Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
November 23, 2009
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: *Blasphemous conversation alert* Twilight has just opened higher than any Harry Potter film to date. Is it fair to say that Twilight has caught or maybe even (temporarily?) surpassed the Potter franchise in terms of current pop culture popularity?
Josh Spiegel: In some ways, Twilight would always have a stronger hold on pop culture than Harry Potter because of the main audience it appeals to: teenagers, specifically teenage girls. That group is one of the big reasons, if not the biggest, that Titanic is the highest-grossing film ever. If there's a hard enough push to something, that something can benefit from the crazed fandom of these teens. I would argue that, when people look back on the series, Harry Potter will have grabbed popular culture in a stronger fashion, if only because the series is more accessible, in movie or book form, and not something that could be seen as something for squeeing young fangirls.
Kim Hollis: Long-term, I think that Potter will appeal to all ages and have a more timeless element to it. Twilight is a little bit more grounded in the 2000s, and as such I do think it will fall off at some point down the line. Years from now, the people who were teens will remember it fondly, but it will be the Potter books that they'll be happily sharing with their children (partly because they'll probably be a little uncomfortable recalling how ooshy that vampire and that werewolf made them feel).
Sean Collier: "Current?" Sure. The Potter books are done, and the movies are winding down. But in the long-term, Potter will be seen as more of a force. Those books not only dominated pop culture for nearly a decade, they had a profound impact on the tastes and reading habits of a generation of kids, and helped to steer the course of cinema for a few years to boot. Twilight is a very popular fad and nothing more.
Reagen Sulewski: It's possible that I'm the wrong guy to ask here, as I've never really appreciated Harry Potter all that much. But even as a non-fan, I see its greater quality loud and clear. I mean, find me one critic out there that thinks Twilight is a better series. I don't think Potter fans have anything to worry about in the long term.
Jim Van Nest: I think it's all about the target audience. One of the things JK Rowling did so masterfully was she wrote her books to a different audience. The first book, Harry was 10...and the book was written for a 10 year old to read. As Harry got older, the books were written "older". What this did, however, was skew Potter's audience much younger than Twilight's audience. Overall, the quality of Potter will outshine Twilight and when it comes time...if they were to put Deathly Hallows, Part 2 up against Breaking Dawn, I think Potter would win out. Well...I would hope Potter would win out.
Jason Lee: The difference between the two movie franchises, for me, is that Potter appeals to anyone looking for a magical, well-told, inventive, and engaging story . . . while Twilight aims squarely to inflame the hormones of young women. I mean, with New Moon, you get Lautner and Patterson shirtless - a lot. And you knew it. From every trailer. And magazine. With Potter, you get some fantastic British actors, a great story, some innovative visuals...there's inevitably going to be a big difference between the rabid passions of each respective audience.
Tom Macy: Well, currently how could you argue otherwise? Pop culture items have a limited shelf life; Harry Potter was always going to be out obsessed by something. Twilight, at this moment in time, is top dog. Still, Harry has demonstrated incredible staying power and has made a much more significant and lasting impact on, well, the world than Twilight has. I think Potter, while, not being a Star Wars level phenomenon, is certainly hovering around that status while Twilight is still in the fad mode. But perhaps not for long.
Brett Beach: Blasphemous (cough, grumble) but true. The sense I get is that the Harry Potter books are still being viewed as "kid's movies" (?) and the cast has pretty much kept itself out of the media and tabloid spotlight in the interim. Thus, there is nothing exciting to keep scores of internet blogs and entertainment columns churning. The equal sense I get is that for the last 365 days there have been 24/7 endless stories about the cast of the Twilight saga: "who's dating who, who's drinking what and partying where" and that they have been on a combination never-ending production schedule/world media tour to stoke these fires. For the moment it's Robert Pattinson's world and we're just the gel in his hair out in the wind along for the ride.
Michael Lynderey: I'd say Twilight's surpassed Potter at the moment, but just barely. The total gross of the movies becomes important here, and I kind of doubt that New Moon is going to finish all that much higher than the Half-Blood Prince's $300 million or so. That said, Twilight at its prime would not have one-upped Potter's best years - if the first Harry Potter movie was released today, it would probably open better than New Moon, considering inflation and the increased must-see-on-opening-day habits of the general population. Looking at the big picture, though, both book series have ended and both film franchises have "only" two movies left to release. Five years from now, both Potter and Twilight are going to be on a slow but unpreventable de-acceleration.
David Mumpower: I look at this as a similar situation to music sales. If a relatively new artist has one compact disc that out-sells U2, that doesn't make them better than U2. If it keeps happening for three or four straight CDs, then the thought process is validated. Until then, we're early with such speculation. What I can say for certain is that the line of demarcation for New Moon is $317.6 million. That is the highest domestic box office take for any film in the Harry Potter franchise; in this case, it's the first title, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. If you want to bring that 2001 release up to current 2009 ticket pricing, the number shoots all the way up to $407.5 million. So, New Moon still has quite a bit of work to do. What we have witnessed this weekend is that Twi-Hards are a passionate group who will rush out to see their beloved characters on opening weekend to a degree that Potter fans never have. It's still too early to say that Twilight as a movie franchise has a stronger performance than Potter has to date, though.
Why can't we choose Michael Sheen?
Kim Hollis: Whose movie career do you think is most likely to exist beyond the Twilight universe - Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart or Taylor Lautner?
Josh Spiegel: Kristen Stewart, no question. I got subjected to a preview for Pattinson's next film, which looked pretty mediocre, even to my Twilight-loving wife; Stewart has been working for longer, and is more visible as a good actress, this series aside. Pattinson is...not a good actor. Granted, Stewart's pretty awful in this movie, but in films such as Adventureland, she's proved her worth. Lautner is not an actor I see going too far, buff body aside. Stewart could be as solid an actress as Jodie Foster was at this age.
Sean Collier: I'd be shocked if any of them lasted. Stewart if any of them.
Reagen Sulewski: I'll concur on Stewart. She's the only one that had a significant career beforehand (no, I don't count Sharkboy) although the Foster comparison is wildly optimistic. Pattison seems hopelessly trapped in this role even though he's probably the least impressed by the series out of all the leads. Irony is pretty ironic sometimes.
Tim Briody: Kristen Stewart, if she could stop looking bored and/or stoned every time I read about her in the press.
Jason Lee: They're all pretty cardboard to me. I doubt any one of them goes on to have significant BO success. To stay on the topic of Potter for just a while longer, I could easily see Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe having long, celebrated careers. The difference for me is that the Potter actors demonstrate more sheer acting skill in their blockbuster franchise than the Twilight kids have.
Max Braden: I sense from Stewart that she wants the career more than any of them, and I'd bet on her before I bet on Megan Fox. Pattinson suffers from the Radcliffe and Tobey Maguire situation of being wildly popular in their signature roles but not exactly a true draw. On the other hand Pattinson could turn weird into an asset along the lines of Johnny Depp. In envision Lautner's career tracking that of Mario Lopez.
Tom Macy: Thinking rationally, I say Kristen Stewart. She's had memorable roles in high profile releases such as the critically acclaimed (for reasons I don't understand) Into the Wild and the comedy Adventureland. She's got the benign cute girl next door thing going, which luckily for her is the most common female archetype movies. Plus, the Twilight stigma seems likely to attach itself more to smoking hot dudes than Stewart, making it easier for her for to distance herself from the franchise.
However, my gut just says Robert Pattinson. But people are freaking nuts about this guy! If someone that odd looking (I'm not alone right? He's not an attractive man) can make girls that crazy, it's something more than a momentary Freddie Prince Jr. teen idol thing (I used to go bananas whenever I saw a picture of him). People are going to keep shelling out cash for Pattinson's movies regardless of quality. Oh wait, that's already happened.
Brett Beach: I find it hurts my eyes (in a bad, painful eye) to look at Robert Pattinson too long and I don't think he has much to offer as an actor at the moment so I am going to say, post-Twilight, he becomes next decade's Michael Schoeffling. Taylor Lautner is buff and if he wants to keep taking that shirt off, he should go right ahead. Potential action franchise in his future. Kristen Stewart seems to be the one everybody loves to hate. Well, I love to love her. I think she's most interesting when she plays up her androgynous unconventional beauty and I am very excited to catch her in The Runaways. The Twilight films seem to ask the least of her which may be why it's easy for the female fans to imagine themselves up there on the screen instead of her? I also like that, along with Anne Hathaway, Stewart is someone who doesn't make it easy to like her up on screen, but she remains compelling nonetheless. She gets crucified a lot for non-acting or a small bag of tricks but I think people are missing a lot of what she accomplishes with subtlety. Out of these three she has a career before and after and I am willing to venture, an Oscar nom by her 30th.
Michael Lynderey: I'd say Kristen Stewart. Robert Pattinson, like many English actors, has a knack for playing historical characters in period pieces that usually don't add up to much box office - I present his roles as Salvador Dali (Little Ashes) and, post-Twilight, Guy de Maupassant (in the upcoming Bel Ami) as evidence. Something tells me this will be the general course of his career. It's kind of hard to pigeonhole Taylor Lautner - he's the youngest of the bunch, still a teenager - and it's not real clear what he'll be up to a few years from now. As for Stewart, she came into the Twilight movies with the most acting experience - the biggest variety of roles, which is more key - and I suspect she'll keep on that road after Twilight is finished, for a long time. After all, she's generally been considered a good actress, and that's exactly what she'll continue to be.
Pete Kilmer: Stewart without a doubt wants to be the indie film princess of the moment. But will she be able to do it? I don't know. Pattison will forever be Edward unless he undergoes some kind of career shift to get into Hugh Grant's territory for romantic movies.
Kim Hollis: I'm just going to go with none of them. We'll be watching a "Where Are They Now?" special about all three in a decade.
David Mumpower: I like at this as an upside vs. productivity discussion. The reality is that Kristen Stewart is already one of the most successful women in the history of the industry in terms of box office performance. Re-read that sentence and take a moment to weigh the ramifications if you want. No matter what you think of her, she is going to be get cast in a couple of films a year for the next 25 years as long as she doesn't become a burnout like Lindsay Lohan or a brat like Shannen Doherty. As long as she avoids behavioral issues and addictions, she's not just employable but a highly sought out commodity. It is what it is.
The men, on the other hand, are trickier to gauge. This is a phallocentric industry for the most part, meaning that men get paid better and offered parts with better potential as a rule. Both Pattinson and Lautner have been given the advantage that they embody characters that women love. They too have that asset in their pockets as they move forward in their careers. Lautner in particular is intriguing in that he isn't ridiculous looking (I know he's popular but if you just look at Robert Pattinson, he is a goofy looking dude). Lautner is also still young enough to be trained at his craft by the best in the world earlier than most professionals in the industry were. He should be doing a high school musical of High School Musical. Instead, he's just starred in the third biggest opener of all time. If he takes this opportunity seriously, he could develop into the next Tom Cruise. Alternately, he can relish the celebrity lifestyle like so many child actors do (he still qualifies for that term for another few months) and wash out. So, I see Stewart as the safest pick but Lautner has the most upside as a star if he takes his craft seriously.