with the dark knight,they had posters up in the theaters months before the movie came out and trailers all over ESPN talking about it.I think your right also that Ledgers death,has something to do with a lot of its success.people wanting to see his last movie he made before he died.

The power of viral marketing is a strong one.

yep,makes all the difference in the world.

I hate reading wall of text

The more I think about it Im glad they didnt use The Joker in Batman Begins cause just like with Batman 89,The Joker would have stolen the show from Batman in that movie and that would be really bad since Nolan didnt want to make the same mistake that Burton did by making the first film all about the villain and Batman being just a supporting character.We got to see the origin story be all about Batman for once and finally learn about his character which is they way it should be since its called BATMAN BEGINS.

The Joker stold the show again in The Dark Knight like he did in Batman 89 but the difference THIS time though is that in Batman 89,Jack was just being Jack,had the majority of screentime,and Batman was just a supporting character.Where in The Dark Knight,Ledger WAS The Joker from the comics and Batman and The Joker had equal 50/50 screentime so in this case,I have no problem with The Joker stealing the show.I mean he's always had all the great funny lines so people should have expected that for him to steal the show like he did especially since Nolan is the one Batman director who understands Batman.

Ledger wasn't exactly like the Joker from the comics I'd say he was a good adaptation of the Joker from the comics set in a real life setting but he certainly wasn't as zany as the Joker in the comics is IMO. And Ledger's Joker did have limited screen time thank god but he still stole the show because I believe the Joker will always steal the show...that and Bale IMO just got outshone by most of the cast anyway. I'd say Gordon and Two Face stole the show from him too. Gary Oldman was AMAZING

Bale was amazing too. And Ledger was the Joker from the early comics...the one that constantly kicked Batman's ass....

Bale wasn't bad he was good but I think the other performers stood out a lot more. Just my opinion and not a knock against him. Well except Gyllenhaal, lol

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Bale wasn't bad he was good but I think the other performers stood out a lot more. Just my opinion and not a knock against him. Well except Gyllenhaal, lol

Gyllenhaal was great in the movie...

Her Rachel was VASTLY different from Katie Holmes' Rachel...

Katie's was a self-righteous kid, while Maggie's was a sexy assistant D.A. (her voice is so seductive diva) with a hint of Katie's self-righteousness...

You're the first person I've met who has called Gyllenhaal's Rachel sexy, lol. Different strokes. I thought she sucked.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
You're the first person I've met who has called Gyllenhaal's Rachel sexy, lol. Different strokes. I thought she sucked.

I got images of "Secretary" Maggie...

Maybe I'm the only one who did

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Gyllenhaal was great in the movie...

Her Rachel was VASTLY different from Katie Holmes' Rachel...

Katie's was a self-righteous kid, while Maggie's was a sexy assistant D.A. (her voice is so seductive diva) with a hint of Katie's self-righteousness...

I agree


Originally posted by Bat Dude
I got images of "Secretary" Maggie...

Maybe I'm the only one who did


I have that on DVD

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Like i said.At first,I just thought that Warner Brothers just screwed up and they were just being ignorant in their promotions for Batman Begins and that they learned from their mistake last time which is why they did a much better job by far on promoting this Bbatman movie than Begins.But then I got to thinking,maybe thats why Nolan saved The Joker for the second film instead of the first film because again,he might have known that a lot of people were going to be reluctant to see Begins cause they still had the bad taste of Batman and Robin in their mouths. So instead of using Batmans arch enemy -The Joker, to open up his movie franchise,he used Scarecrow,a villain that casual moviegoers arent familiar with for Begins and waited till The Dark Knight to use The Joker since moviegoers NOW knew that it wasnt just another Batman sequal and was a reboot to the series.When you think about it that way,it makes sense that Nolan didnt use The Joker in Begins and used Scarecrow-an unknown villain to just casual movie goers.what do you think? thoughts.

I suspect that you're over-thinking things; the first movie of the last series featured Joker. If the first movie of Nolan's series had also featured him, then it would have seemed to people like he was just retreading the same ground, which he can't have wanted.

You know why the Dark Knight had such a more monumental marketing package?
Because this time around, they had a shit load more money to work with. Marketing and promoting is very expensive. The Director usually has very little to do with Marketing and promotions so i don't think batman begins lack of advertising or the dark knights blitzkrieg has anything to do with Nolan.

Also, i can remember vividly that Batman Begins received incredible coverage and had great anticipation. I remember seeing posters and trailers all the time, MONTHS before the movie released. It was also made very clear that BAtman Begins was a REBOOT. I had never heard the word reboot more than i did in the summer of 2005. The movie was a monster success, regardless. Personally, i think Begins didnt make as much money as it could have because fans were weary after batman forever and Nipples. At any rate, Begins was heralded by critics and fans alike.

The Dark Knights success also owes alot to Ledgers death.

I don't think there was any strategy on Nolan's part when it came to advertising. I think the Studio was just much more confident giving more money to promote the dark knight coming off of the financial and critical success of Begins.

Originally posted by SelinaAndBruce
Ledger wasn't exactly like the Joker from the comics I'd say he was a good adaptation of the Joker from the comics set in a real life setting but he certainly wasn't as zany as the Joker in the comics is IMO. And Ledger's Joker did have limited screen time thank god but he still stole the show because I believe the Joker will always steal the show...that and Bale IMO just got outshone by most of the cast anyway. I'd say Gordon and Two Face stole the show from him too. Gary Oldman was AMAZING

Yeah I think the joker will always steal the show as well which is why I think it was wise to wait till the second film to use The Joker.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
You know why the Dark Knight had such a more monumental marketing package?
Because this time around, they had a shit load more money to work with. Marketing and promoting is very expensive. The Director usually has very little to do with Marketing and promotions so i don't think batman begins lack of advertising or the dark knights blitzkrieg has anything to do with Nolan.

Also, i can remember vividly that Batman Begins received incredible coverage and had great anticipation. I remember seeing posters and trailers all the time, MONTHS before the movie released. It was also made very clear that BAtman Begins was a REBOOT. I had never heard the word reboot more than i did in the summer of 2005. The movie was a monster success, regardless. Personally, i think Begins didnt make as much money as it could have because fans were weary after batman forever and Nipples. At any rate, Begins was heralded by critics and fans alike.

The Dark Knights success also owes alot to Ledgers death.

I don't think there was any strategy on Nolan's part when it came to advertising. I think the Studio was just much more confident giving more money to promote the dark knight coming off of the financial and critical success of Begins.

Then you got to wonder why Warner Brothers when they made Batman 89,why they had so much money to market that film like gangbusters back then but Begins didnt.Begins didnt have anywhere near the kind of promotions and marketing that Batman 89 had.Makes you wonder why that film was promoted so well but Begins was poorly done.Begins WAS horribly promoted.Back in 2005,thats all you heard back then around here from people was how Warners was doing a horrible job of marketing and promoting that film back then and how they hoped that Warners had learned from their mistake and did a much better job in the future of marketing and promoting when they made The Dark Knight next time around.You remember those days dont you Batdude? you were here then. also people like me and batdude had to keep posting here telling people that it wasnt a sequal,that it was a reboot,that people kept coming on here posting thinking it was a sequal.Remember that batdude? I know I had to tell people that here quite a few times along with others.

oh and I would hardly call making only 205 million dollars at the box office a monster success when Batman 89 grossed over 250 million especially with ticket prices being higher in 2005 than in 89 and it being released to more theaters.Like i said,Begins was horribly promoted back then,it didnt have anywhere near the kind of marketing and advertising campaines that Batman 89 did.Like the first poster XNixonX said,he didnt even know that Batman Begins was even in the theaters till it was already out when he said he saw an advertisement of the movie on tv one time.

Thats the way it was for countless people cause of how horribly promoted it was.I was happy to see that THIS time around,the movie was being much better promoted and marketed than Begins.THIS time around,their promoting of The Dark Knight was a lot like Batman 89 was.In fact,people were talking about that some few months ago how they were happy to see that The Dark Knight was not being horribly promoted and advertised this time around like Begins was.

Thats a known fact that it was horribly promoted.I have seen many people over the years when talking about Batman Begins at other sites as well talking about that,on how horribly promoted it was done back then and had nowhere near the promtions that Batman 89 had because it simply didnt.

I ran out of time on my last post and didnt get to finish saying what I wanted to say so wanted to add that the one good point you DID make thats valid is that The Dark Knight was coming off the financial and criticial success of Batman Begins and people now knew it had nothing whatsoever to do with that horrid Burton/Schumacher travesty franchise after seeing Begins so this time around,they were more anxious to see another Batman film now knowing it was a reboot and not just another sequal.The other point you made that is also a good one is that yeah Ledgers death has had a lot to do with moviegoers wanting to come out and this movie as well. Like XNixonX said,it has made the girls want to flock to the theaters and see him since its his last time they will get to see him on the big screen.

Actually, I do remember having to tell a few people that it was a reboot, and not a sequel...

Why would people think it was a sequel if it was called Batman Begins anyway?

Originally posted by Outbound
Why would people think it was a sequel if it was called Batman Begins anyway?

Prequel, my bad...