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

[Disstevefan1]

Have any proof of such claims?

Can’t be proven thats what makes it such a great scheme. As I said, it’s amazing Wicked can be made for 145M and Mufasa cost 200M along with the many, many other Disney productions with bloated budgets.

When I went to look up Wicked I totally expected it to be over 200M since Mufasa cots 200M to see Wicked cost only 145M and made in the US, that surprised me and made me think something fishy is going on in the house of mouse.

But you are right, it’s pure speculation on my part.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Can’t be proven thats what makes it such a great scheme. As I said, it’s amazing Wicked can be made for 145M and Mufasa cost 200M along with the many, many other Disney productions with bloated budgets.

When I went to look up Wicked I totally expected it to be over 200M since Mufasa cots 200M to see Wicked cost only 145M and made in the US, that surprised me and made me think something fishy is going on in the house of mouse.

But you are right, it’s pure speculation on my part.

Articles have been posted on this.

Some studios factor the costs to run their studio in the film budgets. For example, a movie cost includes day to day maintenance, janitorial, support staff, and what not.

Some only report the costs that went directly into making the movie.

It definitely accounts for some discrepancy.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Articles have been posted on this.

Some studios factor the costs to run their studio in the film budgets. For example, a movie cost includes day to day maintenance, janitorial, support staff, and what not.

Some only report the costs that went directly into making the movie.

It definitely accounts for some discrepancy.

Indeed, Pixar has said that their cost per movie involves running the whole physical studio, not just the salaries of the animators.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Articles have been posted on this.

Some studios factor the costs to run their studio in the film budgets. For example, a movie cost includes day to day maintenance, janitorial, support staff, and what not.

Some only report the costs that went directly into making the movie.

It definitely accounts for some discrepancy.

Oh we suspect Disney includes all costs, even special projects
JK

 

[Disstevefan1]

Indeed, Pixar has said that their cost per movie involves running the whole physical studio, not just the salaries of the animators.

And don't forget those special secret projects JK. It just shows the "Budgeted" number is even more meaningless in either direction -

The "Budgeted" number means different things for different companies
We have no idea of actual production costs and if they went over the "Budgeted" number.
We have no idea what the actual marketing costs were on any movie.

I am realizing why Disney just puts out whatever they want and whatever happens, happens.

Mufasa was fine, but Wicked was really great and I need to watch it again.

 

[Disney Irish]

Can’t be proven thats what makes it such a great scheme. As I said, it’s amazing Wicked can be made for 145M and Mufasa cost 200M along with the many, many other Disney productions with bloated budgets.

When I went to look up Wicked I totally expected it to be over 200M since Mufasa cots 200M to see Wicked cost only 145M and made in the US, that surprised me and made me think something fishy is going on in the house of mouse.

But you are right, it’s pure speculation on my part.

Its not a "scheme" as if there is some stuff being account for that shouldn't be there, Hollywood accounting has always been an unknown by those outside the industry. As others have said different studios account for different things in their film budgets, so its not a uniform figure. But rest assure there is no malfeasance going on, outside investors wouldn't invest in such "schemes" if there was some illegal or wrong stuff being accounted for in film budgets. They wouldn't want to risk their investment if such a practice was being done. Not to mention that Hollywood insiders would have blown the lid off such a "scheme" decades ago if there was something bad going on.

Also different movies are going to cost differently, an all CG movie is going to cost more than a movie done with fairly unknown actors on practical sets. So you can't look at one movie and say "Hey they did it for $55M less so Disney must be hiding something in their budgets they shouldn't be". I know we like to compare things around here because it makes things easier for us, but really there is no comparison in a lot of these movies.

So basically there is nothing "fishy" going on with Disney budgets.

Also as I mentioned, Wicked Part 2 when it comes out this year will have cost ~$205M. So are you going to blame Uni for some accounting "scheme" because it cost $60M more than Part 1 or does that only apply to Disney and their films?

 

[Disstevefan1]

So basically there is nothing "fishy" going on with Disney budgets.

Whatever you say.

 

[Disney Irish]

Whatever you say.

You missed my edit, but...

Also as I mentioned, Wicked Part 2 when it comes out this year will have cost ~$205M. So are you going to blame Uni for some accounting "scheme" because it cost ~$60M more than Part 1 or does that only apply to Disney and their films?

 

[Disstevefan1]

You missed my edit, but...

Also as I mentioned, Wicked Part 2 when it comes out this year will have cost ~$205M. So are you going to blame Uni for some accounting "scheme" because it cost ~$60M more than Part 1 or does that only apply to Disney and their films?

No, because Wicked part one looked like it cost at least 250M, but what do I know...
I guess CGI lions are expensive too...

 

[Disney Irish]

No, because Wicked part one looked like it cost at least 250M, but what do I know...
I guess CGI lions are expensive too...

Well the entire Wicked series costs ~$350M, so they spent a whole lot for both movies (as mentioned the most Uni has ever spent on a single project). They just put most of that cost into the second film. And so if the first one looks like it cost more, well thank the second film for that. Or more precisely that Jon Chu was more frugal in the first one so he could spend more on the second one.

CG animation is expensive due to all the animators, software costs, support people, etc., needed to create the CG. Its again why Pixar movies tend to be more expensive compared to their peers due to all the other costs associated with running the studio needed to support the film production being added into the budget.

None of that means that either Uni or Disney had some accounting scheme going on in order to "pad" the budget to hide some "bad" stuff.

 

[Disstevefan1]

None of that means that either Uni or Disney had some accounting scheme going on in order to "pad" the budget to hide some "bad" stuff.

Whatever you say.

And I never claimed that Universal was padding the budget.

 

[BrianLo]

Mufasa cots 200M

Setting aside that both wicked movies average out to 175 with some cost savings with a sequentially filmed production… why does Mufasa seem expensive to you?

200M for a pure CGI film actually strikes me as reasonable for Dis. I would have guessed at 250 with no fore knowledge. Mufasa isn’t a film that screams cheap, quite the opposite.


The only production I have a hard time understanding how it burnt through cash as of late would be Acolyte.

 

[BrianLo]

I think there’s a very interesting discussion on franchises and tent poles… but this has been Iger’s strategy since like 2010. I can pull up posts predicting the wheels would come off dating back a decade ago with his lean + tentpole strategy. It’s very different than Eisner.

Is it a good strategy? Many have argued otherwise, but it has basically worked for 14 of 15 years now. Disney continues to rule the box office. Eisner’s singles and doubles fell apart on the other hand.

 

[Disney Irish]

Setting aside that both wicked movies average out to 175 with some cost savings with a sequentially filmed production… why does Mufasa seem expensive to you?

200M for a pure CGI film actually strikes me as reasonable for Dis. I would have guessed at 250 with no fore knowledge. Mufasa isn’t a film that screams cheap, quite the opposite.


The only production I have a hard time understanding how it burnt through cash as of late would be Acolyte.

And given that TLK cost $260M back in 2019 you’d be right to think that. That is why this whole discussion is silly, they actually cut costs and are somehow now running some embezzlement scheme.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Setting aside that both wicked movies average out to 175 with some cost savings with a sequentially filmed production… why does Mufasa seem expensive to you?

We saw Mufasa and Sonic in the theater.
Mufasa - 200M - it was fine, not bad, just fine.
Sonic 3 122M - Really like it, very entertaining - Jim Carrey was outstanding!

I saw Wicked on Prime - 145M - Wow great movie! This movie had a LOT of practical effects mixed with CGI, very detailed practical sets, countless detailed costumes, many, many talented actors! I was saying to myself, if for example, Mufasa cost 200M, Wicked must have cost 250 or so, and wow when I checked the numbers, I was surprised only 145M!

I gotta see Wicked again.

For the sake of argument, lets call Wicked 175M, I still don't know how they did it when (assuming nothing fishy by Disney) how they were able to make Wicked for 175 and Mufasa cost 200M, for me, the (below) average, person, I ask myself, "Where did the money go Disney?"

With all that said, I will leave it to the experts to justify the costs.

 

[Prince-1]

but what do I know...

Based on your usual posts I would say very little.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Based on your usual posts I would say very little.

Totally agree!
If Mufasa cost 200M how the heck does Wicked only cost 175M??
I does not make sense to me, but as you say, and I agree, I know very little, I am not an expert like many on these boards are.

 

[Disney Irish]

We saw Mufasa and Sonic in the theater.
Mufasa - 200M - it was fine, not bad, just fine.
Sonic 3 122M - Really like it, very entertaining - Jim Carrey was outstanding!

I saw Wicked on Prime - 145M - Wow great movie! This movie had a LOT of practical effects mixed with CGI, very detailed practical sets, countless detailed costumes, many, many talented actors! I was saying to myself, if for example, Mufasa cost 200M, Wicked must have cost 250 or so, and wow when I checked the numbers, I was surprised only 145M!

I gotta see Wicked again.

For the sake of argument, lets call Wicked 175M, I still don't know how they did it when (assuming nothing fishy by Disney) how they were able to make Wicked for 175 and Mufasa cost 200M, for me, the (below) average, person, I ask myself, "Where did the money go Disney?"

With all that said, I will leave it to the experts to justify the costs.

We get it you loved Wicked. But that didn’t answer the question that was asked. What about it has Mufasa caused you to question its budget? By your admission you said the movie was fine. So what about it other than comparison to another films budget does it feel expensive and not worthy of its budget?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Totally agree!
If Mufasa cost 200M how the heck does Wicked only cost 175M??
I does not make sense to me, but as you say, and I agree, I know very little, I am not an expert like many on these boards are.

No one here is an expert but this is some weird discussion, designed to randomly criticize Disney or something? Not quite sure what agenda is being pushed.

Ignoring the fact that we've already pointed out how some movie studio budgets reflect indirect costs while others don't, it's hardly crazy that two movies, one live action and one animated, would have different budgets. Nominally different budgets I might add.

 

[Disstevefan1]

We get it you loved Wicked. But that didn’t answer the question that was asked. What about it has Mufasa caused you to question its budget? By your admission you said the movie was fine. So what about it other than comparison to another films budget does it feel expensive and not worthy of its budget?

Sorry, I will try to clarify.
I am just a movie consumer, not a financial expert as many seem to be on these boards.

I watched Mufasa, its very nice, nothing unexpected. Whatever they did to produce this cost 200M. Fine.

I watched Wicked, I actually did not want to watch Wicked after I heard the runtime but my kid really wanted me to see it so, OK I finally saw it.

Forget that I liked Wicked, forget its a Universal movie, consider the the sets, the costuming, the props, all the talented players, the detail everywhere, there is a LOT there. I just ASSUMED it cost a lot to make. When it cost significantly less than, for example, Mufasa I was surprised.

Look, all of you are correct and I do not know about these things so I am officially waving the flag of surrender

You are all right and I am wrong in my thinking.