PDA

View Full Version : WDW Upkeep


DancingBear
04-29-2007, 09:37 AM
Very interesting and sad article from Kevin Yee:

http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky042607a.htm

BRERALEX
04-29-2007, 11:41 AM
The continued abandonment of facilities and venues sends an equally unmistakable message to the masses, and it's not one Walt would be proud of. It bespeaks of a willingness to accept "just good enough" rather than perfection.

Word

G8r4evr
04-29-2007, 12:25 PM
Very interesting and sad article from Kevin Yee:

http://www.miceage.com/kevinyee/ky042607a.htm

Very interesting article. We were really surprised by the amount of peeling paint the last time we were at the MK.

Loved the little piece about Walt and the Popcorn!

doconeill
04-29-2007, 04:15 PM
Kinda missed on the reasons for River Country though. Part of the reason it closed was because of heath issues in using water directly from Bay Lake.

It is a shame that it does qualify an entire abandoned park.

Horace Horsecollar
04-29-2007, 05:19 PM
Kinda missed on the reasons for River Country though. Part of the reason it closed was because of heath issues in using water directly from Bay Lake.

It is a shame that it does qualify an entire abandoned park.
Keeping River Country's water system completely separate from Bay Lake is not an insurmountable problem. There was a barrier separating River Country's water system from Bay Lake under the footbridge. Putting in a more substantial barrier, along with state-of-the-art water treatment, would not have been beyond Disney's capabilities or resources.

Let's assume that River Country has reached the end of it useful life, whether from a business standpoint (due to newer water parks) or an infrastructure standpoint. Then why hasn't River Country been removed? Why does Disney want an abandoned eyesore that constantly reminds anyone who sees it that Disney doesn't care about such things?

I thought Kevin Yee's article was very good. But I differentiate between those things that clearly show neglect and those things that have simply been removed.

CanadianGuy
04-29-2007, 08:54 PM
Then why hasn't River Country been removed?

I hate to be the cynical guy.. But my guess is that each successive VP of Parks (or whomever) decides that's a cost they don't want showing against their bottom line so they choose to leave it for "the future". (IE: the next guy or gal)

Knox

Another Voice
04-29-2007, 11:08 PM
Exactly Mr. Guy - WDW can not spend a dime without showing a return of at least 20%. It's the way Disney operates these days. Even the new audio system on the busses had to be "sold" on the basis that the piped in ads would generate more money in additional merchandise sales than the cost of the new speakers.

The bigger issue, and the cause of it all, is Disney's "value equation". For any park, you are given a full days of value if you see 9 rides and shows. Any more than that is just wasted expense for the company; it's better for them to save money by closing rides and having you wait in longer lines. The same goes for shops and restaurants - better to run one operation at a maximum, most efficent level than run two operations at less than efficent levels (let the guests wait, they've already paid their money).

mitros
04-29-2007, 11:16 PM
The whole situation is both sad and pitiful, Hey Iger, get off your dead a_ _, and get over to the east coast and see what WDW looks like with all of these abandoned areas. Your worse than your Father, er, I mean Ei$ner! :confused3 :guilty: :sad2:
Prices keep going up, and the availabilty to access a lot of areas is just not there........


And AV, your right again.

MasterShake
04-30-2007, 12:46 PM
I think that as the article states, Disney World is so large that it is easy to overlook these minor details. However, the details are (IMO) what makes Disney World great. I do hope they allocate additional funds to fix/remove the issues mentioned in the article.

Another Voice
04-30-2007, 01:07 PM
Overlook these minor details?????

Stay in the Pop Century resort and see if you can "overlook" the massive bombed out hulks of the unfinished buildings right across the lake (they have a bridge open that lends to no where - overlooked?). It does add a historical perspective however - it reminds me of starring over the wall and looking at the horrors of East Berlin at the height of the Cold War.

How do you overlook the huge empty theater sitting RIGHT NEXT to the hub at Disney/MGM studios? It's fight there in the center of the park.

How do you causally not notice the huge and rotten Advertureland Veranda restuarant at the Magic Kingdom? It's the first thing you see when enter the land?

How do you mentally ignore those two giant empty buildings right in the middle of Epcot's Future World? Sure, you can run through Innovientions in ten mintues - but what about all those giant rooms behind the curtains? I guess you ignore the giant - "We're closed, go way. You're not worth the expense" sign nailed to the ground infront of 'Wonders of Life' as well.

Or is this simply a case of rose colored blinders...

raidermatt
04-30-2007, 01:44 PM
I think that as the article states, Disney World is so large that it is easy to overlook these minor details. However, the details are (IMO) what makes Disney World great. I do hope they allocate additional funds to fix/remove the issues mentioned in the article.

I agree with your conclusion, though I would put forth that an increase in funding is not always necessary. In the end though, yes, it does cost money to make money.

But as AV said, the term "minor" understates the issue in some of these examples. An entire pavilion is not minor. Half of a resort is not minor. Some aren't as glaring as others, but when we think "Disney details", we usually think of truly little things, like the quality of fixtures, or the addition of show elements that escape the notice of many guests. Most of the things in the article are of much greater scale than that.

This also isn't a new revelation. As I said, Kevin does a good job of summarizing many of the issues in one place, but complaints about abandoned buildings/attractions are not a new thing. These things have been noticed by a lot of people. What's more, just like a positive detail still affects guests who don't consciously recognize it, the reverse happens with these negative things. Closed off areas might not bring an individual to an uproar, but it does impact their overall perception.

MasterShake
04-30-2007, 06:00 PM
Overlook these minor details?????

Stay in the Pop Century resort and see if you can "overlook" the massive bombed out hulks of the unfinished buildings right across the lake (they have a bridge open that lends to no where - overlooked?). It does add a historical perspective however - it reminds me of starring over the wall and looking at the horrors of East Berlin at the height of the Cold War.

How do you overlook the huge empty theater sitting RIGHT NEXT to the hub at Disney/MGM studios? It's fight there in the center of the park.

How do you causally not notice the huge and rotten Advertureland Veranda restuarant at the Magic Kingdom? It's the first thing you see when enter the land?

How do you mentally ignore those two giant empty buildings right in the middle of Epcot's Future World? Sure, you can run through Innovientions in ten mintues - but what about all those giant rooms behind the curtains? I guess you ignore the giant - "We're closed, go way. You're not worth the expense" sign nailed to the ground infront of 'Wonders of Life' as well.

Or is this simply a case of rose colored blinders...

Let's not get into an argument about blinders, because you obviously have them at the other end of the spectrum. I doubt I could find a single positive statement that you have made if I were to look at all 2,800 of your posts.

For the most part I like the way Disney World is today, however my "blinders" are not so rose colored that I can't admit that there is still room for improvement. I liked this article and I would like to see Disney resolve the issues mentioned within it..

I do not feel that the use of the word "minor" is an exaggeration, when you are looking at the big picture. As is stated in the article several of these building are still in use during peak seasons and special events. Also, most of the buildings no longer in use are still themed appropriately for the area that they are in. With the exception of the unfinished Pop Century resort, I would not call most of these places eyesores.

You make it sound like Disney has closed half of its attractions and never opens new ones. There are more things to do in these 4 parks then I can fit into a 14 day vacation. To be honest I have been to Disney World many times and I hadn't noticed half of the things that are mentioned in this article. Doesn't make them acceptable, but I would call them minor in the grand scheme…..

Please, feel free to disagree.

CanadianGuy
04-30-2007, 06:17 PM
We had a post over on the resorts board today.. it's a rumor of course.. but it speaks of a plan to finish the Legendary years with construction starting in fall of 2008 with a plan to open in late 2010 or early 2011.

What I found interesting about that post ... was that it jived with another 'rumor' I heard recently from a Disney exec. I had previously placed pretty much ZERO stock in what he had to say (and didn't post it to the boards) based on the fact that some kind of has floated for years.. but his comments mirrored the post so much I was kinda shocked.

Of course -- it could very well be the same rumor starter... just different branches of the vine.

There is something I like about some of the areas Kevin points out. The Skyway stations.. I dunno.. seeing them reminds me of having ridden the Skyway. And even tho its not there anymore, I tend to be your glass is half-full kinda guy.. so I think of the fond memories of it.. not the lack of Skyway rides today. You can have a few nods to the past like that.. just don't make the whole park that way.

The Adventureland Veranda.. I actually saw that space and wondered what used to be there. So that was nice to have an answer.

As far as Epcot goes.. Parts of the Innoventions buildings .. "ain't ever been right" .. except for the first few years of opening I think.

I remember travelling in 1995 or 96 and there was this HUGE space in one of the buildings.. where it seemed nothing was going on. Turned out they were testing the Aladdin VR thing in there somewhere and I got a chance to experience that.

But that's definitely a rare use of the space.

The upstairs area at Journey into Imagination is another HUGE area that's simply empty right now. I was surprised Kevin didn't really hit on that.

I absolutely agree with him that I think Odyssey Restaurant area is another HUGE waste of space currently that could be put to better use.

I guess if you wanna look at it this way -- the good news is that there's lots of space for future additions? :) err.. I mean :confused3

Knox

YoHo
04-30-2007, 06:48 PM
:confused3 :confused3 :confused3 :confused3

I bought some pots and some potting soil today. Time for repotting!
:confused3 :confused3 :confused3 :confused3









pirate:

Another Voice
04-30-2007, 07:32 PM
You make it sound like Disney has closed half of its attractions and never opens new ones.
And that's exactly the second half of my post -the "why are they doing this". There is a deliberate effort on Disney's part to offer less for the same amount of money. There is a deliberate effort to force higher utilization (and less service) to squeeze more margin out of the parks. That is the real problem here, empty and rotting buildings are just a symptom.

There has been a tremendous shift in the way Disney thinks over the years. It’s come in drips and daps; most people don’t even notice it over time. But this “new thinking” runs counter to everything that made the company successful in the first – and threatens the future health and existence of the parks.

Foolish, you say?

Who could have imagined twenty-five years ago that Disney Feature Animation would have produced such a string of flops that Disney would close the unit down. Who would have thought Disney would have to pay more than the value of WDW to buy a competing animation studio just to keep up with the rest of Hollywood?

Who would have thought Disney could open a theme park less than a hundred yards from Disneyland and not be successful? Paris and Hong Kong came with risks – but a second gate at Disneyland a flop? Who would have thought you’d have the head of Resorts saying Disney has to sell off WDW property to another hotel chain because Disney can’t provide high quality service? I thought the Four Seasons used to send its staff to WDW to learn about customer service, now Disney is forced to out source housekeeping to get good workers?

There are those of us old enough to remember the Real Disney and the real golden years. We know those are gone forever. But now we’re seeing even the sad little company that we have continuing to slide at an even faster rate. It didn’t take too many years to go from The Lion King to closing the door after Brother Bear. It may not take too many more years before the resorts are run by Marriott, the parks by Coca-Cola and the stores by Wal Mart.

mitros
04-30-2007, 10:14 PM
And that's exactly the second half of my post -the "why are they doing this". There is a deliberate effort on Disney's part to offer less for the same amount of money. There is a deliberate effort to force higher utilization (and less service) to squeeze more margin out of the parks. That is the real problem here, empty and rotting buildings are just a symptom.

There has been a tremendous shift in the way Disney thinks over the years. It’s come in drips and daps; most people don’t even notice it over time. But this “new thinking” runs counter to everything that made the company successful in the first – and threatens the future health and existence of the parks.

Foolish, you say?

Who could have imagined twenty-five years ago that Disney Feature Animation would have produced such a string of flops that Disney would close the unit down. Who would have thought Disney would have to pay more than the value of WDW to buy a competing animation studio just to keep up with the rest of Hollywood?

Who would have thought Disney could open a theme park less than a hundred yards from Disneyland and not be successful? Paris and Hong Kong came with risks – but a second gate at Disneyland a flop? Who would have thought you’d have the head of Resorts saying Disney has to sell off WDW property to another hotel chain because Disney can’t provide high quality service? I thought the Four Seasons used to send its staff to WDW to learn about customer service, now Disney is forced to out source housekeeping to get good workers?

There are those of us old enough to remember the Real Disney and the real golden years. We know those are gone forever. But now we’re seeing even the sad little company that we have continuing to slide at an even faster rate. It didn’t take too many years to go from The Lion King to closing the door after Brother Bear. It may not take too many more years before the resorts are run by Marriott, the parks by Coca-Cola and the stores by Wal Mart.

All too true...... I'm now officially depressed ..... :sad2:

a1tinkfans
05-05-2007, 04:24 PM
Interesting article!
SAD!

Uncleromulus
05-06-2007, 05:27 AM
It does appear that maintenance and upkeep aren't what they used to be.

And I do agree with AnotherVoice. We're seeing the slow homogenization of Disney and someday it won't even resemble the Disney that I knew as a kid. Or since 1975 when we started going to WDW.
As Petula Clark sings--It's "A Sign of the Times"

TheDogbots
05-09-2007, 01:21 AM
But now we’re seeing even the sad little company that we have continuing to slide at an even faster rate. It didn’t take too many years to go from The Lion King to closing the door after Brother Bear. It may not take too many more years before the resorts are run by Marriott, the parks by Coca-Cola and the stores by Wal Mart.


exactly, kinda where I was going back on the chicken fingers er... tortuga thread.


Quality brings longevity...

Although I think the company is doomed to be piece-mealed out anyway. It is just how corporate America works. The Saudis will probably buy it or something...

YoHo
05-09-2007, 01:42 AM
You may be right given how managment dislikes the parks.

There've been rumors that Iger's looking to break off Disney Studios and ABC. He was always a TV guy anyway. Unfortunatly, as the rumors go, the parks would be sold to the highest bidder.

Of course, even that might be OK depending on who ran the parks and who ran the Studio.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

EUROPACL
05-09-2007, 09:08 AM
You may be right given how managment dislikes the parks.

There've been rumors that Iger's looking to break off Disney Studios and ABC. He was always a TV guy anyway. Unfortunatly, as the rumors go, the parks would be sold to the highest bidder.

Of course, even that might be OK depending on who ran the parks and who ran the Studio.

I wouldn't hold my breath though.

I was wondering if anyone else saw the writtting on the wall for the parks. Eisner tried several times to sell them off. The parks need a major reinvestment and we know they don't want to spend the money. Plus who really wants to deal with the DVC and other Hotel problems that will be coming up?

Another Voice
05-09-2007, 12:02 PM
There's a huge issue for Disney however, the parks are the only part of the company that generates huge wads of cash.

Movies and networks are rotten businesses to base a corporation on. Success and failure is instant, the finances go up and down all the time. Network television is as "cutting edge" as the horse-drawn buggy today; movie studios are about to be hit with the same digital tidal wave that destroyed the record companies.

All the other Monster Mega Major Media Monoliths have another "core" business that exists to pump cash into the parent company and help keep things stable. Warner Brothers has a massive cable television company that eagerly collects all your monthly checks, Universal NBC is backed by General Electric. Columbia Picture and Spider-man can ask Sony for help; Paramount/CBS can look to Viacom's fingers in billboards, advertising and concert venues. And Fox has international publishing, a stranlgehold on international satellite television and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (smilie) to bail it out.

Disney has the parks. Hugely successful in their own right, they pump tremendous amounts of cash into the organizaiton. It cost Disney more than $300 million to make Pirates 3 - all that cash had to come from somewhere (and it wasn't from the DVD sales of Chicken Little). Nor was the $7 billion to pay-off Steve Jobs and buy Pixar found underneath in the sofa in the executive wash room.

Withouth the parks, Disney is left with a minor movie studio that's able to release one large movie a year, a troublesome animation company less than thrilled to be tied to company they all left in disgust, a television network with declining revenues and ratings that has yet to produce a powerhouse profitable series along the lines of Friends or CSI[/], a licensee group that constantly needs new characters to sell, and the bright spot - a sports network.

But showing endless reruns of cheerleader contents isn't going to pay for [i]Pirates 4. So Disney is rather stuck right now. Management hates the theme park business. They think it's high investment, low return. They think the market is mature, that there is no more easy growth that can be squeezed out. Expanding Disney's brand outside of the parks is going to take huge amounts of cash (the same money they'd rather make movies with).

That's what Iger and fiends are working on - how do you get rid of the parks yet keep the cash flows coming in. Tokyo was the model for a while, but both Paris and Hong Kong have turned into disasters (which is why Rasulo might not be around much longer). So in the mean time Disney is going to squeeze everything they can get and put as little into them as possible.

Besides, have you heard what Tim Allen's salary demand is for Wilder Hogs?

MasterShake
05-11-2007, 05:32 PM
There's a huge issue for Disney however, the parks are the only part of the company that generates huge wads of cash.
[/i]?

The parks can't be the only part of Disney that generates huge amounts of cash. Last year the parks and resorts worldwide made about 1.53 billion for Disney after operating costs. That's an average of 382 million a quarter. Disney has made a net profit of 723 million the first quarter and 931 million the second. That means that the parks are approximately 46% of Disney's profit. So you are half right, the parks are a huge amount of the income, but not the only major income for the company.




Withouth the parks, Disney is left with a minor movie studio that's able to release one large movie a year, a troublesome animation company less than thrilled to be tied to company they all left in disgust, a television network with declining revenues and ratings that has yet to produce a powerhouse profitable series along the lines of Friends or CSI[/], a licensee group that constantly needs new characters to sell, and the bright spot - a sports network.
?

Disney as a whole has more then one or two major movies coming out in 07. I would say all of these are major releases:

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
Meet The Robinsons (2007)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Ratatouille (2007)
National Treasure: The Book of Secrets (2007)

In 2005-2006 ABC had 3 of the top ten most viewed shows. Dancing With the Stars was only beaten by American Idol and its ratings were better then CSI (#4). Grey's anatomy and Desperate Housewives also made the top ten list and Lost cracked the top 20 at number 15.



That's what Iger and fiends are working on - how do you get rid of the parks yet keep the cash flows coming in. Tokyo was the model for a while, but both Paris and Hong Kong have turned into disasters (which is why Rasulo might not be around much longer).
[/i]?

While Paris and Hong Kong are not doing a great business, I think disaster is too strong a word. From what I read (and maybe I'm wrong) both are profitable, but not making nearly as much as what was hoped.


So in the mean time Disney is going to squeeze everything they can get and put as little into them as possible.
[/i]?

You keep saying this, but the numbers don't seem to back it up. Disney had 9.9 billion in revenue from the parks in 2006. After operating costs they had a net profit of 1.53 billion in 2006. That means that they spent 8.37 billion on running and improving the parks/resorts.

EUROPACL
05-11-2007, 10:00 PM
Disney as a whole has more then one or two major movies coming out in 07. I would say all of these are major releases:

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)
Meet The Robinsons (2007)
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Ratatouille (2007)
National Treasure: The Book of Secrets (2007)

In 2005-2006 ABC had 3 of the top ten most viewed shows. Dancing With the Stars was only beaten by American Idol and its ratings were better then CSI (#4). Grey's anatomy and Desperate Housewives also made the top ten list and Lost cracked the top 20 at number 15.



Bridege To Terabithia ...bombed.
Meet The Robinsons ...bombed.
Pirates At Worlds End is rumored to be costing around 400 million which means some around 1.2 billion to make a profit. The second one was a bloated mess with too many plot lines. Lets hope the third one can clean things up.

Ratatouille is a Pixar movie and we will just have to see how well it does.

National Treasure: The Book of Secrets ....I can only assume wil be a as stupid as the first so I know for a fact that this one will make money.


I don't watch ABC and those three shows you listed are part of the reason why. I doubt that if you asked anyone if those shows you listed are the type of High Quality Entertainment that made them fall in love with Disney....I doubt they would say yes.

MasterShake
05-11-2007, 10:04 PM
Bridege To Terabithia ...bombed.
Meet The Robinsons ...bombed.
Pirates At Worlds End is rumored to be costing around 400 million which means some around 1.2 billion to make a profit. The second one was a bloated mess with too many plot lines. Lets hope the third one can clean things up.

Ratatouille is a Pixar movie and we will just have to see how well it does.

National Treasure: The Book of Secrets ....I can only assume wil be a as stupid as the first so I know for a fact that this one will make money.


I don't watch ABC and those three shows you listed are part of the reason why. I doubt that if you asked anyone if those shows you listed are the type of High Quality Entertainment that made them fall in love with Disney....I doubt they would say yes.

Much of what you said is true, however they are big movie releases (even if a few of them bomb). You'll notice I didn't mention Wild Hogs even though that did pretty well. Since Disney spent a crap load of money to buy Pixar, I think that makes Ratatouille one of their movies.


As far as the ABC shows I think Lost in the only one I remotely like, but a LOT of people watch and enjoy the other shows I mentioned.

YoHo
05-11-2007, 10:20 PM
None of which has a single thing to do with What AV said.

AV said that without the money from the Parks, Disney would be able to release only 1 large movie a year and then included the animation group seperately.
So far, the 2 releases you indicate are major, that have come out, have tanked. Certainly that doesn't bode well for the financials.

Another Voice
05-11-2007, 11:23 PM
"Profit" is not the same thing as "cash". Basic accounting.

Pirates 3 will be earning "revenue" for years as it plays in theaters, sells DVDs and then gets dunmped on basic cable. But all the costs to make the movie have to be payed for now - the catering company isn't going to wait five years to be paid for Johnny's "munchie runs" in Jamacia, they want their money, their cash right now.

Where did you think that $300 million in good U.S currency comes from?

MasterShake
05-12-2007, 08:27 AM
None of which has a single thing to do with What AV said. AV said that without the money from the Parks, Disney would be able to release only 1 large movie a year and then included the animation group separately.



He stated that the parks where the only thing making money and that is not true. I listed the best facts I could find to prove my point. If Disney has a net income of 931 million for the second quarter and the parks made them 382million of that, then they are still getting 549 million. So that gives Disney 549 million to work with from the second quarter alone. I realize this is only for one quarter, but if they have an average net earning anywhere near this every quarter, then this would be more then enough to open several big budget (non-Animated) films.

So far, the 2 releases you indicate are major that have come out, have tanked. Certainly that doesn't bode well for the financials.

Also I went on line and looked at best estimates on production costs and current revenues from some of the movies mentioned above:

---------------------------------
Bridge to Terabithia

Estimated Cost - $60 - $80 million
Current Box Office - $113,697,649

Bridge to Terabithia had a higher then expected opening weekend according to most analysts. With DVD sales and future earnings this will probably make a decent profit.
---------------------------------
Wild Hogs

Estimated Cost - $60 million
Current Box Office - $225,269,656

A terrible movie (from what I have heard), but it still made a crazy amount of money.
----------------------------------
Meet the Robinsons

Estimated Cost - $100 million
Current Box Office - $140,922,967

This is probably the closest thing to a bomb out of the movies that I have mentioned so far, but will probably post a profit in the end as well.

doconeill
05-12-2007, 09:00 AM
Ah, but don 't you know that no movie in history (well, maybe very few) has made a "profit", according to Studio accountants? Ask any producer, director, etc. - especially if they have a stake in the net profits.

Hollywood gets to do some funny math with their numbers - like taking revenues from one movie that has done well to offset a true bomb, and in the final accounting the movie that took in all the money breaks even...

MasterShake
05-12-2007, 09:39 AM
"Profit" is not the same thing as "cash". Basic accounting.

Pirates 3 will be earning "revenue" for years as it plays in theaters, sells DVDs and then gets dunmped on basic cable. But all the costs to make the movie have to be payed for now - the catering company isn't going to wait five years to be paid for Johnny's "munchie runs" in Jamacia, they want their money, their cash right now.

Where did you think that $300 million in good U.S currency comes from?

Well I will admit that I did not major in accounting, but let's take a look at what the article states.

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Net income at The Walt Disney Co. increased 27 percent in the second quarter, boosted by strong results from its film studio, advertising sales at ESPN and international sales of its TV shows, including "Desperate Housewives."

The media conglomerate, based in Burbank, said Tuesday its net income for the quarter ended March 31 was $931 million, or 44 cents per share, compared with $733 million, or 37 cents per share, in the same period a year ago.

They use the term Net Income. I was pretty sure I knew the definition for Net Income, but I looked it up anyway. This is the definition I found:

Net income is equal to the income that a firm has after subtracting costs and expenses from the total revenue. Net income is primarily an accounting term used in the US; in other countries (such as the UK) profit is the usual term.

Again I might be wrong, but it sounds like Disney (after costs) made $931 million during the second quarter of 2007.

As you mentioned I know it can take years to make money off of some of these big budget movies, but Disney has been making big budget movies for a while now. Even if they spend 300 million on the current pirate’s movie, they are still collecting money on hundreds of other movies previously released. Couldn't a lot of the money be coming from those previous movies, just like future money will be coming from Pirates 3?

The article also mentions that Revenue is flat. So they are making approximately the same amount of money, but spending less. We know that operating costs have increased at the parks, so the decrease in spending is not being made there. While you may not like the movies, they are still spending big bucks to make them. I know a lot of cuts have been made (some questionable), but do we have any figures that show where the majority of the cuts took place?

EUROPACL
05-12-2007, 04:17 PM
Also I went on line and looked at best estimates on production costs and current revenues from some of the movies mentioned above:



AV who works in the biz has stated several times before that typically a movies needs to make back 3x its production and advertising cost in order to turn a profit. You need to understand that box office money is split between the studios and the theaters. It gets even more complicated when you have more than one studio involved with the release, a big named star who may get a back end cut or directors and producers that have their hand in the pot too.. Deep is rumored to be making around 150 million for the three pirates movies when its all said and done.

MasterShake
05-12-2007, 05:11 PM
AV who works in the biz has stated several times before that typically a movies needs to make back 3x its production and advertising cost in order to turn a profit. You need to understand that box office money is split between the studios and the theaters. It gets even more complicated when you have more than one studio involved with the release, a big named star who may get a back end cut or directors and producers that have their hand in the pot too.. Deep is rumored to be making around 150 million for the three pirates movies when its all said and done.

Yeah, just doing the little bit of research online was like pulling teeth, with all of the factors that need to be considered. But, I would assume that they do end up being profitable (most of the time) otherwise they would stop making them.

EUROPACL
05-12-2007, 05:50 PM
Yeah, just doing the little bit of research online was like pulling teeth, with all of the factors that need to be considered. But, I would assume that they do end up being profitable (most of the time) otherwise they would stop making them.


Sort of the way airlines, restaurants and car companies work uh? I would assume that most of them end up being profitable too else they would not keep opening new restaurants, making new cars or flying to New York.

YoHo
05-12-2007, 11:52 PM
Profitable for who?


I'd like to know which big budget films disney has made, besides the PotC movies, that you think are generating profits?

Pearl Harbor?

MasterShake
05-13-2007, 12:15 AM
Profitable for who?


I'd like to know which big budget films disney has made, besides the PotC movies, that you think are generating profits?

Pearl Harbor?

Chronicles of Narnia, Wild hogs, and National Treasure are the only 3 that are live action that I can think of from the last 4 years. (Not including POTC 1 & 2) Also, I'm sure they are getting residuals on previous animated films.

YoHo
05-13-2007, 12:28 AM
Yeah, they're getting residuals on Snow White too. Doesn't mean much for their current prospects does it.

Chronicles of Narnia sends a lot of it's money to Walden. I'd be shocked if National Treasure is still making them any significant money and Wild Hogs wasn't a big budget film.