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

[TerryRL]

"Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is on pace for about an $85 million opening weekend, which obliterates the 4 year old record by "The Lost World" at $72.1 million. "Harry Potter" is going to be the year's top grosser with "Shrek" and "Monsters, Inc." close behind.
I do think that LOTR will be a huge hit and end up as one of the top five biggest hits of 2001. New Line will be ecstatic if it earns over $200 million domestically, which I believe it will. I think the top five flicks of 2001 will look something like this...
#1 "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" $350 million
#2 "Shrek" $267 million
#3 "Monsters, Inc." $250 million
#4 "The Lord of the Rings" $235 million
#5 "Rush Hour 2" $227 million

 

[Edwin-S]

---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.---
---All we have on FOTR is early sneeks which seem to be highly favorable, but we shall see.---
I'm kind of taking your comments a bit out of context but all of the early sneek peaks and FOTR trailers I have seen to date, amply demonstrate to me that Jackson is by far the better filmmaker in a visual sense. The sheer epic scope of Tolkien's trilogy is going to be hard to capture but judging by the early views, I think Jackson for the most part is going to succeed. Most fantasy films I have seen always have something in them that makes them look cheesy. Jackson's attempt at "LOTR" MAY be the first fantasy movie that really does capture the epic scope that fantasy novels are capable of. I'm sure there are going to be things in his version that I'm not going to particularly care for but overall I feel he is going to succeed in capturing the feel of the books. I have not gone to a film twice at the theatre in a long time but LOTR may be the exception, if the trailers are any indication of the quality of the rest of the film.
There was a comment about how the emotional impact of a film affects box office take. I would agree with that statement, that is why I still cannot figure out the appeal that "Titanic" had for people. I went to the film because friends told me what an emotional impact it had on them. I sat through the film and while I would not say it was boring, I would say it had almost zero emotional connection for me. I think out of the entire 3+ hour running time, there were exactly two scenes in which I felt anything for any of the characters.....and they were bit players whose amount of screen time was about 20 seconds each. It still blows me away how phenomenally huge "Titanic" became considering the totally barren plot. I just finished watching "Doctor Zhivago", which I had never seen before and the love story motif in that film reminds me a lot of "Titanic", except "Doctor Zhivago" is superior in every way.

 

[Edwin-S]

#1 "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" $350 million
#2 "Shrek" $267 million
#3 "Monsters, Inc." $250 million
#4 "The Lord of the Rings" $235 million
#5 "Rush Hour 2" $227 million
----------------------------------------------------
I just cannot see "LOTR" grossing only 8 million more than a POS sequel. I still think if the film is only half as good as the sneeks and trailers indicate, that it is going to surpass "Shrek" and "Monsters, Inc.". If it doesn't beat Harry Potter, it will only be because of the penchant for kids to want to watch a favored movie over and over, regardless of the actual quality. I think the repeat business from kids is going to be less of a factor than estimated though because parents are going to be reluctant to shell out repeatedly for movie admissions when they know that they are going to have purchase the movie for their kids on DVD or VHS anyway. I think, considering the cost of tickets, that they are going to tell their kids to wait until it comes out on video if they want to watch it repeatedly. A part of the repeat business for HP to continue doing well is going to have to come from the adult fans and if they come out of the film feeling disappointed by the result, it is going to have a negative effect on total take.

 

[TerryRL]

The same could be said for both "Shrek" and "Monsters, Inc." as well. I think the repeat business for 'Potter' will be there. It won't make it the biggest hit in history, but I do think it'll make it the biggest hit this year.
As for "Rush Hour 2", yeah it was a lame movie, but people, for some reason, people loved that damn movie. I still can't believe how successful it was.

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Hubert,
You misunderstood me. I said that the LOTR trilogywill outdo the Star Wars original trilogy in box office $$, and *perhaps* all 6 Star Wars movies. Fellowship, the first installment of LOTR, I predicted will beat The Phantom Menace numbers, as well as A New Hope numbers (the combined original 1977 release and the Special Edition theatrical release).
No single movie, though (not even Harry Potter), will beat Titanic. Not for many years.
------------------

 

[TerryRL]

I think the LOTR trilogy will be hugely successful, but the SW movies have earned a worldwide total of $2.7 billion. Factor in the next two movies and the SW flicks will have earned well over $4 billion worldwide.
The only franchise that has generated more money is the James Bond series. That has earned $3.2 billion worldwide, and that's from 19 movies.
I think the LOTR franchise will generate something in the area of $1.5 billion worldwide from the three movies. Not factoring in TPM, the first SW trilogy earned $1.8 billion worldwide.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

The re-release of E.T. next year has the potential to bump The Phantom Menace from the #3 spot and Star Wars at #2. All it has to do is make $31M or $61M, respectively.
~Edwin

 

[Peter Kim]

2 points of contention...
The essence of a lot arguments is the following:
A great movie (critically acclaimed) = great box office (> $200 million domestic)
WRONG, or at least not nearly an absolute. Think TPM (~$485 million), and how gargantuan were the Home Alone movies? I don't think anyone would argue that these two movies were pinnacle examples of film art. Then consider all of the great films, lauded by the majority of film critics throughout the 20th century. How many only pulled in pennies, repectively? Think OAR and J6P (this in no way is a commentary on Harry Potter - I've not seen it nor have I read the books).
2nd point of contention...to those who basically say, 'all my friends are hyped about FOTR', or 'everyone on Rotten Tomatoes', etc...
Birds of a feather flock together, and for the most part, the flock represented here is relatively extremely small. My educated guess is no more than 1% of those who saw/will see HP even know about Rotten Tomatoes, much less study and participate in its forum. The vast majority of HP's target audience is drawn in by the merit of the books or the marketing behemoth (i.e., toys, commercials, class trips to theater, etc.). They are neither swayed or dissuaded by a niche group on the internet.
And for those who presume that since all their friends know about the FOTR...to extrapolate this relationship and apply it to the whole is errant rationale. I'm sure a Trekkie knows a bunch, if not exclusive to other 'normal' people, a lot of other Trekkies. For a trekkie to say that all the 'people' he knows are amped about the next Trek film and because of this, leads to monster box office for the movie is also flawed. None of the Trek movies were monster or even big box office.
Point?...I grew up with FOTR. It is one of the pillars of my youth. Out of the three films discussed, my preference to watch and root for is LOTR. I also know that there is a lowest common denominator factor at work here, something that will not favor LOTR. Basically, the best movie will not win.
Raging Bull, Cinema Paradiso, Godfather, etc...I don't think any of these films rank high on the all-time box office list. Does that make them less great?
So, are a bunch on this forum really trying to forecast the final tally? Or are we wishfully rooting, hoping that our 'favorite' film does the best? I'm really not sure if I even want the FOTR to rake in the most. I kinda like that I'm a member of a secret society, exclusive to those who don't have neither the patience or imagination to appreciate.
Anyway, based on HP's Friday take of $31.3 mil (#1 all time) vs. TPM's $28.5 mil opening take, here is my guess:
1. HP - $520 mil
2. Monsters, Inc. - $260 mil
3. LOTR - $175 mil
If LOTR ranks #1, I'll know I'll have woken up in the bizarro universe. And maybe it'll be quite nice...
------------------
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.

 

[Hubert]

Think what you will. The fact is LOTR is not a chick flick in any sense of the word. It doesn't have the built-in female audience. It doesn't have Leonardo DiCaprio, and certainly won't have little kids or teenie bopper girls going back for repeated viewings. It's not a family film. So there goes the young kids that add to the ticket sales. Face it. FOTR will do well. I predict 200+ million. But that's where the line ends. There's one thing for certain. It's not going to touch Potter and it's not going to get within a million miles of Titanic. So there's m logic.
As for mentionine Titanic being the most successful film and being the biggest grossing. that's true. But again, it had a love story with women dragging husbands and boyfriends to see it. It had DiCaprio which drew teenage girls back for numerous viewings. If FOTR had all of that, then it would be different.
As for wishing, I hope all do well. But that is my prediction of what will happen. I could care less what they rake in or which draws more. I'm gonna add my tickets into the bag for all three films as I was there on opening day for Monsters. I was there on opening night for Potter. And I will be there on opening night for FOTR. But logic, if we go by what kind of movies have done well in the past, and what their target audience is, then Potter is going to pull in a lot more than FOTR and even Monsters. And it has nothing to do with quality. Although, Potter and Monsters were both very good. So here goes.
1.) Harry Potter - 350-450 million dollars.
2.) Monsters Inc. - 200-250 million dollars.
3.) Lord of the Rings - 200-250 million dollars.
[Edited last by Hubert on November 18, 2001 at 12:14 AM]

 

[Luis Cruz]

I decided to go ahead and throw my opinion in here. For one I do NOT want to see Harry Potter! The film just does not appeal to me and it's a wonder how it appeals to so many people as the story just does not have the epic feel that so many other stories such as Starwars, Indiana Jones, The Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, etc have. I mean the story is about a little boy who does witchcraft...oooh, that's so intriguing...NOT! And I know it's because the little kiddies like it...ugh. But I really do hope that LOTR will beat Harry Potter in ticket sales. LOTR has the epic feel to the story, basically because it's an epic book series. But, I just hope Harry Potter does a Grinch...It will make some good money but after a certain amount of time it will just diminish in ticket sales. And I hope that LOTR will squash the living daylights out of Harry Potter. Now, Harry Potter will probably make about $80-85 million this weekend...which is totally rediculous. But, remember that most movies that make alot in the first weekend tend to drop sharply the second and third weekends. For example Planet of the Apes which made $68,532,960 on it's first weekend but then fell 60% down to $27,535,697 its' second weekend...to a final tally of $178,938,448. And another example of a "kids" film would be Toy Story 2. It made $57,388, 839 it's first weekend and fell 50% to $27,760,276 it's second weekend, then fell 35% to $18,249,880 the third weekend and so on. So maybe Potter will make around $300,000,000 if it has good word of mouth, but hopefully LOTR will beat that...here's hoping, crossing my fingers and praying that LOTR will beat Harry Potter. Also, I doubt Monster's Inc. will beat Shrek...lol. That's just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[Luis Cruz]

I just thought I would respond to Huberts post. I for one disagree about the whole LOTR not making more than $250,000,000 because it does not have romance for the ladies, kids stuff, etc. If you look at Forest Gump, the film made around $330 million and it definately wasn't for the kids and there was little romance and it still made more than $300 million. Another example would be the sixth sense...not for the kids, no romance, but still made $7 million shy of $300 million. So I don't think that having romance and a kid friendly environment is really relevant. It all comes down to the story of the film...if it has a good story and draws good word of mouth, it will make a bundle.

 

[Hubert]

Luis, you have every right to disagree. But don't get into the habit of dumping on Harry Potter and calling other people crazy for liking it. I've never read the books, although I know the stories. I saw HP Friday night and it was a terrific film. No need to put the movie down or it's fans to make LOTR look big by comparison. LOTR will do fine. But after what I saw Friday, there's just no way HP is going to fizzle. And I just don't think that LOTR has a chance at all of beating it at the box office.
There are exceptions to the box office rule. There's no hard and fast rule. Movie going fans are hard to predict at times. Usually you can judge what will sell, but sometimes they jump up and surprise you.
One last thing on HP. I don' find it to be the little kids movie you say it is. The adults, teenagers, and kids enjoyed it immensely at the theater I was at.

 

[Luis Cruz]

For one, I did not say anything toward the people going and seeing the movie...I specifically said I do not wish to see the movie...as it doesn't appeal to me. And in a certain right of its' own, it is a kids movie as the books were targeted toward kids...but I never said adults or teens wouldn't like it or whatnot. I just was expressing my views on the subject. I also stated that I think the film will do fine...but I favor more LOTR, because it's more epic, it's more appealing to me. And the numbers movies bring in can be unpredictable...look at The Mummy Returns, nobody thought it was gonna make close to $70 million it's first weekend. Look at A.I., nobody thought it would only pull in $70 million for it's total tally. So the box office is extremely unpredictable in some cases. The thing that bothers me is that a movie like Titanic which wasn't a good film made the most money in box office history. And a movie like HP, which IMO is not appealing, is making box office records greater than films that actually do deserve that attention! Maybe it is a good film, but the subject matter doesn't thrill me. So I do not wish to see this film in theaters...if I did see it it would only be to see the Starwars Trailor and the LOTR trailor and then I'd leave. It's like the JP3 and POTA battle. The JP crowd wanted JP3 to beat POTA in the box office, which it has, and vice versa. The thing that bothers me about HP, is that it's subject matter is made out to be something good when in reality it is not! Now I'm not gonna get into a debate about that...but just wanted to clear that up. Now if the film portrays the subject matter in an innocent way, then I'd be more willing to want to watch the film. But, as of what I have heard from the books, it doesn't...so that's the reason why I do not want to see the film and it doesn't appeal to me!

 

[RicP]

The thing that bothers me about HP, is that it's subject matter is made out to be something good when in reality it is not!

Can someone clue me in on this one?
------------------

Ric Perrott - My DVD's

 

[Luis Cruz]

Yeah, I'll clue you in on that one...the film is about witchcraft...uhh, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I'll leave that question to you.

 

[Jesse Leonard]

Yeah, I'll clue you in on that one...the film is about witchcraft...uhh, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

And FOTR (the movie you are heavily hyping) contains none of this?

 

[Dana Fillhart]

Luis,
Please refrain from denegrating (or strongly implying such) the religion of others (Wicca -- of which the practice of "witchcraft" is an integral part -- is a recognized organized religion), and please keep this discussion within the confines of comparing and contrasting the movies in question.
(Not wanting to act as a moderator, just that was a bit of a hot-button issue and the tone above really irked me...which is kinda why there are rules on discussing religion on this forum! )
To that end (of getting back on topic)...
Assuming the movie is as good as the trailers (and hype) are lending to believe, Fellowship will not do worse than Shrek, and Shrek is already over the $260m mark. Remember, Fellowship will be coming out with only 13 days in the calendar year of 2001, and it is likely to pace if not significantly outdo Monsters, Inc., which took in over $150m in its first 13 days. To suggest it won't do more than $100m above that is ... ahem ... living in a fantasy world
However, by years' end HP will have garnered close to $300m, so Fellowship won't be able to catch it until after Potter simmers down sometime in January, when I predict Fellowship will steadily gain and eventually surpass it, until it's pulled sometime close to around Star Wars: Attack of the Clones in May. The reasons I feel this way have been well-stated in other posts before, but I'll add this: Only 3 other prominent kids' movies come out before Star Wars -- Jimmy Neutron, Snow Dogs, and Ice Age. The first 2 won't even put a dent in Potter (probably not even Monsters, Inc.), and the last doesn't even come out until mid-March, which gives plenty of time for Fellowship to ride high on its (hopeful) laurels. There are a couple movies that do come out before Star Wars that should have a significant impact on the staying power of Fellowship -- The Time Machine, Men in Black 2, and Spider-Man, but considering how Hollywood has done with remakes and sequels, the fact that two of these are likely retreads of well-worn material, and the third has to overcome a lot of negative press, it's quite likely that Fellowship will be able to weather those storms (until of course Star Wars).
Only time will tell!
------------------
[Edited last by Dana Fillhart on November 18, 2001 at 09:50 AM]

 

[Chris]

Box Office Estimates out this morning:
Link Removed
Harry Potter to top $93M.
Monsters, Inc. estimated to come in with $17.2M.
CW

 

[Joel C]

Ah, yes. I forgot that there were no WIZARDS in LOTR. No magic, either.
Phew, I almost accidently saw another movie that CAPalert wouldn't approve of.
------------------
Joel
[email protected]
"Look at me, I'm dancing crazy!"
digitallyOBSESSED

 

[TerryRL]

TOP 5 FILMS OF THE WEEKEND
#1 "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" $93.5 million NEW RELEASE
#2 "Monster, Inc." $23.0 million ($156.7 million)
#3 "Shallow Hal" $12.7 million ($41.2 million)
#4 "Domestic Disturbance" $5.6 million ($33.8 million)
#5 "Heist" $4.5 million ($14.9 million)
By the way, 'Potter' became the first film in history to earn over $30 million in a single day. It earned $32.8 million on Saturday.
In spite of the dominance of 'Harry Potter', "Monster, Inc." was still able to earn $23 million. It's on course for a $250 million domestic haul.