You know how many under-10 kids I saw at PotC1? Yeah, those kids are still gonna be there this time around and will actually be more of the PG-13 age. And in addition, I'm sure there'll be plenty more under-10 kids that will be there as well. I know of 5-year-olds who went to see PotC1 without any problems at all.

A PG for PotC2 would do it in; it'd be too kosher. An R for PotC2 would be way too extreme for a Disney-branded movie. PG-13 gives it just the right amount of action to keep both adults and kids interested.

And you'd be surprised how many LOTR fans... and HP fans... and SW fans are also PotC fans. There's quite a bit of cross-over going on between the fandoms, and that means a lot of the audience for the major movies like LOTR, HP, and SW are also gonna be there to fuel PotC.

Joy

And people: Shrek 1 was a HUGE hit. Yes, it didn't cross 300m(though adjusted its close to it).

But it was the no. 1 movie in summer 2001, probably one of the most crowded summers ever.

Just look at the competition Shrek had to face: Mummy Returns before it and Peral Harbor right after it. It came out at top WITH that competition.

So yes I think its safe to say that Shrek was a HUGE hit like the original POTC was.

Exactly. It actually is that simple.

LOTR is honestly one of the worst comparison to make. First, the time difference between the LOTR films was 1 year, 3 year for POTC2. Second, LOTR was one that had an established fanbase that just grew after the original. POTC never had an established fanbase. Third, LOTR was one where the sequels were already planned/had already been made before FOTR. Not the case with POTC. I could go on and on.

Honestly, the only difference between Shrek 2 & POTC is that one is animated and one isn't.

Aside from the already stated that both were movies that had bigger than expected openings with bigger than expected legs, they have other simliraties as well. The demographics that they play to are simliar. Both have wide demographics, with Shrek beign more focused on kids and POTC more foucsed on teens. Both got amazing DVD sales. Both have a 3-year wait between original and sequel. Both are being released on the same release date that the original was released.

An LOTR comparision can be made to POTC3 because POTC3 is coming right after POTC2, like the LOTR series was done.

But for POTC2, the comparison is Shrek 2.

I like how the people against Pirates say, "oh you can't use LOTR, Matrix, or Shrek" but HP, Spider-man, and AOTC can be used.

Honestly, the only difference between Shrek 2 & POTC is that one is animated and one isn't.

I'll tell you another reason that POTC won't make more than the original, and that's because I said it won't. My gut tells me it won't and that is all I need to know.

And one's almost an hour longer than the other.

I see what Rawsaw's trying to say.

Lord of the Rings is the only example of a $300 million grosser where the sequel went on to gross more. Invariably, blockbusters of that size have saturated their audience and the sequels have gone on to do less.

Shrek, The Matrix, The Mummy and Rush Hour, etc... it could be said, underperformed in relation to their sequels. The sequels developed a bigger audience in the time between releases, and that audience turned out in droves for the sequels.

I think Pirates has a good chance to outdo its predecessor, but for a blockbuster of its size - and incredible legginess - there's no precedent for it doing so. The only film that's managed the feat is The Two Towers, and that was an entirely different beast.

Shrek and its sequel are not really analogous to this situation.

well see. this film will either go 100/350 if its liked, or 200/275 if word of mouth isnt good. superman 40 million + second will keep this from breaking the record, ive decided. plus star wars 1, spiderman all made 400 million...and im sorry but as bad as it sounds, its much easier to make 300 million then it is 400 million. when a film grosses 400 million, its very hard for a sequel to make that back just because requires extraordinary legs and a monsterous-90 million + opening. pirates 1got 300 million-a huge take-but not nearly big enough for peopel to say "thats alot of money, i dunno if pirates 2 can make it there" cause is reality piates 2 will have 300 million with 20-25 days of release. episode 3 got it 300 million in 17 days.
so basicaly ill say the chances of pirates not passing the original are extremely unlikely because honestly, for a big huge film like this, 300 million really isnt that much money. for films like this or star wars or spiderman, saying 300 million is too much is just absurd, cause for these films no gross is too much. the question just is by how much. it could 5 million or it could 75 million.



whats against it? its opening weekend alone should gaurentee 300 million.

500m+

Now there is an intelligent, well thought out WW gross. One question, is that a 50/50 split? I would think more of a 240 domestic / 260 overseas.....

bleh, to much under predicting in this thread for BJ, looks a lot like the Shrek 2 threads before is totaly hammered all expectations

Hey, we all know that PC2 will be huge. Heck with the 270million its going to make + the 30million extra tickets you'll buy its almost a lock for that 500mil...

Hey,,I'm not saying it wont happen, its just unlikely. Only one time a film made over 300mil out of the gate and the second made more. At least to me, that really says something. If PC2 were to be the first big release in May and had a good 2 weeks with no other tentpole pics coming out, I'd say yes it very well could crack the first ones take.
--------------------

1 Titanic Par. $600,788,188 1997
2 Star Wars Fox $460,998,007 1977^
3 Shrek 2 DW $441,226,247 2004
4 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial Uni. $435,110,554 1982^
5 Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace Fox $431,088,301 1999
6 Spider-Man Sony $403,706,375 2002
7 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Fox $380,270,577 2005
8 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King NL $377,027,325 2003
9 Spider-Man 2 Sony $373,585,825 2004
10 The Passion of the Christ NM $370,782,930 2004^
11 Jurassic Park Uni. $357,067,947 1993
12 The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers NL $341,786,758 2002^
13 Finding Nemo BV $339,714,978 2003
14 Forrest Gump Par. $329,694,499 1994
15 The Lion King BV $328,541,776 1994^
16 Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone WB $317,575,550 2001
17 The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring NL $314,776,170 2001^
18 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones Fox $310,676,740 2002^
19 Return of the Jedi Fox $309,306,177 1983^
20 Independence Day Fox $306,169,268 1996
21 Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl $305,413,918


Only 21 films cracked 300mil,,, out of those only one sequel out did the first.

hehe. Well, percentagewise, yes, but in raw dollars, I think it can increase just as much.



Well, it used to be that some sequels would beat their originals, but it's become more common this decade. Only five films have started franchises by earning over 300m. Jurassic Park and Star Wars can't be compared with films today because they were released before the current frontloaded/DVD age. Take Star Wars: In 1977 it actually earned less then 200m, it only reached 300m with rereleases over the next couple years. So, simply having a DVD release like you have today would have made it one of the franchises with an increase for the sequel. However, it was a massive WOM hit with a very long run. Today films like that tend to become bigger hits on DVD. They are not the biggest blockbusters. Back then all the blockbusters had to have the WOM to hold up very well, they couldn't get the high numbers otherwise. WOM hits lose theaters more quickly then they did 20 years ago, and people more often wait for the DVD. So, today a film like Star Wars would not be nearly as big. However, the sequel would be just as huge by today's standards as it was back then.

Star Wars type franchise if released this decade:
First film: 200m
Second film: 500m
Third film: 520m

The first would open relatively small, but have massive legs. The sequels would each break almost every record in existence.

Now, the other 3 300m films to start franchises are Harry Potter, Spider-man, and LOTR. People make LOTR out to be special as a 300m franchise to have the sequels earn more. Well, it's only one of 5 to have ever existed, and one of 3 in the DVD era! However, all three were also hyped and anticipated films with huge fanbases even before release. If you look at the list of sequels that earned more than originals, they are almost all sleeper hits. POTC fits with Rush Hour, American Pie, The Bourne Supremacy, Meet the Parents etc., not LOTR, Harry Potter, and Spider-man. The thing amazing about LOTR IMO is that it was a fanboy franchise from the start, yet it managed to increase its grosses by adding more fans. The only others I know of to do this were X-Men and Resident Evil. However, while they both had fanbases, and were therefore frontloaded like sequels, both of them were surprise hits that were under-advertised and had little hype relative to BO. LOTR is something else entirely. It's almost like the first film was a sequel, since it had fans and hype before. So, the second film was like having the third in a franchise increase, which is rare. ROTK was like having the fourth increase, which has only been done by Nightmare on Elm Street. Now, that is amazing.

In any case, I don't think being a 300m franchise will hold back POTC since I don't buy into the arguement that it causes a sequel to earn less. There has never been a sequel to a 300m film that was not heavily hyped or anticipated. Nemo was the only other 300m film in the DVD era to reach 300m without already having a massive fanbase before release. In other words, it is the only other 300m WOM/sleeper: the type of film to have a sequel that increases over its gross. There is no fair comparision for POTC 2 among 300m+ franchises.

Let me put it another way. Say Shrek earned a bit more: 305m, like POTC. Perhaps it were a bit more heavily marketed as Dreamworks CG films now are. Whatever the case, if Shrek earned more, would it have hurt Shrek 2? Of course not! Shrek 2 would still stand at 442m, maybe even slightly higher. So, Shrek 2 proves that a 300m film can have a sequel earn far more. Meanwhile, for a 300m+ franchise with an original that was a sleeper/WOM hit, there is no evidence that it can't increase and can't increase greatly.

BTW, POTC had better WOM then Shrek, and a wider audience.

Furthermore, to compare WOM between FOTR and POTC:
FOTR: 10th all-time at Yahoo; A- at cinemascore ; 4.61 at movie.com
POTC: 11th all-time at Yahoo; A at cinemascore ; 4.71 at movie.com

IMDB and all others I know of don't reflect the mainstream audience. So you see, POTC had just as good WOM if not better then FOTR. If that franchise can have an increase despite not appealing as much to families and comedy fans, and being a hyped/anticipated fanboy franchise to begin with, why can't POTC?



You are predicting less then The Matrix Reloaded and Meet the Fockers even though:
A) POTC was far bigger then both of their originals.
B) POTC had far better WOM.
C) POTC has far wider demographic appeal.
D) POTC 2 will likely have better WOM then either of those sequels