Articles | Disneyland | Walt Disney World
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 56

Thread: The Avengers - Money In The Bank

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    The Avengers - Money In The Bank

    So John Carter came and for Disney, John Carter painfully went with losses estimated by Disney to be in the $200 million dollar range. It will most likely end up being the biggest movie flop in history to date. Shed I tear? I wouldn't. Right on the heels of the DOA John Carter debacle comes Marvel/Disney's The Avengers with a release date of May 4th. Before the movie has even sold a single ticket, it has made over $100 million dollars from corporate partnerships. It's a guaranteed money maker. So what's the difference between John Carter and The Avengers? John Carter was a movie no one really had any interest in seeing. For The Avengers, even a month a way, people are already making plans to see that first midnight showing. Money in the bank.

    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  2. #2

    I know you really really like ripping John Carter a new one, but let's get our facts straight before we start spouting off hyperbolic nonsense like "the biggest movie flop in history to date." John Carter has been struggling, and it's certainly not the hit that Stanton wanted it to be, but it has been marginally successful despite the pre-mature negative feedback. It has received a high degree of praise from the general public who has seen it and as of this weekend it has officially made back its budget (and, it should be noted, the movie is still playing, it's not likely to earn a ton more, but it will earn at least a little more before that number is final).

    Will The Avengers outperform John Carter? Duh. Even if John Carter had made back twice its budget (the unofficial, yet universal marker of legitimate "success" in Hollywood) it still would have been beaten out by The Avengers which will almost certainly earn at least $1 Billion in world wide box office sales. And even then The Avengers will likely be beat out by The Dark Knight Rises, which itself has a high probability of being beat out by The Hobbit.

    If you take into account the supposed marketing budget of $100 million (which, in my opinion, is extremely fishy because a few trailers, posters, and TV spots with zero merchandising is not a $100 million marketing campaign) the film has lost roughly $95 million or 27.2% of its budget. If you take a look at a list of the biggest box office bombs of all time a 27.2% loss would put it at 190 on the list, a long shot from "biggest flop in history to date" and is even surpassed by other Disney efforts including Mars Needs Moms (77.7% loss) and Treasure Planet (39.1% loss). Even if we're talking strict dollar amounts rather than percentages, Mars Needs Moms lost $136 million and is the highest loss without adjusting for inflation. If we go even further and adjust for inflation, 1995's Cutthroat Island is the biggest bomb of all time with a loss of $147 million.

    So please, if you're going to make a new thread about a different movie as a thinly veiled attempt to go off on John Carter again, at least do us the courtesy of five minutes of research.


  3. #3
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    I know you really really like ripping John Carter a new one, but let's get our facts straight before we start spouting off hyperbolic nonsense like "the biggest movie flop in history to date." John Carter has been struggling, and it's certainly not the hit that Stanton wanted it to be, but it has been marginally successful despite the pre-mature negative feedback.

    If you take into account the supposed marketing budget of $100 million (which, in my opinion, is extremely fishy because a few trailers, posters, and TV spots with zero merchandising is not a $100 million marketing campaign) the film has lost roughly $95 million or 27.2% of its budget. If you take a look at a list of the biggest box office bombs of all time a 27.2% loss would put it at 190 on the list, a long shot from "biggest flop in history to date" and is even surpassed by other Disney efforts including Mars Needs Moms (77.7% loss) and Treasure Planet (39.1% loss). Even if we're talking strict dollar amounts rather than percentages, Mars Needs Moms lost $136 million and is the highest loss without adjusting for inflation. If we go even further and adjust for inflation, 1995's Cutthroat Island is the biggest bomb of all time with a loss of $147 million.

    So please, if you're going to make a new thread about a different movie as a thinly veiled attempt to go off on John Carter again, at least do us the courtesy of five minutes of research.
    Now that I am suitably able to get up from a beat down.... the dialog continues....

    On March 19, Disney issued a statement to the press saying the anticipated the losses for John Carter would to be close to $200 million dollars. It was reported by the Associated Press, Reuters, Forbes, LATimes, HuffingtonPost, and countless other news organizations (the stories are all out on the web so anyone is free to check them out). In their articles associated with Disney's press release, the news organizations were the ones that constantly and repeatedly put John Carter's failure up there with the biggest of all time. Whether this is right or wrong, I don't know and don't care, but I suspect reputable news agencies and publications have access to far better information than I do which lead them to attach "biggest bomb" to JC in their published stories. I write a Disney Blog and post comments to some discussion boards, my interest in the John Carter story mainly centers Disney's admitted failure on one of the most expensive movies ever made. I'm neither an insider or apologist, it's all about the story. It's a story far more interesting than the movie itself. Why would Disney even issue a press release admitting that JC failed in epic such proportions? They had to, they had to get the word out ahead of giving their quarterly financial report which will specifically reference the losses of its Studios division and the film John Carter.

    Which brings us back to the start of this thread. In the same March 19 press release Disney said that the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave (neither of which is made by Walt Disney Pictures which is a whole other story) and their anticipated success should more than make up for losses they will have to have to write off with John Carter. Again, this is done primarily for investors information. Disney is saying if we have to report a loss now, we can make up for it as the fiscal year continues with other projects. And again, the leaking of information that 10 -12 corporate partners have paid Disney close to $100 million dollars to get on board with The Avengers for product placement and cross-promotion before the movie sells a ticket is something aimed primarily at Disney's private and institutional investors.

    Which leads me to a question about your numbers. So John Carter makes back 200 of the $250 million dollars it cost to produce (again leaving off the additional costs estimated at 100 million for JC associated with post production marketing), does that mean the movie is close to breaking even? When you read box office receipts (i.e. JC brought in about 2 million dollars this week), does this mean all 2 million goes to film's makers and distributors? It doesn't work that way. It leaves off the fact the film distributors and theater owners are partners in this business. Box off receipts are roughly split 50 -50 with the movie companies and theater owners. So of JC's 2 million dollar box office receipts, about half of it goes to Disney. And that's where the staggering gap in numbers comes from for John Carter. If the movie cost 250 million and has made 200 million, Disney has only collected on about 100 million dollars on it so its down about 150 million on the loss side, now throw in the post production money and you can easily see Disney's admitted loss of $200 million. The math makes complete sense.

    It appears that the general rule of thumb is that a movie needs to make back a little more than twice its budgeted cost just to break even which is why many insiders projected JC would have needed to take in close to 600 million dollars to move into profitability. On the other hand, The Avengers, with a slightly lower production budget than JC (and with actual movie stars), is pretty much a sure thing to get to that amount and beyond and it really doesn't matter if the film is any good or not. It is money in the bank vs. a very bad business decision that deserves some criticism (rip?). Not sure why you want to argue the point where Disney has already admitted defeat with John Carter and is standing with open arms the anticipated success of The Avengers.

    Many years ago, Ray Davies wrote a song that ended this way.

    "for those who are successful, be always on your guard
    for success walks hand in hand with failure along Hollywood Boulevard"


    That's the essence of my story and I'm sticking to it.
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by dban3 View Post
    On March 19, Disney issued a statement to the press saying the anticipated the losses for John Carter would to be close to $200 million dollars. It was reported by the Associated Press, Reuters, Forbes, LATimes, HuffingtonPost, and countless other news organizations (the stories are all out on the web so anyone is free to check them out). In their articles associated with Disney's press release, the news organizations were the ones that constantly and repeatedly put John Carter's failure up there with the biggest of all time. Whether this is right or wrong, I don't know and don't care, but I suspect reputable news agencies and publications have access to far better information than I do which lead them to attach "biggest bomb" to JC in their published stories. I write a Disney Blog and post comments to some discussion boards, my interest in the John Carter story mainly centers Disney's admitted failure on one of the most expensive movies ever made. I'm neither an insider or apologist, it's all about the story. It's a story far more interesting than the movie itself. Why would Disney even issue a press release admitting that JC failed in epic such proportions? They had to, they had to get the word out ahead of giving their quarterly financial report which will specifically reference the losses of its Studios division and the film John Carter.
    Take into account, though, that this was only 10 days after the film released, at which point it had made roughly $180 million worldwide. In the time since, the film has earned another $75 million. The whole John Carter issue, between Disney's mismanaged marketing campaign, the reported marketing budget that is inconceivably high based on the effort that was put forward, and Disney's eagerness to write the whole thing off as a loss without a moment's hesitation stinks to high heaven; I won't get into the conspiracy theories here, but the whole thing is highly suspicious. As for the press, as I brought up in the John Carter thread, there has been this mob mentality throughout the major news publications that started long before John Carter was released in which they are seemingly out for blood on this project. The very publications you are citing have been calling John Carter the biggest box-office failure of all time before it even made it out the gate. Again, it's hyperbolic nonsense. The real, unbiased numbers tell a completely different story.

    Which leads me to a question about your numbers. So John Carter makes back 200 of the $250 million dollars it cost to produce (again leaving off the additional costs estimated at 100 million for JC associated with post production marketing), does that mean the movie is close to breaking even? When you read box office receipts (i.e. JC brought in about 2 million dollars this week), does this mean all 2 million goes to film's makers and distributors? It doesn't work that way. It leaves off the fact the film distributors and theater owners are partners in this business. Box off receipts are roughly split 50 -50 with the movie companies and theater owners. So of JC's 2 million dollar box office receipts, about half of it goes to Disney. And that's where the staggering gap in numbers comes from for John Carter. If the movie cost 250 million and has made 200 million, Disney has only collected on about 100 million dollars on it so its down about 150 million on the loss side, now throw in the post production money and you can easily see Disney's admitted loss of $200 million. The math makes complete sense.
    Actually, $254,533,839 as of yesterday, but who's counting? Yes, though, that is the box office gross. The actual net profits of a film are usually kept tightly under wraps and while we can make loose guesstimates, there's not really a fool-proof way of estimating how much money the studio themselves made when you subtract the profits of the distributors and exhibitors. That being said, all the numbers I cited were based on the box office gross of their respective movies. If we assume that Disney will only get back half of the gross of John Carter, that puts their loss at $190 million (keep in mind that the percentage stays the same), but if we're going to do that we should make that same assumption in regards to the other numbers meaning that Mars Needs Moms was actually a $275 million loss, almost twice that of John Carter. Yet, for some reason Mars Needs Moms loss went with far less fan-fare and rioting in the streets. Why would a director with substantial acclaim tackling an ambitious project take a greater beating than a no-name director tackling forgettable kids' fluff? Oh, sorry, I did say I wouldn't bring up conspiracy theories, didn't I?

    The fact is, the numbers simply don't support the claim that John Carter is the biggest box office failure of all time, or even anywhere close to it. The pundits in the major publications can say what they will, but the numbers don't lie. That was the essence of my story. Art, even commercial art, is about far more than the money it makes back, and a studio taking a risk on a talented filmmaker with a big idea should never be something that is discouraged, ripped apart, or frowned upon. That's how the medium moves forward. There's not nearly enough risks and big ideas being taken in Hollywood right now and we're left in this stagnate state of the same five franchises being dragged back to theaters for sequels every year. For the love of god, they're making a movie based on a board game because they're terrified of making a movie that might introduce some kind of new idea or at the very least do something ambitious, and this is the reason why! Can you blame the studios for not wanting to take risks when the moment they do they are shot down by a thousand angry voices saying "this shall be the biggest failure in movie history to date! We shall ensure it!"

    EDIT: Also, for the record, Cleopatra being the biggest box office failure of all time is a common misconception that stems from the fact that it was the only film ever to be the highest grossing film of the year yet still run at a loss in the US.

  5. #5
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post

    The fact is, the numbers simply don't support the claim that John Carter is the biggest box office failure of all time, or even anywhere close to it. The pundits in the major publications can say what they will, but the numbers don't lie. That was the essence of my story. Art, even commercial art, is about far more than the money it makes back, and a studio taking a risk on a talented filmmaker with a big idea should never be something that is discouraged, ripped apart, or frowned upon. That's how the medium moves forward. There's not nearly enough risks and big ideas being taken in Hollywood right now and we're left in this stagnate state of the same five franchises being dragged back to theaters for sequels every year. For the love of god, they're making a movie based on a board game because they're terrified of making a movie that might introduce some kind of new idea or at the very least do something ambitious, and this is the reason why! Can you blame the studios for not wanting to take risks when the moment they do they are shot down by a thousand angry voices saying "this shall be the biggest failure in movie history to date! We shall ensure it!"
    Disney will report its 2nd quarter profits on the afternoon of May 8th with a conference call and webcast. The impact of JC on the company as a whole will be clearer then. Of course, if you're CEO Bob Iger or CFO Jay Rasulo its going to be a whole lot less painful armed with a weekend full of Avengers box office receipts.
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  6. #6
    MousePlanet Staff
    MousePlanet Staff

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Blog Entries
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    The very publications you are citing have been calling John Carter the biggest box-office failure of all time before it even made it out the gate.
    They said the same things about Titanic and Avatar too, before those movies were released. Tons of press about bloated budgets, out of control ego, financial ruin. I think you overestimate the power of the press to gang up on a movie and keep the crowds away, they do it almost every time a movie on the outer edge of budgets is released (the exceptions being big sequels where they have a hand-fed narrative of a pre-made audience).

    (Of course, I think John Carter was a mediocre to mildly crappy movie, so I'm sure I'm biased.)

    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    Why would a director with substantial acclaim tackling an ambitious project take a greater beating than a no-name director tackling forgettable kids' fluff? Oh, sorry, I did say I wouldn't bring up conspiracy theories, didn't I?
    I'd turn that around, considering my view of the movie, and ask "why wouldn't a director with substantial acclaim tackling an ambitious project take a greater beating than a no-name director tackling forgettable kids' fluff if that acclaimed director does a surprisingly poor job?"

    Of course, I might also argue that "Conan the Barbarian with super powers" isn't all that ambitious a project.

    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    but the numbers don't lie.
    We're talking about Hollywood accounting, the numbers always lie.

    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    Art, even commercial art, is about far more than the money it makes back, and a studio taking a risk on a talented filmmaker with a big idea should never be something that is discouraged, ripped apart, or frowned upon.
    I'd like to actively discourage it if the result is John Carter. I have tons of respect for Andrew Stanton, but he made a Michael Bay movie, and Michael Bay movies should be discouraged. I hope he wasn't trying to make a Michael Bay movie but he did. Is it fair that he made a Michael Bay movie but didn't get to make Michael Bay money? No, that's not fair.

    Quote Originally Posted by IllusionOfLife View Post
    There's not nearly enough risks and big ideas being taken in Hollywood right now and we're left in this stagnate state of the same five franchises being dragged back to theaters for sequels every year.
    I really am curious as to what big idea you see in John Carter. The only reason Disney was willing to spend so much was because they were hoping to create a new companion for the five franchises being dragged back to theaters for sequels every year.

    Anyway, on topic, The Avengers will likely make a lot of money regardless of its quality because it has something that John Carter didn't: A audience excited at the very idea of the movie. Odds are it will be another Michael Bay movie (the current trailer looks like they just digitally replaced a Transformer with the Incredible Hulk) but maybe it will transcend

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Alex S. View Post
    I'd turn that around, considering my view of the movie, and ask "why wouldn't a director with substantial acclaim tackling an ambitious project take a greater beating than a no-name director tackling forgettable kids' fluff if that acclaimed director does a surprisingly poor job?"

    Of course, I might also argue that "Conan the Barbarian with super powers" isn't all that ambitious a project.
    Is John Carter up to par with the likes of Finding Nemo and WALL•E? No. But in my opinion, and the opinions of most others (based on user feedback from sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes) It was a solid movie that was well directed, with a script that was bogged down with a lot of exposition. However, opinions are irrelevant on this point because I was referring to the beating that both John Carter and Andrew Stanton were taking months prior to the movie even being finished.

    As for ambition, this movie has been in a state of development hell for the better part of 80 years. If 80 years worth of filmmakers have tried and failed to bring it to the screen I'd say that makes it an ambitious project all on its own. Whether or not you think it is good does not discredit the ambition that the project took to realize.

    We're talking about Hollywood accounting, the numbers always lie.
    True, but based on the official numbers, which is all any of us really have to go off of, the statements made by these publications are way off base.

    I'd like to actively discourage it if the result is John Carter. I have tons of respect for Andrew Stanton, but he made a Michael Bay movie, and Michael Bay movies should be discouraged. I hope he wasn't trying to make a Michael Bay movie but he did. Is it fair that he made a Michael Bay movie but didn't get to make Michael Bay money? No, that's not fair.
    I think you and I have a fundamentally different opinion on what makes Michael Bay movies lousy. For me, the reason Michael Bay movies aren't worth mentioning is because they are shallow, pandering, and abandon storytelling and character development in favor of sex jokes, explosions, and boobs. He treats the audience like dribbling idiots and just shove copious amounts of candy colored images into every frame to make people go "oooooh." John Carter, on the other hand, was not pandering or shallow, it introduced audiences to this new world with a complex history and lore and led them through it without holding their hands. It did have big action spectacle, but it was all in service of the story and characters, not just long, dragged out, overblown scenes of mindless action that interrupts what little story is present in a Michael Bay film. You may not have liked John Carter, but it was made by someone who cares about story and characters and knows how to tie all the elements in to service the narrative. Whether you liked that narrative or not is beside the point.

    I really am curious as to what big idea you see in John Carter. The only reason Disney was willing to spend so much was because they were hoping to create a new companion for the five franchises being dragged back to theaters for sequels every year.

    Anyway, on topic, The Avengers will likely make a lot of money regardless of its quality because it has something that John Carter didn't: A audience excited at the very idea of the movie. Odds are it will be another Michael Bay movie (the current trailer looks like they just digitally replaced a Transformer with the Incredible Hulk) but maybe it will transcend
    The big idea is tackling one of oldest and most defining works of science fiction in a way that was worthy of its legacy. To bring a project that 80 years of filmmakers had been unsuccessful at realizing to the big screen. Again, whether you feel it achieved that goal is irrelevant, it was an ambitious project.

  8. #8
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    Ouch.


  9. #9
    Registered User houseofmouse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Altamonte Springs, FL

    Hey wasn't Ishtar the biggest money flop ever?? Remember that one?
    Avengers has a loyal following since Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, ect.. all have the characters in the Avengers movie and the new Hulk and Cpt. America lead up to Avengers. Not sure you can really compare the two.
    I think the problem with John Carter, other than the lousy marketing was the age of the books and Disney really underestimating people even being familiar with the books or character. I knew I wasn't when I started seeing information online about the movie being made.

    Have a Disney Day!
    You don't have to walk on water, it's how you walk on land.

  10. #10
    Zzzzzzz... Ohthatjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Qui Transluit Sustinet

    By percentage of loss to cost, Cleopatra was the biggest flop off all time. At least John Carter has a chance of making money off the international market and DVD sales (where most films make their profit anyways).


  11. #11
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohthatjeff View Post
    By percentage of loss to cost, Cleopatra was the biggest flop off all time. At least John Carter has a chance of making money off the international market and DVD sales (where most films make their profit anyways).
    Its not that way anymore. DVD sales over the last 2 years or so have fallen way, way, off with a struggling economy and the advent of cheaper ways to get movies into home whether that is streaming or the RedBox kiosk concept. If you look at your local Best Buy or Wal-Mart. the actual floorspace consumed by DVDs (and Blu-Rays) for sale has shrunk considerably.

    Trying to pin down the biggest flop of all time is difficult because film studios use a lot of smoke and mirrors with movie accounting (for legal and tax purposes). There are several lists of biggest flops using mathematical calculations based on the time the movie was made, the box office receipts based on current ticket prices, inflation, etc. but it would seem that it is fair to say that each generation produces its own unique set of film failures. Actually, the real flops might well be the movies whose failure has taken down entire film studios likes Heaven's Gate. John Carter is a huge financial failure for Disney (again, this is by Disney's own admission) but movies are not the major piece of the Disney media empire, nor are theme parks for that matter. Disney makes most of its profits from ad revenue produced by ESPN and its network of Disney Channels.

    As of the topic of this thread, The Avengers is just the start (or maybe its the middle) of this series of Marvel releases with Iron Man 3, Thor 2, and Captain America 2 all scheduled to release in 2013 and 2014. There is also a Dr. Strange movie in pre-production. Alas, the poor Hulk, I liked the Ang Lee directed version in 2003 with Eric Banya. I really liked the edgy Edward Norton version of The Incredible Hulk in 2008 and why he didn't transition into The Avengers I have no idea. The idea of a 'sensitive' type actor like Mark Ruffalo playing a character who you just flat out don't want to make angry is something I need to see. I suspect his part in The Avengers may be the shortest, maybe even giving way to Samuel L. Jackson and Scarlett Johansson. Anyway, it promises to fun (until the Dark Knight Rises once again Christian Bale's Batman puts every superhero in their comic book place).
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by dban3 View Post
    I really liked the edgy Edward Norton version of The Incredible Hulk in 2008 and why he didn't transition into The Avengers I have no idea.
    Marvel and Edward Norton had fairly public "artistic differences" over The Incredible Hulk and as a result Marvel didn't offer him a spot on The Avengers team. I too liked Ed Norton as Bruce Banner/Hulk, and I'm bummed that he won't be back in The Avengers, but I'm definitely interested to see Ruffalo's take on the character.

  13. #13
    Zzzzzzz... Ohthatjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Qui Transluit Sustinet
    Quote Originally Posted by dban3 View Post
    Its not that way anymore. DVD sales over the last 2 years or so have fallen way, way, off with a struggling economy and the advent of cheaper ways to get movies into home whether that is streaming or the RedBox kiosk concept. If you look at your local Best Buy or Wal-Mart. the actual floorspace consumed by DVDs (and Blu-Rays) for sale has shrunk considerably.
    I didn't say there was a lot of money to make in physical media. There are other folks on this board who can speak better on this but as I understand it (perhaps from another thread on this site even), the studios aim to recoup (at least most of) their investment on tie-ins and domestic reciepts. Then foreign, broadcast, and home sales (OnDemand, Digital download, and DVD) are then mostly profit (using real math, not studio math where the landscaping budget gets thrown into the ledger). I don't mean to imply that they're releasing films solely on the hopes of getting my mom to buy a VHS tape.

  14. #14
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    Lets look at Disneys first 3 film releases of 2012 (not including the Disneynature effort) John Carter (March), The Avengers (May), Brave (June) different animals, sure. But its the same zookeeper and the name is Disney. You can look at the artistic merits of each film, but Im also looking at the business side. Each of these 3 films adds or takes away from Disneys profit and loss. The Disney Studios Chairman (currently vacant) sits on top of Disney, Pixar, and Marvel Studios (though they do operate somewhat independently). Look at the 3 Studios Pixar - focused on what they do best (OK, Im willing to overlook Cars 2), Marvel focused on what they do best, Disney - lets pass out gobs of money, make movies, and see what sticks. They should be doing what they do best more Princess & the Frogs and Tangled, fewer John Carters and Prince of Persia (wouldnt they love to have the cost of those two movies back).

    Im looking for a smarter Disney Studios. The buying of Marvel and Pixar are sound investments at a corporate level that will make their costs back many times over but at the same time what Disney self- produces cant seem to get out of its own way a lot of the time. Thats the part that needs to change.

    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  15. #15

    We are so looking forward to seeing The Avengers.

    Living life to the fullest

    http://www.oilyhabit.com/

  16. #16
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by familymemories View Post
    We are so looking forward to seeing The Avengers.
    As many people are and from almost all sources who have seen the film - it delivers - BIG. Action and humor.
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  17. #17
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    So now after this weekend, The Avengers is up to 1.2 billion dollars in world-wide box office receipts. It is the 4th highest grossing film of all time and now Disney's biggest money making film. It sunk a Battleship this weekend.

    Saw the movie again last night because our son hadn't seen it. On a Saturday night, the theater was still pretty close to being full (far more people that when I saw it as a matinee last Monday). Saw it in 3D again, I think with the 2D showings the theaters were completely filled judging by comments of people in the hallway. Not sure if it can take down Avatar or Titanic but there's a Harry Potter kid about to go down.

    And I don't think there is going to be a lot of competition from a Spiderman or a Dark Knight. Previews to those two movies don't seem to how much of a "Wow!" factor.

    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  18. #18
    Zzzzzzz... Ohthatjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Qui Transluit Sustinet
    Quote Originally Posted by dban3 View Post
    You can look at the artistic merits of each film, but Im also looking at the business side. Each of these 3 films adds or takes away from Disneys profit and loss. The Disney Studios Chairman (currently vacant) sits on top of Disney, Pixar, and Marvel Studios (though they do operate somewhat independently). Look at the 3 Studios Pixar - focused on what they do best (OK, Im willing to overlook Cars 2)
    As a movie lover, I'm looking forward to Brave. If I was the person who sells toys to WalMart, the day they announced Cars 2 would have been the happiest day in my professional life. The day my boss walked in and used the phrase "medieval Scottish princess" would have been the day I updated my resume. Cars2 is the kind of movie that lets you make a movie like "Brave."

    And for what it's worth (about $18*), I liked Prince of Persia.

    *Movie ticket, soda, half a medium popcorn.**
    **Don't usually get anything close to half.

  19. #19
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohthatjeff View Post
    As a movie lover, I'm looking forward to Brave. If I was the person who sells toys to WalMart, the day they announced Cars 2 would have been the happiest day in my professional life. The day my boss walked in and used the phrase "medieval Scottish princess" would have been the day I updated my resume. Cars2 is the kind of movie that lets you make a movie like "Brave."

    And for what it's worth (about $18*), I liked Prince of Persia.


    *Movie ticket, soda, half a medium popcorn.**
    **Don't usually get anything close to half.
    Ha.... Once we put The Avengers to bed in about 3 weeks and Disney is counting its millions we can go to work on "Brave", yes, a Princess movie, hopefully a transcended one. Go out take a look at what Disney has to offer the rest of this year. Question marks-a-plenty even going up until next spring's Oz: The Great and Powerful.
    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ohthatjeff View Post
    As a movie lover, I'm looking forward to Brave. If I was the person who sells toys to WalMart, the day they announced Cars 2 would have been the happiest day in my professional life. The day my boss walked in and used the phrase "medieval Scottish princess" would have been the day I updated my resume. Cars2 is the kind of movie that lets you make a movie like "Brave."
    Every time I see the merchandise revenue charts, I'm amazed at how tall the bar is for Cars.

    Quote Originally Posted by dban3 View Post
    As many people are and from almost all sources who have seen the film - it delivers - BIG. Action and humor.
    It does. Hulk...SMASH!
    2017: Coco
    Future: The Incredibles 2, Toy Story 4

    Not an official spokesperson for the company

  21. #21
    Zzzzzzz... Ohthatjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Qui Transluit Sustinet
    Quote Originally Posted by pixar View Post
    Every time I see the merchandise revenue charts, I'm amazed at how tall the bar is for Cars.
    I'm not. The day y'all make a movie about transforming dinosaurs driving cars in space, all my money is going into stock.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by pixar View Post
    Hulk...SMASH!
    It was SO GOOD!! And honestly I had really low expectations for this film. As an avid comic book junkie I was actually pretty impressed with the overall narrative of the film. It was really entertaining and the story was well written and directed. A solid A.

    And bless her heart, I love her, but I don't really think she's that great of an actress...but Scarlett Johansson was phenomenal this go-around. Everyone was really solid.

  23. #23
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    A billion dollars and counting. The Avengers is the 12th movie to reach the Billion Dollar club. On the other hand. I just saw the movie yesterday because I have a problem with dark crowded movie theaters and claustrophobia. I saw the movie with about 10 people total in the audience total. At $12 a pop because it was a 3D showing that's about $120 that our theater contributed to The Avengers pot of gold.

    PS: Disney has 5 of the 12 movies in The Billion Dollar club: POTC: Dead Man's Chest ($1,106.6), Toy Story 3 ($1,106.3), POTC: On Stranger Tides ($1,104.3), Alice In Wonderland ($1,102.4), The Avengers ($1,000.4). The Avengers in all likelihood will end up being Disney's highest grossing film.

    The 2 James Cameron films - Avatar and Titanic are the only movies to have earned over 2 billion dollars in box office receipts.

    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

  24. #24
    At home in the hills candles71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    foresthill Ca

    We also saw it Tuesday night. (Bargain day at our theatre all showings all day are $6, with 3D showings $3 more.) Our Theatre was full! I don't think there was a single seat left anywhere.

    I loved it. Whistler and I really liked some of the oneliners. Especially at least one fairly obscure movie reference.

     
    There was a Pointe Break reference that went way over peoples heads. But I was surprised at how many on our theatre didn't get the Legolas reference either.

    I am also thinking A needs to watch more super hero movies, she kept asking questions.

  25. #25
    Registered User dban3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northern California (Sacramento Area)
    Blog Entries
    1

    Bob Iger personally moved the Walt Disney Company to acquire Marvel for 4 billion dollars. As a smart business man, he knew he could recoup his investment and turn a tidy profit in a relatively short time and he's doing just that with at least 6 Marvel movies (not including The Avengers) in various stages of production and pre-production, the Marvel featured Disney Xd cable channel, and the various other assortment of Marvel digital and printed media. To Alex's point, The Avengers will succeed because the audience is already on board. This is about business, not art.

    The Hollywood power brokers and insiders can throw themselves a party on Oscar night celebrating artistic movies that most people will never see (with the exception it seems almost anything James Cameron makes for some reason). The rest of year its about making movies that puts rear ends in the seats. Stockholders care little about awards for artistic merit, they like to see their $40 stocks go to $50. That takes an audience. Michael Bay movies are junk food movies for the masses and they make money for Universal because the audience is, like the Marvel world, already on board. They know what they are going to get - two hours of entertainment and things blowing up and they are perfectly fine with that. I don't blame them a bit for spending their hard earn money anyway they see fit. And here is something else to consider, Michael Bay movies employ large amount of people for long periods of time. That is good for the movie industry as a whole. Many people who work in the film industry are not studio employees with lifetime careers and benefits. They work as independent contractors moving from job to job marketing their services to filmmakers and producers. It can be a tough life sometimes when, as often happens in Hollywood, opportunities that look like sure things often fall through the cracks. If Universal contracts Michael Bay to produce 3 more Transformer movies, a large group of technical and non-technical craftsmen just got steady paychecks for the next 6 - 8 years. Good for them, good for their spouses and families as well.

    Writing about all things Disney, a couple of paragraphs at a time.

    http://disneylandtraveler.blogspot.com/

    105000 page views and counting

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •