Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
July 19, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: What are your overriding thoughts about the box office history of the Harry Potter franchise? And what are your expectations for the final box office of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (domestically as well as globally)?
Brett Beach: Consistency, consistency, consistency (it's the "location" of the box-office world). With domestic grosses of (chronologically): $317 million, $261 million, $249 million, $290 million, $292 million, $301 million,and $295 million, if you throw out the high and the low, four of the remaining five were within $10 million of each other. The difference from high to low is only $70 million. Even accounting for higher ticket prices, lowering attendance, IMAX surcharges, the sustainment of quality to fan loyalty to raw numbers is impressive. That the final installment will likely pull in the most domestic and international of the series will be the Bertie Bott Every Flavor Bean (dirt or booger) on top of the icing on top of the cake: I say $350 million domestic and $1.2 billion worldwide.
Edwin Davies: The consistency and the level at which that consistency was maintained. If you look at something like Saw, that was a series which maintained pretty solid numbers for all but its last two instalments, which is something that is notable, but not all that impressive because none of those films made more than $100 million. For a series to have the sort of consistency that the Harry Potter films have had, staying above $250 million for all but one of the entries, is really quite remarkable.
After the initial domestic and international numbers for Friday were in, I said on Twitter that I expected Deathly Hallows Part 2 to make 1.2 billion worldwide. Now that all the numbers are in, I think that it might have a chance of ending up in the 1.4 range, if not higher. Domestically, I think $400 million is a distinct possibility.
Matthew Huntley: Consistency for sure, but I would also say reliability for the film industry as a whole. Just as the Harry Potter book series encouraged a whole new generation of people to read, the film series prompted them (and millions of others) to go to the movies. It seems whenever the industry was nervous about declining attendance, Mr. Potter would come along and quell their fears, and understandably so - the franchise will go on to infuse over $7 billion worth of admissions into the worldwide box-office. During these rough economic times, HP has been one of the powerhouses that's allowed the movie industry stay afloat, and now Hollywood has to put it upon themselves to come up with something new.
As for the overall gross of Deathly Hallows Part 2, I think Brett's domestic prediction is a little bullish, so I predict $320 million stateside and another $700 internationally, which would still allows Harry and friends to cross the $1 billion mark for the first time.
Joshua Pasch: As for part one of the question, I'd say the most remarkable feat box office wise was the ability to rebound from what seemed like a sluggish dip in business with franchise entry #3. It always seemed strange to me that with the fourth entry the franchise became reinvigorated at a time when fans should have been dropping off. That bounce seemed unlikely (or maybe even impossible) to me at the time. Rather, I figured HP4 would throw under HP3, and HP5 under HP4, so on until the final installments were racking in $180 - $200 million or so domestic. I couldn't have been more wrong. It feels good to be wrong.
Jason Lee: Over the past decade, I've been incredibly impressed with the way that the film's producers have maintained the quality of the film adaptations through seven books, four directors, billions of fans, mammoth expectations and the onslaught of puberty. Really, when you think about it, the HP franchise's cinematic record is close (but not too close) to Pixar's streak of quality pre-Cars 2. As for final domestic total, I'm with Edwin. I think $400 million is definitely possible, especially given that with no more movies and no more books, fans of the series may be a little unwilling to let go.
Reagen Sulewski: When you look at the top 25 worldwide earners of all time, six of them start with "Harry Potter and the", and it's about to be seven. The number of franchises that even get seven theatrical entries and which don't involve someone getting stabbed are vanishingly small. While a film like Avatar is overall more impressive, the depth and longevity of Potter is something that cannot be overlooked.
Jim Van Nest: The consistency this series has shown, in my opinion, can be directly linked to the brilliance of JK Rowling. Harry was 11 when he first entered Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. And Sorcerer's Stone was written as if created for an 11 year old. As Harry and Co grew up, so did the writing in the books. And as the books grew up, so did the films. It truly is an amazing feat to start a series for 10-11 year olds and get more mature with each and every book, just as your readers are growing up. Other series of children's books/films rely on new waves of kids becoming interested in them. Harry Potter built an audience that never outgrew what they were reading, hence they never outgrew the films, either. All the while, the series continued to pick up new 10-11 year-olds every year. It really is a phenomenon that I don't think we're likely to see for a long, long time.
Daron Aldridge: Consistency is king with this franchise. To sustain, a box office range of $249 million to $317 million over seven films in ten years is quite a feat. The fact that none of the sequels exploded at the box office ahead of its predecessors (a la The Matrix or Pirates) and then faltered due to questionable quality shows that the franchise’s fanbase has been pleased with their regular doses of Potter on film. I consider myself a big fan of all the films but this is the first on that I actually saw in the theater and I did it so on opening night even. That type of appeal of it being that last one, I believe, drove this one to its heights. For the long haul, I think the most likely scenario is that Part 2 will follow the pattern of Part 1 with its 2.36 multiplier. That would give Part 2 $396 million in North America. Granted, Part 1 was a November release but I just can’t see Part 2 following the previous summer multipliers of Order of the Phoenix (3.79) or Half-Blood Prince (3.9). If that would play out and split the difference with a 3.85 multiplier, Part 2 would end with an astonishing $646 million. I would love to see but I find it highly unlikely.
Max Braden: I want to go with previous multipliers but I have trouble believing that this last movie captured a significant new audience, which is what it would need to take in $500 million or even $400 million. Deathly Hallows II should be able to cross $350 million. I feel like I'm being conservative when I predict a total domestic gross of $390 million.
David Mumpower: I incidentally mentioned to BOP webmaster Tony Kollath that our BOP Trivia question (these are available off bottom of the front page and always highly challenging if you haven't been playing along) for last week needed to be Harry Potter related. He came up with a clever take on the first names of the directors of the Harry Potter series and that gave me the epiphany about what has been accomplished here. Child actors are notoriously difficult to work with and they frequently act out when a new face comes along. There have been four different Harry Potter directors yet all of the movies maintain the highest possible quality. That in and of itself is a feat that merits recognition and appreciation.
In terms of final take, I'm a lot more bullish on the product than the rest of you. I look at the global take of The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and note that it is 21% higher than the better performer of the prior two titles. That's what happens when a concluding feature in a franchise delivers a satisfying denouement. The established rules do not apply for Harry Potter. The movie is going to earn $400 million barring something unforeseen and $450 million would not surprise me. This is the time when everyone who was standing on the sidelines gets involved. People who have been renting instead of going to the theater are demonstrably altering their behavior here. I also think it has a solid chance to supplant Titanic as the second biggest global performer of all time. Half a billion in three days is a performance that defies description.
And now for something completely different
Kim Hollis: Winnie the Pooh, the almost forgotten side note to the weekend box office, opened to $7.8 million. What do you think of this result?
Brett Beach: It had the "Love Letter"-esque cajones (see May 21, 1999) to open opposite what was going to be a mind-blowingly huge dominator and is playing primarily to those paying the least (or not at all) for tickets. Plus, it's not in 3D, is fairly quiet, runs barely over an hour, and is only playing matinee shows. For obvious reasons. It opened a little higher than the previous films in Mr the Pooh's filmography, and wasn't all that expensive so those are the pluses. I am not sure if I agree with some commentators that it will "hold up well" going forth. On DVD yes, in theaters, I don't see it reaching even $30 million. Still, I am sure I will be renting it for my son Finn in just a few months.
Side note: I saw The Love Letter in the theaters opening weekend with a friend, saw The Sixth Sense trailer and thought "that looks creepy" and also thought "this probably will interest no one but me."
Edwin Davies: I don't think anyone was anticipating that Winnie the Pooh was going to do gangbusters regardless of what time of year it was released, so for it to pull this much when it was the only film that dared to open against Harry Potter is something of an achievement. For a relatively inexpensive film that'll probably do most of its business on DVD or television, this is neither a great nor a terrible result.
Bruce Hall: Well what do you know, there WERE other films opening this weekend. Who knew? If we must discuss this inconsequential film I will say this. It wasn't very nice to make Winnie the Pooh your sacrificial lamb this weekend, Disney. He's a beloved childhood icon and a warm reminder of simpler times. At least, he is if you were born before 1980. Then again, he's a fat lazy little complainer who spends all day sitting around eating sweets with no pants on. Maybe he had it coming.
But this is a perfect film to sit the kids in front of on a Sunday morning when you want to try (unsuccessfully) to get just one more hour of sleep. It's cute, quaint, and has a super short running time. All the things that will whisk this thing out of theaters in the blink of an eye will help it make a killing on DVD.
Max Braden: Winnie the Who? Not having kids I don't know how much this release was needed in theaters; it seems to me it could have gone straight to video and still been profitable. I try to see most movies but let some children's selections pass, but I might still rent this one to hear Zooey Deschanel's music.
David Mumpower: Brett's comparison to The Love Letter is astute. Spelling it out for those of you who don't remember and don't want to google it, that title was counter-programmed against Star Wars: Episode One - The Phantom Menace. It was a better movie, too. I haven't seen it, but since it didn't have Jar Jar Binks, I feel confident about my assertion. Winnie the Pooh isn't even counter-programming, though. Harry Potter is for kids of all ages, which makes Winnie the Pooh's release simply...programming. The end result is in line with a lot of the teen girl-centric releases we've seen over the past few years, but nowhere near what a popular family feature should do. This movie was immediately relegated to box office footnote status the moment it linked itself to the final Harry Potter release. As an aside, 90 minutes of this concept is my definition of hell. The bear likes honey and the other critter is whiny. Dragging that out for more than an hour could be worse than It's Pat the movie.
Brett Beach: David, you will be happy to know that, not counting closing credits, Winnie The Pooh clocks in at 61 minutes.