A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
rael ramone said:
My Swamp Issues.... (gotta balance out the mostly positive last post)...

Let's start off in Cosmic Rays Feed Station. I've said I can make that burger taste good overflowing with grilled onions & mushrooms & packaged BBQ sauce, and I was able to again. But a couple of things that, while didn't affect me personally, don't look good for the future.

Cheese sauce (that was once part of the fixin bar) is now sold for a dollar. (Don't know what size).
They've added standing tables to the dining area (and they don't match to boot).

I have no interest in the cheese sauce, but what will they try to monetize next?
And is the 'standing table' going to be their go-to solution 'increase capacity' - to try to get guests to eat quicker.... (I really can't see someone eating at one of those tables trying to inhale one of those 1/2 rotisserie chicken dinners).

-------------

Norway hasn't been kicked out of their pavilion yet, but they seem to be sleeping on the couch. As far as the 'new' attraction itself, the new projected faces looked much better then the 7 dwarfs, but I still find it inferior to regular animatronics (which fortunately they used for their new non-human characters). Still wondering what some precious Snowflake will react if the projectors go out and Anna & Elsa look like they've had an encounter with Charlie X. :eek: 'Fastpass' for this is really 'Not As Slow Pass'. But as expected woefully lacking on capacity. But what really jumped out at me is how the ride system itself (with the backwards part) made no narrative sense. As a result I don't think I've experienced a ride more shoehorned into an existing ride system then Frozen Ever After. And later, when I tried to eat a Norwegian QS meal (quite good fishermans plate & troll horn but quite disappointing ham & apple sandwich that was woefully lacking in condiments) I noticed background music from other Disney films like Snow White. Basically, Princess Music.

-------------

Now about the 'new' ride that I was actually looking forward to - which should be called SOSFCQCGI (Soarin Over Sy Fy Channel Quality CGI). It. Looked. So. Fake. Only thing missing was Ian Ziering holding a chainsaw... Right now the best screen attraction at the WDW Resort is Illuminations de France, without question.

--------------

Now for the biggie.

Additional Security Theater! (imagine Stacy saying that in full Stacy mode). It. Got. Old. Real. Quick.

First you have to have everything in your pockets to get through the first wave of ST. Then you have to empty them of anything that might have a hint of metal in them. (Camera batteries, handi wipes with foil containers, etc). And if you only get out 5 of your 6 items, you get to be wanded... Absolutely MAGICal.

Imagine if you were spending over $500 on a Monorail or Crescent Lake resort (I wasn't). A big selling point is supposedly the ability to quickly get in and out of the park (Mornings there, back to the resort in the hot afternoon for pool & nap, then back in the more pleasant evening). Now each time you have to enter the park you've got that hassle to deal with. So instead you stick it out in the park, with more and more crowds along with inconsistent AC, until you've finally had enough and leave for good. And since you're close to heatstroke, you have no appetite for that dinner ADR that you have. You end up going back to the hotel and watching TV....

Remember when they used to give out special Fastpasses at random?....
Click to expand...

Ahh the Cheese Sauce - another fine product of the plastics industry as a good friend of mine noted. Remember when it was taken away because of the 'Burn Danger' to small children. Just more carp from Disney corporate The real reason is TDO wanted to monetize it so now you pay a buck for a 1.5 Oz package of cold Heinz 'cheese food sauce' Which is almost but not completely unlike Hot Cheese Sauce (with apologies to Douglas Adams).

And then Disney monetizes that heatstroke because you did not cancel that ADR you are feeling too ill to keep the day before, Ka-Ching! I'm just waiting for Disney to increase the no show fee especially at the buffet styled venues to the full price of the meal (in the case of DDP penalize the diner the meal credits for each of the no shows on the reservation)
 
Last edited:
D

doctornick

Well-Known Member
the.dreamfinder said:
I am serious. But before I get into why I chose $500 million, some comps.

Ant-Man 2015 $519 WW ($180 US/$339 Intl)
Guardians of the Galaxy 2014 $773 WW ($333 US/$440 Intl)
Suicide Squad 2016 $720 WW ($314 US/$406 Intl)
Godzilla 2014 $529 WW ($200 US/$328 Intl)

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol 2011
$694 WW ($209 US/$485 Intl)
Big Hero Six 2014 $657 WW ($222 US/$435 Intl)

So we have a mix of films with which to predict Rogue One's potential against. Four of the films are the first entries in a series connected to a larger franchise similar to how R1 is the first Star Wars Anthology film. They all performed well for their respective studios, with SS and GotG performing quite well thanks to strong hype that had follow through. However, $700 million shouldn't be the marker to judge R1's success because those films are at the higher end of successful first entry branded films. Both films also had outsized success thanks to weak competition before and after their release weekends which drove demand. Ant-Man and Godzilla 2014 are where Disney/Lucasfilm should set the expectations for R1. Both were well received entries in their respective franchises which both have sequels in development. Ant-Man in particular is a good comp for R1 because they both came after their franchises' respective marquis entries. Half a billion, even if the film doesn't recoup all its costs in theatrical, is on a good path for future revenue streams like Home Entertainment and Moychendising.

The second set of films came out during the holiday season; Opening around Thanksgiving to around Christmas. R1 will be one of the biggest films this holday season, but its release won't benefit from being considered a cultural event in the way TFA was. That, even if we were to discount China which is necessary with SW, will ultimately be what sets the worldwide gross. R1 will be one of the big Hollywood tentpoles coming out during the holidays as theaters around the world have to determine how many booking they should schedule for the concentration of films that open within a 10 period. Therefore, Ghost Protocol and Big Hero 6's success represents the ceiling for R1's worldwide gross, but...

Then there's the China problem...
China Grosses
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol $101 China ($694 WW)
Godzilla 2014 $77 China ($529 WW)
Guardians of the Galaxy $96 China ($773 WW)
Big Hero Six $83 China ($657 WW)
Avengers: Age of Ultron $240 China ($1,405 WW)
Ant-Man $105 China ($519 WW)
The Force Awakens $124 China ($2,068 WW)
Zootopia $235 China ($1,023 WW)
SS aside, the importance of China in the international film market place cannot be understated. As far as I am concerned, TWDC should realize that the MCU is China's Star Wars and accept these new Star Wars films may not do as well as their other brands do over there. Disney has every reason to try to make Star Wars more popular in China, but the Chinese are not stupid and they can smell China pandering a mile away. (See Iron Man 3 China edition) Donnie Yen can't save a film from disinterest on the part of Chinese audiences. But in terms of a specific prediction for Rogue One, Ant Man again provides a good indication for its performance. Ant Man made less than half of what Ultron did, so it's reasonable a similar drop will occur with TFA and R1. ($50-60)

"It's Still Maui Time!" or Canabalism
Last Fall, The Good Dinosaur became Pixar's first financial failure at the box office. While TWDS typically gives its tentpoles promotional breathing room so each one can recieve the maximum amount of possible attention from the moviegoing public, The Force Awakens sucked all the oxygen out from The Good Dinosuar. Nobody didn't not know a new Star Wars movie was coming out, but many folks didn't know a Pixar movie would be in theaters on Thanksgiving. Why keep carpet bombing the public with Star Wars ads when it would be financially prudent to invest in increasing public awareness/interest in the film that clearly could use those resources? As Disney has wratcheted up its branded tent pole strategy, these films can be too close to each other leading to one or more films to underperform or bomb. For example, this past Summer saw TWDS release 4 tent pole pictures, Civil War, Alice 2, Dory, and The BFG, in a two month period. It was decided that Cap and Dory would get the lion's share of the attention resources because they were seen as more important while the other two were essentially allowed to fail. (Political/critical concerns also played a role) This fall, Disney will release three major tentpoles within 43 days of each other during the most crowded season of the theatrical calendar. Not a single one of these films can't afford to fail in the ways Good Dinosaur, Alice, and BFG did and won't. However, that doesn't mean they wont eat into each other's grosses. The audience might give Moana a cultural moment much like Frozen had over its theatrical release and Rogue One will have to perform against that in a way tentpoles released in the spring, like Zootopia or Jungle Book, don't have to.

To wrap up, Bob is doing the right thing by correcting financial expectations for Rogue One, but the number by which it should be deemed a success, and its likely performance, should be in the $500-$600 million range. Rogue One is going against strong headwinds including historical comps for first entry/holiday films which rule out a worldwide gross higher than the low $700 million range at best, the lack of strong interest from Chinese audiences, and Disney having to balance three large tentpoles during a crowded holiday season.

Addendum:
Strong performance in Europe could help make up the difference for the poor performance in China, but by how much is an open question.
Don't underestimate the difficulty for Disney in selling a Star Wars film that isn't part of the main series.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the thought you put into it though I totally disagree with you. Mainly because I don't think your comparable are all that comparable because it ignores how massive the Star Wars brand is. Yes, this is not part of the ongoing triologies and doesn't feature any of the main characters (though people kinda like that Darth Vader guy) but that is why people aren't predicting numbers like $1.5-1.6B or so which is what we'll be seeing as expected for Ep VIII. It's tough to really find another film in the same situation (Fantastic Beasts will be an interesting test case for an off shoot for a big brand).

And again, I think is Rogue One does something like $500 or even 600M, then heads are gonna roll because that will be far worse than what Disney wants/hopes/expects. They aren't expecting or settling for Ant-Man with this film; this is more like Winter Soldier/Thor: The Dark World to TFA's The Avengers (keeping that TFA made a couple of hundred more than The Avengers).

One of my favorite writers on these issues is Scott Mendelson of Forbes who writes some really balanced and realistic predictions. It just so happens that he recently wrote about Rogue One and his realistic predictions for box office for the film was $495-$630M domestic and $750M-$1.05B worldwide. I can't really argue with that and I'd expecting about the same. He does put the catastrophic failure floor of the film to be about $555M worldwide; conversely, he puts the pie in the sky, everything is perfectly awesome scenario at $1.78B. So, there's a wide potential spread there.

As a way of comparison, Mendelson's Batman v Superman realistic prediction was between $700M and $1.12B; it ended with $873M worldwide.

Edit: I'd also say that Moana isn't really an issue at all, since it will have been out for over 3 weeks by the time Rogue One opens. I do think that Sing is where they might be some loss among the family crowd, though there was that concern last year with Alvin and the Chipmunks with TFA and, well, it didn't matter.
 
Last edited:
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
I appreciate the thought you put into it though I totally disagree with you. Mainly because I don't think your comparable are all that comparable because it ignores how massive the Star Wars brand is. Yes, this is not part of the ongoing triologies and doesn't feature any of the main characters (though people kinda like that Darth Vader guy) but that is why people aren't predicting numbers like $1.5-1.6B or so which is what we'll be seeing as expected for Ep VIII. It's tough to really find another film in the same situation (Fantastic Beasts will be an interesting test case for an off shoot for a big brand).

And again, I think is Rogue One does something like $500 or even 600M, then heads are gonna roll because that will be far worse than what Disney wants/hopes/expects. They aren't expecting or settling for Ant-Man with this film; this is more like Winter Soldier/Thor: The Dark World to TFA's The Avengers (keeping that TFA made a couple of hundred more than The Avengers).

One of my favorite writers on these issues is Scott Mendelson of Forbes who writes some really balanced and realistic predictions. It just so happens that he recently wrote about Rogue One and his realistic predictions for box office for the film was $495-$630M domestic and $750M-$1.05B worldwide. I can't really argue with that and I'd expecting about the same. He does put the catastrophic failure floor of the film to be about $555M worldwide; conversely, he puts the pie in the sky, everything is perfectly awesome scenario at $1.78B. So, there's a wide potential spread there.

As a way of comparison, Mendelson's Batman v Superman realistic prediction was between $700M and $1.12B; it ended with $873M worldwide.

Edit: I'd also say that Moana isn't really an issue at all, since it will have been out for over 3 weeks by the time Rogue One opens. I do think that Sing is where they might be some loss among the family crowd, though there was that concern last year with Alvin and the Chipmunks with TFA and, well, it didn't matter.
Click to expand...

I too think you put in a lot of really good thought into your post @the.dreamfinder. I thought your prediction was a bit outlandish, but appreciate you backing up the claim with comparisons and a good rationality.

I'm siding with Nick unfortunately. We have to keep in mind the comparables you've used here are not 2 billion dollar franchises. 25% of a predecessor wasn't even something the embarrassingly bad performance of Through the Looking Glass was able to pull off.

Unlike some of the comparables, Rogue One is still being built, marketed and positioned as a tentpole. Ant Man was a decidedly small and risky film, it was not the Marvel tentpole film of the year. As was GoTG, which took the same dumping ground of a release date and turned it into magic. They were both positioned to be smaller. Suicide Squad is more a benchmark of how poorly a movie can be reviewed, not have the support of China, but still make a reasonable number. 750 million WW (with China) is what I'd see as the lowest possible benchmark for R1. That's if it winds up being a very bad film. Godzilla and Mission Impossible (apart from being movies that made the money you stated and were considered successes) don't mesh well with R1. Neither of those franchises have remotely approached a billion, yet alone two.

The best comparable in my mind just in terms of market breakdown? Finding Dory. I expect Rogue One to post big (although not remotely TFA) domestic numbers and make a reasonable sum overseas. 50% of TFA seems a more reasonable benchmark of success, I think that's what Bob is trying to caution down towards. If they start passing that 1.2 billion mark, I'd say that would be considered a huge success.
 
Cesar R M

Cesar R M

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
And again, I think is Rogue One does something like $500 or even 600M, then heads are gonna roll because that will be far worse than what Disney wants/hopes/expects. They aren't expecting or settling for Ant-Man with this film; this is more like Winter Soldier/Thor: The Dark World to TFA's The Avengers (keeping that TFA made a couple of hundred more than The Avengers).
Click to expand...
But the Rogue one group will only have cameos of Darth Vader. So Technically it cant compared to Avengers in your allegory.
Because both Captain America (TWS) feature a lot of Avengers characters. and Thor is a member of the Avengers.
Noone from Rogue One seems to be from the main group of characters of Star Wars (apart from Darth Vader)
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
The point is, what areas are not in their REACH.
Disney is a monstrous conglomerate now. from ESPN to Star Wars and Theme Parks.
They could have a say in many websites because they are owned by subsidiaries.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the Disneyland Resort PR team that has decided to block users on twitter who write critical tweets of the ToT/GotG changeover.
 
Last edited:
RoysCabin

RoysCabin

Well-Known Member
AJH219 said:
That entire article had me rolling :hilarious: Splash has always felt like a weird acid trip to me, I can't explain why though.
Click to expand...

I know! Can't speak from much experience in the full-on trip area, but the transition to the Laughing Place really feels like you go to a twisted, dark place before climbing toward the light and the big plummet. It's the slight dissonance of the music, the laughing getting kind of creepy, the jumping water, the darkening of the room, etc., it all makes it like a full descent into madness before the final ascent.
 
Disneyhead'71

Disneyhead'71

Well-Known Member
Cesar R M said:
Well its pretty clear that the modern attractions are more used to spit people as fast as possible out again, so they can keep "purchasing".
Same way that they removed benches, so they are forced to seek space to rest in the quick serve and sit down restaurants.
Click to expand...
Just so you know, they didn't remove benches because they wanted people to keep spending. They only removed the benches around the parade routes and show stages because guests are idiots and they would stand on the benches to get a better view, fall off, and then sue Disney because it was Disney's fault.
 
the.dreamfinder

the.dreamfinder

Well-Known Member
doctornick said:
I appreciate the thought you put into it though I totally disagree with you. Mainly because I don't think your comparable are all that comparable because it ignores how massive the Star Wars brand is. Yes, this is not part of the ongoing triologies and doesn't feature any of the main characters (though people kinda like that Darth Vader guy) but that is why people aren't predicting numbers like $1.5-1.6B or so which is what we'll be seeing as expected for Ep VIII. It's tough to really find another film in the same situation (Fantastic Beasts will be an interesting test case for an off shoot for a big brand).

And again, I think is Rogue One does something like $500 or even 600M, then heads are gonna roll because that will be far worse than what Disney wants/hopes/expects. They aren't expecting or settling for Ant-Man with this film; this is more like Winter Soldier/Thor: The Dark World to TFA's The Avengers (keeping that TFA made a couple of hundred more than The Avengers).

One of my favorite writers on these issues is Scott Mendelson of Forbes who writes some really balanced and realistic predictions. It just so happens that he recently wrote about Rogue One and his realistic predictions for box office for the film was $495-$630M domestic and $750M-$1.05B worldwide. I can't really argue with that and I'd expecting about the same. He does put the catastrophic failure floor of the film to be about $555M worldwide; conversely, he puts the pie in the sky, everything is perfectly awesome scenario at $1.78B. So, there's a wide potential spread there.

As a way of comparison, Mendelson's Batman v Superman realistic prediction was between $700M and $1.12B; it ended with $873M worldwide.

Edit: I'd also say that Moana isn't really an issue at all, since it will have been out for over 3 weeks by the time Rogue One opens. I do think that Sing is where they might be some loss among the family crowd, though there was that concern last year with Alvin and the Chipmunks with TFA and, well, it didn't matter.
Click to expand...

BrianLo said:
I too think you put in a lot of really good thought into your post @the.dreamfinder. I thought your prediction was a bit outlandish, but appreciate you backing up the claim with comparisons and a good rationality.

I'm siding with Nick unfortunately. We have to keep in mind the comparables you've used here are not 2 billion dollar franchises. 25% of a predecessor wasn't even something the embarrassingly bad performance of Through the Looking Glass was able to pull off.

Unlike some of the comparables, Rogue One is still being built, marketed and positioned as a tentpole. Ant Man was a decidedly small and risky film, it was not the Marvel tentpole film of the year. As was GoTG, which took the same dumping ground of a release date and turned it into magic. They were both positioned to be smaller. Suicide Squad is more a benchmark of how poorly a movie can be reviewed, not have the support of China, but still make a reasonable number. 750 million WW (with China) is what I'd see as the lowest possible benchmark for R1. That's if it winds up being a very bad film. Godzilla and Mission Impossible (apart from being movies that made the money you stated and were considered successes) don't mesh well with R1. Neither of those franchises have remotely approached a billion, yet alone two.

The best comparable in my mind just in terms of market breakdown? Finding Dory. I expect Rogue One to post big (although not remotely TFA) domestic numbers and make a reasonable sum overseas. 50% of TFA seems a more reasonable benchmark of success, I think that's what Bob is trying to caution down towards. If they start passing that 1.2 billion mark, I'd say that would be considered a huge success.
Click to expand...
Glad to see we understand each other's opinions and had a good discussion on this subject, but unfortunately we will have to wait until December 16 to see how Rogue One plays around the world. Like you Nick, I read Scott's Box Office writings on Forbes from time to time. When I read the three sets of Rogue One predictions after you had linked to them, this passage stood out as it's basically where I'm coming from. (Again, I didn't read these particular columns from Scott until you posted them)
http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...realistic-box-office-prediction/#1a8d3980cf1d
Now I am aware that offering a $750 million worldwide cume for a “realistic” scenario is a dangerous thing to do, so as always I should note that that’s not the bare minimum for perceived success. I may go into this later, but we’re getting (and have already received) a bunch of franchise-y entries where artistic success combined with relative box office success is better for the long term than quick-kill blockbuster blow-out but artistic failure.

The reason, of course, is that these are long-term franchise offerings, as opposed to a “Well, once the books or over or once the trilogy ends your commitment as a viewer ends too” franchise. So yeah, an acclaimed and embraced Rogue One: A Star Wars Story that “only” makes $500 million worldwide is better for the long-term health of the franchise than a panned/dismissed Rogue One that still flirts with $800m worldwide.
Click to expand...
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom