OscarGuy wrote:The first Harry Potter had religious organizations in a fury
Only the really, really conservative ones though. The books, if you've read them, is very much an anti-Narnia. I can see at least a few mainstream Christian or religious organizations whining about this film.
Anyway, I expect Nicole Kidman to defend this film from the likes of William Donahue since she is, after all, a practicing Catholic.
The first Harry Potter had religious organizations in a fury and really, who listens to the Catholic League anyway? After all, kids will find a way to see the movie even if they are forbidden and I highly doubt Catholics are the largest body of movie attendants in the U.S.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
MovieWes wrote:Having just seen the final trailer for The Golden Compass, I have no doubts that we'll be seeing yet another film cross the $300 million mark by the end of the year. This could do Lord of the Rings numbers if they market it right (and New Line seems to be doing a good job so far).
Hmmm. I don't know. The impending controversy surrounding the series' anti-organized religion subtext will probably prevent it from being in the same level as Lord of the Rings.
Having just seen the final trailer for The Golden Compass, I have no doubts that we'll be seeing yet another film cross the $300 million mark by the end of the year. This could do Lord of the Rings numbers if they market it right (and New Line seems to be doing a good job so far).
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
Harry Potter is gay? ??? What makes him gay? The only thing that could make him gay is that I know what a Harry Potter is (though I haven't bothered to read any of the books, or see any of the movies in years), but I have no idea what a Halo 3 is. Actually, I don't think that has anything to do with being gay but, rather, just getting older.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
Also, there's the issue of Halo being stupid and Harry Potter being gay. There's a whole stupid vs. gay ratio, some kind of inflation there. There's really no way of knowing what waste of time is more profitable.
Yeah, I'm sorta on Oscarguy's side here. While the figure for Halo 3 is no doubt impressive, I think there's a big difference in measurement and results that make comparing the two somewhat ridiculous.
The Harry Potter numbers, to me, strike me as more impressive on a "gee wow" scale. 8.3 million copies = 290 million dollars? Even assuming 40% off, that's still 174 million dollars. And at a lower price point then Halo 3.
But still, I hate the monetary comparisons. Units sold should be the comparison (and even if the cost were less, 8.3m copies sold is still more impressive than 2.9m copies sold).
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I believe that would have been the amount had we all bought the book for full price. In the days of Amazon.com, plus the 40% off I bought my book for at Barnes and Nobles and Borders, I'm guessing they didn't make full price.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
is anyone but me stymied that they cited Deathly Hallows figures and then proceeded to discredit their own statement??? $290m in SINGLE-DAY sales for that book. Since when is $170m a higher total than $290m? Did we suddenly go through a period of deflation in the last three months???
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Also remember that by spending that money on Halo 3, they are OWNING that game. By spending money on SpiderMan 3, they are paying to watch the movie once. People are more willing to spend money when they get something physical to take home with them, and they get unlimited time with the game than they are for two hours of entertainment. People would not be playing this money for 2 hours playing Halo 3.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Here's another article that gives a bit more comparitive detail. Actual sales figures will be released next month.
Halo 3's first-day US haul = $170M
Microsoft announces that its 360-exclusive shooter is now "the biggest entertainment launch in [American] history" following a banner 24 hours at retail.
By Tor Thorsen
Thought the Halo 3 hype onslaught was over? Think again. After promising that the Xbox 360 exclusive's first-day launch would be huge, the software giant wasted little time in saying so. Today, the company announced that by its estimates, first-day sales of Halo 3 totaled $170 million in the US alone, $45 million more than Halo 2's 2004 debut.
The staggering figure presumably came from Microsoft's internal estimates, as it did not name a source for the data. Microsoft reps also had not clarified whether or not the figure was solely at physical retail stores or also included sales of the game from online retailers. "We only know the number is $170 million," said a rep.
If proven accurate when the NPD Group releases its sales figures next month, the number would give Halo 3 the honor of having generated more money in 24 hours than any other American entertainment property ever. The $170 million haul would also best Spider-Man 3's $151 million domestic theatrical opening weekend and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' first-day US sales of an estimated 8.3 million copies at a range of price points. (At the book's full hardcover price of $34.95, that number would have generated $290 million.)
Not so shockingly, Microsoft executives were pleased with Halo 3's performance. Throwing modesty to the wind, Microsoft Game Studios corporate vice president Shane Kim proclaimed, "Not only is Halo 3 setting sales records, it's also redefining entertainment. Within the first 20 hours alone, we've seen more than a million Xbox Live members come online to play Halo 3--that makes September 25 the most active Xbox Live gaming day in history."
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
But let's also consider how many people go back to see a movie multiple times in one weekend. Those are the same types of audiences that appeal to a game like Halo 3 (and the fact that it's Microsoft should actually make the numbers more suspect...money-mongers).
I said it was a significant milestone, but I question their decision to release monetary value instead of untis sold. My selection of WoW was that they didn't focus on how much people spent (the game cost anywhere betwen $30 and $60 for the collectors edition), but they released the 1.2m one-day sales...But think about this. Their North American subscriber base AT THE TIME was just over 2m. That's 60% one-day retention of business. There are some who are waiting to purchase the Halo 3 game until the price comes down, so I'd like to see what percentage Microsoft sold based on total sales of Halo 2. I think we'd see a much more conservative bias but we could see a 60% retention. Everything depends.
The difference is that gamers anticipate a price-challenge like that and can save up for it. Movies are a different story. They have always been considered a cheaper form of entertainment. If ticket costs were that high on a regular basis, you could bet that while a person might only see the movie once in the theater, they would still save up the money to buy the ticket on release day. So, regardless of whether there is a discrepency in prices now, I still think the comparison isn't entirely appropriate. Just like I think box office numbers should be based on tickets sold not money...then we wouldn't have people touting huge records and instead focusing on number of people going to the movies, which is a better indicative value than money made.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I don't mean to nitpick, but it's Microsoft, not Sony. Halo 3 is exclusive to the Xbox 360, which is Microsoft. Sony has the Playstation 3.
There's one major difference between box-office ticket sales and the number of units sold for Halo 3: how many people do you know that would be willing to drop between $60 and $130.00 for a movie ticket? If the tickets for Spider-Man 3 had been in that price range, I sincerely doubt that it would've made $151 million in 3 days. I guarantee that it wouldn't have sold 2.9 million tickets over the weekend and it certainly wouldn't have made $335 million in the end. I'd also be willing to bet that few people would be willing to spend that kind of money on the Spider-Man 3 DVD as well. If a movie ever came along that generated $170 million on its opening day, it would be one of the biggest milestones in history. Something of that magnitude would put it on track to break $400 million over the weekend and besting Titanic's total gross in one week. I can't think of one movie that could generate that kind of enthusiasm, even with super high ticket prices factored in. I don't even think that the new Harry Potter book could've done what Halo 3 has just accomplished if it had been in a similar price range.
The point is, there are lots of people out there willing to spend that kind of money on a videogame, but very few people who would be willing to do the same for a movie ticket. Don't ask me why. I own an Xbox 360, but I'll probably wait a year or so for Halo 3 to come down to about $30 before I buy it. That being said, I'm buying Grand Theft Auto IV on launch day and will gladly drop $60 or more for it, but that's the only title I'd be willing to spend that kind of money on. I'm looking forward to GTA4 more than any movie coming out in 2008. It was actually the whole reason I purchased an Xbox 360 in the first place.
Maybe World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade sold 1.2 million units on its launch day. I know that WOW is the most popular MMORPG of all-time. However, I don't see how that means the numbers for Halo 3 are suspect. Halo, like WOW, is one of the most popular videogame franchises of all-time and industry pundits were expecting the first day numbers to be in this range. It's also the first videogame title ever to be given the kind of hype that usually accompanies big movies. It has Burger King and Mountain Dew tie-ins, action figures, novelizations, T-shirts, and a marketing campaign to rival even the biggest Hollywood production. Not that I think all this commercialization is a good thing, but it's certainly something that hasn't ever been seen before with a videogame (probably because most people think of videogames as a lesser medium than movies or television and not worthy of the red carpet treatment). It's definately not something to scoff at.
"Young men make wars and the virtues of war are the virtues of young men: courage and hope for the future. Then old men make the peace, and the vices of peace are the vices of old men: mistrust and caution." -- Alec Guinness (Lawrence of Arabia)
And all I have to say is: What's the fucking deal with Halo 3? I've played the original games and I must say there's really nothing exciting or special about them. It's just another First Person Shooter with no really interesting qualities? So what if it has better graphics than its predecessors? Better graphics doesn't really mean a damned thing...Ah well, guess you have to give bored teenagers and those who were once bored teenagers and are now bored adults something to waste their money on...
And let's not forget that $170 Million is an easier total to meet when your one-person tickets cost $60.00... so for them to reach that much, they have to sell 2.9m units approximately. For SM3 to hit $151 m, it needs 15.1m tickets. hardly a worthy comparison as this article at least mentions.
Sony's full of crap too. Still over 3 days, that would be 5.0m tickets per day, so still not an apt comparison. There's also another factor. You can only fit so many people into one theater, but you can certainly box up more copies...and I didn't even count the $130.00 version...
If that accounts for one of every 10 sales, then you have 253731 sets of 10, which would equate to only 2.5m units. Nothing to shake a stick at, but...and I must say that one in 10 sales is probably not the right average as those who are devoted to the game will more likely buy the more expensive of the units. Also, the fact that Sony used monetary value, not number of units is suspect...World of Warcraft's first expansion, Burning Crusade, sold 1.2 m units in North America on its launch day. They didn't tout numbers, they touted units. So it makes me wonder if these numbers from Sony are legit or just blustering?
Edited By OscarGuy on 1190898052
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin