Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
November 22, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows opened to $125 million, easily the best of the franchise to date. How impressed are you by this result? Why do you think this Potter film did so much better than prior iterations?
Josh Spiegel: I'm pretty impressed, if only because I figured the highest figures would materialize for the second part, as it's actually the last film in the Harry Potter series. There are a lot of reasons why this film did better than prior films. For whatever reason (though Part 2 could change this pattern), it feels like these movies do better in November than in the summer. Also, it's been a while since there's been a truly must-see, four-quadrant film, possibly dating all the way back to Inception and Toy Story 3 in the summer. Harry Potter--even though it might have stranded some people who haven't read the books--capitalized on the market being wide open.
Bruce Hall: I simply think this installment did so well for the same reason the last episode of MASH did - because this is the end, and everyone wants a piece of it, to be able to say that they were there and experienced it. Even people who lost interest after the first two or three (like me) seem to be coming out for this one. I realize I don't have the benefit of a prediction on record, but this is about what I expected, performance wise. It's been ages since a franchise was so universally and intensely loved. You could point to Star Wars, but the Potter franchise has eclipsed that franchise both in number (and quality) of films, and looks poised to surpass it financially. You could mention Cameron's Avatar, but that's just one movie that despite its unprecedented success still can't hold a candle to the decade of domination that has been the Harry Potter era.
You could put "Harry Potter" on spoiled meat and the Dalai Lama would fight you for a pound of it. It's just that hot right now.
I fully expect the last installment to perform even better. And this time, I am on record.
Brett Beach: For the film before the final film, it is an impressive opening. For besting Harry Potter personal records, it should be recognized. What I do notice is that this and Twilight capture how fervently fans will show up at midnight and opening weekend to see the film before everyone else (even if it seems like "everyone else" is now doing this.) The Harry Potter saga has shown remarkable consistency over the last decade and though consistency is never all that sexy to talk about, it shouldn't be underappreciated either.
David Mumpower: The one aspect I want to point out is that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone has an opening weekend that inflation-adjusts to right at $120 million in terms of 2010 ticket pricing. So, the franchise has reached roughly this level once before. Both performances are exemplary. The common theme between that initial Potter release and the latest one is importance. As has been referenced already in the discussion and will be repeated by others, the beginning and the end of stories are what engage most consumers. There are those who prefer the journey; those are in the minority, though. The majority of people wanted to see the first Harry Potter film for the reason Ash Wakeman noted in his original review in 2001. What does Hogwarts look like? How does Quidditch appear through the magic of CGI? There was more curiosity because of the newness of the tale. Fast forward to now and people have invested billions of dollars to watch the first six movies. What they want to know is how it ends and that prioritization led to this explosive opening weekend. It will also create further demand as well as even more frontloading for the eighth and final Potter movie. We the movie-going public have gone through what is the equivalent of a movie marathon with the Harry Potter team and we can finally see the finish line.
Matthew Huntley: Although HP7's opening numbers are amazing, I can't say I'm impressed by them, at least not in our current cinematic climate where every franchise picture tries to one-up the last one by having a bigger opening weekend. Given that this is the penultimate film in a hugely popular, decade-old series, I expected greater numbers for all the reasons listed on this thread. I thought it would defeat New Moon for sure, but HP seems to be more front-loaded than the vampire flicks and I still don't think it's gained that many more fans since the original was released in 2001, as evidenced by David's inflation-adjusted figures. I agree the reason it may have done slightly better was because of a lack of competition, but I'd say the audience has mostly remained consistent these past nine years.
Edwin Davies: I am very impressed by this result because I thought that it would be closer to the 102.7 million that Goblet of Fire opened to back in 2005, rather than smashing that number by quite a way. I also thought that it might land a little lower because, although this film represents the start of the end of the Harry Potter story, it isn't the end. I thought that the lack of traditional action in the first part of the book might put off people who have read it from seeing Part One in the cinema, instead choosing to catch it on DVD in time for Part Two next July. Not enough people that the film would underperform in comparison to the rest of the series, but enough that it would remain on the same level as the previous entries. This result suggests that people are really champing at the bit to be a part of what is a considerable event in pop culture.
Shalimar Sahota: Well this opening is certainly better than where I thought it would finish (I was thinking somewhere between $95 - $105 million). As has already been mentioned, the whole it being the end of Potter has probably helped boost the total somewhat, as well as the preferred November release, with less competition compared to over the summer. For a franchise that began nearly a decade ago, it's remarkable to see that it can still reach high levels of box office and positive reviews. I'm more impressed with the $61.1 million earned on its opening day. It's huge, and not that far behind from the opening weekends of the last two films.
Michael Lynderey: This may sound obscene, but Harry Potter box office has been just so not interesting to me for some time now. There came a point after which this franchise's openings became fairly consistent, and thus repetetive, and thus, predictable. Yes, the Potter films have fluctuated here and there, but I think the only box office question left to ask of Mr. Potter is whether his eighth (?) installment can finally crack $400 million. Otherwise, this slightly bigger-than-average opening can be blamed on a regular Friday first day instead of the weekday blitz, combined with ticket price inflation, and dolloped in the sense of anticipation approaching July 2011.
Reagen Sulewski: For all the damning praise about consistency, I don't think it's too reasonable to expect the series to be able to outpace inflation. The fanbase was at 11 from the word go, and there wasn't a lot of opportunity to make converts. For that matter, consistency is pretty damn impressive in its own right - how many series could keep up quality through seven or eight films that it wouldn't fizzle out halfway through? That's a lot of investment you're asking of people.
Max Braden: I think a lot of the success has to do with both the trailer for Deathly Hallows and the market for the Twilight Saga. Ten years is a long time to keep the same audience for what is (largely) a children's genre series. But right when the the first generation of Potter fans and may have moved on, you've got the Twilight series stoking the market for moody sci-fi fantasy. At the same time, the Potter series has matured from quidditch to life and death drama. It's amazing that the series has been able to keep the original cast this long (the only other uninterrupted decade-plus-long lead to come to my mind is Roger Moore as Bond, four decades ago), but that naturally means they've matured along with the story. So here you've got a trailer featuring teens in a dark, action packed fantasy world, perfectly set to appeal to the new Twilight fans as well as the old Potter fans. Compare that to the too-dark previous couple of Potter films and too-boring New Moon, and you've got the perfect tone to sell tickets. Also, despite Potter's success as a summer film, I think this is great post-Halloween material.
David Mumpower: With regards to the competition factor, that's a false lead. The *combined* total of the films that have opened in wide release against Potter films prior to now is $35.2 million. Most of that comes from one title, Walk the Line, which debuted to $22.3 million. The film it opened against, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, had been the largest Potter debut prior to this weekend, earning $102.3 million. Competition doesn't matter to Harry Potter at all.
We're #1! We're #1!
Kim Hollis: What do you expect from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One during the rest of its run? Do you see any films challenging it to be #1 of the holiday season?
Josh Spiegel: I'm still not sure how well Tron: Legacy is going to do. My best guess is that if any film were to top Harry Potter or come close, it'll be that (especially as Tron will have 3D and IMAX tickets boosting its numbers, whereas Harry Potter only has IMAX). I still think that Toy Story 3 is going to end up as the victor of the entire year, though this number could mean that Deathly Hallows, Part One ends up as the highest-grossing of the franchise (there's about 100 million bucks separating the highest-grossing Harry Potter film and Toy Story 3, of course). With the holiday season pretty much upon us, it seems likely that Harry Potter will dominate for the next six-plus weeks.
Bruce Hall: No. Not even close. If Tron:Legacy lives up to even half of the hype it will be a smash, but "smash" doesn't even come close to what Harry Potter has done to the box office over his career.
I am not going to try to nail down a figure, but I'll say that I see no reason to believe that this installment of the franchise will not be the most lucrative to date, and by a fair margin.
Brett Beach: I expect HP and the DH to make just about or slightly more than Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone (about $320 million, I am guessing). I think there may be some (but not a lot more) people who will jump on board for just the last one than opted to catch both cinematic parts of the final book. Tangled aside, it has the fantasy epic/"children's film" playing field all to itself until December 10th and should make 85-90 percent of its take by then.
As for challengers: there are really only two. Tron Legacy and Little Fockers. I still have no idea about Tron Legacy's final potential. Even with the generous holds that will occur because of IMAX and 3D and a big opening weekend take brought on by the curious, will this have the legs that are being seriously discussed and that would be amplified by the Christmas moviegoing madness? Better question: can a film with a score by Daft Punk break $150 million? Little Fockers looks more sentimental than Meet the Fockers but still nowhere near as funny than Meet the Parents. Still, once more to the well and over $200 million.
David Mumpower: I agree with Brett (and Michael Lynderey in his end of 2010 forecast) that the two most likely competitors are Little Fockers and Tron Legacy. As has been mentioned, the Tron sequel remains a huge unknown. This is one of the most gorgeous looking movies ever made. Is it any good, though? The answer to that determines its overall finish and as Bruce astutely pointed out, if Tron winds up at $200 million, that is a magnificent performance yet one that would be the worst Potter performance by a full $50 million. The standards are different.
A question I got asked a lot last year was whether or not Avatar would beat Sherlock Holmes. That was a perfectly legitimate discussion topic at the time since Avatar was being kept hidden from the public until the end and Cameron himself has indicated that they were hoping for $275 million. Sherlock Holmes wound up with $209 million and that's a fantastic result in any scenario whatsoever unless we compare it to a film that makes around $760 million. The wild card was how great Avatar was going to be, an unknown factor prior to release. The same is true of Tron Legacy, which could be a masterpiece thanks to some late touches by BOP's beloved Brad Bird or it could be a shiny trainwreck. We just don't know yet.
The last three Potter films have all earned between $290 and $302 million. The seventh film is pacing about $25 million better thus far. So, we are left deciding whether Little Fockers or Tron Legacy has that type of oomph. If we inflation adjust Meet the Fockers to 2010 ticket pricing, we wind up with a staggering $340 million. Ergo, there is some legitimacy to the train of thought that it could pose a threat, but I'm dubious that such a derivative looking sequel could do that well. Then again, the same could be said of Meet the Fockers.
What I'm saying here is that I vote no. I think Potter takes the holiday box office season. Prove me wrong, Tron Legacy. And don't even think about it, you stupid Fockers.
Matthew Huntley: I expect huge drop-offs for HP7 going forward, starting with 55% next weekend (buffered thanks to the Thanksgiving holiday), followed by 60%+ the weekend after and 45-50% from there on out. With mid-week numbers taken into account, I think that would leave it between $300-$320 million in total (as Brett previously pointed out). That's an impressive result, but is it big enough to win the holiday movie crown? I would say yes.
I think we're all in agreement that Tron: Legacy remains a huge wild card. Does anyone outside the Comic-Con crowd have any interest in seeing this movie? I mean, the original came out nearly 30 years ago; why the sudden resurgence? That leaves Little Fockers, which looks like it recycles the same old "Everybody Loves Raymond"-type jokes, and Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader. I'm surprised no one else mentioned Narnia. I know--Prince Caspian seemed to have all but destroyed the franchise (inexplicably in my opinion, since it was better than the original), but the new one has a different studio behind it and it's being released in December instead of May, which is a big deal for a lot of Christian fans. Plus it's being presented in 3D, which will boost the grosses. It's mostly a guess at this point, but I would say Narnia is Potter's main rival, especially since it has the family demographic in its corner, and let's not forget the original Narnia beat Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire back in 2005.
Thoughts?
Edwin Davies: I saw the trailer for Voyage of The Dawn Treader for the first time before Deathly Hallows last night and, whilst I had to admit that it was a really impressive looking film, I, as someone who has only ever read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, could not tell what the film was about based on that trailer. It seemed to lack the clear throughline that the film version of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe had and I think that will put off people unfamiliar with the source material, especially considering that whilst the Narnia series a well-known property, not that many people will have read all of the books. It'll also be competing against Tron: Legacy for 3D screens over the holidays, and if it can't keep up I can see it getting shunted out of them and winding up with a franchise-ending total.
As for Tron: Legacy, I think we're looking at a big opening weekend as fans of the original and the curious decide to check it out, followed by either a solid run as it holds all the 3D screens to itself or a spectacular burn out. I personally lean towards the latter because, whilst the trailer does make it look stunning (creepy CGI Jeff Bridges aside) it also looks like it makes no sense whatsoever, and I don't know how willing people will be to pay premium prices for a laser light show. Then again, I don't care for the original Tron, so perhaps I am underestimating its appeal.
In either case, I don't think that Tron will be that much of a threat because Tron: Legacy is in 3D, and Potter isn't. This might seem like paradoxical thinking since 3D tickets cost more and therefore offer more opportunity for Tron: Legacy to catch up with Deathly Hallows, but it also means that Tron won't be kicking Deathly Hallows out of all the 3D screens when it gets released, which is what often takes the wind out of 3D releases. Much as Inception did over the last couple of months, Deathly Hallows can sit undisturbed in the 2D screens whilst Tron: Legacy battles it out with Narnia and Gulliver's Travels for 3D screens.
Anyway, back to Deathly Hallows Part One. This very strong opening I think that it'll end up in the $330 million range, just topping Sorcerer's Stone but not hitting the heights that Part Two will next summer. Even if it sees precipitous drops over the next few weeks, the general rule being that the higher you are the further you have to fall, the Harry Potter series has always shown really solid legs, and the holiday season is perfectly suited to allow a big budget fantasy film to just keep on running.
Michael Lynderey: There's one legitimate challenger, and one dark horse wobbler waiting in the wings. Tron is the one that's openly taking on Potter, but it's just impossible to say exactly how high or high low it'll go. Little Fockers is the really scary one, because, sure, it could go down with a total number under $200 mil - but what if it just explodes, as the silent majority of audiences seek an alternative to special effects? That's what happened in 2004 with Meet the Fockers, and while it probably won't happen again, coming out of nowhere is what dark horses are all about. So, beware.
As for Pottery legs - well, Deathly Hallows will probably be no more and no less leggy than Goblet of Fire, a film that is just such a perfect one to compare to this one. $300 million is probably assured, but I wouldn't be surprised if it came in just under the $317 mil that the first Potter finished with way back in the day. And that's where Tron and the Fockers come in. Maybe.
Reagen Sulewski: I think Little Fockers is going to make a depressingly large amount of money, but my threshold for "depressing" will probably be met by its Friday evening total. You definitely have to watch out for the "family" film over the holidays, and Ben Stiller has proven that he can turn chicken shit into chicken salad in this time period multiple times. I expect the barrier will be just a little too high to vault though, and Tron is starting to have the feel of a disappointment to me. Harry Potter looks secure for this year.
Max Braden: I don't think there's any way that Tron even comes close to competing with Potter. I'm a huge Tron fan, but even as pretty as the new trailer looks, it feels like another Jumper or even Lawnmower Man. Even the geeky original fanbase won't help sustain Legacy beyond its first week. It will do well as many Christmas releases do, but will fall far short in the final gross compared to Deathly Hallows. As a side guess I would predict that Tron opens under I Am Legend's record.
Little Fockers is harder to judge because it's one of those family movies that you think not many will see and yet it just prints money week after week. I could see Little Fockers outgrossing some of the weaker Potter entries, but I think Deathly Hallows will win in the end.
David Mumpower: With regards to the next Narnia movie, I think that there was an obvious explanation for the disappointment of Prince Caspian that applies now as well. People know the story of The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. They do not know the rest of the books anywhere near as much. They lack that same level of name recognition. In addition, we have seen with the Potter films that a lull tends to follow the first film. The second Potter film earned $56 million less domestically and the third one is the only Potter release to earn less than $250 million. That means the Narnia series is fighting a battle on two levels with the first being stink of failure perception due to Prince Caspian earning less than half of what its immediate predecessor did. The second is that lull. I think that Prince Caspian is a huge success if it earns $175 million domestically, which is not on the level of the other titles we're discussing here.