Any rumor for POTC 4

[DiszyDean]

Consider it first source and leave it at that.


In other words, there are people who get paid to know these things and some of them post on the internet.

And I suppose you are one of the "insiders" for Disney who is paid to know these things? I didn't think it was the best of the three either but also feel that there is no reason to believe that this movie will not be profitable for Disney. If you look at it worldwide, I think it is tracking above POTC 2 which ended up at 1.1 billion.

 

[adabob]

My son found info on the internet stating that a screenplay for POTC for is currently being written, but no word of it being a definite "go"

where did he find this information?

 

[thefirebuilds]

Yes, that is the speculation. The characters Elizabeth and Will Turner would not be in POTC 4. They would introduce some new characters. The thought being that the plot line for these two characters has run its course.

Half way through potc1. Perhaps they could get two good looking women, rather than these two, in the next one.

 

[Lewisc]

Could Disney make a sequel without Bruckheimer? I'm sure they could find someone willing to do a low cost, direct to DVD movie, without paying the fees Bruckheimer gets. A direct to DVD movie might cut down on the effects but if they pay enough $$$ to sign Depp it should do well enough to cover costs. The movie might not be very good but a lot of Disney fans will buy it.

Disney is, after all, a business - there are many times more "normal" people that they have to please than rabid fans to call any movie a "success".

Plans for Pirate 4 have, I’m sure, been cancelled the moment Bob Iger could fumble for his cell phone. There is no way Disney is going to drop the estimated $600-$700 million on a franchise that people are done with. At the same time, the failure of At World’s End will also put pressure on Disney to come up with some other ways to leverage the franchise – they’ve sunk far too much money into the series now just to drop it.

Whether we’ll see cheaper sequels, a television series (unlikely, apparently Bruckheimer has already shot down Disney’s proposal), direct-to-DVD flicks or whatever – whatever you’ll see is going to be dirt cheap to make.

 

[Another Voice]

Could Disney make a sequel without Bruckheimer?

No – Disney gave Bruckeimer the movie rights to Pirates. Disney can’t make a movie or television without buying the rights back (and Jerry ain’t that stupid). He also has the rights to anything created for the movies – Davy Jones, the Black Pearl, “The Pirates Lords”, etc. Disney has to pay Bruckheimer for the rights to use those elements in the rides now (it’s said that’s way the Wicked Wench in the ride wasn’t renamed. Bruckheimer said “no” to call the ship attacking the fort the Black Pearl).

It’s the price Disney had to pay to get a high-powered producer to make the movies.

...I just don't think it is accurate.

If you can do better – please try. Real Hollywood financials are a closely guarded secret. It’s so bad that even people involved with the movie have to go to court just to find out what’s going on (search the Internet for all the articles surrounding the recent lawsuit about Sahara).

Basically a studio receives (on average) 55% of the box office take. The theaters and distributors keep the rest. So you can essentially cut the revenues nearly in have. It’s known the Bruckheimer has a significant cut of “the first dollar” because he was the producer that made the movie. Rumors around town range from 15%-25% of every dollar that Disney brings in. Several other people, namely Johnny Depp and ILM (who did the special effects) are also said to have cuts as well. It’s likely the director has a cut on the sequels as well, even if he didn’t on the first one (sequels are just an excuse for the original creators to blackmail the studios). All in all, a rough estimate has Disney actually seeing about 1/3 of the box office actually flowing into Disney.

From that, of course, Disney has to recoup all the costs to make, market and distribute the flick. Here too, the actual costs are a closely guarded secret because most board of directors freak out when a single movie costs more than a cruise ship. The public estimate of At World’s End is “$300+”, although most street estimates put the cost between $345 - $370 million. The film was significantly behind time throughout production and there was a huge last minute scramble to finish the special effects – all of which adds to costs (and stuff like Mr. Depp’s villa, entourages, Mr. Richards’ “special dietary needs”, etc.)

All of those costs are just to get a single negative of the film created. Now comes other expensive parts. For a large summer blockbuster, it’s estimated that a studio will spend an amount equal to the film’s negative costs. The more expensive a movie, the more marketing you need to guarantee a film’s success. At this point it’s hard to say how much Disney spent on marketing, but form all the TV ads, billboards, special appearances and red carpet premiers at Disneyland – it was a significant sum. Besides just marketing, there’s the distribution costs as well – getting the film into the theater. A single print of the movie can cost over $75,000, and when you see that Pirates was being shown on over 4,000 screens, that adds up. Disney is somewhat lucky that they used a lot of digital theaters and saved some money, but it’s a small compared with all the other costs.

All of this is just to point out that making and releasing a big studio summer movie is a hugely expensive endeavor. For all the dazzling box office numbers you see, there are equally stomach turn expenses that the studio doesn’t want to talk about. Disney let At World’s End get out of control; they cared more about the marketing of the movie than the actual quality of the movie itself.

So Disney produced a very expensive bad movie. They’re paying the price for it now with disappointing box office and a lack of interest in any more Pirate movies. This is a recurring problem with Disney – they’ve lost all interest in quality and instead believe they can buy an audience if they show enough ads with the word “magic” used in them.

They’re wrong.

 

[Another Voice]

Oh - some analysis:

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2325&p=l.htm

'Pirates' Sinks, 'Knocked Up' Scores
by Brandon Gray
June 3, 2007


It was rough sailing for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End in its second weekend. The supernatural swashbuckler had one of the steepest post-Memorial Day opening drops on record, falling 62 percent to an estimated $43.2 million.

Fending off potent opener Knocked Up to top the box office heap again, At World's End's tally stands at $216.5 million. At the same point, predecessor Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest was down 54 percent to $62.3 million for a $258.4 million total. Earlier in the season, Spider-Man 3 was off a precipitous 62 percent in its second weekend, though it made $58.2 million for the frame and its total was at $240.2 million.


At World's End is on course to fall well short of Dead Man's Chest's $423.3 million by the end of its run, joining Shrek the Third and Spider-Man 3 as hyped sequels in major franchises that failed to live up to their previous movies. These pictures are popular and may be profitable despite massive production and marketing costs but, since they are sequels, a key measure of their success is performance in relation to their predecessors. Significantly lower attendance adds a layer of disappointment.

...

 

[thefirebuilds]

Where's that man with the tiny violin.

 

[crazy4wdw]

Where's that man with the tiny violin.

 

[crazy4wdw]

Let's be careful about posting statements which are personal attacks. It's OK to state your viewpoint but please respect the viewpoint/opinion of others. Not everyone posting here has extensive knowledge of the movie business. There're some comments posted today which are right on the line of being personal attacks.

Thanks!

 

[Another Voice]

There're some comments posted today which are right on the line of being personal attacks.

I assume you mean stuff like posting a smile playing the violin to make fun of the situation. There are a lot of people on the Disney lot this morning that are worried for their jobs - and any fan should certainly be aware of what this is going to do to Disney's new slate of movies.

If you want to see Disney produce nothing but Underdog movies I suppose this is your lucky day. For people really interested in seeing the company prosper...it's not so funny.

There is a difference between being a "knowledgable fan" and being nothing but a cheerleader. I had hoped the DIS would remain different from the rest - most of the other boards are nothing but mindless "rah-rah" over whatever The Company decides to do next. If that's the intent here now, please let us all know the proper sized pom poms we need.

 

[thefirebuilds]

My comment about violins was NOT directed at the poster. It was meant for the Execs, Disney and otherwise...crying all the way to the bank. Sorry, I looked at that again and it wasn't clear. Yes it was sarcastic, yes it was meant to oppose your view, no it was not meant as an offense to you.

 

[YoHo]

 

[thefirebuilds]

YoHo? Is that name appropriate in a post-Imus world?

/thread hi-jack.

 

[YoHo]

I sure hope so. It fits into my what would Wayne Brady do lifestyle.

 

[Lewisc]

No – Disney gave Bruckeimer the movie rights to Pirates. Disney can’t make a movie or television without buying the rights back (and Jerry ain’t that stupid). He also has the rights to anything created for the movies – Davy Jones, the Black Pearl, “The Pirates Lords”, etc. Disney has to pay Bruckheimer for the rights to use those elements in the rides now (it’s said that’s way the Wicked Wench in the ride wasn’t renamed. Bruckheimer said “no” to call the ship attacking the fort the Black Pearl).

The question is if Disney could negotiate back the rights to make a cheaper direct to DVD movie. Does Bruckheimer care if he makes an enemy? You may know the answer, is it clear that Brukeimer has the ability to block future sequels outright and not just the right of first refusal?

If you can do better – please try. Real Hollywood financials are a closely guarded secret. It’s so bad that even people involved with the movie have to go to court just to find out what’s going on (search the Internet for all the articles surrounding the recent lawsuit about Sahara).

Basically a studio receives (on average) 55% of the box office take. The theaters and distributors keep the rest. So you can essentially cut the revenues nearly in have.

I thought "guaranteed hit" movies were able to get a higher % the first 10-14 days. I thought Lucas was able to "four wall" movie theater rentals with some movie theaters for the more recent Star Wars.

From that, of course, Disney has to recoup all the costs to make, market and distribute the flick. Here too, the actual costs are a closely guarded secret because most board of directors freak out when a single movie costs more than a cruise ship. The public estimate of At World’s End is “$300+”, although most street estimates put the cost between $345 - $370 million. The film was significantly behind time throughout production and there was a huge last minute scramble to finish the special effects – all of which adds to costs (and stuff like Mr. Depp’s villa, entourages, Mr. Richards’ “special dietary needs”, etc.)

All of those costs are just to get a single negative of the film created. Now comes other expensive parts. For a large summer blockbuster, it’s estimated that a studio will spend an amount equal to the film’s negative costs. The more expensive a movie, the more marketing you need to guarantee a film’s success. At this point it’s hard to say how much Disney spent on marketing, but form all the TV ads, billboards, special appearances and red carpet premiers at Disneyland – it was a significant sum. Besides just marketing, there’s the distribution costs as well – getting the film into the theater. A single print of the movie can cost over $75,000, and when you see that Pirates was being shown on over 4,000 screens, that adds up. Disney is somewhat lucky that they used a lot of digital theaters and saved some money, but it’s a small compared with all the other costs.

All of this is just to point out that making and releasing a big studio summer movie is a hugely expensive endeavor. For all the dazzling box office numbers you see, there are equally stomach turn expenses that the studio doesn’t want to talk about. Disney let At World’s End get out of control; they cared more about the marketing of the movie than the actual quality of the movie itself.

So Disney produced a very expensive bad movie. They’re paying the price for it now with disappointing box office and a lack of interest in any more Pirate movies. This is a recurring problem with Disney – they’ve lost all interest in quality and instead believe they can buy an audience if they show enough ads with the word “magic” used in them.

They’re wrong.

I suspect you're right. Disney spent too much $$$, they won't make what they expected but won't DVD sales bury much of their mistakes? You couldn't have made PoTC3 without Mr. Depp so his villa was part of the cost of making the movie. I don't think the movie was that good. Spending money by itself doesn't guarantee a good movie.

Given the success of PoTC2 Disney didn't have much choice but make 3. You make an excellent point, high costs was probably inevitable.

 

[YoHo]

Ah, but DMC DVD sales lagged behind the movie. They had huge opening day sales and then essentially sales stopped. Or so the reports go. Supposedly Walmart sent thousands of copies back to the distributor. So AWE is not coming from a happy place.

More to the point, DVD sales don't start till the next quarter, or maybe even 2 quarters or a year later. The costs of the movie are this quarter and Disney is taking it in the shorts. They have to survive to see any potential DVD sales.

 

[MasterShake]

Well, according to Box Office mojo the movie has made GROSSED over $600,000,000 million world wide. Assuming the worst, if the movie is running out of steam, we'll say it grosses 700,000,000 Worldwide by the time it's done in theaters. If Disney/Stars/Bruckheimer gets half of that amount then they have 350,000,000. I would assume that Disney would not be giving away more then 20% to other individuals so let's say Disney gets
280,000,000. The most reliable sources I've heard have estimated the movie cost 300,000,000 to make. So at worst case scenario Disney is at -20,000,000 for the movie and -? for the advertising.

Now pirates merchandise is in every store in America (not to mention worldwide) and I would guess that Disney is seeing a lot of money from those rights. I wouldn't be surprised if the merchandise ends up covering most of the advertising costs. I would guess that anything merchandise doesn't cover will be covered by PPV. If I am anywhere near right (may not be) then Disney would get a lot of revenue from the DVD sales. I would guess that Disney stands to make several hundred million dollars from those initial sales. That doesn't include future DVD sales and eventually TV. I might be wrong, but it seems like the movie will make a lot of money in the end. I'm sure someone will tell me that I'm wrong.

 

[Lewisc]

Another Voice already did the math for you
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=19008060&postcount=25

You're not including the $$$ to make the prints nor the advertising costs. You under-estimated, assuming AV has good numbers, the % given to out to Bruckheimer and others.

At least one poster said DVD sales for the second movie tanked.

Well, according to Box Office mojo the movie has made GROSSED over $600,000,000 million world wide. Assuming the worst, if the movie is running out of steam, we'll say it grosses 700,000,000 Worldwide by the time it's done in theaters. If Disney/Stars/Bruckheimer gets half of that amount then they have 350,000,000. I would assume that Disney would not be giving away more then 20% to other individuals so let's say Disney gets
280,000,000. The most reliable sources I've heard have estimated the movie cost 300,000,000 to make. So at worst case scenario Disney is at -20,000,000 for the movie and -? for the advertising.

Now pirates merchandise is in every store in America (not to mention worldwide) and I would guess that Disney is seeing a lot of money from those rights. I wouldn't be surprised if the merchandise ends up covering most of the advertising costs. I would guess that anything merchandise doesn't cover will be covered by PPV. If I am anywhere near right (may not be) then Disney would get a lot of revenue from the DVD sales. I would guess that Disney stands to make several hundred million dollars from those initial sales. That doesn't include future DVD sales and eventually TV. I might be wrong, but it seems like the movie will make a lot of money in the end. I'm sure someone will tell me that I'm wrong.

 

[MasterShake]

Another Voice already did the math for you
http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=19008060&postcount=25

You're not including the $$$ to make the prints nor the advertising costs. You under-estimated, assuming AV has good numbers, the % given to out to Bruckheimer and others.

At least one poster said DVD sales for the second movie tanked.

Ok, here is what was said on the other thread.

No – Disney gave Bruckeimer the movie rights to Pirates. Disney can’t make a movie or television without buying the rights back (and Jerry ain’t that stupid). He also has the rights to anything created for the movies – Davy Jones, the Black Pearl, “The Pirates Lords”, etc. Disney has to pay Bruckheimer for the rights to use those elements in the rides now (it’s said that’s way the Wicked Wench in the ride wasn’t renamed. Bruckheimer said “no” to call the ship attacking the fort the Black Pearl).

It’s the price Disney had to pay to get a high-powered producer to make the movies.


If you can do better – please try. Real Hollywood financials are a closely guarded secret. It’s so bad that even people involved with the movie have to go to court just to find out what’s going on (search the Internet for all the articles surrounding the recent lawsuit about Sahara).

Basically a studio receives (on average) 55% of the box office take. The theaters and distributors keep the rest. So you can essentially cut the revenues nearly in have. It’s known the Bruckheimer has a significant cut of “the first dollar” because he was the producer that made the movie. Rumors around town range from 15%-25% of every dollar that Disney brings in. Several other people, namely Johnny Depp and ILM (who did the special effects) are also said to have cuts as well. It’s likely the director has a cut on the sequels as well, even if he didn’t on the first one (sequels are just an excuse for the original creators to blackmail the studios). All in all, a rough estimate has Disney actually seeing about 1/3 of the box office actually flowing into Disney.

From that, of course, Disney has to recoup all the costs to make, market and distribute the flick. Here too, the actual costs are a closely guarded secret because most board of directors freak out when a single movie costs more than a cruise ship. The public estimate of At World’s End is “$300+”, although most street estimates put the cost between $345 - $370 million. The film was significantly behind time throughout production and there was a huge last minute scramble to finish the special effects – all of which adds to costs (and stuff like Mr. Depp’s villa, entourages, Mr. Richards’ “special dietary needs”, etc.)

All of those costs are just to get a single negative of the film created. Now comes other expensive parts. For a large summer blockbuster, it’s estimated that a studio will spend an amount equal to the film’s negative costs. The more expensive a movie, the more marketing you need to guarantee a film’s success. At this point it’s hard to say how much Disney spent on marketing, but form all the TV ads, billboards, special appearances and red carpet premiers at Disneyland – it was a significant sum. Besides just marketing, there’s the distribution costs as well – getting the film into the theater. A single print of the movie can cost over $75,000, and when you see that Pirates was being shown on over 4,000 screens, that adds up. Disney is somewhat lucky that they used a lot of digital theaters and saved some money, but it’s a small compared with all the other costs.

All of this is just to point out that making and releasing a big studio summer movie is a hugely expensive endeavor. For all the dazzling box office numbers you see, there are equally stomach turn expenses that the studio doesn’t want to talk about. Disney let At World’s End get out of control; they cared more about the marketing of the movie than the actual quality of the movie itself.

So Disney produced a very expensive bad movie. They’re paying the price for it now with disappointing box office and a lack of interest in any more Pirate movies. This is a recurring problem with Disney – they’ve lost all interest in quality and instead believe they can buy an audience if they show enough ads with the word “magic” used in them.

They’re wrong.

I said disney recieved 50% and above it states that they recieve close to 55%. So they make more off ticket sales then I stated.

The 300 million dollar budget cost was from Box Office Mojo. So i feel that is a fairly reliable source.

I stated that Bruckhiemer/Depp/Others took about 20% of the profit. The above staement say's 15-25 for Bruckhiemer. If you use the low end of that figure (15%) to bruckhiemer and another 10% to Others that comes pretty close to what I figured since Disney is taking in 55%, instead of 50%. Again seems like my estimation could still be accurate. He said Disney see's 1/3 of the Box Office gross and in my earlier post (if you do the math) I stated that Disney would see about 40% of the Box Office Revenue. While I do not doubt that AV has knowledge, we are both estimating and I do not think my figure was off from his by that much.

Please read my post carefully, I did mention advertising. I stated that it seems like PPV and merchandising at least cover advertising. I would think that it would also pay for some of the other charges listed in AV’s post above. If not then TV seems like it would clean that up.

Again I still contend that DVD will be almost pure revenue. Even if they do not sell as many as they would hope, still seems like they would be making 100+ million dollars.

 

[YoHo]

Merchandise has to sell and I only see Dreadlocks, tricorners and Football jerseys going.


Also, just as food for thought, 300 may be one of the most profitable movies in recent memory. It was relativly cheap and made money hand over fist.