This can be thread for all news, rumors, and discussion regarding the apparent Oz sequel from Disney...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Oz The Great And Powerful Sequel
- Thread starter jdmdisney99
- Start date
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
While a sequel was announced as being in the works following the original's $80 million US opening, I think the disapointing foreign numbers have killed the project.
StarWarsGirl
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I wish because I really liked the new Oz. Watched it on the trip to Cali, watched it over on the way to Hawaii since they were showing it. However, while I predict it will become a cult classic, I don't see them doing a sequel with some of the disappointing numbers.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
I finally rented it and it was very average. It wasn't bad, it was just sort of meh. There were some parts I thought they did well and I can see potential so I wouldn't be against a sequel. According to the numbers, the movie cost 215mil and made 492mil worldwide, I believe if they want a sequel they have the numbers to justify it.
It looks like the US numbers should be the disappointing ones as the movie did better overseas than here. I know its not the ROI they wanted but I do think its enough to get a sequel going.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
The movie is still in the red for not recovering it's advertising budget too (which was an extra $100 million). The foreign numbers are more disapointing because that market represents a larger slice of the pie and not making $300 million there when Prince of Persia or John Carter could make $200+ million is not impressive. They could have had $500 just from outside of the US.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
But even with that advertizing budget, that's only 315mil on a total take of 492mil. While not awesome by any means, 177mil profit could still justify a sequel. Unlike Prince of Persia that only did 44mil more than its budget not including advertizing costs. And that's the movie that I wanted a sequel to, very underrated in my eyes.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Movies have to make double their cost before they can turn a profit because of the split between theatre owners and the studios. Oz would have had to make $630 million to cover its total costs, which it may or may not do after video sales.
While a sequel was announced as being in the works following the original's $80 million US opening, I think the disapointing foreign numbers have killed the project.
Me too.
Cosmic Commando
Well-Known Member
The domestic-foreign split was basically 50-50. The domestic numbers were okay-ish, but for a big movie like this, you want to see something like one-third domestic two-thirds foreign or even more. The Burton Alice was 1/3-2/3; Avatar was about 25%-75%.
I was actually very surprised by the movie. I didn't have great hopes, and I was specifically very skeptical of James Franco... but I thought the movie was good and Franco surprised me with how well he did. I hope they give it one more shot, at least.
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
The studios make money regardless of the split between theater owners. Do you know exactly how much money they split?
I am a manager at a movie theater and I can tell you that I wouldn't call it a split, rather a steal! Movie theaters do not make money off tickets whatsoever! If a movie ticket is $10, the theater gets less than $2 of tht ticket price!
Why do you think popcorn and a drink are almost $20 bucks alone!!! The concession stand is the only real profit a movie theater sees.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
My info comes from Box Office Mojo, so while I don't doubt your experience, I also am going to stick to what I said. The split also varies between chains and countires.
I think a reboot is in order with an actor for the main character that actually has some talent.
stevehousse
Well-Known Member
Being in the business for nearly 10 years, no matter what chain or country, the studios take the same cut no matter what! I would really like to see proof of what you are speaking of because it just isn't true! Sorry...
I think there are many clever concepts they should take a shot at.
Concepts are actually pretty easy to come up with, as I have even thought of one. Should I post it in this thread or in Chit Chat? I'll post there for now...
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
“The movie houses eventually remit after deducting their share and the so called house allowance between 40 and 50 per cent of the gross in America. Overseas, the studios get even less”
“In fact, the studios get an even smaller share of the foreign than of the American box-office. Last year, the studios share averaged about 40 per cent of ticket sales. And from those revenues studios have to pay for foreign advertising,prints, taxes, insurance, translations, etc. Once those expenses are deducted, the studios are lucky to wind up with 15 per cent of what is reported as the foreign gross.”
- Edward Jay Epstein: author of The Big Picture, an account of how the six big Hollywood studios make money.
"On average, the movie's distributor receives a little more than half of the final gross (often referred to as the "rentals") with the remainder going to the exhibitor (i.e., movie theater). The money split varies from movie to movie, but, generally, the contract favors the distributor in early weeks and shifts to the exhibitor later on."
- BoxOfficemojo.com
"The rule of thumb is that a movie studio can expect to receive about half of the box office sales.
But in reality, the deals struck will be complicated. Studios often negotiate a high percentage for the opening week, which will then tail off, so the cinema chain gets a greater share as the film gets older."
- BBC News Business
"The short answer is, it depends on a number of factors, but a rule of thumb seems to be that the film needs to make twice its production budget globally.
But after a bunch of theater chains declared bankruptcy in the early 2000s, these frontloaded deals started to fall out of fashion, says Doug Stone with BoxOfficeAnalyst.com.
Nowadays, with many of the bigger Hollywood blockbusters, the theater chains just get a standard cut of the whole revenue, regardless of which weekend it comes in.
The percentage of revenues that the exhibitor takes in depends on the individual contract for that film — which in turn depends on how much muscle the distributor has, according to Stone.
According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number."
A list of notes complied by Io9.com by reps from Box Office Mojo, Box Office Analysit and others.
Heck, even my Macro Economics text book had the same info too. So over the course of 10 years it's been repeatedly stated that the split is not consistent across countires, distributors, weeks of release or even individual films, but The rule of "2-3 times" has been relatively consistent though.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Not securing RDJ in the lead as intended was the movie's biggest failing. My guess on why Franco was chosen was him having a previous working relationship with the director and not much else.
Bairstow
Well-Known Member
What is RDJ?
I was surprised Raimi didn't cast Bruce Campbell as the wizard, which not only would have been cheaper but would probably have been far more entertaining.
It made no sense for the Wizard character to be so young, since his entire character arc is supposedly based around redeeming a wasted and disappointing life. Plus, it's impossible to buy someone like Franco as a huckster.
Also, why on earth wasn't it a musical?