The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Stocks D / Disney
|Subject: Re: #13 and #14||Date: 3/14/2013 1:33 PM|
|Author: DCWD40||Number: 48475 of 49584|
I'm fascinated by the success of Adam Sandler's Hotel Transylvania. According to Box Office Mojo, the film had a budget of $85 million.
esxokm, I agree. Cost does matter.
I think Mr. Iger is on record for trimming down the number of Disney movies each year so there is a better focus on what goes out to the public. I read that statement to say that Disney movies will be more expensive because they get a more complete handling, from writing to post production. A special effects movie for an industry low budget isn't in the works for Disney.
One bonus of the LusasFilm purchase is that Disney got a best-in-class special effects studio in the bargain. Although Mr. Lucas was not known for producing inexpensive movies, Disney does have the ability now to walk into the special effects department and say, "How can we get the most bang for the bucks" and maybe at the same time say, "we'd like to keep the effects budget under $30 million." They are not outsiders anymore so they just might get better advice, and listen to it, now that it is from an in-house source.
It is hard to not be impressed with the value Disney got for $220 million with the Avengers. The special effects are really special. It is also hard to not get the point Mr. Iger is trying to make. The story line from the movie will translate into theme park rides, toys, games, books, and many other products. Spending more to get the best at all levels makes sense.
The Studio would probably reply to this post with this: You are measuring the Studio based on the film's cost and its own sales. If you considered all the other sources of revenue, the movie is a bargain of major proportions.
The reason I disagree with Mr. Iger's slimmed down movie schedule is because the international market is growing so quickly. Movies that bomb in the US don't also have to fail elsewhere. John Carter took in just $73 million in the domestic market but still managed to gross $210 million in other markets.
I think there are lots of opportunities in the lower budget movies. Ted was made for $50 million but grossed $546 million. Hunger Games cost $78 million and grossed $691 million.
The news media will note that Lincoln was made for $65 million but only grossed $258 million (70% US). But, does anyone think that there are gobs of Russians or Chinese that are anxious to look-in on Mr. Lincoln? The movie dominated in the market where it needed to work. Why can't Disney find more movies in that budget range and below that would dominate world markets?
|Copyright 1996-2014 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|