maxenricfan Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Sure, there can be bigger series due to inflation, 3D and expanding markets. But not over 7 or 8 films. That's my point. I am not sure. Fast & Furious itself looks good for another 3 4. 1
BK007 Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 I could take or leave most (hell, all) the films, but its consistency was impressive. There was also a novelty to seeing the cast grow up year after year, which I think gave it a real edge because fans stuck with these actors throughout the run and always came back. For all of the Boyhood aging actor talk, one could argue Potter already did it. Can't wait to see Boyhood. Hoping it destroys me. But yeah, it was phenomenal that they kept the same cast for 10 years and we got to see them all grow up. What other franchise can even say that they will keep their cast for 10 years over 8 movies and have people still be interested? It's impossible because characters like Spidey, Sparrow and Tony Stark aren't supposed to "age". So, they don't grow as much as characters, if at all. I'm not arguing that Hobbit is any less impressive, only that Potter didn't need a break in order to keep its grosses going. To sustain that kind of interest every two or three years is quite unprecedented. Marvel is doing it now, but again, not all of their films were massive successes. That's not really counted because each movie is almost completely unrelated to each other despite being in the same universe. Also, I think their admissions numbers apart from TA and the IM franchise aren't that high. I am really interested to see how long Marvel can keep it up though. In the next two years, they'll have exhausted all their current crop of heroes. Do i really want to see IM/CA/Thor 4? No. But what then could smaller superheroes offer? If they spin off into genre films as opposed to superhero films, I can see them surviving, but if every other film is some lower tier fellow saving the world, I think they'll start disappointing. 3
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 I am not sure. Fast & Furious itself looks good for another 3 4. And that could happen. But until it does, Potter is alone. 1
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 IM2, IM3, Thor 2 are all quite awful imo. Thor is a little better but not much. But audiences seem to be liking them, but it'll be interesting to see where they go from here. 1
Hatebox Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 I am not sure. Fast & Furious itself looks good for another 3 4. F&F is really more notable for making stupid money with its 5th and 6th entries, but it started off small. Impressive, but in a different way. I'd like to see something written on Bond, as well. If we're talking about longevity that franchise is the Holy Grail. 3
Ethan Hunt Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 How do you mean? Why was it a disappointment? In what sense?Quality wide. it's my favorite. 1
James Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Great article. And I believe that the FANTASTIC BEASTS trilogy will continue the streak. Maybe not on the same level, but still huge. What amazed about HP was it's consistency and the loyalty of it's fanbase. The same fanbase or at least a big part of it will turn up for a movie that has JK Rowling's name attached to it. And if it's a good movie (and I dont see why it shouldn't be) and has a great marketing campaign (you can count on that. WB will probably push this like crazy), then the Warners will have another huge franchise on their hands. 5
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 I am not sure. Fast & Furious itself looks good for another 3 4. Not in the same league as Potter. They weren't huge films in the beginning. Good sized, but nothing compared to Potter. Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 Fast & Furious 6 Uni. $788.7 $238.7 30.3% $550.0 69.7% 2013 2 Fast Five Uni. $626.1 $209.8 33.5% $416.3 66.5% 2011 3 Fast and Furious Uni. $363.2 $155.1 42.7% $208.1 57.3% 2009 4 2 Fast 2 Furious Uni. $236.4 $127.2 53.8% $109.2 46.2% 2003 5 The Fast and the Furious Uni. $207.3 $144.5 69.7% $62.8 30.3% 2001 6 The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift Uni. $158.5 $62.5 39.4% $96.0 60.6% 2006 TOTAL: $2,380.1 $937.8 39.4% $1,442.3 60.6% - AVERAGE: 2
grim22 Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 (edited) Not in the same league as Potter. They weren't huge films in the beginning. Good sized, but nothing compared to Potter. Rank Title (click to view) Studio Worldwide Domestic / % Overseas / % Year 1 Fast & Furious 6 Uni. $788.7 $238.7 30.3% $550.0 69.7% 2013 2 Fast Five Uni. $626.1 $209.8 33.5% $416.3 66.5% 2011 3 Fast and Furious Uni. $363.2 $155.1 42.7% $208.1 57.3% 2009 4 2 Fast 2 Furious Uni. $236.4 $127.2 53.8% $109.2 46.2% 2003 5 The Fast and the Furious Uni. $207.3 $144.5 69.7% $62.8 30.3% 2001 6 The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift Uni. $158.5 $62.5 39.4% $96.0 60.6% 2006 TOTAL: $2,380.1 $937.8 39.4% $1,442.3 60.6% - AVERAGE: Another 4th movie in a franchise which increased right here in "Fast and Furious". It more than doubled the third movie. F&F is an amazing study in how to reinvigorate a franchise, Fox is doing this on a smaller scale with X-Men (since the starting point itself was pretty big there). Edited July 14, 2014 by grim22 2
K1stpierre Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Just thinking about all this money, JK Rowling has to be one of the richest women in the world. 5
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 Another 4th movie in a franchise which increased right here in "Fast and Furious". It more than doubled the third movie. F&F is an amazing study in how to reinvigorate a franchise, Fox is doing this on a smaller scale with X-Men (since the starting point itself was pretty big there). Yes, and that is easily explainable. The Return of Vin. 2
Hatebox Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 That Fast 6 OS figure is ridiculous. Just thinking about all this money, JK Rowling has to be one of the richest women in the world. She said a couple of years ago she still isn't a billionaire, which is kind of surprising. 1
Ethan Hunt Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Can't wait to see Boyhood. Hoping it destroys me. But yeah, it was phenomenal that they kept the same cast for 10 years and we got to see them all grow up. What other franchise can even say that they will keep their cast for 10 years over 8 movies and have people still be interested? It's impossible because characters like Spidey, Sparrow and Tony Stark aren't supposed to "age". So, they don't grow as much as characters, if at all. That's not really counted because each movie is almost completely unrelated to each other despite being in the same universe. Also, I think their admissions numbers apart from TA and the IM franchise aren't that high. I am really interested to see how long Marvel can keep it up though. In the next two years, they'll have exhausted all their current crop of heroes. Do i really want to see IM/CA/Thor 4? No. But what then could smaller superheroes offer? If they spin off into genre films as opposed to superhero films, I can see them surviving, but if every other film is some lower tier fellow saving the world, I think they'll start disappointing.except that both Dumbldore and Fkitwick changed actors. Also the kids at Hogwarts get a rather poor education. They can't do math they have horrible grammer. Is there some kind of wizarding college? I mean there is no way they get enough education for some occupations.
James Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Just thinking about all this money, JK Rowling has to be one of the richest women in the world. 14th richest in the UK i believe. Forbes published smth about this. I thinks she's the only billionaire writer out there. 1
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 It's no secret I am not Potter's biggest fan, but it was really enlightening looking up the numbers and then realizing how dominant this series really is. 5
lab276 Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 What's most impressive to me about Fast is that not only is the first movie not the biggest of them adjusted, it's not even the second biggest adjusted. 2
75Live Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 She said a couple of years ago she still isn't a billionaire, which is kind of surprising. Gambling Even if she isn't a billionaire, I am sure she is close enought to it to be satisfied 3
K1stpierre Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 That Fast 6 OS figure is ridiculous. She said a couple of years ago she still isn't a billionaire, which is kind of surprising.What?! How is that possible? With all the books she wrote, the films I'm sure she gets a slice of the profit, all the merchandise, the park...... 1
baumer Posted July 14, 2014 Author Posted July 14, 2014 That Fast 6 OS figure is ridiculous. She said a couple of years ago she still isn't a billionaire, which is kind of surprising. Yes, her networth is 999 million. 2
grim22 Posted July 14, 2014 Posted July 14, 2014 Yes, and that is easily explainable. The Return of Vin. That may be true, but I am at a loss to explain how the fifth and sixth movies kept increasing. It is almost like the entire audience got "in" on the joke. Going to almost 800M dollars without 3D WW is ridiculous for a movie which was in essence a remake of "Point Break". 4
