HP does not better in the summer than Fall

[Carol]

"Child of Midian" <md at ...> wrote:
>
> Just wanted to clarify in its own topic that the move for HBP from fall to summer was not to make more money as is commonly stated.

> Fall:
> 
> Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
> 
> Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,397
> 
> Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $261,970,615
 
> Summer:
> 
> Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $249,358,727
> 
> Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866 <snip>
> 


Carol responds:

We understand your argument. Some of us simply don't feel the outrage. Sorry. (Corporations do what's best for them. What else is new? I can deal with changed release dates just as I have to deal with changed deadlines in my work--or waiting to buy something till I can afford it or being unable to drive on a certain stretch of freeway because of construction. Delayed gratification, like mean teachers or unreasonable bosses, is a fact of life. No point getting upset about it. Global warming, yeah. Maybe we should try to do something.)

Anyway, I understand what you're saying. I just can't get upset about it. And I never go to movies when they first open if I expect a huge crowd. *That* I can't deal with, especially if the crowd is mostly kids!

But those figures are interesting from a different perspective. Setting aside summer vs. winter, I wonder why profits for PoA were lowest of all the films. I can understand a fall-off between SS/PS and CoS--it's a sequel, after all, and CoS is the least favorite or second-least favorite of many readers. An those films were only a year apart--not enough time to build up anticipation?

But why PoA, which many readers love (and which had enough time for a build-up of anticipation and, I thought, a great trailer)? Was it Cuaron, with his odd changes (Flitwick with dark hair and a mustache as choral director, for example)? Were viewers wanting more of Chris Columbus, who, whatever his failings, was mostly faithful to the books (the cheering for Hagrid at the end of CoS being a notable exception that moviegoers could not have anticipated from the trailers)?

Anyway, let's put the stats in order from most money to least, ignoring the release dates:

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
 
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,397

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002) $261,970,615

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) $249,358,727

Clearly, profits fell off significantly between SS/PS and CoS--to be expected, as I said, though in WB's view, $56 million is a lot of money. Then they fell off again with PoA, but only by $13 million. The difference might have been greater if it *hadn't* been a summer release (kids out of school with more time to see movies, but that's only a guess). Still, I'd have expected PoA to do better with all the flashy special effects. Maybe it lost younger viewers--too much violence for the under-ten crowd? (The basilisk wasn't violent enough? Or maybe *it* made parents decide that the HP films were too scary for their young children?)

But then, suddenly, the profits for GoF went up again. Like CoS, it was released in summer, but it made $29 million more (and $41 million more than PoA). That's a significant jump. Could it be that it appealed more to teenagers? Was it marketed more as an action or special effects film? Did the ratings play a role? Or the absence of Cuaron? (Sorry, Cuaron fans, but maybe he was wrong for this franchise?) The waiting period between films was a year and a half, probably ideal.

And then we get OoP, the least popular book for many readers (or second after CoS) getting the second highest profits, admittedly only two million dollars more than GoF, probably a statistically insignificant difference, but only $27 million less than the original film and up $3 million from PoA, the least popular film for reasons that I still can't figure out. (Did the shrunken head in the trailer scare everyone away?) To return to OoP, the waiting period was again a year and a half, which seems optimal in terms of viewer anticipation.

At any rate, if the trend continues, we can expect HBP (which has been assertively marketed, more so, I think, than any other HP film) to make about the same as or more than OoP. Certainly, those who liked OoP will want to see another film by the same director, and those who liked the book (I think HBP, despite or because of the Snape/DD scene on the tower, is the favorite of many readers) will want to see it. And those trailers really do make it look like a funny yet exciting (and, in places, dark) film that will appeal more to teenagers and adults than to children.

Ultimately, I don't think that the delay will make any difference. If anything, more teenagers will have a chance to see it more than once because of the weekday matinees (available to them in summer but not during the school year except during the short Christmas vacation).

Anyway, anyone else have theories as to why the profits plummeted for CoS, continued down with PoA, and then started up again for GoF and OoP? I think we should factor in the ratings (PG vs. PG 13), but I don't have them at my fingertips.

As for HBP, I think the long waiting period (two years) will actually *build* anticipation--if WB hasn't overmarketed the film to compensate. Have we actually seen too many trailers, tv spots, and posters?

Carol, expecting HBP to beat OoP but still fall somewhat behind SS/PS in terms of profits