• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Aladdin is out drawing Godzilla

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Watched Aladdin last night, it's by far one of the worst Disney live-action movies they've ever put out. The acting, other than Will Smith trying to make the Genie his own thing, was horrendous. It's only making money because it's Disney, nothing more and nothing less.
All the live action Disney movies which have made much, much less (and there are a lot of them) would like you to explain to them how they lost money then, if simply being a Disney movie was enough to generate half a billion in Box Office receipts and a profit.
 

Thingamabob

Active Member
Advertisement
I love Disney and Disney movies, but honestly the remakes and the live action movies have been quite a disappointment to me. Other the the over the top performance by Will Smith as the Genie the live Action Aladdin just didn't hit its marks for me. The other actors seemed as if they were trying, but it just wasn't right. I hope Disney can somehow see the light and get back to there roots and start making original animated feature length movies again with stellar soundtracks and music to with it.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
All the live action Disney movies which have made much, much less (and there are a lot of them) would like you to explain to them how they lost money then, if simply being a Disney movie was enough to generate half a billion in Box Office receipts and a profit.
I'm not sure you can say a lot have made much less. Unless I'm missing something, since the boom started in 2010, you have 9 films. 4 have made more. Cinderella was pretty close at $543 million. So you really have 3 out of 9 that made way less, and those would be Christopher Robin/Dumbo/Alice #2.

That said, I don't think the premise is it being Disney, I think the premise is a really well known Animated movie that was beloved. I would bet any live action based on Little Mermaid will probably bank half a million easily as well no matter how good or bad.
 

mousekedoc

Premium Member
Tim Burton is extra ordinary. But he is dark. I would argue too dark. My wife, who loves everything Disney, uniformly gets creeped out with Burton movies. She doesn’t know who he is or if he’s directed a particular movie. But I can predict, at least with my wife, whether she’ll like something or not based on Tim Burtons direction. Burton is successful, and great, but he is not the super block buster kind of great.
 
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
I'm not sure you can say a lot have made much less. Unless I'm missing something, since the boom started in 2010, you have 9 films. 4 have made more. Cinderella was pretty close at $543 million. So you really have 3 out of 9 that made way less, and those would be Christopher Robin/Dumbo/Alice #2.

That said, I don't think the premise is it being Disney, I think the premise is a really well known Animated movie that was beloved. I would bet any live action based on Little Mermaid will probably bank half a million easily as well no matter how good or bad.
Since 2010, Disney Studios have produced 35 live action movies. That's what I was referring to.

Are you counting only the 'remakes'?
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
I'm not sure you can say a lot have made much less. Unless I'm missing something, since the boom started in 2010, you have 9 films. 4 have made more. Cinderella was pretty close at $543 million. So you really have 3 out of 9 that made way less, and those would be Christopher Robin/Dumbo/Alice #2.

That said, I don't think the premise is it being Disney, I think the premise is a really well known Animated movie that was beloved. I would bet any live action based on Little Mermaid will probably bank half a million easily as well no matter how good or bad.
So in less than 3 weeks for Aladdin you are comparing it to the lifetime grosses of other movies. Interesting decision there. Lifetime gross vs 18 day gross. By tomorrow it will be the #4 movie in that list domestically. Also kind of interesting to say over 600 million is kind of close to 543 million (again after only 18 days too). After 18 days Cinderella had 337 million worldwide...yeah that's real close to Aladdin's 610 million. Oz was at 257 million worldwide after 18 days, Maleficent was at 437 million after 18 days, Alice in Wonderland was at 568 million. It's not even that far behind Jungle Book (689 million after 18 days - a smaller percent behind Jungle book after 18 days than Cinderella's lifetime gross is). So realistically, after 18 days, Aladdin is the #3 movie in your list, significantly ahead of all but 3 movies. Way to make statistics say what you want to say, but really not give an accurate picture at all.

Full Chart of Disney live action ReImaginings since 2010 after 18 days worldwide (since you wanted to compare):

1) Beauty and the Beast $941 Million
2) Jungle Book $689 Million
3) Aladdin $610 Million
4) Alice in Wonderland $568 Million
5) Maleficent $437 Million
6) Cinderella $337 Million
7) Dumbo $269 Million
8) Oz $257 Million
9) Alice 2 $215 Million
10) Pete's Dragon $76 Million
 
Last edited:

LSLS

Well-Known Member
So in less than 3 weeks for Aladdin you are comparing it to the lifetime grosses of other movies. Interesting decision there. Lifetime gross vs 18 day gross. By tomorrow it will be the #4 movie in that list domestically. Also kind of interesting to say over 600 million is kind of close to 543 million (again after only 18 days too). After 18 days Cinderella had 337 million worldwide...yeah that's real close to Aladdin's 610 million. Oz was at 257 million worldwide after 18 days, Maleficent was at 437 million after 18 days, Alice in Wonderland was at 568 million. It's not even that far behind Jungle Book (689 million after 18 days - a smaller percent behind Jungle book after 18 days than Cinderella's lifetime gross is). So realistically, after 18 days, Aladdin is the #3 movie in your list, significantly ahead of all but 3 movies. Way to make statistics say what you want to say, but really not give an accurate picture at all.

Full Chart of Disney live action ReImaginings since 2010 after 18 days worldwide (since you wanted to compare):

1) Beauty and the Beast $941 Million
2) Jungle Book $689 Million
3) Aladdin $610 Million
4) Alice in Wonderland $568 Million
5) Maleficent $437 Million
6) Cinderella $337 Million
7) Dumbo $269 Million
8) Oz $257 Million
9) Alice 2 $215 Million
10) Pete's Dragon $76 Million
Sure its 18 days. I'll start with Pete's dragon wasnt even on the list I saw. But, if you think Aladdin is going to pull in another $150 mil, then that's fine. I'd be beyond shocked considering what's coming and where its numbers have been going (by the way, how will it be 4 tomorrow, maleficent is 4 at like $750 million). I'd say it's probably set right in the center.

The funny part is you are so upset over something where I misunderstood what mister penguin was even arguing (fyi, he was completely correct in that his statement was not about just remakes). It still doesn't change my point that these movies will make half a billion easily on nostalgia alone whether they are good or not. My statements weren't even a shot at the movie, maybe it is good, just stating these remakes of super popular animated movies seem to print money (which is why they keep doing them).
 
Last edited:

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
So in less than 3 weeks for Aladdin you are comparing it to the lifetime grosses of other movies. Interesting decision there. Lifetime gross vs 18 day gross. By tomorrow it will be the #4 movie in that list domestically. Also kind of interesting to say over 600 million is kind of close to 543 million (again after only 18 days too). After 18 days Cinderella had 337 million worldwide...yeah that's real close to Aladdin's 610 million. Oz was at 257 million worldwide after 18 days, Maleficent was at 437 million after 18 days, Alice in Wonderland was at 568 million. It's not even that far behind Jungle Book (689 million after 18 days - a smaller percent behind Jungle book after 18 days than Cinderella's lifetime gross is). So realistically, after 18 days, Aladdin is the #3 movie in your list, significantly ahead of all but 3 movies. Way to make statistics say what you want to say, but really not give an accurate picture at all.

Full Chart of Disney live action ReImaginings since 2010 after 18 days worldwide (since you wanted to compare):

1) Beauty and the Beast $941 Million
2) Jungle Book $689 Million
3) Aladdin $610 Million
4) Alice in Wonderland $568 Million
5) Maleficent $437 Million
6) Cinderella $337 Million
7) Dumbo $269 Million
8) Oz $257 Million
9) Alice 2 $215 Million
10) Pete's Dragon $76 Million
Aladdin will pass Jungle Book long before its run ends. I don't see it catching Beauty and the Beast though. Lion King on the otherhand will be number 1 on that list.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Aladdin will pass Jungle Book long before its run ends. I don't see it catching Beauty and the Beast though. Lion King on the otherhand will be number 1 on that list.
Didnt jungle book make $950 million or so?
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
I think you are right. I do think Aladdin will get close to 800 million worldwide by the end of its run. I also expect Lion King to get close to 1.5 billion.
That's higher than I expect for Aladdin. I don't think it will hit Maleficent at $750 mil, but I'm just pure guess work at this point. Just seems like another $200 mil is a tall order with MIB, Toy Story 4, and Spiderman all coming out in the next few weeks.
 

Ripken10

Well-Known Member
Sure its 18 days. I'll start with Pete's dragon wasnt even on the list I saw. But, if you think Aladdin is going to pull in another $150 mil, then that's fine. I'd be beyond shocked considering what's coming and where its numbers have been going (by the way, how will it be 4 tomorrow, maleficent is 4 at like $750 million). I'd say it's probably set right in the center.

The funny part is you are so upset over something where I misunderstood what mister penguin was even arguing (fyi, he was completely correct in that his statement was not about just remakes). It still doesn't change my point that these movies will make half a billion easily on nostalgia alone whether they are good or not. My statements weren't even a shot at the movie, maybe it is good, just stating these remakes of super popular animated movies seem to print money (which is why they keep doing them).
I said it will be Domestically #4 after (today now). It was 6 million behind Maleficent as of Monday.

It's not about what I think, it's about what it is doing. Nothing in my post gave my opinion (outside of my believing it will make over 6 million in 2 days at the box office on Tuesday and Wednesday). It is on a pace ahead of all those movies. @seascape is right that all indications point to it making around 800 million right now even with the competition. This movie is more comparable to the Jungle book run (while not as good as Jungle Book) then comparing it to Cinderella or Maleficent. The experts had doubts on Aladdin that first weekend, then had doubts it could have as strong of a hold that second weekend given it's competition. In the end it proved them wrong, and now the experts seem to have a good idea of where it is going. It held strong when Pets 2 came out.

I could see Aladdin staying ok when Toy Story 4 comes out. At that point, it is only needing around 7.5 million to stick to a 45% drop rate (that would be outstanding), and it might see some business from people that go to the theaters to see Toy Story 4 with their kids but their theater is sold out. Enough so that it will stick to the 45% drop or less. Time will tell.

I believe @seascape is right, that Lion King will be the King by the end of the summer of these movies. All signs point that way.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
It appears the Positivity Trolls have given up invading ongoing threads and are now starting threads of their own to spread their rose colored agenda. Can Sirwalt, MisterPenguin, or MikeS step in to the rescue and level this thing out?
It appears the unnecessarily rude trolls are doing just fine.

Make a movie about the Tiki Room birds
Just shoot me first, please.

With a 23.99 price each month it pays for itself with 2 movies a month.
Not really. We pretty much exclusively go on $5 Tuesdays. It would be a rare exception to go 5 times in a month. Some months we go once or not at all. Most movies are meh.

It still doesn't change my point that these movies will make half a billion easily on nostalgia alone whether they are good or not.
Again, most movies are “meh.” “Good” is an exception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CJR

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
Aladdin soared past 600 million globally this weekend. Still plenty left in the tank. 300 million North America looks likely.
$600m globally on a $200m film isn’t particularly impressive. Slight profit, nothing more.
 

lee.moles.disney

Well-Known Member
I think Disney are surprised how well Aladdin has done though.

I just really fear for what's going to happen when these live action remakes fizzle out in the next few years
 

seascape

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
$600m globally on a $200m film isn’t particularly impressive. Slight profit, nothing more.
It's not done yet. Besides, Disney has too many huge box office movies this year cannibalizing some of their box office. By the time Aladdin is done it will be around 800 billion, 5 times is 183 million dollar production cost. That is a healthy profit.
 

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
It's not done yet. Besides, Disney has too many huge box office movies this year cannibalizing some of their box office. By the time Aladdin is done it will be around 800 billion, 5 times is 183 million dollar production cost. That is a healthy profit.
That’s not how generating a profit in Hollywood works, at all. It’s actually far more complicated than simply looking at a film’s production budget and gross revenues.

You need to take the following in consideration:

  • The film’s actual production budget (usually one of the only pieces of information the general public can research)
  • Advertising and marketing
  • Distributor fees (how much of ticket sales the theatres are entitled to, which varies film-to-film)
  • Back-end deals for key players (for example, a director receiving 10% of a film’s revenue instead of a higher base salary)
  • Additional studio overhead
The rule of thumb is that a film becomes generally profitable if it generates 3 to 4 times its actual production budget. So, a $200 million dollar film likely needs to generating $800 to even be considered barely profitable, and even then, it may not be.

Additionally, and only because this bugs me, $800 million is not 5 multiplied by $183 million. That’s just bad math.
 
Last edited:

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
I think Disney are surprised how well Aladdin has done though.

I just really fear for what's going to happen when these live action remakes fizzle out in the next few years
Why do you think Disney is surprised? In general, the only films that are making a profit for Disney Studios in their theatrical window are franchises and remakes.

And given that factoid, why do you think there will be a fizzling out of the live action (or CGI) remake? Things don't just fizzle on their own. Only when the franchise drops the ball. People have been predicting a fizzling for Marvel MCU films for at least 8 years. This is like saying, "the market for Pixar films will fizzle out in a few years." There's no justification for that simply because some franchises falter while others don't. Who knows which case the live remakes will be. But... the money is on them not faltering (unless your remake really isn't a remake but a 'reimagining' that goes off the rails... looking at you, Tim Burton).
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
I think Disney are surprised how well Aladdin has done though.

I just really fear for what's going to happen when these live action remakes fizzle out in the next few years
I would like to think they are using this time for developing concepts for the future in the secret bunker below Disneyland. If there was a secret bunker. Not saying there is. It might be in Glendale. No one knows. Move along.
 
Top Bottom