HP Box Office Derby: Our Final "Stand" Begins NOW!

[snugglepot]

This is a fantasy. Wimsey has used facts to demolish this argument.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that as soon as someone dares to say they don't like POA, and why, they get shot down immediatly by all the so-called experts.

How dare you say the fact that I didn't like PoA and only saw it once is a fantasy. For me it is very real, and I am not the only fan around the world with this opinion.
I am stating that there are many people who went back and back to PS and CoS and didn't go back over again to see PoA and that this had some effect on PoA's box office.
I am not saying it was huge, just enough to make some difference.
Accept that some people hated POA. That is a fact and continual put-downs because of this opinion of theirs, will not change it!

[SusanBones]

Let's remember to keep things friendly here. Please respect other people's opinions.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

This is exactly what I mean when I say that as soon as someone dares to say they don't like POA, and why, they get shot down immediatly by all the so-called experts.

That's not the issue. It's not people disliking PoA which is the issue ... it's the fact that it is claimed that HP fans' dislike for PoA is the reason why PoA got a lower box office than the first two films. But as Wimsey has frequently pointed out, that's not the reason: it was because a significant percentage of the potential audience for HP was lost after CoS. It was the absence of those people which affected the box office figures for PoA by 20%. The people who disliked CoS couldn't be bothered with a third Potter film. That's the issue.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by snugglepot

How dare you say the fact that I didn't like PoA and only saw it once is a fantasy. For me it is very real, and I am not the only fan around the world with this opinion.

I did not say that at all. I said that it is a fantasy that HP book fans rejecting PoA led to its lower box office.

Wimsey has demonstrated time and again that the HP box office was sliding from PS. The trajectory was downwards, whereas the LOTR films trajectory was upwards.

If the book fans are so important, then franchises like Shrek and Pirates without a built-in fanbase at the launch of Film 1 would have either failed, or performed less well than a franchise with a large fanbase, such as HP. Clearly this has not happened. In fact (and it is a fact, it is not opinion), the opposite has happened.

This is just one of the models we use to conclude that the behaviour of the fans of the original material - of anything - does not have a particularly significant effect on the box office, either way.

[MasterOfDeath]

How in the world can you tell if someone is a fan or not? Have you visited all these people and invaded their minds to see if they really liked Harry Potter or something?

Just because they didn't post online that they were fans of HP doesn't mean they are not.

There may be more HP fans than you think.

Some of you rely too much on statistics IMO.

[JustAnIllusion]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Oh and Wimsey, what are you talking about when you say that none of the HP actors are of the same caliber that Heath Ledger was? I hadn't even heard of Ledger until I heard about Dark Knight.

This seems an unlikely thing to respond to, but I must: you hadn't heard of Heath Ledger? That's amazing! Hah! I thought his Brokeback Mountain fame had carried his face, if not his name, to most of the nation's heads. Of course, I knew him from the start ,with Ten Things I Hate About You, but let me get to my point (which has to do with the HP box office ).

His death, because he was so popular, had so much talent and potential, and had starred in so many movies (he was known amongst teen girls for Ten Things I Hate About You, amongst history buffs with The Patriot, amongst fantasy/horror flickers with The Brothers Grimm, and then amongst romance-types with Casanova... and there are more, but imdb.com has it listed ), was more of a James Dean or rock star tragedy. As sad as it is, it would have more of an effect on box office numbers than if one of our Harry Potter actors died, IMO.

I think HBP has a good chance of topping Dark Knight. There hasn't been many (or any) good dark fantasy films this year. 2008 has been dominated by comic book super hero movies, I think people are going to welcome another Potter film.

I disagree. Dark Knight was spectacular, and this is the sixth in a Harry Potter series. I don't doubt that it will do well; I do doubt it will top this summer's hit blockbuster.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

How in the world can you tell if someone is a fan or not? Have you visited all these people and invaded their minds to see if they really liked Harry Potter or something?

Just because they didn't post online that they were fans of HP doesn't mean they are not.

There may be more HP fans than you think.

Some of you rely too much on statistics IMO.

But facts and statistics are reliable And you can usually tell based on books sales, I would think. People visit libraries and borrow their friends' books, but that doesn't necessarily make them super fans (like me, posting on this forum at four thirty in the morning ). I'm not saying somebody isn't a super fan if he or she doesn't have the book, or doesn't post on a forum, but if you own copies of the series, generally you are a fan.

Just my two cents. I have advanced stats next year, as well as marketing. I'll be back with more reasonable arguments after that

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by JustAnIllusion

This seems an unlikely thing to respond to, but I must: you hadn't heard of Heath Ledger? That's amazing! Hah! I thought his Brokeback Mountain fame had carried his face, if not his name, so most of the population's heads. Of course, I knew him from the start with Ten Things I Hate About You, but let me get to my point (which has to do with the HP box office ).

His death, because he was so popular and had starred in so many movies (he was known by teen girls for Ten Things I Hate About You, history buffs with The Patriot, fantasy/horror flickers with The Brothers Grimm, and then romance-types with Casanova) was more of a James Dean or rock star tradegy. As sad as it is, it would have more of an effect on box office numbers than if one of our Harry Potter actors died, IMO.




I disagree. Dark Knight was spectacular, and this is the sixth in a Harry Potter series. I don't doubt that it will do well; I do doubt it will top this summer's hit blockbuster.



But facts and statistics are reliable And you can usually tell based on books sales, I would think. People visit libraries and borrow their friends' books, but that doesn't necessarily make them super fans (like me, posting on this forum at four thirty in the morning ). I'm not saying somebody isn't a super fan if he or she doesn't have the book, or doesn't post on a forum, but if you own copies of the series, generally you are a fan.

Just my two cents. I have advanced stats next year, as well as marketing. I'll be back with more reasonable arguments after that

Well, I guess it comes down to how we define 'fan'. I also meant that there are fans of the films alone whom I think are safe to be called fans as well even if they never touched the books.

I think it's just natural that PS/SS made so much money. It was the original. Sequels often just don't make as much as the originals.

You could hardly call any of the HP films financial failures even if they didn't live up to the last film.

Many people don't like to pay money to see sequels and thats what is special about HP, at least for the first three episodes because everything was resolved at the end for the most part and you get a satisfying experience. Of course GOF changed that with the return of Voldemort.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think you can prove that people hated Columbus's films just because the box office decreased with COS and then decreased SO drastically with POA.

The HP movies back then were pure stand alone adventures so the audience would feel like they had enough just by seeing the first movie.

Also, maybe GOF was so successful because of the trailers: DRAGONS and MERMAIDS and VOLDY, oh my! GOF really was the best story for a movie imo. It's just got that rollercoaster feel from beginning to end.

EDIT: Oh and for some reason in that whole hype about Brockback Mountain, I always saw the other guy in all the press and media furor and at the award shows and have since mistaken him for Heath Ledger until Dark Knight of course.

I just didn't pay much attention to his movies. Sue me.

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

You could hardly call any of the HP films financial failures even if they didn't live up to the last film.

I don't think anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, would call the HP films financial failures. Clearly they have been very successful. After all, not many films reach the stratospheric box office heights of Titanic, Return of the King and The Dark Knight.

What I'm trying to say is I don't think you can prove that people hated Columbus's films just because the box office decreased with COS and then decreased SO drastically with POA.

Well, it depends who we are talking about here. The non-Potterites, who make up the majority of the film audiences and therefore are crucial to box office success, decided not to bother with the third Potter film because the second Potter film bored them. The first two films were obviously successful because of the hype: but the second film was too lightweight and child-friendly (which, after all, fits its material) to be able to hang onto adult audiences in the way the far more adult Two Towers did. Per Wimsey's argument, that explains the drop in audience figures between CoS and PoA.

[Peverell_bro]

$305 million domestic.

Behind Sorcerer's Stone but ahead of the rest.

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by Pearl_Took

I don't think anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, would call the HP films financial failures. Clearly they have been very successful. After all, not many films reach the stratospheric box office heights of Titanic, Return of the King and The Dark Knight.



Well, it depends who we are talking about here. The non-Potterites, who make up the majority of the film audiences and therefore are crucial to box office success, decided not to bother with the third Potter film because the second Potter film bored them. The first two films were obviously successful because of the hype: but the second film was too lightweight and child-friendly (which, after all, fits its material) to be able to hang onto adult audiences in the way the far more adult Two Towers did. Per Wimsey's argument, that explains the drop in audience figures between CoS and PoA.

I didn't say anyone on this thread claimed that the HP movies were failures. I said it for the sake of my debate. That even though, not every movie was as successful as the first doesn't mean it was because people hated SS. There are many reasons and we have no way of knowing exactly why.

The LOTR sequels were more successful IMO because they didn't have endings. Each one ended with the Hobbits continuing their journey meaning that if you enjoyed movie one, you'd almost have to see movie two and three to find out what happens.

The first three Harry Potters were more along the lines of stand alone films. Even if you enjoyed SS or COS, it doesn't mean you'd want to see another one because it was a complete experience. I think this applies to Narnia as well. I've never seen it but did the first movie end on a compete resolution? If so then that explains why people who loved the first one didn't return. They had a satisfactory experience.

Sequels are always a risky business. If the original movie ended on a satisfactory note and there wasn't much to be resolved then why would an audience be interested in seeing another?

Also, let me throw in that maybe POA did so poorly compared to the others because of it's marketing (just like Prince Caspian). I remember that the poster was a jail photo of Sirius Black. Now here is a character we've never seen before in HP and it doesn't even feel or look like a HP movie. People probably didn't even know it had anything to do with HP so skipped over it.

Even the COS poster of Dobby was in the style of the previous HP movie.

[phoenix88]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

The first three Harry Potters were more along the lines of stand alone films. Even if you enjoyed SS or COS, it doesn't mean you'd want to see another one because it was a complete experience. I think this applies to Narnia as well. I've never seen it but did the first movie end on a compete resolution? If so then that explains why people who loved the first one didn't return. They had a satisfactory experience.

Sequels are always a risky business. If the original movie ended on a satisfactory note and there wasn't much to be resolved then why would an audience be interested in seeing another?

Also, let me throw in that maybe POA did so poorly compared to the others because of it's marketing (just like Prince Caspian). I remember that the poster was a jail photo of Sirius Black. Now here is a character we've never seen before in HP and it doesn't even feel or look like a HP movie. People probably didn't even know it had anything to do with HP so skipped over it.

Even the COS poster of Dobby was in the style of the previous HP movie.

Yes, like the first 3 HP films the narnia films are self contained- meaning each book/film is pretty much a stand alone film and chronicles a separate adventure in the land of narnia- some times even with completely different characters. There isn't this overall quest that ties the films together the way lotr did.

It didn't occur to me that the marketing may have hurt PoA. I always attributed PoA's relatively poorer box office to people not enjoying CoS, and the early summer release date (which hurt prince caspian this year as well.)
However, now that you mention it, I do remember them focusing all the marketing on sirius black- a character no one even knew- the same way in prince caspian all the posters, etc emphasized caspian and none of the 4 kids returning from the first film.

I agree that with these last HP films starting with GoF, now there is this continuing story line of Harry trying to vanquish voldemort which I think will keep people interested. We will probably see the greatest benefit of this in DH, when people will be anxious to see what happens after all the loose ends left untied in HBP the way we were when we finished the book.

[mrfutterman]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I didn't say anyone on this thread claimed that the HP movies were failures. I said it for the sake of my debate. That even though, not every movie was as successful as the first doesn't mean it was because people hated SS. There are many reasons and we have no way of knowing exactly why.

Obviously they are successful. However, one of the things we are discussing is why they are less successful than other franchises, whether with or without inbuilt fan bases.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

The LOTR sequels were more successful IMO because they didn't have endings. Each one ended with the Hobbits continuing their journey meaning that if you enjoyed movie one, you'd almost have to see movie two and three to find out what happens.

How, then, do you account for the greater success of the Shrek franchise, and others?

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

The first three Harry Potters were more along the lines of stand alone films. Even if you enjoyed SS or COS, it doesn't mean you'd want to see another one because it was a complete experience. I think this applies to Narnia as well. I've never seen it but did the first movie end on a compete resolution? If so then that explains why people who loved the first one didn't return. They had a satisfactory experience.

Again, there are other franchises which delivered completely satisfactory stand alone stories, but audiences returned for Film 2.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Sequels are always a risky business. If the original movie ended on a satisfactory note and there wasn't much to be resolved then why would an audience be interested in seeing another?

Far from being risky, sequels are the only sure moneymakers these days, providing only that Film 1 goes down well. Iron Man is the new franchise.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Also, let me throw in that maybe POA did so poorly compared to the others because of it's marketing (just like Prince Caspian). I remember that the poster was a jail photo of Sirius Black. Now here is a character we've never seen before in HP and it doesn't even feel or look like a HP movie. People probably didn't even know it had anything to do with HP so skipped over it.

There is no realistic comparison. PoA did less well because of the downward trajectory of the early HP films, as discussed in detail by Wimsey. PC ought to have done very well, given the popularity of Film 1. Some think the marketing let it down; I think LWW was a success in large part because it filled the LOTR sized hole left at Christmas for audiences who had become accustomed to enjoying these epic fantasy films. But it wasn't good enough, or individualistic enough, nor did it appeal to adults the way LOTR did.

[MasterOfDeath]

Maybe Shrek is just more marketable and pleases the masses a little more. They are original stories so they could be designed for an audience while the HP stories are from pre-written novels.

Maybe the simple fact is that more kids like Shrek and drag their parents to see it.

I'm actually glad that the studio is not completely trying to sell-out to make as much money as possible.

[ArryGrotter]

I'm a bit murky on things. What are the chances of getting $1bil on a movie?

I think they will get a good large amount of money.
What was the highest and lowest HP money making movies?

[MasterOfDeath]

Originally Posted by ArryGrotter

I'm a bit murky on things. What are the chances of getting $1bil on a movie?

I think they will get a good large amount of money.
What was the highest and lowest HP money making movies?

Here's a list of all the movies and their worldwide grosses:

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone 16 November, 2001 Chris Columbus 146 min.[39] $976,475,550
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets 15 November, 2002 154 min.[40] $878,988,482
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban 31 May, 2004 Alfonso Cuarón 136 min.[41] $795,541,069
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire 18 November, 2005 Mike Newell 151 min.[42] $896,016,159
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix 11 July, 2007 David Yates 132 min.[43] $938,465,035
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince 21 November, 2008[29] n/a n/a
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I 19 November 2010[44] n/a n/a
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II May, 2011[44] n/a n/a
Totals of films 1-5 as of September 22, 2007 719 min.[45] $4,485,486,295

From wikipedia.

This might be useful for reference in this thread.

Looks like PS/SS is still the top grossing with OOTP in second place while POA made the less.

I wonder if HBP will top SS? It certaintly has a chance since so many people went to see OOTP, add in the amazing trailer and the lack of any other HP item out there now and HBP just might beat OOTP and compete with the first film.

I think OOTP'S second week was hurt by DH. It might have made even more, in my opinion, had there been no new HP book to keep people occupied.

I sincerely believe that HBP can (and probably will) be the best HP movie yet. The book provides a taste from every genre and packs so many surprises and twists and edge of your seats frights and excitement coupled with what little we've seen so far, this movie looks like it's going to be the best HP.

Does anyone think it can compete with Dark Knight?

What will HBP need to sell as many tickets?

1. If everyone who saw OOTP returns for HBP.

2. New people who are brought in by the trailers.

3. No more HP books, some people might be looking for something new from Potter.

4. I believe Wimsey mentioned this once before but the announcement from Rowling that Dumbledore is gay, might bring in the homosexual community. Correct me if I'm wrong, Wimsey, but I think you might have once suggested this sometime last year.

5. The fall release. Many more people go to see films in the fall, especially over the holidays. HBP will run over Thanksgiving week here in the USA and might even still be playing through Christmas. I remember OOTP played in the theaters through to September (I still have my movie ticket to prove it).

6. The movie needs to be so awesome that people go back and see it again over the holidays and spread the words to their friends, family or co-workers to go see it.

7. The plot twist. Many people might go see this movie (or go see it again) just for the shocking plot twist at the end when Snape kills Dumbledore.

8. Three words: More Alan Rickman. People love Snape.

All of the above might be enough to bring back what Wimsey calls the 'Columbus Casualties'.

The only thing HBP doesn't have is the tragic death of a young up and coming Oscar-caliber superstar like Heath Ledger to boost its sales.. It will have to compete on quality alone.

[Pearl_Took]

Good to have those figures, MoD.

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

Looks like PS/SS is still the top grossing with OOTP in second place while POA made the less.

Right, so OotP is the second highest-grossing HP film. That's good news. Glad to see it beat CoS!

I sincerely believe that HBP can (and probably will) be the best HP movie yet. The book provides a taste from every genre and packs so many surprises and twists and edge of your seats frights and excitement coupled with what little we've seen so far, this movie looks like it's going to be the best HP.

That is my hope and expectation, certainly.

Does anyone think it can compete with Dark Knight?

Well, so far the worldwide total for DK is $704,641,000

According to: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=darkknight.htm

And it's only in its fourth week!!!!

According to this source,

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...=entertainment

The superhero sequel now ranks at number three on the all-time list, behind Titanic with $US601 million and Star Wars with $US461 million.

But adjusted for inflation, the caped crusader tale ranks more modestly at number 49, according to tracking firm Box Office Mojo. The 1939 epic Gone With The Wind wins by that measure with $US1.4 billion in today's dollars.

Warner Brothers says it expects The Dark Knight to surpass Star Wars next weekend and end up with about $US520 million.

The last movie to enjoy an unbroken four-week reign at number one in North America was The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King in 2003-2004, according to Box Office Mojo.

The only thing HBP doesn't have is the death of a young up and coming Oscar-caliber superstar like Heath Ledger. It will have to compete on quality alone.

The Potter syndrome has to pull in people for another two years yet. I reckon there will still be considerable interest from the madding crowds who have not read the books but who enjoy the films.

[yoshi2542]

Originally Posted by MasterOfDeath

I sincerely believe that HBP can (and probably will) be the best HP movie yet. The book provides a taste from every genre and packs so many surprises and twists and edge of your seats frights and excitement coupled with what little we've seen so far, this movie looks like it's going to be the best HP.

IMO the fact that this movie covers so many bases is the thing most likely to damage the movie. We already got a taste of this with GOF, with it's teen drama/rom-com/tragedy/action/sports movie identity crisis. I think HBP would be much better as a character piece with Harry, Draco, Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort as the focus with no time devoted to romance sub-plots for secondary characters and dull wizard sports. I mean, giving Ron a Quidditch plot and a romance plot? That would be like giving Morgan Freeman a romance plot in The Dark Knight. Completely unneeded, even more so with Ron, as his feelings towards Hermione have been made so clear in the movies.

Does anyone think it can compete with Dark Knight?

Impossible IMO. TDK was not only a fantastic crime movie, it also had Ledger's spectre to help pull in crowds, it had a pre-release marketing campaign unlike any other, it had the IMAX sequences, and it was only the second movie in this new Batman franchise. HBP is the sixth Potter movie in almost as many years. There just isn't that big of an untapped audience who have not already seen one of the HP films. The people who will come to see HBP will be the same people who enjoyed OOTP, give or take a few. Dark Knight is now 3rd on the all-time domestic earners, and it's been out for 4 weeks. HBP simply cannot match that. I will eat my own shoes if it does. Now I think the movie could be just as good in terms of quality as TDK, but it would require direction and a level of creativity in the writing and design that are sadly beyond Mr Yates and his cabal of TV people. Hey, maybe he'll prove me wrong, and create a fantasy movie that is more than the sum of it's parts.

[Bl00dyChAoS16]

Originally Posted by yoshi2542

IMO the fact that this movie covers so many bases is the thing most likely to damage the movie. We already got a taste of this with GOF, with it's teen drama/rom-com/tragedy/action/sports movie identity crisis. I think HBP would be much better as a character piece with Harry, Draco, Dumbledore, Snape and Voldemort as the focus with no time devoted to romance sub-plots for secondary characters and dull wizard sports. I mean, giving Ron a Quidditch plot and a romance plot? That would be like giving Morgan Freeman a romance plot in The Dark Knight. Completely unneeded, even more so with Ron, as his feelings towards Hermione have been made so clear in the movies.



Impossible IMO. TDK was not only a fantastic crime movie, it also had Ledger's spectre to help pull in crowds, it had a pre-release marketing campaign unlike any other, it had the IMAX sequences, and it was only the second movie in this new Batman franchise. HBP is the sixth Potter movie in almost as many years. There just isn't that big of an untapped audience who have not already seen one of the HP films. The people who will come to see HBP will be the same people who enjoyed OOTP, give or take a few. Dark Knight is now 3rd on the all-time domestic earners, and it's been out for 4 weeks. HBP simply cannot match that. I will eat my own shoes if it does. Now I think the movie could be just as good in terms of quality as TDK, but it would require direction and a level of creativity in the writing and design that are sadly beyond Mr Yates and his cabal of TV people. Hey, maybe he'll prove me wrong, and create a fantasy movie that is more than the sum of it's parts.

Will HBP compete with TDK. That depends.

Yes, it has the potential to bring in a HUGE amount of money. I think money wise, we can see it competing for Best Grossing Movie of 2008.

Storywise and as a movie in whole, no. Heath Ledger basicly says it all. TDK and Harry Potter are two totaly different stories with totaly different actors and such. It may be one great HP movie, and one great movie overall, but IDT it will be BETTER THAN TDK.


As with what I said before, I think we should stop saying "Will HBP break records and such?". I think, based on BO Performances, HBP will make more than OotP, and less than SS. But we also have 2 more films to consider.

Currently, SS is number 4 on the Highest Grossing Films of All Time. It made $976,475,550 World Wide.

The Dark Knight is currently number 6 (it has surpassed Shrek 2) (pretty sure). It has made more than $700,000,000 World Wide so far.

OotP is currently number 7. It has made $938,468,864.


HBP - $965,500,000 Rank Number: 5
Deathly Hallows Pt 1 - $985,000,000 Rank Number: 5
DH Pt:2 - $1,000,000,000 Rank Number 4

So, after DH is released:

SS: $976,475,550 - Rank # 5
CoS: $878,988,482 - Rank # 14
PoA: $795,541,069 - Rank # 21
GoF: $896,016,159 - Rank #12
OoTP: $938,468,864 - Rank # 8
HBP: $965,500,000 - Rank # 7
DH1: $985,000,000 - Rank # 6
DH2: $1,000,000,000 - Rank # 4

Unless DH2 can bring in $80,000,000 more, than it will pass PotC: DMC to be ranked number 3.

[Peverell_bro]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyChAoS16

Will HBP compete with TDK. That depends.

Yes, it has the potential to bring in a HUGE amount of money. I think money wise, we can see it competing for Best Grossing Movie of 2008.

There's no way HBP can compete with Dark Knight, IMO. The Dark Knight is already close to be the 2nd highest grossing movie of all time domestically...and there is still a lot of time left. The previous Harry Potter movies just haven't been good enough to attract a big enough audience for a sixth installment. In terms of quality, I can only hope and dream it will be as good as the Dark Knight. That would be a fool's hope though, IMO.

[mrfutterman]

So Wimsey, how do you think the shift to next year will affect HBP BO?