Aladdin is out drawing Godzilla

[LSLS]

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).

Yeah I doubt they are too surprised. I guess it would depend how profitable it truly is (or going to be) which we won't really know as to what their true expectations were.

Only reason I could see it fizzling is that they are going to run out of nostalgic movies to remake. Mulan is coming, and i think Little Mermaid, but I'm not sure there are many others they could hit up beyond making sequels unless they are going to start going into the Pixar/movies that haven't been released that long ago market. I wonder if Maleficent is going to be used as a major gauge on if sequels are a viable option.

 

[Phroobar]

Yeah I doubt they are too surprised. I guess it would depend how profitable it truly is (or going to be) which we won't really know as to what their true expectations were.

Only reason I could see it fizzling is that they are going to run out of nostalgic movies to remake. Mulan is coming, and i think Little Mermaid, but I'm not sure there are many others they could hit up beyond making sequels unless they are going to start going into the Pixar/movies that haven't been released that long ago market. I wonder if Maleficent is going to be used as a major gauge on if sequels are a viable option.

Live action Wall-E. Not sure what difference would be.

 

[erasure fan1]

Mulan is coming, and i think Little Mermaid, but I'm not sure there are many others they could hit up beyond making sequels unless they are going to start going into the Pixar/movies that haven't been released that long ago market.

I think they will eventually start to mine the pixar movies. Lasseter, I don't think would have allowed it, but since he's gone, the door is open. At this point, there is no length Disney won't go to rehash their library in my opinion.

 

[Janir]

<quote snippage>
Maybe if the previews had been better, our expectations would have been set too high and we'd have been disappointed instead of happily surprised. I'm not one of those who thinks that every Disney film (or even most of them) are winners, but if Aladdin turns out to be a financial success, I think it is deserved.

So that's the new formula for Disney live action remakes - put out a crappy trailer to get everyone's expectations to set so low so when the movie actually releases everyone is pleasantly surprised!

 

[MisterPenguin]

Live action Wall-E. Not sure what difference would be.

WALL*E: The Musical!

 

[MisterPenguin]

So that's the new formula for Disney live action remakes - put out a crappy trailer to get everyone's expectations to set so low so when the movie actually releases everyone is pleasantly surprised!

Well, they're doing the exact opposite for Frozen 2. People are super hyped by the teasers.


As an aside, many of these Disney movies already had a live action version... staged versions on Broadway, in the parks, and on cruise ships.

 

[seascape]

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.

I will start out by apologizing for my math error. I guess that is why at my age I need a good nights sleep.

Anyway, I am well aware of Hollywood math and how very profitable movies show a loss. Believe me, on the Marvel movies with all their special effects, the company that does them makes a huge profit. That is why Disney movies are over proced, they use their own subsidiaries to do everything and they make movie. Also, lots of the advertising costs are paid by third parties in combined advertising and yet still charger to the movies with the fees Disney collects gived to the Corporate accounts. Disney also gets a higher percentage of the box office than other studios because of their market power. With allvthat said, Disney needs 2 times the production budget to break even for that portion and if they get 2.5 to 3 times they break even. However even at break even the Corporation makes money. Aladdin will do better than 4 times. It cost 183 million. So just from an 800 million box office, Disney will get 400 million. Taking away the 183 leaves 217 million. They did not spend 100 million on advertising but even if they did, they will make 117 million profit before and merchandise. That is a profit of 64% on their 183 million dollar investment. It will acrually be higher.

 

[jt04]

I will start out by apologizing for my math error. I guess that is why at my age I need a good nights sleep.

Anyway, I am well aware of Hollywood math and how very profitable movies show a loss. Believe me, on the Marvel movies with all their special effects, the company that does them makes a huge profit. That is why Disney movies are over proced, they use their own subsidiaries to do everything and they make movie. Also, lots of the advertising costs are paid by third parties in combined advertising and yet still charger to the movies with the fees Disney collects gived to the Corporate accounts. Disney also gets a higher percentage of the box office than other studios because of their market power. With allvthat said, Disney needs 2 times the production budget to break even for that portion and if they get 2.5 to 3 times they break even. However even at break even the Corporation makes money. Aladdin will do better than 4 times. It cost 183 million. So just from an 800 million box office, Disney will get 400 million. Taking away the 183 leaves 217 million. They did not spend 100 million on advertising but even if they did, they will make 117 million profit before and merchandise. That is a profit of 64% on their 183 million dollar investment. It will acrually be higher.

The stock price seems to be in agreement. That is the best barometer.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I will start out by apologizing for my math error. I guess that is why at my age I need a good nights sleep.

Anyway, I am well aware of Hollywood math and how very profitable movies show a loss. Believe me, on the Marvel movies with all their special effects, the company that does them makes a huge profit. That is why Disney movies are over proced, they use their own subsidiaries to do everything and they make movie. Also, lots of the advertising costs are paid by third parties in combined advertising and yet still charger to the movies with the fees Disney collects gived to the Corporate accounts. Disney also gets a higher percentage of the box office than other studios because of their market power. With allvthat said, Disney needs 2 times the production budget to break even for that portion and if they get 2.5 to 3 times they break even. However even at break even the Corporation makes money. Aladdin will do better than 4 times. It cost 183 million. So just from an 800 million box office, Disney will get 400 million. Taking away the 183 leaves 217 million. They did not spend 100 million on advertising but even if they did, they will make 117 million profit before and merchandise. That is a profit of 64% on their 183 million dollar investment. It will acrually be higher.

Your math is all over the place, and relies and unknown assumptions to work.

 

[seascape]

Your math is all over the place, and relies and unknown assumptions to work.

My math is not all over the place. I actually used your percentages. You say studios get 50% of the box office, Disney actually gets more, but 50% of 800 million is 400 million. take out the 183 million production cost and 100 million for marketing and you are left with 117 million. I do content the profit is higher thsn that just on the way Hollywood math works. On top of that there are the later revenues from streaming, DVD sales, TV rights, and of course merchandise. Merchandise is the most interesting to split between the 2 Aladdin movies because much of it is the same.

Anyway, Disney is blowing away all box office records this year. They will average over 1 billion a month worldwide. No there studio has ever come close and when you add Fox's worldwide revenue from all its Divisions the number will be quite a bit higher.

Finally how can anyone seriously believe it takes 3 to 4 times the production costs before a movie becomes profitable? That would mean even Secret Life of Pets would need to make 320 million before breaking even and we know that is not the case. The general rule of thumb has always been 2 times the production cost plus marketing, which as a percentage of production costs has been decreasing over the years as production costs have skyrocketed. Plus included in promotional costs are costs paid for by others.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Finally how can anyone seriously believe it takes 3 to 4 times the production costs before a movie becomes profitable? That would mean even Secret Life of Pets would need to make 320 million before breaking even and we know that is not the case. The general rule of thumb has always been 2 times the production cost plus marketing, which as a percentage of production costs has been decreasing over the years as production costs have skyrocketed. Plus included in promotional costs are costs paid for by others.

I've checked multiple websites and their rule of thumb is:

Total expense: announced budget plus an extra 50% for marketing and administration.

Total revenue: half of worldwide B.O. (while domestic theaters give studios more than 50%, foreign studios give less than 50%, so... as a ballpark average: 50%; also, the old method of large percentages up front that tapers off over time is pretty much no longer the case).

When I look to see how Deadline figures out profitability of a movie in its theatrical window, they seem to be using this metric.

Now, of course, individual movies can be far from this metric. A studio might spend next to nothing on advertising, or more than twice the production budget. Disney can demand a larger take for *some* of their blockbusters (they certainly don't do that for the majority of their movies else theater chains would be complaining constantly).

But applying this metric consistently gives a ball park feeling of profitability. Especially in accounting for budget. Most Blue Sky animations made an excellent return on investment because of their low budgets, doing better than Disney Animation or Pixar who have huge budgets.

 

[LSLS]

Well for what it's worth, the wife and daughter liked Aladdin. I skipped, and am probably going to dark Phoenix tomorrow. So 2-1 Aladdin here.