Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter

Figments Friend

Well-Known Member
Parks Blog has a post today about the 30 year anniversary of the JII opening at Epcot. Of course they neglect to mention the recently "retired" Imagineer involved with it's creation and the fact that they've basically ruined the attraction with subsequent changes.

Boils my blood sometimes..these slights...

One of the theories about the lack of articles regarding our boy Tony is that he has not officially 'left Disney'. Since he is still being regarded as a being s 'advisor' for the company, in their eyes he has not really 'left'...thus no need to have articles of his 'retirement'.

I suppose some could look at it that way, like some social media folks doing so as an excuse to use as a convenience for not talking about him. I have my doubts....

Basically, those who know what really went down...know. Out of respect for Tony, they choose to not to paste his personal business 'out there' which i agree is the best thing to do at this point. The guy is highly respected in the fan community, and sometimes one has to wonder if Disney has any real idea as to HOW respected he is. I am assuming they must have a slight clue, since they seemed more then happy to have him appear at various company-sanctioned events over the years for said fans.

Tony, you are indeed loved...by the Park fans at least.
 

MattM

Well-Known Member
I was disappointed in the way she acted. I didn't think she was so short sided. There is more than a stock price to a company. The stock is inflated by robbing Paul to pay Peter. What happens when you can't cut anything else and you have to rely on the product to incrase revenue?

Iger pay is based on stock price so why wouldn't he sell long term procuduct for short term stock price. He leaves by 2016 so why does he care what he leaves after this.

I just wish Disney had a Disney name to represent the company's best interest. :-(
I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but how is that robbing Peter to pay Paul?
 

Genie of the Lamp

Well-Known Member
OUCH!!! So, to break even, they'll need to do roughly $600m box office.

Yeah although @BlueSkyDriveBy said last night it cost them $350 mil to make and market in which case they'll have to bring in $700 mil revenue to break even. But yeah, they really gotta hope for the best case scenario here and that snowstorm expected in Midwest/Northeast aint helping the cause.

Edit; Countdown to Shareholder Meeting: Tomorrow!
 

thehowiet

Wilson King of Prussia
Yeah although @BlueSkyDriveBy said last night it cost them $350 mil to make and market in which case they'll have to bring in $700 mil revenue to break even. But yeah, they really gotta hope for the best case scenario here and that snowstorm expected in Midwest/Northeast aint helping the cause.

Edit; Countdown to Shareholder Meeting: Tomorrow!

Those are some serious numbers....I don't know enough about the film industry to make predictions, but that seems like a lot of ground to make up from the start.
 

sshindel

The Epcot Manifesto
I'm pretty sure Oz is going to do big numbers, and international markets will probably be quite large. I'm not sure how the foreign markets play into the "success" or "failure", but I think if a movie like The Hobbit can (seemingly) quietly make a billion dollars, Oz will likely recoup it's expenses (notice I dont say it'll be equal to the Hobbit, it will not). It's received some pretty good reviews from some of the sites I tend to agree with.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Educate me here. I understand what gross income is, but I thought that if you took the gross and subtracted the costs you get profit or loss and the breakeven point was when income equaled the expense. If $350 mil is the cost why isn't the break even $350 mil. I must be missing some part of that scenario that is vital, but whatever it is, it's not coming to me. Help!
 

sshindel

The Epcot Manifesto
Parks Blog has a post today about the 30 year anniversary of the JII opening at Epcot. Of course they neglect to mention the recently "retired" Imagineer involved with it's creation and the fact that they've basically ruined the attraction with subsequent changes.

I love how the Parks Blog calls out things that no longer exist and then allows only sappy comments about how much people miss it. Talk about sanitized.
Mark this as another of the Parks Blog entries where my comment mysteriously does not make it through "moderation"...
 

Genie of the Lamp

Well-Known Member
Educate me here. I understand what gross income is, but I thought that if you took the gross and subtracted the costs you get profit or loss and the breakeven point was when income equaled the expense. If $350 mil is the cost why isn't the break even $350 mil. I must be missing some part of that scenario that is vital, but whatever it is, it's not coming to me. Help!

I'm hear to help ya. So, we are saying that Oz costed them approx. $325-$350 mil to make AND $325-$350 mil to market. So let's do math here:
325+325 or 325*2=650
350+350 or 350*2=700
Your beginning part of the statement is correct. So in order for them to break even, they have to obtain a revenue number of either $650 million or $700 million just to break even. In order to make a profit, they need to bring in a higher cash flow/liquidity then those 2 numbers mentioned above which I'm sure you know. Hope this helps.:)
 

Animaniac93-98

Well-Known Member
Educate me here. I understand what gross income is, but I thought that if you took the gross and subtracted the costs you get profit or loss and the breakeven point was when income equaled the expense. If $350 mil is the cost why isn't the break even $350 mil. I must be missing some part of that scenario that is vital, but whatever it is, it's not coming to me. Help!

Movie theatre owners get a cut of the revenue and the studio generally gets 50-55% of the total box office (on average, the split is higher in NA than in foreign markets).
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Educate me here. I understand what gross income is, but I thought that if you took the gross and subtracted the costs you get profit or loss and the breakeven point was when income equaled the expense. If $350 mil is the cost why isn't the break even $350 mil. I must be missing some part of that scenario that is vital, but whatever it is, it's not coming to me. Help!

because the industry reports ticket grosses.. and the ticket gross is split between the theatre, distributor, and movie studio. The number you hear in the news is not the number the movie studio takes home... just the raw ticket sales.

The things tracked and reported by the entertainment industry are not meant to be financial reporting - they are simply chest pumping and comparing against each other. That's why they don't bother to report true comparisons like actual ticket sales.. and conveniently let things like ticket inflation, ticket upgrades, and other aspects boost their reported numbers.
 

Goofyernmost

Well-Known Member
Movie theatre owners get a cut of the revenue and the studio generally gets 50-55% of the total box office (on average, the split is higher in NA than in foreign markets).
because the industry reports ticket grosses.. and the ticket gross is split between the theatre, distributor, and movie studio. The number you hear in the news is not the number the movie studio takes home... just the raw ticket sales.

The things tracked and reported by the entertainment industry are not meant to be financial reporting - they are simply chest pumping and comparing against each other. That's why they don't bother to report true comparisons like actual ticket sales.. and conveniently let things like ticket inflation, ticket upgrades, and other aspects boost their reported numbers.
That was the element that I had not remembered...yes, that does make sense now. Thanks for the help.
 

HMF

Well-Known Member
Parks Blog has a post today about the 30 year anniversary of the JII opening at Epcot. Of course they neglect to mention the recently "retired" Imagineer involved with it's creation and the fact that they've basically ruined the attraction with subsequent changes.

I love how the Parks Blog calls out things that no longer exist and then allows only sappy comments about how much people miss it. Talk about sanitized.
Blog post? More like cynical slap in the face. Having a blog post observing the original JII on the Disney Parks Blog is the same type of sentiment shown in the finale of JIIwF (Here, you wanted Figment back, Heres a whole room full of him)
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
That was the element that I had not remembered...yes, that does make sense now. Thanks for the help.
Let's not forget Hollywood accounting:

John D. MacDonald's novel Free Fall in Crimson (1981) references Hollywood accounting in its dialogue:
"Darling! This is the Industry! The really creative people are the accountants. A big studio got over half the profit, after setting breakeven at about three times the cost, taking twenty-five percent of income as an overhead charge, and taking thirty percent of income as a distribution charge, plus rental fees, and prime interest on what they advanced."​
 

OFTeric

Well-Known Member
Movie theatre owners get a cut of the revenue and the studio generally gets 50-55% of the total box office (on average, the split is higher in NA than in foreign markets).

The percentage that a studio gets is based on the length of time a movie is in the theater.

Some films that are big massive openings will take 100% of the box office and maybe 10-15% of concessions. As a movie lingers in the theaters, the theater is able to take a larger percentage, 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, etc

Movie theaters love movies like Avatar that stay in the theaters for months.

So for most blockbuster films, that is why the marketing for a film is front loaded, to get you to opening weekend, not just for a big start, but because that is when the studio earns the most revenue.

**** Even after that rant, that is why most people say 50 - 55% of the gross to factor in Revenue share AND marketing.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Just to be clear there is no parsing of language. When you purchase DVC it is an asset. There is no arguing that point, its a fact and not dishonest at all for Disney to call it that. Whether you think buying into DVC is a good decision or a wise investment is highly subjective. For Disney to sell it to you by implying it's an investment which will likely appreciate in value would be shady. I've never heard a DVC sales person make that claim, but every sales person is different so it's possible some do. I'm also not sure that your 2 friends are a large enough sample size to say "most" purchasers think they are buying a traditional timeshare. I know 2 other people besides myself who knew exactly what they were buying when they bought DVC so if we combine our samples it's down to 40%, not most;). I am sure there are many people that buy in on a whim or as an impulse buy without getting all of the facts, but I don't think it's most people (especially when you are talking about a serious cash outlay).

I think Disney plays fast and loose with figures and I have done four official tours/sales sessions as well as numerous new resort tours and three webcasts.

Disney makes the numbers accurate by comparing rack rate for its resorts, which only fools pay (I am sure to be flamed for that, but I largely believe it), and using the 'larger' accomodations argument. If you do follow both of those lines, then DVC (even from Disney) is a deal.

But if you constantly get discounts on WDW resorts (and they are out there constantly) and don't need a one bedroom or two bedroom unit with a kitchen, then it absolutely makes no sense at all in any way shape or form.
 

WDW1974

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
While I'd love to spend a MAGICal Friday night here and am lacking in time, I just had a rather bizarre and weird and typical-for-me experience involving the FBI.

OK, no, it wasn't involving me directly. More something I witnessed, which plays into everything I've been talking about regarding surveillance and why technology is a bad thing because it tracks you anywhere if the government or individuals within or powerful folks in companies want to go after you, to know your every move.

The problem here was the group in a SoFla burger joing that starts with Fudd and ends with ruckers was being tracked by three of the most obvious FBI agents I had ever seen in my life. Imagine a bad movie from about a decade ago with the guys wearing sunglasses indoors at 6 p.m. on a cloudy/dark day ... imagine one wearing a Tommy Bahama type casual button down the front shirt and a hat etc.

The group they were surveiling was also like a stereotype -- folks looked like they were born in the 1940s, snowbirding here and connected to some organized crime in the NYC/NJ or Boston areas ... the women had big hair, the men had leather jackets and jewelry ... they were loud and flamboyant (not in the fanboi way, either).

The only thing they didn't have, though, was not one of the six people (three couples, one who got a very pricey watch as a gift) was carrying a smartphone or tablet. Nothing that big old USA FBI (the folks who can't protect us when they need to) could use discretely from a distance, even one of many miles. So they had to do it the old-fashioned way and man, was it bad. It was like spotting the 'mark' in a theme park show who is pretending to be a tourist in the crowd and gets pulled into the action.

Yes, it was THAT bad.

To make matter worse, I didn't notice things at first. Well, I noticed the flamboyant marks, but not the agents. One who was sitting with his back to me.

While he was while pretending to be playing with his own smart phone, I happened to engage in a conversation with my companions where I discussed whether it was possible my phone calls could be monitored by the FBI (I've worked in China, speak regularly to important people across the globe including an official in Europe today, often use words like '9/11' and 'Obama' on the phone, and have ed off plenty of people with considerably more power than the people I gleefully off here daily). Again, no clue what was going on 4-6 inches behind me (no fanboi jokes here, please). But my topic clearly spooked the agent behind me who got up, and moved to another table a ways away to continue monitoring the group (he also had a man purse that didn't fit the look, so I assume he had equipment in there).

As soon as he had to move, Agent #2 moved in closer and gave a dirty look to our table. ... Hell, we even got some dirty looks from two of the women at the 'evildoers' table because they damn well knew they were being watched and didn't want us to blow the cover of Agents Larry , Moe and Curly because then they might have to deal with watchers they weren't so aware of.

The point, here, beyond the bizarre incident (phone call incoming @Lee) was that if those folks just had those amazing (let's all kneel and pray to the Cult of Jobs) iPhone5s on them, then they could have been spied on in a less intrusive, less in your face and, yes, waaaay less obvious manner. Oh, and cheaper too.

Again, I know all you techies are going to say the train is out of the station, but clearly it only is if you allow it to be. If you don't buy products that track your every move, then you do have a leg up.

Technology allows us to be followed and tracked in ways we couldn't have even imagined in Y2K.

Just a strange burger incident. .... But, man, I have to say I wanted to walk over to one of the agents and say simply 'Dude, with my tax dollars you damn well shouldn't be so obvious.'' I was talked out of said move by my more level-headed companions.

Y'all have nice Friday nights and I'll be back a little later ...

Look, I know it's bad taste to be a for likes (and that thread on PML doesn't make me like them anymore!) ... but how can a true life story involving me and the FBI be worthy of only five likes?!?!? Right @Lee?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom