Haunted Mansion

[celluloid]

Homeward Bound made less money than Hocus Pocus in 1993 on similar budget.

It had a theatrical sequel by 1996 trying to recapture the first one's success.

Some of you try to calculate a flop with the modern Disney marketing lense.

Disney used to do mid budget hits that got incentives and return on investment.

It's not 1993 anymore, but they were not flops either.

 

[celluloid]

Point of fact, Ruby made $40.1M WW in theaters. Using the average of 50% it earned ~$20M not $15M. Also I was being generous when I said Ruby made half its production budget back. That was me being nice. You can find where I actually state the reality that Ruby made less than half it budget back at the time it was pulled from theaters on this forum.

Wait, are you justifying or attempting to back peddle something else you lied or were wrong about? Ruby made 15 million domestically. That was always a fact. When you include international it still did not earn half its budget back. So you are wrong there too but it was a lie that can now also benefit you? This is impossible to know what you really mean.

I did not personally finance or have any investment in Ruby. So you lying to be generous has no.mstter. I am the one who has said it.made.less.than half from the start. You brought it up with incorrect information. Which you now acknowledge was factually wrong. But now that it is revealed, it is out of your generosity.

Turtles is none of that Ruby Gillman situation.

 

[Disney Irish]

Wait, are you justifying or attempting to back peddle something else you lied or were wrong about? Ruby made 15 million domestically. That was always a fact. When you include international it still did not earn half its budget back. So you are wrong there too but it was a lie that can now also benefit you? This is impossible to know what you really mean.

I did not personally finance or have any investment in Ruby. So you lying to be generous has no.mstter. I am the one who has said it.made.less.than half from the start. You brought it up with incorrect information. Which you now acknowledge was factually wrong. But now that it is revealed, it is out of your generosity.

Turtles is none of that Ruby Gillman situation.

You're taking the use of the word "lie" a bit too far now, in multiple posts. So I'm asking you to please stop. If you don't want to see my posts please put me on ignore.

 

[celluloid]

You're taking the use of the word "lie" a bit too far now, in multiple posts. So I'm asking you to please stop. If you don't want to see my posts please put me on ignore.

Sorry it has bothered you. I will cease use of the word. I don't care for the intentional misinformation posted. Which has been a consistent from you lately in this thread with "So what?" "Big deal" and "my opinion" Often attached when questioned on it by other posters.

 

[Disney Irish]

Sorry it has bothered you. I will cease use of the word. I don't care for the intensional misinformation posted. Which has been a consistent from you lately in this thread with "So what?" Often attached when questioned on it.

First, there is no intentional misinformation. The fact that you find what I or even others post different than your opinion is not misinformation. Not everything is black and white my friend, life is made up greys.

Second, this is discussion board not a court of law. Its conversational discussions, as such most people use conversational English which includes exaggerations and niceties. These are also not misinformation or lies.

Third, everyone comes from different background and experiences. What I have experienced in my life is different than yours. Those differences are what colors our opinions on topics. And those opinions are going to be different than others, and you just have to accept that even if you believe it to be wrong.

 

[erasure fan1]

And of course it will be on TV eventually, the difference is to earn back it's 157 is not likely to ever happen. This is not Hocus Pocus, and it is not 1993.

HM is arguably a much better movie than hocus pocus. That said, the home video market isn't nearly what it used to be. And when Disney would put something on one of their networks, they would sell ad time during that showing. You don't get that on D+. They still do have their linear cable/satellite networks. But is the ad revenue even close to what it was? I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see how it's viewed a few years from now.

 

[celluloid]

First, there is no intentional misinformation. The fact that you find what I or even others post different than your opinion is not misinformation. Not everything is black and white my friend, life is made up a grey.

Ok, now you should ignore me with the button if I need to always decipher what you mean and you are mad when I am wrong.
I will correct when I see facts wrong. So if you will continue to do that intentionally or otherwise or be bothered by it. Best hit that button.
You admitted to intentionally pulling a random picture to use for.your point that you have seen those exact costumes.
When I informed you they were not store bought. You leaned into it and said they sure were as you saw them at parties.

Said "you're funny" and "so what?"
Those are not really niceties.

Later you said you reported the numbers for Ruby Gillman intentionally wrong.

What else should one take away?
No grey area needed. You have admitted all of this.

 

[Disney Irish]

HM is arguably a much better movie than hocus pocus. That said, the home video market isn't nearly what it used to be. And when Disney would put something on one of their networks, they would sell ad time during that showing. You don't get that on D+. They still do have their linear cable/satellite networks. But is the ad revenue even close to what it was? I'm not sure. It will be interesting to see how it's viewed a few years from now.

Don't forget that D+ now has ad tiers, which at launch was over 25% of their subs.

 

[Disney Irish]

Ok, now you should ignore.me.wotj the button.

You admitted to intentionally pulling a random picture to use for.your point that you have seen those exact costumes.
When I informed you they were not store bought. You leaned.intomit said they sure were as you saw them at parties.

Later you said you reported the numbers for Ruby Gillman intentionally wrong.

What else should one take away?
No grey area needed. You have admitted all of this.

I have seen costumes just like that at parties, whether you believe that or not I don't really care. You weren't there, so you don't know what I saw or not.

I never gave specific numbers for Ruby, you did. I just pointed out those numbers were not quite accurate.

 

[erasure fan1]

Don't forget that D+ now has ad tiers, which at launch was over 25% of their subs.

True, I'd be interested to see how the financials work. Do they charge different rates based on the viewership? Is it just a flat rate? Or some sort of combination? That's the problem with all of this speculation. It's all very grey as we don't have the details.

 

[Disney Irish]

True, I'd be interested to see how the financials work. Do they charge different rates based on the viewership? Is it just a flat rate? Or some sort of combination? That's the problem with all of this speculation. It's all very grey as we don't have the details.

Yeah I don't know, its all part of the Hollywood fuzzy math. Which is why all these conversations about budgets and box office are often very funny to me as some speak as if these are all real numbers.

 

[celluloid]

I have seen costumes just like that at parties, whether you believe that or not I don't really care. You weren't there, so you don't know what I saw or not.

I never gave specific numbers for Ruby, you did. I just pointed out those numbers were not quite accurate.

Like these is not what you said. You claimed parts of their costumes were store bought. Then when others laughed at that second photo you leaned into it intentionally that they were leotards sold commonly. They were not. They were home made website linked showed. Only then did you come clean with the truth. Followed by a so what?
All the "niceties" that were non existent before and after that with "So what?"

Back to somewhat topic. That is why it is hilarious to call Hocus Pocus a flop when again, it was 1993 and.it made Disney coin in theaters and beyond.

Homeward Bound again, performed less and got a theatrical sequel.

 

[Disney Irish]

Like these is not what you said. You claimed parts of their costumes were store bought. Then when others laughed at that second photo you leaned into it intentionally that they were leotards sold commonly. They were not. They were home made website linked showed. Only then did you come clean with the truth. Followed by a so what?
All the "niceties" that were non existent before and after that with "So what?"

Back to somewhat topic. That is why it is hilarious to call Hocus Pocus a flop when again, it was 1993 and.it made Disney coin in theaters and beyond.

Homeward Bound again, performed less and got a theatrical sequel.

Guess you’ve never exaggerated about anything in your life. But then again, claiming Hocus Pocus wasn’t a flop, that sure is a whopper lol.

Alright my friend you have a good one.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Back to somewhat topic. That is why it is hilarious to call Hocus Pocus a flop when again, it was 1993 and.it made Disney coin in theaters and beyond.

44 / 2 < 28

 

[celluloid]

Guess you’ve never exaggerated about anything in your life. But then again, claiming Hocus Pocus wasn’t a flop, that sure is a whopper lol.

Alright my friend you have a good one.

I exaggerate for emphasis for sure. But when someone corrects me on it for the sake of the reality, I tend not to get irate or continue it into an untruth.

Hocus Pocus was not considered a flop in 1993. Disappointing, maybe.

But why did movies of similar performance and scale routinely get sequels?
You would then have to say Homeward Bound at millions less earned was a flop the same year in 1993, which had a theatrical sequel by 1996.

1993 box office is different than the tent pole environment now and margins of the common mid budget release was different.
That is not an opinion.

 

[erasure fan1]

Yeah I don't know, its all part of the Hollywood fuzzy math. Which is why all these conversations about budgets and box office are often very funny to me as some speak as if these are all real numbers.

I think it depends on how close it is. When a tent pole type movie is way of the mark, like strange world or lightyear, fuzzy math doesn't really come into play. If it's being estimated at a 30/40mil loss or gain or so. Then it plays a part because we don't have detailed enough numbers. But when a movie is missing by 150mil or so by our estimates, it's not making that up in fuzzy budgets or marketing numbers in my opinion. So it's not perfect for sure. But it is a fairly good benchmark for talking points on a forum. Lol

 

[Disney Irish]

I think it depends on how close it is. When a movie is way of the mark, like strange world or lightyear, fuzzy math doesn't really come into play. If it's being estimated at a 30/40mil loss or gain or so. Then it plays a part because we don't have detailed enough numbers. But when a movie is missing by 150mil or so by our estimates, it's not making that up in fuzzy budgets or marketing numbers in my opinion. So it's not perfect for sure. But it is a fairly good benchmark for talking points on a forum. Lol

Oh yeah no doubts.

But the fuzzy math parts that come into play in what we're starting to discover based on recent filings, such as the UK and Louisiana film filings about the incentives and such that productions get, which actually bring down the actual costs. This puts these numbers that we've been discussing into doubts as we never really know the true numbers.

 

[Disney Irish]

I exaggerate for emphasis for sure. But when someone corrects me on it for the sake of the reality, I tend not to get irate or continue it into an untruth.

Hocus Pocus was not considered a flop in 1993. Disappointing, maybe.

But why did movies of similar performance and scale routinely get sequels?
You would then have to say Homeward Bound at millions less earned was a flop the same year in 1993, which had a theatrical sequel by 1996.

1993 box office is different than the tent pole environment now and margins of the common mid budget release was different.
That is not an opinion.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Hocus Pocus was not smash hit but not a flop. It made 44 million dollars in 1993. With inflation that is nearing 100 million dollars today. Haunted Mansion is not going to reach that. It had a lot more of a following by the time it left theaters compared to HM today which had far more marketing than not. Hocus Pocus' marketing was limited pretty much to the Disney Channel.

Hocus Pocus also only had the budget of 28 million.

I always ASSUMED hocus pocus flopped, but then became a cult classic. Thats what I get for assuming

At a budget of $28M and BO of $45M, Hocus Pocus lost $19M in the theatrical window. If one wants to call that a flop or not, they may, but people have shifting definitions of "flop" so as to make that term no longer useful any more.

It's obvious though, with being a 'cult classic' that Hocus Pocus, in the end, made up for the theatrical loss with all its repeated airings on ad-supported TV. And it certainly gave MK one of its best castle shows (at an up-cost).

 

[DKampy]

At a budget of $28M and BO of $45M, Hocus Pocus lost $19M in the theatrical window. If one wants to call that a flop or not, they may, but people have shifting definitions of "flop" so as to make that term no longer useful any more.

The term “Flop” definition seems to depend on the person and the studio you are referring to