Originally Posted By leobloom ^^Fully agree. I liked the first act especially, but it was downhill from there. The ending was especially hard to swallow.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>I assumed the statement included animated and live action.<< So to that previous list, add the following: Wall-E Bolt Up The Princess and the Frog Toy Story 3 Tangled Cars 2 Winnie the Pooh Brave Frankenweenie Wreck-It Ralph Monsters University This list seems to fare better than the live-action list, but I still think it's fair to say that it's a pretty mixed bag. None of these were really home runs (possible exception TS3), and many of them got lukewarm reviews. Animated features tend to do fairly well at the box office especially with the right branding and marketing, but people have begun to question that philosophy under Iger's reign
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA You know, overall, Disney's live-action movies have been pretty hit and and miss. For every '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea' and 'Swiss Family Robinson' and 'Pollyanna' there are several more 'Follow Me Boys' and. 'In Search of the Castawys' and 'The Ugly Dachshund'
Originally Posted By mawnck >>You know, overall, Disney's live-action movies have been pretty hit and and miss. << Aye, but overall, they've also been cheap, cheap, cheap.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA >>You know, overall, Disney's live-action movies have been pretty hit and and miss. << <Aye, but overall, they've also been cheap, cheap, cheap.> True dat yo.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Aye, but overall, they've also been cheap, cheap, cheap.>> So true. Even under Eisner's reign the majority of the live action slate had manageable budgets - there were a few that were bigger gambles like Dick Tracy and Rocketeer - but he typically stayed out of the Batman-type movies and the crazy back-end deals that made a lot of '80s and '90s actors and actresses tens of millions of dollars. Now we get Disney movies that cost upwards of $250m.
Originally Posted By leemac Variety are reporting a $120m+ opening for DM2 leaving Ranger with $60m or less. I wonder if Rasulo will take the write-down on Ranger this week or next?
Originally Posted By dagobert >>>I wonder if Rasulo will take the write-down on Ranger this week or next? <<< Does the studio make any profit? Despite the good numbers even MU will not make a profit. Oz didn't make a profit. So that leaves Frozen and the Marvel movie, and I guess they won't make a profit either when they are so expensive.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 They've definitely made a profit on Iron Man 3 and I would think Monsters will turn one eventually
Originally Posted By FerretAfros And don't forget about Planes. That turkey is sure to be the smash hit of the year *rolls eyes*
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 They made a sizable profit on Iron Man but I understand why leewac and others would ignore this fact.... They can't whine about Marvel films of they count it...
Originally Posted By planodisney Monsters wont make a profit when all is said and done? At possibly 750- 800 million worldwide before DVD sales. I just don't believe that. Its going to probably out earn, worldwide, every Pixar movie except TS3, and yet lose money. Sorry, Im not buying that. What would be the purpose of them continuing to pump out Pixar films if even a best cast scenario loses money for them.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>They made a sizable profit on Iron Man but I understand why leewac and others would ignore this fact.... They can't whine about Marvel films of they count it...<< Or the fact that Disney had almost no involvement with the project, other than overseeing the liscensing agreement. Once Disney began to make the films (using largely the same team), those creative decisions can be incorporated, but anything prior to that is essentially moot for this disucssion IMO
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<What would be the purpose of them continuing to pump out Pixar films if even a best cast scenario loses money for them.>> Only the film production loses money. But the consumer aftermarket is very profitable. Cars and Cars 2 did not do well at the box, and received some of Pixar's worst reviews. Especially Cars 2, which is still at the bottom of the Pixar ladder with an RT rating of 39%. But the Cars brand is huge. The toy aftermarket has made Disney/Pixar BILLIONS in revenue over the past 7 years. That's why these films are made.
Originally Posted By leemac <<They made a sizable profit on Iron Man but I understand why leewac and others would ignore this fact.... They can't whine about Marvel films of they count it...>> Where did I say that they aren't making money on MARVEL movies? Iron Man 3 has made $1.2bn at the box office - the budget and marketing/distribution is in the $400m range and Paramount got a fat 9% of the worldwide distribution revenue. Disney will have taken c.$600-700m from theater owners so they have a tidy profit from first runs. The only additional wrinkle is that Disney defrayed their production costs by bringing in a partner in the form of DMG Entertainment. I don't think Disney has confirmed the nature of the deal but it is probably 50:50 so Disney will probably clear $100m on Iron Man 3. The Avengers had a similar deal although box office grosses were higher and there was no co-financier. I'm still concerned about the sequels to Thor and Captain America which are both running budgets in excess of their originals in the $200-250m bracket. Both need to bring in more grosses to break even.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "And don't forget about Planes. That turkey is sure to be the smash hit of the year *rolls eyes*" Lol, it's going to be your new favorite movie, admit it! Saw preview before Monsters Inc by the way, it looks positively revolting. And I like some pretty terrible stuff.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Monsters wont make a profit when all is said and done? At possibly 750- 800 million worldwide before DVD sales. I just don't believe that. Its going to probably out earn, worldwide, every Pixar movie except TS3, and yet lose money. Sorry, Im not buying that. What would be the purpose of them continuing to pump out Pixar films if even a best cast scenario loses money for them.>> I'm not sure it will outgross Nemo but it is possible. The problem is that every Pixar movie since Up has cost in excess of $200m before marketing/distribution. That is an insane budget when every other CGI house can bring in movies in the $100-150m mark. Consumer Products will do well - they have a zillion new monsters to market. It is like Cars.
