[HPFGU-Movie] Re: HP does not better in the summer than Fall

[elfnorc at voyager.net]

Very interesting explanation.  Have you correlated any of this
information with release dates of the books?

My favorite of all
the movies (and the one I saw in the theatre and in IMAX no less) was POA
even though it is one of my least favorite books.  For me I liked the
idea that it stood more as a movie and not a strict retelling of the
books.  The world became more real to me.  It was a more dark
movie and a very radical change from the first 2.  

Tina
hoping not to stay lurking as much

> "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 
> 
> 


Tina In Michigan 

All it takes to fly is to hurl yourself at the ground and miss.
Douglas Adams


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]