I referring to which one brought in more revenue on their budget. I figure this way it would be a better way to compare which series is more superior at least when it comes to the box office.
Anonymous
Favorite Answer
$90,294,621 opening weekend in 2001 Harry Potter
$70.55 million opening weekend in 2008 Twilight
figuring in inflation and price of tickets rising in 7 years if they had both opened in 2008 Harry would have made well over 150 million... as for me though i love both series and can't really compare the two as one deals with magic and the other is vampires and werewolves. To me both are good series. And no i'm not some infatuated teenage girl.
FAshionPassion
Ummmm Harry Potter dominated. One Twilight was riding on Harry's coat tail as being "the next Harry Potter." the problem is the Twilight books aren't geared towards making 700 million plus b/c it's really catered towards girls. As a guy, I had to skip through it b/c it was just so sad hearing a girl say "don't leave me, I can't live without you..." I mean I get it but that's bad for girls to think that's okay.
Anyway Harry Potter had longer to be promoted as a book than Twilight, it had WAYYYY MORE MERCHANDISE than Twilight and Twilight can't come up with nearly as much merchandise or costumes. Like you can't dress "as a vampire" b/c these vampires don't have fangs. I guess you can put body glitter on, but that's it. They're really gonna have to add stuff to the movie (that's not in the book) b/c they don't have costumes (wizard robes/wands, owls, etc)
Also Harry Potter appealed to all ages (well Twilight does to), sexes (most guys can't watch this it's catered to girls of all ages, but mostly young girls from what I've observed while being at the movie) and the action needs to be worked on. YOu can't say this appeals to everyone when it's cheesy. Come on James biting Bella made me crap up, he looked like a first grader biting a girl. that was so corny he should ahve had sharp teeth (director should have insisted)
I'm thinking you're trying to say like did Twilight do better b/c it made it's money back ____ times over (39, 39, 39, 39) million vs Harry Potter (125 mill, 125 mill, 125 mill) IF THAT'S THE CASE (which you didn't ask, then Twilight won only b/c it was a cheap low budget.
But as everyone else stated Harry Potter owned (900* million) vs. Twilights (300+ million)
?
Well , I like both of them . You know twilight movie is good because it is mixed between reality and imagination and the same is Harry Potter . Harry Potter's story is strange but it also won a lot of people minds . Everybody wanted to know what will happen the next part of it ? And that means that it is more popular than Twilight . But I don't mean twilight is bad . Twilight is as popular as Harry Potter . Everybody wanted to know what will happen to Bella after her death ? And they wanted also to know what will happen if she became a Vampire like Edward . There were a lot of questions about that movie which no-one could answer until Twilight showed up in the Box-office . People couldn't wait to see their last part of them . Both of them are Great ( My Opinion ) I hope you liked it :)))
Bb
Well I know Harry Potter 6 (new one) in 3 days already made a third of Twilight's entire revenue
HP = 90 million on opening weekend
Twilight = 33 million on opening weekend
Jeffy.
Harry Potter.
The first answer is completely wrong.
The first Harry Potter grossed almost 975 million worldwide. 800 million over budget.
Twilight grossed 382 million worldwide. 345 million over budget. Considerable less.
The latast Harry Potter broke the midnight showing record, 22 million, but is no where near Twilights total gross yet as stated in the first answer. Not even close.
You can't at this point compare the two as a series because Twilight is not yet a series. It has only one film under its belt. Give it some time as the others get released and see. HP will however win every time.
The worst HP film was Prisoner of Azkaban, grossing 795 million, 665 million over budget. The Twilight series will never reach that on a single film.