That sounds like the movie’s gross isn’t even twice the production budget; that might not even make a profit.
That was a lot of it, sure, but you also have a substantial bunch of people who simply don’t want the movie they liked when they were 9 changed.
And yeah, that doesn’t look like a success to me. If the movie cost $297 million to make, $569 million is not a profitable outing; between marketing costs and theatrical cuts, they would be lucky to break even. Of course, what we are now getting into is another problem; the fact that the movie cost $297 million. That is bloat, there’s no reasonable argument to the contrary. I strongly suspect that a big part of Disney’s next phase (and some other studios too) will be getting movie budgets under control.
You lost ne there, there had been threads in the past where good arguments were made that in reality no one has changed the old movies. That point would be valid if the 1989 movie was not available for rent or streaming,… or if you are against George Lucas changing movies…
As for the costs, it is still among the top ten movies of the year in revenue. Not as successful as other remakes, but annoyingly, not a disaster as Disney had with more original movies of lately.
Might not make a profit just from the original run. The fact that Disney runs its own cable channels and streaming services make the accounting for later profits more difficult than the days when these were separate entities, but I wouldn’t be surprised if these were set up as distinct businesses within the corporate structure. If so, Disney Television Services has to pay Buena Vista International for the rights to run Wish on the Disney Channel. Or Disney+ has to pay Walt Disney Pictures for streaming rights. That helps the individual profit and loss statements for tax purposes at the end of the year. Nobody gets it for free. And some people still pay for DVDs. Nor does that include the merch. Probably far more profit is made from merch than from theatrical release.
Disney makes a net profit every year. True, 2020 killed them, but that was hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime event when every sector got decimated by outside forces simultaneously. They’ve gone up each year since. Not to the giddy heights of 2018, but that was an outlier.
Rising profits are not usually the indicator of a failing company.
I’m still astonished that the live-action Little Mermaid film had a production cost that high. Googling, a couple of sites said the cost was inflated by COVID-related delays. Also, the production received over $50 million from the UK government.
I’ve had this discussion with friends repeatedly - movie budgets being so high that you cannot take risks, or if you do, risk your entire studio makes no damn sense. Sure, a lot of costs have ballooned, but personally I’d love studios to make five $50 million movies, rather than one giga-movie. Sure, might not be able to hire the super-big-buck actors, but there’s plenty of talent out there that could be the next big buck actor. Or the medium buck actor.
Or we could have some more character / plot driven pieces rather than just big vistas, action, or CG set-pieces.
Disney could absolutely be a part of it. As an example, I point to George of the Jungle which is one of my favorite silly fun movies. $55 million budget, $174 million in the box office. A fun film, with a solid cast that made the most of an inherently silly premise. [ Yes, I know $55 million in 1997 is not the same as $55 million in 2023, but it’s just an illustration of the point ]
And again, if something on this scale bombs, you have (using my prior example) 4 others that could be minor, or major hits to balance out. Reduce the risk.
But IMHO, the big issue with Disney pushing the big-budget franchises was Merchandising, Merchandising, Merchandising at retail, theme parks, and elsewhere. So if this is still (and I’m not of course going to be able to dig into all those revenue streams) the big factor in their equations, then breaking even on the movie is fine as long as the merch makes a big profit. Ideally of course, they want both, but, well.
Controlling costs is part of the business model of Blumhouse Productions, Jason Blum’s company. Many of their movies cost only $5-10 million.
But in general, Hollywood (not just Disney) relies on a very small number of blockbuster films to make most of the money.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply it was a Disney-only problem, you’re absolutely correct. I feel that all the major studios could benefit from moving away from that model, but kept most of my commentary to Disney due to the additional advantages they had in the merch, as well as being the specific focus of the thread.
Oppenheimer’s budget was $100 million. That was supposed to be Barbie’s budget as well but it blew past it to $145 million. Killers of the Flower Moon hit $200 million. I don’t know what kind of movies you can make for $50 million. Horror, maybe, and comedy, and horror comedy. Plenty of adult movies are made for low budgets. They play at 100 art theaters and get ignored by streamers, unless and until a couple of them are singled out for Oscars. They still have limited life past the original release and so never have a chance to make $50 million total.
What we need a new audience.
Matt Damon talked about why this is difficult now that DVD sales and rentals are a thing of the past.
But streaming isnt and DVD sales are by no means a thing of the past. Not as important as streaming sure, but they are still there.
With the same financial impact? I think that’s probably the point…
No, not the same impact. But they are still a factor.
A small enough of a factor that it seems to have changed the way the studios are looking at what kind of movies to release (at least according to Damon, I have no knowledge to verify what he says).
There are lots of low budget films that make huge money. Most recently, “The Sound of Freedom” had a production budget of $14 million, and ad budget of $5 million, and is currently over $190 million in domestic box office.
Sometimes I think Disney makes such huge budget films because it’s a differentiator. Make small films, and you have to compete with a hundred smaller film studios. Make a giant blockbuster for $200 milllion, spend another $100 million making sure ir’s a blockbuster, and you’re in your own category. Quantity has a quality all on its own.
The problem is that to continue doing this, you actually need good films with good scripts. This is increasingly true as audiences burn out on empty spectacles.
Another problem is that if you build a giant studio to make giant, expensive blockbusters, small films that make a few tens of millions in profit are hardly worth the opportunity cost. Disney needs to bring in billions to justify their fixed costs.
Way back in time, Kodak put a staff into a separate building to act as an incubator for ideas. Their problem was that the ideas had to have the potential to generate a billion dollars in revenue. Kodak wasn’t set up to run a multitude of boutique innovations.
As you say, Disney may be boxing themselves into the same paradox. As a giant they can only take giant steps. When nowhere exists for the steps to land they circle down the drain to nothingness.
I don’t think Disney is in the same position as Kodak; nothing new and different has come along to steal their audience and revenue. They have so many streams of income that no one of them is going to break the company if it falters. But I imagine the discussions in board meetings would be fascinating to eavesdrop on.
Like the time they tried making a movie about….giants.
Much of which was due to the studio encouraging people to mass-buy tickets in order to “get the message out”, resulting in empty theaters that were sold out - the same kind of marketing stunt that Scientology uses to promote Dianetics as a bestseller.
Huh? I’m not saying they went back and changed the PREVIOUS MOVIE.
Upthread I mentioned that Blumhouse Productions has a business model that is successful with low-cost movies. That model was the subject of a Harvard Business School case study. That’s behind a paywall and I’m not willing to pay for it but the abstract says, in part, “the company’s approach to moviemaking is quite different from that of the major studios: it is not afraid to bet on projects that other studios have passed on, it pays its key cast and crew members the minimum salary stipulated by industry unions and only pays out sizeable bonuses if a movie’s box-office reaches certain levels, it gives its directors a great deal of creative control, and it decides on a film’s release strategy only once the first cut is ready.”
I’m not saying this would work for Disney and it probably wouldn’t, especially since Disney’s business model involves a lot more than simply selling movie tickets, but it might work for some others.