Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
I am not understanding -
Godzilla minus one.
Production budget 15M
Global box office - 105M
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney’s Mufasa - the lion king
- Thread starter BrianLo
- Start date
Godzilla minus one.
Production budget 15M
Global box office - 105M
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
No I hear what you are saying. But if know the budget, you are then assigning a marketing number by default. Unless you are assuming that the normal estimate on what theaters take is a lot more variable than we know.
Not true. I've always said there is more to it than theatrical. We talk about the theatrical run because it's easier as there are a lot less variables. I can't, you can't, no one can compare what something like mermaid did compared to what mufasa does from a total theatrical and post theatrical standpoint.
Absolutely nothing. But that's a different discussion. Talking in the theatrical window gives you a solid snapshot that you can then compare to another film. Or discuss how budget might have impacted performance... We all know budgets aren't 100% and marketing is a guesstimate. But it's a whole lot more accurate than figuring out what the licensing revenue of mermaid toys to mufasa toys. Or what the streaming rights revenue was. The theatrical run is one part of picture, I've never claimed otherwise.
There actually is no marketing variable in my calculation. The costs are 2.5X the production budget. The calculation is Box Office - (Production Budget*2.5) = global threshold for a film to be profitable.
I’m not including merchandising in any outcome. There’s very poor correlation between box office and merchandise. Merch doesn’t contribute as a line item for productions financial metrics, though help the broader company at large.
Streaming is very correlated to Box Office. In fact I’m almost certain box office is what determines what the service ultimately pays for the product with some guard rails in place. Probably lined out in participants contracts. I’m starting to parse together what that ‘deal’ may roughly be. That’s why the assumption still holds in the calculation. A box office dollar does not in fact equal 60 cents of revenue domestically and 40 cents internationally… because streaming content transfers tends to also increase in lock step as a result, every earned box office dollar is more valuable to the production than assumed.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
What was the marketing on that, since that is what is tripping everyone up? It wasn't 50%, or $7.5M, probably more like double the budget if not more. So how do you calculate that if you can't even use the 50% budget calculation that is trying to be used? That is why the 2.5x rule is better, it cuts all that out.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Oh I get you.
Godzilla looks massively profitable with production costs of 15M and a global box office of 105M but if we said they spent 100M on marketing its a big loser.
I finally get it
I will now live by 2.5x of the production budget.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
How is that better? This is what I don't get with this thought process. If it's not 50%, which I agree, as the article I posted shows as well. It's probably at least double as you say. So How is an estimate that ends up even worse and less accurate better? If we can't look at things from a common sense logical aspect, why even bother? I get it, the 2.5x can make sense. But it's pretty obvious when it doesn't. Now if you said Something like the Muppets, I'd say yea, that plays.
In this scenario, don't you mean it ignores? By your own admission we know it's not accurate.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
It’s already been explained by multiple posters why using the 2.5x rule of thumb method is better and more accurate than your method, I’m not going to go over it again. Maybe one of the others wants to explain it again for you so it can make sense. You’ve already also been shown it’s how the industry calculates break-even, and was even shown it was in the Gizmodo article you yourself quoted from using an older version of the same rule of thumb which used 2x in 2011 instead of the updated 2.5x now used in the 2020s. So don’t know why you can’t accept that.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I get that you're not actually calculating it as a marketing budget. My issue is, that once you do the 2.5x calculation, you are left with a specific number. So when I look at that number, and knowing the budget, you can then see what is being estimated for marketing. I also get that part of that marketing can could be classified for post theatrical things like streaming. But for the sake of comparison, I still don't think it matters.
I was really just talking about factoring all post that would lead a film to profitability even if it fell short or was a wash. That's just too many variables to really determine anything. It would also take years to get any definitive numbers and that doesn't help when we are talking about a film now.
I completely agree. But those numbers are even more speculative than what we are talking about now. I think on a discussion forum we want to talk about the here and now. At least when it comes to current movies. So I really don't see what the issue is focusing on the more focused numbers. No one is saying it's the end all be all. Just like the 2.5x isn't an end all be all. There's many things to discuss and debate.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I get the explanation and I said it works. But please explain how 2.5 is better in the movies I asked about. You've avoided it multiple times now and that tells me you know you can't. If you want to say on average, ok I'll consider it. But there are plenty of cases that doesn't hold water. You can't criticize me and then say what you said about Godzilla and not justify it when asked.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
With Godzilla using 2.5x break-even is $37.5M on a $15M budget. What are you going to use for marketing in this case to calculate break-even since you question the 2.5x calculation? 50% budget? Double budget? Triple budget? Or as Steve suggested $100M which means Godzilla lost money. This is why using anything else breaks down when you don't use 2.5x.
Also I haven't avoided it, others explained it better so I let their answers stand in-place of my own.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I'll tell you what I'm not using, 25% (3.75mil) I'll stick with Matt Damon, a film of that size would need to equal it's budget in marketing.
Got it, you can't. No worries, we won't ever see eye to eye on this one.
So is Abigail!!
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Considering the garbage that got an Oscar in the past as well movies that should have gotten the Oscar and did not, I would be happy Mufasa got an Oscar!
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
So is Madame Web.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Got it, so you have no idea and just make it up.
Also once again Damon was speaking about his own movie only not a rule for all of Hollywood. Heck since this movie was done out of Japan you don’t even know if they do something different, maybe they do quadruple the budget for a movie that size. And again since marketing is not a fixed cost and the movie got popular during it run I’m betting they spent more than originally planned, again something you can’t calculate.
So this is the reason why the 2.5x rule is better, it takes all the guess work out of having to calculate for marketing which is an unknown variable.
Yes, that’s in fact the point. It doesn’t rescue every film, they still need to clear the 2.5X benchmark for me to confidently declare a production as profitable. I’ll speculate with the rest of you when we are seeing 2.2-2.4X multiples.
It also isn’t years. We get all the P&L sheets in the Spring from deadline. I’m hopeful we’ll see Mufasas if it continues to do well enough that it breaks into the top ten. Plenty of movies lost lots of money last year too. The rule still holds.
I don’t speculate on those numbers in specificity. I speculate on a known ratio that the back end responds to the front end. The numbers respond in a ratio’d fashion, nothing more. Studios spend more as movies make more.
I’ve ran through every single Disney movie that deadline has released for years now and the simpler calculation has always, always been closer than the one you are using. If you can find me a handful of ones it doesn’t work for I’m happy to look into that. In fact, 2.5X almost always underestimates because it’s more of a confident certainty than anything. As @Disney Irish said it used to be lower.
Now I don’t feel super confident In applying the rule against micro films or searchlight films. We’re generally talking tentpoles here. Godzilla I think is a great example of something that’s so clearly different (budgeted as a micro films, marketed as a tentpole) I would happily not jump to conclusions with you. Just as I’ve uncovered long standing Illumination/Dreamworks discrepancies.
But Mufasa is far from the first 200M film Disney has released. The company is super predicable now.
Happy to. It’s simple, I don’t even need a single box office dollar to say Mufasa is almost assuredly profitable if it breeches 500.
if the studio had zero expectancy for a film, which I realize is asking a lot, no one is denying Mufasa is massively under Lion King…
That a 2.5X film is certainly at least mildly profitable, a 3X film modestly so, a 4X film most new franchise starters the studios would be very pleased with and assuredly pursue a sequel and a 5X is breaching their massive success barometer.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
My son is killing me with that one. Ive pretty much taken him to every single movie he's ever wanted to see since he developed an opinion but I'm drawing the line at Dog Man. I just cant do it.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Dog Man looks so incredibly stupid that I think I actually lose an IQ point every time I see the trailer pop up.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
No, that’s “Better Man”. “Dog Man” is an animated movie from DreamWorks, it’s part of the Captain Underpants franchise which was based on the book series of the same name.