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

[TsWade2]

It beat Trolls for a day again friend. Trolls 3 outgrossed Wish much to Casper's and Irish's surprise and against their bad predictions. I don't want to give it attention because it will just depress you. It has gone back and forth daily with Trolls 3, a movie that has already reached double the gross. Napoleon, a Rated R 2 hour and 40 minute movie about an old dead guy from a new theatrical player has outgrossed and is still outperforming it.

There are likley no legs for Wish. The deal is done. Shameful Disney movie performance. Makes the Great Mouse Detectives' business look like Avatar.

I'm not going to listen you or anyone! Because it's not over yet! Bye hater!

 

[Casper Gutman]

I'm guessing this is your "reliable" information. The only problem is how are they coming to these conclusions?

From Deadline

This shows a cost of 390mil. So that would mean they need to at least make that amount after the theaters take their cut. Correct?

From Collider

And this says it needs 560mil to break even. It did 570mil so I guess it's settled? Of course we are still missing one key piece of information. What's the percentage of box office take? According to your "reliable" sources, Disney is taking 70% of the box office worldwide? That's the only way it's profiting according to your reliable information. I don't think that is the accepted take by any measure, 50% average has been the standard estimate that I've seen. Now again, I am all for being shown the proper formula.

I just don't see a scenario where these numbers add up to profitability. So unless you can get better sources or proof for your argument, or all the variables that go into the calculations, I'm going to have to say you are wrong on this one. If you want to say someone is wrong, that's fine. But you really need to have actual facts to back up what you claim. I've said my numbers are estimates based on the data we have. You are claiming undisputed facts that I'm wrong but can't show this, laboriously proven so many times, information.

Deadline is a reliable, industry respected source. The numbers you want to use are an inaccurate rule of thumb for casual conversation and have never been presented as anything else in this thread. You are rejecting a trusted news source with access to actual numbers we lack because it doesn't it doesn't show what you want it to show - that happens a lot in our society at the moment. If you can find an actual, trustworthy news source to back up your arguments, go ahead, but there's no point in arguing if you're going to reject reliable sources.

 

[Tha Realest]

So it's OK for Apple to lose money on movies but not Disney? As long as it eventually leads to gains in the streaming business right?

Doesn't AppleTV have about half the subscribers of Disney+? How does the math work out on that?

Apple is principally a tech company that has many more billions in cash on hand than Disney is worth. Them taking up streaming and film producing (Disney’s bread and butter) is like me taking on an inexpensive hobby like woodworking. Them worrying about the theatrical profit is like Jeff Bezos deciding whether he’s paying for three or four plaids for the day.

 

[erasure fan1]

Deadline is a reliable, industry respected source. The numbers you want to use are an inaccurate rule of thumb for casual conversation and have never been presented as anything else in this thread.

Of course they're inaccurate, hence I was looking for the more accurate information you said there was. I've never claimed the estimates I use are perfect.

You are rejecting a trusted news source with access to actual numbers we lack because it doesn't it doesn't show what you want it to show - that happens a lot in our society at the moment.

I'm not rejecting the numbers. They are right on par with most every site. They show exactly what I wanted them to show so I'm glad you posted them. What I'm questioning is they are blindly omitting the absolute most key piece of information. The percentage of box office take. So if these numbers are trusted, then Disneys take from theaters was 70% world-wide if the film was profitable. That is basic math, not arguable.

If you can find an actual, trustworthy news source to back up your arguments, go ahead, but there's no point in arguing if you're going to reject reliable sources.

Again, i'm not rejecting their numbers. I'm questioning their interpretation of what they say. Do you honestly believe that Disney takes a 70% share of box-office as a world wide average? And if you read the article it says if it's in the low 400mil it won't profit. So that tells me they think mid 400s it will profit correct? So if I take your articles conclusion at face value, Disney is getting almost 90% of the box office? Do you honestly believe that? Because I personally try to look at stuff through the common sense lens. And that is theaters wouldn't be able to survive on that low of a take.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Of course they're inaccurate, hence I was looking for the more accurate information you said there was. I've never claimed the estimates I use are perfect.

I'm not rejecting the numbers. They are right on par with most every site. They show exactly what I wanted them to show so I'm glad you posted them. What I'm questioning is they are blindly omitting the absolute most key piece of information. The percentage of box office take. So if these numbers are trusted, then Disneys take from theaters was 70% world-wide if the film was profitable. That is basic math, not arguable.

Again, i'm not rejecting their numbers. I'm questioning their interpretation of what they say. Do you honestly believe that Disney takes a 70% share of box-office as a world wide average? And if you read the article it says if it's in the low 400mil it won't profit. So that tells me they think mid 400s it will profit correct? So if I take your articles conclusion at face value, Disney is getting almost 90% of the box office? Do you honestly believe that? Because I personally try to look at stuff through the common sense lens. And that is theaters wouldn't be able to survive on that low of a take.

This is simple. I trust the reliable industry press source that very regularly discusses box office outcomes and has access to actual information much more than the guy on the internet with an axe to grind. If you have a trustworthy media source that explicitly supports your conclusion that TLM didn’t break even, please post it. If not, you’re wrong, and we’re done here.

 

[Willmark]

Apple is principally a tech company that has many more billions in cash on hand than Disney is worth. Them taking up streaming and film producing (Disney’s bread and butter) is like me taking on an inexpensive hobby like woodworking. Them worrying about the theatrical profit is like Jeff Bezos deciding whether he’s paying for three or four plaids for the day.

This one always surprises me, but then again not. There are times here when I wonder if people truly believe that Disney is the “best, largest, etc and no one comes close.”

The reality is Apple could likely scrounge through the cushions in Cupertino and find enough spare change to buy Disney outright and have change left over. (That’s obvious hyperbole, sad that needs to be pointed out.)

Apple is a 3 trillion dollar company ranked #1 in terms of valuation. Disney is a 167 billion dollar company ranked #66.

It’s like when someone around here stated the “the Academy Awards are the 2nd most watched TV show” when in reality it was #77 last year and falling. It’s sports, particularly the NFL then college football, then college basketball then everything else. It’s not even close.

Point being is you are absolutely correct. If Apple had released the same slate of movies as Disney and resulted in the same losses of around 1 billion dollars? It’s barely a blip on Apple’s radar.

They can “afford” a billion dollar loss, Disney can to a degree but no where near as easy. And as you also correctly note it’s a side business for them not its core business.

 

[Phroobar]

What would a computer company do with a media company? They don't need them for product placement.

 

[erasure fan1]

This is simple. I trust the reliable industry press source that very regularly discusses box office outcomes and has access to actual information much more than the guy on the internet with an axe to grind. If you have a trustworthy media source that explicitly supports your conclusion that TLM didn’t break even, please post it. If not, you’re wrong, and we’re done here.

But you didn't answer my question. Do you think deadline is correct that Disney takes almost 90% of the box office?

Here's an article from the wall street journal from just before last jedi.

Before exhibitors can begin screening “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” this December, they must first commit to a set of top-secret terms that numerous theater owners say are the most onerous they have ever seen. Disney will receive about 65% of ticket revenue from the film, a new high for a Hollywood studio. Disney is also requiring theaters to show the movie in their largest auditorium for at least four weeks.

So if mermaid is considered as big a tent pole as star wars, that means it's 20mil short. That's also being generous as I've never seen anything that says international percentage is the same as domestic.

 

[Tha Realest]

This one always surprises me, but then again not. There are times here when I wonder if people truly believe that Disney is the “best, largest, etc and no one comes close.”

The reality is Apple could likely scrounge through the cushions in Cupertino and find enough spare change to buy Disney outright and have change left over. (That’s obvious hyperbole, sad that needs to be pointed out.)

Apple is a 3 trillion dollar company ranked #1 in terms of valuation. Disney is a 167 billion dollar company ranked #66.

It’s like when someone around here stated the “the Academy Awards are the 2nd most watched TV show” when in reality it was #77 last year and falling. It’s sports, particularly the NFL then college football, then college basketball then everything else. It’s not even close.

Point being is you are absolutely correct. If Apple had released the same slate of movies as Disney and resulted in the same losses of around 1 billion dollars? It’s barely a blip on Apple’s radar.

They can “afford” a billion dollar loss, Disney can to a degree but no where near as easy. And as you also correctly note it’s a side business for them not its core business.

Yep - they could buy Disney and Target, essentially, with cash on hand.

Films like Napoleon and Killers of the Flower Moon cost almost as much to make as Peter Pan & Wendy, and Zemeckis’s Pinocchio. The two former films at least have a box office to offset the production costs. But which ones will attract more eyeballs (and critical/award acclaim) to their companies?

 

[Disstevefan1]

That was the article I first responded to. And they do not calculate for theater take. Forbes has the budget at 300mil. I'm just asking that if my formula is wrong, what formula should we be using?

For any film, even if Disney states the budget of a film, it’s never known how much over budget they went and how much they actually spent on a given film. It’s never stated how much they actually spent on marketing.

It seems today, if a Disney doesn’t make 900 Million or more at the box office, it’s unclear if the movie breaks even or makes money. It doesn’t matter the movie.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Godzilla minus one that only cost 15 Million to make, there is no possible way that doesn’t make money. Same for Five nights.

 

[el_super]

Apple is principally a tech company ...

Yeah yeah excuses aside, the question was, why did their films flop?

Spoiler: It's the same thing impacting Disney's film moreso than "brand"

 

[Phroobar]

For any film, even if Disney states the budget of a film, it’s never known how much over budget they went and how much they actually spent on a given film. It’s never stated how much they actually spent on marketing.

It seems today, if a Disney doesn’t make 900 Million or more at the box office, it’s unclear if the movie breaks even or makes money. It doesn’t matter the movie.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have Godzilla minus one that only cost 15 Million to make, there is no possible way that doesn’t make money. Same for Five nights.

It was amazing how great Godzilla looked. It wasn't a guy in a suit. Granted he wasn't on screen very much.

 

[Willmark]

It was amazing how great Godzilla looked. It wasn't a guy in a suit. Granted he wasn't on screen very much.

Same as Jaws. Only showing but glimpses of the shark is what made it so effective but wasn’t recognized immediately when they were filming it.

The animatronic didn’t work the way they wanted it to, but in hindsight?

 

[celluloid]

Yeah yeah excuses aside, the question was, why did their films flop?

Spoiler: It's the same thing impacting Disney's film moreso than "brand"

Disney is 100 years old media brand. Apple theater releases are not. One would know the castle and shooting arch before the film would mean more than the Apple logo. If the best we can do is compare it to Apple's two duds, than you show the weakness in whatever point your are attempting to make.

All companies can and do have duds. Many last year had wonderful successes. Disney did not.

 

[celluloid]

It was amazing how great Godzilla looked. It wasn't a guy in a suit. Granted he wasn't on screen very much.

Love it. It sounds like the Jaws method.

 

[Tha Realest]

Yeah yeah excuses aside, the question was, why did their films flop?

Spoiler: It's the same thing impacting Disney's film moreso than "brand"

You do realize Apple has only had a handful of their films released theatrically? That they generally keep their films locked in their Apple TV+ ecosystem? And that these two films were essentially subsidizing vanity projects for two prestigious directors? Apple’s previous theatrical releases were only so its films could qualify for award season. Entirely different economic models and risk calculus.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What would a computer company do with a media company? They don't need them for product placement.

You just answered why they didn’t buy them 10 years ago…

Studios are a mess to handle…especially one with baggage such as Disney

Yeah yeah excuses aside, the question was, why did their films flop?

Spoiler: It's the same thing impacting Disney's film moreso than "brand"

No…it’s more Disney than anyone else

Nice try though

 

[LSLS]

Your nostalgia is not history and time moves on without you. Iron Man was never very popular before the MCU.

So, I'm stepping in as an expert of "People who had heard some Marvel stuff before any movie came out but didn't ever see comics or know that stuff." I think you are off on Iron Man. TOTALLY agree it was not the most popular Marvel character (my expert analysis, he's behind X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Thor, and probably F4 at least before even the fist X-Men movie), but I had heard of him. I knew almost nothing about him, but I knew the name. The guys you had talked about I know nothing on.

BUT, I think your Guardians analogy is SPOT on. I don't think anyone outside of die hard comic book fans had a CLUE about those people other than Chris Pratt and Batista were in it.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So, I'm stepping in as an expert of "People who had heard some Marvel stuff before any movie came out but didn't ever see comics or know that stuff." I think you are off on Iron Man. TOTALLY agree it was not the most popular Marvel character (my expert analysis, he's behind X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Thor, and probably F4 at least before even the fist X-Men movie), but I had heard of him. I knew almost nothing about him, but I knew the name. The guys you had talked about I know nothing on.

BUT, I think your Guardians analogy is SPOT on. I don't think anyone outside of die hard comic book fans had a CLUE about those people other than Chris Pratt and Batista were in it.

People had heard of Iron Man, although many knew little beyond a name. He was an old character, created in the 60s. He never sold very well and only a relatively few consumers could have been said to “care” about him. The Young Avengers are much, much newer characters. Their names haven’t had nearly as much time to penetrate the popular consciousness. Like Iron Man prior to the MCU, relatively few consumers care about them - their book sales were comparable. The consumers who DO, however, are younger and thus not represented much on this board. Older folks have a tendency to think particular aspects of pop culture stopped when they stopped paying attention and that the new-fangled stuff is less valid. The point is that, yes, people care about the Young Avengers and the number is comparable to those who cared - not just recognize the name but actually care - about Iron Man.

It’s a bit similar to how many posters here were baffled by the existence and popularity of Five Nights at Freddy’s. The Young Avengers are nowhere near as popular, but it’s an analogous case of older folks assuming there is no pop culture that isn’t their pop culture.

 

[el_super]

All companies can and do have duds. Many last year had wonderful successes. Disney did not.

That you can't answer a simple question should be all we need to know about your ability to assess Disney's theatrical position.