Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets vs. LOTR: The Two Towers

[MovieFreak15]

This should be the biggest box-office showdown of the year, if you ask me. Harry Potter and LOTR came awfully close in 2001 (Harry Potter with $318 million and LOTR with $310 million). Normally, Harry Potter would be the obvious choice, but LOTR was better recieved by the crowds, so will that spell an explosive opening weekend. I think that both should just barely surpass their predessecor's grosses. I think The Chamber of Secrets will open with around $95 million and a finish of $325 million and The Two Towers to open with $65 million and a finish of about $320 million. What do you guys think?

[chinton]

I just hope this doesnt lead to more idiotic LOTR fans insulting Harry Potter fans. Why do the fans have to fight each other. Im a huge Harry Potter fan myself but I enjoyed LOTR. Why cant we all get along.

As far as the grosses go the second Harry Potter is even better than the first one so I think it will do better than the first movie. I havent read any of the LOTR books so I have no idea about that. Obviously though the s econd one will do well

[Common Sense Man]

Well to even compare the two works on a literary level is impossible as there is no comparison.

But movie wise I think HP2 will probably make more money just as HP did against FOTR.

And it has nothing to do with the quality of either movie, it is due to one simple fact.

HP appeals to kids while LOTR can appeal to all ages but most patrons will be of adult age.

I am not trying to make blanket statements but that is why HP made the dough, the school kids seeing it over and over.

That also happened with FOTR but in smaller numbers as again IMO the majority of the patrons for FOTR where adults while the majority of the patrons for HP where teens and kids.

Out.....................

[MovieFreak15]

Just to let you guys know, this is not a debate on which film is better or which sequel is going to be better. I am just wondering which film is going to make more money, so hopefully, we won't have any arguments over which film was better.

[Scarface98.9]

HP is the 2nd highest grossing movie ever made (2nd only to Titanic). so the sequel will do better box office wise, but not surpassing LOTR by much

[Benny]

If the first movies in the series were any indication, then TTT will be much better. It's my most-anticipated movie of 2002.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Hey chinton, lets not call LotR fans "idiotic", alright?? I mean, they have to possess AT LEAST a minor bit of intelligence to get through Tolkiens book, and if they are solely fans of the movie, than they have to have AT LEAST a little bit of intelligence to follow the plot without knowing everything those that have read the book would know. As for which movie will make more; im gonna go with TT. Harry Potter just wont get the same repeat buisness that TTT will get. Not to mention the fact that this film will more than likely be better than the first AND have more action - well, I think it`ll be close anyways.

[Ghostface 2000]

As a posted in the dooplicate topic i think that Lord Of The Rings 2 will be the bigger movie because it was a massive box office hit.

[Strider]

I think this time around, the outcome is going to be very different. The Two Towers will beat the living shit outta of the boy wizard.

Strider

[Movie Hunter]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chinton:
I just hope this doesnt lead to more idiotic LOTR fans insulting Harry Potter fans.</font>

1) u insuled LOTR Fans ."Idiotic"
2)After 13 nominations and 4 Oscars i think that more will be attracted to TTT.

So Case is closed http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Sowen]

I have to agree that TTT will do better than HP2. Not by too much, but ever since the oscars it seems FOTR has brought in new viewers who weren't interested when the movie first came out. People like those who haven't read the books and thought that LOTR would just be a goofy fantasy flick. Now that its done soooo well in the box office and won several oscars those people are curious and going to see it, and of course once they have seen it they realize the tremendous quality involved and have become instant fans. I know all this because I have friends who have fallen into this catagory. Come next year when TTT comes out these people will be joining the die hard fans right off the bat. TTT will be LORD of the box office (please excuse cheesy comment, couldn't resist)

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

I think both will benefit from new fans seeing it on video, and such. Still, I think it will be pretty close, and that both will surpass their TTT at least will surpass FotR. HP2 has a chance at that as well however.

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chinton:
I just hope this doesnt lead to more idiotic LOTR fans insulting Harry Potter fans.[/b]</font>

I would not call LOTR fans idiotic. I'm not as big a one as some people on here but since you haven't read the book you don't know how much intelligence you actually need to get through it.

My predictions:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
Opening: $100 million
Final: $330 million

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Opening: $75 million
Final: $335 million

So, I believe HP2 will have a better opening BUT that TTT will have better staying power (because of repeat viewings and the fact that most kids will want to see HP2 opening weekend) and will ever so slightly beat it in the end.

[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 04-28-2002).]

[LordKaruku]

We're all forgetting a basic fact here... as a general rule, sequels make less money than the original, unless the original was only a modest success ala Austin Powers. Especially when the grosses for the first installments of both series was so high. There are certainly exceptions, and I think Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are both going to break this mold to some degree. But I don't see either film making as much as its predecessor.

HARRY POTTER mania is going to be at a lower level this November than it was last year. The delay in publication of the next HP book means that it will have been over two years since the last new installment came out. While there are still going to be tons of Harry Potter fans, I think the phenomenon will have died off to some degree. See the final grosses for:

Pokemon The First Movie: $85.7 M
Pokemon 2000: $43.7 M

or

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: $135 M
TMNT 2: $78.7 M

Harry Potter 2 won't depreciate as much as either of these, in my opinion. But the rush to see "The Harry Potter Movie" won't be as big and there probably won't be as much repeat business (regardless of the relative quality of the second book). I'm predicting a $245 million final gross.

THE TWO TOWERS certainly gained a lot of fans with the release of Fellowship, but there's also a significant factor that I think many people are forgetting -- how likely are those who never saw Part One going to be to jump into the middle of a story with dozens of characters they know nothing about? Observe the grosses for the first two Star Wars films (not counting the 1997 re-releases). "Star Wars" received a similar number of Acadamy award nominations and a similar number of wins:

Star Wars: $322.7 million
Empire Strikes Back: $222.7 million

And despite the Oscar attention, there are still a lot of people who aren't interested in seeing a fantasy movie. The opening weekend will be comparable to Fellowship, but I predict a final gross for Two Towers of $225 million.

Overall, and once again-- too close to call. I think HP2 will have a slight edge, but I wouldn't bet money on it.



[This message has been edited by LordKaruku (edited 04-28-2002).]

[chinton]

sorry I typed my messgae wrong I didnt mean to call LOTR fans idiotic I meant to call the juvenile fight between LOTR fans HP fans idiotic

[Nate6]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chinton:
sorry I typed my messgae wrong I didnt mean to call LOTR fans idiotic I meant to call the juvenile fight between LOTR fans HP fans idiotic</font>

Ohhh! And you are correct, it is idiotic.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

There is a MAJOR difference between a sequal and the TT however. The fact is, LotR is one story told over three movies, unlike SW, which is three seperate movies that make a trilogy. I think that changes things because that pretty much ensures that everyone who saw the first film will see the second. Well, it doesnt ensure it, but it makes it very likely. I also think FotR will gain alot more fans from people who waited for it to come out on video, because they didnt want to "waste" their money on a fantasy movie. Because yes, there is a bias against fantasy movies. So, I think TTT will definately make more than Fellowship. Also, because TTT is much more adaptable than FotR, it will more than likely, be a better film, drawing more people to it.

[dh1989]

I think HP2 will be bigger than TTT by a hair. Kids will flock to see HP2 over and over and over and they'll check out TTT once or twice. Adults will go see TTT over and over and maybe check out HP2 once or twice. I think HP2 will open with 95 million and and finish with 328 million and TTT will open with(over the five day period) 92 million and finish with 326 million. I look forward to both a lot.

[KornKidJedi]

"Gandalf is the real thing. Harry Potter is a rip-off."-Sir Ian McKellan

[This message has been edited by KornKidJedi (edited 05-01-2002).]

[noisy_brut]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by KornKidJedi:
"Gandalf is the real thing. Harry Potter is a rip-off."-Sir Ian McKellan

[This message has been edited by KornKidJedi (edited 05-01-2002).]</font>

If he really said that my respect for him dropped a few notches. I figured he would be above that.

[The Heart Collector]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LordKaruku:
We're all forgetting a basic fact here... as a general rule, sequels make less money than the original, unless the original was only a modest success ala Austin Powers. </font>

Rush Hour was a BIG hit, but Rush Hour 2 was an even bigger one.


I think that applies to The Mummy Returns too.

[Shaddiz]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by KornKidJedi:
"Gandalf is the real thing. Harry Potter is a rip-off."-Sir Ian McKellan

[This message has been edited by KornKidJedi (edited 05-01-2002).]</font>

i dont think he ever said that. The only member of the LOTR cast i've ever seen talk down on Harry Potter is John Rhys-Davies(Gimli). You must be making that up!

[chinton]

As I said before cant HP fans and LOTR fans just get along

[Scrunch]

There are a ton of things out there inspired by Tolken. Even if that is an actual quote from Ian McKellan I'm guessing it was rather tongue in cheek.

These two book series are totally different. They're aimed at different audiences. The movies are totally different.

Personally I go to more than one movie a year. Why argue over it? To each his own.

I enjoyed Harry Potter and will buy the DVD. But I was entranced by LOTR. I find them to be on such different levels though that I can't compare them realistically. I did like LOTR better though.

[64565465676]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Common Sense Man:
Well to even compare the two works on a literary level is impossible as there is no comparison.

But movie wise I think HP2 will probably make more money just as HP did against FOTR.

And it has nothing to do with the quality of either movie, it is due to one simple fact.

HP appeals to kids while LOTR can appeal to all ages but most patrons will be of adult age.

I am not trying to make blanket statements but that is why HP made the dough, the school kids seeing it over and over.

That also happened with FOTR but in smaller numbers as again IMO the majority of the patrons for FOTR where adults while the majority of the patrons for HP where teens and kids.

Out.....................</font>

More or less, that's pretty much how I feel

[JCPhoenix]

I agree that Harry Potter & the Chamber of Secrets will make more money to begin with, but they should end up with very similar totals...

I liked the first Harry Potter movie better than Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring, though I still liked LOTR: FOTR a lot, though I think it as way overrated...(just look at the IMDb -#3rd of all time? NO FREAKIN WAY)

Still, this time around, I'm looking forward to The Two Towers more than Chamber of Secrets even though I liked the first HP movie better than the first LOTR movie...why? Because I never really thought the first book in the Tolkien series was as good as the others...I think the second book is the best of them all, and I can't wait.

Oh, and I can't wait for HP and the Goblet of Fire (Book #4) too...(hope it gets to that point) that was the best and most dark HP book yet...

[scifikid]

TTT will crush HP2 like a cochroach!!! (popularity wise)
but when it comes to money they will probably be pretty much the same.

[RossCo]

Well, as a die hard LOTR fan, I thought I would never see Harry Potter. I broke down and saw it and was actually impressed, I can understand the appeal.

If the second one is better than the first, which it is rumored to be much better, I'm sure it will bring in plenty of money, but the initial hype is over for both series of films, and where most sequels do not do as well, I would not be surprised to see these next films do as well, if not better than the predecessors.

But, my prediction and hope is that the newfound interest and respect for LOTR as a result of the awards and success of the first, will give TTT the edge over Mr. Potter. I am after all, a fan of LOTR, and I have to root for my team, right?

[LordKaruku]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Heart Collector:
Rush Hour was a BIG hit, but Rush Hour 2 was an even bigger one. I think that applies to The Mummy Returns too.</font>

You're right:

Mummy: $155 million & Mummy Returns: $202 million
Rush Hour: $141 million & Rush Hour 2: $226 million

However even though both were very successful, neither original was anywhere near the blockbuster status achieved by Fellowship of the Ring ($308 million and counting). The highest grossing film ever to be out-grossed by its sequel is Toy Story ($191 million), which was followed by Toy Story 2 at $246 million. While Dumb-Fokker's point about Towers being the continuation of a story instead of a sequel is true, I think the public-at-large will nevertheless perceive it as a sequel, and will respond in a similar manner.

Towers is also not likely to be helped by major Oscar nominations like Best Picture. It had enough going against it being a Fantasy, but a fantasy sequel (perception again) will probably be too much for it to break out of technical awards.

[Scorchlord]

I won't spend a penny on Harry Potter. The first movie was weak and soulless.

I'm going to the Two Towers as many times as I can.

[chinton]

That was my problem with LOTR. Even though I liked it I didnt feel any emotion behind the characters. Admittedly the movie of HP wasnt a perfect adaption of the book and frankly the HP books get better with each one but I didn t feel the great emotion in LOTR.


Cant LOTR fans and HP fans just get a long

[Sowen]

Didn't feel any emotion in the characters of LOTR???? Are you sure you were in the right movie? There is tons of emotions expressed by the characters. Sadness, fear, loyalty, temptation. The book LOTR has some of the best characters ever written in a story, and the movie couldn't of had better actors portraying those characters. Myself, along with every person I've seen the movie with has cried at some point throughout it. I guess your entitled to your opinion, but...wow...I have to strongly disagree with you chinton.

[Adriana]

no emotions?! geeezzz...i cried when gandalf "died" and frodo was screaming NOOOOOO!! that was bloody sad...

[chinton]

well of course there was the idea of emotions. Every movie has an diea of emotions good or bad but I never got attatches to any of the character in the movie.

[ak]

FOTR will more than likely reach a lot more people once it makes its debut on DVD and video.
I, for one, know a lot of people who didn't see it in the cinema. A vast majority of this audience will maintain an interest in it until The Two Towers comes out on December 18th.
It's of my opinion that The Two Towers will make a little more money than FOTR, but won't make as much as a certain Mr. Potter.

LOTR is far superior in every respect.

[ColinM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Common Sense Man:
Well to even compare the two works on a literary level is impossible as there is no comparison.

But movie wise I think HP2 will probably make more money just as HP did against FOTR.

And it has nothing to do with the quality of either movie, it is due to one simple fact.

HP appeals to kids while LOTR can appeal to all ages but most patrons will be of adult age.</font>

What else can be said? He's exactly right.

[Scarface98.9]

as for ppl who didn't see the first, and seeing the sequel b4hand, I think that PJ might've thought of this and have some intro to the first movies events, like the backstory behind the ring in the first.

[urbanlegend23]

I think it'll be awfully close, but LOTR: TTT will come out on top box-office wise. HP2 won't be far behind.

Movie-wise, I think HP2 has a really good chance of being better than LOTR: TTT. It has a better story than the first one. And I hear they are taking out heaps of cool stuff from the books to make Arwen and Faramir bigger characters. HP2 will be very faithful to the book IMO. We'll just have to see how it goes! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[The Other]

People keep saying that The Chamber of Secrets is a sequel. I wouldn't necessarily call it a sequel. Well, I wouldn't. It's just part of a 7 part series.

[LordKaruku]

It's fun to see all these old threads again, isn't it?

I stand by my prediction, but would up how much each film makes by maybe $30-60 million, and am still giving a slight edge to Potter.

[Tuukka]

It seems that we are talking about the USA box office. In the international market FOTR made 860 million where as HP made 967 million. HP is equally popular everywhere, but LOTR has a couple of weak markets, mainly Japan, which is the 2nd biggest market after USA. The book has never been popular in Japan, mainly thanks to a reportedly poor translation.

In USA FOTR made 314 million where as HP made 318 million. But FOTR had a 75 million 5-day weekend, where as HP had a 90 million 3-day weekend. HP was launched on far more screens, but FOTR had better legs. So the fact that HP won the battle in USA had more to do with a bigger launch than with more popularity among the audiences.

I believe that both films are going to perform on the same level as the first films. They have both proven themselves to the audience with great reviews, great word of mouth and repeated viewings. They will lose some steam since the hype factor is not so high anymore, but on the other hand they have both gained new fans on the VHS and DVD market.

The "sequels do worse than originals" is really just a myth. I could name dozens of sequels which were more popular on the B.O: Terminator 2. Aliens. Die Hard 2. Die Hard 3. Austin Powers 2. Phantom Menace. Etc. It all depends on whether the sequel is a cheap rip-off and re-telling of the original or not. LOTR and HP are both CONTINUING stories. FOTR even had a cliffhanger ending. If people liked FOTR (and the great majority LOVED it), they are certainly going to see what happens in the story of TTT and ROTK. The same counts to HP as well, althought on a lesser level since the film worked as a story on it's own. It didn't beg a sequel, like FOTR.

Since there is now a bigger established movie fan base for both movies, they are both going to open bigger. I predict 95-115 million for HP in three days, and 90-100 million for TTT in five days. Since both films are likely to be better than the first ones, they migh easily get better final B.O. I predict 300-320 million for HP and 310-330 million for TTT.

Worldwide B.O will be 800-1000 million for HP and 800-950 million for TTT.

[Dumb-Fokker-**]

Well, just to give my opinion again, I think TTT will make more than HP. HP was enjoyable, and CoS will be better, but TTT will just be awesome. Helms Deep, the Ents, Gollum, the storming of Isengard, wargs, oliphaunts, ect. And, I read a little comment that annoyed me back there - someone said that the characters in FotR were emotionless, and blamed it on the film. Now, I dont mean to tell anyone what they should think, but I will say that more love, and care went into the LotR trilogy, than for any other film ever made - by everyone. The actors, producers, artists, everyone. HP, to me, felt very,.....plain. Emotionless, if it must be said. It was nice to watch, but I was never drawn in, due to a lack of cohesion, and bad acting (I didnt like Hagrids, or Rons performances at all). And im ranting. Rant done.

[Horror whore]

I too think TTT will make more money the HP2. I've heard (several times now) that Harry Potter's running time is somewhere around 180 minutes, a whopping 40 minutes loner than Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone! Taking that into account I think many little kids (by that I mean their parents) will be turned off by that. FotR was received very well by audiences and critcs, so that should just fuel TTT's B.O. power more.

My Predictions:

HPatCoS- 102 Million Opening, 297 Million finish
LotR: TTT- 86 Million Opening (5 days), 335 Million finish

[Movie Hunter]

My predictions is that HP:COS will make more money than LOTR:TTT.. becoz it is aimed to a smaller audience...

TTT : whole run 320-330
HP COS : whole run 340-350

[xirtam]

I think that COS will not do as good as the first one. The first one pulled in a lot of people because all the fans of Harry Potter will finally get to see their favorite book on the big screen, that was where the excitement was, and now they've already seen it on the big screen and it's just not as exciting. It will definitely make a lot of money, and many many people will see it, but I doubt people will see it over and over again, like the people who did for the first one.

LOTR, on the other hand, will make more money than the first one, because even though you've already seen the first one, it's still exciting, because there are more places, more creatures, more characters, and of course, the continuation of the story. With Harry Potter it's more like an episodic thing, it's just another year at Hogwarts and if you miss this one you can still see the next one and understand it just fine. I think Two Towers will make more money than COS.

[Jason]

Predictions.........

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets: $285 million
LOTR: The Two Towers: $250 million

[gyro_44]

I don't think "The Chamber of Secrets" is keeping the same pace as "The Philosopher's Stone", so I see the current Potter film finishing with upwards of $270 million or so.

The buzz for "The Two Towers" seems to be off the charts, and unless there is a lack of word-of-mouth (which is doubtful), I can't see it not matching "FOTR" for box office returns. It could finish with around $300-330 million. I think "Rings" will eclipse the little wizard boy this time around.

[BarkingSparrow]

Originally posted by gyro_44
I don't think "The Chamber of Secrets" is keeping the same pace as "The Philosopher's Stone", so I see the current Potter film finishing with upwards of $270 million or so.

The buzz for "The Two Towers" seems to be off the charts, and unless there is a lack of word-of-mouth (which is doubtful), I can't see it not matching "FOTR" for box office returns. It could finish with around $300-330 million. I think "Rings" will eclipse the little wizard boy this time around.

I think HP will definitely do better then $270m, but $300m is going to be close. Next weekend's hold will tell, as it's running $15-20m behind last year's pace, so it has to make up some ground.

The hype for TTT almost needs some toning down , making me worry about eveyone's soaring expectations. The press screenings start tonight, so early tomorrow we should see some clues as to whether the hype is going to match our expectations.

[Movie Hunter]

After all this positive reviews , i think that this movie will be worthy of its hype ..

and really this time it should claim more money than HP , after the oscars and FOTR coming out to be a better , more exciting film than HP:TPS (1) ..it will gain more viewers and with its gigantic exciting trailer and this strong hype too .. THIS GONNA BE BIG

watch out wizard kid .. :)

i d like to update my predications

HP COS : 280m-300m
LOTR TTT: 310-330

[Terrell]

The "sequels do worse than originals" is really just a myth. I could name dozens of sequels which were more popular on the B.O:

No it's not. The sequels to mega-blockbusters hardly ever outdo the originals. And no, you can't really classify TPM as a sequel in the traditional sense. It's a prequel made 16 years after the last Star Wars film, a franchise of mega-popularity. So of course it made more. Even it is below the original Star Wars.

But, name me one sequel that made more than an original that made at least 250 million dollars domestically?

BTTF2 made less than BTTF.

ESB made less than Star Wars.

Temple of Doom made less than Raiders.

AOTC made less than TPM.

Harry Potter: Cos is going to make less than Harry Potter judging by the latest box office tally. It's going to need some very serious legs to do it, legs it's not showing.

Jurassic Park 2 made less than Jurassic Park.

Home Alone 2 made less than Home Alone.

Jaws 2 made less than Jaws.

Batman 2 made less than Batman.

Ghostbusters 2 made less than Ghostbusters.

Beverly Hills Cop 2 made less than Beverly Hills Cop.

MIB2 made less than MIB.

I can name even more. But you get the point. Many of those franchises have originals that didn't even make 250 million, yet the sequels still came up short. And in those cases I listed, some sequels have been better, some have been worse. So that's not much of a factor either. Have there been sequels that have outdone their originals? Of course. But in almost every case, the original didn't not even break 200 million. My point is it's a lot easier for a sequel to beat an original that made 150 million dollars than it is for a sequel to beat an original that made 300 million dollars. Get my drift?

So, when you see FOTR made 313 million and TTT is being released only a year later, it's highly doubtful it will beat FOTR. Is it impossible? No, but not probable either.

So, that theory is not a myth. Anticipation, hype, and excitement almost always take a nosedive where sequels are concerned.

[Tuukka]

No it's not. The sequels to mega-blockbusters hardly ever outdo the originals. And no, you can't really classify TPM as a sequel in the traditional sense. It's a prequel made 16 years after the last Star Wars film, a franchise of mega-popularity. So of course it made more. Even it is below the original Star Wars.

I'm not following your logic here. Phantom Menace is not a sequel? Since when? "Prequel" is only a term for the *storyline* of these sequels, but they still *are* sequels. In the worldwide grosses PM has made more than ANH. Of course the grosses don't count inflation (ANH sold more tickets despite having smaller grosses).

But, name me one sequel that made more than an original that made at least 250 million dollars domestically?

Why set the mark in 250 million? I don't find any reason to do so. If a sequel makes more, then it makes more. Why not set the mark to 400 million if you want to randomly set it somewhere?

BTTF2 made less than BTTF.

ESB made less than Star Wars.

Temple of Doom made less than Raiders.

AOTC made less than TPM.

Harry Potter: Cos is going to make less than Harry Potter judging by the latest box office tally. It's going to need some very serious legs to do it, legs it's not showing.

Jurassic Park 2 made less than Jurassic Park.

Home Alone 2 made less than Home Alone.

Jaws 2 made less than Jaws.

Batman 2 made less than Batman.

Ghostbusters 2 made less than Ghostbusters.

Beverly Hills Cop 2 made less than Beverly Hills Cop.

MIB2 made less than MIB.

Raiders Of The Lost Ark, Beverly Hills Cop, Back To The Future Ghostbusters all made less than 250 million, so why did you include them on the list?

I can name even more. But you get the point. Many of those franchises have originals that didn't even make 250 million, yet the sequels still came up short. And in those cases I listed, some sequels have been better, some have been worse. So that's not much of a factor either. Have there been sequels that have outdone their originals? Of course. But in almost every case, the original didn't not even break 200 million. My point is it's a lot easier for a sequel to beat an original that made 150 million dollars than it is for a sequel to beat an original that made 300 million dollars. Get my drift?

RE: Yes, but your argument is pointless. It's difficult for ANY film to make 300 millions, whether it's a sequel or not. This has *nothing* to do with the original claim which was "sequels do worse than originals". Why are you setting the line at 300 millions? Or 250 millions? Or 200 millions? Most movie franchices have their *every* part performing below 200 million. According to your logic we should even count sequels to films that made less than 150 million. But they still are sequels.

So, when you see FOTR made 313 million and TTT is being released only a year later, it's highly doubtful it will beat FOTR. Is it impossible? No, but not probable either.

So, that theory is not a myth. Anticipation, hype, and excitement almost always take a nosedive where sequels are concerned.

RE: It's difficult for any movie to make more than 300 million. Phantom Menace and, Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi are all sequels and they have made more than 300 million, even if some made it on a re-release.

But the theory that sequels make worse than originals is still a myth. However it is correct to say that *most* sequels perform below originals. However there are too many exceptions to the "rule" to consider it as a rule.

Some sequels that made more money than originals:

Aliens
Die Hard 2 & 3
Lethal Weapon 2, 3 & 4
Austin powers 2 & 3
I think all other James Bond movies have made more money than Dr. No.
Toy Story 2
Mission Impossible 2
Rush Hour 2

I can think of countless of others. It's pointless to set rules if they don't apply in a very large percentage of cases. In terms of a sequel surpassing the original, we are not talking about a very small minority, but a rather healthy percentage of sequels.