Uh, no. It's not a simple matter of doubling the production costs. There are lots of factors to take into consideration many of which the public is not aware of. Hollywood accounting is very creative. I'm sure it's not a big factor for The Muppets, but just as an example, back end deals can completely screw up your basic "double the production cost" formula.
Saying "uh, no" doesn't make it untrue.
"Basic" formula or not, a film that has already made back twice what it cost BEFORE they have even gone to video, is a success.
We can argue what degree of success that is, but that's about as useful as arguing over if something is a C or D ticket. This wasn't in E-ticket, but it wasn't intended to be. No one expected it to make 400M.
It just hit 90M world wide - the highest grossing Muppet film ever. If they expected 100's of millions, that would be foolish - and when comparing films, remember this one didn't have the 3D tax on it, either.
For The Muppets, a bigger concern is the marketing costs. No one knows what Disney spent on marketing and no one at Disney is saying. But it was a big number! I have little doubt The Muppets is in the black at this point. But, it's far from a hit.
First, it's doubtful the marketing costs were as astronomical as you put forth. If you notice, Disney owned most of the places it was promoted. What costs big publicity money is generally television ads which they mostly ran on stations and networks they owned. And it's not like they paid to have the Muppets all over the talk and news shows, either. The Chew with Kermit for an hour didn't cost them a dime.
Besides the huge marketing budgets for films are generally in repeated television commercials during hit prime time shows across networks, which Muppets didn't contend with. Muppets also did QUITE a bit of social marketing (Facebook, etc.) and underground marketing (the trailers cut to make it sound like a non-Muppet movie, etc.).
The big marketing budgets you are talking about are for things like Iron Man with the Fast Food promotions and a trailer every five minutes during Prime Time on one channel or another. That's what makes up huge marketing budgets. It's doubtful they spent more than 10 or 15M, if that (and most of that was probably filling Ms. Piggy's rider for all those TV appearances on ABC shows).
There's no good formula for this. And comparisons between movies are often misleaqding (as is your comparison to Iron Man.) Expectations play a big factor. Disney expected to easily clear 100 mil with The Muppets. I'm sure their satisfied with The Muppets take. But they aren't turning cartwheels and they aren't greenlighting sequels.
You are right, there is no big formula. You take it on a film by film basis. And when you do so with the Muppets, it clearly was a successful film.
I'm not sure what you think is misleading about my Iron Man comparison, as my point was people SHOULD NOT compare it to a film like that. People seem to think in order for a film to be successful that it needs to rake in 300 or 400 M, and forget that those films that do make than generally cost that much to make. That's why, say, Superman Returns made 100's of millions but is considered a relative "failure" - cause it cost almost that much to make.
Disney will easily clear 100M with Muppets in a few months when it's on video. Even if you figure the highest end of what it could have possibly spent in promotion, say 20M (if you think they spent more than half of what the budget cost for the campaign, you'd be sorely mistaken - and I'm willing to bet by Xmas of this year the tally with Blu-ray/DVD sales will hit 120M, even doubling a 60M cost (if you put budget/marketing together).
That's a successful film, by any reasonable standard.
If The Muppets had been a hit, a sequel would have been announced by now. Like The Smurfs which was a hit.
Wait...weren't you just telling me about expectations? Smurfs cost well over $100M to make, and spent at least half that much marketing, and was in 3-D in almost half the theaters showing it, meaning the 3-D tax added quite a bit to those tickets. Yes, The Smurfs was a big success - but when you figure marketing, they probably tripled the cost, whereas the Muppets looks like it will end up doubling.
Smurfs was a big hit, but had a lot more behind it. For a movie that was effectively "the little muppet movie that could" - we did quite all right.
Will we see more Muppets in the parks? Perhaps. But the box office performance of The Muppets certainly isn't going to fast track any Muppets projects in the parks.
I guess we will have to see. This is the type of film that makes a lot more money on video these days than they generally do in the theaters. And these days - where Disney makes it's money is on DVD/Blu-ray sales when you aren't talking the 100's of M mega-animated films. I think they will wait to see what happens when every family who walks in to Wal-mart sees it on the front display at the door. Like the Smurfs, it's parents who grew up with the show that directed a lot of the buying, and I have confidence it will continue to grow.
). But the attraction has always been fairly popular in FLA. They tossed it onto the DCA menu because it cost almost nothing, but the attraction has never been popular there ... it was about 15 years old when it opened at DCA.
