wileECoyote Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Sadly, I don't think it stands a chance. If The Croods magically fails, he does, but if not, 220M is maximum.Inception is a franchise?What's the buzz on The Croods? I haven't been following it too much. Looks interesting though and if its as good as HTTYD I'll catch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Sadly, I don't think it stands a chance. If The Croods magically fails, he does, but if not, 220M is maximum. Inception is a franchise? Titanic isn't one either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Titanic isn't one either. Neither is Avatar, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Budgeted the film with 150m, it would now be a pretty success. Thought it was 215M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmasterclay Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I don't see how this means the box office in 2013 sucks- yes, it disappointed overseas, but domestically it's very impressive. Third largest March opening, 80+ million. I think an impressive domestic total is important, and it has one. The box office doesn't suck at all, calm down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Neither is Avatar, right? Not yet. Also ET and AiW not yet. Edited March 10, 2013 by Neo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Based in my calculations, it's closing with $230M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Thought it was 215M. I think it was meant to sound like "If the movie had a 150M budget..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) How often does that happen?The only example I can think of is GI Joe and that's because Paramount and Hasbro were desperate.With Disney and these iconic brands, the movies are essentially are long trailers for all the miscellaneous stuff we don't care about (but studios sure do).Edit: I think Paramount probably lost a decent chunk of money with ST09 theatrically (not nearly a hundred million, of course). Edited March 10, 2013 by Telemachos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I think it was meant to sound like "If the movie had a 150M budget..."you are right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krissykins Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It cost $200m and god knows how much Disney spent on marketing. So looks like it won't be making an outright profit from worldwide box office, but will eventually afterwards.Legs could surprise though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It cost $200m and god knows how much Disney spent on marketing. So looks like it won't be making an outright profit from worldwide box office, but will eventually afterwards.Legs could surprise though. 100M marketing. Until it has very good DVD/Bluray Sales, they won't cross into the profit territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndustriousAngel Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) It's gonna lose between 50-100M. You say if this is enough for a sequel^^ You can be assured that this doesn't lose Disney a cent ... this is the perfect film for home video and TV, it will wash hundreds of millions US$ into their wallets after its theatrical run. If movies had to make their money back from the theatrical run, a lot of studios would be in a lot more trouble than they are (and budgets would be smaller ) Edited March 10, 2013 by IndustriousAngel 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) I take it as, at least their taking good risks. Maybe they didn't match your or my expectations but to those that matter, not so much. A disappointment maybe it could be a wise "investment" in the end.Simple cost benefit analysis says it makes more sense to invest in multi-billion dollar money makers like Star Wars, PTOC, Pixar, and Marvel than risky and marginally profitable Oz movies.How many James Franco Oz mugs do you think they can sell anyway? Edited March 10, 2013 by grey ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 It cost $200m and god knows how much Disney spent on marketing. So looks like it won't be making an outright profit from worldwide box office, but will eventually afterwards.Legs could surprise though. ??? With 215M+125M(marketing?) = 340M so 680M means they are good. When looking at profitability we don't count marketing, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Simple cost benefit analysis says it makes more sense in multi-billion dollar money makers like Star Wars, PTOC, Pixar, and Marvel than rasky and marginally profitable Oz movies.How many James Franco Oz mugs do you think they can sell anyway? I would buy one, I tell you that. And probably one with Finley and China Girl. And one with Mila Kunis only so I can smash it to the ground. Edited March 10, 2013 by ChFloppit 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Marvel Fanboy Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 With Disney and these iconic brands, the movies are essentially are long trailers for all the miscellaneous stuff we don't care about (but studios sure do).Edit: I think Paramount probably lost a decent chunk of money with ST09 theatrically (not nearly a hundred million, of course).I heard that the budgets for Disney movies usually include these movie-based theme park or even video games/toys investments. Is it that case ? Since that could explain why Disney trend to have bigger budgets for their movies compared with other studios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm seeing Oz next friday after all. If only for the visuals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChD Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 I'm seeing Oz next friday after all. If only for the visuals If it's only for that, you'll love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Sadly, I don't think it stands a chance. If The Croods magically fails, he does, but if not, 220M is maximum.Inception is a franchise?I was looking for a term for different movie series.Is there a more fitting one to include movies like Inception and ET? Edited March 10, 2013 by grey ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
