The Hot Blog

Will Harry Potter get the blame/credit for Charlie's weekend decline? Was it "front-loaded" because people saw it Friday to get it out of the way so they could read the book on the weekend?

If FF gets to Hulk numbers those suits should do backflips.

Hard to believe that anyone would release a movie like CHARLIE the day before 10.8 million smart kids are locked in all weekend for a first, second and third read of the dark, emotional new Potter book.

Potter seems to be less and less popular with each release so I don't think they expected it to be much competition. My guess is that it might have hurt Charlie by a couple mill. at the most. If next weekend has a solid hold, then perhaps this weekend was more affected than we thought. But to say that the 6th sequel in a book series is really major competition to theatrical is kind of crazy.

Still, keeps a lot of kids away on opening weekend... I know several who had no interest in anything else this weekend. CHARLIE's swell so it'd be nice to see it do well during the week and next weekend.

Still, keeps a lot of kids away on opening weekend... 10 million copies? I know a lot of young 'uns who had no interest in anything else this weekend. CHARLIE's swell so it'd be nice to see it do well during the week and next weekend.

Martin, when you say "Potter seems to be less and less popular with each release," do you mean the books or the movies?

According to the AP, HBP sold 6.9 million copies in the US in its first 24 hours. That is just crazy. The print run has been increased to 13.5 million copies. The movies may not be as popular, but there's no doubt Harry Potter is the king of books.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050717/D8BDC2BG0.html

Potter less popular with each release?

Are you living under a rock?

The potter movies have been less and less popular, to the point that, as Dave said, the last one was considered a box office disappointment. But apparently the books are still doing quite well. I guess sequelitis doesn't hit the book world as hard as the movie world. I know I'd be pretty much ready to move on 6 books into a series.

Don't forget that the book readers know that the story is all building into a big climax in book 7. The movie world doesn't have that underlying structure built in as much.

I got a phone call 6:30 last night from a 23-year-old friend who was heaving with tears after reaching a certain development near the book's end; a friend's 12-year-old daughter today was red-eyed and red-faced. I said one word, indicating the same plot point and she started crying again while nodding vigorously. Her mother glared at me and held her daughter. She repeated the word and sniffled some more.

I would dearly love to see a movie any old time now that could offer that level of emotional engagement.

For the movies to be as engaging as the books, you'd have to have a director as skilled as Rowling is with her prose, and a film as long as the dozens of hours the reader spends with the books.

Film is a more visceral medium, and potentially more engaging-- but don't forget how much time one spends in a book is considerablly longer than in a theater.

I wonder why Klady described "Charlie"'s opening as the biggest opening for a PG-rated film. What about "Shrek 2," the three "Harry Potter"s, "Star Wars" Episodes I and II, and "The Incredibles"?

Klady should have said THIS year instead.

Anyway, I think Potter readers may have made a difference of $1 - $2 million at most for Charlie's bo numbers. Definitely will have legs and next week we'll know. Warner is having a great summer so far, what with BB, Charlie, March of the Penguins, and WC.

Dare I ask how the numbers might have been affected by some people deciding to wait for the DVD?

Seriously: Is that just a given now? That we're never really going to know how many people out there -- people who used to be at least OCCASIONAL moviegoers -- have given up going to megaplexes altogether?

The Potter books are a phenomenon. And rightfully so.

I cried after watching Fantastic Four this weekend, but that's because it's a terrible movie and I paid to see it. But it was a genuine emotion.

So there's all the adults who stayed home to read Harry Potter instead of going to see Johnny Depp moonwalk through CATCF too (!). If more than 7 million books were sold in North America before Charlie opened, that would affect more than a 1-2 million $ on the box office, wouldn't it?

Why does Leonard Klady say the critical response to CHARLIE was "mixed"? According to Rotten Tomatoes, CHARLIE is 83% fresh. That's the same rating as the critical darling BATMAN BEGINS, CINDERELLA MAN (considered the first prime-Oscar picture of the year - technically 84% fresh), and the same as the praised Mizayaki anim HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE.

Ryan

Calling the last Potter film a box-office failure. Sort of ignores the film had more competition in the Summer, and the other's were BIG FALL RELEASES. I also doubt that JK takes as much from the grosses of the Potter flicks in the same way that Cruise and the Beard took a big chunk out of WOTW.

Calling any Potter movie a box office failure is really not looking at the numbers. What were you expecting? Titanic? LOL!

My thinking is that the only effect the Harry Potter book being released on SATURDAY had was that it made the FRIDAY numbers larger than what they may have been normally.

A 20mil start for a kid's film which then grosses less than that on Saturday means that either Burton freaks came out for it on day one (but where were they for Big Fish?) or there was an abundant supply of little kiddies begging to see it Friday so they could read the book on Saturday/Sunday.

That sounds logical, non?

Wedding Crashers (i know this will sound stupid and obvious) would have had a better hold if it grossed what most online predictors guessed ($26mil), but I think a 40% decline is on the cards.

F4 held up only slightly worse than War of the Worlds!

You raise an interesting question: what was the deal with Big Fish? I would say that it didn't look like as much fun or as quirky as a traditional Burton movie - a little sappy with a narrative angle that wasn't easy to market. Anyone else have any ideas?

It had to deal with a limited-release schedule. Which, I always feels, hurts more films than it helps. So, Big Fish, got the Almost Famous treatment.

what was wrong about big fish? the movie got an oscar nod and made some decent money for a movie with no stars and opening in a tough christmas period.

Of course Friday's numbers were big. What do you think all the kiddies were doing while they waited for midnight to come?

If you think only kids are reading Potter then you really aren't getting out much.

those books were selling at the rate of 250,000 per hour. u think thats a failure? the 3rd movie made 250 million at the us box office. thats a failure?

Yeah, I actually second bob's comment (!) -- Big Fish made decent money considering it didn't have any big-money stars and came out at a fairly competitive time. It opened to almost 14, and made 67. That's a multiplier of 4.7; pretty good, although I guess I am a bit surprised that it didn't reach even farther, given its emotional quality. It probably turned a nice profit once it hit DVD, though.

In terms of money, Burton really has one of the best directorial track records in the business:

Pee-Wee: $40 mil
Beetlejuice: $73 mil
Batman: $250 mil
Edward Scissorhands: $56
Batman Returns: $163
Ed Wood: $6
Mars Attacks: $38
Sleepy Hollow: $101
Planet of the Apes: $180
Big Fish: $67
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory: Another 180 or so?

So, only two real financial disappointments, and one of those didn't get over 700 theaters, was a tough sell, got great reviews, and went 2 for 2 on Oscar night.

There aren't many directors with that kind of record -- Spielberg... maybe James Cameron? Anyone else who's made movies at a consistent pace over the past 10-20 years or so? (That is, not counting Lucas, since he's only directed 7 features, 4 of which were Star Wars.)

Anyone know what Burton's up to next?

I'm still trying to see where anyone called the last Potter film a "failure."

My point is that even great success can be seen as dissapointing.

martin on july 17th called the movies failures. i think 250 american isn't a failure of any size.

Bob, learn to read: "The potter movies have been less and less popular, to the point that, as Dave said, the last one was considered a box office disappointment."

I'm sure Dave would, if you asked him, go into more details about how it disappointed, but was in the usual ways still a success. That's what is interesting about the box office now. That movies like WOTW, or the 3rd Potter, can be big "hits" on one level, but disappointments on another. Potter book 6 made $100 mill. opening book weekend. When the Potter 3 movie only does $250 total domestic, yeah, that's a little bit short. With each Potter movie has been less and less box office. That's a fact.

I didn't say Big Fish was a flop or anything, I was just thinking that if Burton is actually as popular as people seem to think then where were all these people for Big Fish?

that was all.

However, Charlie grossed an extra million on Sunday.

Yes, Big Fish was clearly intended to be a $100m grosser and/or an awards movie, and it wasn't either. I have had a theory that when it comes to Tim Burton, box office is generally inversely proportional to the quality of the movie, as in the tiny gross of Ed Wood vs. the huge gross of Planet of the Apes. Obvious, a generalization.

Apparently Camel and Jeff missed my response about Big Fish. It had a limited release scheduling. Instead of opening it WIDE, FOX decided to do the retarded "Slow and steady going for OSCARS!" roll-out. I think, that the film found an audience on DVD.

It was a Sony movie, and like I think you said, the limited release didn't really work. Am I missing some other point you were making?

Oops. It's a Sony film. My bad.

Jeff, yeah, but I thought you just ignored it. My bad.

Just re-reading Mac, I think you are missing my point. You have a theory about Burton's films and how if they suck. They make some good money. Im stating. That Big Fish might have had a chance at the box office. If Sony used a better marketing and releasing strategy.

No, I got your point.

Yeah, i got your message to, but the fact that it was a limited release didn't mean jack when it came to what I was saying. Apparently Burton has this huge fanbase yet a seemingly very commercial film didn't at all catch on. It would seem that if Burton has such a huge fanbase (which some people seem to think he does) then the movie would gross a lot of money no matter what it's release pattern.

Just like Cameron Crowe and Almost Famous. Some people seemed to think at the time that Crowe was really popular because of Jerry Maguire but really he's not (especially considering AF was considered better than JM - not by me though).

I honestly can't think of that many (supposedly) mainstream directors who could get away with making a film and have the whole slow-roll-out and make it truly successful. Maybe Spielberg.

wow... that was really long-winded. Even moreso than I originally planned.

Why would Warner Bros. want to root against "The Island"? WB co-financed it and has the overseas rights.

"Big Fish" was handled as "Oscar Bait" -- opened in NYC/LA in December 2003, went national in January 2004. "Almost Famous" was largely ignored as it opened during the 2000 Olympics.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: