The Agency's Posts

'Hatfields & McCoys' miniseries looks at families' bloody feud: Kevin Costner and Bill Paxton are among the cast of the three-part miniseries on History channel....
Read More>

'Men in Black 3': Third time has charm, but moves pretty slow ✭✭ 1/2: Josh Brolinimpersonating the youngTommy Lee Jonesis worth the price of admission to "Men....
Read More>

Late Night: Jerry Seinfeld's least favorite 'Seinfeld' episode: The most reliably entertaining segment on Bravo's hit-or-miss talk show, "Watch What....
Read More>

'Hemingway & Gellhorn': Love is a battlefield in the HBO movie: Stormy lovers Ernest Hemingway and Martha Gellhorn are played by Clive Owen and Nicole Kidman in....
Read More>

'Battleship's' real-life soldier Greg Gadson is action tested: While promoting the movie"Battleship"in Tokyo last month,U.S. ArmyCol. Greg Gadson....
Read More>

Review: Jack White magnetic at the Maya: By the end of Jack White’s concert at the Mayan on Monday, the Detroit-born,....
Read More>

'Smash' finale recap: Let Megan Hilty be your star: Just before the last episode of the first season of “Smash” aired, show runner....
Read More>

Ken Burns' 'The Dust Bowl' highlights PBS fall lineup: PBS has announced a fall lineup that will include a Ken Burns documentary and a British....
Read More>

Is it time to wash out Hollywood's mouth?: A backlash is growing against filmmakers' increasing reliance on foul language. It's OK to....
Read More>

Review: Coldplay goes big at the Hollywood Bowl: At the start of “Every Teardrop Is a Waterfall,” the last song Coldplay performed....
Read More>

How to parent like a celebrity: Alicia Silverstone, Gisele Bundchen and January Jones bring star power to extreme mothering. What....
Read More>

Review: 'Dark Shadows' is a lesson in Tim Burton's quirks: In 'Dark Shadows,' Johnny Depp is entertainingly weird as vampire Barnabas Collins, but director....
Read More>
Box office: How 'Twilight' and 'Harry Potter' are radically different
Posted on: 11/19/12
Share/Save/Bookmark
 

In many respects, the "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" movies have  a lot in common. They're both wildly successful film franchises based on popular young-adult books. They both inspire a cult-like, camp-out-all-night devotion. They both took a shake-it-up-approach to directors before winding down with a single filmmaker. And of course they both made Beatles-esque stars out of their previously unknown actors.

All these similarities would make you think that they're pretty similar phenomena at the U.S. box office too. But over the course of their lifetimes--Potter ending in summer '11 and theKristen Stewart-Rob Pattinson series of course wrapping up this weekend with "Breaking Dawn Part 2"--they've in fact behaved in radically different ways, ways that I'd submit suggest some interesting things about both the properties and their fan bases.

For starters, Potter opening weekends tended to vary in strength quite a bit, far more than "Twilight" opening weekends.

Let's take a look at each franchise's three November sequels. (It's a good test group, since it controls for many of the major variables.)

The "Potter" trio’s openings were all over the map. One film, 2002's "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," opened to a (comparatively) modest $88 million. Another, 2010's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1," opened to a whopping $125 million. And a third, 2007's "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," opened in-between, with $102 million. Overall, the variance is quite large--over 40%.

On the other hand, the three Twilight sequels that opened in November ("New Moon," "Breaking Dawn Part 1" and "Breaking Dawn Part 2") performed almost identically. Scarily so, in fact. The three movies opened, respectively, to $143 million, $138 million and $141 million,barely a 3% difference between the highest and lowest numbers.

Part of this discrepancy, of course, is a function of “Potter” playing out over 10 years instead of “Twilight’s” four. The swing between the opening totals of "Chamber of Secrets" and "Deathly Hallows Part 1," for instance, came over an eight-year period.

 But that's not always true. There were big "Potter" swings even over short periods —say, the $47 million between “Half-Blood Prince” and “Deathly Hallows Part 1” in successive years, or  $26 million between “Order of the Phoenix” and “Goblet of Fire” two years apart.

Have a look at another, slightly more sophisticated measure: the point in a franchise's life cycle when the series found the most success.

"Twilight" charts a pretty simple graph. The first film was the lowest performer--a $191-million domestic total--as some fans had yet to discover it.

That took a sharp upturn with the second film, "New Moon," which garnered $297 million. And  there the numbers stayed: "Eclipse" took in $301 million, while "Breaking Dawn Part 1" garnered $281 million. ("Breaking Dawn Part 2" will probably land right in that range, maybe just a smidge higher.)

"Potter," once again, is an across-the-map adventure. The second-most successful movie of the entire canon was in fact the first-ever film, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone," which took in $318 million when it came out in 2001. From there the totals actually dropped off (the immediate follow-up, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets," sunk to $262 million). They  wouldn't reach the heights of the first film until the final movie 10 years later, when "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" garnered a hefty $381 million.

If you were drawing "Potter's" box office totals on a graph, it would look roughly like a U, with the first and last movies the highest points, and all the others at various points below.

All of this adds up to more than just numbers on a page, of course. It shows that Potter is a far more dynamic franchise, audience-wise. It lost fans, then gained some back, lost some again and then picked them back up. As you might expect, this is generally how it goes with franchises that run a while.

"Twilight" is a much different story. The Stephenie Meyer-based vampire series established itself--and stayed there. The people who came out early came out later. The people who ignored it at the start generally continued to ignore it as the years moved on.

After this weekend, we won't see much of “Twilight” again.” The numbers tell us how we feel about this culturally.  There's a large, well-defined group that will really miss the series. And then there's the rest of us, who never really got what the fuss was about in the first place.

 
COMMENTS
Be the first to post a comment!


Post A Comment:




  • It's 2020! Start booking roles in commercials, fashion, films, theater and more with The Agency Online!

  • NEW WORKSHOP with Barbara Barna & Sean De Simone!

    Hi Everyone and Happy Summer! Sean at Sean De Simone casting and Barbara Barna are teaming up for a super informative and fun Hosting for Home Shopping workshop. A great opportunity for established or experienced TV Hosts and Experts interested in learning how to get noticed and how to get in....
  • MASTERCLASS W. Robin Carus & David John Madore

    A Special Offer for the Agency Community, from one of our favorite NYC Casting Directors! EMAIL FacetheMusicWithUs@gmail.com Or Eventbrite To Sign Up! Class Size is Limited.
  • Don't Fall Into The Comparison Trap

    Hi Everyone! As the second installment in an ongoing series of features by the Agency's amazing community, here's some sage advice from our own Regina Rockensies; a humble (& awesome)veteran we've had the pleasure of working with for a long time. Have an excellent week! : ) - The Agency....
  • One Model's Agreement

    Hi Everyone! As the first piece in an ongoing series of original articles by the Agency community, here's a short reflection on some of the values of professional acting & modeling that we can all keep in mind for our next casting. Good luck on your castings &shoots this week! : ) -....




 
home       castings&news       privacy policy       terms and conditions      contact us      browser tips
Official PayPal Seal