Why did Prisoner of Azkaban made the least money

I feel this is by far the best of the movies, however, I can understand why this would be the least appealing for general audiences.

It's the darkest, tone wise, making Howarts feel grim and lived in, rather than like a vacation postcard. Also, story wise, it's the first to really show that things may not be okay; there's no big triumph at the end. For a lot of audiences, I suppose, this doesn't let them leave on a high note. Harry even mention this:

Professor Lupin: Why do you look so miserable, Harry?
Harry: None of it made any difference. Pettigrew escaped.
Professor Lupin: Didn't make any difference? Harry, it made all the difference in the world! You helped discover the truth. You saved an innocent man from a terrible fate. It made a great deal of difference.

In short, it's structure and tone are kind of the Empire Strikes Back of the Harry Potter franchise: a much better movie where everything is more uncertain by the film's ending.

It's also the only movie with no "Harry vs. Voldemort showdown" that audiences had come to rely on.

I think that the removal of the Marauders storyline only really bothers die hard book fans, so I don't think that made a huge amount of difference, since there are plenty of moments in the movie series that are so sloppily adapted that non-book reading audiences would be hard-pressed to say what the bloody hell is going on. I've read The Order of the Phoenix and I still don't have a clue what goes on in that movie.

Skipping page long posts for over a year now.

It's the darkest, tone wise, making Howarts feel grim and lived in, rather than like a vacation postcard.

Looks wise, yes but Goblet of Fire is even darker, right? The very first shot of the film features Nagini coming out of a skull in a graveyard. Then there is 'Voldemort returns' scene featuring dark magic and the death of a major character.

It's also the only movie with no "Harry vs. Voldemort showdown" that audiences had come to rely on.


This might have been a reason. The lack of a showdown.

Make a move, Reindeer Games..

I suppose Goblet of Fire, while on the surface a bit darker, also has higher triumphs. For all the dark imagery, it also compliments the audience by giving them a lot of high highs. It's the action movie of the franchise. It's "Bruce Willis/Arnold Shwarzenegger's Harry Potter."

Then there's all the rom-com stuff between Hermione and Ron, so any darkness is immediately countered by an action scene or some awkwardly amusing teen comedy. Other than Half-Blood Prince, which is basically, "American Pie: The Wizard Years," this delivers the most chucklesome teen romance movie yucks.

There's more death and shady doings, but there's also Harry vs a Dragon! Or Harry vs Sea Creatures! Harry vs Voldemort! Bruce Willis vs Hans Gruber... wait, that's Die Hard. And Ron and Hermione have more funny things to do etc. etc. etc.

Prisoner of Azkaban has nothing as dark as character deaths or Nagini, but its joyous highs are nowhere near as high as Goblet of Fire's. It's consistently down, only allowing Harry to feel truly elated when he casts his final Patronum. In fact, the handling of depression (Dementors are a metaphor for JK Rowling's depression) is kind of one of the movie's central themes. So while it's not as "dark" its entire running time is deliberately and consistently glum.

Skipping page long posts for over a year now.

I think you have a point.

Make a move, Reindeer Games..

First 3 movie were PG.

After Azkaban they went PG-13 to the more popular at the box office rating.

Could it be timing the transition of the aging fanbase ?

Potter needed a shift toward a older audience and be less a pure useless direct translation on screen of the book after the first 2, Azkaban did it, but you did need to see the movie to know that they did.

Half-Blood Prince was rated PG.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was.