Surprise, surprise! The Nutcracker movie stinks.

[jt04]

Let me help you:



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.

To me a bomb is what is happening to Robin Hood right now. I'm not sure how the movie will do over Christmas assuming it becomes available on streaming. I prefer to wait for the numbers. I admit it is a long climb to turning a profit. Not ready to say it never will. If I turn out to be wrong, I will say so.

 

[seascape]

To me a bomb is what is happening to Robin Hood right now. I'm not sure how the movie will do over Christmas assuming it becomes available on streaming. I prefer to wait for the numbers. I admit it is a long climb to turning a profit. Not ready to say it never will. If I turn out to be wrong, I will say so.

In the end it will be profitable. It will be watched over the streaming apps for years and it is also getting money from Netflix in 2019. It may take several years but not the 50 plus years it took Fantasia to reach profitability nor require the film strips I saw in elementary school.

 

[LSLS]

In the end it will be profitable. It will be watched over the streaming apps for years and it is also getting money from Netflix in 2019. It may take several years but not the 50 plus years it took Fantasia to reach profitability nor require the film strips I saw in elementary school.

I wouldn't bet money on it. As I showed earlier, you are talking about it needing to make somewhere in the neighborhood of $200-$250 million off of it's Cable/Streaming/dvd sales. That is a high order for a movie that was so poorly received. I just don't see it getting THAT much play in the future.

 

[MisterPenguin]

In the end it will be profitable. It will be watched over the streaming apps for years and it is also getting money from Netflix in 2019. It may take several years but not the 50 plus years it took Fantasia to reach profitability nor require the film strips I saw in elementary school.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea it will be profitable *eventually*.

If all movies were guaranteed a profit *eventually*, there'd be a lot more movies being made by a lot more movie studios. And as time goes on and more and more previously produced movies and TV series are available for streaming... then that aftermarket becomes more and more crowded. Who wants to sit down at home and see any of the dozen panned Robin Hood movies made in the past two decades?

Some movies never make a profit.

 

[seascape]

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea it will be profitable *eventually*.

If all movies were guaranteed a profit *eventually*, there'd be a lot more movies being made by a lot more movie studios. And as time goes on and more and more previously produced movies and TV series are available for streaming... then that aftermarket becomes more and more crowded. Who wants to sit down at home and see any of the dozen panned Robin Hood movies made in the past two decades?

Some movies never make a profit.

Disney has multiple sources of revenue. Granted it lost money in the initial run. However, there was revenue from the sales of junk that go with all movies. Then there is DVD sales and the guaranteed money from Netflix. It will wind up with about 140 million worldwide of which 70 million will go to Disney. That means they need another 130 to cover production costs and advertising. But you need to keep in mind that some of the advertising is paid for by third parties. Additionally, at least 20 million should be paid be Netflix so they only need another 100 million from other sources. Further remember much of this money is for Hollywood's accounting and over charging the movie for Distribution expenses which are really built in profits for the Studios. Disney will make money on this even if the movie shows a loss.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Additionally, at least 20 million should be paid be Netflix so they only need another 100 million from other sources.

Netflix deals will soon be over.

Show your work that a poorly received Disney movie picks up an extra $100 million in the digital window.

 

[LSLS]

Those numbers just do not makes any sense whatsoever. If your splits were real life the industry would not exist.

Those numbers are for movies with over$100 million budget. I'm sorry the factual numbers hurt your case. Unless you believe it costs nothing to use overhead staff, create DVDs/hardrives, market for a movie, give theaters and actors and directors cuts of money, etc., I'm not sure what you are arguing. If you were correct, then everyone would invest in movies as opposed to stocks. Movies are a very calculated risk. Give me one shred of evidence otherwise and I will take it back. There are enough movie insiders out there that you can find numbers (FYI, they back up the numbers I posted). Don't use nonsense opinions. Bring me your factual evidence.

 

[LSLS]

Disney has multiple sources of revenue. Granted it lost money in the initial run. However, there was revenue from the sales of junk that go with all movies. Then there is DVD sales and the guaranteed money from Netflix. It will wind up with about 140 million worldwide of which 70 million will go to Disney. That means they need another 130 to cover production costs and advertising. But you need to keep in mind that some of the advertising is paid for by third parties. Additionally, at least 20 million should be paid be Netflix so they only need another 100 million from other sources. Further remember much of this money is for Hollywood's accounting and over charging the movie for Distribution expenses which are really built in profits for the Studios. Disney will make money on this even if the movie shows a loss.

$130 million is very generous (You probably need another $50 million added to that). You say they need $100 (actually $110 according to your numbers) to be profitable. Wrinkle in Time made $12 million in DVD sales. If you assume similar, you tell us where $98 million is coming from after Netflix and DVD.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Those numbers are for movies with over$100 million budget. I'm sorry the factual numbers hurt your case. Unless you believe it costs nothing to use overhead staff, create DVDs/hardrives, market for a movie, give theaters and actors and directors cuts of money, etc., I'm not sure what you are arguing. If you were correct, then everyone would invest in movies as opposed to stocks. Movies are a very calculated risk. Give me one shred of evidence otherwise and I will take it back. There are enough movie insiders out there that you can find numbers (FYI, they back up the numbers I posted). Don't use nonsense opinions. Bring me your factual evidence.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Don't use nonsense opinions. Bring me your factual evidence.

He won’t. When Disney does publicly acknowledge the loss he’ll claim he was right all along and that it was part of the grand strategy that only he understands.

 

[jt04]

He won’t. When Disney does publicly acknowledge the loss he’ll claim he was right all along and that it was part of the grand strategy that only he understands.

You can place those numbers here when we get them.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Show your work that a poorly received Disney movie picks up an extra $100 million in the digital window.

Disney+ subs, my dude.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What kills me is how obvious it is that all of these movies will be terrible long before a critic or fan has had the chance to see one. John Carter, obviously terrible. Lone Ranger, obviously terrible. Tomorrowland, obviously terrible. A Wrinkle In Time, Nutcracker, etc, all obviously terrible.

Calling it now, Artemis Fowl will also be terrible.

Can they just put Feige in charge of everything?

 

[MisterPenguin]

What kills me is how obvious it is that all of these movies will be terrible long before a critic or fan has had the chance to see one. John Carter, obviously terrible. Lone Ranger, obviously terrible. Tomorrowland, obviously terrible. A Wrinkle In Time, Nutcracker, etc, all obviously terrible.

Calling it now, Artemis Fowl will also be terrible.

Can they just put Feige in charge of everything?

I'd agree.

But then a Mary Poppins Returns or Jungle Book remake bucks the trend and makes everyone think that Disney Studios is a successful studio. It's not. The majority of their films since 2000 have had a net loss in the theatrical window. The majority of their films get embarrassingly low critical and audience ratings.

Don't know how or why someone at Disney Inc isn't seeing that and demanding major shake-ups.

 

[Magenta Panther]

I'm sad about this Nutcracker film, because I would have LOVED to see a GOOD Disney version of the classic ballet. And can you imagine if it had been animated in Walt-level traditional 2D? Remember the "Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy" in Fantasia? Still stunning and magical today. Sigh, such a lost opportunity. As were the Narnia films. I weep for what might have been.

 

[erasure fan1]

Calling it now, Artemis Fowl will also be terrible

Well, by the looks of the trailer, I wouldn't bet against that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'd agree.

But then a Mary Poppins Returns or Jungle Book remake bucks the trend and makes everyone think that Disney Studios is a successful studio. It's not. The majority of their films since 2000 have had a net loss in the theatrical window. The majority of their films get embarrassingly low critical and audience ratings.

Don't know how or why someone at Disney Inc isn't seeing that and demanding major shake-ups.

We know they love remakes and franchises. The problem is that they do a poor job identifying what properties have the potential to become a franchise in the first place. Somebody got in their head that they needed their own Harry Potter so they thought "AHA! Let's go after beloved children's literature." But Wrinkle and Artemis ain't Potter, silly muggles. When they inevitably announce The Phantom Tollbooth in 2022, nobody is going to be lining up to buy that sweet, sweet Milo merch.

 

[KBLovedDisney]

I'm getting really really worried about this Lion King remake...

 

[MisterPenguin]

I'm getting really really worried about this Lion King remake...

The one thing Disney Studios does well and is successful at is remakes and continuing successful film franchises that already has an audience that loves the property.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I'm getting really really worried about this Lion King remake...

The remakes have been largely inoffensive. They make money, and generally don't ruin the originals. I'm content to ignore them.