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

[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??
It 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.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

So then instead of assuming there is some type of embezzlement scheme with Mufasa (maybe you were half joking, but that is a serious accusation) maybe the better question should be how did Wicked keep their budgets low for what appears to be a large scale production. And as has been explained they spread the costs across two films.

Also if we use the average of $175M, that is only $25M less than the reported budget of Mufasa. Which you can attributed to it being CGI which is more expensive.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Also if we use the average of $175M, that is only $25M less than the reported budget of Mufasa. Which you can attributed to it being CGI which is more expensive.

If you say so. I surrender

 

[DKampy]

Not sure why there is Wicked budget controversy … out It seems filming both parts at the same time would greatly reduce cost…. Basically it cost 350 to film a 41/2-5 hour movie

 

[Disstevefan1]

Not sure why there is Wicked budget controversy … out It seems filming both parts at the same time would greatly reduce cost…. Basically it cost 350 to film a 41/2-5 hour movie

No controversy, I am wrong and everyone else is right. Both Mufasa and Wicked budgets are perfectly inline for what you get.

 

[Disney Irish]

No controversy, I am wrong and everyone else is right. Both Mufasa and Wicked budgets are perfectly inline for what you get.

There is nothing wrong with questioning the budgets, we all do it. I for one think they are still too high, and should be dropped another 10-20%, said so in this very thread just the other day. What is wrong though is the accusation that you made about "fishy" accounting practices in some embezzlement scheme by Disney. That is a serious accusation with no proof other than you saw a movie from other studio that you felt should have been more expensive but wasn't compared to Mufasa. That is the issue some of us took with regards to your comments.

 

[Disstevefan1]

There is nothing wrong with questioning the budgets, we all do it. I for one think they are still too high, and should be dropped another 10-20%, said so in this very thread just the other day. What is wrong though is the accusation that you made about "fishy" accounting practices in some embezzlement scheme by Disney. That is a serious accusation with no proof other than you saw a movie from other studio that you felt should have been more expensive but wasn't compared to Mufasa. That is the issue some of us took with regards to your comments.

You are right. I officially take back all accusations against TWDC that I posted on these boards.

Is it OK if I think it in my mind?

 

[Disney Irish]

You are right. I officially take back all accusations against TWDC that I posted on these boards.

Is it OK if I think it in my mind?

You can think and even post (within forum rules) whatever you want, just know when you make accusations like that in an open forum we’re going to ask for more receipts than “Well I saw another movie that was less expensive”.

 

[MisterPenguin]

You are right. I officially take back all accusations against TWDC that I posted on these boards.

Is it OK if I think it in my mind?

While you're feasting on rations in your bunker, consider these budgets:

Alice Through the Looking Glass - 170
The Jungle Book (Live) - 177
Aladdin (Live) - 183
Maleficent 2 - 185
Meet the Robinsons - 198
Oz the Great and Powerful - 200
Maleficent - 230
Beauty and the Beast (Live) - 250
Tangled - 260
The Lion King ("Live") - 260
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales - 280
John Carter - 307
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - 411

And... The last 20 Pixar movies were all between $175 and $200 (except $150 for Soul).

 

[Disstevefan1]

While you're feasting on rations in your bunker, consider these budgets:

Alice Through the Looking Glass - 170
The Jungle Book (Live) - 177
Aladdin (Live) - 183
Maleficent 2 - 185
Meet the Robinsons - 198
Oz the Great and Powerful - 200
Maleficent - 230
Beauty and the Beast (Live) - 250
Tangled - 260
The Lion King ("Live") - 260
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales - 280
John Carter - 307
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides - 411

And... The last 20 Pixar movies were all between $175 and $200 (except $150 for Soul).

Wow big money!
On Stranger Tides - 411M in 2011 is 574M today!!!!
I will say it, IN MY OPINION, it makes the budget of Wicked in 2024 even more amazing!
All that CGI in Wicked must have saved them money - oh wait CGI is more expensive - never mind.
I happen to like John Carter. I really think if they titled it better it would have done better.
I OFFICIALLY TAKE BACK WHAT I SAID ABOUT MUFASA
How did you know I retreated to my bunker???!!!!!??? Are you surveilling me????
Mmmmmm I am loving this SPAM....

 

[Disstevefan1]

You can think and even post (within forum rules) whatever you want, just know when you make accusations like that in an open forum we’re going to ask for more receipts than “Well I saw another movie that was less expensive”.

I am wrong and everyone else is right.
Both Mufasa and Wicked budgets are perfectly inline for what you get.

 

[Disney Irish]

I am wrong and everyone else is right.
Both Mufasa and Wicked budgets are perfectly inline for what you get.

Again you're missing the point, but lets move on.

 

[Ghost93]

While Wicked made very good use of its $145 million budget and is a great example of not overspending, it makes sense that Mufasa cost more due to the fact that it's almost entirely CGI and all of the characters have to be animated in every single frame. While Wicked has some CGI, it was able to get away with using a lot of built/practical sets. The only fully CGI characters are the flying monkeys, and they only show up in the last 20 minutes of the movie.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Again you're missing the point, but lets move on.

I thought that was the perfect correction, admission, concession, profession of my wrong view. Oh well.

 

[Disstevefan1]

While Wicked made very good use of its $145 million budget and is a great example of not overspending, it makes sense that Mufasa cost more due to the fact that it's almost entirely CGI and all of the characters have to be animated in every single frame. While Wicked has some CGI, it was able to get away with using a lot of built/practical sets. The only fully CGI characters are the flying monkeys, and they only show up in the last 20 minutes of the movie.

I totally agree.