I am terrible at Google-ing

[Arrow_Raider]

I need to find out how much revenue the first harry potter book made. I *NEED* this information. I have been google-ing for a couple hours and can't find anything. Help me find it.

Why must i keep having to add this to the end of my searches:

-religious -christian -demon

You crazy ignorant fools! No one cares about your nazi conservative religious views about how harry potter is the devil.

[Valleysboy1978]

try the publishers website

[Arrow_Raider]

Just did.... Scholastic's site is terrible.

[Valleysboy1978]

Try bloomsbury, they are her main publisher

[space_monkey]

This is the closest i was able to come.

When the first Harry Potter book came out in America, the publisher Scholastic (nasdaq: SCHL - news - people ) earned $600 million in revenue from it.

Potter

[Arrow_Raider]

I am attempting to do an english paper. The prompt of the english paper is:

"The movie of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came out in 2001 and is currently the third highest grossing film of all time at close to one billion dollars globally. How do the filmmakers try to broaden the appeal of the story from the novel? Are there differences in the film that account for the increase in audience from the book version?"

I had been planning on using revenue values of the movie and the book to help intro the paper. However, it seems as if the book has a revenue of 600 mil and the movie globally has a revenue of 649 mil. That isn't that big of a difference to use that. I am completely confused as to how to do this paper now.

[Arrow_Raider]

I am posting a reply. I am not editing my previous post. Do not kill me, please.


I just amazon'd the movie.... This snippet exists on amazon:
"Worldwide Box Office: $969 Million"

Eh? Well, I trust amazon more than that other site. I'm back in buisness.

[FishGuy]

Are there differences in the film that account for the increase in audience from the book version

How do they know more people have watched the film than the book, the book is cheaper so cannot compare revenue, also people use libraries.

The main differences in the film to the bok are the film generally contains less written word making it more accessible to the illiterate, non imaginative, lazy audience.

[space_monkey]

Here's a complete list for you.

IMDB

[MartinLiss]

I googled "harry potter" revenue and came up with this. It's not exactly what you want but I didn't look at all the hits.

[space_monkey]

hahaha that's the same one i linked to

[Arrow_Raider]

How do they know more people have watched the film than the book, the book is cheaper so cannot compare revenue, also people use libraries.

The main differences in the film to the bok are the film generally contains less written word making it more accessible to the illiterate, non imaginative, lazy audience.

Exactly... but that was what was written in the prompt; I didn't write that.

[Valleysboy1978]

The film industry will always appeal to a broader range than novels. For a start many find a novel hard work, especially those with learning difficulties.

Imagine if you were dyslexic, you would struggle to read a book of that size, and especially the later mammoth books. However a film can be enjoyed in two hours, is cheaper (£5 for film, £9 for paperback, £16 for hardback) and is accessible to those not able to read the books.

Also the film can be watched by persons whose first language is NOT English, but they understand enough to converse in English. Therefore they could understand and follow the film, but not the book

Hope that helped dude

[wossname]

If the films are as bad as they are, the books must be absolute bollocks.