Harry Potter

[DancingBear]

I never said they madde movies on ther own. I said they own the rights to the movie to do what they want to with the brand. Plus, check your date, 2004... the agreements have changed twice since then.

So, can Disney make all of the movies even if Walden chooses not to do so?

 

[Coopsmum77]

I think this was a silly post by OP. As a Potter family, I don't know of a single person who would have opted to see the movie the second weekend, when they could have been reading to learn Harry's fate. I would assume that every executive expected the second week earnings to take a substantial hit because of the book.

 

[DiszyDean]

I think this was a silly post by OP. As a Potter family, I don't know of a single person who would have opted to see the movie the second weekend, when they could have been reading to learn Harry's fate. I would assume that every executive expected the second week earnings to take a substantial hit because of the book.

If that is the case, why didn't the numbers level off or improve in the third weekend? After all the "Potter Families" got their fill of the book. They continued to drop. I am not saying it did not do well at the box office. I am just saying that the drop off was substantial and was asking the question of what that meant in comparison to a similar drop off for POTC.

 

[EUROPACL]

I am just saying that the drop off was substantial and was asking the question of what that meant in comparison to a similar drop off for POTC.

...and the price of tea in China is what?

 

[DiszyDean]

...and the price of tea in China is what?

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so condescending with every other post. Grow up.

 

[Coopsmum77]

If that is the case, why didn't the numbers level off or improve in the third weekend? After all the "Potter Families" got their fill of the book. They continued to drop. I am not saying it did not do well at the box office. I am just saying that the drop off was substantial and was asking the question of what that meant in comparison to a similar drop off for POTC.

Little family by the last name of Simpson. This has been a huge movie summer for a lot of families, starting with Shrek. Throw in a Potter book release, and I'm sure a lot of movies that would have a second or third viewing by a teenager, aren't getting it this summer.

 

[EUROPACL]

I am not sure why you feel the need to be so condescending with every other post. Grow up.

Way to avoid the question. What does one movie boxoffice have to do with the other? Does that question seem less condescending...or at least enough for you to answer it?

 

[Coopsmum77]

"Order of the Phoenix" did more business in five days than each of the first three "Harry Potter" movies did in their first full week, and it nearly matched the $146 million first week total of the fourth film, "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Fellman said. from LA Times.


I know that last fall I was interested in seeing what movies would be out when this summer. I looked and it seemed like every two weeks there was/is something coming out, and that's just the big name blockbusters. When you throw in some independent films, you have the potential for being at the movies every week or two over the summer.

Now, for the average family of one/two parents and two kids, this summer saw a lot more entertainment pulling at their wallets than normal.

From May on: Spiderman 3, Shrek 3, POTC AWE, Fantastic Four, Evan Almighty, Ratatouille, Transformers, HP Phoenix, Simpsons.

Those are just the biggies. The movies that the name or franchise alone will get people into, not the other sleeper family movies or the horror movies that attract the teens. Add in the Potter book at $20/book, and two or three books a family, and you are making for an expensive summer for a family. If there is one or two people that are buying a movie ticket, that is different than a family of four or five going to see one movie two or three times.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/12/02/movie.htm
Most of the other Potter movies have been released around Thanksgiving, having that holiday weekend, as well as the school break for Christmas to give it a boost of repeat business.

While both POTC and Potter are sequels, and appeal to the same audience, you can't expect the same conditions to apply to both movies. That would be like saying that since Madagascar and The Wild are similar movies, they should have grossed similar, peaked the same time, dropped off the same way, etc.


As far as the Narnia debate goes, you are overlooking something that I can guarantee that the executives at Disney took notice of. They received praise for that movie from Christian audiences, which can be rare for Disney. I think if they think they will be able to pander to that audience in even the smallest way, they will. I didn't read the whole series, but do they need the original kids to finish the series. They ran into a problem with A Series of Unfortunate Events. They adapted it well, but it should have all been filmed as quickly and closely as possible. Darn kids going and growing up....

 

[Barbers2005]

I didn't read the whole series, but do they need the original kids to finish the series. They ran into a problem with A Series of Unfortunate Events. They adapted it well, but it should have all been filmed as quickly and closely as possible. Darn kids going and growing up....

-Spoiler Alert-

No, they only need the original kids for the first three movies, so there shouldn't be too much of a problem with them growing up. Peter, Lucy, Edmond and Susan do show up later in the series, but by then they're grown.