-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
When you keep the budget in the 120 to 150mil range while being smart with your ad campaign, it gives you a great shot to make profit. At least from what I've seen in the trailers, the cg and special effects are as good as anything that's come out of marvel, lucasfilm or Disney studios at double the budget. I know you can't make an avengers film for 125mil. But why does an antman or the marvels or a live action remake have to be 250/300mil? So it seems you can have quality, at least from a effects standpoint, with a modest budget. And the beauty is, if it opens like is predicted, it will avoid the "here we go again, another financial disaster" headlines. Why? Because it won't have to do 750mil just to break even.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
That would be a refreshing change of pace for Disney, as it would give them about a $50 Million profit for Apes 9.
Advisable Joseph
Active Member
A warning about using the Deadline profit tournament: I think they estimate home entertainment and streaming from box office results.
Compare Frozen to Monsters University and Iron Man 3:
issuu.com
Frozen did much better in DVD/Blu-Ray sales in the first few months than either, despite Deadline's estimates
the-numbers.com
the-numbers.com
the-numbers.com
Compare Frozen to Monsters University and Iron Man 3:
Deadline.com's 2013 Most Valuable Blockbuster
Profit sheets for all films in Deadline.com's tournament including the champion - 'Despicable Me 2'.
Frozen did much better in DVD/Blu-Ray sales in the first few months than either, despite Deadline's estimates
Frozen (2013) - Financial Information
Financial analysis of Frozen (2013) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.
the-numbers.com
Monsters University (2013) - Financial Information
Financial analysis of Monsters University (2013) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.
the-numbers.com
Iron Man 3 (2013) - Financial Information
Financial analysis of Iron Man 3 (2013) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.
the-numbers.com
Last edited:
Eh? Disney's liable to have the #2 movie this weekend in their reissue of The Phantom Menace. I've seen predictions of $10m+ for that.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
I saw that movie in a theater once, the day it came out. That was enough.
Agreed… as a fan of the original trilogy… that was one of my biggest disappointing theater experiences
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Fall Guy allegedly cost $220-$230 million in combined marketing and production costs after tax deductions
It's projected to open with $28 million domestically.
It's projected to open with $28 million domestically.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
More and more the box office seems to have little to do with film quality. Fall Guy is a very well reviewed film with great promos and two big leads and it’s underperforming. Godzilla x Kong was a badly reviewed sequel that significantly outperformed the much better reviewed earlier films in the franchise. We can all list more really good films that underperformed over the last couple years (Dungeons and Dragons is a sore spot for me) then we can list films that earned what they deserved.Fall Guy allegedly cost $220-$230 million in combined marketing and production costs after tax deductions
It's projected to open with $28 million domestically.
I don’t actually think audiences have gotten any more irrational, but I do think that the larger discrepancy between the box office of the far fewer real hits and the rest of Hollywood’s output is highlighting that irrationality.
I’d still bet on Deadpool & Wolverine, Despicable Me 4, and PROBABLY Inside Out 2 as sure hits. Other than that, who knows? Even low-budget horror is struggling mightily in 2024. Anyone who says they know for sure what’s happening at the box office is probably pushing an agenda.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
I want to see it at some point, but I'm not in a rush. That seems to be the sentiment for a lot of movies these days.
Deadpool and Wolverine looks to be the only movie with "I have to see this now" hype.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
This is not new. That’s why blockbusters historically were not reliable Oscar contenders.
I think it’s a lot simpler: going to the movies used to be an afterthought as far as expenses go. Now it’s a big commitment of money. More theaters sell food, so your kids or your date expect food, which is a relatively new thing. It’s $50 for a couple just getting large popcorn & drinks, let alone a meal. So people are more picky about which movies to see in the theater.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
I think it's a lot of things.
Poor audience behaviour is a big one. You invest time and money and it's a gamble whether or not you'll be seeing cell phones everywhere.
My local theaters have very few "basic" showings. So many are VIP 19+, D-Box, 3D, laser ultra, and anything else that adds to the ticket price.
Personally, the food thing isn't an issue. Eating a burger in a movie theater is just annoying. I don't bother.
As an adult with disposable income I'm okay paying for the popcorn. My closest theater does free refills on large size so I at least make a point of bringing a full bag home.
From a sheer ticket price perspective (for the average ticket), I don't think they've really gone up much (when fixed for inflation and/or compared to median household income, etc.) over the last 30 years. The plusses for format or food (which people somehow feel obligated to shell out for these days) definitely do make a difference, though.
I think the problem really just is a value proposition at this point. People pay less for a whole month of their favorite streaming service (barring a few exceptions) than they do for a single ticket to a movie. That's because streaming services cost way less than they should thanks to their commodity scale pricing more than anything else. But once you teach people that a thing doesn't have much of any value anymore, it becomes really hard to convince them to even pay the same amount they were before.
I go to a ton of movies these days, but that's only because I do AMC A-List, which is comparable enough to streaming service rates. Prior to its existence, I probably went to 30 or so movies a year, which was already an outlier on the high side.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I think it's simply that streaming has devalued the theatrical experience for many. Once people suddenly got THOUSANDS of movies available "for free" with a subscription, it made both going to the theater and renting a film feel too much. The short 45 day theatrical windows helped condition audiences to "wait for streaming."
Of course, studios are FINALLY realizing that streaming isn't nearly as profitable and you can't really justify spending $200 million on a movie that's meant to go straight to streaming. Initially, it was worth streamers spending a fortune on expensive shows as they were trying to lure more people to the service. But now most streaming services have kind of maxed out on the amount of people they can get to join, so all they are trying to do now is retain subscribers.
I think audiences will suffer from the streaming pivot in the long run. They want lavish, $200+ million movies but they don't want to pay for them. Eventually the movies they claim to want to see will stop being made.
Of course, studios are FINALLY realizing that streaming isn't nearly as profitable and you can't really justify spending $200 million on a movie that's meant to go straight to streaming. Initially, it was worth streamers spending a fortune on expensive shows as they were trying to lure more people to the service. But now most streaming services have kind of maxed out on the amount of people they can get to join, so all they are trying to do now is retain subscribers.
I think audiences will suffer from the streaming pivot in the long run. They want lavish, $200+ million movies but they don't want to pay for them. Eventually the movies they claim to want to see will stop being made.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Deadline’s box office updates read like ministry of propaganda reports. Couple days ago they said “some people” now think the summer season begins at the end of July with Deadpool 3’s opening. You can’t make this stuff up. Pretty obvious there’s concern the industry won’t rebound after this year. Plenty of reasons why but bottom line is moviegoing is becoming more of a niche activity, which means less money.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I think you may have misinterpreted the tone of the Deadline article. The way I read the report, that wasn't meant to be a positive "July is the new May" spin, but rather a bleak "theaters won't see old-fashioned summer blockbuster numbers until July" forecast of despair.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
How is that different from HBO, SHO, etc? Other than the on demand aspect, which they all now have.
It’s all the same, just repackaged with new delivery systems.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Given the Deadline’s commitment to spin, I took it as lowering expectations for the next month, the Deadpool cavalry is on the way to save the day kinda thing. Guess they’ll decide what they meant after Apes opens.
I think the difference is really in scale. Numbers are hard to find, but it looks like HBO only had around 35m subscribers at its peak in the 2010s, which is less than half of what Netflix boasts today. It's entirely possible that HBO subscribers back then were also less likely to go to the movie theater, but it represented a smaller proportion of the potential movie-going audience.
There's also the new compressed time frame for releases. What's the soonest a movie would get to HBO? 6 months? I never was a subscriber, so I have no idea.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Home entertainment systems have contributed as well.
60+ inch televisions are affordable.
It's not as good as the theater, but it's not terrible.
The disparity between a theater and watching a movie on a 32 inch CRT television is long gone.