... that isn't fading.
Tangled Top $150 Million at Domestic Box Office
Disney's Thanksgiving film "Tangled" has transformed into the gift that won't stop giving, jumping the $150 million mark this week at the domestic box office and keeping up with newer Christmas family offerings.
"Tangled" grossed $3.6 million on Tuesday from 2,582 theaters for a cume of $150.6 million in its fifth week. ... It's probably no coincidence that "Tangled" is the only film of the year to receive a glowing A+ from CinemaScore.
And on Wednesday the big T grossed more than Tuesday, and is now up to $154.3 million.
Lustrous box office returns, are they not?
Posts
48 comments:
It's crazy to think that a little over a month ago everybody had already written the movie off as another disappointment.
Funny.
$154.3 million gross measured against what production cost ?
Is the conventional wisdom still that a movie needs to gross 3x the production budget to move into the profitable range ?
I'd be astounded to learn that Tangled cost $150 million or less . My guess would be more in the range of $180 - $200 million.
(or more than $200 million according to some sources) .
I'm glad that people are going to see Tangled and that the flick is holding it's own at the box-office, but at that kind of production cost how can Disney's Animation division turn a profit ?
Look. Disney is happy that the troubled, TROUBLED project called Rapunzel/Rapunzel Unbraided/Rapunzel(again)/Tangled even broke even. It was a money pit that was on the edge of disaster for years.
The idea that it has already broke even (minus marketing, and including foreign box office) is fantastic, FANTASTIC news. So if Tangled actually does reach 175-180 domestically and even more internationally, then include merchandising (which has done very well), DVD/Blu-ray sales (which has already shown strong signs in pre-orders), and ancillary brand strength (parks, princess line), Tangled is something Iger and Ross will be very happy with.
AND...Disney took back some of its audience-trust with Tangled, which will only bode well for the future.
Sure, Tangled isnt a mega-super money maker, but its a slam dunk for Disney Animation as a whole, and will be a creative driving force for the future, and a huge morale boost (which they desperately needed)
Saw it again tonight. What a terrific picture! It breathes beautifully.
Good to hear, hopefully the film will convince Disney to not completely abandon fairy tales as most fans had thought.
I hope the animators are proud of themselves. I thought Tangled was well done and deserves its praise.
Now, what's next for Walt Disney Animation?
Anonymous at 5:49:00 PM :
How do you figure that Tangled has "broke even" yet ?
BoxOfficeMojo has Tangled's budget at 260mil and their international and domestic take at 270mil.
So.....math?
Glad it's doing well, but it will probably never make a breakeven point for the 3X figure.
The most important thing is it's being perceived as a hit and not a loss for DFA.
My bigger question is what does this mean for 2D? Anything...?
Man, I think it's only fair to realize there was quite a few R&D dollars thrown into the production costs of Tangled. Those stunning visuals everyone's been praising didn't exactly come from an off the shelf-make-everything-beautiful maya plug-in.
I think you can credit Glen Keane and the amazing artists and technicians who, in my opinion, accomplished an artistic standard that no one else has been able to achieve with cg.
And while I'm sure it wasn't cheap, the technical and artistic development that pushed the quality and look of Tangled is now available for future productions and should be considered a wise investment. Money well spent that will yield greater returns than just Tangled's box office run.
ANONYMOUS poster from Thursday, December 30, 2010 11:27:00 PM writes:
"BoxOfficeMojo has Tangled's budget at 260mil and their international and domestic take at 270mil.
So.....math?"
Well, here's the math as it's been explained to me on this blog and other places : A movie needs to gross 3x it's production budget at the box-office to turn a profit. Production budget of $260 million x 3 in box-office grosses = $780 million. When Tangled has grossed $780 million it will have moved into the Profitable zone for the production company.
Steve, or anyone else: is that formula of "3x the production budget = profit zone" still the conventional wisdom ?
"So.....math?"
Yeah, math.
Math as in the PERCENTAGE of box for the studio.
You think theater owners/operators are non-profits?
""BoxOfficeMojo has Tangled's budget at 260mil and their international and domestic take at 270mil.
So.....math?"
As others have pointed out, the 3x is the rule of thumb because Disney doesn't take home 100% of the box office. In fact, it's much less. So Disney won't get 270 mil of the BO haul, therefore it probably won't "break even" until the after-first-run stuff.
The reason why studios/distributors are so psycho over opening weekend box numbers is because that's when they take 100% minus operation costs for the theaters. After the first two or three weeks, the theaters start taking a larger percentage of ticket sales.
At this point, Tangled is mostly doing well for the theaters still showing it. Disney is still getting its share of the pie, but much, much less.
Taking five weeks to break $150 mil for a film costing $260 mil to produce is a mediocre return at best.
It's still perceived as a hit for Disney, internally.
Look at it this way. The artists dont get bonuses at Disney, so they dont care how much it makes. What they DO care about is that the studio remains creatively and artistically viable, and they have jobs.
Tangled does that in spades. Its too bad they still laid off part of the crew that did the work, but that was long before Tangled hit theaters. Most of them are gainfully employed.
Here's to hoping there wont be layoffs next round.
The "3x" figure is wrong and inaccurate. The correct figure is 2x. No reputable person has ever claimed a movie needs to gross 3x its budget to become profitable. Whoever is claiming that doesn't know what they're talking about.
For Tangled to be financially profitable, it will need to surpass ~$520 million. Between domestic and foreign boxoffice, DVD sales, merchandise sales, broadcast deals, etc. it will probably make it.
But more importantly, even if it doesn't squeak past $520 million, it HAS changed the mindset of both the industry and the public. Just a short while ago, Katzenberg announced that he didn't even consider Disney Feature to be any competition at all. I imagine that's changed now. In years past, nobody I met had even heard of the latest Disney feature ("Bolt? No, never heard of it.") That has also changed now.
The public now considers Disney to be a player again. While Bolt was a stepping stone, Tangled is a full-fledged success from both a critical and public perspective.
^
|
|
This
"The public now considers Disney to be a player again."
Really?
What percentage of Tangled's audience will purchase a ticket for Winnie the Pooh next year?
Try making this claim again around Labor Day.
Unless something has changed the rule of thumb is still 3x production cost. That allows for distribution, print and marketing costs which are all held against the production.
Where do you get your informnation that this has changed?
What percentage of Tangled's audience will purchase a ticket for Winnie the Pooh next year?
Um... I will, for one.
While your argument is bizarre, as it is needlessly speculative, I'm curious as to your train of thought here. If you're implying that the target demographics for the two films are different, I guess the argument could be made.
That being said, Winnie the Pooh is a lot "safer" of a film to make for Disney than Tangled was. There is already a large demographic of people who love the characters and are excited to see them on the big screen.
I will be more than happy to "make this claim" regarding Disney's return as an animation superpower around Labor Day.
Marketing costs are not held against production in the same way that ancillary and merchandise revenue arent really counted in favor of of the production.
So if you want to hold marketing against production costs, then you need to count merchandising for it.
So to be fair, it should be:
Production costs vs. box-office/DVD
OR
Production & Marketing vs box office/DVD & merchandise & ancillary
But thats my opinion
What percentage of Tangled's audience will purchase a ticket for Winnie the Pooh next year?
In my opinion, "Disney CG" has gained the public's interest again, but "Disney Traditional" hasn't quite done it yet.
(and for the record, I dont think Winnie The Pooh is the film to do it)
"Really?"
Yes. Really. At this point, you don't seem to have much credibility, given that the public came out in droves for Tangled opening weekend. And the article makes a point of noting the good legs it's had since.
If you're only problem is that it's not the biggest CG feature ever, that's a silly (and losing) argument.
Have you seen Tangled? Do you doubt Disney can make a solid, quality CG feature, having seen it? Did you not see the opening boxoffice figures? And you're still doubting that Tangled has changed the public's perception of Disney as a player again in the feature animation game? How absurd.
Comparing a big-budget, 4-quadrant CG feature to a hand-drawn kiddy movie like Pooh is obviously apples-to-oranges. Given that no other studio is even making 2D animated features, that's an even more absurd argument to make. It has no bearing on Tangled's success, or Disney renewed relevence as a feature animation studio.
No one cares at all if it's CG or hand drawn. No one.
They just want to see a good movie.
Tangled was good, and may some day be in the black, but not for some time. You don't see Disney rushing to make a sequel to it, which says a lot.
Tron's not doing particularly well, though.
No one cares at all if it's CG or hand drawn. No one.
Oh give me a BREAK. Clueless.
You don't see Disney rushing to make a sequel to it, which says a lot.
And you know that how? Do you work there?
Also, with a storyline like Tangled had, its no easy sequel-maker.
"No one cares at all if it's CG or hand drawn. No one.
"
Actually, it seems quite a few people care. Whether you're for or against 2D it seems to matter quite a bit to the studios and artists that make the films and to the audiences that will or won't go see the film.
I can almost guarantee yoyu that Disney's board and stockholders are well aware that PatF was more or less a flop and Tangled is more or less a hit and one was 2D and one was CG.
Whether it's fair or not won't matter much to them.
Given Tangled's success, the fact that there are still some misanthropes intent on bashing it would seem to reveal their ideological aversion to Disney, rather than to objective analysis.
I like Winnie the Pooh, but I would consider it The Rescuers Down Under-type of movie. It won't do as well as its predacessor, but will still be an enjoyable film for the younger kids.
Now as for the films in production, Reboot Ralph and what else? I heard something about King of the Elves and something called Mort?
"No one cares at all if it's CG or hand drawn. No one.
Yes. The Stockholders do. And they vote CG.
I said it when Tangled came out I'll say it again - hand drawn is dead. Animation is competing with live action now not just other animated films. If you put a hand drawn film out the same weekend as Tron(as much as the film sucks) which one do you think kids, teens, and adults are going to go see. You put a CG film out and it has a fighting chance to compete with it.
Floyd Norman even said it -
"2D is dead." yeah, as I enjoyed "Tangled" over the weekend that thought was running through my head as well. I truly hate to say goodbye to an art form I've loved all my life - but it does look like, game over, man. Game over.
2D is not dead. All films are 2d, even the stereoscopic ones.
^
Do please keep kidding yourself.
""2D is dead." yeah, as I enjoyed "Tangled" over the weekend that thought was running through my head as well. I truly hate to say goodbye to an art form I've loved all my life - but it does look like, game over, man. Game over."
So true. Thank God we have foreign animation studios who still use the medium.
I should get around watching The Illusionist sometime. I heard critics loved it, but what does everyone here think?
"I heard something about King of the Elves and something called Mort?"
This is truly a wait and see. Apparently, there was a book that was released stating King of the Elves would be released by Christmas 2012, but I wouldn't trust it. As for Mort, rumored to be the next film for Ron Clements and John Musker. There has been no official announcement as of yet.
King of the Elves is still around
The Illusionist was alright. Very French. Sad. Theres an attack rabbit which is pretty fun
Regardless of its budget costs. Its great to see a disney film reach 150 mil again. Now that it caught Lilo maybe it will catch tarzan.
"The artists dont get bonuses at Disney, so they dont care how much it makes..."
That's ridiculous, of course they care how much it makes. As far as Keane goes, he got his fat paycheck.
But the question that could be posed is: does he care wether the lower tier animators get layed off after production is over?
http://boxofficemojo.com/polls/?page=viewpoll&id=1794&p=.htm
The artists dont care if it "turns a profit." They only care if its perceived as a hit, and they keep their jobs.
And Glen deserved every penny he got.
What animator does'nt wanna keep his/her job??? name one!!!
What a callous view of artists, claimimng they don't 'care'...
I never argued Keane did not deserve his paycheck either...
The artists dont care if it "turns a profit." They only care if its perceived as a hit, and they keep their jobs.
What a thoroughly ignorant statement. Of course the artists care if their product turns a profit! Without profitability, they'd be painting street curbs for a living.
As simple minded as studio heads can be, I believe they're capable of distinguishing between a "perceived hit" and an actual blockbuster.
@ whatevah
Read that comment again. I was saying that ALL artists care about is keeping their jobs...
@ Anonymous
And no, its not a thoroughly ignorant statement, its a very informed statment. With a company the size of Disney, all Disney Animation has to do is stay artistically and commercially relevant, since their profitability comes not only from the box office and dvd sales, but also merchandising and ancillary revenues. Tangled will be making money for the next 20 years. (and by the way, the "Bolt" plush at the Disney store is one of their best sellers)
The same cant be said about Megamind.
THE POINT is, commenters on here act like know-it-alls and blab away about profit margins and "3x" this and that, and yet Disney stays open and continue to make films. Seems silly to me.
So yeah. The artists dont care if it turns a profit at the box office. They only care that they make a quality enough product to keep all parts of the Disney company happy, and keep making movies.
Hey everybody! Tangled just passed the 160 million mark.
Boy you gotta love the holiday boost right?
Boy you gotta love the holiday boost right?
Boy howdy, I hope it can get it to 175 before it's all over with.
"THE POINT is, commenters on here act like know-it-alls and blab away about profit margins and "3x" this and that, and yet Disney stays open and continue to make films. Seems silly to me."
so, who is the one that sounds like a know-it-all. Am I the only one to see the irony here??
Claiming that the artists don't care about a films performance is a dubious claim to start. Then changing that statement to,"I meant to say, "ALL" they care is about profits...,bla blah..." when that's CLEARLY what you did not said at all.
sorry dude, your pulling your ideas out of your you-know-what!
Artists do care! F U pal
"The artists dont care if it "turns a profit." They only care if its perceived as a hit, and they keep their jobs."
b.s. Yes they do. It DIRECTLY affects their jobs.
You don't see Disney rushing to make a sequel to it, which says a lot.
Also, with a storyline like Tangled had, its no easy sequel-maker.
Not to mention Disney animated sequels being outlawed under the Lasseter Treaty of '06.
Yeah, Disney sequels are now forbidden, unless they're good. (Winnie the Pooh) I'm glad Tangled is doing well and hope Disney will start to do more fairy-tale films. I would love to see them drift from the "formula" though.
"I would love to see them drift from the "formula" though."
Brenda Chapman being fired from Brave is a bad omen for change at either Pixar or WDAS.
I suspect Brave had plenty of drift before Lasseter got his boxers in a bunch over story.
Post a Comment