Chances of TRON attraction now that movie is out?

[T-1MILLION]

please note that I said it is in the black in terms of production costs versus box office numbers. Not that it is now turning a profit. Many people here didn't think it would get to $200M at all.

People that I have seen including myself were speaking domestically with that.

If the movie could not of hit 200 million with both domestic and international..than that would really be pathetic.

 

[Crazy Harry]

You are not very good at reading. I never stated that it would out or suggested it would out perform Tron in any way, but it did take away some of its theaters and that was my point on the subject in conversation at that time. That is the curse of 3D cinema gimmick.

What I originally said:

You also said Guiliver's Travels would knock out Tron. :hammer:

Although I mentioned nothing about Guiliver's Travels outperforming Tron, it could easily be infered based on what you said if you really want to get into semantics.

Get ready for Tron to drop even a bit more tomorrow with Gulliver's Travels taking up a lot of 3D screens across the nation,the gimmick that has drawn a lot of people to Tron's visuals.

Also consider how many screens Tron has been playing on, even Imax's across the country...quite a lackluster performance for the single two highest grossing weeks out of the year.

Maybe I should have said 'knock down' instead of 'knock out', but it all depends on the degree you were suggesting Tron would drop. A bit is very vauge. Also, you have said that Tron is only making money from 3D screens, and once they lose those screens its take will drop substantially, so it can be inferred, based on what you have said, that you are suggesting Guiliver's Travels will out perform Tron.

No matter how you try to spin it, you said that Guiliver's Travles would cause Tron to lose money because of loss of theaters, which did not happen. Tron did see significant decreases on 12/24 and 12/25 from the previous week (the weekend that Guiliver's Travels opened) which was to be expected when compared to the opening week. However, Tron actually saw increases in box office take the entire rest of that week except for 12/28 where it was down $2000. In other words, you are still wrong :lol:

 

[Crazy Harry]

The only reason it's still doing $6 million per day is because of Imax and 3D ticket prices. Once those screens dwindle, so will the daily numbers.

I don't care what place it ends up in personally. The fact of the matter is, anyone who knows anything about box office numbers knows that if a movie doesn't make back it's production budget in the US, it's not good. Have you seen a rush for Warner Brothers to push out a new Superman after the last made "only" $200 million? Disney is not going to take that big of a gamble again with Tron.

So this means that any movie that makes more than its production costs is a good movie? So then are you admitting that the original Tron was a good movie because it made nearly twice its budget?

 

[Tigger1988]

So this means that any movie that makes more than its production costs is a good movie? So then are you admitting that the original Tron was a good movie because it made nearly twice its budget?

He quite obviously meant it's not a good thing. It's not good when a movie doesn't make back it's production budget.

 

[Crazy Harry]

He quite obviously meant it's not a good thing. It's not good when a movie doesn't make back it's production budget.

I think you may have misunderstood me. If he said that a movie is bad if it does not make back its budget, then does that not mean the inverse has to be true by default? :shrug: Since the original Tron made nearly twice its production cost, that would make it a good movie by this logic.

 

[Tigger1988]

I think you may have misunderstood me. If he said that a movie is bad if it does not make back its budget, then does that not mean the inverse has to be true by default? :shrug: Since the original Tron made nearly twice its production cost, that would make it a good movie by this logic.

I understood you perfectly, you're misunderstanding his original statement, which I explained for you.

He didn't say a movie is bad if it does not make back it's budget, you're inferring that for some reason. He says ITS NOT GOOD when a movie does not make back it's budget. The movie can be amazing, but if it doesn't make back it's budget...that's bad.

 

[Crazy Harry]

I realize now what I said made no sense, so I will concede your point. But the fact that it is bad when a film does not make its budget should go without saying...

 

[T-1MILLION]

Disregard. Apologies Crazy Harry, did not see you deleted your post.

 

[JimboJones123]

1. This better not come anywhere near Epcot.

2. I don't want any more simulators, "interactive", or 3d attractions. If they do it, put us in the environment. Create a real experience.

3. Ride or not we better get a sequel. That movie was just too much fun not to continue. One of the best blockbusters in years.

4. If they make an attraction, make it amazing on its own. Don't rely on the movie tie-in.

I'm not going to get my hopes too high but I'm waiting for the next one of a kind, Disney, innovative ride system/experience. They've dont it over the years since the company started and over the last several years we've gotten Test Track, Indiana Jones, ToT, Turtle Talk and many others in between. It's time we see it again. I hope this franchise is the one to bring it about. It certainly has the potential.

I'd disagree with #1 100%!

Scrap UoE and you have a HUGE show show building with HIGH celings where you could generate a great many things, including some multiple stories an some very tall rooms. Thinking of the HP ride, mixed with Rocket Rods curving up and down the walls of multiple levels of..... Hold on Jimbo... Geeking out way too much here.

 

[Crazy Harry]

You are kidding right?

Studios typically only care about money.

The artists and creative forces are the ones who care more about quality. If a profit is made the studios could care less.

Now you are just splitting hairs.


Transformers for example. Bashed by most critics, the sequel even more so. Yet they grossed so much money and are so popular they are deemed amazing hits. Many film enthusiasts and passionate artists will tell you that it is not a well made movie, and there are certainly a large group of people who worked on that film will tell you they made the best creative film they could make that is full of quality.

The studios don't give a...flying fish on what opinions bicker back and forth on what makes a good movie. The execs know it made them hundreds of millions more than the company had before.

And Tron, is not going to likely do that for Disney.

I deleted this post because it did not make sense in reference to the discussion after I read it, but I am still confused about your statement. I said that theoretically some studio execs may be more concerned about how much money a movie makes rather than the percieved quality. That's why many "good" films are independant or in minimum release and make little money but win all of the awards, then you have films like Transformers that make lots of money but will never win an oscar, that's all I'm really saying. Some execs would rather make Transformers vs Black Swan and vice versa.

 

[bryPOD]

Just saw the movie and now I need Disney to build a ride, complete with a walk through Flynn's Arcade que.

 

[Skip]

Here's the thing - if Tron has "grossed" $180 million, that means just that, GROSSED. A good portion of the film (at least at this point) go to the theaters that run the movie. Generally in the first weekend, all or almost all of the ticket $$ goes back to the Studios and none to the theater - as each subsequent weak passes, more and more goes to the theater with less and less going to the studio. At this point, a lot of Tron's $$ is going to the theaters. As T1 pointed out, a lot of the money Tron has been accumulating is never gonna get to the Mouse. It's the nature of the business.

I've taken some courses with people in the industry before, and they told me for most Hollywood blockbusters, or "big films", executives want to see the film make three times its production budget for it to be considered a "smash" or "huge success" that warrants a sequel. That way, it covers any merchandising budgets, and will make even more in DVD sales & merchandising. Mind you, a film doesn't necessarily have to make 3 times its budget to be considered a success - but anything less than that is typically considered more of a "modest success" and not anything to get too excited over.

It's pretty clear that Tron did not make nearly as much money as Disney was hoping - it's only just making back its core reported production budget (reported being the key word here), without very much left in it (I imagine this weekend's #s will be the last gasp). Who knows how massive its marketing budget is... I'd guess at least 50 million, if not more. I really enjoyed the film (especially Daft Punk's score), and I'm sad to see it didn't do better, but anyone who's convinced this film's even a modest success is kind of pushing it.

At least the Daft Punk score is selling like hotcakes (been #1 album on iTunes since its release), but I doubt Disney gets terribly much from those sales, if anything...

 

[T-1MILLION]

I deleted this post because it did not make sense in reference to the discussion after I read it, but I am still confused about your statement. I said that theoretically some studio execs may be more concerned about how much money a movie makes rather than the percieved quality. That's why many "good" films are independant or in minimum release and make little money but win all of the awards, then you have films like Transformers that make lots of money but will never win an oscar, that's all I'm really saying. Some execs would rather make Transformers vs Black Swan and vice versa.

Ah apologies then. It appears we were saying the same thing. The point I was getting at though was the bottom line is Disney has not seen the results it wanted out of Tron, therefore the execs and studios will not likely push forth with any other projects, and this one will likely fall into the same category as the original did. A movie that barely made a buck worth Disney's extra time and efforts and has a loyal home video following.


Disney wanted to bring Tron much more mainstream blockbuster franchise with Legacy. Sadly for them, it did not happen.

 

[devoy1701]

I'd disagree with #1 100%!

Scrap UoE and you have a HUGE show show building with HIGH celings where you could generate a great many things, including some multiple stories an some very tall rooms. Thinking of the HP ride, mixed with Rocket Rods curving up and down the walls of multiple levels of..... Hold on Jimbo... Geeking out way too much here.

I'll say again. If Epcot Executives and the Imagineers want to hold true to the the point of Future World (not that they have shown to really cared much in recent history) then Tron has no place in Future World. Tomorrowland Definitely...DHS ONLY because it's a movie so you can almost make everything work there...

 

[ChrisFL]

I'll say again. If Epcot Executives and the Imagineers want to hold true to the the point of Future World (not that they have shown to really cared much in recent history) then Tron has no place in Future World. Tomorrowland Definitely...DHS ONLY because it's a movie so you can almost make everything work there...

I agree, however Disney was already prepared to break its own rule by adding the TRON Arcade to EPCOT Center less than a year after the park opened.

 

[ILLmaticS0ldier]

the movie sucked so I dont think it will happen

 

[JimboJones123]

I'll say again. If Epcot Executives and the Imagineers want to hold true to the the point of Future World (not that they have shown to really cared much in recent history) then Tron has no place in Future World. Tomorrowland Definitely...DHS ONLY because it's a movie so you can almost make everything work there...

So they will be building resident housing and churches? That makes no sense at all.

 

[MonsterManX]

Hm for those that don't think it's doing good.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tron2.htm

$245 mill worldwide is pretty damn good. 18 days

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=rapunzel.htm

Tangled is at $315 mill but clearly took longer. 41 days

It's actually doing pretty solid numbers.

I really enjoyed the film , and being that my mom got me hooked on the first one and I remember the story and what not behind it I felt the film did a fantastic job getting down to the plot and explaining everything well. "The Dark Knight" was straight to the point as well (and how much did that make?!) , funny how everyones so easy to attack the flick because reviewers either

A)Never seen Tron before
or
B)Expected some form of a masterpiece...it's Tron.

Anyways just some interesting numbers , I think it deserves a ride based on it's cult following alone for so many years. But hey...money is good too.

 

[devoy1701]

I agree, however Disney was already prepared to break its own rule by adding the TRON Arcade to EPCOT Center less than a year after the park opened.

But they didn't...so that one doesn't count.

So they will be building resident housing and churches? That makes no sense at all.

No, because "future world" in it's current form was not an aspect of EPCOT the City of Tomorrow. Future World is supposed to showcase current/new technological wonders and how they should or could be applied to enrich our lives. It's supposed to be a "factual" and educational place. It's not supposed to be home to fictional sci-fi fantasies. That is what Tomorrowland is for. And yes it makes perfect sense.


Plus the churches would have been on the outerskirts of the city, not in the center of it.

 

[JimboJones123]

But they didn't...so that one doesn't count.



No, because "future world" in it's current form was not an aspect of EPCOT the City of Tomorrow. Future World is supposed to showcase current/new technological wonders and how they should or could be applied to enrich our lives. It's supposed to be a "factual" and educational place. It's not supposed to be home to fictional sci-fi fantasies. That is what Tomorrowland is for. And yes it makes perfect sense.


Plus the churches would have been on the outerskirts of the city, not in the center of it.

Like factually abandoning actual medical care and using the robot homing dog to track me down after breaking my arm on the ski slope.

What would sell good in Future World is attractions that are not closed seasonally or changed into homes for buffets.