Originally Posted By Anatole69 Just checked the gross for the #1 western. It was Dances with Wolves with $180 million. That might be too high for True Grit based on it's domestic current gross, but it depends on what kind of foreign business it does. It's almost certain to move into the #2 position though. - Anatole
Originally Posted By Christi22222 I find it interesting that Dances With Wolves counts as a western. Makes sense, I guess, but I have never thought of it that way and it's one of my favorite movies. Can NOT re-watch it ever again, though. Interested to see True Grit.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<I know of no exec presentation - all of us will be in FL for the Disney Dream launch so no idea who will be left. I guess there could be some TDO pitch.>> Lee... do you know which Imagineer is developing this TRON attraction concept? Is it Baxter? The "mid-January presentation" tidbit made me think it's Tony, since he always attends CES in early January (CES starts tomorrow) and wouldn't be available to present any project until next week. <<There have been plenty of ideas bouncing around for DL - but management just won't commit any capital dollars until the next phase of DCA begins to bear fruit - if Little Mermaid continues the trend set by WoC then DL will hit the capacity wall - and hard. Success brings its own headaches.>> It's possible that this is being developed for WDW, given the lack of capital until DCA's makeover is complete. But with Lasseter so close to the DLR... would John have any influence on this TRON attraction becoming a part of DL's flailing Tomorrowland, to keep Tony attached to yet another project and eliminate that "forced early retirement" target on his back?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 I think Leemac is busy Dreaming of 3-4-and-5 night cruises to the Bahamas right now, skinner. Maybe he'll be available for interviews with the O-Seentinel ... unlike say ... any exec from Iger to Rasulo to Staggs to Holz. ;-) \
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Just saw a commercial for the Disney Cruise Line last night. With 'Under the Sea' playing in the background, it featured a bunch of Disney characters -- including Wall-E, Lightning McQueen and others -- running around the ship and helping passengers have a gun time. It was -- sort of weird.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^they are running that almost nonstop in FLA. And funny how I can't open an email that doesn't have a DCL popup on it? In case anyone wondered, a seven night Magic Med cruise out of Barcelona on 8/27 starts at only $875 a person (I know this because I can't escape it).
Originally Posted By Anatole69 It is now at $300 million internationally. How much does it need to gross to break even? - Anatole
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I can answer that, Anatole. The well accepted formula for a film "breaking even" is three times the cost of production at the box, not including marketing costs. Others have claimed two times the cost is more realistic, so we can do the math for both scenarios. TRON cost $170 million to produce, and $120 million to promote and market. If TRON needs to make three times the cost of production at the box, that would be $510 million. If TRON needs to make only twice the cost of production, that would be $340 million. The worst case scenario is $510 plus $120 for a total of $630 million. The more optimistic scenario is $340 plus $120 for a total of $460 million. The reality is somewhere between those two figures, which would be $545 million. So... another $250 million to go, just to break even? Very, very doubtful.
Originally Posted By brotherdave $300 million sounds like a "hit" to me, no matter what the movie cost to make. It's ridiculous to think otherwise. Most other movies made are lucky to even break the $100 million barrier. Now, here's a movie that's grossed over $300 million and it's considered a "dissapointment"??? Something is definitely wrong in Hollywood... Bring on the TRON attractions!!!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Now, here's a movie that's grossed over $300 million and it's considered a "dissapointment"???>> First off, the film's earnings as of Sunday were still a bit under $300 million. Second, it cost $170 million to make, and another $120 million to advertise and promote. That's a total of $290 million. Disney does not get to keep all of the box office receipts. The distributor of the film gets their cut, as well as the theater owners/operators. Disney, as the producing studio, gets a slice of the total pie, but not all of it. Most industry analysts claim that studios get approximately one-third of total box office receipts, while others have made the case that it's closer to one-half. Somewhere in the middle lies the truth, which is probably around 40%. That being said... of the current total of approx. $300 million worldwide for TRON, Disney has probably earned 40% of that figure, or about $120 million. Please explain to me how TRON could be anything but a disappointment, given the $290 million price tag? It will need to do over $500 million at the box just to break even. Disappointment, TRON is.
Originally Posted By JeffG If that math were really the way it worked, then the studios would stop making films like this. The factor that is being overlooked here is that the film likely didn't really cost anywhere near $290 million to make, even if that is the officially recorded cost of the film. The reason for this is that studios routinely charge all kinds of costs to major movie productions that don't really have anything to do with the making of the movie. This includes studio and production company overhead and operational budget, development costs for abandoned projects, and other fixed or variable costs related to the company's operation. In addition, the budget for a film frequently includes a fairly large "distribution fee" that is essentially a cross-division charge that applies towards the film's budget. Effectively, that is the studio paying Walt Disney Pictures Distribution to release the film. It is a "cost" against the film, but money that doesn't really leave the company. There are a number of reasons why this kind of accounting makes sense, but the biggest is simply that it rarely is in the company's best interest for a major film to be very profitable (if it all) on paper. Most movies have a certain number of participants that are contractually granted a percentage of the profits and the studios want to minimize that amount. I don't know any specifics about the costs associated with "Tron Legacy" (even the $290 million figure is a rumor as Disney doesn't publicly state production budgets), but it is pretty unlikely the true break-even on the film is anywhere near $500 million. This movie was always viewed as something of a risk and most industry analysts that I've seen have put its performance within expectations, even if it did fall short of best case. -Jeff
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I worked at a movie theater for 2 years 10 or so years ago. My understanding then was the movie studios got a higher proportion of the profits in the early weeks of the films run, and then much less as the film continued to play. This is the reason for the high concession costs to the consumer. The theater makes up for the lowered profits on the new films through concession sales. So if this is correct, wouldn't Disney be getting more than just %40 of the profits from Tron at this point? - Anatole
Originally Posted By cheesybaby Tron will eventually break even - don't forget DVD/BD sales, licensing fees to pay-per-view, TV sales, downloads, etc. But it clearly has not been the big profitable hit the company expected. Is it a "disappointment"? Yes. "Huge flop"? No. "Success"? Hard to say and open to interpretation. But certainly not a "big success," which is what every movie has to be to meet its expectations (both financial and otherwise). The conventional wisdom is that the merchandising sales have been weak. Theme park attractions are likely dead.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Here's a good article about how distribution works: <a href="http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/movie-distribution.htm" target="_blank">http://entertainment.howstuffw...tion.htm</a> Many factors come into play regarding percentages, covering theater costs, etc, when licensing agreements are reached. Most folks I've spoken to about this, including a long-time department head at Pixar, believe the "three times" rule is accurate. Others have balked and claimed it's closer to two times production cost, so I guess it depends on the studio and each particular licensing agreement. JeffG is correct about accounting tricks and making films look less profitable "on paper." And certainly studios like Disney are typically more interested in how the film does outside the theater, with merchandise and game sales, home video aftermarket, and promotional tie-ins, than the actual box itself. Cars is a classic example. It's not considered Pixar's best and doesn't hold any attendance records, even for Pixar. But toy sales? Astronomical! This is why we're getting a sequel, so new car characters can be introduced into the merchandise stream and make even more billions. Whisperings I'm hearing indicate that Disney is not pleased with TRON's performance in any avenue. Merchandise sales have been weak, and expectations for home video aren't high, given how mediocre the box has been. Disney wanted a solid franchise with TRON to exploit in many business channels, including the parks, but the public interest just isn't there. If Disney can't sell toys and games to the movie goers, then they'll probably have the same difficulties with theme park attendees. It's all about the gift shop at the exit. For that reason, I doubt we'll see a TRON attraction materializing any time soon.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Wow. That didn't take long: <a href="http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48054" target="_blank">http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48054</a> "Hey folks, Harry here... And this was the happy word I received today on the Grapevine of Industry Insiders. TRON LEGACY, a film that many people loved, and a lot of people wanted more from, and that a very vocal minority incessantly bitch about... is getting close, incredibly close to having its SEQUEL announced!" Really? Disney thinks this can actually be a sustainable franchise before knowing how well the DVDs sell? Hmm... I seem to recall they thought the same thing about Narnia being a bankable franchise. Let me guess. Is this in response to NOT having a bankable franchise for Disney Live Action at this time, besides Pirates? Is Disney hoping and praying that they can morph TRON into a bankable franchise with the second film and a brand new $100 million E-Ticket in DL and MK? Lee... what are you hearing about this?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Here's another part of Harry's Ain't it Cool report. <As TRON LEGACY is set to cross $300 million worldwide, the film has proved, beyond a doubt that there is an audience that buys this science fiction fantasy. And as DAFT PUNK's blisteringly awesome TRON LEGACY score continues to power the geek work force of the nation to plow through mindnumbing task after task... Disney is beginning to realize, TRON could be a franchise. As kids around the country pulled out wall crawling light trail leaving Tron LIGHT CYCLES from under their Christmas trees, Disney has been counting the receipts - and I'm told... it's about to hit the tipping point. Now the real question is... Where does TRON go from here? There is a plan, but it is being closely guarded. There's a TV show in the works to keep the brand popping till the next Theatrical run, but it looks like us TRON geeks won't be having to sit around for 28 years hanging onto this last one, like we did the first one.> So, there we are...
Originally Posted By skinnerbox I continued my thoughts in the "TRON question for leemac" thread I started on the WDW boards, so I'll briefly recap here. Disney only has Pirates right now, and Depp can't do this forever. Eventually, audiences will tire of Capt Jack and pirate fever will cool. So what does Disney have as a franchise to take its place? Basically TRON. That's it. Well, the good news is, I think it's likely we'll get that brand new TRON E-Ticket for TL. Potter at Uni definitely has Disney execs very worried right now, given how successful and profitable it is. WDW desperately needs an injection of leading edge ride technology that folks will make a special trip for, which apparently the proposed TRON E-Ticket has. It wouldn't open until 2013 at the soonest, but that would coincide with the second film's release. Synergy!
Originally Posted By Anatole69 I'm happy with this. Story-wise this has a lot of potential, I just hope they get a better script for the next iterations of this. I am also looking forward to any sort of attraction they build for it, it seems custom made for a dark ride. - Anatole
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Story-wise this has a lot of potential, I just hope they get a better script for the next iterations of this.>> I think 50 monkeys randomly typing on Selectrics could have produced a better script. I preferred the original TRON story myself. I can't imagine the next one would be any worse. At least with the sequel, we shouldn't have a need for anymore CGI flashback scary looking humans. I didn't mind CLU with a zombie-like appearance. But younger creepy Kevin with his normal-looking son? Yuck. Took me right out of the moment.
Originally Posted By sjhym333 My 21 year old son and his friends have seen Tron 3 times since it opened. They love it. I think there is real potential in an ongoing franchise.
