Iger Says Avatar Most Likely 2015, Hints at Marvel, More Pirates and Cars

[ToTBellHop]

From the Washington Post......



Sooooooo..........

Read the article--it says "in the quarter through March." That quarter ends in 11 days. They expect to lose $200 million on the film by that date, but they never really hoped to turn a profit on an early March release by the end of the month. When all is said and done (after the DVD is out), they will lose FAR less than $200 million and this will not be the huge flop that the crappy Washington Post authors wrote about. They are going for headlines, not truth. Journalism at its worst.

 

[flynnibus]

Read the article--it says "in the quarter through March." That quarter ends in 11 days. They expect to lose $200 million on the film by that date, but they never really hoped to turn a profit on an early March release by the end of the month. When all is said and done (after the DVD is out), they will lose FAR less than $200 million and this will not be the huge flop that the crappy Washington Post authors wrote about. They are going for headlines, not truth. Journalism at its worst.

Ehh.. if you read the article (like you suggest) you will see the article is from the AP - not the post. The post is just carrying the AP article and isn't crap at all if you understand the article.

The 'in march' is because they want the write down now in this quarter (to offset the losses). The home sales are not going to make up 200 million.. it's going to make up maybe 20million if they are lucky. At the end, they are still going to lose 100-150+ million dollars.

It's not premature, it's knowing DVD sales aren't going to save it and they have high expenses in this financial quarter they want to bury.

 

[xdan0920]

Read the article--it says "in the quarter through March." That quarter ends in 11 days. They expect to lose $200 million on the film by that date, but they never really hoped to turn a profit on an early March release by the end of the month. When all is said and done (after the DVD is out), they will lose FAR less than $200 million and this will not be the huge flop that the crappy Washington Post authors wrote about. They are going for headlines, not truth. Journalism at its worst.

Do a little research please. This is a record write down. That is not sensationalism. It is a fact.

 

[Pitchforkman]

Do a little research please. This is a record write down. That is not sensationalism. It is a fact.

Lol fact? LOL...yeah sorry but it is sensationalism. Disney is taking a 200 million lose in the first QUARTER. It is not taking into account the dvd sales, itune sales, and all post theater money which should be around 50 million which will make it a flop but not the BIGGEST of all time like you seem to think.

 

[xdan0920]

Lol fact? LOL...yeah sorry but it is sensationalism. Disney is taking a 200 million lose in the first QUARTER. It is not taking into account the dvd sales, itune sales, and all post theater money which should be around 50 million which will make it a flop but not the BIGGEST of all time like you seem to think.

Do me a favor. Google John Carter news please. You can then click on any link from Barrons, to CNBC, to CNN, and it goes on. You can then read a little about what is actually going on. Then maybe you can come back and have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Pitchforkman]

Do me a favor. Google John Carter news please. You can then click on any link from Barrons, to CNBC, to CNN, and it goes on. You can then read a little about what is actually going on. Then maybe you can come back and have an intelligent conversation.

You do not know what an intelligent conversation is. I have read all the reports. It is a flop but not the biggest of all time and the 200 million lose is only for the first quarter. John Carter is also a Hit internationally. Try again

 

[ToTBellHop]

Ehh.. if you read the article (like you suggest) you will see the article is from the AP - not the post. The post is just carrying the AP article and isn't crap at all if you understand the article.

The 'in march' is because they want the write down now in this quarter (to offset the losses). The home sales are not going to make up 200 million.. it's going to make up maybe 20million if they are lucky. At the end, they are still going to lose 100-150+ million dollars.

It's not premature, it's knowing DVD sales aren't going to save it and they have high expenses in this financial quarter they want to bury.

Do a little research please. This is a record write down. That is not sensationalism. It is a fact.

Do me a favor. Google John Carter news please. You can then click on any link from Barrons, to CNBC, to CNN, and it goes on. You can then read a little about what is actually going on. Then maybe you can come back and have an intelligent conversation.

In order to have an intelligent conversation, others would have to be intelligent.

The movie has been out for 11 days and made $180 million. You are smoking something very strong if you think it will be lucky to make $20 million in the remainder of its run and following DVD sales.

The only item of note in this story (which has NOTHING to do with WDW Parks) is that there will be a loss posted for this film at the end of Q2 in 11 days and that there is some political crap going on where Disney execs want to scapegoat a Pixar director for daring live action. I suspect the film is actually doing better than the Disney execs had hoped and they want to write it off as a failure quickly to force Pixar directors to only make Pixar films. And to think, Walt used to encourage his animators to be daring and try new things.

Why are we discussing this here?

 

[xdan0920]

In order to have an intelligent conversation, others would have to be intelligent.

The movie has been out for 11 days and made $180 million. You are smoking something very strong if you think it will be lucky to make $20 million in the remainder of its run and following DVD sales.

The only item of note in this story (which has NOTHING to do with WDW Parks) is that there will be a loss posted for this film at the end of Q2 in 11 days and that there is some political crap going on where Disney execs want to scapegoat a Pixar director for daring live action. I suspect the film is actually doing better than the Disney execs had hoped and they want to write it off as a failure quickly to force Pixar directors to only make Pixar films. And to think, Walt used to encourage his animators to be daring and try new things.

Why are we discussing this here?

Nice.

A couple points then I am done with this.

1. It is a record write down. Whatever reasoning you want to apply to the timing is meaningless. They are not cooking the books here.

2. This movie needed to make between 650 and 750 mill to turn a profit. The studio splits profits with theaters. Also take into account the atrocious opening weekend, during which the production company(disney) makes the highest % of box office dollars spent. As the movie plays longer and longer the ratio flips in favor of the theaters.

3. It is fairly easy to project out the final box office numbers. The consensus is around 80 million domestic, and 300 million world wide. That BARELY covers production costs. Now slice that in half and you are left with 150 for Disney on a 350-75 million dollar film. You do the math.

 

[flynnibus]

In order to have an intelligent conversation, others would have to be intelligent.

The movie has been out for 11 days and made $180 million. You are smoking something very strong if you think it will be lucky to make $20 million in the remainder of its run and following DVD sales.

For someone who jumped on others for not reading the article.. your reading comprehension is seriously suspect.

People did not say 'make $20 in the remainder of its run and following DVD sales' I said 'The home sales are not going to make up 200 million.. it's going to make up maybe 20million if they are lucky'

The write off now vs later has nothing to do with political infighting. The timing of write-offs is to offset other numbers during a fiscal window.

You tried to jump on people's reporting and got called on it. Read the material without your predispositions and digest again.

 

[MarkTwain]

Yeah, pulling 1-3 million a week for the next few weeks in theaters is really gonna save it! :lol: International it's already made the bulk of what it will.

DVD sales NOW are different from the past. The world and market has changed.

People need to stop thinking behaviors of markets a 5-10 years ago still apply now.

The # of theaters a film is in now at opening and the # of screens available means the # of weeks they last in theaters go way down. Movies do not last months with their revenues slowly trickling anymore. Movie's drop off 20-50% per week now almost by standard. JC never performed and bigger competition came along almost immediately. It's earning days are mostly over.

The 'home market' is not what it used to be... as already stated, new formats, new distribution methods, new price models... you can't use thinking of ages ago to say how things will work now. Even BLOCKBUSTERS like twilight have only pulled 85million in home sales.

JC will be lucky to make 25 million in home sales I bet.

So maybe they collect another 50+ million.. and they'll still lose 100-150 million on this film.

What intrigues me about this post are the implications for the film industry as a whole. So if the trend is that movies make money only the first weekend or two, and DVD sales are greatly reducing... is this still a sustainable environment for the big-budget blockbuster? Some movies can have great opening weekends, but to achieve a opening box office past $100 million is pretty unrealistic for just about any film... and blockbusters have historically cost $150 million+.

 

[thehowiet]

2. This movie needed to make between 650 and 750 mill to turn a profit. The studio splits profits with theaters. Also take into account the atrocious opening weekend, during which the production company(disney) makes the highest % of box office dollars spent. As the movie plays longer and longer the ratio flips in favor of the theaters.

I always wondered how exactly the studio and movie theater split worked. That's pretty interesting stuff to me, so thanks for sharing.

What intrigues me about this post are the implications for the film industry as a whole. So if the trend is that movies make money only the first weekend or two, and DVD sales are greatly reducing... is this still a sustainable environment for the big-budget blockbuster? Some movies can have great opening weekends, but to achieve a opening box office past $100 million is pretty unrealistic for just about any film... and blockbusters have historically cost $150 million+.

That's a great point. The whole game is much different these days so it'll be interesting to see how the industry reacts. I definitely think you're on to something as far as sustainability goes.

 

[Pitchforkman]

What intrigues me about this post are the implications for the film industry as a whole. So if the trend is that movies make money only the first weekend or two, and DVD sales are greatly reducing... is this still a sustainable environment for the big-budget blockbuster? Some movies can have great opening weekends, but to achieve a opening box office past $100 million is pretty unrealistic for just about any film... and blockbusters have historically cost $150 million+.

Blockbusters are always tricky things. They can churn major bucks or be big bombs

 

[devoy1701]

For what it's worth. Disney will be getting my $25 for a BluRay/DVD/Digital Copy Combo of this movie. Love it!

How much more do they need now? :lookaroun

 

[Pitchforkman]

For what it's worth. Disney will be getting my $25 for a BluRay/DVD/Digital Copy Combo of this movie. Love it!

How much more do they need now? :lookaroun

Just 200,000 more people buying it

 

[flynnibus]

What intrigues me about this post are the implications for the film industry as a whole. So if the trend is that movies make money only the first weekend or two, and DVD sales are greatly reducing... is this still a sustainable environment for the big-budget blockbuster? Some movies can have great opening weekends, but to achieve a opening box office past $100 million is pretty unrealistic for just about any film... and blockbusters have historically cost $150 million+.

Why do you think they were so paranoid about piracy and cheaper online versions? They are doing anything they can to try to save the 'buy my personal copy' of the film industry because they've already over saturated themselves in the theater area and were so easily sold on 3D as a way to try to upcharge existing theater ticket sales.

Their old model is fading... and they need to evolve

 

[Pitchforkman]

Why do you think they were so paranoid about piracy and cheaper online versions? They are doing anything they can to try to save the 'buy my personal copy' of the film industry because they've already over saturated themselves in the theater area and were so easily sold on 3D as a way to try to upcharge existing theater ticket sales.

Their old model is fading... and they need to evolve

Avatar, Harry Potter, The Lorax, Twilight, The Avengers, The Hunger Games and Dark Knight Rises all disagree with your last statement

 

[Pitchforkman]

Why do you think they were so paranoid about piracy and cheaper online versions? They are doing anything they can to try to save the 'buy my personal copy' of the film industry because they've already over saturated themselves in the theater area and were so easily sold on 3D as a way to try to upcharge existing theater ticket sales.

Their old model is fading... and they need to evolve

Avatar, Harry Potter, The Lorax, Twilight, The Avengers, The Hunger Games and Dark Knight Rises all disagree with your last statement

 

[flynnibus]

Avatar, Harry Potter, The Lorax, Twilight, The Avengers, The Hunger Games and Dark Knight Rises all disagree with your last statement

What are you talking about with half of those not even out of the theater yet?

And how many films last more then 3 weeks in the top 3 anymore? 5% Maybe 10%?

Films used to spend months in the theaters and would wait a year or more until they were on home media. Now, most films last a month maybe in the theater.. and they rush the home copies out to get something from the films before they become even more irrelevant. The # of films making good money at home is thinning out to only being the best of the best make good money at home instead of everyone making good money. It's going further and further in that direction too.

The movie industry's traditional revenue streams are changing.

 

[Pitchforkman]

What are you talking about with half of those not even out of the theater yet?

And how many films last more then 3 weeks in the top 3 anymore? 5% Maybe 10%?

Films used to spend months in the theaters and would wait a year or more until they were on home media. Now, most films last a month maybe in the theater.. and they rush the home copies out to get something from the films before they become even more irrelevant. The # of films making good money at home is thinning out to only being the best of the best make good money at home instead of everyone making good money. It's going further and further in that direction too.

The movie industry's traditional revenue streams are changing.

Some movies last in the top 10 for months. It really depends. I named movies that are not out yet because it is pretty much accepted they are going to make bank. The Hunger Games comes out on friday and they are projecting to make over 100 million the first weekend. Some movies have amazing legs.

I still contest that the traditional forms are not changing. As much as people think that streaming and having non physical copies is the wave of the future the vast majority of people like having a physical copy and will always like it.

 

[Captain Chaos]

Just 200,000 more people buying it

In order for them to make up $200 million loss on John Carter via DVD sales, at $25 bucks a Blu-ray, That would mean 8 million sales... Not everyone has blu ray, so increase that number if the standard def DVD is sold at $19.99.... They would have to sell, probably, 10 million copies...

If John Carter only sells 200,000 copies, at $25 bucks a copy, that's $5 million bucks...