DVDFile's Pessimistic Box Office Reports
 

Has anyone else noticed that DVDFile rarely finds any film to be a true box office success? They were very dismissive of profitable films like Kill Bill Vol. 2, Hellboy, and Troy, but their evaluation of Harry Potter's $92 million opening got my attention:

"[...]Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban narrowly defeated the $90.5 million the first film in the series [...] However, Prisoner of Azkaban opened on a record 3,889 screens [...], so ended up matching Sorcerer's Stone's per screen average. More troubling for little Harry was the quick weekend falloff for Prisoner of Azkaban: after a terrific $38 million on Friday, the film swiftly lost 18 percent of his audience on Saturday, and another 27 percent on Sunday, despite more playtime for kids out of school. Will Harry last in the hot holiday sun, despite stellar reviews? If the swift decline holds, Prisoner of Azkaban may end up with only a total gross of $225-$250 million and the lowest haul of any Potter film. Not a franchise killer, but not a good sign for Harry's transition to puberty."

Only $225-250 million (and this is the projection based on three days of wide release)? Why is DVDFile so hard to impress?

Probably from Slitherin.

Some people are insane. They want to bag on movies left and right. HP3 will end up grossing at minimum 600 million worldwide. Gee, what a failure. And not to mention it's a wonderful movie...but quality doesn't matter, all that matters is that...it didn't make 150 million on opening weekend. what a loser!

DVDFile is always pessimistic and overly critical about stupid shit, it happens.

My Guess, Prisoner of Azkaban will wind up with $285m domestic. And what a tragedy if it only made $250m.. so horrible :rolleyes:

Oh yeah, and the film has made a solid $205.5m so far worldwide.

Unsurprisingly frontloaded (released in Summer instead of a school week), it seems on track to do about the same business as Chamber of Secrets + a small bonus.

Whatever you may thing of their conclusion I don't think there should be any question about where they're coming from. The writer backed up his opinion very well. He's pointing out that the film only did as good and not better than it's two predicesors.

For a franchise you idealy want to see an increase with each successive film.

Really? Who came up with that idea? Rarely do most sequels outperform their predecessors, so I can't imagine any studio expecting that to be the case. I'm pretty sure the Hollywood logic is that a sequel will gross 2/3rd that of the original, and anything beyond that is gravy. Sure there's the occasional MI2 or Shrek 2 which makes more than the original, but that's hardly the logic of Hollywood.

For a third film in a series to make more than the first two opening weekend and stay so strong is incredible. Warner Brothers is no doubt ecstatic, and I seriously doubt anyone was expecting this film to make 120 million opening weekend until those first friday numbers popped up. Simple fact is...this movie is not a disapointment at all, not one bit. The fact that it is keeping pace with its predecessors is a hell of an achievement, not something that studios "expect" to happen.

Defintly the best come back I could expect... Bravo Sir, Bravo....

Doesn't sound very pessimistic to me. More realistic.

The first 2 Potter films opened in November. This one opened in June. Could that have made a difference???

Realistic? The first 2 have been a huge success and when the third one doesn't become the blucbuster the end all blucbusters it's considered a failiar? It will make at least twice it's budget in the US and you STILL consider it a failiar?

I've never liked dvd file and their reviewers.

And even if were to "only" make 225 million US, that does not count the future DVD sales, right? Not even close to a flop.

Made a difference in it dropping by 20 and 25% in its second and third days? That's whats really weird, even for movies that draw heavy in the first weekend you never see a Saturday dip.....bad word of mouth will catch up with you in week 2, but what happened here is a little out of the norm.

Next weekend should provide some better numbers for analysis, if it drops by more than 60% than its pretty clear that people weren't into the movie.

Believe it or not H'wood's model is spend 100% more on the sequal and they expect a 50% increase in total BO over the last picture. A perfect example of this is Charlies Angels 2. Sony spent double what the first picture cost and expected it to make half again more what the first film made. It did not. They rarely do, but that's H'wood's model.

Also I need not remind you that the third LOTR film outgrossed the first two.

No where in that paragraph do i see the 3rd Harry Potter film called a failure. So why are you jumping to that conclusion? All it does is point out the obvious... huge opening, a VERY unexpected drop off, and a prediction for its final take which is a dissapointment compared to the first two movies. Seems like a pretty realistic analysis to me, at least from what i see from that snippet.

I don't see the writer proclaiming it as a big bomb or anything or of the sort.

No, I don't see that either. It's just weird to respond to the third-highest opening weekend ever with, more or less "Eh, could be bad news."

Yes, some films do outgross their originals. LOTR, Austin Powers, Mission Impossible, Shrek, X-men. And yes, studios do in general spend more on their sequels. My point is, unless the studios are stupid and can't read, they can't possibly expect that every sequel will outgross its predecessors, so I just find it hard to beleive these execs actually predict this to be the case. I think it's more of a case where the studios know the film can make so much, and even though the profit margin will be lower, they pump more into it because it's a far more certifiable thing that it'll make a certain amount of money. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jurrasic Park, Batman, Superman, Beverly Hills Cop, Men in Black, Ghostbusters, Halloween, Jason, I could go on and on. They all follow the trend of having the first be the biggest, and having the sequels capitilize on that film to make more money. Sure it's POSSIBLE that sequels will outgross the original, but I just don't think any studio is under the delusion that it will defiantely happen. That would just be...bad business sense. Throwing twice as much money into something that is a fairly guarenteed return on investment, even though the profit levels will be lower than the original...that I think is more in line with how Hollywood thinks.

They most certainly do expect it to outgross the original. More money, bigger special effects, and a more mainstream plotline are added to ensure this and that's why a great deal of sequels do outgross the original, but usually fail to be better.

This new obsession over numbers is a really irritating trend. I'm becoming more and more sick of every weekend and every Monday people going on and on about how a film either seriously disappointed or exceeded expectations.

The fact that a film didn't do exactly how a studio expected only goes to show that studios don't really know what is going on, which is probably why we get stuck with so many crappy sequels (HP3 not included). I know that mking money is the bottom line for any studio interested in staying alive, but it seems like this is becoming some sort of sad little lottery. The people that put out films that do exactly as expected, WIN! Its just silly to me.

Couldn't agree more.

To me, its like a person on a diet who feels a need to weigh themselves every morning. The first morning they lose two pounds, the next day one pound, and next day 1/2 a pound. They get depressed that they are losing less and less each day, instead of considering the bigger picture that in four days, they lost almost 4 pounds.

Kind of been waiting to see if anyone shared the same view I did on this.

I mean if box office numbers are your thing then so be it but leave it at that........don't start nagging about how other films didn't meet their expectations just because the studios met theirs.........if ya get what I'm saying.

I'm sorry, but what exactly are you basing this on? In general, box office trends do not support sequels out grossing their originals. In recent years, there have been some changes in that, and some sequels have been outperforming the originals. And in certain cases, I imagine that expectation is there. But especially for high profile sequels where the first film made craploads of money, no sensible businessman is going to expect it to make more money. Sure, a great deal of sequels outgross the original, but the majority do not. It's become a more prevalent thing in recent years, with more and more franchises becoming that way, but in general the box office numbers show...sequels do not usualy outperform. They usually open bigger, and drop off faster. The films that have out grossing second films are usually the ones that follow up a more sleeper hit, such as the matrix or austin powers.

My point is, there is no evidence that studios expect them to outgross the original. When box office trends point to the opposite, just because they're spending more money doesn't mean they expect it to make more. It just means the studio is more confident that their money will be returned. Sequels, whether we like it or not, are a safer financial investment, as built in fan bases can really support these flicks. But as I said, it is far more common for sequels to gross more in the range of 2/3rd of their originals, and not gross more. That's not always the case, but my point is...Hollywood people can't be idiots. And only an idiot would suspect that every seqeul will outgross the originals. What they do expect is that they will stilll make a lot of money, and in that regard they're usually correct.

I don't know why I'm arguing this...it's a fairly moot point.

Here are some examples of some box office records. It seems that both you and Pants are right.

The Terminator - $38 million
Terminator 2 - $204 million
Terminator 3 - $150 million

Lord of the Rings
Fellowship - $313 million
Two Towers - $339 million
Return - $377 million

Star Wars
ANH - $307 million
ESB - $209 million
ROTJ - $252 million

Now let's look at sequels made for the sheer purpose of making money:

American Pie - $102 million
American Pie 2 - $145 million
American Wedding - $104 million

Rush Hour - $141 million
Rush Hour 2 - $226 million

Shrek - $267 million
Shrek 2 - $314 million

Toy Story - $191 million
Toy Story 2 - $245 million

Austin Powers - $54 million
Austin Powers 2 - $206 million
Austin Powers 3 - $213 million

Die Hard - $83 million
Die Hard 2 - $117 million
Die Hard 3 - $100 million

The Mummy - $155 million
Mummy Returns - $202 million

Of course there are numerous examples of films that follow the trend of diminishing returns. I'm doing this off memory so some of my numbers might be a little off.

Ghostbusters 1 - 215m
Ghostbusters 2 - 120m

Batman - 250m
Batman Returns - 160m
Batman Forever - 180m
Batman and Robin - 110m

Men in Black - 250m
Men in Black 2 - 180m

Raider of the Lost Ark - 250m
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - 180m
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade - 197m

Phantom Menace - 420m
Attack of the Clones - 300m

Back to the Future - 210m
Back to the Future 2 - 120m
Back to the Future 3 - 90m

Harry Potter 1 - 310m
Harry Potter 2 - 225m (might've been a lil more)

Beverly Hills Cop - 220m
Beverly Hills Cop 2 - 150m
Beverly Hills Cop 3 - 40m

Charlie's Angels - 120m
Charlie's Angels 2 - 100m

Jurassic Park - 350m
Lost World - 225m
Jurassic Park 3 - 180m

Fast and Furious - 145m
2 Fast 2 Stupid - 115m

Tomb Raider - 145m
Tomer Raider 2 - 75m

Granted, the trend towards sequels outgrossing their originals seems more prevalent in modern days (Xmen, Rush Hour, Mission Impossible, LoTR) but nonetheless, I think in general it can't always be expected. But I think the majority of the sequels outgrossers were in fact sequels to films that were in some ways sleepers. Rush Hour, Austin Powers, Shrek, Matrix, Terminator, American Pie, Toy Story were all movies that certainly performed well beyond initial expectation. It's no exact science but that's my take.