tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post7192414904673510540..comments2024-03-26T22:42:06.412-07:00Comments on TAG Blog: The Foreign DerbySteve Huletthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-23753948946766008032010-01-07T11:33:58.736-08:002010-01-07T11:33:58.736-08:00Does anyone know the actual source of BOMojos budg...Does anyone know the actual source of BOMojos budget numbers?<br /><br />Press release? Annual report?<br /><br />Or do studios have a staff member who reports directly to BOMojo? I wonder how much they get paid. <br /><br />Heck, if they're going to make up a number, why not just say 10 bucks! That oughta drive up stock price.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-17753522831835722852010-01-07T09:51:57.217-08:002010-01-07T09:51:57.217-08:00It's an open secret that studios routinely coo...It's an open secret that studios routinely cook the books regarding movies' production costs.<br /><br />But it's worse than that. Every old studio hand knows that if you open a production charge number, different studio departments start using it.<br /><br />And they use it for things that have no direct connection to the production.<br /><br />This happens everywhere, to a greater or lesser degree. And has since movie studios started.Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-76367669594140719462010-01-06T19:26:59.381-08:002010-01-06T19:26:59.381-08:00We're all Bozos on this bus.We're all Bozos on this bus.You say Rufus- I say Doofus- let's call the whole thing offnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-21635420411918504542010-01-06T16:34:11.555-08:002010-01-06T16:34:11.555-08:00Yeah! His real name is Doofus.Yeah! His real name is Doofus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-89487120729355255922010-01-06T13:22:52.723-08:002010-01-06T13:22:52.723-08:00My name is not rufus, you idiot.
I use that name ...My name is not rufus, you idiot.<br /><br />I use that name to try to aleviate the confusion from so many "anonymous" posters.<br /><br />rufus.rufusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-50189759700883509892010-01-06T13:10:22.639-08:002010-01-06T13:10:22.639-08:00Oh, thank goodness the grammar police are around!!...Oh, thank goodness the grammar police are around!!!<br /><br />Did you find any spelling mistakes or other errors in any of the posts here? Please show us your superiority by pointing all of them out for us illiterates.<br /><br />My hero!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-75491525094779969942010-01-06T11:20:24.912-08:002010-01-06T11:20:24.912-08:00That's WITH impunity, not "without" ...That's WITH impunity, not "without" impunity, genius.to Anon 4:44noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-83502950457013807212010-01-06T09:12:44.339-08:002010-01-06T09:12:44.339-08:00Don"t Drink Disney's Kool-Aid<a href="http://animondays.blogspot.com/2009/12/not-drinking-kool-aid.html" rel="nofollow">Don"t Drink Disney's Kool-Aid</a>Woe unto us the End of the World as we know itnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-73026227340291553172010-01-05T16:44:50.440-08:002010-01-05T16:44:50.440-08:00In your frenzy to find the ulitmate truth you miss...In your frenzy to find the ulitmate truth you missed what I was laughing at...your question - not the fact that BOMojo prints what they're told. There is no way anyone (exfcept a deeply embedded studio accountant) will ever know what the real costs of any movie are. BOMojo has no choice but to use the information they're given. Why should they research any further - it won't do any good. If 105 million is what Disney is saying it cost to make whether high or low that is the number they (and everyone else) are going to use to decide whether Frog is a hit or a bomb. <br />My guess is, since Disney had a big stake in having this film appear to be a hit, thye kept their estimate conservatively low. Personally I don't see it on the screen, but there are a lot of ways to piss away money on a film - all the way from JL, et al's jet trips back and forth (and hotel stays, etc) to unnecessary overtime to shipping materials overseas (or opening an overseas pipeline) and trips to New Orleans to 'soak' up the atmosphere so they could ignore it in the film. Not to mention starting a 2D studio from the ground up (as has been mentioned before).<br /><br />My guess is if the producers or directors thought they were spending about 70 million then that's probably closer to what is up on the screen (though I doubt even that much made it to the screen), but they probably weren't privy to a lot of the hidden costs like some of the ones I already suggested (and a thousand more).<br /><br />As to who I am? I prefer to remain anonymous unlike idiots like Arlo and Rufus...this way I can offend or defend who I want without impunity ;) Actually it doesn't matter who I am or who anyone on this blog is. Why should my statements be considered any more truthful or wrong because of who i am?<br />I don't believe Arlo because he uses his name and I don't believe someone who claims they know what Walt Disney would say and do because he uses his name anymore than anyone else would.<br /><br />And you can also consider me a jerk without ever having to be worried we'll ever come face to face...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-71912725994373465952010-01-05T14:03:58.378-08:002010-01-05T14:03:58.378-08:00Anonymous says ...
"lol...no, BOMojo prints ...Anonymous says ...<br /><br /><i>"lol...no, BOMojo prints what the studios tell them were the production costs.<br />If you think Disney only spent 35 mill on marketing then you don't know much about marketing. I can almost guarantee you they spent at least as much as their production costs - if not more - to advertise that sucker. "</i><br /><br />----<br /><br />LOL right back at you. But really, your comment is not in the least helpful or informative. <br /><br />I didn't say I necessarily believed anything on Box Office Mojo or that I knew what the marketing costs on PATF are . <b>That's why I was asking questions</b>. (i.e. <i>"Are they just guessing ? Should we not place any credibility in those numbers ? "</i>)<br /><br />Your answer seems to indicate that you believe Box Office Mojo is just guessing and we should not place any credibility in their numbers. They naively print whatever the studios tell them without researching the numbers. Ok . Got it. <br /><br />So, the obvious questions now would be: <i>who are you</i> and why does what you write have any more credibility than what Box Office Mojo prints? <br /><br /> Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you , but simply asking for you to back up what you write. Maybe you're experienced in production management or a big-shot producer. Or maybe you're just like me and you don't really have a clue. Who knows? If you can demonstrate why sites like Box Office Mojo is full of crap on the numbers they print then I'd be interested to read about it. But simply writing a glib "Lol" comment and asserting that they don't have good information doesn't prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-28971372434566784382010-01-05T12:57:29.188-08:002010-01-05T12:57:29.188-08:00lol...no, BOMojo prints what the studios tell them...lol...no, BOMojo prints what the studios tell them were the production costs.<br />If you think Disney only spent 35 mill on marketing then you don't know much about marketing. I can almost guarantee you they spent at least as much as their production costs - if not more - to advertise that sucker.<br /><br />You can justify long term revenue as being the reason why a film wil eventually make it's money, but that's all guesswork and not something you can really count on or declare until it happens. A film is either a hit ot a bomb based on it's initial theatrical run. You can claim victory if it sells well on DVD, but that comes later.<br />But if all they're interested in is DVD sales they would've made Frog a DTV release and not spent the money making at a theatrical release.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-29437701596397537992010-01-05T12:39:37.778-08:002010-01-05T12:39:37.778-08:00It is very mysterious trying to get reliable infor...It is very mysterious trying to get reliable information on what the films actually cost. <br /><br />What about the figures that a site like <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=princessandthefrog.htm" rel="nofollow">Box Office Mojo</a> publishes ? Are they just guessing ? Should we not place any credibility in those numbers ? <br /><br />The $105 million prod. budget figure for PATF comes from Box Office Mojo. But someone else who claimed to have actually worked on the film posted above that the cost was closer to $70 million. That's a rather significant difference .<br /><br />However, when a site like Box Office Mojo prints a budget figure are they including the promotional costs in that ? So in this case the production costs on PATF may have been $70 million, but then another $35 million was spent for advertising ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-11000706349771512652010-01-05T09:52:08.739-08:002010-01-05T09:52:08.739-08:00>>>>>>
Steve Hulett says ...
&...>>>>>><br /><br />Steve Hulett says ...<br /><br /><i>"Now the rule of thumb is triple the production cost, although I'm always skeptical about Rules of Thumb. You would have to know what all the ACTUAL costs of a picture were"</i><br /><br />>>>>>><br /><br />So we can't really know. <br /><br />Ok.<br /><br />Then why is everyone so quick to write down The Princess and the Frog , especially given the long-term earning potential for animated films that Steve mentioned above ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-87986698533670844572010-01-05T09:40:06.819-08:002010-01-05T09:40:06.819-08:00Good point about how animated films in particular ...Good point about how animated films in particular have a very long shelf-life and sometimes even increase in popularity as time goes by.<br /><br />Look at the DVD/Blu-Ray sales figures for hand-drawn animated films which were originally considered flops like Disney's "Sleeping Beauty" or "Pinocchio". I think just this past year "Pinocchio:70th Anniversary Special Edition" made <b>$44,925,845</b> in DVD sales. (and of course in this case that $44.9 million is from an old movie which had paid for itself many times over years ago in subsequent theatrical re-releases and previous home video releases.)<br /><br />The previous year "Sleeping Beauty" made $36.5 million in DVD sales. "101 Dalmatians" made $43.7 million. There still seems to be some audience out there for good hand-drawn animation.<br /><br />With the home video sales in flux I wonder how "The Princess & the Frog" will do when it is released to the home video market ? Even with the changing market I expect it will rake in a hefty sum.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-19927091396095614482010-01-05T09:08:46.154-08:002010-01-05T09:08:46.154-08:00In the old days, if a picture made double its prod...In the old days, if a picture made double its production cost, it was considered a fine little money-maker.<br /><br />Now the rule of thumb is triple the production cost, although I'm always skeptical about Rules of Thumb. You would have to know what all the ACTUAL costs of a picture were, including promotion, and I just don't think civilians ever know what a entertainment conglom's real costs are.<br /><br />And earnings can go on forever. <i>Gone With the Wind</i>* still enjoys healthy income 70+ years later, ditto <i>The Ten Commandments</i>, old animated features, even minor titles that end up in boxed sets of DVDs, or licensed to cable or broadcast.<br /><br />The funny thing about <i>Wind</i> is that the film has profit participants. David Selznick sold his rights to the film, but his older brother Myron had a small percentage which I believe is still held by his estate.<br /><br />Ka-ching.Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-66536349211892253452010-01-04T22:06:22.619-08:002010-01-04T22:06:22.619-08:00Sounds plausible to me.
Ok, let's go with $1...Sounds plausible to me. <br /><br />Ok, let's go with $105 million.<br /><br />So, Steve, what does TP & TF have to make to be considered "not-a-flop" ? What's the CW on that ? 2x the production budget ? 3x the production budget ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-75561347510210252522010-01-04T21:28:25.663-08:002010-01-04T21:28:25.663-08:00Where I come by the $105 million production cost:
...Where I come by the $105 million production cost:<br /><br />1) It's what I deduce from salaries and staff levels at the studio; from the amount of outsourcing; and what previous productions have cost.<br /><br />2) It's what long-time Disney staffers told me the movie production budget was.<br /><br />3) It's the figure that's already out there (as Box Office Mojo and other places.)<br /><br />Which isn't to say the total is accurate. Studios are well-known for shifting costs and cooking books. It's simply the most accurate figure that I know about.Steve Huletthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537689111433326847noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-30948206194225128972010-01-04T20:41:18.370-08:002010-01-04T20:41:18.370-08:00It definitely is a disappointment. Simply put...g...It definitely is a disappointment. Simply put...given the numbers, the film isn't going to be profitable. The film actually technically cost less than $105M (production budget is more like $80M, but when you add in overhead and such nonsense, it's more like $140M so it's not that cheap), and certainly less than CG movies. Granted, you've got another $150m in distribution costs. But...costing less than Bolt isn't that great a feat, given how much money that thing lost.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this film definitely underperformed. Though it's not a massive bomb, it is definitely disappointing for Disney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-22506263238719321602010-01-04T16:57:03.808-08:002010-01-04T16:57:03.808-08:00I worked on the film, and I heard 70-75 million (a...I worked on the film, and I heard 70-75 million (as a budget figure) thrown around once or twice in meetings. I don't honestly know what the truth actually is, but people were always talking about how "we made our film for half of what the CG films cost". So, don't know... but I'd be willing to bet it was less than 105 considering how little they actually were willing to spend on everything and everyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-4096276291279605022010-01-04T16:51:07.309-08:002010-01-04T16:51:07.309-08:00People are way to ready to call a film a failure o...People are way to ready to call a film a failure or disappointment. Many, many, MANY of my all time favorite films were considered 'disappointments.' Often films become loved for reasons that aren't completely clear by anyone when they are first released. Everyone is so eager to call the game in this town. Time changes perspective.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-27395950652443023792010-01-04T15:48:45.342-08:002010-01-04T15:48:45.342-08:00I should also add that besides the general public ...I should also add that besides the general public being kept in the dark, most of the people at the studio are too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-42303659357132578802010-01-04T15:46:20.056-08:002010-01-04T15:46:20.056-08:00That would be good news if it's true. Why do y...<b>That would be good news if it's true. Why do you think that it cost $60 - $70 mil instead of the more widely reported $105 mil ?</b><br /><br />It isn't really coming from me. I'm regurgitating what was told to me by another producer. <br /><br />However, I can say with with 100% certainty that what the general public is told about budgets is rarely true. It is almost always inflated or deflated to conceal one thing or another. This practice seems especially rampant at Disney.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-43858554995203434542010-01-04T15:42:42.331-08:002010-01-04T15:42:42.331-08:00"Who officially pronounced it a disappointmen..."Who officially pronounced it a disappointment, anyway?"<br /><br />The public by not going to see it. When a movie doiesn't make a profitit is a disapointment...you can soft pedal it all you like and say it was an artistic success or it'll make money on DVD sales or merchandise, but when a film bombs at the box office it IS a disappointmant.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-34457858947473455382010-01-04T15:02:30.365-08:002010-01-04T15:02:30.365-08:00"Overall, the movie is a disappointment."..."Overall, the movie is a disappointment."<br /><br />Compared to what? Who set the bar? It was lively, entertaining and fun. It demonstrated that Disney, in spite of the time off, is still capable of producing a first class hand drawn animated feature film. AND, in a very busy season, people came to see it.<br />Yes, more would have been better, but the movie proved it's point. Who officially pronounced it a disappointment, anyway?My 2 Centsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22906998.post-53787435019045396632010-01-04T14:37:02.672-08:002010-01-04T14:37:02.672-08:00The budget was $105 million, NOT counting promotio...The budget was $105 million, NOT counting promotional costs.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is a disappointment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com