Harry Potter

Well, several of the highest openings this year have been Supernovas. Movies like Pearl Harbor and Planet of the Apes that opened very big and then fell off huge and disappeared relatively quickly.

I don't think Harry Potter falls into that.

But it also isn't going to hit $400 million. That Christmas resurgence (if it happens at all) will be what puts it over $300 million.

I think almost every Hollywood movie is a "supernova" today. What movie doesn't have a bigger opening week than any of its successive weeks?

It used to be that a film would have such a long run in theatres that the first week didn't matter so much but now films last only a few weeks so the first week, especially, is vital to show if it will make any impression.

It's kind of sad really.

__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.

The numbers for Tuesday are out now, Harry Potter was off 68.8% from last Tuesday. Total cume is $191,888,000.

It should pass Monsters, Inc. tomorrow (Thursday).

It opens here in Australia today.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

I thought it opened everywhere on the same day!?

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

I remember hearing something to the same effect...maybe it was in all countries on the same day, but only certain parts of some of those countries, or something.

No, believe me, there were special screenings, perhaps -- but it only opened nationally today [Thursday].

Is Harry Potter big in aussie land Silver Bullet???

A Supernova isn't a fluke. It's very powerful, just short lived. A Huge opening with a steadily strong decline (most movies this summer actually). Then there are movies like Shrek, which was still on the charts when it was out on Video.

__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.

Well, you originally called it, if I'm not mistaken, a big explosion, following by "nothing." Decline is inevitable. If a movie is seen by many the first time around, is it really a negative when it subsequently drops? Seems to me that, regardless of how wonderful it may or may not be, it's going to happen. Potter has received mostly positive reviews, I might add.

What I'll never understand is that, regardless of how much they end up with, some kind of shame seems to be cast over movies that open big and ride each subsequent wave on the way down. Praise, on the other hand, is given to movies that make their money in a more steady manner.

Through Wednesday, Potter has grossed $193,954,000 in the US.

(By the way, the Harry Potter box office seems to contradict the idea that Wednesday/Thursday is a higer box office day than Monday/Tuesday. Wednesday was way down about 20% from Monday).

As for opening big and falling off huge, that would tend to indicate that people were driven into the theaters initially by hype but that bad word of mouth prevented people from going in later weeks.

A movie with a steady box office tends to show that positive word-of-mouth drew people to the theaters to see the flick.

In general, that would mean that people liked the second example better than the first (because they were willing to tell others how they had to go to see it, etc).

I don't think Potter qualifies, though, because it would be impossible to keep up the opening week numbers, and the drop off was not as significant as for movies like Pearl Harbor and others that really didn't have good word of mouth.

Yes, exactly my point. This isn't "Pearl Harbor" we're talking about. Potter has been widely praised. When I think of a supernova, I think of a movie that made it's money on hype alone. Potter is making it on hype, and the fact that it is indeed a good movie...or, at least, most people think it is.

The Monday/Tuesday thing, granted, varies. It does not apply to all, but I do find it tends to apply to first week or two, save for some kind of holiday. Thanksgiving obviously throws some of this off a bit, making it even more imprecise.

Anyway, I still see it topping "Shrek." It's poised to gross around $30 million this weekend, leaving it with around $225 million total. I think it'll trickle it's way up to $300 million from then on.

I'm sorry. You can't predict $225 million. I've already predicted that for this weekend.

You and everyone else, my man. Everyone's predicting that amount (roughly). Should be interesting to see how it finishes off, though. Aspen/Ryan: think it'll hit $300 million?

But I predicted it first on this thread.

I think it will be close on whether Potter passes $300 million domestic first run box office. I personally think it will, but just barely. No higher than $325 million, if that.

Yeah, HP is pretty big. Most of the people I've met anywhere from grade 3 to grade 11 who are smarter than a doorpost have read the series, and when I say that, I mean, they read one, they read them all.

But yes, it's been through it's troubles as you may expect, with stupid idiot churches and stuff. Not the main ones, the weirder fruit-loopy ones: It's all the occult and everything. But yeah, generally, everyone here loves it just as much as anywhere else.

I'll see if I can find some figures from here for you.

Okies, they even had some problems with Harry Potter in it's homeland. I guess a different writer had an idea for a character very similar to Potter and him going through the same troubles and obstacles, and the writer claims that Rowling stole the concept and used it for her Potter books. Even the names of the characters were very similar.

Don't know though, maybe it was just someone wanting attention so they rushed a book together to see if they could get a goot lawsuit going.

Well, my estimate was too high. Potter was up to just over $220 million after the weekend.

Yeah, oddly enough that author decided to wait until the fourth book came out before they stood up and made a stand. As said many a time before, suss....

There's a book called "Atermius Fowl" (or something) and it's like an evil Harry Potter, a little wizard whose basically teaching kids all the WRONG things. People everywhere were disgusted that this guy thought he could use the same basic premise, with the wrong messages behind it. I agree.

Actually, I read about that accusation: from what I understand, there was a book (or something similar) out years before Potter's first adventure was ever published. It featured a magical character called "Larry Potter" with a sister name Lilly Potter (Harry's mother was named "Lily"). It also made use of the word "muggle," though I don't think it was to describe non-magical persons.

Is the accusation legit? I honestly don't know. It's quite possible that Rowling's subconcious got together with her more imaginative side to form a compromise, though.