Wednesday, January 12, 2011

At the Top of the Movie Marketplace

The Mouse's news division is pleased to let us know about the Mouse's latest animated feature.

International Movie Marketplace Gets All 'Tangled' ... 'Tangled' braids itself around the top of the international box office chart.

"Tangled" ascended to the top of the international box office race in its seventh weekend of release, jumping from sixth place in 21 territories to the top spot in 28 territories and earning $24.8 million as it crosses the $350 million mark in worldwide revenue.

1. "Tangled," $24,745,055, 5,129 locations, 28 territories, $350,496,102, seven weeks. ...

No doubt we'll get the comments about how Tangled costs a poopload to produce and still hasn't made money, blah blah blah. But I'm telling you, when all the cash from theaters, DVDs, network and cable licensing is factored in, when the dolls and games contribute their revenue streams, the picture will be in profits.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

That's an associated press story.

Anonymous said...

Great. Only $450 million to go to break even! Everybody go see the film again.

Anonymous said...

Seriously dude? Did you even read Steve's commentary? You're an idiot.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it only needs 170 million to make a profit. And believe me it will reach 520 million at least, since the movie is only in 55 percent of the international market.

Anonymous said...

260 million budget, plus 120 million marketing and prints. that's 380 million. Double that and it'll turn a profit. That's pretty standard.

J. said...

The $260 million budget is a bit dubious though. The film "Tangled" did not cost $260 million, and if they make a sequel it will probably cost half that. The $260 million includes 6 years of development on a completely different movie called Rapunzel Unbraided. And that development included technology that was (and will be) used in many future films and shouldn't be tied to the budget of one film.

But that entire movie movie was scrapped (along with its directors and producers) and other than a character named Rapunzel it has nothing to do with Tangled.

I'm sure Disney wants Tangled to make enough money to cover its losses on Unbraided, and it likely will, but Tangled has already made a huge "profit" against how much it cost to make that single movie. And like all good Hollywood Accounting, Disney will never admit this and will complain that it lost money on it.

But in the end, measuring a movie's success on compensating for other all-but-completely-unrelated movies' losses is a bad metric. It's like saying Toy Story 3 is actually a flop because it didn't cover the losses on Newt (which in reality it probably did) or Winnie the Pooh will be failure if it doesn't cover the Snow Queen's losses.

yahweh said...

@J. You're trying too hard to make tangled appear to be in the black. You don't need to (especially your thinking is all wonky anyway).
It's all about perception and Tangled - whether it ever goes into the black or not - is perceived to be a decent hit for DFA.
Whether that will help 2D or not (I doubt it) or even their plans for the next CG film or not (maybe)only time will tell.
My guess is it helps JL's standing in the company a little and probably hurts Clements and Musker's standing a little bit more.
It'll be interesting to see if Disney wants to really follow up on that perceived success or go out on a relative high or not.

Floyd Norman said...

In any case it's good for Disney and us shareholders.

Whether or not it's good for the artists remains to be seen. This is Disney, after all.

Steve Hulett said...

260 million budget, plus 120 million marketing and prints. that's 380 million. Double that and it'll turn a profit. That's pretty standard.

And you get these figures from where? The Production Cost fairy?

yahweh said...

Okay, now kiddies, the "rule of thumb" has been for quite awhile now that 3x prod costs is what it takes to show a profit. So, 3x 260 million is what is needed for Tangled to be in the black. Not sure what dark place that 380 mill got pulled out of...
Once again, that doesn't mean that 780 mill is what is needed for the film to be successful (other than to the bean counters). A film can still be successful if it is perceived to be a hit and Tangled is perceived to be a hit.
Whether that will be enough to change the nasty culture that exists at DFA only time will tell.

Anonymous said...

120 million for marketing and prints???

Thats exactly the same budget of Marketing & Print that Disney gave to Tron: Legacy and that film has been promoted for two years and i think we all know how much Disney tried to burry Tangled in the ground until the release of the film. (Ironically Tangled made more money than Tron:Legacy)

But really, i am just as curious as Hullet, where did you got those numbers?

Anonymous said...

and i think we all know how much Disney tried to burry Tangled in the ground

In fact ads for Tangled were everywhere. It was a large, expensive, pervasive campaign. Multiple trailers were produced (and roundly criticized by the animation community, though they seemed to have worked for the public). Bus stop posters, billboards, voice talent interviews, clumsy internet campaigns, the whole nine yards.

People didn't fall asleep and magically wake up inside the theater that opening weekend.

Floyd Norman said...

The Disney Company continues to amuse me. They had incredible high hopes for their "Boy Movie" and such distain for their "princess movie." So, guess which film made the most moola?

Back to the drawing board, Disney. Seriously, back to the drawing board.

Anonymous said...

Where do people get these numbers? Link please!

Anonymous said...

$380 million is the film cost plus prints and advertising. And it's 2x, not 3. Tangled will turn a profit in a few years, no doubt. But stockholders don't want later. Tangled is a FAR superior film to tron on every level. But it cost more to make (more than double)

Still, its too bad they're only so-so hits .

Anonymous said...

Nobody has responded the million dollar question?

Where do you get those numbers?

Anonymous said...

Yahweh, the correct rule of thumb is 2x budget. You are incorrect in suggesting it is 3x budget.

yahweh said...

Really? I've always heard it being 3x (at least for the last 30+years) and can find no indication on-line anywhere that the 'rule of thumb' has changed. Do you have some verification of this new 'rule of thumb'?

What a tangled web we weave said...

Ok, even if it's only 2x the budget then it still needs to get to $520 million world-wide gross to edge into the profitable margin. Does anyone believe it will make it to $520 million before it closes out it's theatrical run ?

So from what I've been reading here people are convincing themselves now that the perception of it being a hit is more important than did it actually recoup it’s cost ? Dis fans’ “perception” of it is one thing , but bottom-line doesn't lie.

Anonymous said...

Well, there is still 45 percent of the overseas market that hasnt released the film so yeah, it will cross those 520 million for sure, maybe it could do a little more, who knows?

yahweh said...

Not to beat this to death, but since someone is so positive that the rule of thumb has changed from 3x to 2x production costs I thought I'd do some more Googling. I found plenty of references to the 3x formula but none to the 2x formula.
IE at http://hubpages.com/hub/10-Tips-to-Help-Independent-Filmmakers-Make-Money:
"Keep уουr budget аѕ low аѕ possible. The old adage is true: producers have to make back 3x the amount of the film's budget before they turn a profit. For independent films there is more leeway in the numbers but it's a good starting point. Thus, the lower the budget the less money the producer has to earn before he turns a profit. Filmmakers must find their film budget's sweet-spot, which is determined by approximating sales in various distribution channels."
I've seen some indication that it could be between 2x and 3x but that's because they're relying on DVD sales and other licensing to help make profit. But since we're just talking about what A film needs to make to show profit I don't think that is part of the formula.
Is there anyone that can find something more concrete than saying "it's 2x not 3x"?

Anonymous said...

The 45% number is a little out of date. That number was quoted a couple of weeks ago. The only major territories that I think it hasn't been released into yet (or from which no numbers have been reported yet) is the UK (huge market), Spain, Australia, and Japan. I think $520 million is optimistic, but I don't think there's much doubt it will do substantially better overseas than it did here, and it did just fine here.

Anonymous said...

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of film costs and financing knows the 2x number is bogus. The theater owners get about half the gross. The distribution fees take another 10%. All that is independent of marketing, which is a huge cost (currently AVERAGES about $50 million, and is considerably higher for a major release like Tangled).

On the other hand, you have to factor in DVD sales, pay TV and downloads, and merchandising. It's way too complicated for a simple '2x production cost' or '3x production cost' estimate, and it's different for live action and animation.

Bottom line is, Tangled and all it's incarnations were fabulously expensive, and yet the film is a huge hit, and in the long run the latter is what will affect how aggressive Disney is in making more animated features in Burbank.

Site Meter