'Meet the Robinsons' Trailer

[Another Voice]

The trailers for the next Disney CGI film - Meet the Robinsons are up at http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/meettherobinsons/ .

There are a lot of Disney/Pixar politics surrounding this movie.

[buckylarue]

The trailer is running with Santa Clause 3 in theaters right now also.

[EpcotMatt]

The trailers for the next Disney CGI film - Meet the Robinsons are up at http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/meettherobinsons/ .

There are a lot of Disney/Pixar politics surrounding this movie.

What type of politics?

[Mickmse2002]

Look's pretty good to me.

[EUROPACL]

What type of politics? I'm betting the usual stuff.... Tax Cuts, War, Gay Marriage and where exactly will the new spinner based on the moive will go.

[BRERALEX]

where exactly will the new spinner based on the moive will go.

Epcot doesn't have a spinner. They might as well tear down JIYI.

J/k

[Another Voice]

What type of politics?
The rumors going around say that this movie was screened for John Lasseter shortly after Disney purchased Pixar and all the press releases about Mr. Lasseter becoming the "leader" in Animation and Imgaineering.

The rumors go on to say that Mr. Lasseter told Feature Animation that the move needed changes and reworking before it could be released. Burbank's response was essentially to tell him "you're not the boss of me" and kicked him out of the building. Mr. Lasseter, again to the rumors, has been frozen out of the Disney side of Animation - the cease fire being that Pixar takes care of Pixar characters and Disney does what it wants despite what the org chart says.

It's an interesting rumor for those who are hoping the Pixar brain trust can breathe some creative life back into Disney.

[2Xited4Disney]

The trailer looks much better than the "Chicken Little" Trailer and that was a marginally acceptable production...

[Tink's Tormentor]

The movie actually looks somewhat watchable.

[Tink's Tormentor]

The trailer is running with Santa Clause 3 in theaters right now also.

The trailer for Pirates 3 isn't running?

[Mecha Figment]

Disney need help. thats all there is to it. it's last 5 films have been finacial disasters.
because the story just wasnt' there.

grant it brother bear was a good film.

and i liked chicken little , it just seemd more like a direct to video movie, not a feature film.

[EpcotMatt]

Disney need help. thats all there is to it. it's last 5 films have been finacial disasters.
because the story just wasnt' there.

grant it brother bear was a good film.

and i liked chicken little , it just seemd more like a direct to video movie, not a feature film.

Which last 5 films are you referring to?

[cxcelica]

I saw Santa Clause 3 and was really disappointed. I thought it could have been alot better. I liked Santa Clause and also thought that Santa Clause 2 was really funny.

That being said even though word of mouth was bad I thought it had a chance because I like Tim Allen, Martin Short and Alan Arkin.

Unfortunately it just did not do it.

Out of the trailers for the new disney movies, nothing really interested me. I guess Meet the Robinsons had slight interest, only because the T-Rex part made me laugh.(I am thinking of the correct movie right?)

Lets just get to POC3

[CarnotaurDad]

I'll second the question as to which five last Disney films have been financial disasters.

According to IMDB.com, the last five Disney films were:

* Santa Clause 3
* Invincible
* POTC: DMC
* Stick It
* The Wild

The only one of those five that could be considered a failure is The Wild. Are the others missing?

[Another Voice]

I believe the poster was refering the to last five animated films.

As the live action films listed, only Dead Man's Chest could be considered a box office success. All the others basically bombed in the theaters. Winning a weekend like Invincible did doesn't mean that much when a movie has to cover both its own costs and supply millions of dollars in studio overhead. For a major studio movie to have even break even today it has to cross $100 million at the box office.

There's a reason Disney has fired 25% of the studio workforce.

[MJMcBride]

For a major studio movie to have even break even today it has to cross $100 million at the box office.




I assume you're only talking movies with fairly large budgets. Romantic comedies and the like don't cost nearly as much as special effect laden movies.

Anywho, I'm off for 9 days at WDW tomorrow morning. See you cats when I get back.

[YoHo]

You can respond when you get back, but he did say MAJOR studio movies. You yourslef quoted it, but even that's a misnomer. Those Low budget romantic comedies still cost millions in promotion. I think it's safe to say that any movie that's been advertised at all (Trailers, TV, Print) needs to break $100 million to be a success.


Honestly, I wait for 9 days hense when you suggest this isn't true, but everybody I know "in the industry" rock solidly agrees with this.

[2angelsinheaven]

We saw the trailer for MTR during NBC:3D and thought it looked very cool. The 3D was much more for lack of better words 3D than that found in NBC 3D. We are looking forward to seeing it. Although I don't know about sitting through another full length 3D movie I got one heck of a headache, anyone else?

[MJMcBride]

I think it's safe to say that any movie that's been advertised at all (Trailers, TV, Print) needs to break $100 million to be a success.



Thats not true and I'm back

[YoHo]

Again, I know a couple people in the movie business and they agree, $100million minimum for any significant release.

[EUROPACL]

Thats not true and I'm back

So take a movie like Borat that was made for around 18-20 million before advertsing....that seems pretty dirt cheap as far as budgets go these days. After advertsing, distribution, backend cuts of the profits and the split with Theaters... how much are you saying that it has to make to be a "sucess and make money"?

[MJMcBride]

Again, I know a couple people in the movie business and they agree, $100million minimum for any significant release.

Just because you know some people who sell popcorn and tear off ticket stubs does not make you an "insider" :teeth:

[cxcelica]

Again, I know a couple people in the movie business and they agree, $100million minimum for any significant release.

I think its alot more complicated than that.

1. Is that $100 million in the US or Internationally that is very important distinction.

2. What about DVD sales, rentals, possible video games, licensing and broadcasting fees.

A movie does not necessarily have to hit $100 million to be a success. And it is just to general to say that the minimum goal of any major release should be $100 million. I would think that the Santa Clause does not have to come anywhere near $100 million box office to break even.

[Another Voice]

First - welcome back.

Second - you're wrong.

The $100 million box office take for "success" is on the low, low, low side of the scale. The average "low budget" studio movie is now between $50-$75 million dollars. Then on top of that you have to add in 50%-100% for marketing costs. And of course you have to remember that the distribution company only gets - on average - 50% of the box office take (and usually a lot less from the international box office). And since a lot of studios "partner up" these days there's a huge chunk that goes off to the production company. And let's not forgot all the back-end participation by the actors and directors and all of that comes from the first dollar of the studio's take (only writers are still dumb enough to take back end points).

The second biggest mistake that people make about Hollywood is assuming that it runs like the rest of Corporate America. The town’s been at this game for a hundred years now; the suits from New York have been here less than two decades. The business model of this town is made to funnel to individuals, not to companies. The real profits of Pirates of the Caribbean is going to Jerry Bruckheimer and Johnny Depp; The Walt Disney Company will be lucky to see pennies on the dollar. Sure, there will be lots that flow through the income statement (because the suits like that sort of thing), but the real cash money is ending up in French Villas and stocking the hot tubs with fresh bimbos.

[MJMcBride]

First - welcome back.

Second - you're wrong.



First of all, Thanks, it stinks to be back

Second, I never am.

I concede to your figures although I think they are a little high. A previous poster indicated Borat was made for 18-20. I know that is particularly low but it does still happen when your movie does not have Angelina Jolie/Tom Cruise type stars. But OK lets go with 50-75 mill plus another 50% for ads and the like. But if a movie like that breaks even from the screens it will surely get into the black by DVD time.

I agree that the old standard of $100 million equals blockbuster is no longer true. But its still a profitable venture for anything but the big budget special effects stuff.

[YoHo]

First of all, Thanks, it stinks to be back

Second, I never am.

I concede to your figures although I think they are a little high. A previous poster indicated Borat was made for 18-20. I know that is particularly low but it does still happen when your movie does not have Angelina Jolie/Tom Cruise type stars. But OK lets go with 50-75 mill plus another 50% for ads and the like. But if a movie like that breaks even from the screens it will surely get into the black by DVD time.

I agree that the old standard of $100 million equals blockbuster is no longer true. But its still a profitable venture for anything but the big budget special effects stuff.

Except you're still forgetting front loaded points and all the other incidentals. All the people that need to get paid off before dollar one gets back to the studio.