Harry Potter

Tools    


How much money will Harry Potter make in its Opening Weekend?
10.00%
1 votes
$0-$25 million
0%
0 votes
$26-$50 million
50.00%
5 votes
$51-$75 million
40.00%
4 votes
$76 million or more - a hell of a lot
10 votes. You may not vote on this poll




Now With Moveable Parts
I hope so.

My sister works at one of our town's larger bookstore. She said she had enough of the Harry Potter craze. She sells the stuff daily.

The same sister has a boyfriend who is a manager at one of our theaters. He said he's equally sick of it. He's had to work everyday scince it opened and he has to work Thanksgiving. I don't know...maybe I'd be more tolerent if it was something I was interested in, I guess I'm not being fair. I wasn't this disgruntled when Phantom Menace came out. The night I saw it, there were these guys all dressed up, they got their light sabers taken away, I laughed for at least 5 minutes straight.

It'll all be over soon...



Registered User
170 million after next weekend?

Doubt it. Unless there are a large number of people seeing it repeatedly I doubt it'll gross that much. It'll gross over 200 mil, but it won't be making much come Christmas. Whereas Shrek was still in threatres when it was already out on video.

This movie is a super nova. A big explosion followed by nothing.

Also it opened overseas at the same time right? Thats a big factor in opening day ticket sales.
__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I would say that for a couple of weeks this will be big, then after that...Pff...nothing. Just like aspen said, "...a big explosion, followed by nothing."
__________________
"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



Originally posted by TWTCommish


Why only those two? What about C) They say it's good because it IS good. You seem to be operating under the assumption that we've all agreed that the series is low in quality. I won't agree to any such statement.
I AM operating under the assumption that the series is low in quality, because it IS, in my humble opinion. I certainly don't ask you or anyone else to agree.

Before we go any farther, we need to define what "over-the-top" is supposed to mean in this context. What, exactly, has been over-the-top about the advertising campaign? I would argue that it's been a perfectly reasonable campaign...I enjoy watching the commercials, to be perfectly honest with you.
Okay. I see Harry Freakin' Potter every time I try to send an ICQ message. THAT is "over-the-top". Again, just an opinion. If you like the commercials, more power to you.

Originally posted by bigvalbowski
[It seems the two who are arguing against Potter have not read the books and have not seen the film.
I HAVE read the books. I HAVE NOT seen the movie (the books turned me way, wayyyy off).

Saturation? If you don't like it then turn it off.
Turn what off? ICQ? My web browser? My nephew's new pair of socks? The new placemats my brother in law bought for said nephew? The front-page section of the A & E in today's newspaper?

My point being: thanks to media "penetration", our lives can be sufficiently infused with any product or service ad nasaeum, regardless of whether or not we watch 8 hours of TV or listen to 6 hours of radio per day. Heck. I bet if I sat alone in my room with the door closed and locked, the lights off, the shades drawn, and the digital clock unplugged, Harry Freakin' Potter would find some way to advertise his fine new line of tote bags and toilet seat covers to me.

This is very frustrating for me. Rather than convincing me into believing "Harry Potter GOOD...." it has had rather the opposite effect.

If there was a Harry Potter preview channel just don't put that channel on. Companies have spent a lot of money to associate their products with Harry Potter; they should be allowed reap the benefits.
Euchk. I'm not even going to address this, because it runs so contrary to my beliefs about the economics of advertising techniques. This is not a bad thing: we just happen to disagree on what corporations should and shouldn't be allowed to do.

Harry Potter is a literal phenomenon. Arguing against its artistic merits is redundant similar to arguing against Titanic's cinematic success.
How is it a redundant argument? I don't like the quality of the HP books. Are you saying this opinion is a given? If not, then what? Neither am I following your line about Titanic's cinematic success. Are you trying to imply that the filmmaking for Titanic itself was bad? I hardly think this argument could be considered a good comparison to Harry Potter. HP is a movie that very closely follows a book: Titanic is a fictionalized film about a real-world event. I'm not seeing your connection, or your point.

Some people just can't help knocking success. It's infuriating.
So your argument is essentially "you're just jealous"? Sorry, I don't recognize an appeal to indignation as a valid logical argument. Posit something more concrete and we'll see.

I think it was T who said something to the effect of, "You can't deny that any movie that makes this much money is doing SOMETHING right within it's own genre" (sorry if I paraphrased badly).

By the same logic, McDonalds is doing something right in their own 'genre' (market share) because McDonalds is a fabulously wealthy company. But is the food there good? Not in my opinion-- but yes, to a great many people, it is good food that they are willing to eat quite often (hence, the wealth of McDonalds corp.) Is it good for you? Again, not in my opinion. In fact, quite the opposite. Do people still gobble it up? Oh yes.

So, although I may be stretching the metaphore, I'd love to compare the HP books to McDonalds food-- or, better yet, to those little Hostess cakes you can get at any convenience store. Taste = great! Nutritional value = nil.
__________________
Everything is destined to reappear as simulation.
Jean Baudrillard
America, 1988



There's no valid, logical reason for calling the people who went to see the movie sheep. There really isn't...I think that was just said in the heat of the moment. At least, that's what I'll assume, for now. Bandwagonish? Ok, I'm not going to say that you're just jealous (I don't believe it...though I do believe some people feel they must criticize anything succesful, however.)...but I will say that I think your distaste for the movie is leading you to come to outrageous conclusions, like that one. Harry Potter is a lot less bandwagonish than the majority of such pop-culture phenomenons. If there's one "fad" (even though I doubt Potter will go away for at least 5-6 more years, as the rest of the books and movies are released) that can get by very easily without the aid of the few bandwagoners it has, it's Potter.

This is very frustrating for me. Rather than convincing me into believing "Harry Potter GOOD...." it has had rather the opposite effect.
Are you saying your distaste for Harry Potter stems from the hype, rather than what you perceive to be poorly-written books (which is really laughable, I'm sorry to say. I know many, many intelligent people who love them. You may have your own opinion on liking them and such...but Rowling is undeniably a very talented writer).

Euchk. I'm not even going to address this, because it runs so contrary to my beliefs about the economics of advertising techniques. This is not a bad thing: we just happen to disagree on what corporations should and shouldn't be allowed to do.
Uh, what exactly should companies not be allowed to do? Buy advertising from people who are selling it?



bigvalbowski's Avatar
Registered User
My comparison with Titanic is simple.

Titanic made an awful lot of money and it has its haters simply because of its commercial appeal. I can reason with people when they argue against the artistic merits of Titanic, eg. Di Caprio's performance was poor, Cameron's script was awful; but I can't reason with those who are desperate to knock it because of its success. "Titanic sucks. It should never have made that much money".

Potter is the same. Argue against its artistic merits. Why didn't you like the book? [If you've read more than one of the books, you must have some interest in the series] To argue against its commercial appeal is ludicrous. Potter has a huge fan base and Warner Bros. want to expand this fan base further. If you've spent over $100m dollars on a product, you would try to market it as much as your remaining finances will allow.

It seems to me that Sullivan and Betty Boop get angry every time they see Harry Potter on TV or in the papers or wherever. I think this has more to do with your incomprehension of the popularity of the series than about any complaints about its extreme advertising. It happens to the best of us. I detested Saving Private Ryan and everytime I saw an ad. or a TV report I would switch the TV. But it didn't make me angry to see something I didn't like being advertised.

Your comparison with McDonalds is justified. McDonalds is a marketing dream. Everywhere you go, you see that M sign. That's capitalism for you. If you don't like it join up with your commie buddies in China.
__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by bigvalbowski

It seems to me that Sullivan and Betty Boop...
scince when did I become Betty Boop?

I've pretty much said all I'm gonna say about HP. I'm glad Sullivan has read the book and still agrees with me. It just furthers my point that you could have read the book, and still disliked all this saturation. According to all of you, if you read the book, than you a) love it and can't wait for the next book b) consider it literary excellence and c) adore every artical, commercial, merchandise, and media attention these books generate. Sullivan is the only one so far that says he read it, didn't really like it, and hates all this HP BS. Guess that really confuses the hell out of you fans eh?



Uh, no, not at all. I'll bet half of Rush Limbaugh's listeners hate his guts. I don't think any of those three things you listed...but what I KNOW is that the overwhelmingly majority of people who have read the books, love them. I also know that it's sickingly popular, and I know that most people consider it to be well-written, Betty.



Now With Moveable Parts
Okay...okay...we've made our points. No sense chasing each other around anymore.

BTW- you can call me Betty all you want T...cuz I got Sullivan calling you T too, did you notice that? YES!!! Don't stop Sully!



Damn you...why T? I'm a teenage white boy...I am not worthy of such a nickname. I guess the best nicknames are the ones you don't choose yourself, though, eh?



Now With Moveable Parts
MWAHAAAAAAAAAMWHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

teenage white boy...MWHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! aw T, you bust me up! It's a perfect nick name...you're stuck with it.



Yeah, so is Mr. T (I like that one). Crap. T-Bone (hey, it beats Cocoa) is a possibility. Then, of course, you can always use "T-Dog." That's quite popular these days, eh?



There's no valid, logical reason for calling the people who went to see the movie sheep.
Right. Reading over my post, I saw this as over the top, and changed it. Just so you know that yes, I am capable of seeing my own mistakes and fixing them.

As to address the rest of bigvalbowski's post, I really don't know what to say. It's hard to argue rationally with someone who is saying "just because I act in A way means you shouldn't act in B way", and can't resist making little inflammatory comments: (e.g. "If you don't like it join up with your commie buddies in China"). I know this is partially in fun, and I see some of the irony, but throwing in those little comments also pretty much ruins any attempt at rational discussion. I have no ill will towards you, bigval-- but I really can't bring myself to continue an argument with you given your techniques, especially one that's going nowhere. No hard feelings, big guy.

Rowling is undeniably a very talented writer
Heh. Not so. I can sit here denying her talent all day. Key point, my denial or acceptance of her "talent" or "non-talent" is not what determines whether she is talented or not. Neither is yours, or anyone's.

but what I KNOW is that the overwhelmingly majority of people who have read the books, love them. I also know that it's sickingly popular, and I know that most people consider it to be well-written, Betty
I don't agree with the idea that majority acceptance = good. Just because lots of people consider it well-written doesn't make it so.

Okay...okay...we've made our points. No sense chasing each other around anymore
Right on. Sorry to belabour the point with the quotes aboves. Although I don't personally like the HP thing, I'm perfectly cool with the fact that a lot of people, including T, do. Difference of opinions is all, no hard feelings



http://biz.yahoo.com/fo/011119/1119topnews_1.html

I don't necessarily endorse the opinions in the article in said link.



Now With Moveable Parts
that artical pretty much said what Sullivan and I were saying. That the HP movie would have had large audiances despite all the media attention. It was simply overkill, the way they advertised.



That link was bunk. Oh yes, it broke the record by a whopping $20 million (the article said "narrowly" -- was that meant to be sarcastic? It better have been)...and yet it whines about not factoring in inflation? For four dang years? Talk about nitpicking. And yeah, Potter opened on more screens. What, you want to adjust the amount of money every film makes based on the number of screens it's opened on? That guy has no real legitimate gripes that I can see.

Seriously, though, Sullivan: what is it companies should not be allowed to do? I'm a big-time capitalist...just so you know...so I take interest in such issues. And yes, popularity does not equal quality...but it's a reasonable indicator in most cases. Most things that are famous and adored for years on end are not crap, with some exceptions, naturally. If Potter lasts as long as it looks to last, I'll simply refuse to believe that it truly had us all fooled for so very long.



Anyway, back on topic (at least for a little bit): how much do you guys think Potter will take in during weekend #2? It finished with $90.3 million in its first weekend, and has been raking in around $7 million a day during the week since then. My guess is somewhere around $48-52 million...which, while a steep dropoff, is still a huge total for a sophomore frame.



Timing's Avatar
Registered User
If Harry Potter were judged by the standard of tickets sold, instead of revenue generated by ever increasing ticket prices then there would be much less hub ub about it's success. The fact that the latest Planet of the Apes was third on the list of great openings illustrates the absurdity of how they gauge that list.



Hmmm, I dunno about that. They still sold more tickets than "The Lost World" did during it's opening weekend. If you wanna get really, overly technical about it, "Titanic" is not the highest grossing film ever...but it's a bit over-the-top to try to factor in inflation for every single movie gross out there.