News Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

milliebubbles

Active Member
Advertisement
I’ve been lurking on this forum for years, and have never added a single thing to the conversation because you all pretty much cover the bases without yet another person rambling on. I had major reservations about this film despite my love for Lin and Emily Blunt. I’ve adored Mary Poppins since I was four years old and was worried about the music, the tone, the artistic choices, etc. In my opinion, Mary Poppins Returns is almost perfect. The Place Where the Lost Things go is as chillingly beautiful as Feed the Birds or Judy Garland singing Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas to Tootie in Meet Me in St. Louis. The story is so relatable as an adult, the entire cast is spot on. Emily Blunt is A+. My three kids played “Nowhere to go but up!” with twelve birthday balloons last night, singing the song and laughing. It really feels like a Walt Disney film to me. We even bought the $$$ parrot umbrella at the Disney Store, and we don’t buy much merchandise. I truly hope they use their brains and do this ride the right way. In my experience, those who love Poppins really LOVE Poppins. Make this ride truly magical, WDW. The material is all right there.

Also: I love the way they integrated musical phrases from the original film’s songs throughout the score. It feels perfectly natural, and could be done in the ride.
 

TeriofTerror

Well-Known Member
I’ve been lurking on this forum for years, and have never added a single thing to the conversation because you all pretty much cover the bases without yet another person rambling on. I had major reservations about this film despite my love for Lin and Emily Blunt. I’ve adored Mary Poppins since I was four years old and was worried about the music, the tone, the artistic choices, etc. In my opinion, Mary Poppins Returns is almost perfect. The Place Where the Lost Things go is as chillingly beautiful as Feed the Birds or Judy Garland singing Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas to Tootie in Meet Me in St. Louis. The story is so relatable as an adult, the entire cast is spot on. Emily Blunt is A+. My three kids played “Nowhere to go but up!” with twelve birthday balloons last night, singing the song and laughing. It really feels like a Walt Disney film to me. We even bought the $$$ parrot umbrella at the Disney Store, and we don’t buy much merchandise. I truly hope they use their brains and do this ride the right way. In my experience, those who love Poppins really LOVE Poppins. Make this ride truly magical, WDW. The material is all right there.

Also: I love the way they integrated musical phrases from the original film’s songs throughout the score. It feels perfectly natural, and could be done in the ride.
Welcome!
 

Next Big Thing

Well-Known Member
The movie is on pace to do numbers that are domestically around or better than The Greatest Showman, which is the most successful modern musical only behind Grease (not counting the live action BatB since that drew from nostalgia). Worldwide is another story though. If it gets nominated for some big Academy Awards or not will likely determine how long the legs are on this one.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
The movie is on pace to do numbers that are domestically around or better than The Greatest Showman, which is the most successful modern musical only behind Grease (not counting the live action BatB since that drew from nostalgia). Worldwide is another story though. If it gets nominated for some big Academy Awards or not will likely determine how long the legs are on this one.
I hope so. MPR still needs about another $130 million worldwide to break even in the theatrical window. TGS numbers would do it.
 

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
The movie is on pace to do numbers that are domestically around or better than The Greatest Showman, which is the most successful modern musical only behind Grease (not counting the live action BatB since that drew from nostalgia). Worldwide is another story though. If it gets nominated for some big Academy Awards or not will likely determine how long the legs are on this one.
Mary Poppins also cost almost 50 million more to make. They have a lot of work to do to make a decent profit on this.
 

mikejs78

Premium Member
I hope so. MPR still needs about another $130 million worldwide to break even in the theatrical window. TGS numbers would do it.
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the numbers? $130M was the production cost and I can't find anything on the marketing costs... It's already at $250M+ globally, so you're saying it needs to hit $380M?
 

Edward Jackson

Well-Known Member
Mary Poppins Returns had a production cost of about $130 million dollars. The current domestic gross is about $139 million dollars.
(worldwide gross about $258 million) [per Box Office Mojo] Not a run-away hit, but a $128 million dollar profit is not bad. The original
Mary Poppins a classic and a ride, combing the music from both could actually fit into the UK area.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
Mary Poppins Returns had a production cost of about $130 million dollars. The current domestic gross is about $139 million dollars.
(worldwide gross about $258 million) [per Box Office Mojo] Not a run-away hit, but a $128 million dollar profit is not bad. The original
Mary Poppins a classic and a ride, combing the music from both could actually fit into the UK area.
Box office gross doesn’t all go Disney.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Out of curiosity, do you have a source for the numbers? $130M was the production cost and I can't find anything on the marketing costs... It's already at $250M+ globally, so you're saying it needs to hit $380M?
Here's the recent Disney Studios batch...

1546879359976.png

The Studio gets roughly half of gross Box Office (the other half goes to the theaters).

Production costs is generally well-known. Marketing and other business overhead isn't. As a rough ballpark, that's an extra 50% of production cost.

So, for MPR, the Studio is pocketing about $130 million after spending the same amount on production. However, the marketing of about $65 million is still on the ledger. Since the Studio only gets half of B.O., then MPR needs to make another $130 million to break even.
 

TOCPE82

Well-Known Member
Here's the recent Disney Studios batch...

View attachment 339170

The Studio gets roughly half of gross Box Office (the other half goes to the theaters).

Production costs is generally well-known. Marketing and other business overhead isn't. As a rough ballpark, that's an extra 50% of production cost.

So, for MPR, the Studio is pocketing about $130 million after spending the same amount on production. However, the marketing of about $65 million is still on the ledger. Since the Studio only gets half of B.O., then MPR needs to make another $130 million to break even.

Maybe the problem isn't making good, well reviewed movies,..... it's making them with sensible budgets. I'm as far from an expert as it gets, but even I could tell you that John Carter wasn't going to make a profit with a 250 million dollar budget.
 

Timothy_Q

Well-Known Member
Maybe the problem isn't making good, well reviewed movies,..... it's making them with sensible budgets. I'm as far from an expert as it gets, but even I could tell you that John Carter wasn't going to make a profit with a 250 million dollar budget.
Great movies don't happen unless you take risks.

When studios stop taking risks is when we get to where we are with Disney's live action output. Only remakes of animated films that already have a built-in audience
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Maybe the problem isn't making good, well reviewed movies,..... it's making them with sensible budgets. I'm as far from an expert as it gets, but even I could tell you that John Carter wasn't going to make a profit with a 250 million dollar budget.
I'm close to posting my big movie thread which looks at the ratings and economics of all of Disney's studios and related films.

Do you know of Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, Disney Film, and Disney Animation, which has the best return on investment. Well, obviously, LucasFilm since only one Star Wars movie didn't make a big profit.

But the second? Fox Animation/Blue Sky. Why? Because even though their animated films are rated much lower by critics and audience, they make them on half the budget of Pixar or Disney Animation. So, think about that: Blue Sky is a more profitable animation studio than Pixar or Disney Animation.

So, yeah, big budget movies are a huge gamble and likely to be unprofitable.
 

TOCPE82

Well-Known Member
I'm close to posting my big movie thread which looks at the ratings and economics of all of Disney's studios and related films.

Do you know of Pixar, Marvel, LucasFilm, Disney Film, and Disney Animation, which has the best return on investment. Well, obviously, LucasFilm since only one Star Wars movie didn't make a big profit.

But the second? Fox Animation/Blue Sky. Why? Because even though their animated films are rated much lower by critics and audience, they make them on half the budget of Pixar or Disney Animation. So, think about that: Blue Sky is a more profitable animation studio than Pixar or Disney Animation.

So, yeah, big budget movies are a huge gamble and likely to be unprofitable.
That is fascinating. I'm sure on DA, Marvel, and Pixar they make up for it with merchandising, toys, clothing, etc.
 

phillip9698

Well-Known Member
Mary Poppins Returns had a production cost of about $130 million dollars. The current domestic gross is about $139 million dollars.
(worldwide gross about $258 million) [per Box Office Mojo] Not a run-away hit, but a $128 million dollar profit is not bad. The original
Mary Poppins a classic and a ride, combing the music from both could actually fit into the UK area.
130 million is just the production cost, marketing cost is in a different bucket that isnt released (it can run about half the production budget). Films usually want to make most of their money in the first few weeks of their domestic run, thats when the studio's share of the profits are the largest. As the weeks go on the theaters get a larger percentage of the box office, so a long steady stream of customers is not what Disney wanted, they want a huge front loaded number. International box office is a different beast altogether as a studios take depends on the country. For example a studio may only receive 25% of the take from China but keep 40% from Australia.

This movie needs somewhere around 390 million just to break even.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Here's the recent Disney Studios batch...

View attachment 339170

The Studio gets roughly half of gross Box Office (the other half goes to the theaters).

Production costs is generally well-known. Marketing and other business overhead isn't. As a rough ballpark, that's an extra 50% of production cost.

So, for MPR, the Studio is pocketing about $130 million after spending the same amount on production. However, the marketing of about $65 million is still on the ledger. Since the Studio only gets half of B.O., then MPR needs to make another $130 million to break even.
NatFR is closed to 173 than 170 now. It has had some legs over the holidays.
 
Top Bottom