• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

Surprise, surprise! The Nutcracker movie stinks.

jt04

Well-Known Member
Oz and On Stranger Tides are considered bombs by your metrics. Who came up with this formula?
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Advertisement
Oz and On Stranger Tides are considered bombs by your metrics. Who came up with this formula?
The formula has been mentioned by me in this thread even before you started posting your fairy tale scenario and was explained in detail again, it's been ratified by @LSLS in their research and post above, and it's in the very header of the column in the chart.

Your manic optimism is now being overshadowed by simply being confused by something you shouldn't be confused about. You are literally asking for information already explained to you directly at least twice. Please find a loved one or health care provider immediately.
 

KBLovesDisney

Well-Known Member
The formula has been mentioned by me in this thread even before you started posting your fairy tale scenario and was explained in detail again, it's been ratified by @LSLS in their research and post above, and it's in the very header of the column in the chart.

Your manic optimism is now being overshadowed by simply being confused by something you shouldn't be confused about. You are literally asking for information already explained to you directly at least twice. Please find a loved one or health care provider immediately.
Jt might just be using this troll-like banter with you to up his message count.:confused::cautious:

And I am being partly serious.

PS- 100 posts to go to 20K. Yes I'm counting.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
The formula has been mentioned by me in this thread even before you started posting your fairy tale scenario and was explained in detail again, it's been ratified by @LSLS in their research and post above, and it's in the very header of the column in the chart.

Your manic optimism is now being overshadowed by simply being confused by something you shouldn't be confused about. You are literally asking for information already explained to you directly at least twice. Please find a loved one or health care provider immediately.
Sorry but I am not impressed by your metrics. Looks entirely subjective. I will keep looking for something better. I give you one and a half stars out of four. Feeling generous.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Sorry but I am not impressed by your metrics. Looks entirely subjective. I will keep looking for something better. I give you one and a half stars out of four. Feeling generous.
You aren't impressed by the hard numbers actually provided, so you are substituting your own numbers in? Honestly, you have to be trolling at this point. These are actual numbers, you can look them up. Again, in that sample size, half the movies lost money, half made it. You are making the case that a movie which under performed in the box office will somehow pull in much larger numbers than others because Disney just knows better (FYI, I'm willing to bet some Disney movies are in that analysis as well on both sides).

FYI, another nice goalpost move. You start by saying you think it makes money, and putting your own numbers into the scenario. Then you decide you will ignore any actual numbers posted and "Wait for actual data."

Lets look at it like this. You know the budget. How much money do you think they paid for distribution (physical copies, etc.)? How much of a cut of sales do you think directors/actors get? Overhead at the studios? Give a total estimate on how much you think was spent making the total film in all and see if your numbers add up.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
You aren't impressed by the hard numbers actually provided, so you are substituting your own numbers in? Honestly, you have to be trolling at this point. These are actual numbers, you can look them up. Again, in that sample size, half the movies lost money, half made it. You are making the case that a movie which under performed in the box office will somehow pull in much larger numbers than others because Disney just knows better (FYI, I'm willing to bet some Disney movies are in that analysis as well on both sides).

FYI, another nice goalpost move. You start by saying you think it makes money, and putting your own numbers into the scenario. Then you decide you will ignore any actual numbers posted and "Wait for actual data."

Lets look at it like this. You know the budget. How much money do you think they paid for distribution (physical copies, etc.)? How much of a cut of sales do you think directors/actors get? Overhead at the studios? Give a total estimate on how much you think was spent making the total film in all and see if your numbers add up.
I'm missing something here obviously. Maybe I am reading the chart wrong as part of it is cut off. But Oz and Stranger Tides were not "big box office bombs". At first glance it looks like the formula is weighted far too heavily to critic scores.

If that is indeed what is being measured. Can we get the formula once more?
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
I'm missing something here obviously. Maybe I am reading the chart wrong as part of it is cut off. But Oz and Stranger Tides were not "big box office bombs". At first glance it looks like the formula is weighted far too heavily to critic scores.

If that is indeed what is being measured. Can we get the formula once more?
Penguin will need to describe his tables, I'm going off of my link I posted.

Attached is the link (again) showing how movies make/lose money, and how much more there are to expenses/incomes. So, you provided your estimates why this movie will not lose money, so can you answer me the funds you allocated for what I asked for?

Link on how much it costs for movies over $100 million
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
Penguin will need to describe his tables, I'm going off of my link I posted.

Attached is the link (again) showing how movies make/lose money, and how much more there are to expenses/incomes. So, you provided your estimates why this movie will not lose money, so can you answer me the funds you allocated for what I asked for?

Link on how much it costs for movies over $100 million
Thank you, I think I am seeing it now. Interesting take. I'm not being sarcastic but those charts would have worked in the 1990s. Everything has changed.

Huge numbers of people wait for films to go to digital. That audience is only growing and can't be dismissed. It wouldn't surprise if it becomes equal with theater revenue.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Thank you, I think I am seeing it now. Interesting take. I'm not being sarcastic but those charts would have worked in the 1990s. Everything has changed.

Huge numbers of people wait for films to go to digital. That audience is only growing and can't be dismissed. It wouldn't surprise if it becomes equal with theater revenue.
The article is from 2016. I'll ask again, give me your estimated costs.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Estimated costs for what? I missed your original question.
How much money do you think they paid for distribution (physical copies, etc.)? How much of a cut of sales do you think directors/actors get? Overhead at the studios? Marketing? Give a total estimate on how much you think was spent making the total film in all and see if your numbers add up.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
How much money do you think they paid for distribution (physical copies, etc.)? How much of a cut of sales do you think directors/actors get? Overhead at the studios? Marketing? Give a total estimate on how much you think was spent making the total film in all and see if your numbers add up.
I wouldn't have any earthly idea. The studio may not even know all that. My point has only always been that this movie is not what is traditionally called a bomb. And not everyone thinks it is bad. About a third seem to approve or like it.

This thread should never have existed as constituted.

That is all I know about it.
 

MisterPenguin

Rumormonger
Premium Member
Also, where are Pixar and Marvel and Star Wars?
As if not including them changes the bad numbers for Nutcracker?

This is moving the goal posts, again. It doesn't matter if the OP was trolling, the numbers are bad for Nutcracker. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone sees the numbers for Pixar and Star Wars, the numbers are bad for Nutcracker.

You keep wanting to look everywhere else to avoid looking at the bad numbers for Nutcrackers. Are you 8 months old and haven't developed object permanence yet? Those number are bad and continue to exist as bad numbers even if you're looking at the numbers for some other group of movies.

I already showed you the numbers for successful DS movies. And I showed you the numbers for DS movies that had a huge net loss at the theatrical Box Office window. I don't have all the numbers for Star Wars yet, but, here's what successful movies look like (with the exception of Cars sequels and Good Dinosaur) for Pixar...

1543371719781.png

RT = Rotten Tomatoes
Avg Critic = Average rating of RT and Metacritic critics
IMDB & RT User Average = RT and Internet Movie DataBase sites allow users to rate the movies. This is their average weighted by number of users.

And again, the formula used for a rough sense of profitability in the theatrical window is to halve the Box Office (the theaters get the other half) and to add another 50% cost to the production budget to account for marketing. This formula is conservative. International venues take more than half and studios can spend way more than 50% of production budget on marketing, especially Disney.
 

jt04

Well-Known Member
As if not including them changes the bad numbers for Nutcracker?

This is moving the goal posts, again. It doesn't matter if the OP was trolling, the numbers are bad for Nutcracker. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone sees the numbers for Pixar and Star Wars, the numbers are bad for Nutcracker.

You keep wanting to look everywhere else to avoid looking at the bad numbers for Nutcrackers. Are you 8 months old and haven't developed object permanence yet? Those number are bad and continue to exist as bad numbers even if you're looking at the numbers for some other group of movies.

I already showed you the numbers for successful DS movies. And I showed you the numbers for DS movies that had a huge net loss at the theatrical Box Office window. I don't have all the numbers for Star Wars yet, but, here's what successful movies look like (with the exception of Cars sequels and Good Dinosaur) for Pixar...

View attachment 328865

RT = Rotten Tomatoes
Avg Critic = Average rating of RT and Metacritic critics
IMDB & RT User Average = RT and Internet Movie DataBase sites allow users to rate the movies. This is their average weighted by number of users.

And again, the formula used for a rough sense of profitability in the theatrical window is to halve the Box Office (the theaters get the other half) and to add another 50% cost to the production budget to account for marketing. This formula is conservative. International venues take more than half and studios can spend way more than 50% of production budget on marketing, especially Disney.
I'm sticking with my claim it isn't a total write off and will make a profit in time.

Thanks for your hard work. It is very interesting. I wish the studios were more transparent. But they are not so we may never no for sure if it does or does not make a profit. It is over 130 million in ticket sales. Time will tell.

Goodnight.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't have any earthly idea. The studio may not even know all that. My point has only always been that this movie is not what is traditionally called a bomb. And not everyone thinks it is bad. About a third seem to approve or like it.

This thread should never have existed as constituted.

That is all I know about it.
Pretty large copout for someone who gave numbers for how much it will make from DVD and cable plays. .

Here, I'll help you and you tell me where I'm wrong. The lowest movie analyzed showed marketing was 24% of the TOTAL cost (this is not the the production cost). Lets give Disney a benefit of the doubt and use that number. Looking at the figure from the anaylsis I have cited more than once, if you assume all of the other averages, you get a total cost of $345 million. Now, lets say Disney had a crystal ball and knew to put much less in to everything. And now lets be insanely generous and try to help your point. Lets say they somehow had all those costs makeup half of what the industry average for a movie that size is. You are still at $254 million total cost. Also keep in mind this is giving a marketing budget of $66.5 and $49 mil in the 2 scenarios, SIGNIFICANTLY under the industry average (which from what I am reading is way higher than the 50% even Masterpenguin gives you for movies with large budgets, it's closer to 80-100% of the production budget).

So, in your best case scenario, you are talking about $254 million being the money you need to make to profit. You have $129 mil in tickets. Your own numbers gives you $50 in digital, $20 in print, and $10 in cable. If Disney somehow cut ALL costs to in half of the industry average, you are still $50 mil in the hole. If they stay around average, you are $130 mil in the hole. You need to explain how that money is made up.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Sadly we will never know. And, oh by the way, I don't believe the conventional wisdom concerning how these numbers break down in reality. Nobody would finance movies with so much risk and such little return. But that is another thread somewhere.

PS- I don't remember offering up specific numbers but whatever. It was a long day. 😊
Let me help you:

I'll go with 80. I'm guessing 50 for digital streaming because Christmas. 20 for disc. 10 from cable next year. All profit after that.

And I am being partly serious.

PS- 100 posts to go to 20K. Yes I'm counting.
Maybe we won't, but I have broken numbers down, and I have broken them down extremely biased towards your ideas, and the numbers aren't close. Honestly think about what you are saying. I have posted hard data. Masterpenguin has posted generally accepted data. You say you won't believe either with absolutely no evidence because you can't imagine it.

Here is another graph. It's not perfect, but gives you an idea on profit margins (the graph is huge, so I don't want to embed it):
https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/2018/02/thr-biz-studio-profitability.jpg

Notice how Disney in 2017 had $8.3 billion revenue, but only 2.3 billion profit. Definitely the best margin of all other studios (in large part due to Last Jedi, Beauty and the Beast, and Guardians 2). They had a 27% profitability for the year. Combined with all studios, those major studios had a combined 12.5% profitability.

It really is ok to admit that Disney had a bomb/flop/whatever you want to call it. It doesn't make Disney studios bad, it doesn't mean they aren't the best studio. Every studio has movies that fail. You can stay completely loyal to the company and admit that they had a movie fail. With the amount of evidence at this point, the only way you don't admit that is if you are willing to just blatantly ignore evidence.
 
Top Bottom