Okay - which will get the biggest box office - HP, LOTR or Monsters Inc? (1 Viewer)

[Sam Davatchi]

FOTR is rated PG13.

 

[RobertR]

Here's an amusing take on HP vs. LOTR:
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
Link Removed
[Edited last by RobertR on November 15, 2001 at 07:41 AM]

 

[Dana Fillhart]

I think it's possible that Fellowship of the Ring will gross $160 in 13 days (Dec. 19th opening through Dec. 31st), even with the competition it will have; Monsters, Inc. for example, took in over $120m in that short a time. I also see it breaking the Star Wars records (both ANH and TPM), even with the fact that Lucas' films have had more than 1 theatrical run. I don't see it breaking Titanic on its first run, though. The entire LOTR trilogy, if put together -- I see that totally trashing the original SW trilogy box office takes, perhaps even all six SW movies (though the second and third LOTR movies would have to be increasingly incredible to do it).
Harry Potter will do extremely well on its initial month or so of release, but will, I believe, slowly but continuously fade afterward, especially with the competition -- as, after reading several reviews of the movie, I doubt HP's target audience may wish to sit through over 2 1/2 hours of this material several times. Monsters, Inc. should drop significantly upon HP's release, but it should hold steady through the end of the year, when it will drop off significantly again upon the release of FOTR; it will probably hold steady at a few million per week until it is finally pulled a short few months from now (perhaps in February).
Only one of the three movies has the staying power of massive repeat viewings, I believe -- FOTR -- hence I believe it will win out in the box office take. It will continue to do strongly, perhaps through Oscars (it will not be up for any awards for 2001, though, because its opening date puts it 1 day shy of the requisite 2 week opening in LA or NY), but it will fade significantly (and might finally be pulled) when Star Wars: Attack of the Clones arrives May 16th. New Line has tremendous advertising and ancillary marketing riding on this movie, and they will milk it for all it is worth, count on it.
My guesstimates:
End-of-year gross:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: $250m
Monsters, Inc.: $200m
The Fellowship of the Ring: $150m
Total first-run theatrical gross:
The Fellowship of the Ring: $480m
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone: $450m
Monsters, Inc.: $380m
------------------

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Here is an interesting comparison of Harry and FOTR from USA Today:
How 'Harry Potter' and 'The Rings' measure up
Harry vs. Frodo: Different crowds
~Edwin
[Edited last by Edwin Pereyra on November 15, 2001 at 09:56 AM]

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Schools are taking field trips to Potter? I dont know if thats justifiable. Did they add a film studies course in elementary school?

Some schools in my area have incorporated the Harry Potter books in their curriculum. Its only a natural progression to see the movies. Besides, rather than have a lot of kids skipping school tomorrow (opening day), it only makes sense to do a field trip with their classmates. Then these kids will see it again with their parents on Saturday.
I am now predicting a monstrous opening weekend take of $80M - $90M.
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

After seeing Harry Potter, I am not as optimistic as I was before on the repeat business this film will now generate. I believe that those who enjoyed the book will be more inclined to revisit the book rather than paying a second time to watch the film. It will no doubt still be the top grosser out of the three films.
However, the FOTR trailer, which came with HP was really good. That one just might deliver the goods.
~Edwin

 

[ScottR]

After seeing Harry Potter, I am more convinced than ever that it will shatter box-office records in terms of overall gross. As for FOTR, people that I have been speaking with are not all that interested in it. However, it is likely to take the top spot on opening weekend, and hang onto it for a few weeks.
Adjusted projected grosses:
Harry Potter: $650 million
Monsters, Inc.: $230 million
Fellowship of the Ring: $150 million

 

[ScottR]

Oh, and by the way, as I was leaving the theatre from a 7:15 showing of Harry Potter, I noticed that the lobby was full of teenagers and twenty-somethings eagerly waiting to get into Harry Potter. In fact, the 11:30 pm show was sold-out. So I think the cross-over appeal is definitely there.

 

[Hubert]

quote: The entire LOTR trilogy, if put together -- I see that totally trashing the original SW trilogy box office takes, perhaps even all six SW movies (though the second and third LOTR movies would have to be increasingly incredible to do it).[/quote]
No offense but that is not going to happen, not even close. That is just impossible. So you're saying it can beat all 6 movies?

As good as LOTR looks, isn't going to equal HP or TPM at the box office.......much less the original trilogy. HP could beat TPM because it has so much crossover appeal, and is a family film. LOTR is not and runs close to 3 hours, which will hurt not only repeat business but will not allow it to have enough showings to reach those levels. LOTR will settle into third behind HP and TPM. But still a very big box office for the LOTR.
[Edited last by Hubert on November 17, 2001 at 02:19 AM]

 

[Edwin-S]

----As for FOTR, people that I have been speaking with are not all that interested in it.----
This tells me that FOTR is going to be a great movie. Considering the crap that people make successful, if they are not interested in FOTR that just tells me that the movie is going to be a knockout. I've watched the trailers for both Harry Potter and FOTR and the HP trailer leaves me with absolutely no desire to watch that film in a theatre...DVD is good enough. FOTR is another story....it just begs to be watched on a big screen. If the trailer music is part of the film score, it is going to have a fantastic soundtrack. HP sounded pedestrian compared to FOTR.

 

[Jon Sheedy]

LOTR is not and runs close to 3 hours, which will hurt not only repeat business but will not allow it to have enough showings to reach those levels.

Fact #1....Titanic is the number one box office champion of all time.
Fact#2....Titanic ran something like 3hrs and 20+mins.
Considering the facts, I simply cannot understand how someone could state that FOTR's BO will be limited by it's running time. (and it's running time certainly has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on repeat viewings!)
Jon
------------------
Don't you wonder sometimes
'Bout sound and vision
The Thin White Duke

 

[Steven_V]

According to http://www.showbizdata.com/contacts/dailybox.htm
------------------

 

[Sam Davatchi]

It's almost the same as Episode I. We should see how it does in the long run!

 

[Seth Paxton]

Look, bottom line seems to be DOES THE FILM PLAY?
Potter is stumbling out of the gates in terms of GREATEST FILM EVER reviews. It's going to pack an $80 million up front punch, but when the Cream of the Crop at Rotten Tomatoes only goes into the 65% range, that might be a problem.
Here's one postive review quoted from the BBC

Harry Potter makes a satisfactory, albeit unspectacular, celluloid debut.

I think this might dampen the big numbers in the long run.
Of course, we are talking about $450 vs. $250 million types of numbers. But Potter NEEDS word of mouth just like any other film does to go major huge.
I still think the underestimates of FOTR neglect the glowing reviews from all screenings and samplings so far.
Isn't it quite possible that in terms of FILMMAKING that the better filmmaker, especially visually, is behind the FOTR?? That might be the deal breaker here.
I mean are we so lost in BOOK HYPE that we have forgotten that the FINAL PRODUCT is a FILM? Tomb Raider is a popular game, but as a film it was horrible. Great opening, horrible repeat biz.
Potter is not going to crumble like TR or Hannibal, but if it doesn't march along like the monster that Titanic was then it's not going into the $450 US range, let alone $600 million.
Just pretend for a second that FOTR was NOT based on anything and was just a film. Lots of people would not care early on, but if it ended up being really great then it would build momentum. There is no reason to think that someone who doesn't care now won't care quite a bit after 50 people tell them it's great.
Of course, that's if it is. But if it is, it will certainly have enough early buzz for the positive word of mouth to grow on rather than being some good film lost in the shuffle.
I think that's true for all 3 films. They all have early strength, we expect them all to be good. As it stands now, it seems like Monsters is reviewing slightly better than Harry. But it's close. All we have on FOTR is early sneeks which seem to be highly favorable, but we shall see.
But if we were asked to come up with numbers and knew ahead of time that Potter got blasted and FOTR was hailed as the 2nd coming (or vice-versa) then I'm sure our guesses would be a lot different. I think most of us have assumed they would all be equally "good" films and are going only on target audiances, marketing, hype, etc.

 

[Travis_S]

Well here are the CinemaScore ratings for Harry Potter:
Males:
Under 21 - A+
21-34 - A
35 and Up - A
Females:
Under 21 - A+
21-34 - A+
35 and Up - A
I think this would indicate that the movie will have staying power. I think eventually it will end up between 300 and 400 million. As for Lord of the Rings, I think that the fans of the book will make it a hit for the first week, then if the word of mouth is good, everyone else will go see it. I think FOTR will end up between 200-250 million.

 

[Tom-G]

Of course, we are talking about $450 vs. $250 million types of numbers. But Potter NEEDS word of mouth just like any other film does to go major huge.

Not only that, but it needs repeat viewings. True, the running time of a movie is generally not a factor on how much the box office take will be, but Titanic was one of those phonomena that caught on and society really got wrapped up seeing multiple times. If HP is to take in comparable numbers, it will need that same level of allure.
I heard that HP is playing on 8200 screens! That is amazing. I usually don't get caught up in box office numbers other than to see if a film lost money, but I'm intersted to see how HP fares. Especially after LOTR is released. Those are two probable blockbusters. When Titanic was pulling in loads of money, it had virtually no competition.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I'm with Jon on this. People who don't research first are idiotic.

LOTR is not and runs close to 3 hours, which will hurt not only repeat business but will not allow it to have enough showings to reach those levels.

Let's see...Harry will go big, but FOTR running time will kill it. Does that match reality, I wonder...
Potter = 152 minutes
FOTR = 165 minutes
Titanic = 194 minutes
Gump = 142 minutes
TPM = 133 minutes (all OT ran 125+)
T2 = 137 minutes
Dances With Wolves = 183 minutes
Godfather = 175 minutes
SPR = 170 minutes
Pulp Fiction = 154
and lest we forget...
Gone With the Wind (all-time ticket sales champ I believe)
234 minutes
Yep, FOTR is fucked thanks to running time.
Christ, this is the internet age, type for 5 minutes first. btw, I went to the all-time box-office list at IMDb to get these, not some rating or personal preference. These films all made big money, many WITHOUT a big front end (5-10% tops on opening weekend, which means 2-3 months of biz, not 3 weeks).
Again, repeat business is based on QUALITY and TONE, not running time. People don't want to see sad, disturbing or lame films over and over. Comedy and adventure done well are what resell, especially if they have an uplifting ending.

 

[Sean Oneil]

Comedy and adventure done well are what resell, especially if they have an uplifting ending.

hmmm, I have to disagree. I think films that make people cry, or bring out deep emotional feelings do the best business. Just look at Titanic ...not exactly a feel-good film.
All in all though, I think that how well a film will do being based upon 'tone' or 'mood' depends entirely upon the times in which it is released. It all depends on what society is hungry for in any given period of time.
But I agree that running time has nothing to do with it. Cutting a films running time to yield more showings per day may actually hurt it's box office performance if the cuts made detract from the overall experience of the film.

 

[Jon Sheedy]

Earlier this morning I was roaming around the net looking at the reviews for HP. Most time was spent at the Rotten Tomatoes site which is just so DAMN handy! I planned on returning to this post to hit on the reveiw angle later...when I came back in this afternoon I see that Seth has already covered it.
I will add that almost all of the reviews that were scored positive for HP also quoted negatives about the film. There were comparatively few glowing, criticism free reviews of this film. If you were to just read text and ignore the ratings...the impression would seem to be one that leaned more toward the negative rather than the positive.
Some critics seem to want to like this film so much that they are extremely forgiving in their reviews.
quote: I think most of us have assumed they would all be equally "good" films and are going only on target audiances, marketing, hype, etc.
[/quote]
This is an accurate statement, as Seth was sure to include the word "most". Personally, I was NOT expecting all three to be equally good films...mainly due to the director at the helm of HP. I would have loved to have seen the HP that any of the other directors at one time involved with (or mentioned as possible candidates) this film would have made...especially Terry Gilliam. However, IMHO they went with the least visionary and adept director in choosing Chris Columbus. The negative reviews for this film are pointing out the exact shortcomings that I expected in a film with this director. As interested as I was in seeing HP, there was no way that I was going to fool myself into believing that it would be anything special under the direction of Columbus.
Jon
------------------
Don't you wonder sometimes
'Bout sound and vision
The Thin White Duke
[Edited last by Jon Sheedy on November 17, 2001 at 04:27 PM]
[Edited last by Jon Sheedy on November 17, 2001 at 04:28 PM]

 

[Paul Jenkins]

I just got back from Harry Potter, good movie, very solid. Definitely not 'magical' so to speak, but a better movie than Titanic IMHO.
On the box office side, this one will continue to bring in the money. I saw a hundred kids there, many of them dressed up like Harry, and almost to the kid afterward were bugging their parents to take them again. The kid next to me was 5 and was going back on Sunday with his mom and dad again. This film will have staying power...