Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[BrianLo]

Thanks for this. Now I need to see if I'm understanding correctly. The production budget number that trades like Variety and Deadline will report ahead of time are what? Basically just the "production costs" line from the data?

For The Marvels that would have been $340m (with the tax credit accounted for -- $275m). For Snow White, that seems to match what Variety has reported ($240m [if one were to account for the tax credit it becomes $185m]). Obviously, Deadline in their wrap-up accounts for the credit, so they have The Marvels production listed at $270m.

A little interesting that at the time of release Variety was reporting The Marvels as only a $250m movie [Source: https://variety.com/2023/film/featu...problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/]. That doesn't really match either formulation of its production budget ultimately. So they were low, while Caroline was high by adding everything under Costs together. I wonder if they were intending to report the budget + credit for that, but still undershot? Hard to say, but that does give some potential credence to the thought that the Cap 4 reported budget might be a little low (by maybe $25m-$50m, probably not some higher order of magnitude).

Note: Folks should know that there are tax credits in a lot of places (see: Georgia), not just the UK. It's just that the UK ones generate public paperwork. We never really know if the reported budgets for any of these projects are pre- or post- inclusion of the credit in the accounting.

Yes, a few points of clarity - on Snow, it's only the 2023 tax filing Forbes is looking at. Not the 2024 one. There's an entire year of production missing and interest accumulation.

More than a year from now we'll get an updated tax filing from the UK. That will likely show a total of maybe like 350-360. What that will be made of is the 240 Variety is claiming (302 minus a larger tax credit of 62 million dollars) PLUS 50-60 million dollars of expenses and interest (which won't be tax credit eligible). The interest and expenses will come from what has accumulated because money has been spent far before money is earned. I don't know why there is company revenue sitting in the production though. Maybe Disney is trying to prevent interest accumulation because they delayed the film?

What's important to note is that Deadline and Variety are reporting estimates (with a tax credit and interest/expense ignored). Forbes is reporting a tax filing from 13 months ago. The former isn't infallible, the later is not remotely up to date. Which is why I think there's probably been another almost 30 million of actual production spend since the tax filing, bringing the new total to 302.


Generally Deadline and Variety seem to eventually coalesce around the actual figure, I think they are getting these from company sources. The Forbes writer obviously doesn't really have a source, the only differing information is coming from the UK tax filings. Everything else normally from this author that aligns are articles that quote Variety or Deadline as the primary source.

As per Cap 4. Ya, I'd typically agree, it seems low. What is interesting is that they were reporting higher figures and then it was revised downwards. I don't know if that makes it more credible, but it means someone internally took issue with it. Which to me, a non-conspiracy theorist, makes it feel probably fairly close to the truth. It's important to note that these trades are not being fed publicist notes from just "the company", but have every rival studio in their ear as well. They sometimes are overt about this fact when there is disagreement in their articles.

 

[brideck]

Generally Deadline and Variety seem to eventually coalesce around the actual figure, I think they are getting these from company sources. The Forbes writer obviously doesn't really have a source, the only differing information is coming from the UK tax filings. Everything else normally from this author that aligns are articles that quote Variety or Deadline as the primary source.

Right, so the flaw with the Forbes pieces here is that their methodology re: UK disclosures does not match the industry standard.

As per Cap 4. Ya, I'd typically agree, it seems low. What is interesting is that they were reporting higher figures and then it was revised downwards. I don't know if that makes it more credible, but it means someone internally took issue with it.

Interesting. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, so I don't remember anything before the reporting from around a month ago, outside of the crazy World of Reel numbers.

 

[BrianLo]

Right, so the flaw with the Forbes pieces here is that their methodology re: UK disclosures does not match the industry standard.

Yup, it just took me a while to logic out why they were so inconsistent. It's probably, to be kind to the author, just not super clear to them what they are looking at either. I think the tax filing just lacks proper nuance. Marketing can't be run through the production holding company, but interest and overhead certainly would be.

99% of the time otherwise Forbes just is parroting (and sourcing) from Deadline/Hollywood Reporter/Variety.

Interesting. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, so I don't remember anything before the reporting from around a month ago, outside of the crazy World of Reel numbers.

Maybe I'm misremembering. But all three major trades really seem to be in alignment.

"Hollywood Math". Honestly, it's why the stupid rule is so simultaneously dumbed down yet elegant. When we start trying to break open Pandora's box we start just making things up.

 

[brideck]

I was totally in that boat until we decided to sit down and watch them all before... F9(?) came out. Remember that I'm the art-house guy who watches all the Oscar movies, and I think F&F are a hilarious good time with a lot of heart and absolutely ridiculous action set pieces. I'd be a moron if I took my same critical analysis to these that I do to most other movies because that's not what they're asking me to do. The plots never hint at any larger significance, there's not much in the way of subtext, they're just fun.

Self-quoting, but whatever... Totally gutted that Universal is closing down Supercharged in two weeks.

[Editor's Note: He was not, in fact, gutted.]

 

[Agent H]

Self-quoting, but whatever... Totally gutted that Universal is closing down Supercharged in two weeks.

[Editor's Note: He was not, in fact, gutted.]

I will be gutted if it reopens.

 

[Disney Analyst]

My turn for an essay, as things converged before me in the last few days.

1. I heard parts of a long interview with Kevin Costner, probably rerun from several months ago. He kind of brought me back to Earth talking about filmmaking as I suspected/had always heard it was done vs. the often cynical accusations made here.

One thing that struck me was in post-production for The Bodyguard: test audiences were not reacting great, and Costner was in a room with the studio people watching it, and the studio said basically oh well, guess that’s as good as that’s going to get - but Costner knew it was missing about 15 minutes of story. The studio argued it was already too long. So, he personally worked through the night, cutting 10 seconds here and 15 seconds there, to decrease the run time while adding needed story back in. That was the version that was successful.

It came down to one person.

2. I finally saw Joker 2, having heard all kinds of criticisms. I don’t think that film was bad at all. I don’t consider it “a musical” a la Grease, but I understand it wasn’t what bro-nation expected.

I think Joker 2 could have used a touch like Kevin Costner’s to trim the bloat - the slower or unnecessary moments. That could have made the difference in its pacing and reception. Side note: I thought Gaga was excellent.

The larger point is there are so many things that can go wrong in making a hit movie. It can come down to the will of one person, and the power of any one director or actor at that moment in their career. It’s somebody’s pet project, but they won’t get their way on every point, or an unlimited budget.

It’s very easy to see how a project can get jumbled, and then run out of money to make it perfect, and you just have to release it to get something back.

Business is not idealistic. There will always be push and pull between the creatives and the bean counters. You need both, like Walt & Roy.

If not for the studio reeling Costner in, The Bodyguard may have been 15 minutes longer and not as good. If not for Costner, it may have been released with a confusing storyline and been an embarrassment for him and Whitney.

Very interesting read - thank you!

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Rachel speaks.

Rachel Zegler Addresses Backlash Over Snow White Remake

Rachel Zegler explained why she believes she received backlash for her role of Snow White in the upcoming Disney live-action remake.

www.eonline.com

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Rachel speaks.

Rachel Zegler Addresses Backlash Over Snow White Remake

Rachel Zegler explained why she believes she received backlash for her role of Snow White in the upcoming Disney live-action remake.

www.eonline.com

She didn’t actually address anything though, she briefly talks about racism and relating to Belle and then completely ignored her own controversial statements.

I was optimistic for an explanation when the article mentioned her controversial statements, including the stalking Prince, and then she just talked about how it’s a different movie and her superpower is her heart. That’s a political pivot answer to avoid the question rather than an explanation.

I don’t think that article is going to move the needle for those that are already leaning towards seeing it or not seeing it.

We’ve seen this “story” repeated a half dozen times now with Disney and D+ shows preemptively crying racism right before a movie/show underperforms. Internal expectations must be low if they are pre-blaming racism before it even releases again.

 

[Disney Irish]

She didn’t actually address anything though, she briefly talks about racism and then completely ignored her own controversial statements.

I was optimistic for an explanation when the article mentioned her controversial statements, including the stalking Prince, and then she just talked about how it’s a different movie and her superpower is her heart. That’s a political pivot answer to avoid the question rather than an explanation.

I don’t think that article is going to move the needle for those that are already leaning towards seeing it or not seeing it.

We’ve seen this “story” repeated a half dozen times now with Disney and D+ shows preemptively crying racism right before a movie/show underperforms. Internal expectations must be low if they are pre-blaming racism before it even releases again.

I think it does exactly what it was suppose to do, its a classic PR piece. It acknowledges previous comments without actually going into them in detail, ie its best not to go back and try to correct anything already done as it'll just add more fuel to the flame, just acknowledge it and move on. You can tell that PR people were all over this article.

 

[Chi84]

She didn’t actually address anything though, she briefly talks about racism and relating to Belle and then completely ignored her own controversial statements.

I was optimistic for an explanation when the article mentioned her controversial statements, including the stalking Prince, and then she just talked about how it’s a different movie and her superpower is her heart. That’s a political pivot answer to avoid the question rather than an explanation.

I don’t think that article is going to move the needle for those that are already leaning towards seeing it or not seeing it.

We’ve seen this “story” repeated a half dozen times now with Disney and D+ shows preemptively crying racism right before a movie/show underperforms. Internal expectations must be low if they are pre-blaming racism before it even releases again.

I completely understand what she meant by calling the Prince essentially a stalker.

There may be a love “interest” in the original film but there is no story behind it; no explanation for any connection between Snow White and the Prince.

The Prince is in the movie for under 3 minutes, most of it singing a song. Then he shows up and is her “true love.”

That’s fine in a nearly 100 year-old animated film, but there’s no way it would translate to live-action.

People would be wondering who this guy is and why his only parts involve singing and showing up to kiss the princess in the end. What did he do to earn the designation of her “true love?”

 

[Agent H]

I completely understand what she meant by calling the Prince essentially a stalker.

There may be a love “interest” in the original film but there is no story behind it; no explanation for any connection between Snow White and the Prince.

The Prince is in the movie for under 3 minutes, most of it singing a song. Then he shows up and is her “true love.”

That’s fine in a nearly 100 year-old animated film, but there’s no way it would translate to live-action.

People would be wondering who this guy is and why his only parts involve singing and showing up to kiss the princess in the end. What did he do to earn the designation of her “true love?”

Agreed. I wish Disney live action did more original movies but if you are going to do it don’t make it exactly the same. the jungle book is a perfect example of how to do it right.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don’t think that article is going to move the needle for those that are already leaning towards seeing it or not seeing it.

I don’t think anything in the world would move that needle.

For evidence of racism, Google “Snow Brown.“ It’s not imaginary, and predated any of her comments.

There is nothing to the story that she trashed the original.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I think it does exactly what it was suppose to do, its a classic PR piece. It acknowledges previous comments without actually going into them in detail, ie its best not to go back and try to correct anything already done as it'll just add more fuel to the flame, just acknowledge it and move on. You can tell that PR people were all over this article.

Totally agree, that’s why I said it’s a classic politician response, ignore the tough question and answer with a preplanned statement that highlights something positive, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The problem with this technique is most people see right through it and would rather hear the truth than some BS response, that’s why it doesn’t move the needle.

 

[coffeefan]

Speaking of Snow White a new trailer was released earlier this month. I like the songs so far.

 

[Chi84]

Speaking of Snow White a new trailer was released earlier this month. I like the songs so far.

Looks cute. The grandkids will love it!

 

[Disney Irish]

Totally agree, that’s why I said it’s a classic politician response, ignore the tough question and answer with a preplanned statement that highlights something positive, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The problem with this technique is most people see right through it and would rather hear the truth than some BS response, that’s why it doesn’t move the needle.

Problem with answering it with any other response is that it would stir up the bees nest of same issues they are trying to avoid. Basically this is the best way to approach this in my opinion. Just give an acknowledgement and then move on. No reason to give more oxygen to an issue that is always going to come across as negative no matter what is said. All you have to do is look at how Mackie's statements were spun negatively, even after he made additional clarifications which fell on deaf ears. Again best to just acknowledge and move on.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Problem with answering it with any other response is that it would stir up the bees nest of same issues they are trying to avoid. Basically this is the best way to approach this in my opinion. Just give an acknowledgement and then move on. No reason to give more oxygen to an issue that is always going to come across as negative no matter what is said. All you have to do is look at how Mackie's statements were spun negatively, even after he made additional clarifications which fell on deaf ears. Again best to just acknowledge and move on.

I’m amazed she’s out doing press, I would have thought Disney would ask her to disappear prior to the release, there’s nothing she can do or say at this point that won’t add fuel to the fire.

All the commercials I’ve seen so far are pure nostalgia bait, no reason to have her out there talking about how they’ve modernized it while the marketing department is doing their best to make people think it’s the same movie they loved as kids.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Totally agree, that’s why I said it’s a classic politician response, ignore the tough question and answer with a preplanned statement that highlights something positive, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.

The problem with this technique is most people see right through it and would rather hear the truth than some BS response, that’s why it doesn’t move the needle.

Yeah. Presumably she hasn’t changed the way she feels so boilerplate PR is probably the best option. Folks can read between the lines on non-answers but I think they usually don’t make it worse. I think most people will feel the same way as before (whether positive or negative).

But she’s the star of the movie so she has to get out there and say something for promotion.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I’m amazed she’s out doing press, I would have thought Disney would ask her to disappear prior to the release, there’s nothing she can do or say at this point that won’t add fuel to the fire.

All the commercials I’ve seen so far are pure nostalgia bait, no reason to have her out there talking about how they’ve modernized it while the marketing department is doing their best to make people think it’s the same movie they loved as kids.

Do you think they should keep the same age gap between Snow White and the prince?

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m amazed she’s out doing press, I would have thought Disney would ask her to disappear prior to the release, there’s nothing she can do or say at this point that won’t add fuel to the fire.

Disagree, there is actually plenty she can say to add more fuel to the fire and make it worse. Its not like anything she could say would likely change anyone's mind for the better, but it could make it worse and turn more against her and the movie. A non-answer is the most even non-destructive way she can respond based on where things currently are.

All the commercials I’ve seen so far are pure nostalgia bait, no reason to have her out there talking about how they’ve modernized it while the marketing department is doing their best to make people think it’s the same movie they loved as kids.

Disney is going with the pure nostalgia play to try to entice some back that were on the fence, again it makes sense give where things are right now.

She has also been promoted the film on her social media for a couple weeks now. So Disney is not preventing her from promoting at all.