Harry Potter

Never noticed this post before, I don't think. Well, the $90.3 million gross, for one, was in the US alone...the overseas sales are not part of that. It set records in the UK, debuting with something like $22 million...which is apparently unheard of over there. Anyway, it has grossed $6 and $7 million, respectively, on Monday and Tuesday. If it keeps that up, it'll have around $115 million heading into it's second weekend.

Now, it's unlikely it'll gross the $55 million necessary to touch $170 after 10 days...but it won't be far behind. $45-50 million is quite likely, seeing as how a 50% dropoff is just about as bad as it gets. $160-165 million in 10 days is the most likely number.

If a $45 million+ second weekend is "nothing," then sign me up. It won't outgross "Titanic" or anything...but I don't see this movie as being a Supernova at all. It's going to top $200 million easily...flashes in the pan do not do that...they die out because of bad word of mouth, like Planet of the Apes, which did not reach $200 million domestically.

Heck, I'm still sticking by my $300 million prediction.

Over the top? Tickets sold should be the ONLY measure of movie success. It's a joke to say Harry Potter is the highest grossing film ever when ticket prices now are the highest they've ever been. Harry Potter will be out of the top 5 before too long.

Tickets sold can be highly misleading, too: we have more people than we did 4 years ago! My point is that no measure is going to be without these kinds of problems, unless you're willing to take things like inflation and population increase into account for it all.

You know it tied with Phantom Menace for it's opening weekend.

Wha? No...it tied "The Phantom Menace" for number of days taken to reach $100 million (five), though honestly, TPM had two of it's five on a Wednesday and Thursday...much better than the Potter movie had for it's Monday and Tuesday.

Why is Wednesday and Thursday any better than Monday and Tuesday?

And even if they are better, wouldn't opening on Friday instead of Wednesday (and on far more screens and with slightly higher average ticket price) offset Wednesday being better than Monday (if it was at all)?

I don't personally think the drop off will be as big as 50%. I think it will hit $170 by the end of the weekend.

As for tickets sold as a measure of success, think about the fact that we've got more movie screens than ever right now, but on the other hand, in the days of Gone With The Wind (which sold more tickets than any other movie, as I understand it), we didn't have television (or a myriad other things) to compete for the entertainment time (and dollar).

Personally, though, I'd like to see more stories about movie profitability rather than grosses. A movie like Memento was far more profitable (as a movie alone) than a movie like Titanic (as expressed as a percentage ROI - Return on Investment) even though Titanic grossed something like 20 times what Memento did.

Even Harry Potter, despite it's record-setting run thus far, is nowhere near profitability (it will be profitable, though, probably before it leaves theaters. But if not, it will certainly clean up on video and through the merchandising and other product tie-ins that Warners has a piece of, as I understand it).

Expressing success as profit as a percentage ROI is a way that automatically accounts for inflation (though rereleases can cause some trouble) and would make population irrelevant (though I maintain increases in population are already far less relevant than inflation). The problem is that it's too hard to calculate what movies actually cost in order to figure profitibility (since the studios don't really release such information and are also known for fudging their cost numbers).

And in the end, it doesn't really matter whatever way we count unless we are stockholders in the company that put out the movie (and even then, the specific performance of one movie, despite the record-breaking success of the movie, is small potatoes to the bottom line of a company like AOL Time Warner).

Wednesday and Thursday grosses tend to be higher on average. You see, the five-day span that TPM set the record in was Wed/Thu/Fri/Sat/Sun. Potter had Fri/Sat/Sun/Mon/Tue. They share the weekend days...but the other two benefit TPM a bit...not a whole lot, but some.

I wouldn't say Potter isn't near profitability. After this weekend it'll be right on the verge of profitability, and that's INCLUDING the tens of millions they spent marketing the film...not just the production cost. It's going to be a highly profitable film.

I wouldn't be as interested in ROI as a percentage, though, because it's almost like a bonus for putting so much on the line. Someone who bets $1,000 and leaves with $5,000 is still better in my book than someone who bets $1 and leaves with $10. There's something to be said for the amount of money involved as it pertains to the RISK.

Personally I like following the box office because I think it's important to recognize Hollywood for what it is: a business. The box office is a major factor in determining what gets made, and what doesn't. When a movie I like does well, I'm happy; it's now that much more likely that similar movies will be made in the future. And yes, you're correct: It's quite tough getting really accurate figures...though I can usually find something close, to give me a basic idea.

In regards to the tickets sold thing, it's the same to me as TV ratings and such. Ratings for things are always declining from where they were 10/20 years ago but you don't hear them rate television programs by the amount of revenue generated from advertising income which is always rising much like ticket prices. While there were obviously less entertainment options available when a movie like Gone With the Wind hits, there are also much fewer theatres, fewer screens, less saturation in advertising, less of a movie going community, etc.

I've never, ever seen that anywhere before reading it here.

Granted, TPM's Wednesday/Thursday would be higher because it was opening day (and the second day) whereas Monday/Tuesday was the 4th and 5th day of release for Potter.

By the way, Variety says that Potter put up $25 million on Wednesday and Thursday (skewed higher than a normal Wed/Thur since it's the holiday) putting the gross up to nearly $130 million for the first week.

As for ROI, the amount of money spent on a film does not necessarily show the risk involved. It's less risky to make Rush Hour 2 than it is to make Memento even though Memento cost far less than Rush Hour 2. Spending $125 million to make a movie based on a book series that is hugely popular with children is not more risky than giving Darren Aronofsky $5 million to make Requiem for a Dream - a down-beat movie based on a relatively obscure book by a relatively obscure author.

(And which company is putting up the dough is significant, too. $125 million for a movie is small potatoes for AOL Time Warner and carries very little financial risk for the company. $50,000 for a FilmDallas production would be a huge risk).

The amount of money put into a production is not the only measure of risk.

Personally, I don't mind the gross dollar formula just as a personal benchmark for fun, but it's the least accurate judge of whether a movie did well or not.

And Harry Potter won't be profitable after this weekend. Even if it passes $180 million over the weekend, the studio take is going to be less than the reported production budget of $125 million. Add in advertising costs and other assorted costs, and Potter is likely at least $175 million movie. It will need at least two more high-BO weeks to go into profitability, if then.

See, I dunno about that...you can't measure risk so easily. What is the primary factor? Is it how likely you are to lose the money, or is it how much you COULD lose? I'd feel more comfortable betting $5 of my own on something I was likely to lose, than I would betting all of my money on a 50/50 shot.

As for Wed/Thur...I've read it in several places, and it makes sense...I know that I tend to go to movies in the days leading up to the weekend, as opposed to the days right after one. Not a HUGE difference, just one worth noting.

And thanks for those numbers...I hadn't seen the Wed/Thur grosses yet...$25 million! Fabulous. Hate to say it (because I like aspen), but it looks like it's gonna go FLYING by the $170 million mark after 10 days. A lot of people think it'll finish just a shade under $200 million, in fact.

I guess you're right on the studio thing...I'm not sure just how much they get out of this...I don't know if that kind of info is publicly available or not. Profitability isn't an issue, though...we're not counting overseas sales here or anything. This sucker's a billion-dollar (dare I say, multi-billion-dollar, even?) industry all by itself. I wouldn't say the gross is the LEAST accurate way. I don't think it's the most accurate way, but I think it's the most reasonable, easiest way we can judge things...I'm not willing to make the necessary calculations to factor in screen share, inflation, and popular increase.

aspen was right...it didn't gross $170 million after 10 days...it grossed $188 million after 10 days. I think that's a new record, but I'm not sure. Anyway, it looks as if it has an outside shot of hitting $200 million once it's finished up with Tuesday...if it does, that'll set a new record (12 days to $200 million). If it doesn't get it Tuesday, it'll surely get it Wednesday, which would tie the record for fatest to that mark...current record held by TPM, naturally.

90+58 != 170

Oh and I just did some math.

Episode 1 made $13,000 per screen when it opened.

Harry Potter made $10,975 per screen when it opened.

Just because something opens on more screens doesn't mean it's more popular, or that people like it more.

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

You don't think that implies it making that much after 10 days? I've never known a box office gross total to ignore the weekdays.

Oh, and I dunno what math you did, but LeesMovieInfo.com has Potter taking in $15,656 per screen over Thanksgiving weekend. It has it at $24,590 per screen over it's opening weekend! Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude -- just messing with you concerning the prediction.

Well, I'm not claiming that people like it more (though it seems to me the reviews might be a bit better on average. TPM dissapointed a lot of people, it seems...but I thought it was a great movie)...but yeah, if more people see it, it's more popular.

Just because more people see it doesn't mean it's a great movie. People will flock to movies that have a good cast in them without even hearing if it's worth the 8 bucks or whatever it costs to get in. However, a movie like Potter will be popular even if the reviews say it sucks. Simply because, kids know who Harry is, and they like movies. Their favorite character from a book is thrown onto the big screen, and of course they'll go see it.

TPM had a great opening(well was great), and all because everyone knew the story, they went back for a slice of turkey, and ended up getting a piece of fruit cake.

I don't even know where I'm going with this. I agree with TWT, and I agree with others that are not agreeing with TWT...if that makes any sense, I don't know. Simply because, movies can be popular and still not be a good movie(Gladiator). Harry Potter is a great movie, and is doing very well. So, I'm going to end now because I don't even know where this post is going.

Good 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

Thats probably per site, not per screen. You simply divide the gross by the total number of screens.

In this case 8200 screens for potter and a 90 million opening

5000 screens for TPM and a 65 million opening.

In Entertainment weekly they have the potter gross per site at $24,590 which is what you have up there. So I'm guessing you read LeesMovieInfo.com wrong or Lee put up an error.

Ah, I see. So less per SCREEN, more per theater? Well heck, who cares? Potter had a disadvantage at being so dang long, too...they wouldn't have had it on multiple screens everywhere if it were shorter. I'd imagine there's a reason most places calculate by theater, rather than by screen.

Anyway, yes, Spud, it does not make the movie good...but we're in the Box Office forum here. I'm not really talking about how good the movie is (that's what I do in the Movie Reviews forum)...just how well it's doing (very, very well). It made $188+ million after 10 days, and it's gonna top $300 domestically.

I still stand by what I said: not a supernova. A supernova does not take in just under $60 million in it's second weekend, does not top the B.O. 3 weekends in a row, and does not become the highest grossing film of the year.

Sure it does. A Supernova is a movie that loses 50% its second weekend. We've had alot of them lately.

So now there's a definition? Anyway, it went from $90.3 to around $57...isn't that like 38%? Not too bad. A supernova implies a lack of longevity...you said "a big explosion and then...nothing." Is nothing supposed to be $57 million, followed by another $30 or so, rounding out at over $300 million total? I don't buy it.

We don't know that it will pass $300 million, though. The numbers are way down so far this week, and it's extremely hard to get to the $300 million mark even with a really big head-start like what Potter has. (Only Nine Movies ever have passed $300 million ever).

Even if it does pass $300, I wouldn't expect it to be much higher than that (maybe $325 total Domestic First-Run Box Office at the highest). Certainly enough to be wildly successful, of course.

It's not, by the way, going to make it to $200 million by Wednesday (today). It was $10.5 million short after Monday, and it took in $2.5 million on Monday. The numbers for Tuesday and Wednesday shouldn't be much different than that. Friday is probably when it will pass $200 million.

My guess is going to be $225 million after this coming weekend.

Yeah, I know we don't know it'll reach $300 million, but it seems remarkably likely. Granted, many analysts overshoot...but then again, the analysts, at least some of them, say it has an outside shot at $400 million. They expect a mild resurgance to contribute to it sometime around Christmas.

Either way, I think it'll pass "Shrek," and thereby become the highest grossing film of the year, in a year that is on pace, I believe, to set a new record for total gross. Haven't we had something like 6 or the top 10 highest opening weekends in 2001, too? And the highest movie from that year is a supernova? Some kind of fluke? I just don't buy that.