By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Potter makes 104 million USD first day

dtewi on 17 July 2009
tedsteriscool said:
The legs have been broken, it seems. It only pulled in 22 million yesterday.

How... horrible?

A 50% decrease. It's not THAT horrible.



Kimi wa ne tashika ni ano toki watashi no soba ni ita

Itsudatte itsudatte itsudatte

Sugu yoko de waratteita

Nakushitemo torimodosu kimi wo

I will never leave you

Around the Network
tedsteriscool on 17 July 2009
dtewi said:
tedsteriscool said:
The legs have been broken, it seems. It only pulled in 22 million yesterday.

How... horrible?

A 50% decrease. It's not THAT horrible.

Edit, my math is fucked.



FaRmLaNd on 17 July 2009

The 22 million was actually better then what many people were expecting. The drop is pretty much inline with the last film. Obviously its a rather large percentage drop, but it had an inflated first day thanks for the record breaking midnight numbers.



sguy78 on 18 July 2009
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
It looks to be very front loaded.

Unless it's in limited release, movies are always frontloaded...

Some more than others. The Dark Knight was a rarity in that it had a huge opening weekend, and still had tremendous legs.

I agree it had legs. They weren't tremendous though. After the 11th week, the movie was well out of the top 15 after 2 1/2 months. I'm not saying that it wasn't a major success, just that the legs on it weren't that strong in comparison to a movie like Slumdog Millionaire, which was in the top 15 from November until April.

 

Sure, there are movies with more legs. TDK had a rare combination of a huge opening, as well as extended legs. Also, the summer season is much more competitive than the January to April time frame. There were most likely much lower grosses for Slumdog Millionaire to compete with than TDK had against it, and TDK had a much higher gross without question.

I never questioned the gross of the movie. As I said, legs on almost every movie suck. The Dark Knight was hardly an exception. Considering that movie theaters look to get rid of titles as quickly as possible, it did pretty well for itself I guess. It's legs made the movie go from a 7 million dollar gross to over 100 million. That's what legs are. Not grossing almost all of the money during the first 10 weeks and then disappearing.

Well, it was one of those movies that had a progressively increasing theater count that didn't hurt. I believe it won the Academy Award for best picture if I'm not mistaken; which also adds to the legs during awards season. I'm not sure because I haven't paid that award any attention since Saving Private Ryan lost out.



FaRmLaNd on 18 July 2009

Slumdog got a significant boost from its academy winnings.

And yes I expect the last HP movie to make a billion ww.



Around the Network
sguy78 on 18 July 2009
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:
It looks to be very front loaded.

Unless it's in limited release, movies are always frontloaded...

Some more than others. The Dark Knight was a rarity in that it had a huge opening weekend, and still had tremendous legs.

I agree it had legs. They weren't tremendous though. After the 11th week, the movie was well out of the top 15 after 2 1/2 months. I'm not saying that it wasn't a major success, just that the legs on it weren't that strong in comparison to a movie like Slumdog Millionaire, which was in the top 15 from November until April.

 

Sure, there are movies with more legs. TDK had a rare combination of a huge opening, as well as extended legs. Also, the summer season is much more competitive than the January to April time frame. There were most likely much lower grosses for Slumdog Millionaire to compete with than TDK had against it, and TDK had a much higher gross without question.

I never questioned the gross of the movie. As I said, legs on almost every movie suck. The Dark Knight was hardly an exception. Considering that movie theaters look to get rid of titles as quickly as possible, it did pretty well for itself I guess. It's legs made the movie go from a 7 million dollar gross to over 100 million. That's what legs are. Not grossing almost all of the money during the first 10 weeks and then disappearing.

Well, it was one of those movies that had a progressively increasing theater count that didn't hurt. I believe it won the Academy Award for best picture if I'm not mistaken; which also adds to the legs during awards season. I'm not sure because I haven't paid that award any attention since Saving Private Ryan lost out.

Award season does contribute to the overall gross of a movie. But theaters also got The Dark Knight back in around award times as well. It's jump was from about $9k to $660k for a week and disappeared. While it does contribute to a lot of movies, but it doesn't always leave as much of an impact as Slumdog did. x.o Of course the 660k was impressive considering that The Dark Knight was already on Blu-Ray.

Also, a lot of movies that progressively add venues, tend to also lose venues in the process, or even people lose interest in them afterward from driving somewhere that actually does have the movie, therefore they will lose some of the potential gross.

TDK wasn't in the Best Picture category, and had a very limited return in IMAX theaters. I guess the point originally was that as far as Harry Potter is concerned, I doubt it will compare domestically with TDK. What's funny is that box office means less than it ever did as far as the bottom line is concerned for movie studios. The numbers for last year's box office was 18% of total revenues.



FaRmLaNd on 18 July 2009

I read a statistic that said the multiplier for most top 10 releases each year in the 80's was like 15x whereas now its around 3x.



sguy78 on 18 July 2009
axumblade said:
sguy78 said:

TDK wasn't in the Best Picture category, and had a very limited return in IMAX theaters. I guess the point originally was that as far as Harry Potter is concerned, I doubt it will compare domestically with TDK. What's funny is that box office means less than it ever did as far as the bottom line is concerned for movie studios. The numbers for last year's box office was 18% of total revenues.

It won't really compare. My main point is that blockbuster legs aren't normally that strong. In the 80's they were huge but the 90's and then 00's it became even harder to keep the worlds attention, especially with how VHS > DVD > HD > DD

Home theater definitely had an impact. Also, the theaters had a different kind of deal with the studios as far as the theater counts were concerned, than is now the norm.



Dinomax on 18 July 2009

Popular movie based off popular books makes money like last popular films.

Internet reacts with ANGER!



FaRmLaNd on 18 July 2009

The friday estimate is just under 27 million. Which puts it at $152,867,000 WW, which is very impressive considering the international numbers are still only the first day, so its actually doing a lot more then that.