Underdog nets 12 million at box office

[crazy4wdw]

Box office mojo is reporting that Walt Dinsey Pictures' "Underdog" made just over 12 million for its opening weekend. On a more positive note, the total box office for Ratatouille stands at $239,172,000. Also, the total box office for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End stands at $951,609,947.

[EUROPACL]

Does anyone have any numbers on what this thing cost to make and market? Boxoffice Mojo dosen't list any numbers for it. AV have you heard any numbers?

[Another Voice]

This one is such an embarrassment that I haven’t heard anyone talking about it. The phrase I like is that it’s “disappearing off resumes all over town”.

I’ve haven’t seen any figures, but I’m guessing $55-$65 million to make and about a $15-$20 marketing. CGI effects still cost a lot the way Disney does it (hiring them out to other studios who charge a premium). And both of those are probably on the low end – Disney’s rather forgotten how to make low budget flicks these days.

There no real reason why this movie was made. It happened because someone in marketing thought they had a slot for a late summer movie and (this is the real reason) if people don’t work they don’t get paid. For most suits and others in Hollywood, the quality of the movie they’ve okay’d is far less important than filling the production pipeline with something. When the movie flops, the suits can always find some way to blame it on the audience.*

“People are tired of super hero movies” is the excuse I’m putting my money on come the office pool on Monday.


* - This is how ABC has been working for a decade now. Face it – no real executive would have ever spent money to put ‘National Bingo Night’ on the air if they had the slightest bit of responsibility for their actions.

[EUROPACL]

I’ve haven’t seen any figures, but I’m guessing $55-$65 million to make and about a $15-$20 marketing. CGI effects still cost a lot the way Disney does it (hiring them out to other studios who charge a premium). And both of those are probably on the low end – Disney’s rather forgotten how to make low budget flicks these days.



I am still amazed at just how much money is spent making a movie these days. I always have these "what if" ideas that pop up in my mind and I can't even begin to think how I would spend more than a few million in my entire life (if I had it).


“People are tired of super hero movies” is the excuse I’m putting my money on come the office pool on Monday.



More like people are tired of bad super hero movies like Spiderman 3, Catwomen, Ghost Rider, Fantastic 4, Superman Returns, and X-Men 3. I have big hope for next summers Iron Man movie...I saw the comic con footage of some of it and it looks really good they really nailed Tony Stark by casting Robert Downey Jr. Jon Favreau really seems to be staying true to the comic book and IMO that is the first spot they tend to go wrong with these types of movies. I think that is one reason why I liked Sin City so much it was pretty much the comic book come to life. (and the great casting).

[Another Voice]

Between studio overhead and Hollywood's ancient, undfunctional guild system - just making a studio moives costs $25 million before anything happens at all. There's no reason why movies cost so much at all - the vast majority of the money spent on a flick never shows up on the screen. Look at the budget for At World's End - how much just went into the care and feeding of Depp's and Bruckheimer's ego? Better yet, Google for the court records for the lawsuit over Sahara.

Hollywood has been shown time and time again the way to the future - both The Lord of the Rings and 300 were megahits that cost a fraction of what a studio production would have cost. Both also had amazing stories, another lesson people at Disney refuse to learn and so they continue with inane wastes like Underdog.

You really have to be a superior idiot to sit at a desk and say, "Let's spend $100 million to make and market a movie about a talking beagle that has nothing to do with the forgotten cartoon we paid huge bucks to buy just we have something to show on DisneyToon Channel".

As for "bad" superhero movies - Hollywood doesn't make bad movies. It's you mouth-breathing, cousin-marrying, WalMart-shopping, trailer-living yokels that live in that wasteland between Manhatten and Malibu that are the problem. You didn't respond to the movies like you were supposed to. If you listen to Hollywood suits, everything the town turns out is desitined to be a hit if only some unfortunate situation didn't occur.

From conversations I had (and these are real reasons that real people have told me), Spider-man 3 was a disappointment because American's resented the fact that the movie premired in Tokyo before the U.S., Shrek the Third fell short of expectations because it got "too European" with the King Arthur storyline, and Pirates 3 flopped because Kieth Richards said he snorted his father's ashes and it turned people off to his cameo.

[hannah's dad]

From conversations I had (and these are real reasons that real people have told me), Spider-man 3 was a disappointment because American's resented the fact that the movie premired in Tokyo before the U.S., Shrek the Third fell short of expectations because it got "too European" with the King Arthur storyline, and Pirates 3 flopped because Kieth Richards said he snorted his father's ashes and it turned people off to his cameo.

If movie-makers are really stupid enough to believe this, they deserve all of the failure that accrues to them. But I suppose the failure doesn't usually hit them in the wallet.

[KMovies]

I bet that Underdog wasn't very expensive and will do OK on DVD. Not every movie is set out to be a blockbuster.

Look at Daddy Day Camp ... that has "straight to DVD" written all over it and will likely do worse than Underdog.

[EUROPACL]

Hollywood has been shown time and time again the way to the future - both The Lord of the Rings and 300 were megahits that cost a fraction of what a studio production would have cost. Both also had amazing stories, another lesson people at Disney refuse to learn and so they continue with inane wastes like Underdog.



I'm glad Disney lost the rights to LOTR....we got three great movies out of the deal without Eisners hands all over it. Sorta the same way I feel about Harry Potter.


As for "bad" superhero movies - Hollywood doesn't make bad movies. It's you mouth-breathing, cousin-marrying, WalMart-shopping, trailer-living yokels that live in that wasteland between Manhatten and Malibu that are the problem.


To be honest I have sleep apnea...so the mouth breathing is not my fault. I shop at Target (hate walmat..its always dirty). I did live in a trailer in College but have a nice house now....and that thing with my cousin was a one time deal. :rotfl2: :rotfl2:


KMovies I bet that Underdog wasn't very expensive and will do OK on DVD. Not every movie is set out to be a blockbuster.

Look at Daddy Day Camp ... that has "straight to DVD" written all over it and will likely do worse than Underdog.

I don't know 100 million sounds like 101 million too much. I don't expect every movie to be a blockbuster movie either...there are tons of good low budget movies and Underdog is/was never going to be one of them. I'm not so sure you help the cause for Underdog by listing movies that will do worse.

[Sosai X]

Remember the recent movie "Evan Almighty"? Wanna know how much that cost to make? Ready for this?

$175,000,000.

One hundred and seventy five MILLION dollars. Return of the King cost just over 90 million, and is three times longer. Throwing money on a garbage script doesn't make it better. What was that phrase, something of lipstick and pigs I think.. pirate:

[Another Voice]

That was just the budgeted costs for Evan Almighty - and even then it was the most costly comedy of all time. The grapevine in Hollywood puts it's final actually cost at just over $250 million. It's one of the most costly flops of all time.

[bnlbebes]

Underdog, The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle, George of the Jungle...

Why does Hollywood keep digging up these old cartoons and then making them into something completely different? How do they expect to market nostalgic entertainment to a young audience who is not part of the nostalgia? If you are going to revive a "classic" then be faithful to it, so at least the older fans might appreciate it, give it a good review, take their family to see it, and renew interest in what may be a worthwhile investment.

[Another Voice]

Why does Hollywood keep digging up these old cartoons and then making them into something completely different?
Because the rights are cheap and they've already been "proven" successful.

The cost for a Hollywood movie is so great that studios are very relucant to risk $200 million on a "new" idea. Making a movie from another media - television, comic books, commercials - is supposed to bring along a "built-in" audience.

[DisOrBust]

Has anyone seen it????

[EUROPACL]

Has anyone seen it????

With a total boxoffice of around 25million in 10 Days and opening on just over 3,000 screens...if you figure an average ticket price of 6.00 (Adult and Child)...that means that around 138 people per screen per day or just over 416,000 people total. Good luck finding anyone that has seen it. Although I did see a post on the Community board gushing over the movie (go figure). If you really need to see the movie on the big screen I feel this may be your last week to catch it.

[MomofKatie]

DD8 and I saw it yesterday. DD laughed all the way through. I thought it was cute, harmless entertainment meant for children.

Who here discussing how disappointing and awful it was is a member of Underdog's target audience (kids and tweens)??:confused:

Personally, as an adult, I wouldn't have paid to watch it- but I wouldn't be interested in a movie about a talking dog in the first place. My DD wanted to see it, and she was completely satisfied. Wasn't that the purpose of the movie??

[Another Voice]

Wasn't that the purpose of the movie??
The "goal" of Disney is to provide family entertainment that parents can enjoy as much as their childern do - The Little Mermaid, The Lion King and such.

Making a six year old laugh is easy. Making a six-year old and their parent laugh is a difficult. It's also where the big office is. No strickly-kiddie flick will make enough money to cover its production cost.

There is no reason why Underdog could not have been a movie that appealed to children and adults. It would have taken effort, talent and imagination - but it would have been possible. Sadly, Disney acts like it lacks all three of those ingredients.

But the bigger shame it that people let Disney get away with insulting product "becasue its for the kids". Disney is better than that; we deserve better than that as well.

[KMovies]

I guess people don't understand or know the movie business.

Studios make movies for various reasons, some big budget, some small budget. Some that will do well in theatres, others that won't.

Take for example Daddy Day Camp. That movie earned 1/4 of what Underdog did in the opening weekend. It was planned for straight for DVD but instead was released to the theatres as a big commercial for the DVD. It will probably generate a profit on DVD but we all laugh at it.

Underdog wasn't going to be a major film. That would be Pirates or Ratatouille. Disney was looking ahead at the DVD and TV for a film such as Underdog.

Here are studios and grosses for 2007

Paramount 1158.9 mil / 10 new movies / 116m per movie
Warner Bros 946.7 mil / 12 new movies / 79m per movie
BV (Disney) 910.9 mil / 8 new movies / 114m per movie
Sony 882.9 /mil 15 new movies / 59m per movie
Universal 664.8 mil / 11 new movies / 60m per movie

As you can see, the studios has released the least number of movies yet are in the middle of the pack for overall money. Secondly, they are almost at the top per movie.

While Disney may have expected Underdog to do better, just look at several movies that came out this month. Stardust, Hot Rod, Bratz, Daddy Day Camp - all are performing much worse.

Yes, we may want every movie to appeal to everyone, but what studio does that?

Come on, give Underdog a break. It's doing what was expected.

[Another Voice]

Come on, give Underdog a break. It's doing what was expected.
In the sense that Disney make a really bad movie that they had no hope of being a success - yes then that business plan is working out just well.

However, don't we expect a little bit more from Disney? Do you really want to be a fan of "we know it stinks, but stupid people will still give us money"? Is that mark of success "we're not as bad off as the guys down the street"?

How puny are your ambitions.

P.S. - Take out the bloat of At World's End (which is still loosing money) and see how the your chart works now.

[KMovies]

Who said no hope of success -

Disney released a movie, probably not expecting to make a profit in the theatres (most films do not), but would be successful in the DVD market and then a film that can be run on the Disney Channel, Starz, ABC Family, ABC Saturday night movie.

Gosh, people are forgetting that a movie has a life after its theatrical run.

[KMovies]

Take out Spiderman out of Sony and see where they are.

Take Shrek out of Paramount and see where they are.

Take Harry Potter out of Warner and see where they are.

Take Knocked Up out of Universal and see where they are.

By the way, Disney did not lose money on Pirates 3. It has grossed over 950 mil worldwide - just 100 mil behind Pirates 2.

PS - Pirates 3 will be coming out on DVD too - so more money.

[EUROPACL]

While Disney may have expected Underdog to do better, just look at several movies that came out this month. Stardust, Hot Rod, Bratz, Daddy Day Camp - all are performing much worse.

Yes, we may want every movie to appeal to everyone, but what studio does that?

Come on, give Underdog a break. It's doing what was expected.

I'm so confused why you are so willing and happy to accept bad movies from any company much less Disney. You seem to really enjoy the fact that these films are bad and down right insulting as far as entertainment goes. Why blow the horn and anounce just how great these bad movies are compared to another? It's like expecting a bad meal at every place you go becuase of Mcdonalds and citing the Mcrib as something worse than the crap sandwich you were just served.

[raidermatt]

By the way, Disney did not lose money on Pirates 3. It has grossed over 950 mil worldwide - just 100 mil behind Pirates 2.

Whether it has made money so far or not is debateable. Up to 1/2 of the gross goes back to the theatre companies. That leaves $475 million. Production budget was minimum $300 million. That leaves $175 million. Depp gets a big payday. Bruckheimer's production company surely gets a percentage. Marketing.

There's not a whole lot left.

Sure, it will make money on DVD sales and such, but you can't say that coming up $100 million behind Pirates 2 is what Disney had in mind.

Gosh, people are forgetting that a movie has a life after its theatrical run.

Nobody is forgetting it.

Don't well made movies have a life after their theatrical run also? An even better life than most junky movies?

What made more money in it's post-theatrical run.... Cars or Home on the Range?

Will Daddy Day Camp do better than the Princess Diaries in its post-theatrical run?

Is Daddy Day Camp and Underdog what Disney means to you?

[KMovies]

I do not feel that Disney is disappointed in At World's End at all.

First, it was filmed prior to the release of Dead Man's Chest. Therefore, it wasn't as if they decided to make part III because of the success of Part II.

Here are the TOP 5 grossers worldwide of ALL TIME

Titanic 1.845 billion

Return of the King 1.118 billion

Dead Man's Chest 1.066

Sorcerer's Stone 976.5

At World' End 954.7


Notice anything ????? Disney is there 2 times!!!! Pirates is up there 2 times!!!

How could anyone be disappointed in the theatrical runs of the last 2 Pirates films???

I'm sorry if people feel that Underdog wasn't worth a gamble. Maybe Disney should release 1 or 2 films a year - all big blockbuster films. Ignore the fact that most studios have a few blockbusters, a few cheap films, some middle of the road films. Some that are expected to get 200 mil, others 100 mil, some 50 mil and others 10 mil.

Ignore the fact that some films are made to appeal to select audiences, some to all audiences, some more for international gross, some more for domestic gross, some for DVD, some as a package deal to get other films made.

Nope, all films should be made the same - just blockbuster, just zillion dollar budgets, just to be released in the summer.

Nope, Underdog should never have been made. Home on the Range never made. Pacifier never made. Father of the Bride never made. Pirates 3 never made. Lilo and Stitch never made (it grossed less than Lion King) ... Lion King never made (it grossed less than Shrek 2). Finding Nemo never made (it grossed less than Shrek 2).

If you can not make a film that will beat Titantic ... don't do it.

Never build Epcot. It won't beat Magic Kingdom. Don't build Animal Kingdom. It won't beat Epcot. Don't make Dancing with the Stars. It won't beat American Idol.

Meanwhile, Underdog has held up fairly nice at the box office - just like most family films do. Sure, it could have been better - but when can't you say that???????????????????//

[DancingBear]

INope, all films should be made the same - just blockbuster, just zillion dollar budgets, just to be released in the summer.Who said that? Clearly budget does not equal quality.

[Another Voice]

How could anyone be disappointed in the theatrical runs of the last 2 Pirates films???
Especially since those movies cost absoluetly nothing to make. Nadda, zip, nill, freebe, gratis, not one thin dime...

Yes - all that money just gushes right into Disney's checking account and it's free doughnuts for everyone!!!!!

Oh wait...


No is saying Disney shouldn't be making low budget movies - in fact, that's where I think the studio lays.

What we're saying is that Disney shouldn't intentionall make bad movies. There wasn't a single moment throughout the years of development on Underdog that anyone tried for a single moment to make a movie that wasn't a steaming pile of pooh.

You may not care about quality, you may wish to abuse children with this dreck - but others see things differently. Some people actually want to take their childern to good movies - not just kill a couple hours of their lives.

So when you root for a corporate bottom line inflated by garbage and junk, expect for normal people to stand up and say that we want good movies.

[KMovies]

I believe that Disney is just fine with how much money it is placing in the check book for Pirates.

Infact, to say that they are not, why would you ever make such a movie? I mean if 2 billion dollars for 2 films isn't enough to stuff the check book ... it would almost be impossible to do better than these films have done in the marketplace.

Let's wait and see how many DVDs are sold ... I would assume it will do just fine on DVD. Something that Disney considered while they made the film.

[KMovies]

Sometimes lack of Quality does pay off.

Borat!

No Quality there - but a huge payoff.

[Another Voice]

it would almost be impossible to do better than these films have done in the marketplace.
Funny - those three movies about the little guys and a ring cost did much better than Pirates did and all three movies combined cost less to make than At World's End did. And they've sold many times more DVD than the guy with the squid face did too.

Looks like Disney are flaming idiots, doesn't it.

[KMovies]

Guess So -

Pirates triology wasn't successful and even though it added a boat load of money for Disney, it just wasn't enough. Got to laugh.

Guess they should go back to doing what they do best - straight to video DVDs.

LOTR and POC were both hugely successful - something that doesn't happen a lot in Hollywood. That doesn't mean that there should have just been one triology made.

There is room for both.

[DancingBear]

Guess they should go back to doing what they do best - straight to video DVDs.Again, who said anything of the kind?

LOTR and POC were both hugely successful - something that doesn't happen a lot in Hollywood. That doesn't mean that there should have just been one triology made.Again, who said that? My guess is everyone would say the first Pirates movie was very good. The question is why weren't the second two as good.

[Peter Pirate 2]

That doesn't seem quite fair though DB, the second two were OK (better than average, IMO) but the whole idea, the whole premise was a bit convoluted to start with. The quality and success of the first movie was a complete shock and I think it'd be neigh on impossible for them to have surprised us with the next two.

LOTR was an adaptation of great literature so this was no surprise although I still didn't like the movies much as they were just so predictable as always happens to book adaptations, IMO. So from a quality aspect I don't see the LOTR triogy as a clear winner at all nor do I see the fact that Disney may not actually be making any money from the last flick as indicitive of anything other than bad business from Disney, as for me I'm very happy they made the 2nd and 3rd even if they don't make Disney any money. They were still popular and entertaining movies.

Now Underdog is a film I would have defended Disney's right to make a couple of years ago as it probably will be good enough to fill the coffers a bit with very little risk but I now see this thinking as counterproductive. Voice said something that I agree with along the lines of 'anyone can make a 6 year old laugh but it takes talent to make a 6 year old and their parents laugh'...I agree with this and I think Disney and probably any self respecting film maker should strive for this. The direct to video movie lowers the bar for what filmakers can offer. I don't want a film maker to strive to make a movie that will be cheap and profitable (let the bean counters worry about that) I want a filmaker to strive for the best he can do, otherwise I don't think he's so much an artist as a prostitute.
pirate:

[Another Voice]

My thoughts exactly Mr. Pirate.

Hollywood produces a lot of junk. It's poorly made, just the barest minium product that they can put on a screen or over the airwaves to make a buck.

What a waste.

My life is already filled with enough unpleasantness as it is, I have to suffer daily from the lax efforts of others.

Why should I have to put up with it in my entertainment as well?

Sure, there are probably the shallow, stupid people that cheer on bad movies under some bad idea that "money=good" for a company. But overtime bad movies don't really make money, and the companies that make bad movies don't last all that long - remember MGM?

What got me interested in Disney to begin with was there movies - fresh, imaginative, able to be meaningful to different people on different levels. Those of the elements of good film making.

I want that to continue. I want Disney to make great movies, I want them to enrich my life and the lives of my family. I want them to be great.

I don't get the brainless follower mentality - the ones who cheerlead a company or group no matter what. Garbage is garbage - it makes no difference if Underdog was released by Disney or by Sony. It's a bad movie that should have never been made.

But I guess some people get so wrapped up in being a cheerleader for their "side", they forget what they're actually cheerleading for.

[MomofKatie]

OK, last time I'll chime in- I'm sure I won't change any minds, but I can't keep reading all this bashing of all us "shallow, stupid people" who are "brainless followers" and stay silent.

You want to see movies that are meaningful to different people. You want people's lives to be enriched by seeing them. Great- how about this? MY 8 year old daughter (who was in the age range the movie was aimed at) loved the movie. It was meaningful to her. It enriched her 2 hours that she spent at the theater.

Because it wasn't meaningful TO YOU, don't bash it!!! YOU didn't like it- great. Feel free not to contribute to its bottom line. But don't make disparaging comments about those who did.

If you were a member of the targeted audience, you'd probably be singing another tune. All the 7 to 11 year olds I've talked to liked it. And their parents seemed to like it too- if only for the fact that their kids liked it and they could spend time with them.

[EUROPACL]

I'm reminded of a time when I was young...I knocked one of those glasses off the table that McDonalds or Hardees gave away (It was a Smurf Glass)...my Mom reached across the table and gave me a good smack and said " Darnit(only the other word) we can't have nice things".

[Peter Pirate 2]

MomofKate, shouldn't it be both? Shouldn't a filmaker or movie company strive to entertain both the child and the kid? We know they can do it based on the volumes of Disney classics? Why should we be accepting of crap just because it was made with only the kiddo's (and the quick buck) in mind? Won't the experience be better if all involved are better for the experience? In the long run, wouldn't your child be better off appreciating a well made movie?
pirate:

[KMovies]

It's not that most commenters didn't LIKE the movie ... it's that they had no intension of seeing it and then made fun of a $12 mil gross ... which for most movies, would be awsome opening weekend.

[DancingBear]

I saw it. It was entirely predictable. They couldn't even find a reasonable way to work the girl into the story. My 6yo was mildly entertained (bored in parts) but forgot the movie as soon as we walked out of the theater. I was disappointed that this had absolutely nothing to do with the Underdog cartoons of my youth.

On the other hand, there have been many films that my son and I have enjoyed together, and which he still wants to watch on DVD or when they show up on cable (and which I'll watch with him)--Cars, Stuart Little, Wallace & Gromit, the first Shrek, Princess Bride, Madeline, Babe,etc.

[mitros]

Cripes in a hand basket guys, it wasn't THAT bad! We took our 5 yesr old niece, and we all enjoyed it. It was cute as well as entertaining. Too bad that there is so much distaste for the movie in this thread.
And while I usually agree with AV on pretty much everything, I'll part company with him on this one...........:confused3

PS: Hey AV, I'm sorry that your life is filled with all that unpleasentness. And regarding your daily suffering from the lax efforts of others, maybe you need to get involved with some other people in your life. And as much as that may seem sarcastic, believe me, that is not what I was trying for.

[Another Voice]

When you work in Hollywood, it's not like you have a high class of people to choose from, you know?

Hollywood goes in cycles. At the moment, it's far too easy for people to make a buck thanks the giant Main Steam Media Machines. It existed in the past thanks to studio control over distribution (Hollywood's so called "Golden Age") and in the era of broadcast television (remember the days of only three channels?). Like those two eras, this one too is coming to an end.

With each crash, the giants in Hollywood who had gotten used to the quick buck disappeared - RKO, MGM, United Artists, Columbia, 20th Century Fox, on and on again. The only companies to have survived were the ones that had focused on quality.

Disney has always been one of those companies. Until now.

Underdog is a production by people who couldn't even bother trying to make a good movie. A five year old laughing at butt sniffing jokes doesn't take any talent to put on the screen. Disney produces nothing these days but easy, poorly made product. The CEO is more interested in being able to sell junk on cell phones than on making good movies for the theater. And they've managed be the first studio in Hollywood to have lost money on a billion dollar box office flick.

Disney won't survive with that thinking.

The same technology that let's Disney sell junk like Underdog in your home also allows people with real talent, real drive and real passion the same opportunity to reach you as well. Disney's sad little efforts will be drowned in a flood of better material. Yea, some may still cling to the "Disney is always good" fiction of life, but normal people don't. They don't care about the brand life style when they choose a movie, they want something good. If Disney can't deliver, then...Disney is a business.

Or look at it another way. Disney spent the same amount of money (more, probably) to make and market Underdog as they did to design and build 'Expedition: Everest'. Which will your niece enjoy more over the next ten years?

[KMovies]

My God, how can anyone keep a straight face and make quotes like this

And they've managed be the first studio in Hollywood to have lost money on a billion dollar box office flick.

How isn't the studio recording profits??? The 2 films collected over 2 billion world wide. I believe that I read that the 2nd film brought in so much money that the 3rd film was already paid for. That does not include DVD sales, TV contracts, and Merchandising.

We want evidence of the losses that Disney has taken on Pirates 2 and 3. I don't think you are going to find that evidence.

Let's get out of the business if something like Pirates 2 and 3 can't make money - because there is no hope at all.

[KMovies]

The first Pirates of the Caribbean had sales of 654,000,000 worldwide. Based on the success, Disney green-lighted not one but two sequals. That was good for 31st largest worldwide grosser.

How well would the second and third voyages perform. As always, sequals generally cost more to produce and more often than not, perform worse that the originals. Would Disney be able to strike gold a second and third time.

Pirates of the Caribbean 2 had sales of 1,066,000 - an increase of 63%.
Pirates of the Caribbean 3 had sales of 957,400 - down 10% from 2 but 46% above POC 1. #s 3 and 5 of all time.

But somehow, POC's increases of 63% and 46% were not enough to justify a profit and a sound decision by Disney. Exactly how well did these two films have to do to be judged a success???

No one ever predicted that POC 2 would be so successful - and then for POC 3 to come close (in fact, overseas POC 3 was the most successful of the 3).

Exactly, how many sequals would get made if they had to increase well above 63% and 46% to be successful - and that is on top of being the 31st biggest film of all time. When even #3 and #5 worldwide of all time wouldn't be good enough???

Explain, explain, explain.

[Another Voice]

Let's get out of the business if something like Pirates 2 and 3 can't make money - because there is no hope at all.
That's exactly the point.


Oh - for your "evidence", Disney's Q3 Operating Income from "Studio Entertainment" (the period when all that cash was flowing in from Pirates) was down 20% from the previous year.

Maybe Underdog can make up the shortfall.


But somehow, POC's increases of 63% and 46% were not enough to justify a profit and a sound decision by Disney. Exactly how well did these two films have to do to be judged a success???
Success is measured by Revenue less Costs equals Profit.

No one has the exact figures, but At World's End is rumored around Hollywood to have cost between $300 million and $350 million to make. It was a rushed film filled with massive amounts of last minute special effects. They were litterally making up the script as they went along. It's also estimated that marketing would have cost Disney another $200 million to $300 million dollars. All those ads run all over the world cost money - you can't just promote a movie by selling pirate trinkets in Tomorrowland.

Added to this are all the other "costs". Theaters keep on average about 45% of the "box office" numbers you want to throw around. Jerry Bruckheimer gets a cut of the first dollar. That alone is rumored to be between 15% and 20%. So basically - cut whatever numbers you're slinging out there and cut them at least in half. Beyond that Johny Dipp gets his cut as well, Orlando and Ms. Knightly get a sliver, IFM gets to take a decent chunk ('cause Disney canned all their SFX people to save money...irony) and all of Jerry's friends that end up as "producers".

Getting the point yet?

At World's End is going to end up making lots and lots of people rich. But the Walt Disney Company isn't going to be in that crowd. It's because Disney was so eager for a "hit" they made really stupid deals and made a really bad movie. It's because Disney is so mismanaged these days that the production ran out of control. It's becasue Disney couldn't make a good enough film to even equal the box office of their last one.

So take it whichever way you want - World's End either cost too much money to make or World's End to be bloated and bad of a movie to recoup the money spent making it.

[KMovies]

Studio profits down 20% - let's see why.

Studio Entertainment
Studio Entertainment revenues for the quarter increased 4% to $1.8 billion and segment operating income decreased 20% to $192 million. Lower segment operating income was primarily due to a decrease in worldwide home entertainment partially offset by an increase in international theatrical distribution.
The decrease in worldwide home entertainment was primarily due to lower
DVD sales, reflecting the strong performance of The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe in the prior-year quarter.
The improvement in international theatrical distribution was driven by the
strong performance of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End in the current quarter. At domestic theatrical distribution, the strong performance of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End was offset by higher distribution costs driven by marketing expenses for Disney/Pixar’s Ratatouille, which was released late in the current quarter.

popcorn:: Let's see - it was no Narnia DVD and the fact that they paid the marketing expenses for Ratatouille (which came out the last 2 days of the quarter) when the revenue for Ratatouille would cime in during the next quarter. It doesn't say it was due to the weak performance of At World's End popcorn::

Cost of the films, per boxoffice mojo was 225 million per peice. Yes, Disney will get around 55% of the domestic take and around 35 - 40% of the international take. Yes, they paid marketing costs (though I bet they are less than Sony spent on Spiderman 3). Yes, like most contracts, the producers and actors get their share.

Yet, Studio Entertainment made 192 million but lost their shirt on At World's End - I think not.

Besides, you haven't accounted for future revenue (DVDs and TV). See how Narnia DVD pumped up Disney's numbers in the prior year?

[EUROPACL]

225 million?? HA!!!!

...and what does one bomb like spiderman 3 have to do with these two Disney bombs?

[Another Voice]

At domestic theatrical distribution, the strong performance of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End was offset by higher distribution costs driven by marketing expenses for Disney/Pixar’s Ratatouille,
So you're saying Disney spent all the profit from At World's End to sell a movie about a rat!!!!!

That deserves a :rotfl2:

[YoHo]

KMovies, you realize you're arguing with some who is actually in the industry you're arguing about right? I mean, AV has said so a couple of times in this thread, but I just wanted to make sure, because it seems to me that you're trying to suggest you know more on the subject then he does. Now while this thread is devoted essentially to how dumb hollywood is, I don't think that means AV is incapable of understanding the industry he works in.

[doconeill]

Actually I've heard from a couple of "insiders" (producers) that it is a common tactic among studios to write off net profits of the one or two hits they may have against the losses of everything else. At least according to the books, "no movie ever made a profit" was one quote.

That's why you never want "net points" as compensation...

I don't know how accurate that is, but it did come from someone involved in Hollywood.

[Another Voice]

I do not want to go around waving my credentials. I'm just trying to explain the highly bizzare nature of Hollywood. It's more than the politics out here that are beyond rational thought.

The town has had nearly a century to come up with all kinds of tricks, scams and frauds to hide all kinds of money. Things became even worse when weekend box office totals became "news" and a major source of a film's marketing campaign. There is so much money flowing around that people have very strong incentives to divert as much as possible to them, and away from others as possible. Hollywood is a town based on individuals, not corporations. No one thinks about getting collectively rich, as in "I own stock, a hit will drive up the stock price and then I can cash in!". Hollywood is very much a cash up front, cash into my pocket, cash up my nose kinda town. Wall Street hasn't figured that part out yet.

That's because, in part, they're dazzled with $900 million box office takes while they remain ignorant about what's going on behind their backs. It's much easier to believe in easy money when you don't lool hard. Using Disney's Q3 numbers - the studio kept just 11 cents of every dollar it took in; the theme parks (known as a miserable business) did double that. And this was a good quarter for the studio!

Now throw all of this into a corporate environment - another system designed to cloud issues - and the "truth" becomes impossible to see. All we can do is estimate and guess.

[DancingBear]

The wierd thing is that one of the things Eisner did right, at first, was doing several lower-budget movies (using some talented actors that for one reason or another were out of favor at the time) to make Down and Out in Beverly Hills and Ruthless People. But now there's such focus on the huge blockbusters, even though "smaller" movies like The Princess Diaries seem to be the ones that make the best returns.

[YoHo]

It's all about the size of your churro and The prince diaries makes for a pretty limp sad churro with no dipping sauce....OK, I'm not sure where that metaphor went, but I'm stepping back from it now.

[KMovies]

I guess I will say this, I know more about the industry than one might think.

Most films do not make a profit in theatres - that is given. The stakes are very high. The numbers are also very unreliable.

Part of the costs of a film are studio rentals. For example, a movie may spend $5 million to rent a studio, owned by the studio. There is profit for the studio in the $5 milllion dollar charge.

In 3rd quarter, Disney would write off a lot of Ratatouille's marketing costs. This would show a loss for Ratatouille since the revenue the picture will generate will come in the 4th quarter. So paying for Ratatouille's marketing costs will impact 3rd quarter numbers.

A studio such as Dreamworks is very profitable for quarters that they do not release films. This is due to revenue from DVD sales and TV contracts. When a film is released, profit or losses result based on the movies themselves and the timing of the marketing and revenues. When Dreamworks released Flushed Away, they saw the boxoffice numbers and wrote down much of the costs of the film knowing they would never see profit from this release.

Where did 192 mil profit come from? Yes, its only 11 cents per dollar whereas the parks did 20 cents per dollar. But these are very different operating divisions. When Pirates is released on DVD, you should see a very large profit from the studio division.

I feel that Boxoffice.mojo is very reliable when it comes to the cost of films - so I will stand by the 225 million for each of the Pirate films.

Wonder why Disney and Sony want to make more Spidermans and Pirates, if in fact, both were bombs.

But yes, films like Superbad which cost 20 mil to make are the nice pictures that make huge profits. High School Musical and Musical 2 are expected to make 100 mil profit for Disney. That's great. And even Underdog has grossed 36 mil and counting. Entertainment Weekly said that was a good number for a film with no name stars.