Ghost93
Well-Known Member
But the 2.5 profitability thing only takes into account the actual budget, not marketing.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I saw a similar chart today…they said $225 production and $125 marketing…hence the $350
But these things appear to be completely disingenuous…because post production overruns have appeared to have gone extinct in the 2 years since the heat on the corps has been so turned up. Very ironic
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I'm not saying that the marketing numbers are wrong. I'm saying that the general rule that a movie needs to make 2.5x its budget to break even factors in the marketing costs and revenue splits for distributors. So Superman would need to make $562 million — not $812 million — to break even.
I get the point…. We live in very different times now…. In the 80’sand 90”s it still took more effort then it does now to rent/buy a movie…Currently it is as easy as a click of the button…. There are much less peopke going to the movies today… with many opting to wait till they drop on VOD…You totally missed the point…
And that point was that there have been all those other things in one form or another since about 1980…home video…licensing…ad revenues…etc etc
The tech has changed…but not the formula that much.
So you’re saying there hasn’t been a flop since they started selling cassettes for $24.95 in the 80’s? Or that the flops didn’t sell and therefore they were still “flops” by revenue standards? They still didn’t end up on broadcast?
But somehow now all flops go to heaven because it’s digital?
Want to take a Birds Eye view of this?
And just to kinda isolate it (and my head hurts)…but it appears via their fiscal reports that the “segment” - and they throw all kinds of stuff together to hide the weak spots - for their digital direct, broadcast, content sales and ad revenues were about $14 billion for the FY 2024…
That’s gotta be a lot more than…say…2010…when it was basically no DTV and more traditional programming and home media sales? Right?
Gotta be…
Or it was $17 then…which makes it a much larger slice of the pot then as compared to now. But we (and this really don’t apply to eveyone with lots of opinions) who use their P&R products can attest…that brings in alot more out of our pockets. There are receipts available.
So they’re fine…bankruptcy not imminent…
But back to the flops and all this digital cash cow…
Just do the math for me on how they now have eliminated flops through their unlimited digital cash? Which shell is that money under?
I mean…Prince of Persia and the sorcerers apprentice came out that year and were emphatically declared flops…should we go back in time and correct that?
Cause Snow White lost more lb for lb and was dumped into a “tv” medium that makes much less (far less when you consider cost inflation and money depreciation).
Learning a lot today…it seems?
I believe all studios use theaters partially as advertisement for the individual streaming services as well…, as @Disney Irish pointed out Elio appears to be one of those…. The Disney summer movies that appear to get most of the promotion budges is Stitch and F4…. As someone who goes to the movies weekly…. I only saw the trailer once and I have never seen a large display at any of the theaters around here
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
And that’s all well and good…but so far there is zero evidence that flops turn profitable on a streaming platform. What are people watching there? Snow White, the deplorables (or whatever that’s called?)…or the Bear new season?
What the “movies don’t flop” really is…all it is…is a rosy prediction presented as “fact” by your friend. And of course an excuse for the powers that be for making rejected product. Whatever the cause.
And that’s only because the counter has been said. If I said the sun was yellow today..it would be blue. Something a little sick going on there. Like invested in the echo chamber and inability to move on…like at all. And that’s me saying it…which makes it BAD.
And not to debate the particulars. Do you think the margin was higher on that $25 vhs in 1989…or whatever fractions of Pennies that can honestly be attributed to a $29.99 digital sub…where no one is watching the bombs?
The gameplan very well may be to use the streaming to finance the studio…full stop. That in no way…and never will…make the failure at the BO “palatable” to the management.
“How much did we tank at the box office this weekend? You know what…never mind…we have D+”
Or
“Stitch raked and the stuff is flying off the shelf “
Assuming that your average management, board and investors like money, power and prestige in some order…which one is more plausible?
I still think all this nonsense would never have even been brought up if they had not lost on about half a dozen Marvels over the last three years…somebody’s feelings are hurt. They got nothing left to believe in
And we could have argued about something else I would hope would be more productive.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
That may be…and that might be a hard climb.
But as always…we’ll be 75% sure by Sunday and 95% sure by 7/27.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
My friend, none of this post-theatrical talk has anything to do with the MCU or my feelings getting hurt, which was never a thing anyways as my feelings don't matter. Its about the reality of the Hollywood landscape that we see before us. This isn't the 80s and 90s as was pointed out. Studios didn't get a huge cut from the post-theatrical market in those days, but it was still enough to turn movies like Shawshank, Fight Club, and quite a few others that were box office bombs into successes. The idea now is that studios get more of a cut of the post-theatrical market, and with their own streaming service they get 100%, ie they don't share that revenue with anyone outside the company. With ads and subscription fees they make enough now that its profitable on its own, and covers the cost of whatever movies get put on the service. So if Disney can think they have put any movie on D+/Hulu and make up for losses, ie they don't write it down in the financials, why do you doubt it? Its not like you have any real "skin" in the game. You don't have any profit motive here, its not like you get a share of any movie box office here.And that’s all well and good…but so far there is zero evidence that flops turn profitable on a streaming platform. What are people watching there? Snow White, the deplorables (or whatever that’s called?)…or the Bear new season?
What the “movies don’t flop” really is…all it is…is a rosy prediction presented as “fact” by your friend. And of course an excuse for the powers that be for making rejected product. Whatever the cause.
And that’s only because the counter has been said. If I said the sun was yellow today..it would be blue. Something a little sick going on there. Like invested in the echo chamber and inability to move on…like at all. And that’s me saying it…which makes it BAD.
And not to debate the particulars. Do you think the margin was higher on that $25 vhs in 1989…or whatever fractions of Pennies that can honestly be attributed to a $29.99 digital sub…where no one is watching the bombs?
The gameplan very well may be to use the streaming to finance the studio…full stop. That in no way…and never will…make the failure at the BO “palatable” to the management.
“How much did we tank at the box office this weekend? You know what…never mind…we have D+”
Or
“Stitch raked and the stuff is flying off the shelf “
Assuming that your average management, board and investors like money, power and prestige in some order…which one is more plausible?
I still think all this nonsense would never have even been brought up if they had not lost on about half a dozen Marvels over the last three years…somebody’s feelings are hurt. They got nothing left to believe in
And we could have argued about something else I would hope would be more productive.
So the real question is why do you care if a studio thinks they can make up revenue by using post-theatrical, and why are your feelings hurt by this change in the Hollywood landscape? And for that matter why do you care that any of us talk about it. If you don't think its happening then just ignore all this talk from everyone and move on.
Again I think this more comes down to the fact that you are realizing that if movies move to more of an at-home model you won't be able to call balls and strikes, and won't have anything to gripe about, since you won't have a box office to point to. And so this is a last grasp by you to cling onto the old ways knowing they are quickly coming to an end.
Also I'd appreciate if you have comments to say to me you direct them to me and not some not so veiled shade you're posting here to someone else. At least give me that courtesy and respect like I give you.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
For what its worth, there was a recent Investopedia article from late last year on this very topic of the modern movie and how it makes money, its an interesting read I suggest everyone checks it out -
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/shutterstock_210301228-5bfc3632c9e77c0026b70ef4.jpg)
www.investopedia.com
The TLDR on it, ticket sales at the box office alone aren't driving revenue anymore. And while as difficult as that is for those that like the old school model of the box office being the sole decider on success or failure, that is no longer the case.
How Exactly Do Movies Make Money?
While there is a lot of money to be made in the movie business, ticket sales alone are not enough. Learn the economics of movie making.
The TLDR on it, ticket sales at the box office alone aren't driving revenue anymore. And while as difficult as that is for those that like the old school model of the box office being the sole decider on success or failure, that is no longer the case.
Nevermore525
Well-Known Member
Cinema enthusiasts, don’t forget to buy your seats for 70MM IMAX Screenings of Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey that are available today!
Movie releases one year from now.
Movie releases one year from now.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
The 2.5 times is because historically about half the budget is what is put into marketing. It feels like more recently, that number is much more than 50% honestly (Superman here is an example). But, we do know companies make roughly 50% of ticket sales (more or less depending on where the movie is released, how big the studio is, etc.). So If we already know that $350 million is the total number sunk into production and marketing, we don't need the 0.5 addition to calculate how much a break even point is, we just need to double that total number. So if Superman sold $700 million in tickets, and the studio receives 50% of those sales, that would get them to the $350 million break even.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Disney Irish
Premium Member
The whole idea of using 2.5x budget is to take the marketing cost out of the equation, as its not a fixed cost and fluctuates over the course of a films life. It takes the guess work out of having to calculate how much should be attributed to just theatrical and how much should be attributed to other aspects such as post-theatrical since its not like that gets a separate marketing budget. Since some here don't like to talk about post-theatrical the 2.5x budget calculation is the easiest way to do that without trying to split up the marketing.
HoustonHorn
Premium Member
The four showings released for Dallas (Thursday at 2pm; Fri-Sun at 7pm) are all sold out.
But I was told it wouldn’t get there?
variety.com
‘Lilo & Stitch’ Becomes Hollywood’s First Movie to Hit $1 Billion in 2025
Disney's live-action "Lilo & Stitch" remake is the year's first Hollywood release to hit $1 billion at the worldwide box office.
variety.com
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Who said that?But I was told it wouldn’t get there?
‘Lilo & Stitch’ Becomes Hollywood’s First Movie to Hit $1 Billion in 2025
Disney's live-action "Lilo & Stitch" remake is the year's first Hollywood release to hit $1 billion at the worldwide box office.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Ugh. The animation...
BrianLo
Well-Known Member
It's still a very incomplete picture and does not account for residuals, participation, overhead ongoing post theatrical marketing spend, SVOD, PVOD or streaming. Which is why there is a false sense of knowing an additional data point (other than the marketing spend appears standard) does not give us enough to change the approach.
Doubling the numbers we were given pushes more to a 3X multiplier than a 2.5X. That's what Gunn is alluding to ultimately. The cut off isn't really 700M. It's probably closer to that 560 mark.
You and others did seem to doubt it may…
Post in thread 'Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs'
https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...current-state-of-affairs.981297/post-11223938
Post in thread 'Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs'
https://forums.wdwmagic.com/threads...current-state-of-affairs.981297/post-11223941
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Did you read what I said?
I had predicted $1.2 or so prior to release…it was a little slow on the pace after the 2-4 weeks so I was not sure…but it did leg out the Bil. Good money if you can get it.
It kept enough legs…wouldn’t have been surprised if it puttered out at $950ish or got to its end around $1.020 or so?
Big hit either way. Stitch looked like a slam dunk and is. These things are becoming easier and easier to guess…it seems
Last edited: