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




Because they either A) want to jump on the bandwagon, or B) have low standards as to what constitutes 'good literature'.
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 do think the over-the-top advertising has contributed to a record-breaking weekend. But the question I would pose is: "Is that really a good thing?"
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.

Now tell me there's a direct correlation between "gross ticket sales" and "quality of movie".
Um, that's not really the issue...though I do believe that 9 out of 10 times, a movie that completely kills at the box office has got to have something truly worthwhile going for it in it's own genre, at least.

Is it a good thing? Depends on what you thought of the movie. I love the books, and I like the series of movies they're working on, so to me, it's a VERY good thing. Like, who cares? Lucas was a little dumb to say that, IMO. Despite what anyone says, how much money a film makes has a major effect on what other films we see in the future, so it's worth paying attention to and caring about. If Potter makes money, they'll make more of them. Seeing as how I want more of them, I'm glad it's making a lot of money.

It's the same logic that has people like myself, Sades, and Spud, rejoicing at "Glitter"'s dismal gross.



Oh, BTW: LeesMovieInfo.com is not projecting $93 million overall. Some other places are saying that the numbers are being exaggerated by Warner Brothers, and that the actual gross is a shade under $90 million. Some people are claiming it's as low as $83 million, but overall everyone seems to agree that it just kicked the ever-loving crap out of the old record, and looks as if it'll now hold at LEAST the top two spots for single-day gross, if not 3!



bigvalbowski's Avatar
Registered User
I gotta back up TWTCommish here.

It seems the two who are arguing against Potter have not read the books and have not seen the film. I have and I get excited when I see the ads because it's promoting a product that I love dearly.

Saturation? If you don't like it then turn it off. 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.

Harry Potter is a literal phenomenon. Arguing against its artistic merits is redundant similar to arguing against Titanic's cinematic success. Its not a case of people jumping on a bandwagon with Potter or Titanic, it's a case of people really loving an entertainment.

Some people just can't help knocking success. It's infuriating.

Oh and last point, the best thing to come from all of this, is that children are reading.
__________________
I couldn't believe that she knew my name. Some of my best friends didn't know my name.



Registered User
Who wants to be harry potter falls flat on his face?

When you open on 25% of all movie screens you're going to have a huge opening, there is no denying that.

But it doesn't mean the movie is more popular than say Shrek, which didn't open so large. It just means it was more hyped.

Time will tell how popular Harry Potter is. My guess, unless kids keep ponying up $6 to see it again and again, is that it'll set more records for having the shortest legs.

Everyone who wanted to see it probably saw it this weekend.

We all saw what happened to Pearl Harbor, which admittedly was a disappointment, good but a disappointment. Everyone who wanted to see it basically went the first weekend.

There is no denying harry potter is a huge success and will fatten alot of wallets, just don't expect these numbers to hold out.
__________________
Chris Beasley
CB Swords - Get LOTR replica swords.
Coupon Codes - Get deals on Amazon, Dell, Gateway, and more.



Well, what exactly do you mean by "hold out"? After it's next weekend, it's 10-day total will likely be a new record at around $170 million or so, if not more. It'll average, easily, $5 million a day over the week (I imagine it'll average closer to $7 or $8 million over those days, however), and even a STEEP drop-off during Thanksgiving Weekend will still have the film pulling in $50 million. That's $170-180 million in 10 days. It's gonna top $250 million without blinking...$300 million is quite likely at this point. After tomorrow, it'll be a third of the way there already.

Sorry, but I'll be SHOCKED beyond belief if "Shrek" holds up against such an onslaught. Yes, this is a big first-weekend movie, but I do think it has legs enough to become this year's top grosser.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by bigvalbowski

Saturation? If you don't like it then turn it off. Harry Potter is a literal phenomenon. Arguing against its artistic merits is redundant similar to arguing against Titanic's cinematic success. Its not a case of people jumping on a bandwagon with Potter or Titanic, it's a case of people really loving an entertainment.

Some people just can't help knocking success. It's infuriating.

Oh and last point, the best thing to come from all of this, is that children are reading.
I sorta condensed your post so I could TEAR IT APART! Just joking.

1. Saturation means it's not just television baby. It's at the stores I go to, it's being talked about, it's got posters at the bookstore I go to, it's got trailers at other movies..it's on my toilet paper...

2. I never, ever argued artistic merit. Ever.

3. I'm not knockin success.( Britney Spears, YOU BITCH!)

4. I agree, at least the kids are reading...( gag.)



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Kids ARE reading...that's mostly why kids are wanting to see the movie. I'm sure most kids didn't even know about a movie until a few weeks ago, and the books have been out for a couple of years at least. So yes, the kids are reading.
__________________
"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



Now With Moveable Parts
Oh c'mon spud! Don't be serious about it. Kids have BEEN reading. Some series like Harry Potter isn't doing anything special for the children that hasn't been done before. Visit your local book store and head to the children's section...there are lots of books for kids, and some of them have been out for a LONG time, and kids have actually read them! Surprised? Pah-Leese.



But WHY are they reading all these kids books? A lot of them get drawn in by something like Harry Potter. Obviously kids will read anyway, but I have no doubt that millions of kids have taken a new interest in reading because of the books...no doubt at all.



Now With Moveable Parts
I'm just really gonna barf..

IF Harry Potter was the first book some poor kid out there, read. Then fine, I'll say that Harry Potter was the gateway book for that one child, introducing him to the world of books. However, if Harry Potter was like one of hundreds for MOST kids out there, than it is NOTHING special. Nothing at all. Just another book.



Just another book? That holds all top five spots on the UK children's bestselling list, even though there are only 4 primary books? Just another book that's sold over 120 million copies worldwide? Another book that's been translated into dozens of languages, and has made it's author the second-richest person in Britland, behind The Queen?

The book is popular for a reason. Just another book? Harumph. I saw harumph to you, Sades. Good day.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Kids read books yes, but some kids will get books that are fairly easy to read, like Seuss books, or something like that. Books like Potter just seem to draw them into a world that they've never been in before. Yes, there are books that are along the same line as Potter in which they are thick and provide a story in which they can crawl into, BUT...most of those stories involve everyday characters and things of that sort. Harry Potter is in a world of magic, and friendship. It's something a kid doesn't encounter on an everyday basis. Do you know any kids that make friends with wizards??? No, because most kids aren't into that sort of thing. Here is a world in which a boy is thrust into not really sure what to think. He is a roundabout age of 11, and therefore most kids can relate to a kid who is in a new enviroment in which he must adapt.



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by TWTCommish
The book is popular for a reason. Just another book? Harumph. I saw harumph to you, Sades. Good day.
...and I equally harumph to you sir. You should really know better...you really, really should. What if I said that all those dime-a-dozen Goosebumps books helped raise the bar? It just wouldn't be so. Just because this book has done all this business, does not mean it's doing a damn thing for literacy. It just means kids like it a whole lot. Good day to you too, sir.



Kids didn't like those "Goosebumps" book at all when you compare them to the Potter books. No, making money does not make it good...but making THAT MUCH, and selling THAT MANY copies almost universally indicates a real quality to the product. Pepsi didn't become successful selling us p*ss.

Have you read the books? They're very well-written. They must be if they've drawn me in. I mean, crap, I'm 17, and I'd rather have the fifth book (due out next year) than I would a copy of Playboy magazine. Doesn't that tell you something?



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by spudracer
Here is a world in which a boy is thrust into not really sure what to think. He is a roundabout age of 11, and therefore most kids can relate to a kid who is in a new enviroment in which he must adapt.
Where do you two get off?! I'm not debating artistic merit here! The frippin' book is great, is that what you want me to say?! It's great, it's great, it's great!!!!!!

Is it helping kids to read more?! Nope. They just think it's great, just as you two baboons do.

I think parents have to step in after the Harry Potter book and say," Did you enjoy that book? Here are some others you might enjoy....then they should hand their children the Hobbit, and Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Phantom Tollbooth, classics. These kids shouldn't just sit around twiddling their thumbs, waiting for the next Harry Potter installment. Okay?! * weeping* don't forget the classics, man...



Now With Moveable Parts
Originally posted by TWTCommish
I mean, crap, I'm 17, and I'd rather have the fifth book (due out next year) than I would a copy of Playboy magazine. Doesn't that tell you something?
Yes it does. You're not old enough to buy porn.



ARGH...you know what I mean. If I could choose one or the other, I'd choose the 5th book without thinking twice. I can't WAIT for the 5th book. Millions of people are just dying to get their hands on it. Are we all stupid? Am I a drone reading crap because everyone else reads it, or, rather, is it so popular simply because it's a GOOD BOOK? I'll opt for the latter option.

Is it getting kids to read? Every popular kids book gets kids to read, so yeah, it is. It's not just about reading, it's about inspiration. A book like this, I think, can serve as a gateway into books like Tolkien, or the Narnia series. In fact, I have no doubt of it.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Sadie, I've never once picked up a Potter book with the intention of reading it. Kids come into my class reading them, and most of the kids have some sort of Potter-endorsed insignia on their clothes somewhere. They're not being forced to read them, they're reading them because they choose to.

A lot of movies that are out have been loosely based on a book in some form or another. You're not knocking The Green Mile, or Star Wars for their from book to movie translation. Where was this conversation when Shrek was released??? It was based on a book too. I doubt many people even knew that before they saw the film credits.

So while we may not even be talking about the same thing anymore just remember. Just because a book is turned into a movie, doesn't mean that a kid will see the movie instead of reading the book. Who knows, maybe they'll see the movie...then read the book.



Now With Moveable Parts
Spud, are you just making points for the sake of making a point, or are you bantering with something I said? Because I don't see any valid arguments to anything I just posted. Maybe you're not talking to me.

here's my final words:

1. The Harry Potter series is fine reading enjoyment for all ages.

2. No, I have not read any of these books. I have enough adult reading material stacked on my nightstand to get through( adult meaning mature, not porn). Does this disqualify me from making opinions about Harrry Potter related issues? No. I think I have MORE insight because I'm not biased with warm-fuzzies for it.

3. The Harry Potter series isn't making any case for children's literacy. It's only enhancing it.

4. I'm just sick of looking at it. Is that okay with you guys? Enough is enough already. It's frippin' every where, that might be sweetness and light for the fans, but it's buggin' me. Okay? Okay.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
I know, I have no idea what I just said either.

I, myself, am also tired of looking at Harry Potter Merch., but it's just something that you're gonna see. When Toy Story and Toy 2 came out, kids decorated themselves in merch from those movies as well, so you're gonna see it no matter what Sadie. It will die down sometime...it has to.