This is topic Harry Potter turnout in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000388
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-18-2001, 01:19 PM:
Thanks to all the BREATHLESS HYPE! and CORPORATE SYNERGY! from Big Media, Harry Potter breaks the all-time opening weekend: $93.5M estimated from Friday-Sunday.The AMC Hamilton 24 in New Jersey has 5 prints (the 4 largest halls plus 1 medium-large hall). On my way in Harry Potter was 3PM sold out, 3:30 not sold out, 4PM sold out, 4:30 sold out. On my way out Harry Potter was 5PM not sold out, 6:30 sold out, 7PM not sold out.
Did any shows in your theater not sell out?
Ironically, on my way out I saw 2 shows of Monsters Inc. had sold out in the medium-large halls.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-18-2001, 01:49 PM:
It's amazing what 8000 prints can do for numbers, isn't it? 
I know of a LOT of theaters (nice ones too) that only sold out a few shows over the weekend. I think it would've been more profitable to run less prints over the long run. But of course then we wouldn't have this new "record", right?
Speaking of records, is anyone else here in agreement with me that records should be made on a "per screen" breakdown basis?
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 11-18-2001, 07:16 PM:
Yeah i think this kind of 'saturation' opening is going to get out of control. Studio's are eager to break opening weekend figures so they go wide on releases, it just means instead of spreading out the attendences, they are concentrating on as many screens on release as possible. In the UK a 'wide' release is about 350-400 prints. Harry Potter went out on over 1000. I've never been as busy before but i wonder how soon thats gonna tail off, pretty soon i guess. There's a price to pay for getting them all in quick, and that's big drops in next weeks figures. Remember that as the weeks go by, the studio/theatre split go's more in our favour, so it's not in our benefit to get them in so quickly! slowly, slowly, catch the monkey!
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 11-18-2001, 08:19 PM:
As far as records go...it should be strictly ticket sales not $$$ amount. The big dollar amount is a factor of ticket prices in addition to sales. But with ticket inflation, current films always get an edge over older films.Steve
------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-18-2001, 08:34 PM:
I too hate the idea of records based on $$$. Should be attendance only, what's the point if you gross the new "record" $100mil in 2001 versus $20mil in 1950? (I also hate it when they say someone's just beaten Mickey Mantle's "post season" mark, when everyone knows the Mick could only play World Series games wheras now you have up to 19 games per year with all the playoffs.) Apples and Oranges.
Posted by Aaron Haney (Member # 747) on 11-18-2001, 09:25 PM:
Check out this inflation-adjusted list of box-office grosses: http://www.the-movie-times.com/thrsdir/Top10everad.html
Notice the take for Gone with the Wind is still #1, coming in at over $1 billion in today's money. Beat that, Harry Potter!
Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 11-19-2001, 03:55 AM:
Yeah, well let's not forget that if you wanted to watch the classics like Gone With The Wind again and again, you couldn't pop the movie into a VCR or wait for it to come on T.V. ------------------
The man with the magic hands.
Posted by Pete Naples (Member # 761) on 11-19-2001, 09:33 AM:
I think the 'special previews' that we've had to endure here for the last week have actually done the figures some damage. A theatre I was servicing on Friday morning has been running these special previews the previous weekend. They open for a 1pm performance on Friday with a total audience of about 12 people, in two screens!! Why?? Because everbody locally has already seen it the previous weekend, which was sold out each and every show.
Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-20-2001, 08:12 AM:
The market for this film is pretty limited---when the kids have seen it, it's finished. Friends who have taken their kids to see it have said for adults its a snoozer. The distributors know that and have tried to maximize the take.
Posted by Bob Maar (Member # 763) on 11-20-2001, 09:32 AM:
My vote will be cast as Steve's. Only the tickets sold. Money although it makes the gross impressive, it's the rear ends in the seats that count. Then the next criteria should be staying power (legs). How many people will see this movie twice. People I have talked to tell me they will go and see it again...this is a good sign.
Posted by Greg Pauley (Member # 503) on 11-20-2001, 11:35 AM:
A large number of moviegoers stayed away this weekend either because of the crowds predicted by the media or because they thought every show was sold out. Seems like everytime you start selling advance tickets on a big picture the public thinks that all shows must be sold out. Sometimes I think we over hype some movies to the point were we scare people away opening weekend. I would have to disagree with the notion that the picture is going to drop, by the comments of the public leaving the theatre, I think the picture will have good legs. I look for this weekend to be big!
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-20-2001, 12:19 PM:
Forbes magazine hints that AOL Time Warner is swinging a corked bat and is waiting to get caught so the umpire can yell "yerrrrrr OUT!"
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-20-2001, 02:04 PM:
We were sold out Friday, but not Saturday or Sunday. Expect to do well this weekend too, but last night was no great shakes.I think that the "records" should be based on attendance overall, not just the opening weekend. When you're just talking about one weekend, it's too easy to tweak the numbers by putting out thousands of extra prints.
Word of mouth on the film has been good here. I had a guy on the phone telling me he heard that we were sold out, before we had even actually sold a single ticket! We've also had a lot of repeaters already.
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 11-20-2001, 02:20 PM:
For a popular picture, I'd much rather see multiple prints per site, rather than risk print damage by interlocking. Theatres also have the advantage of staggered starting times.I sense the repeat business will be pretty good. Good pictures will have "legs".
Is this a feature that is attracting people who don't go to the movies very often, like "Titanic" did? Are more families attending, rather than just having the parents drop off the kids?
------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 11-20-2001, 02:38 PM:
No, no John. We want one print per complex! That way the theaters with poor film handlers will REALLY shine and perhaps the customers will notice this and stop patronizing those places in favor of good theaters. 
Posted by Don Sneed (Member # 955) on 11-20-2001, 03:46 PM:
I was just in Guam, and the theatre I service there had Harry Potter on four screens & was selling out every show, I haven't seen that long of lines since "Jaws", well maybe Star wars....
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 11-20-2001, 09:17 PM:
Holy crap! Smokey and the Bandit at #53 of top money makers? John Wilson, did you hear that! HA ha haaaaaaaaa!
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 11-21-2001, 06:20 PM:
Boy, y'all weren't kidding about just how W I D E a release this film
was. About an hour away from me is a theatre that I believe was actually closed for many years and has just recentlyundergone some restoration for live summer theatre and OCCASIONAL films (weekends only usually months after the drive-in gets the film). Anyway, there they are, day and date, seven days a week. I imagine it's been DECADES since this has happened. Oh yeah, Regent Theatre, Picton Ont.
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-23-2001, 06:51 PM:
John -Surprisingly we've had very few "dropped off" kids. A lot of families coming together, and I've had quite a few adults tell me they liked the movie better than they thought they would.
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-25-2001, 12:13 PM:
First weekend was a typical stretch -- $93.5M estimated, $90.29M actual. Second weekend is at least a 40 percent drop to $53.55M estimated.The real story? At the AMC Hamilton 24 yesterday Harry Potter had only 1 sellout -- the 4:30 show. That was in a superlarge hall that didn't fill up till the last moment. Where did everyone go? Spy Game had 3 sellouts (medium-large hall). Monsters Inc. had at least 3 sellouts (medium-large hall). Heist had 1 sellout (small hall). Even the 4:45 round of Amelie sold out (small hall).
All that hype is making Harry Potter burn out fast! 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-27-2001, 01:51 PM:
Interesting thing... comparing this time period to last year's similar period... So far, "Harry Potter" has almost exactly mirrored "The Grinch" ticket sales in terms of "up and down" from one day to the next. Only one exception...our Thursday last week was lower than Wednesday, whereas during Grinch, the corresponding Thursday was up from Wednesday. Other than that, though, the up'n'down grosses pattern has been exactly the same. Overall, however, Potter is not doing Grinch-sized numbers for us. A more limited audience, no doubt (although I'm still surprised at the number of adults who are showing up).
Posted by Daniel Boisson (Member # 1027) on 11-27-2001, 07:53 PM:
the opening weekend for us sucked. it did really good, but not what everyone was expecting, i think only 1 sell out show. the next weekend, it was selling out right and left. monsters inc was selling out almost as well also. our theatre owner did really well overall though. now's when i start asking for new stuff.------------------
...My brain's always wrapped...
Posted by Charles Everett (Member # 889) on 11-17-2002, 12:12 PM:
Harry Potter 2 breaks records for hype but not for box office. WB estimates an $87.69 million opening. That number is sure to be revised -- the first Harry Potter was $93.5M estimated and $90.29M actual for its first weekend.The AMC Essex Green 9 is running only 2 prints since that theater has pretty large halls. Even with a nor'easter and a flood watch yesterday the Essex Green 9 sold out the 2:30, 3:30, 6:15 and 7:00 shows. The 6:15 and 7:00 rounds were sold out before I got there for the 5:00 show of The Ring.
To make things worse, New Jersey papers have glowing stories about kids playing hooky from school to see Harry Potter 2 on a Friday morning show the first day. WTF are the school boards?
Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 11-17-2002, 01:08 PM:
quote:
Notice the take for Gone with the Wind is still #1, coming in at over $1 billion in today's money. Beat that, Harry Potter!
I've always been dubious of these "adjusted for inflation" lists. While GWTW may very well work out to be a top grosser, it's tickets, even in smaller towns, were at much higher prices than the normal film. As a matter of fact, many of these films on this list were sold at higher prices, even outside of their reserved seat engagements. Theatres were charging different rates for ifferent films well into the 70's. Today there's more of an equalizer, since Harry Potter will be the same price as every other attraction in the same megaplex.
Actual number of tickets sold would be a much better system for a true ocunt, but even then, shouldn't one take into account the avaiolable population at a given time?
Posted by Jacob Huber (Member # 1138) on 11-17-2002, 03:27 PM:
For the last HP, we had 5 prints which pretty much sold all out over opening weekend, but then dwindled dramatically after that. This year, we again have 5 prints, with only Friday doing any real business. On Saturday, we had one or two sell-outs for HP, and those were the 3ish shows. I believe there were only about 40 people in the 10:20 showing. I was remarking to one of my fellow employees about this late showing turnout, saying "Harry Potter died fast", to which a few little girls walking by began yelling "Are you serious! How could you ruin the end for us!" Pretty funny.
On the other hand, our late 8 Miles both sold out (9:40 and 10:10), the 10:10 being in a theatre of comparable size to our HP's. The Ring also sold out twice, but in a much smaller theatre (150ish compared to 250 for HP). This over saturation for HP does nothing to help numbers, since there is a very skewed product/turnout ratio, especially the later shows.
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 11-17-2002, 03:51 PM:
Last year, with the first Harry Potter, the St. Peter Cinema 5 in St. Peter, MN was charging the $5.99 adult evening price for all shows, adults and children. This year, they're using their normal $3.99 matinee/child, $5.99 adult evening pricing schedule.
Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 11-17-2002, 04:25 PM:
HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) - 'Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets' proved more potent than previously imagined, pulling in $87.7 million in its opening weekend according to estimates issued by Warner Bros. The picture jumped from $29.6 million on Friday to $33.6 million Saturday -- a 13.4% boost compared to to the 3.6% uptick the first 'Potter' saw on its comparable day. Warner Bros. is projecting a 27% dip on Sunday to $24.5 million, which is equal to the first 'Potter.''Chamber of Secrets' is playing at a whopping 8,500 screens at 3,682 theaters, the widest opening release ever. The previous record holder was 'Sorcerer's Stone' at 8,119 screens at 3,672 theaters from which it bowed to $90.3 million. That 'Chamber of Secrets' debuted to slightly less is truly phenomenal given the trend of family sequels to have significantly lower starts. Warner Bros. was expecting an opening in the mid-$70 million range going into the weekend.
'Chamber of Secrets' garnered an A+ from moviegoers according to CinemaScore, which tracks opening night audience reaction. By comparison, 'Sorcerer's Stone' earned an A. Warner Bros.' exit polling on 'Chamber of Secrets' has 91% of moviegoers rating the picture either "excellent" or "very good." Parents and their children made up 50% of the audience, while 60% of moviegoers were under the age of 15. Gender-wise, the audience was pretty much equally split, only slightly skewing female. In all, 'Chamber of Secrets' was a near identical demographic clone of 'Sorcerer's Stone.'
Adding to the impressiveness of 'Chamber of Secrets' bow was the lack of the sheer media frenzy the first picture generated. Warner Bros., though, spent more on marketing than last time -- north of $40 million. The production budget reportedly came in at $100 million, but there is no studio confirmation of this yet. The first movie cost $125 million and grossed nearly $970 million worldwide ($317.6 million domestically alone).
For the full list of studio estimates, check out the weekend chart: here
Posted by Jennifer Osborne (Member # 1220) on 11-18-2002, 01:54 AM:
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets at Showplace 12 in Columbus IN
5 prints, showing on Friday from 2:30 to 10:30
Showing on Sat & Sun from 10:30 to 10:30
That's roughly 50 shows this weekend (give or take a couple)
Every show sold out except the 230 show on Friday and the 1030 show on Sunday. . . we're already selling tickets for next weekend. . . Welcome to the mid west Harry Potter.
Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 11-18-2002, 04:00 AM:
The final number I pulled up for the 3 day weekend is now $87.7 million. That puts it roughly $3 million short of the first movie. I guess I win that Coke I bet that it would not beat $100 million mark. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 11-18-2002, 07:53 PM: