Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Which was the most successful franchise: Harry Potter, Twilight or the Hunger Games?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's Harry Potter? Twilight's second, and Hunger Games third. Personally I thought the Hunger Games was terrible compared to the other two series.

The ending was shit. How does Katniss fall in love with Peeta when the author's been dropping clues that she loves Gale. And Katniss was so redundant and silly in the final film...kind of Jennifer Lawrence is.

by Anonymousreply 1207/02/2013


by Anonymousreply 107/02/2013

Well, I guess it matters how you define 'successful' to make a call.

Financially: no question Potter.

Book sales: Again Potter at 450 million for the entire series compared to ~110 million for Twilight (even if adjusted for 4 books vs. 7 books). Although in the US, The Hunger Games has sold 50 million copies for 3 books and has surpassed Potter.

Artistically: meh. It's a toss up - though many reviewers have noted that The Hunger Games writing is superior to Potter, the world building and detail is better in Potter.

That said, the race is between Potter and The Hunger Games. Post-movies, Twilight seems to have run it's course.

by Anonymousreply 207/02/2013

An odd question since Hunger Games has only released one film.

[quote] Although in the US, The Hunger Games has sold 50 million copies for 3 books and has surpassed Potter.

How has that surpassed Potter?

by Anonymousreply 307/02/2013

Harry Potter is currently by far the most successful. Whether Hunger Games can catch up to that remains to be seen.

by Anonymousreply 407/02/2013

[quote]How has that surpassed Potter?

According to Scholastic, the US publisher for both series, 50 million books for 3 books is more than Potter. What that means is that, if you adjust for the number of books in the series, it's sold more in the US (50 million/3, then multiplied by 7 would translate into more books than the total of all 7 Potter Books in the US).

by Anonymousreply 507/02/2013

If Harry Patter hadn't gotten the kids back to reading, there would be no successful Twilight or Hunger Games.

by Anonymousreply 607/02/2013

Kids reading fewer books despite Harry Potter hoopla Heidi Benson, Chronicle Staff Writer Published 4:00 am, Sunday, July 15, 2007

Despite what has been dubbed the "Harry Potter Effect" -- which credits J.K. Rowling's blockbuster book series with turning Game Boy addicts into lifelong readers -- reading is in serious decline among teens nationwide, according to a forthcoming federal study.

A decade of Potter-mania peaks at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, when 12 million copies of the seventh and last book, "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," go on sale in the United States. Thus far, the books have sold 325 million copies in 64 languages worldwide.

But as educators assess the phenomenon that lured millions of young readers to tackle longer books, they find that Harry Potter alone could not stem the decline in reading rates.

"What we need is a Harry Potter every week," said Dana Gioia, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, who oversaw the study.

The endowment's report on children's reading rates, the first of its kind, compiles results from more than 24 government agencies, including the Department of Education, the Census Bureau and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

"We seem to be doing a better job than ever at teaching younger kids to read, but when kids enter adolescence, their reading -- and reading ability -- falls off," Gioia said. "The power of the electronic, commercial entertainment media seems to be taking teenagers away from reading."

The final results of the study and the statistics regarding reading rates won't be published until October. But the general decline in juvenile reading that Gioia has observed is already sparking a debate, because reading ability is traditionally considered an indicator of an individual's future success in society.

While some experts worry that a drop-off in reading is an early warning sign of a culture in collapse, others interpret the results as part of a general shift toward electronic-based communications, which will simply require new ways of measuring potential.

"You have to be careful when you say kids are reading less," says Michael Kamil, a professor of education at Stanford University. "It doesn't mean they are incapable of reading. It means they choose to do other things instead."

Today, those things include an array of digital distractions, from video games to the Internet, text-messaging to interacting on MySpace.

Kamil is taking this "new" kind of literacy into account as the chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, a group charged with updating the way reading is judged by the federal government. The board provides information used in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Three contexts for reading are assessed by the board: reading for literary experience, reading for information, and reading to perform a task. Kamil believes that "reading for literary experience" has been overemphasized and that today "reading for information" is the most crucial skill.

When the first Harry Potter book was published in 1997, it was a runaway success. Author Rowling, a single mother who at one time was on public assistance, wrote the book in cafes while living in Edinburgh, Scotland. Her imagination seemed unstoppable, and today, Harry Potter is a billion-dollar brand that includes a future 20-acre theme park in Florida.

"I respect the Harry Potter craze because it got millions of kids to read a complicated series of books," Gioia said. "The trouble is, reading one big book a year is no substitute for the habit of daily reading."

by Anonymousreply 707/02/2013

without a doubt Harry Potter. The other two will not have the staying power of the Harry Potter franchise.

Harry Potter is in Lord of the Rings territory. Almost cult-like.

Twilight, while having crazy fans, aren't on the same level.

by Anonymousreply 807/02/2013

The Hunger Games isn't over yet.

by Anonymousreply 907/02/2013

Utterly and completely retarded question, given that there have been EIGHT HP movies and ONE HG film to date.

by Anonymousreply 1007/02/2013

The question is franchise, r10.

You do realize that Potter and Hunger Games were series of books before they were movies, so the books sales are a leading indicator for overall franchise value, as they represent the embedded base of fans for each.

by Anonymousreply 1107/02/2013

Lord of the Rings

by Anonymousreply 1207/02/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!