Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[CaptainAmerica]

The box office dilemma is this. Aim for a modest box office number but keep budgets down. By keeping budgets down, you could either sacrifice quality (CGI, SFX,cast, set designs or all of the above), or sacrifice marketing. By sacrificing any of those, you could/would likely sacrifice box office returns. And the cycle continues.

So what's the answer? People keep saying to keep budgets down. I want to hear what those people think should be cut to do so.

You're conflating animation and live action.

Animation has a budget problem. Elemental had the budget of Mario and Spidey combined. That's madness.

It's perfectly fine that Indiana Jones was expensive, but it needed to perform. It wasn't a "modest budget, modest box office" play, it was a "mega budget, mega box office" play, and it failed in the latter.

Nobody is mad at James Cameron for spending a fortune on The Way of Water.

 

[flynnibus]

So what's the answer? People keep saying to keep budgets down. I want to hear what those people think should be cut to do so.

Sorry, this has been part of movie making forever. This is not some 'cut to the bone' ask. Producers and Directors have always had to design their projects around expenses. Picking locations, location vs sets, designing shots, casting, what the script even entails.

Do you shutdown NYC, or do you film on a backlot? Do you face morph a character 30 times, or do you do the change off screen, etc.

 

[TP2000]

YaY! Disney leads Box office with $3.4 billion.

Remind me again how much it cost to make and market theses and how much of that 3.4B actually came back to Disney?

Assuming that the seven movies they cite include Black Panther 2 that was released for Thanksgiving and ran in theaters through February, and Avatar 2 that was released on December 16th and ran in theaters through March, the production and marketing budgets for those seven films total $2.95 Billion. Assuming that Disney got the most optimistic return at 60% of the box office from all those (instead of the usual 50% split domestic/overseas), Disney would earn a profit of $2.05 Billion, for a loss thus far in 2023 of about $900 Million.

Black Panther 2 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Avatar 2 = $460 Production/$200 Marketing
Ant Man = $200 Production/$150 Marketing
Guardians 3 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Mermaid Live = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Elemental = $200 Production/$100 Marketing
Indy 5 = $300 Production/$150 Marketing

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Assuming that the seven movies they cite include Black Panther 2 that was released for Thanksgiving and ran in theaters through February, and Avatar 2 that was released on December 16th and ran in theaters through March, the production and marketing budgets for those seven films total $2.95 Billion. Assuming that Disney got the most optimistic return at 60% of the box office from all those (instead of the usual 50% split domestic/overseas), Disney would earn a profit of $2.05 Billion, for a loss thus far in 2023 of about $900 Million.

Black Panther 2 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Avatar 2 = $460 Production/$200 Marketing
Ant Man = $200 Production/$150 Marketing
Guardians 3 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Mermaid Live = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Elemental = $200 Production/$100 Marketing
Indy 5 = $300 Production/$150 Marketing

Not even.

James Cameron and Lightstorm get a share of Avatar 2's box office performance, and Disney has to pay Cameron for the streaming rights.

 

[Jedijax719]

You're conflating animation and live action.

Animation has a budget problem. Elemental had the budget of Mario and Spidey combined. That's madness.

It's perfectly fine that Indiana Jones was expensive, but it needed to perform. It wasn't a "modest budget, modest box office" play, it was a "mega budget, mega box office" play, and it failed in the latter.

Nobody is mad at James Cameron for spending a fortune on The Way of Water.

But you can't force a movie to perform. There's no magic formula for that. It used to be that certain franchises were guaranteed to perform. That is not the case now. And I think it's only slowly sinking in that it's not the case.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Assuming that the seven movies they cite include Black Panther 2 that was released for Thanksgiving and ran in theaters through February, and Avatar 2 that was released on December 16th and ran in theaters through March, the production and marketing budgets for those seven films total $2.95 Billion. Assuming that Disney got the most optimistic return at 60% of the box office from all those (instead of the usual 50% split domestic/overseas), Disney would earn a profit of $2.05 Billion, for a loss thus far in 2023 of about $900 Million.

Black Panther 2 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Avatar 2 = $460 Production/$200 Marketing
Ant Man = $200 Production/$150 Marketing
Guardians 3 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Mermaid Live = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Elemental = $200 Production/$100 Marketing
Indy 5 = $300 Production/$150 Marketing

 

[TP2000]

Not even.

James Cameron and Lightstorm get a share of Avatar 2's box office performance, and Disney has to pay Cameron for the streaming rights.

That's what I figured, but I was over-profiting for Disney because a $1 Billion+ loss theatrically would be too shocking to believe. It was calculated/cited in another thread that Disney got $600 Million of Avatar 2's global profits, and the rest all went to James Cameron.

But that $2.95 Billion budget cost is skewed with the most optimistic box office figures with the highest grosses possible of 60% going to Disney. And they still are under water by $900 Million for '23.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Assuming that the seven movies they cite include Black Panther 2 that was released for Thanksgiving and ran in theaters through February, and Avatar 2 that was released on December 16th and ran in theaters through March, the production and marketing budgets for those seven films total $2.95 Billion. Assuming that Disney got the most optimistic return at 60% of the box office from all those (instead of the usual 50% split domestic/overseas), Disney would earn a profit of $2.05 Billion, for a loss thus far in 2023 of about $900 Million.

Black Panther 2 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Avatar 2 = $460 Production/$200 Marketing
Ant Man = $200 Production/$150 Marketing
Guardians 3 = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Mermaid Live = $250 Production/$150 Marketing
Elemental = $200 Production/$100 Marketing
Indy 5 = $300 Production/$150 Marketing

One more thing. When Disney states a given movie has a budget of $250M, that's just what they budgeted for, it's not reported when or for how much they go over budget on a given movie, and it DOES happen.

 

[TalkingHead]

One more thing. When Disney states a given movie has a budget of $250M, that's just what they budgeted for, it's not reported when or for how much they go over budget on a given movie, and it DOES happen.

Disney Reveals Doctor Strange 2 Cost $100 Million More Than Its Estimated Budget

Disney has revealed that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness cost $94.5 million more to make than the movie's $200 million estimated production budget.

www.forbes.com

Which just goes to show there’s really no point to dissecting the numbers with any specificity.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Disney Reveals Doctor Strange 2 Cost $100 Million More Than Its Estimated Budget

Disney has revealed that Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness cost $94.5 million more to make than the movie's $200 million estimated production budget.

www.forbes.com

Which just goes to show there’s really no point to dissecting the numbers with any specificity.

Let's keep it simple going forward.

With what Disney spends on making and marketing a given movie, if they don't make 1B on a given movie, let's assume they lost money.

Simple

 

[erasure fan1]

The box office dilemma is this. Aim for a modest box office number but keep budgets down. By keeping budgets down, you could either sacrifice quality (CGI, SFX,cast, set designs or all of the above),

They are already sacrificing quality cgi and special effects with their monster budgets. Just about every movie of theirs I've seen over the last year plus, has had a couple garbage effect cg effects shots. And more than a few mediocre shots.

or sacrifice marketing. By sacrificing any of those, you could/would likely sacrifice box office returns. And the cycle continues.

They need to find a better way. Obviously what they've been doing hasn't been the most successful. Disney has access to one of the largest marketing information pools of any company. There has to be a better way to utilize that info.

So what's the answer? People keep saying to keep budgets down. I want to hear what those people think should be cut to do so.

I don't think there's a magic bullet that will fix the budget problems. It's a cultural problem within the company. They need to find a better way to do things. It's not so much what should they cut. But be smarter with what you have.

 

[TP2000]

I had no idea The Haunted Mansion movie cost Disney $150 Million to produce. Why???? Barbie only cost Warners $100 Million, even with all the big name cross-generational stars in it and lots of digital effects.

What is Disney spending this money on with these bloated budgets??? Or is it something we don't want to know, or at least get the kids out of the room before we discuss it? Seriously, where does all that money go in Burbank???

Disney's Final Summer Box Office Bet Has Something To Fear From Barbie

Disney should be worried about Barbie, not Nolan

screenrant.com

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I had no idea The Haunted Mansion movie cost Disney $150 Million to produce. Why???? Barbie only cost Warners $100 Million, even with all the big name cross-generational stars in it and lots of digital effects.

What is Disney spending this money on with these bloated budgets??? Or is it something we don't want to know, or at least get the kids out of the room before we discuss it? Seriously, where does all that money go in Burbank???

Disney's Final Summer Box Office Bet Has Something To Fear From Barbie

Disney should be worried about Barbie, not Nolan

screenrant.com

Same question I always have when I see their budgets for rides, if they weren’t a publicly traded company I‘d think billions were walking out the back door every year.

 

[Phroobar]

I had no idea The Haunted Mansion movie cost Disney $150 Million to produce. Why???? Barbie only cost Warners $100 Million, even with all the big name cross-generational stars in it and lots of digital effects.

What is Disney spending this money on with these bloated budgets??? Or is it something we don't want to know, or at least get the kids out of the room before we discuss it? Seriously, where does all that money go in Burbank???

Disney's Final Summer Box Office Bet Has Something To Fear From Barbie

Disney should be worried about Barbie, not Nolan

screenrant.com

And we wonder why it costs so much to get into Disneyland and ride a crappy ride for the hundredth time.

 

[LittleBuford]

And we wonder why it costs so much to get into Disneyland and ride a crappy ride for the hundredth time.

Why pay repeatedly to enter the park if you consider the experience so dismal?

 

[Phroobar]

So what is Disney getting for their huge marketing sprees? I did see Indy at the El Capitan in Hollywood. It was pretty heavily promoted there. However as I drove down the street into West Hollywood it was Barbie everywhere for miles!

 

[LittleBuford]

However as I drove down the street into West Hollywood it was Barbie everywhere for miles!

You can thank the gays for that!

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

The box office dilemma is this. Aim for a modest box office number but keep budgets down. By keeping budgets down, you could either sacrifice quality (CGI, SFX,cast, set designs or all of the above), or sacrifice marketing. By sacrificing any of those, you could/would likely sacrifice box office returns. And the cycle continues.

So what's the answer? People keep saying to keep budgets down. I want to hear what those people think should be cut to do so.

Hard to say. Heck, I don't even know when or if CGI is cheaper than practical. I thought Indy 5 would have been better if they'd done more old school action scenes that weren't so reliant on special effects, but who knows how many people agree.

It is worth noting that Disney purchased Industrial Light & Magic so they have their own in house special effects house. When we hear a budget for a movie I'm assuming that includes a fee paid to ILM but a good chunk of that is actually profit that stays within the company.

There seems to be an expectation that movies are wall to wall with big set pieces now. The first Mission Impossible was a big hit but only the train scene at the end was a big expensive spectacle. One of the big scenes from the movie was Tom Cruise hanging in a room. Maybe movies can go back to that format, where much of the movie is cheaper but we get the big finale.

Raiders of the Lost Ark had major sequences using a single set. The fight on and around the airplane for example. Mixing in those smaller, but still fun, sequences should help a film's budget.

I don't love it from an audience perspective in that, inevitably, the marketing will focus on that one big scene but it if works, it's not without merit.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

It's interesting to see a lot of the armchair quarterbacking in hindsight.

Indy didn't perform, but do people really think making the movie was that bad of an idea?

I can't imagine any movie studio having the option to make an Indiana Jones movie and saying no.

Not to mention it was reported that making it contributed to getting Ford back as Han Solo, and that alone paid dividends.

 

[erasure fan1]

Indy didn't perform, but do people really think making the movie was that bad of an idea?

That's a tough question. There was plenty of "why are they making this?" "Who wants to see an 80 some year old Indy?" amongst the fan base. They saw what happened with Solo and recasting Ford so that wasn't an option. So this was a question mark from the start.

Personally I think it was a bad idea based on the creative heads at Lucasfilm. Indy 4 left a bad taste in a lot of peoples mouths so you needed something great. The Lucasfilm fan base is pretty well split now. And how many 15 to 25yr olds care about Indy, especially a 80yr old Indy? It seemed like more was stacked against this film than for it.

Not to mention it was reported that making it contributed to getting Ford back as Han Solo, and that alone paid dividends.

Ford won't say no to a paycheck. I'd bet my house he would have done all 3 star wars sequels if the back the dump truck of money in his driveway.