Jump to content

LexJoker

Wednesday #s (1/1) | FRZ 8.72,DOS 7.8,WOWS 5.671,AM2 4.874,SMB 4.178 (Official estimates)

By LexJoker, in Numbers and Data

Recommended Posts

#ED Global Phenomenon

#ED

Posted
Posted

Oh fine...your check's in the mail, Ed. :P

 

Oh fine... you can talk about the NFL, Ed. :D

 

Bears sign Jay Cutler to 7 year deal.

BREAKING NEWS: Packers clinch the NFC North for the next 7 seasons.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites


#ED Global Phenomenon

#ED

Posted
Posted

It's definitely a huge accomplishment for CF. Basically the equivalent of movies from 8-10 years ago doing $300m+ in succession.

 

But, of course, TDKR's gross has an asterisk next to it. Probably wouldn't have hit TDK's gross either way, but we'll never really know.

 

Posted Image

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cory Box Office Gold

cory

Posted
Posted

It's definitely a huge accomplishment for CF. Basically the equivalent of movies from 8-10 years ago doing $300m+ in succession. But, of course, TDKR's gross has an asterisk next to it. Probably wouldn't have hit TDK's gross either way, but we'll never really know.

I would guess around $490-$510m, but yeah, we'll never know.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites






MasterDodsen Sleeper Hit

MasterDodsen

Posted
Posted

Potter couldn't manage even 2...yes. But which other series has had 8 movies in 10 years?

 

Here's what I don't understand about Potter: The Lord of the Rings are older books mostly read by old people.  I didn't even know about them when I was a kid, only knew something about the Hobbit.  Potter, on the other hand, had a resurgence of young kids and more importantly, teenagers reading them like it was crack-cocaine.

 

Sorcerer's Stone beat out Fellowship of the Ring.  And then... nothing.  Chamber of Secrets decreased about 50M, Prisoner of Azkaban - some considered the best movie of the entire series - didn't even get 250M despite a Summer release and an OW of 93M.  Goblet of Fire destroyed the book and rightfully fell from grace after a 102M OW.  Same thing happened to Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, although that one barely squeaked the 300M plateau with its only competition being Twilight.  Deathly Hallows, part I fellow below that and, finally, Deathly Hallows, part II took 169M OW, a 91M OD and an amazing 40+M midnights, then flamed out to barely get 381M.  Sorcerer's Stone adjusted is somewhere around 450M.  What happened?

 

The studio screwed them up, that is what happened.  They had four directors.  They had two Dumbledors (Richard Harris dying wasn't WB's fault, but they chose poorly in his replacement).  They left out so much from the books that would've made a more seamless transition from scene to scene.  They tried to make the characters more "relatable" to the audience instead of just making them fictional wizards.  Everything that the book fans loved, they left out, whereas Lord of the Rings included and the Hobbit is exploring in massive detail.  People like that and the grosses showed that.  Potter should've been the all-time leading series, instead, they are looking at what could've been and what wasn't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


BadAtGender Global Phenomenon

BadAtGender

Posted
Posted

Here's what I don't understand about Potter: The Lord of the Rings are older books mostly read by old people.  I didn't even know about them when I was a kid, only knew something about the Hobbit.  Potter, on the other hand, had a resurgence of young kids and more importantly, teenagers reading them like it was crack-cocaine.

 

Sorcerer's Stone beat out Fellowship of the Ring.  And then... nothing.  Chamber of Secrets decreased about 50M, Prisoner of Azkaban - some considered the best movie of the entire series - didn't even get 250M despite a Summer release and an OW of 93M.  Goblet of Fire destroyed the book and rightfully fell from grace after a 102M OW.  Same thing happened to Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, although that one barely squeaked the 300M plateau with its only competition being Twilight.  Deathly Hallows, part I fellow below that and, finally, Deathly Hallows, part II took 169M OW, a 91M OD and an amazing 40+M midnights, then flamed out to barely get 381M.  Sorcerer's Stone adjusted is somewhere around 450M.  What happened?

 

The studio screwed them up, that is what happened.  They had four directors.  They had two Dumbledors (Richard Harris dying wasn't WB's fault, but they chose poorly in his replacement).  They left out so much from the books that would've made a more seamless transition from scene to scene.  They tried to make the characters more "relatable" to the audience instead of just making them fictional wizards.  Everything that the book fans loved, they left out, whereas Lord of the Rings included and the Hobbit is exploring in massive detail.  People like that and the grosses showed that.  Potter should've been the all-time leading series, instead, they are looking at what could've been and what wasn't.

 

I think it's mostly due to the decision to choose Chris Columbus for the first two films. He's not an especially great director, despite past success, and it showed. The second film decreased despite the popularity of the series because HP1 wasn't that good. HP2 was rushed (acknowledged) and was received even worse. This severely hurt the third film, despite being the best in the series. But since audience response to it was strong, you saw the rebound for 4 on out. Later films in the series were probably more impacted by the fact that it's difficult to get new audiences to watch something once you've gotten well into a series.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
#ED Global Phenomenon

#ED

Posted
Posted

I say regardless of Aurora it wasn't going to happen. The film just wasn't as strong. 

 

It had all the right things going for it. This supposed bad "WOM" was mostly online. It still got an A cinemascore.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites




druv10 Global Phenomenon

druv10

Posted
Posted

It's definitely a huge accomplishment for CF. Basically the equivalent of movies from 8-10 years ago doing $300m+ in succession.

 

But, of course, TDKR's gross has an asterisk next to it. Probably wouldn't have hit TDK's gross either way, but we'll never really know.

 

 

WOM wasn't as good as TDK so it certainly wasn't going to beat 533M+ that TDK made, shooting or no shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites




BadAtGender Global Phenomenon

BadAtGender

Posted
Posted

I know Batman Begins wasn't a $400 million grosser, but the jump from BB to TDK is far more impressive.

 

Just saying.

 

Once you start looking at films that grossed less than 350 million, you start seeing sequels that grossed more. The Two Towers is currently the highest grossing film to have a sequel that out-earned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


BoxOfficeFangrl Box Office Gold

BoxOfficeFangrl

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's what I don't understand about Potter: The Lord of the Rings are older books mostly read by old people.  I didn't even know about them when I was a kid, only knew something about the Hobbit.  Potter, on the other hand, had a resurgence of young kids and more importantly, teenagers reading them like it was crack-cocaine.

 

Sorcerer's Stone beat out Fellowship of the Ring.  And then... nothing.  Chamber of Secrets decreased about 50M, Prisoner of Azkaban - some considered the best movie of the entire series - didn't even get 250M despite a Summer release and an OW of 93M.  Goblet of Fire destroyed the book and rightfully fell from grace after a 102M OW.  Same thing happened to Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince, although that one barely squeaked the 300M plateau with its only competition being Twilight.  Deathly Hallows, part I fellow below that and, finally, Deathly Hallows, part II took 169M OW, a 91M OD and an amazing 40+M midnights, then flamed out to barely get 381M.  Sorcerer's Stone adjusted is somewhere around 450M.  What happened?

 

The studio screwed them up, that is what happened.  They had four directors.  They had two Dumbledors (Richard Harris dying wasn't WB's fault, but they chose poorly in his replacement).  They left out so much from the books that would've made a more seamless transition from scene to scene.  They tried to make the characters more "relatable" to the audience instead of just making them fictional wizards.  Everything that the book fans loved, they left out, whereas Lord of the Rings included and the Hobbit is exploring in massive detail.  People like that and the grosses showed that.  Potter should've been the all-time leading series, instead, they are looking at what could've been and what wasn't.

I don't really agree. Huge fan of the series myself, but basically I think Potter in 2001 had a massive fanbase and you either went into the first movie a fan already or became one, or it just wasn't your thing. After the first one, the people who weren't really into it didn't come back, nor did the book fans who didn't like the first adaptation. 

 

There were seven books, eight movies, that weren't really standalone stories, with tween protagonists who grow up, but at most it becomes young adult-ish. The Hunger Games is kids killing each other but Katniss is practically an adult starting out, so it gets people who wouldn't have given the first couple of Potter movies the time of day. And it's only three books, a less complex world compared to Potter, so it's easier to adapt to movies. LotR, I guess appealed to the GA more, explaining why it grew from movie to movie.

 

Also, I really don't mind Gambon as Dumbledore, I did at first but as the books go on the revelations about the character and his actions suit a colder, less grandfatherly take on him.

Edited by BoxOfficeChica
Link to comment
Share on other sites


a2k Global Phenomenon

a2k

Posted
Posted (edited)

If there had been 8 batman, bond, star wars, narnia, twilight, hungergames, shrek, spiderman, transformers or lotr movies from 2001-2011, what would have been the difference between the highest and lowest in the series? Potter's domestic and international consistency was amazing.

 

Why wasn't narnia crack cocaine? (292m then 155m then 105m then over)

Why did Tolkien fans disappear. Hobbit 1 & 2 are behind all potter films adjusted for inflation.

Edited by a2knet
Link to comment
Share on other sites




#ED Global Phenomenon

#ED

Posted
Posted

His sequel dropped 16%+ while CF will increase 2-3% over THG so exclusive company for THG franchise unlike Nolan.  :P  :ph34r:

 

Dropping 16% from a 500M+ grosser is normal IMO.

 

I expect a Similar drop for TA2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.

  I accept