|
Post by CrepedCrusader on Sept 1, 2020 14:17:46 GMT
How'd then boycotts go, Bros?
|
|
|
Post by thisguy4000 on Sept 1, 2020 15:09:42 GMT
This is gonna end well...
|
|
|
Post by johnspartan on Sept 1, 2020 15:14:11 GMT
How'd then boycotts go, Bros? Exactly as planned. Disney SW lost half the audience they began with, you dumbass.
|
|
|
Post by Oh My Aching Ackbar-Raddus! on Sept 1, 2020 16:12:59 GMT
How'd then boycotts go, Bros?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 2, 2020 21:14:53 GMT
Well firstly no the Disney SW trilogy GROSSED $4.475b, also they did not MAKE $4.475b, as when you take into account Disney kept only a reported 55% of that $4.475b, which means $2.461b, and they spent $510m or so on marketing, between $733-837m on production and an additional I believe around $200m on participation bonuses, which all tallies up to between $1.423b and $1.527b not including taxes, so they MADE between $914m and $1.018b.
Also as pointed out they ran off half their audience and made their fandom one of the most toxic on the planet, not only did the movies box offices decline steeply but so did their retail numbers, it wasn't just the movies but SW as a whole lost half their customers across the board.
Oh and when you think about this the Disney SW Trilogy made the lion share of it's money from TFA around $700m or more, and that was based off of nostalgia and before Disney/Kennedy's influence really were steering the fandom, that was the goodwill that sW had accumulated over near 40 years.
So yeah this is just a reminder you don't seem to know how a box office actually works, or anything else for that matter other than how to lick boots.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Sept 2, 2020 21:17:20 GMT
Why they stop making toys for ST?
|
|
senan90
Junior Member
@senan90
Posts: 1,452
Likes: 546
|
Post by senan90 on Sept 2, 2020 23:59:49 GMT
Well firstly no the Disney SW trilogy GROSSED $4.475b, also they did not MAKE $4.475b, as when you take into account Disney kept only a reported 55% of that $4.475b, which means $2.461b, and they spent $510m or so on marketing, between $733-837m on production and an additional I believe around $200m on participation bonuses, which all tallies up to between $1.423b and $1.527b not including taxes, so they MADE between $914m and $1.018b. Also as pointed out they ran off half their audience and made their fandom one of the most toxic on the planet, not only did the movies box offices decline steeply but so did their retail numbers, it wasn't just the movies but SW as a whole lost half their customers across the board. Oh and when you think about this the Disney SW Trilogy made the lion share of it's money from TFA around $700m or more, and that was based off of nostalgia and before Disney/Kennedy's influence really were steering the fandom, that was the goodwill that sW had accumulated over near 40 years. So yeah this is just a reminder you don't seem to know how a box office actually works, or anything else for that matter other than how to lick boots. Yes, the harassment and death threats by misogynist and racist Star Wars fans was disgusting. An all time low. Not Disney's fault though.
|
|
|
Post by Waxer-n-boil on Sept 3, 2020 0:45:47 GMT
How'd then boycotts go, Bros? Others have already pointed out lots of “bullets” addressing this. But to supplement, the fanbase is fragmented more than it’s ever been because of DSW’s own production decisions and writing motives. The production costs and budget were significantly higher than the other trilogies, which ate into their net profits, because of DSW’s own production decisions. Toy sales have been in steady decline because of a decline in fan enthusiasm. Add to that, inflation adjusted gross income and the Disney trilogy is the least financially successful trilogy. But sure, if you want to imagine 4 and half billion at the box office triggers critics and proves something, knock yourself out. I’ll be laughing when I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 3, 2020 0:49:48 GMT
Well firstly no the Disney SW trilogy GROSSED $4.475b, also they did not MAKE $4.475b, as when you take into account Disney kept only a reported 55% of that $4.475b, which means $2.461b, and they spent $510m or so on marketing, between $733-837m on production and an additional I believe around $200m on participation bonuses, which all tallies up to between $1.423b and $1.527b not including taxes, so they MADE between $914m and $1.018b. Also as pointed out they ran off half their audience and made their fandom one of the most toxic on the planet, not only did the movies box offices decline steeply but so did their retail numbers, it wasn't just the movies but SW as a whole lost half their customers across the board. Oh and when you think about this the Disney SW Trilogy made the lion share of it's money from TFA around $700m or more, and that was based off of nostalgia and before Disney/Kennedy's influence really were steering the fandom, that was the goodwill that sW had accumulated over near 40 years. So yeah this is just a reminder you don't seem to know how a box office actually works, or anything else for that matter other than how to lick boots. Yes, the harassment and death threats by misogynist and racist Star Wars fans was disgusting. An all time low. Not Disney's fault though. Kind of depends, was the fandom toxic before RJ and indirectly Disney started calling them such just for not overwhelmingly loving TLJ or did they create a toxic fandom by labelling around half their fanbase toxic, racist and sexist? TFA had criticism over some of the characters but it never grew to a toxic furry like TLJ criticism did, people went into TLJ excited and optimistic about just what we were going to get, where as with TROS as a fandom we went in divided, some still optimistic but about half hesitant and unenthused, as well as being as a whole about half the size we were just 4 years earlier. And you have to wonder why did Star Wars take such a dramatic and quick decline? Transformers was doing great business for year but it took consecutive crappy films with offensive racial depictions and jokes and stupid plot elements before Transformers lost it's mojo, and Transformers was never as big as SW, yet SW after just one divisive not even a universally panned movie and it immediately loses fans, maybe because Michael Bay and Paramount/Hasbro didn't say the fans who dislike their movies are racist, homophobic, sexist man babies, they didn't foster a toxic outlook themselves and as such the fandom remained relatively well tempered.
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Sept 6, 2020 8:21:01 GMT
Well firstly no the Disney SW trilogy GROSSED $4.475b, also they did not MAKE $4.475b, as when you take into account Disney kept only a reported 55% of that $4.475b, which means $2.461b, and they spent $510m or so on marketing, between $733-837m on production and an additional I believe around $200m on participation bonuses, which all tallies up to between $1.423b and $1.527b not including taxes, so they MADE between $914m and $1.018b. Also as pointed out they ran off half their audience and made their fandom one of the most toxic on the planet, not only did the movies box offices decline steeply but so did their retail numbers, it wasn't just the movies but SW as a whole lost half their customers across the board. Oh and when you think about this the Disney SW Trilogy made the lion share of it's money from TFA around $700m or more, and that was based off of nostalgia and before Disney/Kennedy's influence really were steering the fandom, that was the goodwill that sW had accumulated over near 40 years. So yeah this is just a reminder you don't seem to know how a box office actually works, or anything else for that matter other than how to lick boots. Good work! Any chance you could factor the non DT films - Rogue One & Solo into your totals - so we can see where Disney stands today against their initial $4 billion investment?
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 6, 2020 12:31:26 GMT
the sequel trilogy . Which as i understand all got positive reviews by critics.
Except for the lame second one.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 6, 2020 12:31:27 GMT
Sequel Trilogy OT = Original Trilogy PT = Prequel Trilogy and ST = Sequel Trilogy. Though people also us DT or DSW to refer to the sequel trilogy also, I guess because ST can also stand for Star Trek, so ST on it's own can be confusing depending on the conversations at hand.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Sept 6, 2020 12:53:18 GMT
the sequel trilogy . Which as i understand all got positive reviews by critics.
Except for the lame second one.
But what movie? Star Wars? Yes, and as i believe: One fact, It is also the only sequel trilogy in film history ever so far.
It's the only instance where there was one trilogy, and a trilogy that followed it chronologically.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 6, 2020 13:31:01 GMT
Well firstly no the Disney SW trilogy GROSSED $4.475b, also they did not MAKE $4.475b, as when you take into account Disney kept only a reported 55% of that $4.475b, which means $2.461b, and they spent $510m or so on marketing, between $733-837m on production and an additional I believe around $200m on participation bonuses, which all tallies up to between $1.423b and $1.527b not including taxes, so they MADE between $914m and $1.018b. Also as pointed out they ran off half their audience and made their fandom one of the most toxic on the planet, not only did the movies box offices decline steeply but so did their retail numbers, it wasn't just the movies but SW as a whole lost half their customers across the board. Oh and when you think about this the Disney SW Trilogy made the lion share of it's money from TFA around $700m or more, and that was based off of nostalgia and before Disney/Kennedy's influence really were steering the fandom, that was the goodwill that sW had accumulated over near 40 years. So yeah this is just a reminder you don't seem to know how a box office actually works, or anything else for that matter other than how to lick boots. Good work! Any chance you could factor the non DT films - Rogue One & Solo into your totals - so we can see where Disney stands today against their initial $4 billion investment? According to deadline Rogue One off of their $1.055b gross only kept $486.5m of that, with a budget of $200m and a marketing cost of $160m, along with participation bonuses of $35m so box office wise Rogue One netted $88.5m in profit, I think about triple the profit Disney made off of TROS in the box office, this does not include taxes though. For Solo it's a little harder due to not having those deadline breakdowns to help out figure just how much they paid for marketing, but just assuming they spent about the same they spent for TROS, so $140m or so, on top of their $275m budget which is the lower estimate, thats a combined cost of $415m, dunno how to add the bonuses because it did so poorly it may not have had to pay any out so I will leave this off, it grossed $393m which if we apply the same rough percentage as what Rogue One kept then Solo only brought back $177m, so from a box office standpoint Solo likely lost Disney $238m give or take at the box office before taxes, maybe more if they did have some participation bonuses to pay out. So the two combined add a minimum of $775m in cost and $663.5m in box office revenue, so they lower Disney's profits by a good $112m. Actually looking at the Deadline breakdowns I made a mistake in my recollection of the money things, 55% is what Disney kept on TFA's domestic gross, they kept about 46% of the overall gross of the box office, and they spent between production, marketing and participation bonuses around $545.5m and kept $944.27m of the gate, so they made just shy off of $400m in profit off of TFA's box office. 46% holds true with TLJ also, so from the $1.3325b gross of that Disney kept apparently $610.3m, at a cost of an estimated $200m budget, $185m marketing push, plus $70m in participation bonuses, guess I really forgot how much they spent on these, so $455m in expenses not including taxes Disney made about $155.3m in profit off of TLJ at the box office. Apparently TROS kept closer to 48.5% of the global gross this time, shrinking China cash boosting the overall % I assume, so TROS grossed $1.074b Disney kept $519m, whilst spending $275m on the budget, $140m on the marketing, $75m on participation bonuses, for a combined cost of $490m, meaning TROS netted Disney $29m in profit from the box office. So in short TFA was $545.5m in cost, $944.27m in return = $398.77m profit. R1 was $395m in cost, $486.5m in return = $91.5m profit. TLJ was $455m in cost, $610.3m in return = $155.3m profit. Solo was low ball estimate of $415m in cost, $177m in return = $238m loss. TROS was $490m in cost, $519m in return = $29m in profit. Overall DSW cost $2.3005b, returned $2.73707b for a total of $436.57m in profits over the 5 movies by Deadline's reports of TROS, TLJ, TFA and R1 and my low ball cost estimations of Solo, before including taxes. Now obviously Disney made a shit ton of money on each film in regards to home media and TV licensing deals, but box office wise Disney spent $2.3b dollars to make $436m in profit and if it wasn't for TFA the movie least impacted by the handling of the property that would be even less, imagine that without TFA those 4 other SW movies combined would have made a total profit of $37.8m after spending $1.7b, so yeah anyone want to keep bragging about how successful the Disney SW movie have been?
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Sept 6, 2020 13:34:03 GMT
the sequel trilogy . Which as i understand all got positive reviews by critics.
Except for the lame second one.
But what movie? Star Wars? No Winnie The Pooh... were on the SW board what other trilogies would we be referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Midi-Chlorian_Count on Sept 6, 2020 15:31:42 GMT
Overall DSW cost $2.3005b, returned $2.73707b for a total of $436.57m in profits over the 5 movies by Deadline's reports of TROS, TLJ, TFA and R1 and my low ball cost estimations of Solo, before including taxes. Now obviously Disney made a shit ton of money on each film in regards to home media and TV licensing deals, but box office wise Disney spent $2.3b dollars to make $436m in profit Thanks - that's really interesting. Like you say obviously a bit more made in home media, TV sales, etc but basically not much more than a tenth of the initial investment earned back off the back of the five films themselves, with a very jaded public perception now left of the brand...
|
|