News Announced: Mary Poppins Attraction in UK Pavilion

[Rich Brownn]

Actually nowdays many films make more money post theater than in theaters. especially compared to the domestic market. It also made $350 million worldwide in theaters on a $130 million budget, which put it comfortably in the black. Since it was released on home video, numbers aren't in yet but it was comfortably behind Spider-Man with 90% of sales, so it will probably easily take in $100 million in home video. Plus it will be selling for decades. Disney probably hoped for more, but realistically very few musicals are blockbuster hits. Even the original Mary Poppins flopped in its New York debut at Radio City (once released nationwide is when it became a hit). I'd guess with home video the final tally will probably be in the $600 million range. Nothing to cry about

 

[The Mom]

Please get back on topic (which doesn't really include critiques of Soarin' attractions) and try to stay there. Thank-you.

 

[Kman101]

Calling it now lightly themed spinner either to jolly holiday or no place to go but up. Man it pains me to say that. She deserves so much more.

She really does.

I'm pretty annoyed it's likely not going to be any sort of dark ride. Poppins is timeless and should be an absolute no brainer.

 

[Magenta Panther]

Actually nowdays many films make more money post theater than in theaters. especially compared to the domestic market. It also made $350 million worldwide in theaters on a $130 million budget, which put it comfortably in the black. Since it was released on home video, numbers aren't in yet but it was comfortably behind Spider-Man with 90% of sales, so it will probably easily take in $100 million in home video. Plus it will be selling for decades. Disney probably hoped for more, but realistically very few musicals are blockbuster hits. Even the original Mary Poppins flopped in its New York debut at Radio City (once released nationwide is when it became a hit). I'd guess with home video the final tally will probably be in the $600 million range. Nothing to cry about

Well, you're only quoting the production budget, and not including promotional/advertising, which can easily double a film's expense. I couldn't find any info on how much Disney spent on that, though one can assume it was considerable. I also couldn't find any reference to the original film flopping at Radio City Music Hall. Not that I'm disputing it - I can't unless I find references. Can you provide more info on that?

Thanks, by the way, for being civil. I have no use for people who throw the word-bomb "hate" at people they disagree with.

And now, back on topic...

 

[MickeyMouse10]

But you know Richard Donner did the same thing with cameos of past actors in his film.

Yep, true that homie. But at least he gave an origin unlike Superman Returns, Mary Poppins Returns and even Captain America: Civil War (for Spiderman) and Spiderman Homecoming. I don't know how we're supposed see these people as the characters without one.

 

[Kman101]

Yep, true that homie. But at least he gave an origin unlike Superman Returns, Mary Poppins Returns and even Captain America: Civil War (for Spiderman) and Spiderman Homecoming. I don't know how we're supposed see these people as the characters without one.

To be fair, I think they felt the Spiderman origin story was sort of done to death. But I sort of agree with you.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Even though I'd rather have "Alice in Wonderland", at this point I'll really take anything in the World Showcase. They've only had 1 or 2 rides in World Showcase since 82. I'm desperate, I'll take "A Sword in the Stone" or "Great Mouse Detective" ride.

 

[HauntedMansionFLA]

Announcement at D23???

 

[MisterPenguin]

Well, you're only quoting the production budget, and not including promotional/advertising, which can easily double a film's expense. I couldn't find any info on how much Disney spent on that, though one can assume it was considerable. I also couldn't find any reference to the original film flopping at Radio City Music Hall. Not that I'm disputing it - I can't unless I find references. Can you provide more info on that?

Thanks, by the way, for being civil. I have no use for people who throw the word-bomb "hate" at people they disagree with.

And now, back on topic...

Here are the stats for the Poppinses...

The formula for figuring out profit/loss in the theatrical window is very ballparky. But it lands somewhat near 'break even.'

Compare that to the losses for:

• Nutcracker: $107m loss
• A Wrinkle in Time: $121m loss
• Pirates 5: $23m loss
• The BFG: $118 loss
• Alice (live) 2: $105m loss
• Tomorrowland: $165m loss
• Pirates 4: $93m loss

In this decade the average loss for all Disney Studio movies (in their theatrical window) is $29m loss. So, MP2 did better than average.

How can a Studio afford such big and continual losses that their few mega-hits can't even make up for? The post-theatrical market. Which Disney is a master of.

And just why are their live-action movies doing so poorly in the theatrical window? The same reason Blue Sky is more profitable on average than Pixar or Disney Animation or Marvel, namely, very big budgets that eat up the profit (and create deficits). After all, MP2 did $349m at the BO. But the budget, the unseen marketing costs, and sharing revenue with the theaters eats that up. But, you can tell by the BO, that the after-market for MP2 will be healthy.

 

[larryz]

Here are the stats for the Poppinses...

View attachment 368047

The formula for figuring out profit/loss in the theatrical window is very ballparky. But it lands somewhat near 'break even.'

Compare that to the losses for:

• Nutcracker: $107m loss
• A Wrinkle in Time: $121m loss
• Pirates 5: $23m loss
• The BFG: $118 loss
• Alice (live) 2: $105m loss
• Tomorrowland: $165m loss
• Pirates 4: $93m loss

In this decade the average loss for all Disney Studio movies (in their theatrical window) is $29m loss. So, MP2 did better than average.

How can a Studio afford such big and continual losses that their few mega-hits can't even make up for? The post-theatrical market. Which Disney is a master of.

And just why are their live-action movies doing so poorly in the theatrical window? The same reason Blue Sky is more profitable on average than Pixar or Disney Animation or Marvel, namely, very big budgets that eat up the profit (and create deficits). After all, MP2 did $349m at the BO. But the budget, the unseen marketing costs, and sharing revenue with the theaters eats that up. But, you can tell by the BO, that the after-market for MP2 will be healthy.

Besides, a movie that never shows a "profit" will never have to pay off the percentage deals some actors make before they'll act in a film...

 

[FigmentFan82]

Well, you're only quoting the production budget, and not including promotional/advertising, which can easily double a film's expense. I couldn't find any info on how much Disney spent on that, though one can assume it was considerable. I also couldn't find any reference to the original film flopping at Radio City Music Hall. Not that I'm disputing it - I can't unless I find references. Can you provide more info on that?

Thanks, by the way, for being civil. I have no use for people who throw the word-bomb "hate" at people they disagree with.

And now, back on topic...

Marketing budgets come out of a different bucket than production costs. Marketing is not measured against a movies success. It is it's own thing altogether. If MP2 had cost $100mil to make, they still would have most likely spent the same amount on marketing, but now your perceived success appears greater since the investment on actually producing the film was less. Marketing is essentially its own product altogether. Different people, different departments. It does not add to the overall cost of a film in the way you think it does.

 

[boufa]

Marketing budgets come out of a different bucket than production costs. Marketing is not measured against a movies success. It is it's own thing altogether. If MP2 had cost $100mil to make, they still would have most likely spent the same amount on marketing, but now your perceived success appears greater since the investment on actually producing the film was less. Marketing is essentially its own product altogether. Different people, different departments. It does not add to the overall cost of a film in the way you think it does.

Different bucket, but same ocean.

In a world where things are cut from WDW due to the cost of buying Fox, or Shanghai, etc there is no bucket that is not connected when drawing from the same ocean.

 

[FigmentFan82]

Different bucket, but same ocean.

In a world where things are cut from WDW due to the cost of buying Fox, or Shanghai, etc there is no bucket that is not connected when drawing from the same ocean.

Kinda yes and no. I work for a massively huge company. The amount of different budgets that are segmented throughout the companies different business units is mind boggling. My own little division has its own budget. When we try to get more, usually we're told there is no more money, yet clearly that is no truley the case, but is based on the buckets we're allowed to take from. You have to kind of look at the production as one company and marketing as its own company as well. Both doing their own things separate from one another, with their own budgets to work from. The larger parent company doesn't look at them both as one single cost, but two separate ones. It def gets a little head scratchy with big huge companies and how they allocate and mange money. But this is how they do it

 

[Rodan75]

Kinda yes and no. I work for a massively huge company. The amount of different budgets that are segmented throughout the companies different business units is mind boggling. My own little division has its own budget. When we try to get more, usually we're told there is no more money, yet clearly that is no truley the case, but is based on the buckets we're allowed to take from. You have to kind of look at the production as one company and marketing as its own company as well. Both doing their own things separate from one another, with their own budgets to work from. The larger parent company doesn't look at them both as one single cost, but two separate ones. It def gets a little head scratchy with big huge companies and how they allocate and mange money. But this is how they do it

For movies, especially Disney and Universal movies, this gets exceptionally complicated quickly. Each film is considered its own business and all production and marketing expenses are grouped together to determine how profitable that business is. For Disney and Universal, however those marketing costs become interesting because of their large broadcast and cable businesses, many marketing expenses for a film like MPR become revenue for Disney’s TV business. MPR takes the expense and profitability hit, but Disney doesn’t actually lose that money. In my world we called that affiliate revenue and expense, Blue Dollars and actual expenses outside and affiliate Green Dollar. This is why you predominantly see Disney and Universal use their in house networks to promote their films. And because Blue Dollar transactions are rarely discounted it supports ‘rack rate’ for advertising. I’m not even touching the accounting that goes into their licensing and consumer products division.

MPR will lose money or barely breakeven as a production, but TWDC likely made money overall from the endeavor. Dumbo will likely be close as well. Iger referred to these films as brand deposits years ago, which makes sense, their purpose is more to support the brand internationally, create and continue consumer product demand opportunities and create content that will be consumed in secondary channels for years to come. Initial box office success isn’t really the point, but a welcome perk.

This is a reason why the Bones decision is such a big deal for Hollywood and why Disney + is more of a risk than people really think.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

I think it is always a bad idea whenever they base an attraction, land, show or even a section of a resort on a live action movie. Unless it is a part of a big franchise like Star Wars, Marvel, Indiana Jones, etc. Chances are it won't stand the test of time and won't remain relevant. This goes for the new Mary Poppins as well. This isn't the Mary we know and love. This is more akin to "OZ the Great and Powerful" starring James Franco.

- Honey I Shrunk Kids playground and 3d show
- Herbie and Mighty Duck sections at All Star Movie
- Ace Ventura, Goosebumps, D*ck Tracey shows
- Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Prince Caspian
- Hannah Montana, High School the Musical

 

[wdwperry]

I think it is always a bad idea whenever they base an attraction, land, show or even a section of a resort on a live action movie. Unless it is a part of a big franchise like Star Wars, Marvel, Indiana Jones, etc. Chances are it won't stand the test of time and won't remain relevant. This goes for the new Mary Poppins as well. This isn't the Mary we know and love. This is more akin to "OZ the Great and Powerful" starring James Franco.

- Honey I Shrunk Kids playground and 3d show
- Herbie and Mighty Duck sections at All Star Movie
- Ace Ventura, Goosebumps, **** Tracey shows
- Armageddon, Pearl Harbor, Prince Caspian
- Hannah Montana, High School the Musical

Mary Poppins has stayed relevant for the past 65 years. The new version will not change the impact the original had.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

Mary Poppins has stayed relevant for the past 65 years. The new version will not change the impact the original had.

Like I said this isn't our Mary. This is a whole other entity that is unrelated. I'd actually be alright with a Classic Mary Poppins ride.

 

[MickeyMouse10]

You know what would be cool? A ride like Peter Pan where you're in a vehicle that looks like Mary Poppin's bag and Umbrella. And you float passed UK monuments.

This way you get Mary, but it also represents the pavilion and it's country.

 

[Frankiepopsicles]

Any news on this? Still a carousel?

 

[nickys]

Any news on this? Still a carousel?

Well we’re certainly still going round in circles on this one.



(Sorry, couldn’t resist).