Disney’s Mufasa - the lion king

[Disstevefan1]

Except 2.5x budget is the industry standard to take the guess out of the marketing. And Its what we used fairly consistently here for years up until the last year or two when the armchair box office analysts started second guessing it because it didn't make Disney look bad enough for them.

Even Google AI has it at $500M -

View attachment 834770

In the end, Mufasa probably did ok.

It probably made some money.

We really don't know the real numbers. We don't know if the were under budget or over budget we don't know what they spent on marketing. We wont know how much merch sales Disney can attribute to Mufasa going forward. I am happy its not a huge loser.

When movie X makes 1.2 or 1.5 Billion at the box office WE KNOW it made money, no need to do calculations or speculate.

 

[Chi84]

In the end, Mufasa probably did ok.

It probably made some money.

We really don't know the real numbers. We don't know if the were under budget or over budget we don't know what they spent on marketing. We wont know how much merch sales Disney can attribute to Mufasa going forward. I am happy its not a huge loser.

When movie X makes 1.2 or 1.5 Billion at the box office WE KNOW it made money, no need to do calculations or speculate.

Why 1.2 Billion instead of 1 Billion

 

[Disney Irish]

In the end, Mufasa probably did ok.

It probably made some money.

We really don't know the real numbers. We don't know if the were under budget or over budget we don't know what they spent on marketing. We wont know how much merch sales Disney can attribute to Mufasa going forward. I am happy its not a huge loser.

When movie X makes 1.2 or 1.5 Billion at the box office WE KNOW it made money, no need to do calculations or speculate.

Its important though to use the same standard as the industry and not make up our own. As the only reason to use any other standard (especially one made up) is because you have an axe to grind against a movie or studio.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Why 1.2 Billion instead of 1 Billion

Hmmm...

Snow White with all the re shoots and re re shoots may have cost 400M to make and lets say 100M to market (its probably more than that to market it)

And Disney gets half of the box office, therefore, 400x2 = 800M plus 100x2=200M for marketing.

800M plus 200M =1B

Disney must get 1B at the box office to break even on Snow White

 

[Moka]

The reason why some are bringing the break even point to $600M is because some outlets like Variety actually reported that the budget is north of $200M. I know it was definitely cheaper than 2019, but, we truly don't know by how much. So I think people were using 600 as a safe bet.

Even so, projected at $700M after that horrendous start, I'm sure Disney won't mind since they avoided that worst case scenario. This will be a profitable film, no matter how people want to spin it. Like, if they even lowered the budget by a little bit - they have a very sustainable franchise on their hands. This was a prequel with predetermined fates. That's a hard sell for any studio. They rarely do this well.

People view it as crappy because they're comparing it to 2019, which was an entirely different theatrical climate. $700M is not a joke of a run. I would be VERY surprised if there's nothing announced if it manages to pull through to that point.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hmmm...

Snow White with all the re shoots and re re shoots may have cost 400M to make and lets say 100M to market (its probably more than that to market it)

And Disney gets half of the box office, therefore, 400x2 = 800M plus 100x2=200M for marketing.

800M plus 200M =1B

Disney must get 1B at the box office to break even on Snow White

Or just do 400x2.5 and you get the same number, no need for all the extra math (or mental gymnastics of guessing).

 

[Disstevefan1]

Its important though to use the same standard as the industry and not make up our own. As the only reason to use any other standard (especially one made up) is because you have an axe to grind against a movie or studio.

No axe to grind, I think Mufasa made money, its not a blockbuster, but I think it made money.

Industry standard formulas are fine, we really don't know if they went over budget and we don't know how much money they spent on marketing.

I want Disney to make money on its movies. I hate to see then lose money. I went to see Mufasa in the 4D theater with my kid.

Before the movie we got the big Mufasa popcorn bucket, the little Mufasa popcorn bucket, the Mufasa drink holder, before the movie started I spent over $100 dollars.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Or just do 400x2.5 and you get the same number, no need for all the extra math (or mental gymnastics of guessing).

The 2.5 is just a guess too, but I get you.

 

[Chi84]

Hmmm...

Snow White with all the re shoots and re re shoots may have cost 400M to make and lets say 100M to market (its probably more than that to market it)

And Disney gets half of the box office, therefore, 400x2 = 800M plus 100x2=200M for marketing.

800M plus 200M =1B

Disney must get 1B at the box office to break even on Snow White

How do you know how many reshoots on Snow White?

 

[Disstevefan1]

The reason why some are bringing the break even point to $600M is because some outlets like Variety actually reported that the budget is north of $200M.

I agree. When Disney says the budget for movie X is 200M, that's the number they think it will cost.

No one knows till AFTER the work is done how much movie X cost. Someone correct me but I do not think Disney discloses the numbers either.

Its funny when I watch documentaries on how various older movies were made there was a LOT of talk about doing something a certain way because there was not enough in the budget, it was always about saving money.

I wonder if that happens today with Disney?

 

[Disney Irish]

No axe to grind, I think Mufasa made money, its not a blockbuster, but I think it made money.

Industry standard formulas are fine, we really don't know if they went over budget and we don't know how much money they spent on marketing.

I want Disney to make money on its movies. I hate to see then lose money. I went to see Mufasa in the 4D theater with my kid.

Before the movie we got the big Mufasa popcorn bucket, the little Mufasa popcorn bucket, the Mufasa drink holder, before the movie started I spent over $100 dollars.

Which is the exact reason to use the same industry standard, as it takes all known information as-is and takes the guesses out of it. If that information changes later, as has been the case with some movies, then you adjust based on that. But to guess ahead of time that more is spent on either budget or marketing than is actually known at that time, well that is just purposely trying to make the number look worse.

Also the "axe to grind" is not talking about you, its others here who constantly bring up how bad modern Disney movies are.

The 2.5 is just a guess too, but I get you.

Its not a guess, its the standard used and has been for decades. I don't know why this is such a questionable thing over the last couple years.

 

[Disstevefan1]

How do you know how many reshoots on Snow White?

No one knows for sure. No one knows how much they will have spent in the end. I guess we must go by the number they posted as "The budget" no matter how much it actually cost.

I guess that is for the better...

 

[Disney Irish]

No one knows for sure. No one knows how much they will have spent in the end. I guess we must go by the number they posted as "The budget" no matter how much it actually cost.

I guess that is for the better...

That is for the better. Because I could say that Paramount spent way more on Sonic 3 both in budget and marketing and make it look like its lost $250M or more. But is that fair, no because that is not the reality as we know it. That is just trying to make Sonic 3 look worse than is actually the case, which I would never do.

This is why we just take the budget numbers given to us, and then use the 2.5x budget standard as the break-even point.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Its not a guess, its the standard used and has been for decades. I don't know why this is such a questionable thing over the last couple years.

Can we call it an industry standard guess?

A related question -

When Disney says the budget for Mufasa was exactly 200M do you think there was a room full of accountants crunching the numbers and when all the calculations were done it came out to exactly 200M or do you think someone just said, "I'll give you 200M to do this movie."

 

[Disney Irish]

Can we call it an industry standard guess?

If you want to get technical, its an industry standardization of averaging out production+marketing costs.

A related question -

When Disney says the budget for Mufasa was exactly 200M do you think there was a room full of accountants crunching the numbers and when all the calculations were it came out to exactly 200M or do you think someone just said, "I'll give you 200M to do this movie."

I actually think its a combination of both. If you don't think there are cost accountants tabulating out each cable and wire used during a movie's production to get a final budget, well then you don't know how modern budgets work.

Also in some location, such as the UK, all production budgets must be reported down to the penny for tax purposes on legal documents. So yes when Disney says $200M as the final number I think the budget is fairly close to that number, it can be less or more of course (as has been reported on some recent movies), but not by much. So you're not going to get a $100M+ swing in the final budget, probably closer to +/- $25M.

 

[erasure fan1]

Except 2.5x budget is the industry standard to take the guess out of the marketing. And Its what we used fairly consistently here for years up until the last year or two when the armchair box office analysts started second guessing it because it didn't make Disney look bad enough for them.

Even Google AI has it at $500M -

View attachment 834770

I'll trust Matt Damon, an extremely established actor and film maker over Google ai.

Its important though to use the same standard as the industry and not make up our own.

Again, I've shown the interview and information. Until a few of you on this site, I've mostly seen the half the budget for marketing.

And here's my Googling

while films with a budget of more than around $75 million commonly fall around half the amount of the film's production budget.

That's one of the first things that came up for me.

The reason why some are bringing the break even point to $600M is because some outlets like Variety actually reported that the budget is north of $200M

It's more the marketing budget. There's a debate on this site where some believe the marketing is significantly less than others.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'll trust Matt Damon, an extremely established actor and film maker over Google ai.

Again, I've shown the interview and information. Until a few of you on this site, I've mostly seen the half the budget for marketing.

I've seen that interview too from "Hot Ones", he was speaking about his specific movie which had a budget of $25M and would have to spend the same amount on marketing, that is not the entire breakdown of how you calculate on average the break-even point for all movies. If you take his example as gospel then every movie would need to spend as much as the movie costs for marketing and we know that isn't the case. So yeah I'll trust the averages we know using the rule-of-thumb, which is 2.5x budget, and its not just a few of us, here is an article from just last summer from Variety where they actually quote and use it -

"So the rule of thumb is that studios need movies to gross 2.5 times their production budgets to climb out of the red."

Why Does Hollywood Care About Box Office Opening Weekends?

The entertainment industry cares a lot about a film’s box office debut. Some people question whether it should.

variety.com

And here's my Googling

That's one of the first things that came up for me.

Whats the source of that? You can see where mine comes from, even showing a recent article where its used.

It's more the marketing budget. There's a debate on this site where some believe the marketing is significantly less than others.

Its only a debate when someone wants to make a movie look a lot worse than it is.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Even if that is what happens, that is still better than many including myself thought would happen with this movie.

That’s probably true

I think (and I’ll be disputed) that they expect around $1 bil from all these types of movies…$500 does them not much good in the scheme of things.

On to the next one…very interested in that

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Except 2.5x budget is the industry standard to take the guess out of the marketing. And Its what we used fairly consistently here for years up until the last year or two when the armchair box office analysts started second guessing it because it didn't make Disney look bad enough for them.

Even Google AI has it at $500M -

View attachment 834770

So it will make probably $600…at $470 ish now…

So a profit of $50…not a failure…but probably not worth the time and resources invested either.

The positive is they didn’t lose…and maybe they’ll knock this nonsense off.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Allow me to put on my Disney rationalization hat. Its made of tinfoil complete with mickey ears.

Lets say Disney treats their movies like very expensive, very long commercials. They use their commercials to promote their media empire and after folks see these very long commercials Disney is top of mind and maybe they will buy some Disney merch, some Disney media, maybe plan a Disney vacation, maybe sign up for Disney+

If Disney can break even or make a little on these very long commercials, more the better.

This type of movie is tired…for a few reasons