LOS ANGELES(Reuters) - The Harry Potter film, a hugely hyped fantasy about a young English wizard, weaved magic at the North American box office, whipping up a record $93.5 million in the first three days after its release, according to studio estimates issued Sunday. ``Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone,'' which reportedly cost Warner Bros. Pictures $125 million to produce and an additional $40 million to market in North America alone, surpassed the three-day record of $72.1 million held by 1997's ''The Lost World: Jurassic Park.'' Based on the bestselling children's books by English author J.K. Rowling, ``Harry Potter'' opened Friday in 3,672 theaters across the United States and Canada, and also in Britain where it is known as ``Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone.'' Warner Bros. distribution president Dan Fellman said exit polls of North American moviegoers were ``spectacular'' and the film played broadly to both parents and children, readers and nonreaders. ``It's just a win-win all the way around for us,'' Fellman said. Warner Bros. is owned by AOL Time Warner Inc., which used other units such as its flagship America Online business to promote the film. The movie also broke records for largest single-day receipts, as well as for Friday, Saturday and Sunday receipts. ``Harry Potter'' follows the exploits of a bespectacled orphan with magical powers who attends the Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Newcomer Daniel Radcliffe played the title character. The cast also including noted actors such as Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith and Richard Harris. Chris Columbus (''Mrs. Doubtfire'') directed. Warner Bros. was scheduled to begin shooting a sequel Monday, with hopes that Harry Potter will become a huge franchise along the lines of the ``Star Wars'' and James Bond films. REUTERS
No. For one thing, LOTR doesn't have as widespread a following like Harry Potter is. Don't get me wrong, I understand how popular the series is, but it really isn't as attractive to most people like Harry Potter is. Secondly, the movie is (by reports I've read) 3.5 hours long. That would make me believe that it would be nearly impossible to break the record, unless you had theatres that were exclusively LOTR.
Okay, two questions... One, is the Lord of the Rings movie going to be about the first part of the trilogy, or does it cover the entire thing? Second, why do they measure success of movies based on the dollar amount gained by ticket sales? Don't people realize that movie prices continue to rise over time? What does this accomplish? A more fair way to measure would be number of tickets sold. Even then, movie theaters are larger nowadays, so that really wouldn't be fair to older movies.
I guess you didn't go to see it then-my showing was sold out and there were probably more people over the age of 25 than not.
Lord of the Rings is in my opinion, the greatest tale in the history of the english language, even surpassing the lore of King Arthur, and Robin Hood, etc. Fans of the Trilogy should also read The Simarillion. It spans the beginning of the world to the Third Age. LOTR will destroy Harry Potter in the box office. If it doesnt, then I am going to sit down and seriously rethink my opinion of the American public.
I haven't heard even a fraction of the hype for LOTR I had heard about Harry Potter. Now I have't read any of the trilogy (did read The Hobbit in 5th grade) but it has always been interesting to me and when I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it. Still, 93.5 million in 3 days is mindblowing. I didn't think the movie was going to be overly huge (maybe 50 mil first week), much less absolutely shatter Lost World's opening. Lost World didn't even make that much in 5 days. So based on the fact that Harry Potter now owns the record by a wide, wide margin and was hugely hyped, I say there is no chance LOTR even touches it. I don't see how it will even beat Lost World, much less crush it. However, since I seem to despise Harry Potter's overall success, I will be rooting for LOTR, or anything else, to beat the record.
Well spanky for them. Bet they can't wait to see the next Rugrats or whatever Disney decides to churn out next. Nomar, I doubt LOTR will outdo this opening box office crap, but I have little doubt that it will be the better movie.
Huge first weekend...but how will it translate to future sales for word of mouth? Has anyone here seen it who hasn't read the books? You'll never convince me that the HP books are better than the LOTR books, but who knows how the movie is going to be? I have high hopes for it, but it's not like they can do the HP thing and put the whole book in the movie. This might bode well for it's success though... One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them. Hey, it could be talking about the movie and a movie theatre
Why? Have you even read any of the Harry Potter books? You obviously haven't gone to see the movie, so please explain to me with your infinite knowledge how you know without a doubt that LOTR will be a better movie.
Rocketman95- The shining defender of Harry Potter world wide. I have not read the book, I have not seen the movie. However I can make an educated guess that they will both not be as good as their LOTR counterparts. Why? Because Harry Potter is a children's book. As assinine and haughty as that sounds, its true. I probably will attempt to read a Harry Potter book, but probably put it down in disgust. I will rent the movie when it comes out on video, but I will probably stop watching in disgust. Just my opinion. Have you read LOTR RM95?
It's not just a kid's book. You need to pick it up and give it a chance...there's a reason why me, my girlfriend, my sister, TheFreak, Rocket104, BrianKagy, and numerous other adults without kids (or recently had kids) all have read these books. No, I haven't read the LOTR books, but I haven't bashed them or the future films either. I'm actually excited about the movies, I think the trailers look badass. The only reason I haven't read the books is for two reasons. One, that kind of stuff has really never interested me. Two, I actually picked them up to buy the other day, but you know what they say, movies are never as good as the books. I'm going to see the first one, then read the books...I think, I still wanna read them.
Box office gross usually doesn't depict anything other than mainstream marketing to a wide audience, and in this case the always impressionable youth. I'm sure the Harry Potter series is a fine set of tales, but truth to the matter is always in the film itself. Now, for a kid I imagine this was one of the most enjoyable films, and that shouldn't take anything away from the people involved with this. You have to remember though, it was created for the purpose of toys not art. Granted you can debate for light years over the merits of art, but in my opinion true art isn't field tested and packaged so a child can follow along. Anyways I guess I'm just angry that movies like Memento, The Anniversary Party, and Life as a House get stomped on while Tomb Raider, The Mummy Returns, and Harry Potter cruise to victory with style over substance. As for comparing Lord of the Rings to Harry Potter, whats next The Count of Monte Cristo vs. Nancy Drew? Lastly, Life as a House is in theatres now and I urge all of you to pay a visit. It is clearly one of the most powerful films of the year.
Nomar, didn't you like Tomb Raider? http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16814&highlight=tomb+and+raider
