The Mojo of Box Office informs us that TP&TF hit the magic $100 million at the U.S. box office. The feature is now in 17th place, down to 700+ theaters, and sits atop:
$100.3 million
Mojo (as a commenter noted) is running behind the ticker for Frog's foreign box office.
Box Office Guru has more accurate and up-to-date numbers with TPandTF foreign cume at $78.3 million and counting. Unlike the domestic total, which is pretty close to finito, there are territories overseas yet untapped, so expect to see foreign grosses grow to somewere around 50-60% of the entire nut.
(Just now the percentage breakdowns are: foreign = 43.8%; domestic = 56.2%)
There's theatrical life in Green Froggy yet.
Posts
15 comments:
Lost in all the whole "disappointment" talk because Froggy had to crawl to $100 million US is that it is currently on pace to make more money for the Mouse House than Bolt did since it cost much less to make.
"Make" is a relative term. Both movies will lose money. The Princess and the Frog will just lose less.
I'd imagine Froggy has a longer shelf life in terms of merchandise (that Princess franchise of theirs is probably their strongest brand), and with DVD sales likely to be solid... is it a lock that it loses as much money in the long run as Bolt did?
But if Frog's budget was anywhere near the $105 million that Disney says it was, then it is, in fact "making" money. It's pushing $180 million worldwide now. Does that not count at all for some reason?
You don't get Hollywood arithmetic. Generally speaking, a movie has to make twice its budget just to break even.
Yeah, I'd say the movie is a disappointment.
Froggy will definitely make twice its budget back and a bit more. Remember that Disney staggers its releases.
Cars made the least out of any Pixar movie worldwide at the box office and yet is considered one of its most profitable due to merchandise sales.
Yes it is a disappointment to fans and armchair quarterback box office watchers, but it is making more than Disney Animation's last animated movie. And as we all know in Hollywood, it's not about anything but the money.
People here ALWAYS spout on about how movies have to make twice their budget to be profitable, blah blah blah, but whenever we ask for clarification from Steve and others, it always ends up that NO ONE really knows for sure.
But one thing IS for sure, PATF is, and will continue to be profitable for Disney in all the sectors of Disney films and Disney merchandising.
Actually the rule of thumb for Hollywood arithmetic is more like 3:1. First, most people only consider the actual production costs; marketing costs these days are usually equal to if not more than production. Secondly, box office take measures gross receipts. The theater owner keeps some of that. Their take varies with the deal they make and changes from week to week. A lot of pictures actually don't make a profit from the theatrical run, but from the DVD and TV sales.
People here ALWAYS spout on about how movies have to make twice their budget to be profitable, blah blah blah, but whenever we ask for clarification from Steve and others, it always ends up that NO ONE really knows for sure.
Speak for yourself. I Do know. for sure.
There.
God.
The film, when you figure in DVD sales and merchandise sales, is certain to make a profit. Disney animated films have a long DVD shelf-life, and Pinocchio and Fantasia, which lost money on their initial release, have made the company a fortune in the long run. And Tiana dolls etc. are selling like hot-cakes. The bigger question for fans of hand-drawn animation is: Is the profit going to be enough to reassure the Disney-powers to fund any more hand-drawn films? That is a big question, and one without a clear answer as of yet.
Whether it makes a 'profit' somewhere down the road due to merchandise or DVD sales, etc isn't the point. It performed below expectations. Theye didn't want to just make a profit they wanted to make a PROFIT. They're not in the biz of making their money back.
I don't know how many times some of you can hear it before you understand it - DIsney is unhappy with how it did in the hteaters. PERIOD> Does that mean they won't make money on it? No. It just means they won't make the type of money they expected to make on it and that means a lot in Hollywood.
The bigger question is despite the poor performance of Frog will thye try again and see if this was a fluke or not? And will JL stake his reputation on a second misfire (though this is not really the first misfire he's had since being annointed, is it)?
And for the guy (gal?) who can understand the math of 3x a film production cost to make a profit: what is your problem? Everyone is telling you that and yet you want Jesus to come down and tell you before you believe it? Yes, I realize there are a few misinformed posters who are saying it's 2x production cost, but even by that standard Frog didn't cut it.
We get that you want Frog to be a hit and for everyone to stroke you and tell you it is, but it isn't. And you know how we know it isn't a hit? Because, even if we couldn't do the math ourselves, Disney says it isn't. They're not saying it's a hit but it won't make a profit to discourage those involved with points, they are saying it's not a hit! A studio will say a film is a hit often even if it isn't just to look better than they are - especially Disney. This time they aren't.
>>>>>>
" A lot of pictures actually don't make a profit from the theatrical run, but from the DVD and TV sales."
>>>>>>
Very true. Theatrical box-office is an ever-shrinking piece of the pie , even though recently theatrical b.o. has been artificially inflated with $15 dollar ticket prices for 3D films. DVD, TV , and merchandizing are where the money is . (although the DVD rental market is dwindling now , so things are in flux there)
For a film to not turn a profit , or only a very small profit, during it's theatrical release , but then go on to make as much or more money upon being released on DVD/BluRay is very common (and an accepted fact-of-life in the business) . This is the case with many films. Yet , for some reason it seems that only hand-drawn animated films are held to the rigid, unbending standard that they absolutely MUST make back all their production cost and turn a huge profit based solely on the Theatrical release or else be written-off as a "flop" . There are so many other facets of the business , so it's unrealistic to put so much emphasis on the theatrical box-office alone.
My prediction: PATF joins the ranks of other former Disney "flops" like Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Bambi, Fantasia, Pinnochio, and will still be turning up money for the Disney Co. in some form or another for many years.
This film is going to be very profitable for Disney. it may be a slow churner but it will yield you can put money on that!
I think Disney needs the B.O. results simply for bragging rights at this point. Being the only studio without a hit in a long while must really hurt Disney's corporate ego.
Of course, this is pure speculation on my part, but that's what I think.
God.
As of this week (Feb. 10, 2010) the box-office tracking site The Numbers reports Frog's total worldwide take as:
Total US Gross $101,011,000
International Gross $95,000,000
Worldwide Gross $196,011,000
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/FROGP.php
Post a Comment