Harry Potter

I saw an ad in a magazine...for, get this, Harry Potter reading glasses. Available at LensCrafters. Dear God...where does it end? Harry Potter Portable Garage Kits? Sheesh!

It WON'T end. I've got some glasses myself that look mildly Potter-esque. I've had them since before I'd read the books, though. Don't worry, I'm not a freak. Well, not in that way, at least. Anyway, I'm reminded of The Simpsons yet again, and the episode where Bart shows us that he owns the Krusty the Klown Home Pregnancy Test. Harry Potter Contraceptives...they'll be huge.

jeez...you're right! One look of Harry Potter's mug on the package of contraceptives, and any guy would be out the door! They wouldn't even have to have real devices inside, the box would be the device!

Potter pulled in over $9 million this weekend, down from $14 million last week. That's a pretty small drop...it's up to $253 million now, and it looks like it'll easily top "Shrek." BoxOfficeGuru.com thinks that with very little new competition (the majority of movies coming out on the 21st and 28th are aimed at adults, it seems), "Potter" will cruise to $300 million. $280-285 seems more likely to me.

Harry Potter finally passed Shrek for the Box Office Champ for 2001 on Tuesday (Christmas). As of the end of the day Christmas, Potter had grossed just over $267,750,000 total. Shrek topped out at around $267,665,000.

So that makes Harry Potter the 13th Highest Grossing Film of all-time. It needs another $18 million or so to pass Home Alone for the 12th spot overall.

Ocean's 11 passed Gone in 60 Seconds total gross on Tuesday, too.

Hmmm, $18 million is a possibility...but IMO, it won't get it unless it lingers in theaters for the next month or so. It did make something like $6-7 million last weekend, though...it showed nothing even resembling legs at first, but it's started to become a bit more consistent in its later weeks. I think it'll crack $280 million.

And yeah, "Ocean's Eleven" is performing fairly well. "Vanilla Sky" is proving to be a bit of a fluke, dropping over 50% (a huge drop) in its second weekend).

Ouch

__________________
"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

Harry Potter has passed Home Alone. It needs about 6 million to break into the Top Ten all time BO chart.

Amazing...I was wondering if it'd manage that at all...but a massive Christmas/New Year's boost worked wonders. $300 million looks secured, now. I think it's safe to say it lived up to most commercial expectations...not counting the nutso analysts who tend to get caught up in the hype of the opening.

Just think, this is just ONE movie, there's still more to the franchise to come.

There is one constant, Children always grow up.

Do you honestly think we'll still be seeing Harry Potter in 5 years? To the extent that we see him now?

Any kind of Children's Entertainment is generational and it always fades as the children grow up.

Do we still play with Ninja Turtles? Do we listen to New Kids on the Block? Does anyone? One or two years ago Pokemon was the big craze. Now it's Harry Potter, in two years it'll be something else.

I don't think you can expect to see more success for Harry, consider this the peak. They'll surely make another movie, and it'll do good, but not this good. They'll make a third movie, though by that time it might go straight to video.

Another big issue is that the actors in the movie will also grow up, and I don't think there will be any "Harry Potter: The College Years."

In contrast, the second LOTR movie should do better than this first one, most notably with a bigger opening. Much in the way the first Austin Powers made not a blip at the box office, but it was huge on video and when the sequel came out it was a new classic.

The first LOTR movie is claiming fans who did not think they'd like such a movie, and it will continue to increase it's fan base in the next year. By the time the second installment comes out there will be more people wanting to see it than who wanted to see this first one (note Star Wars did the opposite... him JarJar anyone?). This is even more fueled by the complete lack of closure at the end of FOTR, basically because they stuck to the book.

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

It will be a year of sequels, it shall be interesting to see how each movie does.

I disagree highly aspen. Anyone who looks at the Harry Potter "situation" would be very wrong to declare it a fad. It's been around for (if I'm not mistaken), around 5 years already...and another 4-5 years of popularity are guaranteed, as we likely won't see the 7th and final book (which will undoubtedly receive much fanfare...as it will tie up basically all loose ends) until at least 3-4 years from now. Toss the movies into the mix and there's no way you can expect it to be dead in 2. All in all, that'll have been anywhere from 8-10 years. 8-10 years is a fad? No way.

Children grow up...and new children are born. And children grow up enough to the point where they can read. My younger sister Grace has read all four books; and the next-youngest child, Addie, is quite likely to read them soon herself. I have little doubt at least one of the next three children will read them at some point, too.

The actors growing up is not a big issue; they are filming them very quickly. The worst that happens is they replace some of them. You think the third (or fourth) will go straight to video? I'll take that bet...just tell me where to sign.

LOTR has sold something like 100 million copies worldwide in over 50 years, unless my memory is faulty. The Harry Potter books have sold basically the same amount in around one-tenth of the time it took LOTR to hit that mark.

Ironically, I agree with most of the other things you've said: the second LOTR movie may make less than the first (that's my opinion...the story of the second, to me, has always been less interesting, but I can't speak for the masses here)....but it will undoubtedly open with more, barring some unforeseen major event before its release.

I think the second LOTR will make more, and will open with more, because the fan base will have increased since then.

But I stick to my prediction about Harry. He may have been around for 4 years, but this is the year he really went mainstream.

I just look at the track record of children's entertainment. There has not been one series I can think of that has had any sort of longevity. Land Before Time, that was popular right? I think they're on 7 now but didn't 2-6 go straight to video?

The same with other Disney flicks. Aladdin 2 (do they have a #3?) straight to video.

Sequels of Children's flicks don't usually do well. I can actually only think of two. The second Pokemon Movie, basically because they released two in one year it seemed. And Toy Story 2.


With TV shows its the same story. Is Barney even on anymore (admittedly thats for younger kids than Harry). How often does a saturday morning cartoon make it for two seasons?

I realize the movie is good and the books are popular, but even so, I don't think you can expect to see 7 movies in theatres.

The next movie won't make as much as this one, more people will wait until it's out on video.

Meanwhile the clones are coming. What would Pokemon be without Digimon? In the next two years we'll be saturated with boy wizards, and maybe a girl one, until no one wants to see them anymore.

Land Before Time, Pokemon, Aladdin, all should have ended with the first movie.

Land Before Time is not the movie I used to know and love anymore. More of an hour and a half of singing. Pokemon, well, no explanation needed. Same goes for Aladdin. They weren't needed, but they wanted money, and they put out a franchise that should have died long ago.

Saturation is a problem, but I don't buy the rest: those series are not built on the some foundation that Harry Potter is. It is not completely reliant on small children who only like something BECAUSE they are small. My sister will probably be 15-16 by the time the last book comes out...and I have no doubt that she'll be buying each and every book in the series as soon as it comes out. I do think the second movie will make less money than the first...partially because the second book is probably the weakest of the four. The third and fourth are very good, however...the third, especially, IMO. I think that will do quite well in the theaters, unless they botch it up in some unforeseen way.

Barney, Aladdin, Land Before Time...they were all stand-alone. They had no following before or aside from their movies. Potter books will sell regardless of the movie. The movie from the books...not the other way around.

I also don't think its fair to compare books sold.

Harry is alot shorter than LOTR and it is a much easier reading level.

LOTR has a very high reading level, Tolkien was a linguist after all and the book contains alot of elvish, of which Tolkien made up a complete language. The books are also long.

Just because one book has sold more copies (although Harry has 4 books right? LOTR is only 3), does not mean the story is better. It simply means more people have read it.

This is the reason why I think subsequent LOTR films will do better than the first. Before this first movie LOTR fans were limited to those who read the books, after the movie it will include people who have never read the book, while since the movie is so well made all of the book fans will also stay on board. So the fanbase will grow. I also think that the movies will help the book's sales.

I'm sure the movie is also helping Harry's book sales, however I do not think that it is to the same degree, simply because more of those seeing Harry Potter have indeed read the books.

I think it's perfectly fair. I'm not using it to measure quality...but Potter does seem to be, at least right now, more of a commercial commodity. Potter does indeed have on more book than LOTR...but LOTR has been around well over 40 years longer last I checked. No one said the story is better...I'm talking pure business here: Potter's been read by more people, and, more importantly, more people in the last 5 years...more people who are likely to go to the movies.

Now, concerning LOTR: I don't think I'd disagree much with the sentiment that it'll gross more than the second Potter movie. Both stories, IMO, are a step down from the "originals" they follow. But yes, I do think LOTR's run with the first film will help the second do well.

The second LOTR is not a different story, its the same story, they were originally part of the same book.

The fact that is it not just a new episode, but part 2 of 3, will help it.

In this way its not as much a sequel as a continuation. Even more so than the StarWars series is.

Although, honestly, the second book isn't as gripping as the first one, so while I'm sure it'll do better, it won't do as good as it could. The third movie however should do extremely well, outgrossing the first 2. The drama in the third one is enough to get Elijah Wood a best actor nomination, assuming he pulls it off.

That's exactly what I mean: I don't mean that it's entirely seperate (I did in fact know that it was orgininally meant as one HUGE book)...I'm just going by the way it's been chopped up.

It's just not as entertaining, IMO. The second book dragged for me in many places. The third, which I've only started, seems to be quite interesting...but I don't think any will be as exciting as the first. You can't top some of those scenes. I do think you're right in that the third will do as well (roughly) or better than the second or first (whichever ends up grossing more).



PJ says that the highlight of the second movie will be the battle at Helm's Deep...we'll see. I think Shelob might be cooler, if done right. And, of course, we'll finally get lots of long, clear looks at Gollum. Wood definitely ought to get something for the third if he keeps up the pace he's set with the first. I thought he was incredibly moving...his facial expressions were uncanny. They made me feel what he felt...it was amazing.