Weekend Box Office: Harry's magic does it again! [Archive]

The Clown Prince

06-13-2004, 04:23 PM

What looked like a race for number one on Friday has turned out to be a race for second. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban was the clear winner this weekend bringing in $35 million in it's second weekend and has a total so far of $158.1 million.

Coming in second was The Chronicles of Riddick making $24.6 million. Not very high since Universal is looking for it's first two weekends to do well in order to go ahead and greenlight the second part of the story. However, looking at the numbers for third, fourth, and fifth, competition can mean eating away at others numbers...

In third place was Shrek 2 earning $24 million and collecting a total so far of $354 million. It now sits at number 9 on the all-time list and also is now the biggest animated film ever beating out Finding Nemo and it's $339.8 finishing total.

Debuting fourth place was The Stepford Wives making $22.2 million. And debuting and rounding out the top 5 is Garfield making $21.6 million. So you can see that second through fifth place was all pretty close and that a lot of people went to the theaters this weekend.

Van Helsing has become the first big summer film to fall out of the top 10. It'll be gone off of the list all together by next weekend.

Coming next weekend are three new films to the already crowded box office. Opening this Wednesday is Disney's newest film Around the World in 80 Days. This is Disney's first live action film since the huge costly bomb that was The Alamo. "Around" had a $100 million plus budget as well and a lot of eyes are going to be watching to see if this one bombs or does well.

Opening Friday Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story with Vince Vaghn and Ben Stiller(again).

And finally Steven Spielberg's newest film The Terminal starring Tom Hanks.

Competition is gonna be fierce again next weekend. Here are your numbers...

1) Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban- $35,070,000 ($158,135,000)
2) The Chronicles of Riddick- $24,600,000 ($24,600,000) NEW
3) Shrek 2- $24,000,000 ($354,000,000)
4) The Stepford Wives- $22,200,000 ($22,200,000) NEW
5) Garfield- $21,675,000 ($21,675,000) NEW
6) The Day After Tomorrow- $14,550,000 ($153,156,588) 3 3210
7) Raising Helen- $3,821,000 ($31,400,000)
8) Troy- $3,465,000 ($125,652,000)
9) Saved!- $2,550,000 ($3,732,000)
10) Mean Girls- $1,500,000 ($81,318,000)
11) Van Helsing- $1,142,570 ($116,938,110)
12) Soul Plane- $944,000 ($13,020,000)

The Clown Prince

Nick K.

06-13-2004, 04:34 PM

Harry Potter does it again! And Shrek 2 is still going strong... Awesome! :D

PaQ

06-13-2004, 04:54 PM

Wow a lot more normal box office numbers this weekend.

As expected Harry stays on top. I also thought Riddick would be #2 since the trailers were cool, but it just barely was, and only made 24.6 .. so.. :shrug:

Obviously Shrek would stay top 3. And WOW Garfield a top 5 showing.. right there that just surprised me..

Looks like Van Hellsing and Troy are the first to struggle against the stiff summer competition.
Predictions for next week: Around won't make top 5, Terminal won't do well. The top 5 will stay mostly the same with maybe 1 movie dropping..

sag_2002

06-13-2004, 05:11 PM

Back to somewhat normal box-office totals this week, although Harry Potter and Shrek continue to rake in the bucks.

I expect Harry Potter to keep #1, and Shrek to stay strong. I expect "Around the World" to bomb, despite the star power that is Jackie Chan. "Terminal" shall also be crushed. "Dodgeball"... undecided, but it'll probably be at the bottom of the top 10.

wrenchien

06-13-2004, 05:16 PM

i'm surprised garfield made any money at all.

Chris Wood

06-13-2004, 06:46 PM

Yikes! Harry Potter fell 66%?? What happened? I thought it would hold up much better, as Shrek 2 has.

Also Vin Diesel's box office power seems to be waning. XXX did much better its opening weekend.

The Penguin

06-13-2004, 06:50 PM

Harry (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=112709) staying at the top was one of my thoughts on this weekend and Riddick (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=113348) wasn't enough to overcome the boy wizard. I thought one of the other new ones might take out Shrek 2 (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=111492), but people love that green orge.

Nice to see Troy (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=111102) is still making some money.

Next week's release could be at least fun (80 Days, Dodgeball) if not good (Terminal), but I bet Harry takes it again.

DarthGonzo

06-13-2004, 06:50 PM

Yikes! Harry Potter fell 66%?? What happened? I thought it would hold up much better, as Shrek 2 has.

Possibly because Shrek is a better "see again" kinda movie, while the length of the Harry Potter films makes that more difficult. I dunno.

Anyway, I HATE the fact that movies are ranked by their box office grosses, while it should be attendance.

Knight

06-13-2004, 07:30 PM

I guess there goes any hope of another Riddick movie and I liked "Chronicles". Figures I'd like something that doesnt have a chance of being a franchise.

Deadly Messiah

06-13-2004, 07:47 PM

I liked Riddick. I hope they make a sequel.

Now, someone explain to me whythere is a movie on dodgeball? This is the worst idea since Basketball.

Caffeine King

06-13-2004, 08:00 PM

Now, someone explain to me whythere is a movie on dodgeball? This is the worst idea since Basketball.
Basketball is fun and interesting (they've made lots of movies about that so...)

But Dodgeball does looks VERY stupid and I'm expecting it to flop.

Sorta surprising to see Garfield up in the top 5...

Funny to see that every movie in the top 5 made an estimate in the $20 million mark. :sweat:

Not surprising to see Harry Potter still up there at #1... :)

Nick K.

06-13-2004, 10:24 PM

I'm glad Chronicles did bad. It looked like a LOTR wannabe and worse then Van Helsing! 0_0

Deadly Messiah

06-13-2004, 10:29 PM

I'm glad Chronicles did bad. It looked like a LOTR wannabe and worse then Van Helsing! 0_0It has a simple plot like Van Helsing, but it doesn't mean it isn't good. In fact, I loved Van Helsing and Riddick. I don't see where you get any comparison to LotR though. The architecture in Riddick was excellent, the special effects were really cool, and it was nice how it kept reflecting back to Pitch Black. I also kept thinking about Macbeth during the movie, so that was enjoyable since I love Macbeth. Just by readin horrid reviews from the critics made me realize this movie was going to be good. Everytime they trash a movie, it is usually because the movie is good.

And considering the amount every movie made this weekend, I don't think it did bad. Not many people were going to the movies this weekend, especially in my area.

GL2k2

06-13-2004, 10:36 PM

Well, I saw Potter and Riddick this weekend, I wasn't impressed with Riddick. I predicted Potter would be on top again. I don't see Riddick keeping number 2 next weekend, that will probably go to "Terminal" or "Around the World in 80 Days" next weekend.

Also, I have to mention this. I saw the trailer for "Polar Express". I already don't like. Why make a CGI movie when there's nothing in it that isn't possible to see in live action? I don't expect to see that one suceed, and juding by the silence in the audience, I will go on record to say it will be a bomb. I'm routing for "The Incredibles" anyway.

Wounded_Dragon

06-13-2004, 10:44 PM

I'm glad Chronicles did bad. It looked like a LOTR wannabe and worse then Van Helsing! 0_0
LOTR wannabe? How do you get that? Because they hope to make a trilogy? It'd be closer to a Matrix wannabe (shooting one, then filiming the next two if success) than LOTR if you're looking at that angle. Maybe destiny angle? A lot of movies use that, even Shrek 2. Because there's a dark evil spreading throughout 'the land?' Because that's rather generic as well.

loyalheart

06-13-2004, 11:00 PM

Also, I have to mention this. I saw the trailer for "Polar Express". I already don't like. Why make a CGI movie when there's nothing in it that isn't possible to see in live action? I don't expect to see that one suceed, and juding by the silence in the audience, I will go on record to say it will be a bomb. I'm routing for "The Incredibles" anyway.
how many people in an audience cheer when they see a movie trailer? usually when i go people either keep talking until the actual movie begins or don't talk at all

Nick K.

06-13-2004, 11:20 PM

LOTR wannabe? How do you get that? Because they hope to make a trilogy? It'd be closer to a Matrix wannabe (shooting one, then filiming the next two if success) than LOTR if you're looking at that angle. Maybe destiny angle? A lot of movies use that, even Shrek 2. Because there's a dark evil spreading throughout 'the land?' Because that's rather generic as well.

Just the part where Judi Dench wals out in white robe and talks about some dumb thing.. It looks like it want to look like an epic story. Seems tacky, like Van Helsing and like Catwoman... ughhh...

Nick Biped

06-13-2004, 11:24 PM

Frankly, I'm surprised that Garfield did so well. I didn't think that would happen, especially considering the competition it's up against. Oh, well.

Kind of a big drop for Harry Potter, too. I didn't quite expect that.

Wounded_Dragon

06-13-2004, 11:47 PM

Just the part where Judi Dench wals out in white robe and talks about some dumb thing.. It looks like it want to look like an epic story. Seems tacky, like Van Helsing and like Catwoman... ughhh...
So, epic equals LOTR wannabe?...oy.

I thought 66 percent drop-offs were common for summer blockbusters.

Sigma

06-13-2004, 11:49 PM

Im a little dissapointed that Riddick didn't do better. I was hopeing it would pull off 1st place in the box office. Im sure the sequel will be greenlighted though with the popularity of the new game and DVD sales should be pretty good.

Nick K.

06-13-2004, 11:57 PM

So, epic equals LOTR wannabe?...oy.

I thought 66 percent drop-offs were common for summer blockbusters.

The setup of the whole movie equals wannabe.

Besides that, the movie looks cheesy, tacky, campy, etc.

GL2k2

06-14-2004, 12:02 AM

how many people in an audience cheer when they see a movie trailer? usually when i go people either keep talking until the actual movie begins or don't talk at all
Maybe it's all about where you live, but whereever I've been, I've heard people's feelings about a trailer. The Lemony Snicket trailer also played and people were excited, laughing anyway. People were also excited about Spider-Man, LOTR's, the final Matrix films and others.

Caffeine King

06-14-2004, 12:14 AM

Maybe it's all about where you live, but whereever I've been, I've heard people's feelings about a trailer. The Lemony Snicket trailer also played and people were excited, laughing anyway. People were also excited about Spider-Man, LOTR's, the final Matrix films and others.
I thoguht that LOTR and The Matrix series ended... :confused:

MajorTom

06-14-2004, 04:50 AM

I thoguht that LOTR and The Matrix series ended... :confused:
I believe he meant when the trailers for those movies came out.

Anyway, I still want to see Riddick. I'm sick of people who judge a film on its trailer. Judge it on word of mouth (not reviews).

-Major Tom

Deadly Messiah

06-14-2004, 08:24 AM

sun

06-14-2004, 11:03 AM

I haven't seen it, but I'll bet the story is good,,,without a great story, and or a great director, no outstanding movie.,no money..occasionally, public taste rejects a great movie, or elevates a poor one, sadly, this often happens...not a surprise, since the actual number of people going to movies, has delclined greatly..Yes, the grosses and total amounts of money taken in are huge, but the percentage of Americans going to movies, has declined, this is a fact.,,production costs are enourmous. Ticket prices are high. Sleepers are rare,,,,Risks are huge, as mentioned in the thread, the Alamo, lost a fortune. I like Jackie Chan a lot, I hope Around the World is does well...who knows...maybe the Sadow does..Stuart

Batman's Biggest Fan

06-14-2004, 12:11 PM

When Spider-Man 2 comes out I expect every other movie to be blown away

The Clown Prince

06-14-2004, 09:06 PM

When Spider-Man 2 comes out I expect every other movie to be blown away
Again, on top of the already crowded box office, two other movies open the weekend that Spider-Man 2 does. Spidey opens that Wednesday, but on Friday July 2, films called Before Sunset (http://http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/b/beforesunset.php) and The Clearing (http://http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/c/clearing.php) open. Don't know how well they will do, but maybe for their demographic they will do alright. As for everything else that has been in release for a week or more, expect numbers to drop.

As for audience attendance dropping, I can believe it. Because of that, ticket prices go up and for many other reasons that they do. Going to the theater to me isn't as enjoyable anymore. Too many people who act inappropriate(cell phones, chatting with the person(s) they're sitting next too etc.) With the turn around time of movies being released in the theater to when they come out on video being as short as they have become over the years, a lot of people would just rather wait. That's how I've become now with a lot of movies. I'll only go to the big special effect blockbusters now. All dramas and most comedies I wait until video.

As for Chronicles of Riddick, David Twohy said last week that Universal will make a decision after it's second weekend. Right now it doesn't look good, but who knows the thinking of studio execs anymore huh? :p Look at all the retarded movies that have come out over the years that one would think should never be allowed to be put to film. 'Chronicles' only got the go ahead believe it or not because of Pitch Black's success on DVD. If 'Chronicles' doesn't do well in theaters, maybe Universal will wait a little longer until it comes out on video to make a decision then.

The Clown Prince

GL2k2

06-14-2004, 09:48 PM

Before Sunset is a sequel to a cult classic starring Ethan Hawke. Therefore it has a built in audience.

Nick K.

06-14-2004, 10:38 PM

No offense JLU Kid, but you really are just going to have to see Riddick on your own. It is nothing like LotR, nor is it meant to be. I don't recall LotR ever having space ships, prison planets, guns, etc. And who cares what the dialog is, every movie has its bad dialog, especially when seen on a trailer. You can't let critics tell you how a movie is. Well, whatever floats your boat.

And Sigma, I am surprised it didn't make more either, but then again, look at how much any movie made this weekend. People just weren't in the mood for a movie.

A wannabe doesn't have to be exact. you can take Romeo & Juliet and add guns and weapond and call it Love & Violence and it'd still be a wannabe.

And I didn't look at what the critics said, I can spot junk pictures on my own... most of the time (Van Helsing was the only one that has ever fooled me :sad: ).

Wounded_Dragon

06-14-2004, 10:46 PM

A wannabe doesn't have to be exact. you can take Romeo & Juliet and add guns and weapond and call it Love & Violence and it'd still be a wannabe.

And I didn't look at what the critics said, I can spot junk pictures on my own... most of the time (Van Helsing was the only one that has ever fooled me :sad: ).
One word: poppycock

Seriously, you equate having the same storyline but with different stylistic elements as the same as two movies being epics but with competely different storylines.

Epics existed before LOTR and they will exist after LOTR. Just say you don't like sci-fi epics. Much more believable.

Nick K.

06-14-2004, 11:15 PM

One word: poppycock

Seriously, you equate having the same storyline but with different stylistic elements as the same as two movies being epics but with competely different storylines.

Epics existed before LOTR and they will exist after LOTR. Just say you don't like sci-fi epics. Much more believable.

I'm not saying anything about it copying the epic quality of anything. I'm saying it wants to have an epic feel like LOTR does. I could've said it's trying to be like a Star Wars wannabe too. The point is its a wannabe.

I love sci-fi epics. This particular film is a wannabe.

Failure

06-14-2004, 11:37 PM

I'm not saying anything about it copying the epic quality of anything. I'm saying it wants to have an epic feel like LOTR does. I could've said it's trying to be like a Star Wars wannabe too. The point is its a wannabe.

I love sci-fi epics. This particular film is a wannabe.

People, for the sake of this thread. Let it go.

Nick K.

06-15-2004, 12:16 AM

People, for the sake of this thread. Let it go.

We're having a debate. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Peter Paltridge

06-15-2004, 01:37 AM

how many people in an audience cheer when they see a movie trailer? usually when i go people either keep talking until the actual movie begins or don't talk at all
When I saw Shrek 2, everyone cheered for the Incredibles trailer. I guess what it really depends on is how many are in there.

The Penguin

06-15-2004, 01:39 AM

We're having a debate. I don't see anything wrong with that.It's wrong when you hijack the box office thread with it. Let's be honest here, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but what we have here is you saying "The Chronicles of Riddick is a LOTR wannabe." Then someone else says "No it isn't, here's why." Then you come back and say "Well if it isn't a LOTR wannabe it's still a wannabe something." You haven't seen the movie and don't plan to, that's fine. Others have, they liked it and don't see it as trying to copy anything. This isn't a debate—it's at standstill. The next step looks to be "It is." "It isn't." So...

For the sake of this thread. Let it go.

Nick K.

06-15-2004, 01:07 PM

It's wrong when you hijack the box office thread with it. Let's be honest here, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but what we have here is you saying "The Chronicles of Riddick is a LOTR wannabe." Then someone else says "No it isn't, here's why." Then you come back and say "Well if it isn't a LOTR wannabe it's still a wannabe something." You haven't seen the movie and don't plan to, that's fine. Others have, they liked it and don't see it as trying to copy anything. This isn't a debate—it's at standstill. The next step looks to be "It is." "It isn't." So...

For the sake of this thread. Let it go.

In that case, you might as well ask the people debating who cheeres during trailers to let it go, as well. Because right now it's "in my theater they cheer"... "in my theater they didn't cheer"...

Part of the reason we're even discussing Riddick is because it was # 2 at the box office...

The Penguin

06-15-2004, 01:32 PM

In that case, you might as well ask the people debating who cheeres during trailers to let it go, as well. Because right now it's "in my theater they cheer"... "in my theater they didn't cheer"...

Part of the reason we're even discussing Riddick is because it was # 2 at the box office...Wow. :rolleyes: I can't even figure out how to respond to this. Cheering of trailers is a sharing of experiences. You can't disagree that fans cheered for a trailer in a particular location.

I read the thead, I know Riddick is number two at the box office, but that doesn't change the fact that this "debate" you're having is going nowhere. I frankly don't care if you chose to believe that you know more about the plot of Riddick than those who have seen it, but this back and forth is going to stop and it's going to stop right now or we're going to have to do something more official about it.

Deadly Messiah

06-15-2004, 01:35 PM

JLU Kid, every movie is going to copy off another movie. A lot of things have copied Star Wars, while Star Wars even had its own influences with Roman civilization mixed with Tolkein, Flash Gordon, and other things involved. Everything that was made for fantasy stories has basically taken ideas from LotR since it was written. There is no way to stop copying because that is impossible. Let's just continue the debate in the Riddick thread a few topics down.

Nick K.

06-15-2004, 01:47 PM

Wow. :rolleyes: I can't even figure out how to respond to this. Cheering of trailers is a sharing of experiences. You can't disagree that fans cheered for a trailer in a particular location.

I read the thead, I know Riddick is number two at the box office, but that doesn't change the fact that this "debate" you're having is going nowhere. I frankly don't care if you chose to believe that you know more about the plot of Riddick than those who have seen it, but this back and forth is going to stop and it's going to stop right now or we're going to have to do something more official about it.

All I was saying was that people were debating you can't judge how a movie is gonna do by the cheering in the theater, and taht was going back and forth, just as you say the Riddick debate is.

I said what Riddick looks like. I never said I know more then people who watch the movie. If they say it's great fine, but I'm saying how it's one of those pictures taht wants to feel epic. I'll stop now since I can't dicsuss this anymore. :rolleyes:

Failure

06-15-2004, 06:22 PM

All I was saying was that people were debating you can't judge how a movie is gonna do by the cheering in the theater, and taht was going back and forth, just as you say the Riddick debate is.

I said what Riddick looks like. I never said I know more then people who watch the movie. If they say it's great fine, but I'm saying how it's one of those pictures taht wants to feel epic. I'll stop now since I can't dicsuss this anymore. :rolleyes:

JLU Kid, you seem to be missing the point... First of all, your first sentence isn't a coherent sentence, but I'm gonna respond to what I think you meant. Your latent tone can mean just as much, if not more, than what you actually say. You say the movie wants to feel epic but fails miserably, without having seen the movie. Then people who've seen the movie respond conversely. Then you respond, not by adding any new or compelling info, but by simply repeating what you think it looks like. You might not actually say you know more than others, but you're heavily implying it by telling them they're wrong, when in fact they're the ones who've seen the movie and have all the info.

That's not a debate. A debate involves new & valid information passing back and forth. You're just engaging in a battle of wills in a thread, which quite frankly, isn't the right place to do it. Nobody wins a battle of wills, you're just butting heads senselessly at that point.

Nick K.

06-15-2004, 06:48 PM

JLU Kid, you seem to be missing the point... First of all, your first sentence isn't a coherent sentence, but I'm gonna respond to what I think you meant. Your latent tone can mean just as much, if not more, than what you actually say. You say the movie wants to feel epic but fails miserably, without having seen the movie. Then people who've seen the movie respond conversely. Then you respond, not by adding any new or compelling info, but by simply repeating what you think it looks like. You might not actually say you know more than others, but you're heavily implying it by telling them they're wrong, when in fact they're the ones who've seen the movie and have all the info.

That's not a debate. A debate involves new & valid information passing back and forth. You're just engaging in a battle of wills in a thread, which quite frankly, isn't the right place to do it. Nobody wins a battle of wills, you're just butting heads senselessly at that point.

Well, I apologize. I didn't think I was telling anyone they were wrong. I just thought I was proving my point in the discussion. I guess it's senseless.