No big surprise that Hancock opened with a bang in foreign markets, but animated features continue to prosper in a big way as well:
... "Kung Fu Panda" led the rest of the pack with an impressive $38 million at 5,448 in 44 markets, including a U.K. launch of $10.7 million and a $3.6 million German opening. Foreign cume's already hit $151 million, with most of Europe opening in coming weeks, and should finish far past the $160 million international total for Paramount's previous CG toon, "Bee Movie." ...
So Panda's international take is going to fall somewhere between four hundred million and half a billion dollars, before it's all over. What this means, of course, is that DW has itself another kingly franchise. As for the other biggie ...
Disney/Pixar's "Wall-E," which has been on a go-slow track offshore, grossed $13 million at 1,645 in nine markets, mostly from its $5.3 million Mexican launch and its $5 million Russian opening in the best Disney animated debuts in those markets. Next key "Wall-E" opening comes in the U.K. on July 18.
It might be a little early to tell, but I'd wager that KFP outgrosses the Wallster by the time the dust settles and the derby ends. And if they cross the finish line within hailing distance of each other, that wouldn't surprise me either. But I'm thinking I'll give Panda the nod. The bear seems to be holding up well.
Posts
16 comments:
I'm still floored by the wall-e price tag. 180 million? Wow. 50 million more than KFP and a whopping 100 million more than Horton...you gotta factor that in to the final box office numbers too...
I believe they certainly will.
You simply cannot continue to make movies with those costs no matter who you are. they have to hit a reset button on budgets sooner than later.
KFP is just about at the spending limit I would think and even that may have been too high. However the film is doing extremely well and deservedly so. but its a tremendous risk that needs to be mitigated.
I'm tired of seeing artists pay the price of poor budgetary decisions.
I believe that most of the budget is eaten up by the length of time it takes to straighten out all the story problems. But they (at Pixar and Disney) are trying to mitigate that by lowering the salaries of the rank and file artists.
Of course, paying $15 million for a star voice doesn't help. It's not always clear they get much value for their dollar on some of these above-the-line costs.
Yeah, Pixar really overpaid the voice talent on Wall-E. What were they thinking getting all of those big named actors with no animation experience doing the voices? I guess they just wanted to use the famous names to sell the movie.
I was actually referring to John Travolta in the upcoming "Bolt," Justin, something you ought to know something or other about.
Pixar doesn't shell out for high-priced voice talent. But it doesn't pay mid-level animators and board artists high wages either.
So what was the $180 million paying for, anyway?
Aside from sequels, Disney and Pixar pay the actors pretty much scale (even John Travolta!), according to articles I've read. And I seriously doubt Wall-e cost $180 million, or that KFP cost $150.
I'm pretty sure the "scale" deals for voice talent ended a long time ago where the biggest acting names are concerned. Those articles referred to the early, innocent pre-Aladdin days when it was "just for fun" to do a voice in an animated film and no one was used to the idea of the films making huge amounts of money.
Actually, No. It still continues. They get more if they do publicity, and LOTS more if they are asked to do a sequel. But generally, the voice talent gets scale or a bit above. But not much.
oh and thats all before the reported 54M in P & A.
180M just for production, is very possible. and thats being conservative with the numbers.
Well, unless Box Office Mojo is getting erroneous information, KFP and Wall-e's pricetags are what the original commenter said...
I gotta think the cost of the film comes primarily from personnel, facilities and time involved. I mean, Pixar has what, 500-750 people on any given film, not to mention a huge campus. As does DW, with maybe a bit less people. Both have appropriate production times. Blue Sky, on the other hand, has more like 300-350 employees divided between several films, and a tiny office, and they crank out films in record time. I doubt it has *much* to do with star-power celebrities salaries (or egos?). If that were the case, Horton would have cost 300 million :) It'll be interesting to see what Bolt's final production cost is.
Remember when "Waterworld" was crucified before anyone had even seen it, just for costing $175 million?
But it'e pretty rare that an actual itemized budget for a movie goes public, so we'll never know exactly why or if Wall-E cost $180 Mill.
Blue Sky films are cheap despite throwing money at voice talent because the studio is run like a sweat shop. Ever notice the almost total turn-over of the artistic staff from film to film?
Blue Sky eats their young.
" It'll be interesting to see what Bolt's final production cost is."
These true numbers will never be released, I'm sure they are staggering in light of what has been the course of action for the production.
I think it's obvious. Hawaiian shirts are expensive!
Hey Justin...you need to check out the list of names who voiced Dreamworks's "Sinbad".
If star power has such a draw, then how do you explain the low B.O. of this 'gem'?
And there's many other animated flops that had long lists of famous actors.
Executives are delusional if they still think big movie actors will draw in the audience for animated films. Sigourney Weaver (as much as I like her as an actress) did not exactlky bring anything unique to Wall-E...they could'be used anybody, and get the same result!
R.
Post a Comment