According to The Hollywood Reporter, the sequel had well over 17 million viewers for the premiere and has broken records. I believe it is the most-watched basic cable telefilm of all time.

The rerun of the first film had 6 million viewers, which the Reporter pointed out represented 78% of the amount of eyeballs that viewed the original when it was first aired.

Be interesting to see how this translates in terms of DVD sales. Anyone know the budget on this one? I hope they didn't spend too much more capital on it than they did on the first one.

I don't know the answer on the DVD's, but the back to school promotions with Walmart should get off with a bang, based on your statistics. Disney has planned a huge merchandising campaign hoping "II" would be a huge success, which it evidently was.

JimBNorman

Anyone know the budget on this one?

I heard it was a little over $7 million.

I hope they didn't spend too much more capital on it than they did on the first one.

The first one I believe cost $4.5 million so they spent quite a bit more but why would you even be a bit concerned about it. Don't you think they got their $4.5 million worth the first time? I think it is good that the spent the money to come out with a high quality sequel (even in $7 mil is dirt cheap). I was impressed that they were able to do a sequel that was able to meet the high and maybe even exceed the high expectations that people had for it.

Moe

I've read confirmations that it was the most watched event on cable of all-time with 17.2 million viewers.

JimBNorman

My wife and I were two of those.

We think we prefer the first movie, but I'll have to watch II another time or two to let it grow on me.

One of the teens we talked to said she liked II better because it had more romance.


PHF

<<The first one I believe cost $4.5 million so they spent quite a bit more but why would you even be a bit concerned about it. Don't you think they got their $4.5 million worth the first time? I think it is good that the spent the money to come out with a high quality sequel (even in $7 mil is dirt cheap). I was impressed that they were able to do a sequel that was able to meet the high and maybe even exceed the high expectations that people had for it.

Moe>>

Moe,

This is a fair question. I have this idea that, as a franchise continues in the forward direction, the budget requirement for each successive entry shouldn't increase. To my way of thinking, this kind of discipline would protect profits and lessen risk. Plus, in theory, the value of the brand should be sufficient to allow less spending on a new entry in a franchise (even if the budget were the same, you have to consider inflation, which would make it essentially less money being spent).

Another point would be that I would not want the success of "HS2" to go to Disney's head -- i.e., don't commence making Disney Channel movies with progressively higher budgets because of the zeitgeist that the original became.

You know, in all honesty, I still am puzzled as to why the original cost over $4 million to produce. I've never seen it, though. Guess I'll have to bite the bullet and watch. I'll also have to see if I can Google any other Disney-Channel-movie budgets.

Here's an interesting comparison (at least to me it's interesting). According to Boxofficemojo.com, here are the budgets for the "Saw" movies:

Saw -- $1.2 million
Saw 2 -- $4 million
Saw 3 -- $10 million

The first "Saw" film, from what I can tell, was two minutes longer than the first "HS" film.

According to Boxofficemojo.com, here are the budgets for the "Saw" movies

Excuse my ignorance but I am not sure what you are referring to when you mention the "Saw" movies. Can you tel me what the "Saw" movies are?

Thanks,
Moe

<<Excuse my ignorance but I am not sure what you are referring to when you mention the "Saw" movies. Can you tel me what the "Saw" movies are?

Thanks,
Moe>>

The "Saw" franchise is a trilogy (soon to have a fourth member this October) in the horror genre. It is produced by Twisted Pictures and distributed by Lions Gate. It is a gruesome little series that involves a serial killer named Jigsaw plotting complex games/traps that his kidnapped victims must play.

My point with this comparison is that, if those pictures could be made relatively cheaply, then I can't see how "High School Musical" cost so much. In fact, the first two "Saw" films had budgets that, when combined, are less than the cost of the second "Musical." Danny Glover even starred in the first one (the first "Saw", at least, is highly recommended).

I would presume that the second "Musical" film may have cost a lot because of increases in above-the-line compensation.

"High School III" is slated to be a theatrical release, according to AOL blogging stocks.

Thanks for commiserating on the stock price. It hasn't budged in months, even though all the news has been great for the most part. I just think the summer's are traditionally slow for the stock if you follow the study done by the Goldman analyst, and I'm hopeful it will climb towards the end of the year. I'm especially bullish about the foreign films in India and the one in Mainland China to be made starrig Jet Li an Natalie Portman.

JimBNorman

My point with this comparison is that, if those pictures could be made relatively cheaply, then I can't see how "High School Musical" cost so much.

Thanks for the explanation.

My guess on the cost difference between the two first movies is probably because HS Musical and thus had costs that a low budget non-musical movie wouldn't have.

Those items include:
1) A larger cast then a drama
2) Original songs that had to be written for the movie
3) Dance sequences that had to be choreographed, and filmed.

I would go along with you that a large part of the increase in the second movie was probably related to the cost of talent.

Moe

My guess on the cost difference between the two first movies is probably because HS Musical and thus had costs that a low budget non-musical movie wouldn't have.

Those items include:
1) A larger cast then a drama
2) Original songs that had to be written for the movie
3) Dance sequences that had to be choreographed, and filmed.

I would go along with you that a large part of the increase in the second movie was probably related to the cost of talent.

A couple of missing items from your list:

Promotions Budget - HSM was just another "Made for the Disney Channel" movie that nobody really expected much out of. HSII was advertised all over the place (especially on the other DIS networks like ABC, heck I even caught an ad on ESPN), with tie-in promotions and much hoopla wherever they could get the attention.

Production Costs - The setting of the first movie was almost entirely in the school, so there wasn't a need for expensive sets or location shots. Costumes were basic teen clothing, basketball and cheerleader uniforms. Props consisted of a Basketball and not much else. HSII supposedly took place at a Palm Springs type country club, which added to the set, costume and prop costs. (I wonder how much Sharpei's custom pink Mustang convertible cost).

Incidently, the director for both movies was also the lead choreographer and one of the lead writers.

Also, I don't think the HSM franchise would do well on the big screen. I don't have anything to base this on other than gut feeling, but while it is the kind of movie I would set aside my Friday night to watch, I would not be willing to drive to the theater and pay 10 bucks to see it.

Steve

The movie, to quote the famous Variety headline, will do 'big b.o. (box office) boffo.' It already has a huge, huge built-in audience, as the 17.2 million viewers breaking a cable record will attest. Opening night alone will recoup the cost of production. All the tweens will go, Disney has really started something great here. They are simply taking it to the next level.

JimBNorman

It already has a huge, huge built-in audience, as the 17.2 million viewers breaking a cable record will attest.

I hope it is a big success in the theaters although I am interested in how they are going to script the new movies. The Main characters according to HS II only have a year of high school left so they will need to either move it out of HS or develop new characters in III and IV. They also will need a new story line as I and II were pretty much the same plot in different locations.

I would also add that don't take the 17.2 million for granted. I was one of the 17.2 on Friday night but I won't personally be running to the theater to see it.

Moe

I'm sure they're up to the task, putting their best people on it, considering what an incredible cash cow it's turning out to be.

JimBNorman