Disney’s Mufasa - the lion king

[Disstevefan1]

I bet Disney would rather have the profits that Sonic 3 has though

Mufasa made money, lets all be happy with that!

 

[Agent H]

I bet Disney would rather have the profits that Sonic 3 has though

What does this mean? If Mufasa beats sonic then Disney made more money overall did they not? Or am I missing something?

 

[Disstevefan1]

What does this mean? If Mufasa beats sonic then Disney made more money overall did they not? Or am I missing something?

I am very happy Mufasa made money.

I wish (and maybe its only me) that Disney lowered the budgets on their films. Force the creatives to make these good movies for less money. Movies that are forgot about a month after they are out the the theater.

In their theme park business Disney is VERY ACTIVE controlling budgets on attractions that will remain in place for decades.

 

[Agent H]

I am very happy Mufasa made money.

I wish (and maybe its only me) that Disney lowered the budgets on their films. Force the creatives to make these good movies for less money. Movies that are forgot about a month after they are out the the theater.

In their theme park business Disney is VERY ACTIVE controlling budgets on attractions that will remain in place for decades.

Okay that’s all well and good I guess but this doesn’t answer my question

 

[DKampy]

I bet Disney would rather have the profits that Sonic 3 has though

Something tells me that Disney would not trade the profits they made from their 2024 films with any other studio

 

[Disstevefan1]

Okay that’s all well and good I guess but this doesn’t answer my question

We don't know the real cost of anything; the "budget" that is stated for a film is just what they want to spend on a given movie, we have no idea if a movie went over budget or not, and we have no idea how much it cost to market a given movie.

This goes for both movies. I have also heard, different studios includes costs that others do not in to that "budgeted" number.

I think the point was, yes Mufasa grossed more than Sonic, but Mufasa cost more to make that sonic.

It’s possible Sonic made more profit even though it grossed less? Personally I don’t care I am grateful Mufasa made Money.

This is one reason why, in my opinion, the gross numbers, while they look good, are just decoration.

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

Sonic 3 made way more in profit as it cost much less to make

 

[Agent H]

Sonic 3 made way more in profit as it cost much less to make

Numbers?

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

Also, do studios still receive less of the box office revenue the longer it's been in theaters?

 

[Disney Irish]

Numbers?

The reported budget for Sonic 3 was $122M while the reported budget for Mufasa was $200M. So while Mufasa might have now earned more at the box office (both now domestic and international) than Sonic 3, because Sonic 3 cost less that means Sonic 3 earned more profit overall than Mufasa. In addition studios don't get 100% of everything a movie makes at the box office, its split between the studio and the theaters. With them getting more domestically and less internationally. On average Studios only get 50% of the overall box office take.

So you take the production cost (budget) adding in marketing cost and subtract 50% of the box office that gives you an approximate profitability (or loss) for a movie.

However that doesn't mean Disney wishes they had Sonic 3 profits as someone suggested, as things are not that cut and dry. But it is a nice headline that Mufasa has now caught up and surpassed Sonic 3, as the reverse headline was happening and some were gloating here that Sonic 3 opened stronger and looked to be trouncing Mufasa when it opened. Which shows that you don't count your chickens before they're hatched as you never know how things will shake out.

 

[Disney Irish]

Also, do studios still receive less of the box office revenue the longer it's been in theaters?

Yes, on average movies are still frontloaded and earn less for studios and more for theaters the longer they are out. This however is an unknown calculation as each movie has a different breakdown.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Also, figuring out *exactly* what a movie made will always be an unknown due to data we don't have or is only guessed at by "a rule of thumb."

In the end, two figures that are $10M apart might as well be considered the same due to errors in estimations.

 

[brideck]

The reported budget for Sonic 3 was $122M while the reported budget for Mufasa was $200M. So while Mufasa might have now earned more at the box office (both now domestic and international) than Sonic 3, because Sonic 3 cost less that means Sonic 3 earned more profit overall than Mufasa. In addition studios don't get 100% of everything a movie makes at the box office, its split between the studio and the theaters. With them getting more domestically and less internationally. On average Studios only get 50% of the overall box office take.

So you take the production cost (budget) adding in marketing cost and subtract 50% of the box office that gives you an approximate profitability (or loss) for a movie.

However that doesn't mean Disney wishes they had Sonic 3 profits as someone suggested, as things are not that cut and dry. But it is a nice headline that Mufasa has now caught up and surpassed Sonic 3, as the reverse headline was happening and some were gloating here that Sonic 3 opened stronger and looked to be trouncing Mufasa when it opened. Which shows that you don't count your chickens before they're hatched as you never know how things will shake out.

This is not specifically directed at you, but how on earth did this conversation migrate here from the box office thread? There's been tons of budget/BO talk over here for the last few days.

Anyway, to hypocritically add to that:

Aren't they both basically in the same territory re: profits anyway because of Mufasa's WW advantage? If the rule of thumb is 2.5x budget to make a profit, they're both in the ballpark of $150m over their respective 2.5x numbers.

Mufasa: 2.5x ($500m), WW: $650m
Sonic: 2.5x ($300m), WW: $460m

 

[Disney Irish]

This is not specifically directed at you, but how on earth did this conversation migrate here from the box office thread? There's been tons of budget/BO talk over here for the last few days.

Anyway, to hypocritically add to that:

Aren't they both basically in the same territory re: profits anyway because of Mufasa's WW advantage? If the rule of thumb is 2.5x budget to make a profit, they're both in the ballpark of $150m over their respective 2.5x numbers.

Mufasa: 2.5x ($500m), WW: $650m
Sonic: 2.5x ($300m), WW: $460m

Because some want to continue this silly Mufasa vs Sonic competition, always moving the goalpost trying any way to make Sonic come out better than Mufasa.

As for the actual profitability of each, I hadn't done the actual calculations so you could be right that its close for both.

 

[BrianLo]

I bet Disney would rather have the profits that Sonic 3 has though

Profits are currently the same, pretty much regardless of what tool or anchor you want to use.

I’d bet dollars to donuts Mufasa will make more than Sonic in Deadlines tournament when the dust settles.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Sonic 3 made way more in profit as it cost much less to make

Why should this be of any concern to me?

 

[Disney Irish]

Sonic 3 made way more in profit as it cost much less to make

Now this comment comes into question, because as mentioned not only are Mufasa and Sonic 3 basically on par in terms of profitability, but as mentioned in the Captain America 4 thread all studios end up under reporting their budgets. Meaning that Sonic 3 likely cost way more, minimizing its profitability and potentially put it as a loss.

So we can play this both ways, if Disney is "fudging" their budget numbers, which some here claim, then so is every other studio on the planet. So all that gloating about xyz movie doing better than the recent Disney movie all gets called into question.

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

 

[BrianLo]

View attachment 843884

Mufasa is a series of contradicting performances markers. Which is why trying to summarize it in one box is foolhardy.

Reporting it in raw dollars is clearly not the best way of breaking it down, but it’s an interesting statistic.

 

[easyrowrdw]

View attachment 843884

The 3rd biggest movie of all-time is also the 7th biggest drop in gross from its predecessor. That's crazy. Definitely feel like a percentage change would add some important context