Harry Potter shatters records! [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

jingo

11-18-2001, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by totemrepublic:
Yah Harry's voice changed during the film as well... oh well, now i'm just wondering whether or not Lord of the Rings will make even more than Harry Potter?

i doubt it. lotr is a better deeper story that will be better appreciated by adults and teens. it doesn't have the crazy kid appeal that harry potter did. plus, harry potter is a crazy right now, so that has a huge amount of drawing power.

i saw the movie lastnight, and loved it. despite the packed theater, crummy seat, and dumb ass little kids next that never shut up. i thought it was amazingly true to the book, and the casting job was done extreamly well.

Dumb-Fokker-**

11-18-2001, 11:27 PM

Actually, when the Lord of the Rings trailer played before Harry Potter, every little kid in the theater said "I wanna see that." Theres gonna be alot of kids at that movie, and im betting that they will probably like it better, because it has more action, and,.....I dont know.

Fergus

11-18-2001, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by someguy:
A lot of people's estimates were right,but I wanna know what it made in the U.K.!

I found this earlier from Box Office Guru site.

"Not only did Harry Potter conquer the North American box office, but the effects-driven adventure obliterated records in the United Kingdom where it launched this weekend as well. English ticket buyers spent a mammoth 16 million pounds ($23.4M) on Potter tickets this weekend (including last weekend's 6.6 million pounds in previews)."

Hope it answers your question.

Ender

11-19-2001, 01:53 AM

Why is anyone surprised? Personal opinions aside, we all have to recognize that Harry Potter has a huge following, and that this film has been masterfully promoted. It's a sure-fire formula for success, and as time goes on, the openings will just get bigger and bigger.

The Dude

11-19-2001, 08:13 AM

Am I the only one who absolutely HATED this movie?!? Perhaps it was the fact that at my local theater it was sold out, forcing me and my brothers to buy tickets for SHALLOW HAL and sneak in to HARRY POTTER and sit in the front row, or maybe it was the fact that at every other thirty seconds like a million kids somewhere behind me would ooh and ahh over nothing, or perhaps it was just how they made a series of good books that I believe were much more than kids' books into a kids' movie, nothing more. I thank JoBlo for disillusioning me early on this movie because otherwise I would have royally pissed off.

P.S.- Am I the only one that thought the character Professor Snape played by Alan Rickman looked a LOT like Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame? LOL

rgse

11-19-2001, 11:13 AM

You have to remember this about gross earngings:
It doesn't factor in number of screens, and it doesn't factor in the price of the tickets. Lost World and Star Wars may have actually sold more tickets than Harry Potter, but since movie ticket prices are going up, Potter can gross more dollars with fewer tickets sold.

What would be a better measure of a movie's success is number of tickets sold, but theaters don't keep that information.

FreakArtist

11-19-2001, 11:37 AM

Okay, it did higher but if you adjust other openings for imflation Harry Potter is still first but not by much.

rgse

11-19-2001, 03:09 PM

And what exacty was your formula for inflation adjustment?

stefanb

11-19-2001, 03:43 PM

Actually when I saw the numbers, I thought the exact same thing about inflation, but this will always be the way it's figured out (ignoring such factors). Consider that Snow White opened in 1937 at the peak of the great depression and still made something like $8 million in the theatres. Now figure what you could buy with $8 million in 1937, and compare that to what it would cost to buy the same amount of "stuff" today. Technically, Snow White made more than Titanic (if you look at it THAT way). Not to mention, what would Snow White have made if ticket prices had been $8, not twenty-five cents (as they were). So, you can't rightfully ask him to consider inflation of ticket prices or it'd be damn-near impossible to figure out what's HONESTLY the highest grossing movie of all time and what movie holds this record and that record what calculating it dollar-wise. The only TRUE guage would be WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION GOES TO SEE THE MOVIE. You can't even use "how many people" go to see it because there's more people on earth today then there was in 1937. However, if 20% of the population went to a particular movie in 1937, you could rightfully compare that to 20% of today's poplulation going to a specific movie... well, unless you consider the fact that back then the theatres didn't play NEARLY as many movies as they do today, so you really can't use that either... I'm totally babbling now, but you can see what I was attempting to get at... I should'a never taken that fuckin stats class.

Bud_Fox

11-19-2001, 03:49 PM

Imagine smoking a fattie with stefan B and then letting his brain go. I think he would sponatanoeusly combust http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

Anyway i have three words for this topic Fuck Harry Potter

stefanb

11-19-2001, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by Bud_Fox:
Imagine smoking a fattie with stefan B and then letting his brain go. I think he would sponatanoeusly combust http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

Well, give my little "house plant" a few more months to grow, then you can come on over and test that theory for yourself. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/biggrin.gif cough cough wheez cough...

cutman

11-19-2001, 07:02 PM

Interesting article:

http://www.forbes.com/2001/11/19/1119topnews.html

Talks about how Harry Potter is a box-office fraud.

cutman

stefanb

11-19-2001, 08:01 PM

The article contains this following line:

The movie opened in 3,672 theaters and on 8,200 screens--about one out of every four screens in America; most Potter theaters played the movie on more than one screen. By contrast, 1999's Star Wars: Episode 1--The Phantom Menace played on about 5,000 screens in its opening weekend, when it took in $65 million.

I'll point out that IS NOBODY'S FAULT EXCEPT GEORGE LUCAS. LucasFilm put a restriction on the number of screens that could play the film by saying any screen that showed Episode 1 during the first week MUST continue to screen it for the following 8 weeks. That is to say, if a theatre tried to show Eposode 1 on every screen in the theatre on opening night, they'd be FORCED to continue playing the movie on every screen for the next 8 weeks. This is part of the agreement the major theater franchises take when they gain the license to show the picture at all. Think about it logically... with all the Episode 1 hype going on, theatre's would have been playing it on 8 different screens (for opening night) if they'd have been given that chance. So this guy can fuck himself in the ear... his article is bullshit to imply Star Wars wasn't given a fair shot.

Nate6

11-19-2001, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by stefanb:
The article contains this following line:

The movie opened in 3,672 theaters and on 8,200 screens--about one out of every four screens in America; most Potter theaters played the movie on more than one screen. By contrast, 1999's Star Wars: Episode 1--The Phantom Menace played on about 5,000 screens in its opening weekend, when it took in $65 million.

I'll point out that IS NOBODY'S FAULT EXCEPT GEORGE LUCAS. LucasFilm put a restriction on the number of screens that could play the film by saying any screen that showed Episode 1 during the first week MUST continue to screen it for the following 8 weeks. That is to say, if a theatre tried to show Eposode 1 on every screen in the theatre on opening night, they'd be FORCED to continue playing the movie on every screen for the next 8 weeks. This is part of the agreement the major theater franchises take when they gain the license to show the picture at all. Think about it logically... with all the Episode 1 hype going on, theatre's would have been playing it on 8 different screens (for opening night) if they'd have been given that chance. So this guy can fuck himself in the ear... his article is bullshit to imply Star Wars wasn't given a fair shot.

I think Lucas also requested that every screen showing Episode 1 would have to have incredible, near-perfect picture and sound, which many theaters (especially Mom and Pop ones) can not afford. So essentially Episode 1 could have easily beaten Harry Potter, but blame it on Lucas.

And rgse, Harry Potter's $90.3 million opening (93.5 was a lofty prediction from the studio) beats The Lost World even with inflation, because factoring that in it made $87 million (according to CNN).

stefanb

11-19-2001, 08:46 PM

All that said, I suppose we ought to give credit where credit is due. George Lucas isn't looking for some cheezy-assed 1,3, or 5-day record. That fat little man sees the BIG picture, and that's why he currently holds 4 of the top 15, and 5 of the top 20 grossing films of all time (http://us.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies)**.

**All 4 Star Wars flicks sit in the top 15, and one of the Indiana Jones is at 20 (worldwide box office numbers used).

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 11-19-2001).]

LordKaruku

11-19-2001, 09:20 PM

As to totemrepublic's question of whether Fellowship of the Ring will gross more than Harry Potter, I'm almost certainly going to say no, at least for the opening weekend. As jingo pointed out, its target audience is older, all though there will certainly be lots of crossover with kids. However, I think Fellowship is going to have far longer legs. Much like Titanic, it has the advantage of opening near the end of the holiday season, with little competition to expect in January and February. Also, like Harry, it will get tremendous second week sales-- Christmas is on the Tuesday after it opens, and it will have a five-day weekend to begin with. Depending on how well the public likes it, Fellowship could end up with a higher total gross than Potter.

FlickJunkie

11-19-2001, 09:29 PM

Harry Potter in just one weekend is the 20th highest grossing movie of the year! That's a cool fact! http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

idealdiscountdude

11-19-2001, 09:32 PM

I think that Harry Potter could top off at $400 million.......I believe that Lord Of The Rings will probably gross $70 million on it's first weekend and $110 in it's first five days. It will probably gross between $250 and $300 million dollars.

stefanb

11-19-2001, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude:
...Lord Of The Rings... will probably gross between $250 and $300 million dollars.

No way... you're WAAY low. I'm not hyped about the movie, because I know nothing about it, but the fact is, it is one of the most (if not the most) downloaded movie trailer of all time. So it's popular, right? right. So is it safe to say it will make top 40 on the all time box-office? I'd assume so. and, all of the top 40 are $400 million dollar movies (or better) (http://us.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies), so I think LOTR is a shoe-in for AT LEAST a half-billion by the time it's done.

ok ok ok... I lied. So only the top 39 movies are $400 million (or better). So shoot me.

But the hype on LOTR has $500+ million written all over it EASILY I figure. For the record, I'll bet right now, that Harry Potter stops well-short of wherever LOTR ends up.

Tuukka

11-20-2001, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by stefanb:
No way... you're WAAY low. I'm not hyped about the movie, because I know nothing about it, but the fact is, it is one of the most (if not the most) downloaded movie trailer of all time. So it's popular, right? right. So is it safe to say it will make top 40 on the all time box-office? I'd assume so. and, all of the top 40 are $400 million dollar movies (or better) (http://us.imdb.com/Charts/worldtopmovies), so I think LOTR is a shoe-in for AT LEAST a half-billion by the time it's done.

ok ok ok... I lied. So only the top 39 movies are $400 million (or better). So shoot me.

But the hype on LOTR has $500+ million written all over it EASILY I figure. For the record, I'll bet right now, that Harry Potter stops well-short of wherever LOTR ends up.

RE: I think he is talking about domestic gross, where as you are talking about international gross. If it makes 200-300 million in USA, it will make over 500 million worldwide.

FACT 1:

The biggest selling volume of HP has sold around 35 million (it's generally the same people who have bought all the four volumes). LOTR has sold over 70 million (the trilogy is counted as one book). Also, LOTR people have been able to borrow LOTR from their friends, relatives and libraries for 50 years now. I have read the book three times, but I have never bought it. This means that LOTR has at least 2-3 times more people who have read it. I would also like to point out that LOTR really started selling in the mid 60's, 35 years ago, when it became a favourite in the 10-30 year old age group. This means that the oldest fans of the series are in their 60's now. I think that it's a fair prediction to assume that 80-90% of the people who have read the book are still alive, since we are not living in third world countries. This film is going to have an extremely wide demographic.

FACT 2:

In the countries where the they have already started selling tickets, LOTR is breaking the records that were established a few weeks ago by HP. It's having longer lines than either HP or Phantom Menace.

FACT 3:

LOTR is a lot more epic and has bigger action and SFX than HP. These things are with no doubt going to help it's B.O.

...So it's not far-fetched to say that LOTR is gonna make us much money as HP, if not more. It's also forbidden from kids under 8 to kids under 13, depending on the country. So the family film status of Potter is not going to work as a big benefit to it.

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-20-2001).]

stefanb

11-20-2001, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Tuukka:
RE: I think he is talking about domestic gross, where as you are talking about international gross. If it makes 200-300 million in USA, it will make over 500 million worldwide.

Fair enough, but that's such a pathetically American way of looking at it (yes, Tuukka, I realize you're not American). It's like saying forget the other 4.7 Billion people on the planet... how much did it make here? Personally, I think if you’re going to talk all-time gross, then it’s worldwide you’re looking at. If you want to look at just America... well... that’s a whole different conversation about how much did movies make just in America. Just my opinion...

idealdiscountdude

11-20-2001, 10:11 AM

Guys......the DOMESTIC gross does not just include the American gross, it's the North American gross, which means that it's the total from the US and Canada together!!!!!

FlickJunkie

11-20-2001, 10:18 AM

Give it a rest...we will just hafta see when LOTR opens also to see which flick has staying power and which one grosses. Personally, I guess I'd want Harry Potter to gross more, but then again I really don't care. http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

rgse

11-20-2001, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Nate6:

And rgse, Harry Potter's $90.3 million opening (93.5 was a lofty prediction from the studio) beats The Lost World even with inflation, because factoring that in it made $87 million (according to CNN).

That in no way accounts for disparate ticket prices all across the nation, if not the world. An inflation adjustment is an average guess, not a rule.

It also doesn't take into account the number of screens or the population. I'd like to see number of tickets sold. Highest grossing film is starting to not become a measure of success because of so many factors.

stefanb

11-20-2001, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude:
the DOMESTIC gross does not just include the American gross, it's the North American gross, which means that it's the total from the US and Canada together!!!!!

Yea, but being that I'm from Canada, I'm allowed to say this: "WE DON'T MATTER". I mean seriously... There's not quite even 30 million people in Canada. There's more people in just California then there is in all of Canada. so how do we factor in to anything? Look, I'm as much a flag-wavin' proud to be Cananadian as any of us crazy frozen canucks, but let's not pretend that the roughly 330 million people in Canada/USA is a fair way to judge box-office when there's another 4.7 billion people on this planet NOT living in one of these 2 countries. That makes sense, doesn't it? It does to me, anyway...

FlickJunkie

11-20-2001, 11:40 AM

Inflation doesn't matter because it's still gonna hold the record of highest 3-day opening until someone else breaks it. And Titanic is still considered the highest grossing movie of all time. I mean, if Gone with the Wind was adjusted for inflation it would have grossed over $900 million instead of it's $190 million in the dollars it made back then. And $900 million is a lot higher than Titanic's $600 million (all domestic). So inflation is not going to matter. Harry has the record, there's nothin you can do about it. So complaining is just not worth it.

[This message has been edited by FlickJunkie (edited 11-20-2001).]

Tuukka

11-20-2001, 11:52 AM

OOPS!

[This message has been edited by Tuukka (edited 11-20-2001).]

Tuukka

11-20-2001, 12:07 PM

Titanic 600 million. A prize of ticket 8$. That's 75 million viewings.

Gone With The Wind making 190 million when it was first released? I think that I go with Stefanb's estimation of 8 million. 8 million with a ticket prize of 25 cents. That's 32 million viewings. It would mean a B.O of 256 million with a ticket of 8 bucks.

stefanb

11-20-2001, 01:31 PM

Just for the record... I was talking about the 1937 release of Snow White, not Gone With the Wind.

Gone With the Wind only made a $190 million after a re-release; see:
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0031381

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 11-20-2001).]

stefanb

11-20-2001, 01:32 PM

(double post edit - AKA - oops)

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 11-20-2001).]

rgse

11-20-2001, 02:09 PM

LOL!!!

Inflation doesn't matter? Ummm... alright.

There's a big difference between complaining and clarifying the triviality of a record. I suppose some people just aren't able to understand that...

FlickJunkie

11-20-2001, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by stefanb:
Just for the record... I was talking about the 1937 release of Snow White, not Gone With the Wind.

Gone With the Wind only made a $190 million after a re-release; see:
http://us.imdb.com/Business?0031381

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 11-20-2001).]

Yes, but, I was talking about Gone with the Wind though.

[This message has been edited by FlickJunkie (edited 11-20-2001).]

Tuukka

11-20-2001, 03:27 PM

Sorry, my mistake.

Is there any way to know how much a film has made when it was first released? And how do we find out the prize of the ticket in the year in question?

idealdiscountdude

11-20-2001, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by stefanb:
Yea, but being that I'm from Canada, I'm allowed to say this: "WE DON'T MATTER". I mean seriously... There's not quite even 30 million people in Canada. There's more people in just California then there is in all of Canada. so how do we factor in to anything? Look, I'm as much a flag-wavin' proud to be Cananadian as any of us crazy frozen canucks, but let's not pretend that the roughly 330 million people in Canada/USA is a fair way to judge box-office when there's another 4.7 billion people on this planet NOT living in one of these 2 countries. That makes sense, doesn't it? It does to me, anyway...

Well Harry Potter broke records here as well, according to canoe.ca, it grossed a record $9 million here which is 10% of what the film made in total in North America.........if it wasnt for us, then maybe Harry wouldn't have broken some records.........So really stefanb, I know that we are not exactly a country with a huge population but we do matter....10% is alot....

stefanb

11-20-2001, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by FlickJunkie:
Yes, but, I was talking about Gone with the Wind though.

I know... but I was correcting Tuukka, not you. He thought I was also talking about Gone With the Wind earlier, and I wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by idealdiscountdude:
Well Harry Potter broke records here as well, according to canoe.ca, it grossed a record $9 million here which is 10% of what the film made in total in North America.........if it wasnt for us, then maybe Harry wouldn't have broken some records.........So really stefanb, I know that we are not exactly a country with a huge population but we do matter....10% is alot....

Yea, but I don't think you got the context of what I was saying. Canada is 10% of the population of North America (ignoring Mexico, that is), so it stands to reason that's we'd also be 10% of the box-office....

However... FROM THE TOP... I don't think it's fair to look at "domestic" gross. Someone corrected me, saying that "domestic" also includes Canada, but I'm following that up with "so what". I think there's so many movie-goers outside of USA/Canada (just look at how many are members of this very message board!) that the only fair box-office gross to look at is worldwide box-office. The fact that "domestic" also includes Canada is a big "whoopee", given that it's doesn't include any European or Asian countries (or Austrailia, et al.). So yes, Canada matters, but it's nothing when you consider all the countries still being ignored.

Nate6

11-20-2001, 07:56 PM

Do you like being Canadian stefanb? Because I love it and when you say "Canada doesn't matter" it makes me question your patriotism just a little bit. I'm not saying we're an incredibly influential country or anything and I'm not saying you're not a regular flag-waving Canuck, but 32 million is not a terrible population (that's right, 32 million) and we can hold our own on the world stage. Show some pride, buddy!

[This message has been edited by Nate6 (edited 11-20-2001).]

stefanb

11-20-2001, 08:16 PM

Again, Nate, dude, buddy, like those before... you're missing the context of what I said. Of course Canada, as a country, matters. Maybe I ought to start speaking in full sentences... here goes... ready?

When it comes to Canada in the grand scope of worldwide box-office revenue, Canada doesn't matter.

Now... I'm only talking about movies here, but if Canada was blown off the planet, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference (in the movie-revenue sense of the conversation) to anyone. We represent such a TINY piece of the over-all revenue, it'd be like Ford no longer selling cars in Nigeria. Would Ford care that they've lost that revenue? Not likely. Yea... we do sink millions into movies, but look at it like this:

Titanic made $1.8 BILLION worldwide. It made $600 million in North America. ASSUMING that Canada represents 10% of the North American revenue, that's $60 million. That means that Canada represents about just over 3% of the $1.8 Billion the movie made. Now, $60 million may sound like a lot of money... but that's for the highest grossing movie EVER. Look at the REAL number... the 3%... Three lousy percent.

So "We Don't Matter" = "We only contribute about 3% to worldwide box office revenue". It doesn't mean I think our country sucks.

[This message has been edited by stefanb (edited 11-21-2001).]

FlickJunkie

11-20-2001, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by stefanb:
I know... but I was correcting Tuukka, not you. He thought I was also talking about Gone With the Wind earlier, and I wasn't. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay, that's cool...my bad as well http://www.joblo.com/ubb/wink.gif

idealdiscountdude

11-20-2001, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by stefanb:
Yea, but I don't think you got the context of what I was saying. Canada is 10% of the population of North America (ignoring Mexico, that is), so it stands to reason that's we'd also be 10% of the box-office....

However... FROM THE TOP... I don't think it's fair to look at "domestic" gross. Someone corrected me, saying that "domestic" also includes Canada, but I'm following that up with "so what". I think there's so many movie-goers outside of USA/Canada (just look at how many are members of this very message board!) that the only fair box-office gross to look at is worldwide box-office. The fact that "domestic" also includes Canada is a big "whoopee", given that it's doesn't include any European or Asian countries (or Austrailia, et al.). So yes, Canada matters, but it's nothing when you consider all the countries still being ignored.

Sorry stefanb.......i finally get what you are saying and you are correct....it's the maritimer in me....lol

FreakArtist

11-21-2001, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by rgse:
And what exacty was your formula for inflation adjustment?

If you wanna see how the inflation works go to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjopeners/ and you'll see.

The Lost World made 88 M$ if you adjust it to inflation and Harry Potter made 90.3 M$ so it's only 2.3 M$ higher. Is it a so-great-record ?

And if you guys wanna know about Gone With the Wind, go to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted/

It grossed about (with inflation) 1 133 M$ and Titanic is only #7.
Snow White is #10.

[This message has been edited by FreakArtist (edited 11-21-2001).]

rgse

11-21-2001, 11:34 AM

The point is that movie ticket prices do not follow inflation - plain and simple. When was the last time movie tickets went up by a penny? how about a nickel? a dime? So an inflation adjustment can not be used to compare different grosses.

stefanb

11-21-2001, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by rgse:
The point is that movie ticket prices do not follow inflation - plain and simple.

First up, rgse, I AGREE with you.. that it should just be ignored. That said, you clearly don't understand how they calculate inflation. To say "movie ticket prices do not follow inflation", can be rebutted with "duh!". Not very much AT ALL follows inflation perfectly. You buy a certain amount of "stuff"... let's say, 5 gallons of gas, a jug of milk, a box of corn flakes, a movie ticket, a CD, etc, etc, etc. You make this list SEVERAL THOUSAND items long, then add up the final price of everything. A year later, you buy THE EXACT SAME STUFF and add up the final price of everything, and so on and so forth... The percentage increase in the over-all price is the inflation factor. Now, with that said, ALMOST NONE of the individual items on that big shopping list increase the exact same amount as inflation. Some go up more, some less, some actually decrease, but it's the over-all price that's used to figure it out.

So no... of course a movie ticket doesn't go up a penny, nickle, dime, etc... it's just silly to think it would.

I think that web-site only used "average movie ticket price (in the year of the movies release)" VS "average 2001 movie ticket price". That said, it's not fair because too many factors are ignored... the number of theatres, number of screens in those theatres, current economic conditions, re-realease revenue on the older movies, etc, etc, etc...

So yea... I still agree with you that Harry Potter rightfully deserves #1. (although I could personally care less about the flick)