Who Would Spend $100 on a Dark Knight Rises Ticket?

The Dark Knight Rises IMAX

No, really — I'm asking: "Scalpers reportedly are re-selling The Dark Knight Rises’ midnight IMAX tickets for $65-$100 apiece on both Craigslist and StubHub for NYC’s AMC Loews Lincoln Square 13 — higher even than for Avengers. Yet this may be my favorite Dark Knight Rises pre-release factoid so far: 'All the major circuits have asked for more frequent pickups from their Brink’s Truck drivers to deposit the record amount of cash they are anticipating,' a Warner Bros exec told me today." [Deadline]


  • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston says:

    Someone who has been looking forward to the film all year. We pay extra for first editions of books, because it takes us "there." If we could get them for 5 bucks instead of 100, and we of course went for them, there'd be a sense of experience ultimately chastened by commerce. One of the things about current movie culture is that all movies somehow seem quarantined to be no more than a bang for your buck, to be slipped to the side after one or two days digestion for next week's (and next week's) entry.

  • SD says:

    I'm still not convinced that I'll be paying $11 for a ticket but then I think I'm the only one on the planet who thought that The Dark Knight was overlong and not all that.

    • KevyB says:

      You're definitely not the only person who thought it was a bit long, but you are in a very small minority who thought it wasn't all that. It WAS all that, and then some extra that added to it.

      As for who would spend $100 on a Dark Knight ticket... "who" would be a loser. Someone who cannot wait until Monday, when regular-priced tickets are still available, is a loser with a pathetic lack of patience. You could see the movie TEN TIMES for that amount of money, and that money would actually go to the people behind the movie, and not some money-grubbing scalper who did nothing to earn it. You could also buy THREE COPIES of the DVD or Blu-ray when it comes out IN FOUR MONTHS. But, no, go spend $100, which gives you the thrill of telling people you "saw it first" even though hundreds of people have already seen it. Oh, and by the way, nobody cares if you saw it "first". In fact, most of us think those of you who saw it "first" need to get lives.

      • Patrick Hallstein / McEvoy-Halston says:

        I don't think we give much avenue now for films to have the chance to be leaderly and great -- with the exception of Nolan and perhaps Jackson. If you had tried to make your argument after, say, the release of Empire Strikes Back, perhaps you'd agree that though plenty of people would agree with you, a good number would suggest you seem bereft of a sense of romance and occasion. You're first to see (note: earlier we weren't so aware as all are now that any movie released to the public has already been seen, digested, and disposed of by a huge large company of "specials") a film like that, and that really is something magical.