easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
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
-
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
That's crazy. Definitely feel like a percentage change would add some important context
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
Last edited by a moderator:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Are you so bitter you can’t see that even long after your “21 day” wall was knocked down that Mufasa is STILL able to bring in $1.5M for a Friday night and $5-$7M for a weekend? That it continues to bring in money despite it be long long past the time when it should have finished. $700M is basically a lock now, it’ll just be a matter of how much over it’ll be. Basically it’s proven itself hand over fist at this point, give it its credit at least.$1.5? Do you have a concept what the value of money is?
Last edited by a moderator:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
It’s definitive had more run that I thought OR could he reasonably expected when you take into account how films seem to perform now.
But these small amounts don’t change much on the ledgers.
Bitterness isn’t a concept when talking about Disney output and performance. They either sell it and profit off it to investors…or they don’t. That’s really it.
This one did ok in the end. That’s a fair assessment.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Actually these “small amounts”, imagine saying that when talking about Millions, actually do add up when add into the final tally. Adding another $25-50M overall which in many cases is the difference between profit and loss, and I think we all agree at this point Mufasa is 100% in the profit column. So this is just adding to the tally on how profitable it’ll be in the end, looking like somewhere between $50-100M in the profit column when all said and done. That to me is more than just “ok”, but from you I’ll take “ok” as acknowledgment of it doing well especially compared to where is started.
I think the lesson is in the microscopic sense, no. But in the macro sense this change has somehow turned into close to 250 million dollars (or 200 and still counting).
Mufasa has moved from failure out of the gate, to breaking even, to hey it’s actually staring at 3/4 of a billlion… and that’s actually good.
This is no longer a brand damaging film, but actually a brand positive one.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I would call it more neutral if anything. While you don't have the noise of, Disney lost hundreds of millions, it's a total failure!!! It still is one of the weaker "live action" movies, especially domestically. It will be interesting to see what happens with stitch and Moana. Both I would guess will do well. So if they don't, that will be a good tell as to the state of remakes.
Sorry, I should clarify my last comment I didn’t mean entirely in the monetary sense. It has finished on a good note, unlike the former, despite all the money it made.
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Mufasa is fine, its a OK movie that made money.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I would agree with @BrianLo though, its not a brand damaging performance as some here tried to claim. So while soft here domestically, that too is also not bad. So I would call that better than neutral, especially the fact that this shows that internationally it means Disney, even the live action remakes, is actually still well received for the most part. Which is important for a global company like Disney.
Domestic is not the end all be all for all performance metrics.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
I enjoyed Mufasa but I think Disney needs to cool it with the live action remakes. Or live action remake prequels in this case haha. It’s clear that the live action remake fatigue kept people from rushing to see it in theatres (including myself who had 0 interest in seeing this but spontaneously saw it by chance) and then the positive word of mouth started getting out there. So what’s the lesson? I don’t know. Make better movies but also maybe chill with the live action stuff too? Be a little more choosy with the projects you green light. Quality over Quantity.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
Agreed it's not brand damaging. But just because it wasn't a "total failure", doesn't mean positive in my eyes. The movie didn't do half the original both domestic and international. Companies use services like Medallia to judge wether someone would recommend your product, service, business... I believe Disney uses them for surveys in the parks, or they did not that long ago. A 9 or 10 rating is positive. 8 & 7, neutral. 6 and below, negative. So according to their research I would definitely put this film in the neutral column. It doesn't do anything to damage the brand, sure. But it also hasn't really done much to elevate the brand either in my opinion.
And I get it, there are positives you can take from this. But looking at the bigger picture, it doesn't really do all that much as a single film. If your nfl team had 10 wins last year and they come back with 9 next season. Is it a positive? Sure you had a winning season. But I don't know anyone who would call it a positive season. It's a neutral season at best.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Apples and oranges regarding a sports teams season performance, especially the NFL when the only positive result is making and winning the Super Bowl, anything else is considered a failure. Coaches with winning records have been fired for less, so it’s not comparable here.
I think your neutral rating here is good when looking at it only from your own personal perspective. But from a business standpoint the takeaways is that they can continue to build the franchise around this. Maybe not something you’d like as you’ve been pretty down on most if not all the live action movies, but to Disney this is a net positive. And I believe the rumors have already started about them continuing with another movie. So yeah it’s not neutral to Disney, it’s a positive.
Also for what it’s worth very few sequels (or prequel in this case) reach the heights of the original, so take that into account too.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
To you maybe. But it's about the customer for me. With sports the end game is a championship, yes. But if we change that to a 12 win season and that is a division best, and you lose in the conference finals. That's a positive season.
Can they? Sure I haven't been a cheerleader for the live action remake stuff. But I'm just looking at interest on a grander scale. It did less than half with a higher ticket price. Yea a lot sequels don't do as much as the first. But plenty do or come very close. Off the top of my head pirates, transformers, star wars, toy story, guardians... and many more big franchises have sequels on par or better. My expectations weren't to equal the first, it was to crappy of a film for that to happen. But I would have expected 900+ mil. I even said if they released this instead of the 2019 film, I wouldn't have minded. So I wasn't completely against this.
To many here this is a victory just because of the people who called it a flop after week one. I'm just being realistic. The movie legged out to making some cash. It avoided the financial disaster discourse. But how did it really move the studios further ahead? Because it didn't lose money? I highly doubt Disney is throwing any parties. Now I'm betting they make at least 2 more of these. Not because this one was some indicator of viability. But because the first did over a billion and a half.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Off topic, but ever hear the phrase “Super Bowl or bust”? That is the NFL (or any sport really). No team goes away from a 9 or 10 win season not making or winning the Super Bowl saying that was a positive or neutral season, they’d call it a failure. Sports is a unique thing unto itself, it’s not comparable.
Businesses however can walk away from an endeavor only making a little profit and still consider it a success, movie business is no different.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I don’t think they should even brand this as “live action.” Come up with a name for cgi animation in this particular style. “Live” creates expectations of realism that can’t really be met with cgi. “Stop motion animation” and “anime” are not expected to look realistic. This is stylized cgi, not “live action.” There are no live lions being directed on set.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
By the weekend after this one, I’m guessing Mufasa should be at 250 Domestic and 700 worldwide.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I don’t disagree, unfortunately calling it some type of animation gives the consumer the impression for better or worse of a “cartoon” type movie. And while it maybe more accurate I think many would be disappointed showing up and seeing photo realistic lions and expecting something closer to the animated original.
I think that is why Disney has started to use the term “photo realistic animated movie” to describe it rather than “live action”, but still classifies it as one of their live action remakes.