I've stuck up for PatF since it came out. But you are comparing it to movies that are significantly older than PatF. And Shawshank was always loved. As much as I've championed for the film, I'm not really seeing a big shift in popularity. It's still relatively young, in the becoming a cult classic time line so we still don't know yet. But I would think that we would have started to see a shift by now.
Illumination didn't outsource Super Mario Bros. It is based in France.Pixar explains why their movies are "more expensive" on paper than other studios. The main points being that they don't outsource their animation offshore and their budgets include Pixar's overall costs including salary and administration not tied directly to a given movie.
Pixar Chief Explains Their Large Film Budgets - Dark Horizons
Film budgets are a big topic of discussion of late. Around or near $300 million was spent on the most recent “Indiana Jones” and “Mission: Impossible” films, both of which underwhelmed at the box-office compared to past entries. Meanwhile, many of the biggest hits of the year have all been...www.darkhorizons.com
The best opportunity to showcase the film and really help get people to embrace these characters, and as far as I can tell, they are going to miss it. And that is splash mountain. The movie screams theme park attraction. But because they are too scared of more backlash, they are setting it outside of the movie. Can't have Tiana as a frog. So now the ride will seemingly tie in more with the D+ show if that's still a thing.
Sure Pixar didn't outsource but nether did Dreamworks and Illumination. Both where inhouse and made for half of Pixar. If Pixar made two movies at the same time, does that mean their budgets double dip on admin and non film related work? The budget for Elemental got all of those Disney+ short made too? What about all the pet names they put at the end? Did Elemental pay for their pet food? That is why their titles go on for fifteen minutes while Mario's titles where less than five.Gosh, it's almost like they are making their own case for consolidating animation studios under one roof in Burbank.
Why do they need that big swanky campus in Emeryville again? Especially when that community just beyond Pixar's security gates is collapsing fast into societal decay? Sell that land and move a downsized Pixar 400 miles south onto the Burbank campus.
Their "salary and administration costs" would decline and they'd stand a better chance of making a profit on their movies.
I believe the budget must be $200 million (fit to definition of mega-budget) assuming that the film was produced and developed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was how almost all of Disney films saw their bloated budgets at respective films and also more box office failures than any other movie studios. In fact, Disney was big loser for 2023 box office market due to impacts of the pandemic.
So what? It’s a bad movie with bad reviews. That’s what happens in these instances. No new news here.
Speaking of profit sharing with Avatar…
It’s a problem when it keeps happening over and over and over again to the same studio
So while this isn't unexpected in the current climate of discussions/disputes over streaming compensation and profit sharing. What this does show is Disney does actually get revenue from Avatar box office/streaming, despite several posters claiming that Disney gets none of that revenue because it was all financed by Cameron. So no more discounting WoW in box office discussions.Speaking of profit sharing with Avatar…
Disney Sued by Film Financier TSG Over “Chilling Example” of Hollywood Accounting
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday, TSG says 20th Century Studios and Disney "have tried to use nearly every trick in the Hollywood Accounting playbook" to short them hundreds of millions of dollars in connection with its investments in films including 'Avatar: The Way of Water.'www.hollywoodreporter.com
I don't remember people saying they got nothing. The argument was that Avatar wasn't as profitable as some said because a higher percentage went back to Cameron.
There were some posters, not just in this thread but others, claiming that because Disney just "distributed" the film they get none of the profits due to providing no financing. This is obviously not the case as you don't sue a distributor who gets no profits for profits they don't have. What this also shows is the film wasn't self-financed by Cameron which is another claim made.
Some of that is pure nonsense and wild supposition.
