Ton Newton - Out

[Lilofan]

I saw that. They must have backed the Brinks truck up to her door.

The one picture one will never see is Ton , Zenia, Iger, Eisner , or Chapek wearing Mickey Mouse ears. The Yeti at AK will be fixed before that ever happens.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

@Casper Gutman I tried to send you a message to continue our conversation privately but it looks like you have DMs closed. Let me know if you'd like to chat.

 

[Casper Gutman]

View attachment 726575

The “analyst” is YouTuber “Valiant Renegade” and the story is featured on Newsmax.

Come on.

 

[GhostHost1000]

The “analyst” is YouTuber “Valiant Renegade” and the story is featured on Newsmax.

Come on.

So are you saying has Disney NOT lost that on films in the last year?

 

[Casper Gutman]

So are you saying has Disney NOT lost that on films in the last year?

Find a credible source if you want to make the argument. Penguin has posted a list of this guys videos in another thread - he’s a culture war outrage merchant.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Find a credible source if you want to make the argument. Penguin has posted a list of this guys videos in another thread - he’s a culture war outrage merchant.

His numbers are correct.

 

[MisterPenguin]

View attachment 726575

Ummm.. wha?

So, half that amount.

And Elemental and TLM are still generating revenue.

And this doesn't include $10M from Spider-Verse, and whatever Avatar 2 made starting Jan 1, 2023.

And if "past year" means going back into 2022, then you're figuring in the half a billion profit of Avatar 2, and the profit of Doctor Strange 2, and Wakanda Forever which more than cancel out any losses.

 

[Casper Gutman]

His numbers are correct.

Source?

His “numbers” include the fantasy losses Disney suffered by NOT licensing these films to other streamers - in other words, he’s making up numbers.

He calls Guardians 3 a flop.

 

[GhostHost1000]

Ummm.. wha?

View attachment 726585

So, half that amount.

And Elemental and TLM are still generating revenue.

And this doesn't include $10M from Spider-Verse, and whatever Avatar 2 made starting Jan 1, 2023.

And if "past year" means going back into 2022, then you're figuring in the half a billion profit of Avatar 2, and the profit of Doctor Strange 2, and Wakanda Forever which more than cancel out any losses.

I assume Lightyear, Strange World, and others were in his calculations

Regardless of the math, it’s not good

 

[CaptainAmerica]

His “numbers” include the fantasy losses Disney suffered by NOT licensing these films to other streamers - in other words, he’s making up numbers.

No they don't. They merely refuse to give the films credit for the money Disney pays to itself to license the movies for Disney+.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Ummm.. wha?

View attachment 726585

So, half that amount.

And Elemental and TLM are still generating revenue.

And this doesn't include $10M from Spider-Verse, and whatever Avatar 2 made starting Jan 1, 2023.

And if "past year" means going back into 2022, then you're figuring in the half a billion profit of Avatar 2, and the profit of Doctor Strange 2, and Wakanda Forever which more than cancel out any losses.

Also, these films are intended to earn via other pipelines, such as merchandising. It is very, very hard for a major studio’s films to lose money in the final reckoning - that equation is an INCREDIBLY rough tool that ONLY accounts for box office. I’m sure Strange World and Lightyear lost money, but beyond that I’m sceptical.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ummm.. wha?

View attachment 726585

So, half that amount.

And Elemental and TLM are still generating revenue.

And this doesn't include $10M from Spider-Verse, and whatever Avatar 2 made starting Jan 1, 2023.

And if "past year" means going back into 2022, then you're figuring in the half a billion profit of Avatar 2, and the profit of Doctor Strange 2, and Wakanda Forever which more than cancel out any losses.

"Past year" means "trailing 12 months," not "calendar 2023 year-to-date."

Also, the (1/2 Gross - 1.5 budget) formula is based on the assumption that movies are spending approximately 50% of their production budget on marketing. But some of these movies are spending in excess of that.

 

[Casper Gutman]

No they don't. They merely refuse to give the films credit for the money Disney pays to itself to license the movies for Disney+.

This seems to be correct. The Newsmax article was unclear. My error.

That just makes his numbers even more absurd, however.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Also, seeing as Disney has the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th highest grossing films of the year, every other studio must be in REAL trouble.

 

[MisterPenguin]

I assume Lightyear, Strange World, and others were in his calculations

Regardless of the math, it’s not good

If you're going to include movies of last year that lost money, then you must include the ones that made a profit.

 

[MisterPenguin]

"Past year" means "trailing 12 months," not "calendar 2023 year-to-date."

Also, the (1/2 Gross - 1.5 budget) formula is based on the assumption that movies are spending approximately 50% of their production budget on marketing. But some of these movies are spending in excess of that.

If you're calling into question Hollywood trade's "rule of thumb," then you must do so for all films, including ones that maybe didn't spend up to 50% of the budget.

We then get into an epistemological state of not being about to know anything about what made or lost money.

Unless you want to selectively say that the ones that made money have to abide by a different formula to make them look worse... and that would be clearly biased speculation.

 

[GhostHost1000]

If you're going to include movies of last year, then you must include the ones that made a profit.

AS I POINTED OUT IN MY POST YOU'RE QUOTING.

Agreed but I assume it was referring to how much they lost from some releases, not calculating in profit from others, just the total of loss from individual movies.

Either way I don’t care what the number is personally, just that it’s not been good on past Disney standards

 

[CaptainAmerica]

If you're calling into question Hollywood trade's "rule of thumb," then you must do so for all films, including ones that maybe didn't spend up to 50% of the budget.

We then get into an epistemological state of not being about to know anything about what made or lost money.

Unless you want to selectively say that the ones that made money have to abide by a different formula to make them look worse... and that would be clearly biased speculation.

The rule of thumb is fine when you don't know the marketing budget. But when you DO know the marketing budget, you use that instead.

He calls Guardians 3 a flop.

Guardians 3 was right around break-even.

 

[flynnibus]

The take away from this is disney owns so much marketing airtime and paths to eyeballs and still spends a billion dollars on unsuccessful marketing… then maybe they are doing it horribly wrong.

150mill spending on a single film should be criminal

 

[Casper Gutman]

The rule of thumb is fine when you don't know the marketing budget. But when you DO know the marketing budget, you use that instead.

View attachment 726593


Guardians 3 was right around break-even.

What’s the source for the marketing budgets?