New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Jason Lee: The difference between the two movie franchises, for me, is that Potter appeals to anyone looking for a magical, well-told, inventive, and engaging story . . . while Twilight aims squarely to inflame the hormones of young women. I mean, with New Moon, you get Lautner and Patterson shirtless - a lot. And you knew it. From every trailer. And magazine. With Potter, you get some fantastic British actors, a great story, some innovative visuals...there's inevitably going to be a big difference between the rabid passions of each respective audience.

Tom Macy: Well, currently how could you argue otherwise? Pop culture items have a limited shelf life; Harry Potter was always going to be out obsessed by something. Twilight, at this moment in time, is top dog. Still, Harry has demonstrated incredible staying power and has made a much more significant and lasting impact on, well, the world than Twilight has. I think Potter, while, not being a Star Wars level phenomenon, is certainly hovering around that status while Twilight is still in the fad mode. But perhaps not for long.

Brett Beach: Blasphemous (cough, grumble) but true. The sense I get is that the Harry Potter books are still being viewed as "kid's movies" (?) and the cast has pretty much kept itself out of the media and tabloid spotlight in the interim. Thus, there is nothing exciting to keep scores of internet blogs and entertainment columns churning. The equal sense I get is that for the last 365 days there have been 24/7 endless stories about the cast of the Twilight saga: "who's dating who, who's drinking what and partying where" and that they have been on a combination never-ending production schedule/world media tour to stoke these fires. For the moment it's Robert Pattinson's world and we're just the gel in his hair out in the wind along for the ride.

Michael Lynderey: I'd say Twilight's surpassed Potter at the moment, but just barely. The total gross of the movies becomes important here, and I kind of doubt that New Moon is going to finish all that much higher than the Half-Blood Prince's $300 million or so. That said, Twilight at its prime would not have one-upped Potter's best years - if the first Harry Potter movie was released today, it would probably open better than New Moon, considering inflation and the increased must-see-on-opening-day habits of the general population. Looking at the big picture, though, both book series have ended and both film franchises have "only" two movies left to release. Five years from now, both Potter and Twilight are going to be on a slow but unpreventable de-acceleration.

David Mumpower: I look at this as a similar situation to music sales. If a relatively new artist has one compact disc that out-sells U2, that doesn't make them better than U2. If it keeps happening for three or four straight CDs, then the thought process is validated. Until then, we're early with such speculation. What I can say for certain is that the line of demarcation for New Moon is $317.6 million. That is the highest domestic box office take for any film in the Harry Potter franchise; in this case, it's the first title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. If you want to bring that 2001 release up to current 2009 ticket pricing, the number shoots all the way up to $407.5 million. So, New Moon still has quite a bit of work to do. What we have witnessed this weekend is that Twi-Hards are a passionate group who will rush out to see their beloved characters on opening weekend to a degree that Potter fans never have. It's still too early to say that Twilight as a movie franchise has a stronger performance than Potter has to date, though.

Continued:       1       2       3       4