-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
2019 Box Office tracking
- Thread starter WhatJaneSays
- Start date
TLK19 will be joining the B club within two weeks.
Disney could easily finish the year with 7 movies in the billion dollar club.
Let's see... $300 million budgets, add in 50% for marketing, deduct half of box office receipts... there we go. With 7 billion dollar movies, Disney could very will generate a profit of $120 million!!
Its just insane how much money Disney is making. So I find it hilarious how some critics were criticising the under performance of a few Fox movies. And even starting to question if the Fox acquisition was worth it for Disney. Good grief. For one thing those underperforming Fox movies like Stuber were r-rated so its to be expected and these movies we're made by old Fox not new Fox under Disney. Second its barely been a few months since the merger closed. We won't see the results of this deal until Avatar 2 in 2021. or whenever MCU X-Men & FF release. So I don't think its fair to criticise the performance of the acquisition just yet.
You are way overestimating Disney's production costs. Also Disney averages 60% of the box office receipts not 50%. They have a better cut because they produce better results for the theaters. Anyway do you really believe the 10 movies Disney made this year cost 3 billion dollars to make? BTW, Disney's worldwide box office this year will be well over 10 billion. Should easily pass 11 billion and 12 billion is actually possible. They will be at 7.61 billion after Sunday. At 60% that would mean they get 4.566 billion. So even using your crazy 3 billion plus 50% for marking would mean they make 66 million in profits even if they don't receiving one penny more from any of their movies for the year. Not very likely. In fact even if they just get 3 billion more from Aladdin. Toy Story 4, Lion King, Malisifant, Frozen 2 and Rise of Skywalker they will have a profit of 1.866 billion before any merchandise profits. In reality the profits will be higher because the box office will be higher and the production costs were lower.
It was tongue in cheek. Just pointing out they're not making $7B.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood cost between $90-$100 million without advertising.
It ain’t an indie low budget film.
Sorry. I should have thought more about who I was responding to before posting my response. If I had I would have known you were joking. I know you would never say out of 7 billion in box office Disney would make less than 2%. I think everyone here knows the streak Disney is on can't last forever but it is one hell of a run.
You are right. It is not a low budget movie but that is because they are paying the actors too much. Anyway, my point was that I agree with you movies like it should be made. I will probably see it Monday or Tuesday.
As for the cost of making movies, I want to see them go down. No movie should ever cost over 300 million to make. like Endgame did. No movie should cost over 100 million. Hollywood pays too much and ticket prices are too high. No actor is worth millions a movie. The Director, Writer and Editor make movies great or horrible. There are many great actors and actresses that are not given the opportunity they should have because of nepotism. In Hollywood it is who you know that matters.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Not sure Disney won't keep it going. The years may fluctuate but the trend line is unmistakable. And contrary to popular opinion, I see no end to the available content.
Clearly the box office gold mine is in movies that appeal to all ages. Disney has some expertise in making family films.
Last edited:
jt04
Well-Known Member
I was thinking about this. Pretty sure the primary movers will be the writers, cinematographers (art design? if digitally rendered) and then film score. Directors and actors might be relegated to streaming services for less risky productions.
Big budget event films will not have a lot off flexibility for "artistic interpretation" once cameras roll. If that phase even exists in the future.
Times they are a changin.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
If directors are replaced, film is dead, creatively.
jt04
Well-Known Member
Not so sure. I think it will become more niche. A writer or writers working directly with digital artists can fill that role. No proof yet, just a hunch this is where this is all going. There will still be a director but that role will be minimized compared to the past. IMO.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
No movie should cost over $100m?
On what basis are you judging that? That makes no logical sense.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
Not a shot in hell. Without directors and editors working together, as well as in unison with the writers if they are different individuals, films are aimless and without vision.
They’re corporate mandated instead of made. I know you want a return on your Disney investment, but that path you’re saying would end film as a legitimate source of art. And to hell with that, and luckily, I’m 100% convinced that isn’t in the cards, at least until 1984 becomes a reality.
Last edited:
jt04
Well-Known Member
We'll see. As cinematic universes become the norm they won't have as much creative license during the filming stage. The process will function more like an Imagineering project than film school.
What you are looking for will exist more on streaming services and less on big budget theatrical releases. Too risky for investors.
PS- I have no financial ties to Disney direct or otherwise. Never have received any compensation either. Not that I'm critical of those that do.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Creativity is apparently with the streaming shows (not that I watch many or any). Movie theaters are more for events now due to price. If they could get some of the TV writers to write for the big screen, there could be the potential for the next Star Wars, Indiana Jones, ET, Matrix, etc (heck even POTC). But it's all about what studios will fund. Too many "new" movies have bombed that studios are VERY reluctant to finance new material-at least in the fantasy department. Known material is the closest thing to a sure shot hit these days. But we have two things that may help:
1. The well of existing material WILL run out. Disney cannot keep up the success with remakes for their lesser known stuff and their popular stuff is running out. We have Mulan and TLM. After that, you either have the classic old school material or much lesser known newer material (except maybe Frozen but that is living off of its own existence right now).
2. While people seemed to like TLK, voices have been loud and clear. People want new stuff badly. Money has been made off of remakes and sequels such that studios like Disney can afford a risk here and there.
1. The well of existing material WILL run out. Disney cannot keep up the success with remakes for their lesser known stuff and their popular stuff is running out. We have Mulan and TLM. After that, you either have the classic old school material or much lesser known newer material (except maybe Frozen but that is living off of its own existence right now).
2. While people seemed to like TLK, voices have been loud and clear. People want new stuff badly. Money has been made off of remakes and sequels such that studios like Disney can afford a risk here and there.
I think actors are grossly overpaid. Why should any actor get paid multimillions for one movie? They should be capped at 1 million a movie. The livable wage liberals are asking for is $15.00 an hour. That works out to $31,200 a year. The liberals also want to cap executive pay to a multiple of avwrage salaries. So why is an actor and actress not limited to 32 times what is a livable wage per movie? An actor like Will Smith, who did 3 movies this year, would still be making 96 times the livable wage. Ticket prices should also be reduced making movies more available ti o the masses.
Tony Perkis
Well-Known Member
Because certain actors are the reasons people see these films. The actors themselves are there not just for the performance, but also to market the film.
If an actor’s salary is $15 million, and data estimates show that specific person brought in $20 million on his or name recognition and likability alone, that is a profitable endeavor that the studio will always make.
An arbitrary line in the sand with no specific reason as to why should never be implemented.
Keep the liberal bashing nonsense on the sidelines. We are talking about actors with star power. They’re outside of the living wage discussion.
Again, because they’re presumably a strong draw for marketing and giving the film additional exposure.
Not that simple.
There are only a finite number of showings in a single day, and a small window within a span of weeks where a film is widely and readily available to be shown.
With the majority of the first two weeks’ proceeds going back to the studio, and with Disney charging a ridiculously high licensing fee to show their films, there has become a line where there aren’t enough additional showings for theatres to exhibit (in a profitable manner) that would make up for the lower ticket prices.
For example, let’s say AMC lowered its base adult ticket price from $15 to $10, and tried to make up the difference by adding an early morning and late evening showing each day, both at times that are usually low traffic hours. Those additional viewings require theatres to schedule and staff employees, have concessions of all kinds ready that may it may not be sold, projectionists ready to go, utilities and power being used an additional 6 hours in the day......and then both showings are 1/4 full, creating a significant net loss for the theatre.
Theatres have the ability to foresee this based on past trends, so they know that’s likely a losing endeavor for them.
Everyone wants lower prices for everything. It’s much more complex than saying it simply will increase exposure.