Hiccup Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 OOTP is the perfect example of something that can have a lower profit ratio in theaters and still be acceptable. Those movies, like others, are partly just big advertisements for all of the ancillary revenue the studio gets in the post-theatrical stream. Even if they don't get their profit upfront after that the theatrical run, they still end up making a lot more money than most off that one movie in the grand scheme of things. What is OOTP? 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 What is OOTP? Order of the Phoenix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Oz is a floppit no way around it. Disney expected AIW numbers hence the budget + marekting and this is falling way short of that target. merchandise will make it profitable enough maybe even for a sequel but it doesn`t change the fact it`s a floppit. They were really pushing the epic angle for such shoddy OS returns.Disney did not expect this to make Alice numbers. Trust me, no they did not. Granted that international number is soft and short of what is expected, but this was not expected to do a billion worldwide.Also, I think sometimes people overstate the impact of merchandise. It's not that big a piece of the pie for most movies. But I don't think this film will be in too much danger of profitability. The domestic number has much stronger conversion to actually dollars in Disneys pocket so there is that. 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 (edited) Oz will be profitable. Eventually. When Disney can air it on their networks and sell all of that ad time, if it wasn't profitable before then, it will be. The debate is really about whether or not that's an acceptable standard. Edited March 10, 2013 by ShawnMR 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer 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. 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Oz is doomed next week end. It s gonna get crushed by The Call and the Great Butt something stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Oz will be profitable. Eventually. When Disney can air it on their networks and sell all of that ad time, if it wasn't profitable before then, it will be. The debate is really about whether or not that's an acceptable standard. Considering how films are greenlit, considering how by-title IRR is calculated...it absolutely is an acceptable standard. That's how studio's look at movies...so, I can say with yes, it's perfectly acceptable. If the very metric used to greenlight the production of these films isn't an acceptable standard, I don't know what is then. That being said, expectations aren't to breakeven, and $500M WWBO is probably closer to breakeven than a solid 10% return or so. Thing is, it's simple enough to look at the box office and extrapolate downstream revenues from ancillary markets for years and years. Edited March 10, 2013 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Cars is a far more profitable franchise for merchandising than Oz ever will be.Any word on Cars 3?Of course not. Disney rather invest in the next big thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Cars is an exception, not the rule regarding merchandise sales. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 The biggest thing going against an Oz sequel isn't the BO, it's that Raimi doesn't seem to want to come back. Right there you've potentially lost a huge chunk of the cast and crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost 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.OK fine.It's a global disappointment and sequel killer.better? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Cars is an exception, not the rule regarding merchandise sales. Yeah, no doubt. Cars sell more merchandise crap in one year than most other films dream about doing their entire time in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Cars is an exception, not the rule regarding merchandise sales.Why would Disney do a sequel to Oz instead of Cars 2 if Cars sells more merchandise and they should be equally profitable outside of that? Edited March 10, 2013 by grey ghost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dementeleus Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 At this point with CARS, why even bother with movies? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 Because Pixar has still a say in what they do and they only produce one movie a year. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 the main reason I don't see a sequel to Oz is because they didn't make a sequel to Alice, so why Oz? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kowhite Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) Why would Disney do sequel to Oz instead of Cars 2 if Cars sells more merchandise and they should be equally profitable outside of that? 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. Edited March 10, 2013 by kowhite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Futurist Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 (edited) In other news, SLP will probably finnish above Robert Parker in the US. I would also argue that the Oscar SLP leak cost the movie around 20m in bo receits. The movie could have done 150m dom. It will finish in the 130m area, probably a bit under. Edited March 10, 2013 by The Futurist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 the main reason I don't see a sequel to Oz is because they didn't make a sequel to Alice, so why Oz? Oz is probably more sequel friendly. Problem with Alice is that Burton would never come back, right there you've lost Depp, and without Depp what's the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grey ghost Posted March 10, 2013 Share Posted March 10, 2013 At this point with CARS, why even bother with movies?I'm comparing it to Oz because they both will have a similar budget and BO gross.but Cars is a better merchandise seller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copy2.thumb.jpg.344d957d147bdc91dbc557bf24ccbfbb.jpg)
