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

[MagicMouseFan]

For those of us who don't know, how does Box Office Mojo Box Office Mojo get accurate final budget information?

Sounds like a Wonka computer question..

Beep beep…
Research suggests Box Office Mojo gets movie budget information from trade publications, studio press releases, and their own research, cross-verifying for accuracy. It seems likely their budgets are reliable estimates, widely accepted, though not always exact, with some controversy due to studio secrecy. The evidence leans toward their figures being accurate for major releases, based on industry reports, making them a trusted source for final budget information.

 

[MagicMouseFan]

It doesn’t. It’s the same information reported by the trades.

Just for the record here everyone, I’m calling into question when Forbes (one blogger with no definitive source) posts DIFFERING information from every other site. Deadline, Hollywood Reporter and Variety. They can’t both be right, someone has to be wrong. So either Caroline is right or everyone else is.




Perfect, so then how would you like me to deal with every other source? Deadline and variety are on the outs?

I didn’t say that, I said I trust Forbes and her reporting and if you don’t you should speak your mind to that company.

I’m looking forward to what they have to say.

 

[Chi84]

Sounds like a Wonka computer question..
View attachment 845984

Beep beep…
Research suggests Box Office Mojo gets movie budget information from trade publications, studio press releases, and their own research, cross-verifying for accuracy. It seems likely their budgets are reliable estimates, widely accepted, though not always exact, with some controversy due to studio secrecy. The evidence leans toward their figures being accurate for major releases, based on industry reports, making them a trusted source for final budget information.

Who said that though? Is it Google AI?

 

[BrianLo]

I didn’t say that, I said I trust Forbes and her reporting and if you don’t you should speak your mind to that company.

I’m looking forward to what they have to say.

Well, I’ve been spurned into action.

So as you’d like to say - I’m going to stick to convention, stick with the trades and say it’s 240M, like Variety said.

Ps - Caroline is not a journalist, per Forbes. She is a contributor, not a reporter.

 

[Prince-1]

I personally could care less what a movie costs. If I hate a movie I don't complain about the budget nor do I care about it if I love the movie. But here is a pretty good chart that, if accurate, shows a good breakdown of SW's budget.

 

[Phroobar]

I personally could care less what a movie costs. If I hate a movie I don't complain about the budget nor do I care about it if I love the movie. But here is a pretty good chart that, if accurate, shows a good breakdown of SW's budget.

View attachment 845989

So what does that mean? It already made a profit before it's been released?

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Who said that though? Is it Google AI?

the wonka computer is grok 3. Testing its deep search information.

 

[Prince-1]

So what does that mean? It already made a profit before it's been released?

Hey I am just throwing it out there. No one else on here has a clue what the budget is so I figured it was time for a nice chart!

 

[BrianLo]

I personally could care less what a movie costs. If I hate a movie I don't complain about the budget nor do I care about it if I love the movie. But here is a pretty good chart that, if accurate, shows a good breakdown of SW's budget.

View attachment 845989

So a few things, this is not the primary sourcing, it’s a table they’ve made. A studio is eligible for 80% of the UK spend resulting in a 20.5% tax credit. The film still has spent money since filling. Likely where Variety is pulling a 240 number from (a slightly larger figure than 217 with a tax credit baked in). They of course don’t know this fully yet, because they aren’t really in the buisness. So they are sitting on the tax filings for updates.

This is where we start to run into issues (note this is one I’ve pulled from the Marvels), when they report on the production largely after the fact. Disney has run a lot of non classical production spend through the production holding company. It’s why they are only claiming 17.8% as tax credit a large portion is now extraneous and no what is largely treated as the industry normalizes ‘production spend’. If you remove the non eligible, non production spend, you’ll find that’s what makes up for the discrepancy in deadline 270 figure (270+66.5 tax credit).

Even still, Deadline has all In spend of 455M, just the break down is better.

I formerly said it was marketing, but looking at the math I was incorrect. It’s interest and overhead that they (Caroline Reid) aren’t pulling out correctly. It’s adding in amounts that normally we never add in upfront on other movies. Even though those amounts are ‘there’, they normally are never presented to us as such. Presenting them for a few select films is semi dishonest.

I know this is going to just cause some people to dig in, but I really think you’d benefit from seeing things like this from this author. To know what the slant is. Hilariously, the latter half of her article is still self plagerized. Forbes started reporting drastically differing figures from the trades a couple of years ago. There’s an agenda here.

Disney receives £30m in tax relief ffor making live-action Snow White

The son of the director of the 1937 Disney original has also branded it 'woke' over the replacement of the famous seven dwarves with a group of multi-ethnic 'magical companions'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Well, I’ve been spurned into action.

So as you’d like to say - I’m going to stick to convention, stick with the trades and say it’s 240M, like Variety said.

Ps - Caroline is not a journalist, per Forbes. She is a contributor, not a reporter.

This is a Mix of Wonka computer so I could get information on each writer and research backgrounds.

Your contributor distinction is semantic, it does not diminishing her credibility.
Her background, as shown on Forbes and other journalist directories, confirms that she is a professional journalist.

Both articles come from reputable industry sources with well‐established editorial standards:

Variety’s Article:
• Reporter: Tatiana Siegel
• Credibility: Variety is a long‑standing and highly respected source for entertainment news, and Tatiana Siegel is a seasoned reporter in the field.

Forbes’ Article:
• Reporter: Caroline Reid (as credited on Forbes)
• Credibility: Forbes is a widely trusted business publication known for its detailed financial reporting on the film industry.

• Tatiana Siegel (Variety):
Variety is known for its broader narrative and industry commentary. Siegel’s reporting tends to capture the overall story and context behind film projects, which is valuable for readers looking for industry insights.

• Caroline Reid (Forbes):
Forbes places a stronger emphasis on financial and business aspects. Reid’s detailed breakdown of budgets and related financial elements provides a complementary perspective focused on the economic side of the film industry.

I’m sticking with Forbes for financial information but both are solid sources.

If you want to stick with 240 million reported by Variety or use Forbes 269.2 budget with a 55.5 rebate to bring total down to 213.9 that’s fine.

I’m good with both.

I’m sticking with the Forbe’s number at 213.9

Brian is sticking with 240 million

How Disney Saved $55.5 Million On ‘Snow White’ Remake

For a film based on one of the most famous stories of all time, the production of Disney's upcoming live action remake of Snow White has been anything but a fairytale.

www.forbes.com

 

[Prince-1]

So a few things, this is not the primary sourcing, it’s a table they’ve made. A studio is eligible for 80% of the UK spend resulting in a 20.5% tax credit. The film still has spent money since filling. Likely where Variety is pulling a 240 number from (a slightly larger figure than 217 with a tax credit baked in). They of course don’t know this fully yet, because they aren’t really in the buisness. So they are sitting on the tax filings for updates.

This is where we start to run into issues, when they report on the production largely after the fact. Disney has run a lot of non classically production spend through the production holding company. It’s why they are only claiming 17.8% as tax credit a large portion is now extraneous and no what is largely treated as the industry normalizes ‘production spend’.

Even still, Deadline has all In spend of 455M, just the break down is better.

View attachment 845997



I know this is going to just cause some people to dig in, but I really think you’d benefit from seeing things like this from this author. To know what the slant is. Hilariously, the latter half of her article is still self plagerized. Forbes started reporting drastically differing figures from the trades a couple of years ago. There’s an agenda here.

Disney receives £30m in tax relief ffor making live-action Snow White

The son of the director of the 1937 Disney original has also branded it 'woke' over the replacement of the famous seven dwarves with a group of multi-ethnic 'magical companions'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

As I said already, I could care less what the budget is, but it seems like you want to believe what you believe and anyone presenting anything else is wrong. Truthfully, you and I have no idea what the budget is going to wind up being but I think your dislike of Reid has slanted your thinking. Again, I could care less as I have no plans on seeing this any time soon.

 

[Agent H]

Very interesting, thank you! This will be helpful to use next month as we track Snow White.

And as Captain America 4 is already fading fast, it appears Miss White will have Disney's box office all to herself.



I'll trust you that this particular author is not someone you'd invite to a dinner party.

That said, this did appear in Forbes. While it's not 1995 any more, and journalism and news magazines are not the force they once were, it's Forbes. There has to still be a couple of editors and a skeleton crew of a legal department on the payroll there.

I'd trust an article in Forbes a heckuva lot more than I'd trust a raging YouTuber broadcasting from their bedroom.

Forbes

Forbes is a global media company, focusing on business, investing, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership, and lifestyle.

www.forbes.com

So a few things, this is not the primary sourcing, it’s a table they’ve made. A studio is eligible for 80% of the UK spend resulting in a 20.5% tax credit. The film still has spent money since filling. Likely where Variety is pulling a 240 number from (a slightly larger figure than 217 with a tax credit baked in). They of course don’t know this fully yet, because they aren’t really in the buisness. So they are sitting on the tax filings for updates.

This is where we start to run into issues (note this is one I’ve pulled from the Marvels), when they report on the production largely after the fact. Disney has run a lot of non classical production spend through the production holding company. It’s why they are only claiming 17.8% as tax credit a large portion is now extraneous and no what is largely treated as the industry normalizes ‘production spend’. If you remove the non eligible, non production spend, you’ll find that’s what makes up for the discrepancy in deadline 270 figure (270+66.5 tax credit).

Even still, Deadline has all In spend of 455M, just the break down is better.

I formerly said it was marketing, but looking at the math I was incorrect. It’s interest and overhead that they (Caroline Reid) aren’t pulling out correctly. It’s adding in amounts that normally we never add in upfront on other movies. Even though those amounts are ‘there’, they normally are never presented to us as such. Presenting them for a few select films is semi dishonest.

View attachment 845997



I know this is going to just cause some people to dig in, but I really think you’d benefit from seeing things like this from this author. To know what the slant is. Hilariously, the latter half of her article is still self plagerized. Forbes started reporting drastically differing figures from the trades a couple of years ago. There’s an agenda here.

Disney receives £30m in tax relief ffor making live-action Snow White

The son of the director of the 1937 Disney original has also branded it 'woke' over the replacement of the famous seven dwarves with a group of multi-ethnic 'magical companions'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Good grief! The article has a link at the bottom to more about “woke culture” wow just wow.

 

[BrianLo]

As I said already, I could care less what the budget is, but it seems like you want to believe what you believe and anyone presenting anything else is wrong. Truthfully, you and I have no idea what the budget is going to wind up being but I think your dislike of Reid has slanted your thinking. Again, I could care less as I have no plans on seeing this any time soon.

Honestly, you’ve given me pause. I would like to check my personal bias. I admit, my faith in this author absolutely predates any conversation related to box office. Or knowing she was writing these articles. So you are right, I am trying to figure out what is wrong now, because the information presented differs on a few key movies from other standard sources and I inherently started from a place of not trusting the author. She’s misrepresented other non box office information, so that immediately put me against her information.


I don’t believe the information is a lie, I believe it’s presented incongruently with standard. And you know what, the standards are incomplete.

The figures she’s presented are what we would classically term production spend + interest and expenses + the tax credits not backed out.

Deadline, variety, etc etc when they typically talk about a movie upfront are calling “production spend” with tax credits, interest and expenses backed out. One could and can argue that’s reducing the totals, it absolutely is.

My point is that 99% of the figures you’ll see on box office mojo are for better or worse based on how it’s classically presented to us. So know that when we compare three movies in particular (The Marvels, Doctor Strange, Quantumania) and now Snow, they are tabulated differently. Heck one could say better. With the rare exception that Deadline eventually produces production sheets that are even more complete.

You are right that I am searching for a source of bias that they are doing this when really shes farted out many copy pasted articles, most of them congruent. So it’s my bias sticking on the UK article thinking there’s mal-intent. There probably isn’t.

But I think I’ve presented a fair explanation for why the figures are different and we should keep things standardized. UK produced films shouldn’t have a differing measuring stick.

 

[brideck]

This is where we start to run into issues (note this is one I’ve pulled from the Marvels), when they report on the production largely after the fact. Disney has run a lot of non classical production spend through the production holding company. It’s why they are only claiming 17.8% as tax credit a large portion is now extraneous and no what is largely treated as the industry normalizes ‘production spend’. If you remove the non eligible, non production spend, you’ll find that’s what makes up for the discrepancy in deadline 270 figure (270+66.5 tax credit).

Thanks for this. Now I need to see if I'm understanding correctly. The production budget number that trades like Variety and Deadline will report ahead of time are what? Basically just the "production costs" line from the data?

For The Marvels that would have been $340m (with the tax credit accounted for -- $275m). For Snow White, that seems to match what Variety has reported ($240m [if one were to account for the tax credit it becomes $185m]). Obviously, Deadline in their wrap-up accounts for the credit, so they have The Marvels production listed at $270m.

A little interesting that at the time of release Variety was reporting The Marvels as only a $250m movie [Source: https://variety.com/2023/film/featu...problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/]. That doesn't really match either formulation of its production budget ultimately. So they were low, while Caroline was high by adding everything under Costs together. I wonder if they were intending to report the budget + credit for that, but still undershot? Hard to say, but that does give some potential credence to the thought that the Cap 4 reported budget might be a little low (by maybe $25m-$50m, probably not some higher order of magnitude).

Note: Folks should know that there are tax credits in a lot of places (see: Georgia), not just the UK. It's just that the UK ones generate public paperwork. We never really know if the reported budgets for any of these projects are pre- or post- inclusion of the credit in the accounting.

 

[BrianLo]

Thanks for this. Now I need to see if I'm understanding correctly. The production budget number that trades like Variety and Deadline will report ahead of time are what? Basically just the "production costs" line from the data?

For The Marvels that would have been $340m (with the tax credit accounted for -- $275m). For Snow White, that seems to match what Variety has reported ($240m [if one were to account for the tax credit it becomes $185m]). Obviously, Deadline in their wrap-up accounts for the credit, so they have The Marvels production listed at $270m.

A little interesting that at the time of release Variety was reporting The Marvels as only a $250m movie [Source: https://variety.com/2023/film/featu...problem-the-marvels-reshoots-kang-1235774940/]. That doesn't really match either formulation of its production budget ultimately. So they were low, while Caroline was high by adding everything under Costs together. I wonder if they were intending to report the budget + credit for that, but still undershot? Hard to say, but that does give some potential credence to the thought that the Cap 4 reported budget might be a little low (by maybe $25m-$50m, probably not some higher order of magnitude).

Note: Folks should know that there are tax credits in a lot of places (see: Georgia), not just the UK. It's just that the UK ones generate public paperwork. We never really know if the reported budgets for any of these projects are pre- or post- inclusion of the credit in the accounting.

Yes, a few points of clarity - on Snow, it's only the 2023 tax filing Forbes is looking at. Not the 2024 one. There's an entire year of production missing and interest accumulation.

More than a year from now we'll get an updated tax filing from the UK. That will likely show a total of maybe like 350-360. What that will be made of is the 240 Variety is claiming (302 minus a larger tax credit of 62 million dollars) PLUS 50-60 million dollars of expenses and interest (which won't be tax credit eligible). The interest and expenses will come from what has accumulated because money has been spent far before money is earned. I don't know why there is company revenue sitting in the production though. Maybe Disney is trying to prevent interest accumulation because they delayed the film?

What's important to note is that Deadline and Variety are reporting estimates (with a tax credit and interest/expense ignored). Forbes is reporting a tax filing from 13 months ago. The former isn't infallible, the later is not remotely up to date. Which is why I think there's probably been another almost 30 million of actual production spend since the tax filing, bringing the new total to 302.


Generally Deadline and Variety seem to eventually coalesce around the actual figure, I think they are getting these from company sources. The Forbes writer obviously doesn't really have a source, the only differing information is coming from the UK tax filings. Everything else normally from this author that aligns are articles that quote Variety or Deadline as the primary source.

As per Cap 4. Ya, I'd typically agree, it seems low. What is interesting is that they were reporting higher figures and then it was revised downwards. I don't know if that makes it more credible, but it means someone internally took issue with it. Which to me, a non-conspiracy theorist, makes it feel probably fairly close to the truth. It's important to note that these trades are not being fed publicist notes from just "the company", but have every rival studio in their ear as well. They sometimes are overt about this fact when there is disagreement in their articles.

 

[brideck]

Generally Deadline and Variety seem to eventually coalesce around the actual figure, I think they are getting these from company sources. The Forbes writer obviously doesn't really have a source, the only differing information is coming from the UK tax filings. Everything else normally from this author that aligns are articles that quote Variety or Deadline as the primary source.

Right, so the flaw with the Forbes pieces here is that their methodology re: UK disclosures does not match the industry standard.

As per Cap 4. Ya, I'd typically agree, it seems low. What is interesting is that they were reporting higher figures and then it was revised downwards. I don't know if that makes it more credible, but it means someone internally took issue with it.

Interesting. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, so I don't remember anything before the reporting from around a month ago, outside of the crazy World of Reel numbers.

 

[BrianLo]

Right, so the flaw with the Forbes pieces here is that their methodology re: UK disclosures does not match the industry standard.

Yup, it just took me a while to logic out why they were so inconsistent. It's probably, to be kind to the author, just not super clear to them what they are looking at either. I think the tax filing just lacks proper nuance. Marketing can't be run through the production holding company, but interest and overhead certainly would be.

99% of the time otherwise Forbes just is parroting (and sourcing) from Deadline/Hollywood Reporter/Variety.

Interesting. I hadn't been tracking it that closely, so I don't remember anything before the reporting from around a month ago, outside of the crazy World of Reel numbers.

Maybe I'm misremembering. But all three major trades really seem to be in alignment.

"Hollywood Math". Honestly, it's why the stupid rule is so simultaneously dumbed down yet elegant. When we start trying to break open Pandora's box we start just making things up.

 

[brideck]

I was totally in that boat until we decided to sit down and watch them all before... F9(?) came out. Remember that I'm the art-house guy who watches all the Oscar movies, and I think F&F are a hilarious good time with a lot of heart and absolutely ridiculous action set pieces. I'd be a moron if I took my same critical analysis to these that I do to most other movies because that's not what they're asking me to do. The plots never hint at any larger significance, there's not much in the way of subtext, they're just fun.

Self-quoting, but whatever... Totally gutted that Universal is closing down Supercharged in two weeks.

[Editor's Note: He was not, in fact, gutted.]

 

[Agent H]

Self-quoting, but whatever... Totally gutted that Universal is closing down Supercharged in two weeks.

[Editor's Note: He was not, in fact, gutted.]

I will be gutted if it reopens.

 

[Disney Analyst]

My turn for an essay, as things converged before me in the last few days.

1. I heard parts of a long interview with Kevin Costner, probably rerun from several months ago. He kind of brought me back to Earth talking about filmmaking as I suspected/had always heard it was done vs. the often cynical accusations made here.

One thing that struck me was in post-production for The Bodyguard: test audiences were not reacting great, and Costner was in a room with the studio people watching it, and the studio said basically oh well, guess that’s as good as that’s going to get - but Costner knew it was missing about 15 minutes of story. The studio argued it was already too long. So, he personally worked through the night, cutting 10 seconds here and 15 seconds there, to decrease the run time while adding needed story back in. That was the version that was successful.

It came down to one person.

2. I finally saw Joker 2, having heard all kinds of criticisms. I don’t think that film was bad at all. I don’t consider it “a musical” a la Grease, but I understand it wasn’t what bro-nation expected.

I think Joker 2 could have used a touch like Kevin Costner’s to trim the bloat - the slower or unnecessary moments. That could have made the difference in its pacing and reception. Side note: I thought Gaga was excellent.

The larger point is there are so many things that can go wrong in making a hit movie. It can come down to the will of one person, and the power of any one director or actor at that moment in their career. It’s somebody’s pet project, but they won’t get their way on every point, or an unlimited budget.

It’s very easy to see how a project can get jumbled, and then run out of money to make it perfect, and you just have to release it to get something back.

Business is not idealistic. There will always be push and pull between the creatives and the bean counters. You need both, like Walt & Roy.

If not for the studio reeling Costner in, The Bodyguard may have been 15 minutes longer and not as good. If not for Costner, it may have been released with a confusing storyline and been an embarrassment for him and Whitney.

Very interesting read - thank you!