riczhang Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Well considering that it cost 325m to make and market, they're losing money on the film well into DVD/Blu-Ray sales and merchandising.325 to make and market? I definitely thought it was lower than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 325 to make and market? I definitely thought it was lower than that. 200M production and 125M market If I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 to be fair, I hear the main reason Tron Legacy is getting a sequel is because the merchandising for Tron was the top selling of 2010 and the soundtrack sold like hotcakes too, don';t know if Oz merchandise will sell that much though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 325 to make and market? I definitely thought it was lower than that. Definitely higher than that, actually. Movies like this cost at least $150M for P&A. And the budget is at least $200M so...you know. They throw in the "the numbers you read are always understated" tax, it's probably over $400M. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 200M production and 125M market If I'm not mistaken.Holy shit, didn't realise the movie was so expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Three reasons: 1) They're making Planes, and multiple sequels. Those are Cars spinoffs. They exist for exactly the reason you're talking about.2) Cars is viewed now almost as an evergreen merchandise product. That means, quite frankly, to some degree those products sell whether a movie exists or not. I heard someone compare Cars not to other movies, but to Hot Wheels. It sells itself.3) They probably will make a Cars 3, to be honest. And let me set everyone straight...they're not making Oz movies for merchandise dollars. That side of Oz isn't that big.Planes is a knock off not a spin off, there's a difference.and what makes you think there will be a Cars 3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Oz is anything but a flop. A flop is Jack the Giant Killer. Opening to 80 mill and making 150 mill WW first weekend is really quite amazing. I think we need to redefine out definition of a flop here. This is guaranteed to hit 200 mill and possibly 250. Not even close to a flop. Exactly. It's doing exactly what most people predicted domestically and even exceeding expectations in some places, and the IM of the opening weekend means strong family legs are certainly a possibility. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonytr87 Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 The majority of movies a turn a profit before they leave theatres. We really have no clue regarding Hollywood finances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wadey Wilsoney Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I think another thing regarding an OZ sequel is whether Disney would want to spend another three years making a movie that in the end might only turn a small profit (or even make a loss). Just doesn't seem worth the time or the risk. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riczhang Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I think another thing regarding an OZ sequel is whether Disney would want to spend another three years making a movie that in the end might only turn a small profit (or even make a loss). Just doesn't seem worth the time or the risk.With Marvel they now have the cash to do whatever the hell they want. I could see them making a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Planes is a knock off not a spin off, there's a difference.and what makes you think there will be a Cars 3? There is a difference, and this is definitely a spinoff. We're talking about merchandise, and the impact of films, and I can tell you Disney is looking at Planes in the way I'm talking about. As for me thinking a Cars 3 would happen...dunno, just seems like it would since Lasseter likes it so much and an excuse to push the merch gravy train makes it a reasonable bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Planes is a knock off not a spin off, there's a difference.What's the difference, as you define it?kowhite knows his shit about this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 So Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and soon Sam Raimi will be the only directors with four $200M+ grossing movies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 The majority of movies a turn a profit before they leave theatres. We really have no clue regarding Hollywood finances. This is not true. The majority of films do not turn a profit before they leave theaters. I'm not even sure you can say the majority of films even turn a profit period. And I actually do have a pretty good handle on Hollywood finances. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted March 10, 2013 Author Founder / Operator Share Posted March 10, 2013 So Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and soon Sam Raimi will be the only directors with four $200M+ grossing movies? Nolan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Nolan Oh duh! *slaps self* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) So Peter Jackson, Michael Bay and soon Sam Raimi will be the only directors with four $200M+ grossing movies? As ShawnMR said, Nolan. And Lucas. And Spielberg. And Chris Columbus. And, well, David Yates. Edited March 10, 2013 by kowhite 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) *cough*Spielberg*cough*Lucasedit: damn you, kowhite! Edited March 10, 2013 by Telemachos 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tower Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I bet that's a short list.The 2x budget/marketing rule is used because for whatever reason it accurately predicts which movies get sequels better than any other basic litmus test. Except it doesn't, films that don't do this get sequels all the time, like Captain America, Star Trek, Batman Begins, X-Men: First Class, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, Fast 2 and 3, and countless others. On the other hand Alice which easily did this isn't getting a sequel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theultimatebiu Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Does that intl' number confirm that 3D is not the draw it use to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
