"Cheaper" Hits Help Disney

[prberk]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...6,0,1153285.story?coll=orl-business-headlines

I personally like it usually when movies are modestly made. The pressure is off, and sometimes the newer, ensemble actors and crew make a better movie.

How many movie classics were cast mostly by unknowns at the time, or by good character actors. The high-budget, high-profile films rarely are as good. Even they depend on STORY.

(Star Wars used a rather new director, whose qualification mostly was his low-budget hit "American Graffiti," and it used relative unknowns to achieve great heights. And the best classic Disney films were little compared to the John-Wayne type adventure films of the time. Can you imagine "Old Yeller" with John Wayne, Jimmie Stewart, Mickey Rooney, and other "big names" of the time? It would not have been the poignant classic that it is....)

 

[dizpins14]

150 million dollar budget for Pirates?!?!?!!?
I have a feeling Esnier is going to be crying himself all the way to the GAP to work with Pressler after the movie makes about 50 million.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

The official budget for Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is $82 million but analyists believe it is $125 million.

King Kong which will be made by Universal Pictures and directed by Peter Jackson has a reported $200 million budget.

 

[blm07]

Originally posted by MickeyMoose15
The official budget for Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl is $82 million but analyists believe it is $125 million.

King Kong which will be made by Universal Pictures and directed by Peter Jackson has a reported $200 million budget.

Yeah and people call Universal cheap lol
[thats a joke]

 

[pheneix]

I really hate to call movies like Remember the Titans or Lilo and Stitch "cheap." Yes, they were inexpensive to produce and turned a better profit than Pearl Harbor or Treasure Planet, but they were strong movies with a good story that were not "cheap" like the DTV animation sequels or cut-rate teen comedys like Seriority Boys or Scary Movie (though Scary Movie was admittedly funny as hell).

It's just too bad that their profits are all squandered by movies like Gangs of New York and Treasure Planet.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

Remember the Titans, if I remember, cost between $60-90 million but made $100+ million for Disney.

Pearl Harbor did make a better profit then most people think. The film cost $200 million. The film made $198 million domestically and over $500 million worldwide. The film also made $200-300 million on VHS and DVD, mostly produced by increased patriotism after September 11th.

Scary Movie cost made $10-$30 million and made $100+ million at the box office.

Gangs of New York did not hurt profits for Disney. Miramax (aka Disney) only paid $50 million for the $100 million budgeted film. Meaning that other investors in the film paided for the remaining $50 million in the budget. So Disney did make a small profit on the film and the DVD sales may help it out alittle.

 

[pheneix]

>>>Pearl Harbor did make a better profit then most people think.<<<

Not really. Disney did not actually produce Pearl Harbor, Jerry Bruckheimer's production company did. That mean't they had to split the profits with them right from the get go. There also profit sharing contracts with many of the actors in the film so that it would cut costs during production. There's another share of the box office take. Then you have to figure in that traditionally the distributor only gets half of the box office take to begin with. That only gives Disney about $225 million of the entire box office take to split with its partners. It also doesn't help matters that the carpet bombing marketing campaign rang up the final budget total to nearly $250 million.

>>>The film made $198 million domestically and over $500 million worldwide.<<<

I think you misread that somewhere. The film only grossed $450.5 million worldwide, with the domestic and international totals ringing in $198.5 and $252 million, respectively.

>>>The film also made $200-300 million on VHS and DVD, mostly produced by increased patriotism after September 11th.<<<

That doesn't sound quite right. Monsters Inc pulled in numbers like that, and it blew Pearl Harbor's sales out of the water if I remember right.

>>>Scary Movie cost made $10-$30 million and made $100+ million at the box office.<<<

I didn't say it was a failure, I just said it was a very cheap movie.

>>>Miramax (aka Disney) only paid $50 million for the $100 million budgeted film. Meaning that other investors in the film paided for the remaining $50 million in the budget.<<<

Which means that they are going to get a share of whatever revenues the movie ultimately brings in.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

>>>Not really. Disney did not actually produce Pearl Harbor, Jerry Bruckheimer's production company did. That mean't they had to split the profits with them right from the get go. There also profit sharing contracts with many of the actors in the film so that it would cut costs during production. There's another share of the box office take. Then you have to figure in that traditionally the distributor only gets half of the box office take to begin with. That only gives Disney about $225 million of the entire box office take to split with its partners. It also doesn't help matters that the carpet bombing marketing campaign rang up the final budget total to nearly $250 million. <<<

But the film has brought in $500+ worldwide and $300 million on VHS and DVD. So Disney has to share it? Big whoop!! The point is that the film made a better profit then most people think. Not to mention Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney have a deal, so one side may be getting more of the profit then the other. You can say this sort of arguement with the Disney/Pixar films as well.

>>>I think you misread that somewhere. The film only grossed $450.5 million worldwide, with the domestic and international totals ringing in $198.5 and $252 million, respectively.<<<

Actually, no I didn't. From my source, that is what it said. International numbers are never precise because there is no single source to gather the numbers like the box office in the United States.

>>>I didn't say it was a failure, I just said it was a very cheap movie.<<<

Then why bring it up?

>>>Which means that they are going to get a share of whatever revenues the movie ultimately brings in.<<<

But this means Disney didn't lose as much money as many think.

 

[MickeyMoose15]

We were both wrong:

Pearl Harbor

Domestic: $198,542,554
Overseas: $251,982,156
Budget: $140,000,000 (Before marketing)

 

[prberk]

Thanks for all the facts.

I would really like, though, to hear more commentary on which "simple" (lower-budget) films people may have liked or disliked, compared to expensive blockbusters.

Is there a pressure to blockbuster budgets that wears on the movie, or is it generally better to have "the big guns"?

My view is that there is room for both (think, "E.T." and "Old Yeller": both good, poignant films aimed at families but with opposite-size budgets), but that in the long run, the budgetary pressures on a big-budget film can cause decisions to be made that get in the way of common sense and a good story.

Of course, on the other side, small indy films (with small, indy budgets) could sometimes be too quirky or unprofessional, and may sometimes suffer from lack of people to really criticize or edit the project..

Anyway... just a question! I'd love to hear opinions and examples that make your case...

 

[MickeyMoose15]

The small budget films seem to be the way to go but more and more times you see that the budgets increase. Look at the recent amount of films:

Pirates of the Caribbean - $150 million
The Haunted Mansion - $90 million
The Matrix Reloaded - $200 million (just a guess)
King Kong - $200 million
Finding Nemo - $125 million
Daredevil - $80 million
Charlie's Angles: Full Throttle - $120 million
2 Fast 2 Furious - $80-90 million
Spider-Man - $150 million
Peter Pan - $100+ million
The Alamo - $75-95 million
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King - $90-100 million

Many of these pay off while others do not. The list above is made of films that have not been released for the most part. Daredevil made barely $100 million but a sequel and spin-off is planned for the film despite the lower then expected gross of the film. The Matrix films look to make very little profit with the huge costs and the fact the films have been slapped with an R-rating which makes it harder for the film to make more then $200 million. I have no idea how King Kong will make much of a profit with the budget it is getting. Granted, I am excited about the film but not that excited but I may change my mind once the trailer comes along. Some of these budgets do get out of hand like the Charlie's Angels ($20 million just for Cameron Diaz?) movie or the 2 Fast 2 Furious film (that much without Vin Diesel?) which goes way beyond necessary money for this kind of film.