Which goes to show that with enough exposure almost any Disney property can become profitable and/or popular.
See: Hocus Pocus
Mars Needs Moms coming soon to Space Mountain!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Splash Mountain retheme to Princess and the Frog - Tiana's Bayou Adventure
- Thread starter wdwmagic
- Start date
See: Hocus Pocus
Mars Needs Moms coming soon to Space Mountain!
Where's my Darby O'Gill ride!?!?
It lost at minimum $40M in its theatrical run. Billion Dollar blockbusters are lucky to make $50M post. There is NO way that this movie netted anything positive since it left theaters.
Netflix alone paid $1B to license Sony’s library. What makes anyone think this movie is worth anything more that $5-10M post?
But I guess losing $40+M these days for Disney would be considered a win.
Last edited:
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
The sales figures cited on the film's wikipedia article claim that the DVD release of PATF sold over 4.5 million copies and made $71.8 million in 2010. And as of 2019, it has allegedly made $119 million from its home releases.
The Princess and the Frog - Wikipedia
That's assuming the source is accurate. But I do find it to be perfectly believable. There's ample historical precedent with a substantial number of Disney animated films flopping initially in theaters but later going on to become impressive sales juggernauts with rereleases. Especially on home video.
It was stated waaay back when this started that originally the plan was in fact to keep Splash Mountain as is in Florida and Tokyo, given this was supposed to be a way to blend Critter Country better with New Orleans Square, not to wipe Song of the South off the map. Then everything went to pot in 2020 and it became "Eradicate every trace of Splash"
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I don’t think anyone has implied or said that PATF is worth $5-10M….
The property by itself is probably worth north of 500M. The Disney Princess franchise is worth 45B.
Netflix was paying Disney 350M/year for new films prior to the streaming wars.
You do know that Disney only sees a percentage of those number? Home Video and physical media an only translate to approximately 25%. That also doesn’t account for marketing expenses which everyone always seems to forget exists.The sales figures cited on the film's wikipedia article claim that the DVD release of PATF sold over 4.5 million copies and made $71.8 million in 2010. And as of 2019, it has allegedly made $119 million from its home releases.
The Princess and the Frog - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That's assuming the source is accurate. But I do find it to be perfectly believable. There's ample historical precedent with a substantial number of Disney animated films flopping initially in theaters but later going on to become impressive sales juggernauts with rereleases. Especially on home video.
Last edited:
I’d love to see how you get to $500M please show me. Then I’ll take off my shoes and socks and you can show me how you came to $45B.
It was not for a single film, it was for much of the MCU library and rights for Netflix to develop original programming based off of licensing agreements.
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I can't say I do know that. Where's your source for that number? I know there are costs involved such as the printing/writing of the physical discs and packaging (though optical media was/is an immensely cheaper form of media than prior tape based formats), as well as the fees needed to ship them out and stock shelves. But I don't know if I believe your claims that they only receive 25% of the profits from that. I think you're moving some goalposts here.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I misspoke (or typed) in writing my post the way I did.
However there are 12 official Disney princesses. The franchise is worth 45B. So ~3.7B per princess/film.
I went on the more conservative side, and that’s how I came to 500M.
I could be wrong, but the news articles that announced it implied that it was just for the films. And while yes they got a bulk of the Disney library, they were really paying 350M/ year for new content.
When $20 DVDs existed how much went to the retailer, distributor, manufacturer, marketing?
Retailers take 50%. Distribution/Manufacturing/Marketing take at least 25%.
What’s left?
Last edited:
MerlinTheGoat
Well-Known Member
I wasn't asking for a repeat of the numbers, I was asking for a source of the numbers. The absolute highest numbers i've seen cited for the retailer's cut of the profit has been 40%. That's also for brick and mortar stores from what I gather. Online only retailers such as Amazon should be considerably lower.
Smiley/OCD
Well-Known Member
40% if you’re selling the title at list price, but an overwhelming majority of those sales are within the first 60 days when they’re in sale…the markup will be MUCH less…many times new or featured titles are offered as a loss leader.
aladdin2007
Well-Known Member
still waiting for my Gnome-Mobile ride
TeriofTerror
Well-Known Member
No lie, I sing a song from that to my dog whenever he's feeling anxious. He's my dear, my darling one!
RSoxNo1
Well-Known Member
I'll preface this by saying, I'm cautiously optimistic about this attraction.
That being said, there's a fallacy that every IP is a franchise and that ever IP makes money. I'll call this one a special case, because the driver of the attraction change (in Disneyland) absolutely makes sense thematically. When combined with the public pressure and the change makes a ton of sense, for reasons other than synergy. Disney cat themselves on the back for righting a wrong, and do so with something that is connected to one of their biggest franchises: princesses.
That being said, there's a fallacy that every IP is a franchise and that ever IP makes money. I'll call this one a special case, because the driver of the attraction change (in Disneyland) absolutely makes sense thematically. When combined with the public pressure and the change makes a ton of sense, for reasons other than synergy. Disney cat themselves on the back for righting a wrong, and do so with something that is connected to one of their biggest franchises: princesses.
Weather_Lady
Well-Known Member
Agreed! Or at least, it deserved better than _this_ retheme. Whether PaTF was a stellar IP or just a very good one, they took a movie with magic and romance and villainy and voodoo and life-and-death stakes and even a nod to the stumbling block of entrenched racism... and decided that what people really wanted more of was a childrens' sermon on ethical food production.
"Find the missing ingredient," indeed! What seems to be missing from Disney's Splash makeover is the slightest notion of what anyone enjoyed about PaTF in the first place.
Last edited:
No, going by the rule of thumb, it only lost $22M.
Budget of $105M according to Wiki. Plus 50% for advertising: $158. BO was $271. Half of that is Disney's: $136. Total loss: $22.
Home Media sales: $122. Surely Disney saw at least half of that making PatF net positive.
So... where are your numbers from?
I was referring to box office gross in that it needed $40M more at the box office to break even since that's the benchmark that everyone seems to like to use.
With regards to home media, the average retailer markup for DVDs is between 50 and 60%. The net profit to distribution (Disney) ranges anywhere from 20-30%). Marketing is not included but typically would be another 25%.
So over the course of 13 years it made Disney an additional $22-24M. A rousing success!
That's enough to show it wasn't a loss.