Wow. That was a short run.
... Controversial marketing executive MT Carney is on her way out at the Walt Disney Co., sources confirm ... Carney, who joined Disney under chairman Rich Ross in April 2010 as president of worldwide marketing despite no experience in the film business, has been the subject of months of speculation about her future at the studio. A source says Carney has not been in her Burbank office at Disney in several weeks ...
Disney declined to comment.
I'll bet they declined. The rapid decapitation says it all.
Posts
33 comments:
Yep, the Muppets was the last straw. Too bad. I don't see how anyone could have done a better job at trying to sell those old puppets to current audiences. Hope she finds better prospects elsewhere.
You must be too young and too ignorant to appreciate the Muppets.
Just like most of the movie going audience they need to reach...
...that's kind of the problem with the Muppets.
Real decapition should be giving to all marketing movie people!
It isn't only Carney's fault. The writing staff behind the Muppets are masterful self-saboteurs.
And if anyone from that staff is reading this, you know EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
The real blood bath will come in March, if John Carter of Mars flops. Hell hath no fury like stockholders.
I don't get all the ragging on the Muppets. The film's grossed nearly twice it's reported budget at this point - regardless of how you feel about the writing, those really aren't shabby numbers for a franchise that, more-or-less, was non-existent for an entire generation of moviegoers.
There have been larger 'underperformers' at Disney with less head-rolling before. Prince of Persia AND Sorcerer's Apprentice both happened under her watch...why aren't people reaching that far back? This discussion is about as narrow-minded as the execs being blasted.
^"Narrow-minded"? The Muppets, as I mentioned, was the last straw. All those other films you mention led up to the final defeat. It appeared at first that the ad strategy for that movie was working, but then it tumbled sharply in its second week and never really recovered. Apparently, its chief and primary audience was made up of rabid Muppet fans (hard to believe they exist, but there you are) and their families, but it failed to appeal to the younger generation that Disney favors. So it's a disappointment. "Doubled its budget"? So what? There's still no profits being made. That's all Disney or any other movie studio cares about. The Muppets got their chance; they have been given TV specials, online domains, and guest appearances on myriad TV shows, PLUS this movie, all in an attempt to revive them. It didn't work. And again I say, too bad. Carney did everything anyone could have, in my opinion. But Steve's right. The rapid decapitation says it all.
Muppets had a reported $40 million budget, plus $150 million marketing. It has to make nearly $600 million to be in the black. Interest on film and marketing loan costs have skyrocketed.
It bombed.
"Interest on film and marketing loan costs have skyrocketed."
Um... you know that interest rates are at an all-time low right now, right?
Anon 6:08, are you kidding me? A Muppet movie needed SIX HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS to make a profit? are you swallowing studio accounting hook, line and sinker or what?....
"Muppets had a reported $40 million budget, plus $150 million marketing. It has to make nearly $600 million to be in the black."
If this kind of Hollywood accounting is the empirical reality for how Carney was judged -- the problem goes far beyond the marketing department, and Disney.
There was no way a film like the Muppets was going to do $600 million at the box office. That would have made it one of the top 5 or so grossing films of the year. Every one of the top 5 films of 2011 (Transformers, Potter, Pirates, KFP2, Twilight) were all sequels to brands far better positioned than the Muppets and had production budgets at least 2x-3x what the Muppets had. That's insane if Disney thought $150 million in marketing was going to get that kind of ROI upfront.
Given that I don't think that's the case -- that these people are literally insane -- whoever pulled the trigger on a $150 million dollar marketing budget had to have known, in fact surely did know, that part of the marketing costs were for 'brand reintroduction' and building toward leveraging the Muppets long into the future.
Iger maintains he's interested in building franchises -- if Disney takes the Muppets and continues to develop them, then the marketing costs spent on this film will bear revenue fruits into the future. That was the plan, right?
Now, maybe the film's under-performance or perceived under-performance is going to lead Disney to put the Muppets back on the shelf. I can't say.
But I don't think it's fair to hold the $150 million budget up against the box office -- I'm skeptical it was that much, but even if it was -- whoever approved that had to have known they weren't investing in merely a one-off film. If this is really just Step 1 for the Muppets, then the $150 million spent now has to be judged against whatever the final "product" is. I don't think the film was the be-all-and-end-all.
^I think that's a load of fanboy speak. The Muppets were *supposed* to be a known, reliable brand, like the Chipmunks, the Smurfs etc. A new movie starring such, um, popular characters with high-profile stars like Jason Segal and Amy Adams should have done a hell of a lot better in the U.S. than a lousy 84 million. If the Muppets can't deliver despite all that star power and hype then they're done for as a profit-generating entertainment entity. That's show biz.
**Muppets had a reported $40 million budget, plus $150 million marketing. It has to make nearly $600 million to be in the black. Interest on film and marketing loan costs have skyrocketed.
It bombed.**
Quoted for truth.
And now Disney has "John Carter" to worry about...
Iger, Ross, and Disney deserve all the pain that is coming to them. You cannot manufacture or re-manufacture entire brands out of thin air, no matter how much cash you throw down on the craps table of Hollywood. They have neither the patience or brains to figure out how to build a property from the ground up. They don't want to go through the hard work and take the big risks to build something from the fundamentals, like Walt himself did. And they are basically all too old, too far removed from the creative center of anything original, and have the wrong experience to do it - times change too quickly for these jokers to pay any amount of money to get in the game. All of these pricks play the big $$ game hoping for long term franchise pay-offs. Everyone gladly takes a big check, shrugs when the property doesn't have legs or doesn't meet the ridiculous expectations place on it, gets fired, and waits until the next round of pricks comes in and starts spreading money around again.
"Iger, Ross, and Disney deserve all the pain that is coming to them. You cannot manufacture or re-manufacture entire brands out of thin air, no matter how much cash you throw down on the craps table of Hollywood."
I think properties like The Chipmunks and Transformers disprove your point.
FTA
"Under her tenure, the studio has had such successes as The Help and The Muppets, but it has also suffered such disappointments as Sorcerer's Apprentice.
...
In Oct 2010, Disney raised eyebrows by bringing in experienced marketing executive Valerie Van Galder to help with Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. Should Ross and the Disney regime decide to replace Carney from within Hollywood’s ranks, they could reach out to several veterans, including Van Galder;"
The blunt Hollywood Reporter calls The Muppets a success, and at the same time hints that there was dissatisfaction with Carney as far back as Oct '10.
*Annoyed that a few (one?) Anons keep trying to turn any Disney story into a Muppet hate-fest...
Sunday, January 08, 2012 10:06:00 PM :
"I don't get all the ragging on the Muppets."
But that's just it: there isn't a lot of ragging on the Muppets. It's just the same troll who keeps showing up here to wank off. Don't play into his delusion that his opinion means anything.
$150 Million was not the marketing costs for the Muppets Movie.
I hate to break it to you, but The Chipmunks and The Transformers will not support the stock price of the gargantuan multinational media empire that is the Walt Disney Company. Sorry.
It's funny, they could had just asked me, or my kids, or all the other parents with kids. Nobody gives a flying crap about the Muppets anymore. Nobody. Most of the old movies are junk. Nobody watches those anymore either. They are a quaint memory for a lot of adults and enjoy a small cult following and that's it. THAT IS IT. Invent something new instead. I feel for MT having gotten that bum hand to play with.
Someone mentioned chipmunks? Yea, producing for the lowest common denominator (i.e. pablum) is always good for a quick buck.
"^I think that's a load of fanboy speak. The Muppets were *supposed* to be a known, reliable brand, like the Chipmunks, the Smurfs etc."
Maybe? That doesn't square with the quoted number they spent on marketing ($150 mil) then. Disney wasn't treating it like that if they needed a $150mil rollout.
If that $150 million number is way overstated and the real number is much lower, then the claim Disney was expecting to and had to reap $600mil in BO just to break even isn't true either. And as such, calling it a disastrous flop that brought down Carney is also not accurate.
My own guess is that the Muppet was ~breakeven for the Mouse. I'm sure the marketing costs were large, but with the production budget much lower than your average Disney holiday time family fare wide release (compare the puppets to Tangled or TPATF), they're probably going to come out close to par when it's all said and done.
What they didn't get was a supersized mega hit to turn the Muppets into some multi-platform juggernaut, something that was going to drive merch, sequels, reinvigorate the Muppet vault of content, or drive demand for new Muppet content on TV. I think that's likely why it's considered a failure, but I sincerely doubt Disney took a bath on the film given the low production costs and the fact that it didn't flop.
Comparisons to the Smurfs are apt to show why Disney didn't take a beating -- the Smurfs cost almost 3x as much to make as The Muppets. CG is still alot more expensive than puppets.
Where do people come up with marketing budget numbers like that? Seriously? Cite your sources, because Im dying to know.
I mean, you're saying it cost more for Disney to MARKET The Muppets than it cost for Dreamworks to MAKE Puss in Boots?
I call bullshit.
A $45 million dollar film (not including ANY kind of P & A budget) that doesn't even make twice that at the box office can't be called anything but a disappointment. Why is that so hard for some people to grasp?
At any rate, who cares about the Muppets anyway, especially on an animation blog? If Disney decides to shelve the Muppets again, well, GOOD, then maybe it'll put its dollars towards more animated movies, which is good for our business.
If Disney announces another Muppets movie, then this one can be considered a success. Otherwise, screw what the print media says about it. Most of them just rehash the press releases studios send out.
I love the original Muppets, but I guess its better that the Muppets takes the hit than another blow to animation.
I would imagine all this money got invested, then lost in some hole somewhere between the behemoth that is Disney and the Henson Family Trust. It had very little to do with Kermit and the funny puppets with wires below their hands. We'll have to wait another twenty years for someone to dust them off and give it another go. Hologram muppet adventures, I suppose. Poor Kermit. Forever stuck in between worlds, now next to Mickey, never to die a proper puppet death and be released to Glory.
"Um... you know that interest rates are at an all-time low right now, right?"
Not for high risk projects like films. And yes, a film needs to make nearly 3 times it's cost (including marketing and prints) to cover it's cost. That's standard.
I always liked what they called MT Carney around the lot: "Empty" Carney.
But she was better than jim gallagher, the previous marketing twit.
I know I am late to this post and most of the readers of this blog have moved on but here goes: My guess is that the financial numbers posted on here are speculation and best-guesses. I doubt those who count the beans are frequent readers, much less posters, of and to a blog that holds them in such contempt. So, when I read a post that boasts financial knowledge on a production it makes me wonder just how that knowledge was gleaned? Water cooler chat? Variety/HWR? I'd love to see some sort of verification of these amounts - link to a page at the very least, ok? Otherwise, your opinion (like mine) is just a lot of hot air.
Not for high risk projects like films. And yes, a film needs to make nearly 3 times it's cost (including marketing and prints) to cover it's cost. That's standard.
That doesn't make sense. Could you elaborate?
The 3x the cost of the film is intended to include marketing and print cost
The idea is that combining production and marketing costs make the total of a film's price tag. So if the combined total is $100 Million then a film would need $300 Milion to become profitable, since box office gets split generally 50/50. So with that it "nets" $50 Million.
Problem is that nobody, especially people who comment on this board no exactly what production or P&A costs are, because the studio doesn't share real info. Sometimes they inflate it publicly so it appears they don't make money, and sometimes they understate it to make a film look like a hit.
Truth is, ask any distributor for a gross deal and you won't get one, and those with a net deal get nothing, because they cook the books to make it look like it's a loss.
$150 million for marketing? On paper, maybe, for the inflated costs that one side of the studio charges to the other side of the studio. It's not like they tossed out $150 million to some outside advertising agency.
$150 million on promotion would be comparable money spent by either Presidential Candidate in 2000 and we certainly didn't see that level of media activity promoting the Muppets.
Post a Comment