Jump to content

  •  
  • Start New Topic

Photo

Number Crunch: How Successful Are Hollywood's Fairy Tale Revivals?


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 ShawnMR

ShawnMR

  • Forum Admin
  • 14,402 posts
  • Joined November 04, 2011
  • 465 topics

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:22 AM

Full Article: http://www.boxoffice.com/articles/2013-01-number-crunch-fairy-tales-revived-for-116

[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]If nothing else, the goal of Number Crunch is to serve as a financial report card on where Hollywood has been while also cautioning the studios on where they're going. In this edition, its time for the "fairy tale revival" to go under the microscope. And surprisingly, so far, the results aren't that bad.[/font]
[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]
The movement didn't begin with a good send-off in 2003 when the Peter Pan re-imagining aimed for a big Christmas audience and instead was met with poor critical reviews and an even worse box office performance. Pulling less than $50 million domestically and reaching $122 million worldwide, the film failed to break even during its theatrical run when considering its $140 million negative costs (production plus marketing budgets).
[/font][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]
The next iteration would be 2005's The Brothers Grimm, which grossed just $105.3 million globally against negative costs of $115 million.
[/font][background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]
Fortunately, the track record has improved since then.

[/font]

Save the Forums! Donation Campaign for Independent, Member-Funded Hosting

 

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes

 

"Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien


#2 ECSTASY

ECSTASY

    Don't Give Up On Your Dreams

  • Gold Account
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,929 posts
  • Joined November 08, 2011
  • 98 topics
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:51 AM

Very good article Shawn. Do the budgets of those movies include marketing? They seem awfully big.

bcK3U2S.gif


#3 Clavius

Clavius

    Box Office Gold

  • Free Account
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined May 06, 2012
  • 28 topics
  • LocationUS

Posted 22 January 2013 - 11:58 AM

Full Article: http://www.boxoffice...revived-for-116

I don't understand this statement:

[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]"Overseas, the film performed much better but the overall global take of $215.2 million resulted in barely making back Disney's $195 million spent producing and marketing the [/font]Fantasia[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]-inspired undertaking."[/font]

I know "ShawnMR" knows a ton about boxoffice so am I missing something? I don't understand how grossing $215.2m is barely making back a $195m investment. Doesn't conventional box office wisdom suggest that a film should at least double its production budget (in this case $150m) during its theatrical release to be on its way towards a profit? That would mean a $300m WW gross for this particular film which still wouldn't cover P&A. The statement would seem to only make sense if studios retained 100% of the gross--which is obviously not how it is.

Edited by Clavius, 22 January 2013 - 01:43 PM.


#4 ECSTASY

ECSTASY

    Don't Give Up On Your Dreams

  • Gold Account
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,929 posts
  • Joined November 08, 2011
  • 98 topics
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:02 PM

I don't understand this statement:

[background=rgb(249,249,249)]"Overseas, the film performed much better but the overall global take of $215.2 million resulted in barely making back Disney's $195 million spent producing and marketing the [/font]Fantasia[background=rgb(249,249,249)]-inspired undertaking."[/font]

I know "ShawnMR" knows a ton about boxoffice so am I missing something? I don't understand how grossing $215.2m is barely making back a $195m investment. Doesn't conventional box office wisdom suggest that a film should at least double its production budget (in this case $150m) during its theatrical release to be on its way to a profit? That would mean a $300m WW gross for this particular film which still wouldn't cover P&A. The statement would seem to only make sense if studios retained 100% of the gross--which is obviously not how it is.

I think Boxoffice.com uses the marketing budgets in the figures instead of doubling the pd. Waiting for Shawn to confirm.

bcK3U2S.gif


#5 TLK

TLK

    Box Office Gold

  • Free Account
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Joined November 09, 2011
  • 11 topics

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:05 PM

I don't understand this statement:

[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]"Overseas, the film performed much better but the overall global take of $215.2 million resulted in barely making back Disney's $195 million spent producing and marketing the [/font]Fantasia[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]-inspired undertaking."[/font]

I know "ShawnMR" knows a ton about boxoffice so am I missing something? I don't understand how grossing $215.2m is barely making back a $195m investment. Doesn't conventional box office wisdom suggest that a film should at least double its production budget (in this case $150m) during its theatrical release to be on its way to a profit? That would mean a $300m WW gross for this particular film which still wouldn't cover P&A. The statement would seem to only make sense if studios retained 100% of the gross--which is obviously not how it is.

I think he means that the movie's theaterical release barely made the amount it spend on production, marketing etc. The movie is listed as a "likely money-loser".

#6 fishnets

fishnets

    Global Phenomenon

  • Suspended / Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,744 posts
  • Joined November 08, 2011
  • 6 topics
  • Locationcanadian ocean

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:09 PM

They are not. I don`t think they are successful except AIW. Snow White shit certainly didn`t do all that well.

Edited by fishnets, 22 January 2013 - 12:09 PM.

47fishnets_zps6a56e122.jpg


#7 TLK

TLK

    Box Office Gold

  • Free Account
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,523 posts
  • Joined November 09, 2011
  • 11 topics

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:19 PM

They are not. I don`t think they are successful except AIW. Snow White shit certainly didn`t do all that well.

They are successful by the accepted industry standards. Obviously, AIW is much more successful than others but you can't set the success bar at a billion dollar worldwide gross.

#8 Clavius

Clavius

    Box Office Gold

  • Free Account
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined May 06, 2012
  • 28 topics
  • LocationUS

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:19 PM

I think he means that the movie's theaterical release barely made the amount it spend on production, marketing etc.

You are probably right, but grossing and making back are very very different things and I assume the person who wrote the article is aware of that, so I was just a bit confused.

#9 ShawnMR

ShawnMR

  • Forum Admin
  • 14,402 posts
  • Joined November 04, 2011
  • 465 topics

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:13 PM

Very good article Shawn. Do the budgets of those movies include marketing? They seem awfully big.

Correct. :)

All of these budgets can be found on our movie pages on Boxoffice.com, which include estimated production budgets combined with marketing+distribution costs.

I don't understand this statement:

[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]"Overseas, the film performed much better but the overall global take of $215.2 million resulted in barely making back Disney's $195 million spent producing and marketing the [/font]Fantasia[background=rgb(249, 249, 249)]-inspired undertaking."[/font]

I know "ShawnMR" knows a ton about boxoffice so am I missing something? I don't understand how grossing $215.2m is barely making back a $195m investment. Doesn't conventional box office wisdom suggest that a film should at least double its production budget (in this case $150m) during its theatrical release to be on its way towards a profit? That would mean a $300m WW gross for this particular film which still wouldn't cover P&A. The statement would seem to only make sense if studios retained 100% of the gross--which is obviously not how it is.

I understand the confusion. What this basically means is that while the gross exceeded the total costs of the film, the studio itself still didn't profit because some of that revenue (the gross) goes to the exhibitors (theaters).

So, for example, if a movie makes $150 million and cost $125 million, then while on paper it looks profitable -- it actually resulted in the studio losing money (in theaters, anyway) because theaters get back anywhere between 30-50% of that $150 million gross.

This is something I usually try to note in the budget analyses but I sometimes worry it makes the articles longer than necessary, heh.

Save the Forums! Donation Campaign for Independent, Member-Funded Hosting

 

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes

 

"Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien


#10 Clavius

Clavius

    Box Office Gold

  • Free Account
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,832 posts
  • Joined May 06, 2012
  • 28 topics
  • LocationUS

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:15 PM

Correct. :)All of these budgets can be found on our movie pages on Boxoffice.com, which include estimated production budgets combined with marketing+distribution costs.I understand the confusion. What this basically means is that while the gross exceeded the total costs of the film, the studio itself still didn't profit because some of that revenue (the gross) goes to the exhibitors (theaters).So, for example, if a movie makes $150 million and cost $125 million, then while on paper it looks profitable -- it actually resulted in the studio losing money (in theaters, anyway) because theaters get back anywhere between 30-50% of that $150 million gross.This is something I usually try to note in the budget analyses but I sometimes worry it makes the articles longer than necessary, heh.

Ahh gotcha, thanks for getting back to me. I took "making back" too literally. Great articles by the way, always informative!

#11 ShawnMR

ShawnMR

  • Forum Admin
  • 14,402 posts
  • Joined November 04, 2011
  • 465 topics

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:16 PM

Ahh gotcha, thanks for getting back to me. I took "making back" too literally. Great articles by the way, always informative!

Thanks! And its a fair point to bring up. I think I'm going to come up with a short description to tag on at the end of these things. I'd probably wonder the same thing if I weren't writing it, haha.

Save the Forums! Donation Campaign for Independent, Member-Funded Hosting

 

"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly, one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes

 

"Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you're kind, amazing things will happen." - Conan O'Brien



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users