Support NeoGAF

[DMczaf]

Lets see

2003

FINDING NEMO
Domestic: $339,714,978 39.3%
+ Overseas: $524,911,000 60.7%
= Worldwide: $864,625,978

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN:
THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL
Domestic: $305,413,918 46.7%
+ Overseas: $348,500,000 53.3%
= Worldwide: $653,913,918

FREAKY FRIDAY
Domestic: $110,230,332 68.5%
+ Overseas: $50,616,000 31.5%
= Worldwide: $160,846,332


2004

THE ALAMO
Domestic: $22,287,179 93.5%
+ Overseas: $1,555,000 6.5%
= Worldwide: $23,842,179
Production Budget: $107 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $30 million

AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
Domestic: $21,473,814 93.0%
+ Overseas: $1,620,000 7.0%
= Worldwide: $23,093,814
Production Budget: $110 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $30 million

With King Arthur coming up this weekend with a $100 mil budget...

 

[Pattergen]

They have The Incredibles coming this year. That should help a little...

not enough though.

 

[teiresias]

How is the box office split between Disney and Pixar on the Pixar films though?

 

[Pattergen]

How is the box office split between Disney and Pixar on the Pixar films though?

quick google search,

Disney, as everyone has published, got approximately 12% of gross revenue as a distribution fee on the Pixar movies. In addition, Disney and Pixar split the profits of the films 50/50 with Pixar. So let's look at a movie like "Finding Nemo": Nemo did approximately $339m here in the US and about $509m internationally, so approximately $850m in total box-office.

Disney would expect $100m in revenue from the distribution agreement. For simple numbers, let's assume they spent $50m on marketing the movie. The movie cost $90m to make, but all of that cost is assumed by Pixar. Let's assume another $50m that just "disappeared" someplace into the movie costs for a total of $100m in costs. Profits, then, from the picture (I'm leaving out DVDs to keep this simple), they would have $650m to split between the two of them or roughly $325m in profits. This is probably on the high side - getting to a profit line in a studio is always challenging.

This is the deal that Disney has for the next two Pixar pictures ("The Incredibles" in November 2004, and "Cars" sometime in 2005). Let's assume that each of these pictures does well but not as well as Nemo - say $700m in domestic and international markets. $70m in distribution goes to Disney for each film ($140m for two), and then let's say $200m in profit from each film - or $400m for both. Grand total of revenue: $540m-$600m for the next two pictures.

http://www.mediathinking.com/comments/P123_0_1_0/


This article's math seems fuzzy though, they don't seem to account theatre takes.

 

[AeroGod]

King Arthur isnt that bad. When I saw it I came away impressed with it considering I was also expecting utter shit. The only problem I see is that it doesnt really have an "appeal" or a huge star to help put people in the seats, which will probably mean another box office flop. I hope people give it a chance though, its well made. Not a GREAT movie by any means but its a decent summer flick at least, better then alot of the garbage that has been coming out as of late.

 

[jecclr2003]

Does it bother ANYONE else that everyone in King Arthurs court and his followers are wearing ROMAN styled armor?

I always thought that King Arthur, Camelot and the ilk were a BRITISH legend.

 

[Belfast]

You obviously haven't studied enough about the Arthurian legend or British history then, have you?

I don't understand it, though, they're pimping the director, who has had questionable talent, but there's nary a mention of Keira Knightley in most of the trailers/tv spots.

 

[Meier]

Eh? The trailers/tv spots basically focus entirely on her. @_@ Disney is trying to sell it more to females and whatnot by making her appear the lead.

 

[Belfast]

Yeah, but they don't usually mention her name. Honestly, at first, I didn't even know it was her until I saw her name flashed for half a second during the credits at the end of a tv ad. And I would imagine it'd be hard for most people to tell its her what with all the warpaint and hair color change.

 

[jecclr2003]

Belfast, I'll admit British history isn't my study of choice...

BUT, when you have a widely accepted mythology of a character, you run with it and don't try to confuse the hell out of your audience.

And IMO tossing Arthur into Roman armor (along with the rest of his armor), and keeping Keira Knightley clothed when Scottish women fought nude, just kind pisses all over the accepted mythos.

But I digress.....

After all, it is Disney, they know how to fuck up a good thing and seem to always come out smelling like a rose.

Except when Dreamworks animation and Pixar (now solo) hand them their ass on a regular basis.

I thought they tried to get Eisner out of Disney already.... christ, Disney has one of the best character libraries in the world and they keep putting out nonsense like this and World in 80 Days...

 

[Wolfy]

ARthur's knights were Russian (or eastern) horsemen, as proposed by Bruckheimer and his posse.

 

[Lil' Dice]

Disney still has The Village. That should clean up at the BO.....

 

[Agent Dormer]

Disney still has The Village. That should clean up at the BO.....

Not if the ending we read about is real.

 

[ManaByte]

Does it bother ANYONE else that everyone in King Arthurs court and his followers are wearing ROMAN styled armor?

I always thought that King Arthur, Camelot and the ilk were a BRITISH legend.

No, Arthurian Legend isn't British in origin, but was adopted. In reality, Great Britain doesn't have much of a native mythology, which is one of the reasons Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings. A lot of the origins of the legend can trace themselves back to Irish or Celtic origins.

However, one of the most commonly accepted theories (EXCEPT in the UK) is that the entire Legend of Arthur may be based on a Roman who lived in the 5th Century and led battles against Anglo-Saxon invaders. When exploring the historical aspects of the legend, that's the story that is usually looked into and that's what the movie is based on.

 

[ManaByte]

Belfast, I'll admit British history isn't my study of choice...

BUT, when you have a widely accepted mythology of a character, you run with it and don't try to confuse the hell out of your audience.

And IMO tossing Arthur into Roman armor (along with the rest of his armor), and keeping Keira Knightley clothed when Scottish women fought nude, just kind pisses all over the accepted mythos.

But I digress.....

The idea of the movie is to not show the widely accepted mythology, but the common theory of the origin of the legend that most people have never heard of.

And it wasn't just Celt women who fought in the nude. All Celts did, and they painted themselves completely blue like giant evil Smurfs. But there's no way in hell you're going to get Keira Knightly to run around then entire movie naked.

 

[Belfast]

"and keeping Keira Knightley clothed when Scottish women fought nude"

Now, that, I can agree with you on.

 

[shuri]

Women fought in the nude? DOC BROWN, WE'RE GOING BACK IN TIME

 

[Guzim]

Women fought in the nude? DOC BROWN, WE'RE GOING BACK IN TIME

"Great Scott! They really are nude!"

 

[ManaByte]

Women fought in the nude? DOC BROWN, WE'RE GOING BACK IN TIME

Yea...

Most Celts scorned the use of armour and before about 300 B.C. preferred to fight naked. Some Celtic tribes still fought naked at the battle of Telamon in 225 B.C. The Celt was renowned as a swords-man but he also used javelins and spears. Two spears which were found at La Tene in Switzerland were nearly 2.5m long. His only protection was his large shield which was usually oval. The suggestion that the Celt wore heavy bracelets in battle has to be questioned, as it is hard to understand how they would stay on his arm whilst he wielded his sword. Dionysius tells us that in battle the Celts whirled their swords above their heads, slashing the air from side to side, then struck downwards at their enemies as if chopping wood. It was this use of the sword that so terrified their enemies. The Celts did not fight in a rabble as is so often supposed. They were organized in companies. This can be proved by their use of standards.

The Celt was a head-hunter. In battle he would cut off the head of his fallen enemy and often hang it from his horse's neck. After battle he would display the severed head at the entrance to his temple. The severed head is a constant theme in Celtic art. At the battle of Beneventumin 214 B.C. the Roman general Gracchus had to order his army of freed slaves (presumably Celts) to stop collecting heads and get on with the fighting. After a battle the Celts would often dedicate their enemies weapons to the gods and throw them into a river or lake. The hundreds of weapons that have been dredged from the Lake of Neuchatel at La Tene were such offerings. In fact the site at La Tene has revealed so many Celtic artifacts that its name has been given to the whole Celtic culture.

The chiefs and the wealthiest Celts often did wear armour particularly when they came into contact with the Greeks and Romans. They often adopted items of Greek or Roman armour. A pair of greaves were found in the chieftain's grave at Ciumesti. Several graves have been found in Northern Italy which contain Etruscan armour and Celtic weapons. Before a battle the chiefs would ride out, in front of the army clashing their weapons on their shields, proclaiming their great deeds and challenging the enemy to single combat. Caesar describes the British as dressed in skins (meaning leather) and decorated with woad, a blue dye. Some tattooed skin from a Scythian grave of this period suggests that the Britons were tattooed in blue.

 

[MASB]

Except when Dreamworks animation and Pixar (now solo) hand them their ass on a regular basis.

I thought they tried to get Eisner out of Disney already.... christ, Disney has one of the best character libraries in the world and they keep putting out nonsense like this and World in 80 Days...

I don't know if I'd include Dreamworks yet. The day they come out a blockbuster that isn't somehow Shrek-related, then okay. They've had more El Dorados and Sinbads than anything else and they make Home On The Range seem downright successful. And that's very hard to do.

As for 80 Days, that's an independent movie, Disney didn't spend however many millions on the film's budget. They just picked it up for distribution and I assume payed for some advertising. So they'll lose money(depending on DVD sales) but not much.

I'm not sticking up much for Disney(time for Eisner to go), but studios do have a habit of having good years(2003) and then having a bad year the very next year. Most of the studios aren't too consistent in temrs of overall box office.

And yes, not having Keira Knightley nude has been their biggest mistake of the year in my book.

 

[element]

Lets look at other Disney busts:

Fahrenheit 9/11
Total US Gross $44,300,000 (and growing)
Production Budget $6,000,000
Prints and Advertising Budget $12,000,000

The Village
Production Budget $120,000,000 (WTF!!!??)

The 13th Warrior
Production Budget $125,000,000
US Gross $32,698,899
World Gross $59,800,000

Home on the Range
Production Budget $110,000,000
US Gross $49,204,780

Bad Company
Production Budget $70,000,000
US Gross $30,157,016

Holy Man
Production Budget $60,000,000
US Gross $12,069,719

Big Trouble
Production Budget $45,000,000
US Gross $7,262,288

Just Visiting
Production Budget $40,000,000
US Gross $4,777,007

not to mention that if miramax jumps ship

 

[ManaByte]

The 13th Warrior
Production Budget $125,000,000
US Gross $32,698,899
World Gross $59,800,000

Hey, that was a fun Viking movie, but they should've kept the book title (Eaters of the Dead).

 

[element]

Hey, that was a fun Viking movie, but they should've kept the book title (Eaters of the Dead).

I enjoyed the movie, but watching it, I have no idea where the money went.

 

[Wolfy]

The 13th warrior was awesome. And you guys forgot to mention Hidalgo.

 

[Pattergen]

Hidalgo didn't flop that hard.

Production Budget: $100 million
Worldwide: $107,125,587


They will still end up making some pennies out of it.

 

[yoshifumi]

it's a good thing king arthur's going to flop, because i have to work at the theater the day it opens.

 

[Teddman]

AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS
Domestic: $21,473,814 93.0%
+ Overseas: $1,620,000 7.0%
= Worldwide: $23,093,814
Production Budget: $110 million
Est. Marketing Costs: $30 million

Around the World in 80 Days was privately financed by a billionaire, the most expensive independent movie ever made. Disney only distributed it.

 

[Grizzlyjin]

Around the World in 80 Days was privately financed by a billionaire, the most expensive independent movie ever made. Disney only distributed it.

So this guy liked throwing money away...thats just sad. There is much more that could have been done with that money.

 

[element]

Around the World in 80 Days was privately financed by a billionaire, the most expensive independent movie ever made. Disney only distributed it.

not if you ask george lucas!!!

 

[Brian Fellows]

Hey, that was a fun Viking movie, but they should've kept the book title (Eaters of the Dead).

Yeah good movie. The original title prolly would have drawn atleast a little more interest.

 

[MrPing1000]

Poor Steve Coogan

 

[Dekajelly]

Poor Steve Coogan

Back to the BBC for another series of I'm Alan Partridge then?

http://www.alan-partridge.co.uk/multimedia/videoclips/imalans01/s01e01.htm

 

[Firest0rm]

I really liked The 13th Warrior.

 

[Matlock]

Lets look at other Disney busts:

Fahrenheit 9/11
Total US Gross $44,300,000 (and growing)
Production Budget $6,000,000
Prints and Advertising Budget $12,000,000

Yeah dude, it's a bust whenever the film is gonig to more than quadruple the amount of money put into it.

 

[jecclr2003]

Matlock, it's a bust because Disney isn't the one who released it.

They refused to. They ponied up the money and then said they would not put it out. Moore then took his ball to the Weinstein Bros and they released it.

 

[Matlock]

Ah yes, good point.

 

[element]

yeah, what he said.

 

[human5892]

I'm glad they're not doing well. Disney deserves to be punished for putting out almost 100% shit for years now.

 

[videogamer]

So this guy liked throwing money away...thats just sad. There is much more that could have been done with that money.

Well, he didn't like the lack of real family movies. This is one of the reasons why he funded it.

 

[effzee]

the village has that huge budget? for what? its not like its star loaded and i doubt it has amazing effects. prolly the supposed re shooting of the ending caused that to balloon up.


ohh and king arthur looks good....im going to see it.

 

[Wolfy]