So Can We Finally Call Cars 2 A Flop

[stlbobby]

Princess and the Frog made money for disney. The production cost was 105 mil and the movie brought in 267 in revenue, not a flop because it made money.

Cars 2 has already made $87 million. I didn't say either was a flop. I said neither was a flop, but because the expectations for Disney animated films is so high people like to say they are flops even when they make money.

Disney doesn't get all of that 287 mil, they have to split it with the movie theaters. If they get 60% back, they won't break even until 333 million (excluding how much their print and ad budget is).

Actually it is a sliding scale. The longer a movie plays the more the theaters get. Every deal is different, but the first 2-4 weeks it is at least a 90-10% split for the studio. With a film like Cars 2--a sequel to a major hit, form a proven winner like Pixar, and from a strong distributor like Disney--the studio may take an even higher percentage for an even longer time period.

Generally the studio / theater split isn't taken into consideration because the theater doesn't really start taking a major slice until it is no longer a significant factor.

Cars 2 just finished it's third week in release. I'm not privy to the exact details of the Cars 2 deal, but I'm sure the vast majority of the $287 million has gone to Disney.

 

[flavious27]

Cars 2 has already made $87 million. I didn't say either was a flop. I said neither was a flop, but because the expectations for Disney animated films is so high people like to say they are flops even when they make money.



Actually it is a sliding scale. The longer a movie plays the more the theaters get. Every deal is different, but the first 2-4 weeks it is at least a 90-10% split for the studio. With a film like Cars 2--a sequel to a major hit, form a proven winner like Pixar, and from a strong distributor like Disney--the studio may take an even higher percentage for an even longer time period.

Generally the studio / theater split isn't taken into consideration because the theater doesn't really start taking a major slice until it is no longer a significant factor.

Cars 2 just finished it's third week in release. I'm not privy to the exact details of the Cars 2 deal, but I'm sure the vast majority of the $287 million has gone to Disney.

The front loaded deals were bankrupting movie theater chains, and have fallen out of fashion.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

So Disney is still in the red with cars 2, even before the cost of the print and ad budgets.

As I have said, Cars 2 is a flop because it hasn't made the movie division any money yet (a division that is hurting after mars needs moms). Also, it is making less than its predecessor while having a much larger production budget.

 

[mickey2008.1]

While not a great movie, my son has renewed interest in its merchandise, as many other boys have. More merchandise sales equalls $$$$$$. It's two separate entities. With the overall result being the factor of success.

 

[stlbobby]

The front loaded deals were bankrupting movie theater chains, and have fallen out of fashion.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

The article is flat-out wrong about the split. For smaller films the theaters are seeing bigger cuts, but that has always been the case. The blockbusters are still taking the first profits. This is especially true of sequels and other proven commodities. The Star Wars Prequels took almost 100% for weeks. Lucas basically acted like he was doing the theaters a favor by letting them show the movies. Disney is also particularly tough because they have the clout, a solid calendar of releases, and the track record.

A film's success is judged by several criteria. The first is by hitting benchmarks--$30 million, $100 million, $200 million etc. The second is by making back its budget. The studios prefer to do this with domestic box office, but the second tier is to make it back internationally, the final judgement is reserved for if they make it back on video. They also judge films to an extent by opening weekend and the percentage of theaters they hold.

So far Cars 2 has made its money back, and then some, internationally. It didn't hit the domestic mark, but it didn't fall completely short either. And it has only been three weeks.

Secondly, your argument is internally inconsistent. You call PATF a success based on pure box office numbers not taking into account all of the unknown costs. Yet you damn Cars 2 by the same criteria after only three weeks.

You also misquote and misrepresent another poster's argument when you change jt04's point about opening in Japan and Germany to Peru, South Korea, and UK. It undercuts your point when you do that.

Finally, when it comes to marketing budgets, which are never disclosed, the larger the production budget the smaller a percentage marketing is of the overall cost. Movies are not marketed by dollar for dollar spending. The marketing takes into account dozens of factors including name recognition and competition.

Disney probably spent more to market a completely new and unknown film, PATF, during the highly competitive holiday season--remember it was going against Avatar, the biggest money maker ever--than it did to market a sequel to a major hit from the reliable Pixar starring a set of beloved characters.

The known quantity, Cars 2 also had the advantage of more retailers and vendors wanting to tie-in. These tie-ins bring in huge amounts of advertising at a greatly reduced rate or even gratis.

Do I know which they spent more on? No. I assume it was probably pretty close. If I had to guess I would go with more raw dollars going into the PATF marketing. But to assume they spent twice as much on marketing Cars 2 just because the budget was twice as much is ridiculous.

Every time one of these threads pops up and the basic argument that a film made money is made the naysayers start trying to manipulate figures and discount revenue streams to make their point.

Bottom line, the movie has made money, in just three weeks, just like PATF. It will have a great life on video, just like PATF. And cannot be considered a flop, just like PATF.

But just like the OP on the PATF thread you opened the thread with a question, even though you'd already made-up your mind, and are now just flailing wildly and twisting arguments to suit your erroneous thesis.

 

[SleepingMonk]

... the naysayers start trying to manipulate figures...

Very true, but true for both sides of this discussion.

You want to think the best, others the worst.

None of us really know.

... I have no facts on which to base this. It's just a feeling...

... I'm not privy to the exact details of the Cars 2 deal, but I'm sure...

 

[stlbobby]

Very true, but true for both sides of this discussion.

You want to think the best, others the worst.

None of us really know.

Actually I don't think the best. I think the middle. I clearly stated from the beginning that I didn't think Cars 2 was a flop nor did it meet expectations. I think that is an honest and realistic assessment of the situation.

I also think the film will push towards if not exceed $200 million domestically and easily reach $300 million total, completely ignoring merchandising and video. Those are nice numbers and not unrealistic. So my original thesis that Cars 2 is the kind of "flop" many studios could use is still accurate.

Also the second time you quoted me: ... I have no facts on which to base this. It's just a feeling...

Is completely out of context. That entire post referred to Pooh and had nothing to do with Cars 2. I have offered tons of facts to back-up my Cars 2 contentions.

The final quote: ... I'm not privy to the exact details of the Cars 2 deal, but I'm sure...

Is also disingenuous because you are cherry picking one statement, actually part of a statement, in a long dissertation. I had just made several points supporting my contention, and in leaving those out you are attempting to undercut my credibility. I clearly state what I know and what I am assuming, based on facts and standard industry practices. My argument is still valid.

 

[jt04]

Right now the movie is at 286, I doubt premieres in Peru, South Korea, and the UK is going to push the total that much higher.

From Box Office Mojo:

Worldwide: $313,225,464

Of course that was as of yesterday and it made more money today and it will make more money tomorrow. Evidently you are unfamiliar with my posting style. :drevil::lol:

I'll be back.

 

[TP2000]

From Box Office Mojo:

Worldwide: $313,225,464

Of course that was as of yesterday and it made more money today and it will make more money tomorrow. Evidently you are unfamiliar with my posting style. :drevil::lol:

I'll be back.

313 Million in just over three weeks. Only in the Disney-And-Slightly-Anti-Pixar fan community could that kind of money be considered a flop. And we still have the Christmas merchandise and DVD sales to come, which only pad the bottom line even more.

After seeing the ongoing construction in DCA, I bought the Cars blu-ray at Target last week and watched the movie for the first time. If this kind of theme park expansion doesn't inspire you to go watch the darn movie, I don't think anything will! :lol:

12 Acre Cars Land Under Construction - June, 2011

Source: http://disneyparks.disney.go.com/blog/2011/07/behind-the-wall-radiator-springs-racers/

I found the movie Cars to be a lot of fun, and I was surprised how much I liked it. Most importantly, it was a family movie for the guys that didn't have a white-gloved and tiara-wearing princess in sight. A breath of fresh air! :sohappy:

Cars 2 may not go down in box office history with Star Wars or Titanic, but it was a very solid performer that will make a tidy profit for Disney by Labor Day weekend. And most importantly, it revives the Cars brand, introduces new characters, revs up Christmas toy and DVD sales for Fiscal Year '12, and makes the 500+ Million dollar investment in Cars Land at DCA seem smarter by the day. :animwink:

 

[Crockett]

Cars 2 is not a flop, nor will it be a flop. That is simply an urban legend.

 

[DisDadEddie]

I wouldn't say flop either! With the money it has made already, and I'm sure a DVD release around the holiday which will spur merchandise sales. Disney will make it's money!

 

[flavious27]

From Box Office Mojo:

Worldwide: $313,225,464

Of course that was as of yesterday and it made more money today and it will make more money tomorrow. Evidently you are unfamiliar with my posting style. :drevil::lol:

I'll be back.

If you add up all of the foreign totals that they have in their list, it is coming up $24,296,599 short of their reported total of $146,600,000.

 

[wm49rs]

And there are still plenty of premiere dates left on the calendar....

 

[stlbobby]

So Cinemark lied in their filings?

You know more than a publication that has been around for almost 30 years?

Did you actually read the article? It actually supports what I said. Here's an excerpt:

"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."

Sounds like something I wrote:

The blockbusters are still taking the first profits. This is especially true of sequels and other proven commodities. The Star Wars Prequels took almost 100% for weeks. Lucas basically acted like he was doing the theaters a favor by letting them show the movies. Disney is also particularly tough because they have the clout, a solid calendar of releases, and the track record.

The Cinemark filings you refer to are for every film shown during the reported quarter. This is for small films, long running films, and everything in between. And the article then says 50-55% is a ballpark for all films.

Cars 2 is a known quantity from a major player. The box office results so far are from the first three weekends. These are Disney's profits.

In the movie business they do not distinguish or break down box office results as you are attempting. The gross is the key number.

If you add up all of the foreign totals that they have in their list, it is coming up $24,296,599 short of their reported total of $146,600,000.

Again since you can't win the argument, you are going to mince numbers.

 

[stlbobby]

Disney doesn't get all of that 287 mil, they have to split it with the movie theaters. If they get 60% back, they won't break even until 333 million (excluding how much their print and ad budget is).

By your own number, $333 million, Cars 2 should start making money this weekend. Everything after that will be profit, plus video, plus merchandise, plus park admission.

I assume you'll find a new reason that the number you set will no longer be the flop threshold.

 

[SleepingMonk]

... Everything after that will be profit, plus video, plus merchandise, plus park admission...

Ok, hold everything.

People keep saying merchandise will make it profitable, now it's video sales and park admission too?

You can't count every possible item that has any minor correlation to the Cars label toward the box office revenue. The merchandise is a seperate division with it's own budget and finance, as are the parks and resorts, and the video sales and distribution.

None of those divisions share a budget, it's not a huge pot they all throw money into and divide it up as they see fit.

 

[stlbobby]

Ok, hold everything.

People keep saying merchandise will make it profitable, now it's video sales and park admission too?

You can't count every possible item that has any minor correlation to the Cars label toward the box office revenue. The merchandise is a seperate division with it's own budget and finance, as are the parks and resorts, and the video sales and distribution.

None of those divisions share a budget, it's not a huge pot they all throw money into and divide it up as they see fit.

You are correct when you say it's not a huge pot they all throw money into, but those ancillary markets are definitely considerations all studios and distributors use when they decide what movies to produce and determine whether a movie has been successful.

Certain types of films, splatter horror for example, are not even judged by box office because the video market is where the real money is. Other films are used as one big advertisement for a toy line. Disney definitely takes into consideration how movies will affect park attendance. The POTC movies would never have gotten a greenlight if they didn't have the benefit of the park tie-in.

In fact this is one of the biggest criticisms of modern Hollywood--they are only worrying about if a movie can sell toys, produce a hit soundtrack, and spawn sequels instead of making good films. Does anyone think the Transformers movies would have been inflicted on the public if the studios didn't know their money was going to come in through licencing rights alone?

The OP put the entire argument in terms of dollars and then continued to twist the numbers every way possible. If the naysayers are going to discount foreign markets and arbitrarily decide the break-even point is higher than the budget, then I can bring in all the additional revenues.

I've stated it before the simplest measure Hollywood uses is did the picture makes it's money back domestically? Then did it make it back worldwide? Then will it make a profit after video?

I'm totally willing to throw-out all the extra stuff, on both sides and go with this simple formula.

So far Cars 2 is shy of the domestic mark and easily past the worldwide total. In the simplest terms the film is clearly not a flop. It's not a smash hit either, but a respectable earner.

 

[Yodadudeman]

If we are going by box office sales, then yes. Cars 2 is a fail, and a big one by Pixar standards. However, Pixar knows that the money to be made with Cars 2 isnt even in the movie itself. Its in the merchandise and with DVD/Blu-Ray sales. Cars 1 didnt make a huge splash in the box office either. However, it sold over 200 million dollars in DVD/Blu-Ray sales. That in itself is enough incentive for Pixar to keep pumping out Cars movies. Factor in merchandise and the possible additions to theme parks and Cars 2 is starting to look like a mild success. Is it a blockbuster? No. Far from it actually. But it is a mildly entertaining, kid-friendly film that will keep the money flowing in the Pixar cash machine.

 

[wm49rs]

Cars 2 is at $314M between domestic and foreign box offices, with openings in Germany, France, the UK, Japan, and Hong Kong still on the horizon (and I'm leaving a number of smaller nations out). And it's still in the theatres in the US. So calling it anything in terms of simple box office numbers is premature to say the least....

 

[flavious27]

Did you actually read the article? It actually supports what I said. Here's an excerpt:

"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."


The Cinemark filings you refer to are for every film shown during the reported quarter. This is for small films, long running films, and everything in between. And the article then says 50-55% is a ballpark for all films.

Cars 2 is a known quantity from a major player. The box office results so far are from the first three weekends. These are Disney's profits.

In the movie business they do not distinguish or break down box office results as you are attempting. The gross is the key number.

This is from the article:

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.

These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

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.

This all supports how business is done in 2011, not 1991. The distributor can get up to 60%, they don't get 90% of the haul.

Also, most of the ticket revenue is for large films. There is no way that theaters will keep 45- 50% of ticket revenue they are only keeping 10% on 90% of their ticket revenue.

Again since you can't win the argument, you are going to mince numbers.

Simply adding the numbers provided and comparing it to the total provided is not mincing numbers, it is called auditing.

 

[flavious27]

Cars 2 is at $314M between domestic and foreign box offices, with openings in Germany, France, the UK, Japan, and Hong Kong still on the horizon (and I'm leaving a number of smaller nations out). And it's still in the theatres in the US. So calling it anything in terms of simple box office numbers is premature to say the least....

Well it is simple when you compare the sequel's performance to the original, the difference in ticket prices, and any difference in the cost of the budgets. Domestically cars 2 has made $22.5 million less at this point then cars, and the gap is widening by $1 million + each weekday and $2 or $3 million each weekend day. The average ticket price has increased $1.31 since cars was released in 2006. The production budget is $80 million more for cars 2 then cars, with no clue on what the difference for the print and ad budgets is.