MovieChat Forums > Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) Discussion > OMG...this is going to be yet ANOTHER mo...

OMG...this is going to be yet ANOTHER money loser for Disney!


That's 5 for the year!

Aquaman looks to put some major damage on Mary Poppins Returns just like the Grinch did to Ralph.

Yikes

reply

This is a great movie! STFU!

reply

It is great..but the box office sure isn't. It's not even going to hit 200 million domestically and it carries a 175+ million price tag.

reply

It is great..but the box office sure isn't. It's not even going to hit 200 million domestically and it carries a 175+ million price tag.
Are you sure about RBTI not crossing $200 Million Domestic?

reply

Oh...is it finally going to barely crawl over the 200 million mark?

LOL

Something Universal/Illumination routinely does in their sleep with 75 million dollar budgets.

Impressive.

reply

Oh...is it finally going to barely crawl over the 200 million mark?

LOL

Something Universal/Illumination routinely does in their sleep with 75 million dollar budgets.

Impressive.
See QueenFanUsa, that's called deflection. You never set that the criteria for RBTI breaking $200 million was supposed to be based on how well or not well Universal/Illumination was performing. Doesn't matter if it crawls, skips, jumps or falls over $200 million now is it? What matters to you is that the competition bar is something Universal/Illumination is or isn't doing. Does the international box office matter, oh box office tracker guru?

Are the two income streams for Grinch and RBTI the same? Will they sell the same number of DVDs, toys, clothes and ancillary merchandise? Will the two have the same sell throughs for theme parks, cruise rides, attractions and IP licensing?

We've talked about this before and you know that Disney has multiple income streams for their products and you continue to actually think that it's all about the films and the films only.

But are you sure that the two companies and the two properties are actually comparable in bringing in money at the same cost for producing the product?

But please continue with your theme of Disney "circling the drain" and apparently spending more money to make less money than Universal in their animated films. It suits your narrow focus.

You just might be wrong about RBTI crossing $200 Million domestically. You're going to have to face that when it happens, again, and again, and again.

Your primary objective was to state that RBTI was a money loser or not profitable for Disney. That's not the case now is it?

reply

Ralph earned half of billion WW, and it will cross 200M, that's all there is. I'm sure Lego Movie 2 will be more than happy if it earns half of that. People at WB aren't pleased with how this thing is performing domestically, internationally it doesn't seem great either but we'll have to wait a few weeks.

If Ralph is a flop then how should be call Lego Movie? A bomb? Lego should have a bigger appeal than some random flick like Ralph. Yet it's not performing accordingly.

reply

When I originally posted this, it looked like it was heading into money-loser territory. It looks like it broke even and may make a very slight profit...and I mean VERY slight.

Then again, I'm reading reports that Alita:Battle Angel cost 170 million and will need to make 500-550 in order to break even. Ralph cost 175 million.

And yes...my discussions do refer to money from theatrical release...I'm not going down the rabbit hole of ancillary income which is largely speculation and unverifiable. Also, all of those income streams are considerably reduced in correlation to a film's box-office performance. This was WDAS worst performer since the original WIR in 2012 and actually has sold less tickets than the first when adjusted for inflation.

I know one thing...Disney didn't make this their Thanksgiving release and spend 175 million on it's production with the hope that it would finally break even three month's after it's release. I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that with this lukewarm performance that merchandise isn't exactly flying off the shelf, too.

reply

If anything Ralph and Grinch are doing damage to Fantastic Beasts, will that even get a part 3? Ralph is performing better than the first one.

And if hitting 200M domestically is a sign of a success then your beloved WB will have a huge loss when it comes to FB2 which isn't performing so well WW too. Did WB have any titles that earned 200M in the States this year?

reply

FB2 is still doing monster business overseas and is already close to breakeven poi t.

WR2?

Not even close.

reply

Ralph has yet to open in many markets, FB not so much. FB, being a part of HP franchise, is the WBs biggest franchise and yet they're trying to get to break even point which is sad.

WB up until now had a clean slate when it comes to not having any flops, but they didn't have any big guns in cinemas. Disney on the other hand whilst releasing a few duds managed to end the year with a lot bigger profit than WB. Marvel as one of their crown jewels released three titles this year, all of which were profitable, two of which earning 1,3B and 2B respectively. Disney is more than covered, sure A Wrinkle In Time and Nutcracker failed but those weren't a part of a franchise so there isn't any long term damage there - the same can't be said for FB, that thing isn't even half way done and already we're arguing whether or not it will break even. Solo is a part of the SW in theory, it's just a SW story like R1 was and not the main thing. It seems FB is in a similar position the way SW was a year ago, FB2 isn't very popular among some fans the way Ep8 wasn't but that thing managed to snatch 1.3B even with all the hatred and criticism.

reply

Ralph is not a big international draw which is strange that Disney would spend 175 million on it when the first couldn't even crack 500 million worldwide.

Long story short: don't expect a ton from overseas. This is in danger of being Disney's fifth money-loser of the year. WB and Universal money losers?

ZERO

reply

Disney's winners outweighs their losers by significant margin https://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2018&p=.htm If Aquaman doesn't perform great WB won't have a TOP10 movie this year. Aside JW2 Universal doesn't have much to brag about.

I'm not from US so I don't see the appeal of the first Ralph, yet alone why there was a need to make a sequel but heck its OW was big so after one week it's too soon to call it a flop. With the international release dates staggered and holidays ahead I'm sure Ralph has yet some significant bucks to earn.

reply

You didn't see the first Ralph? It has Zangief and the dictator from Street Fighter, therefore I must see.

Also, better movie than this one.

reply

Looks like you called "or used your gut instincts" wrongly again.

In your analysis for Ralph you decided to trot out The Grinch as the standard.

You do realize that Ralph made more internationally than The Grinch?

You do know that Ralph did crack the $200 Million domestic club? Doesn't matter if it barely did it by $1 penny or more.

You know that Ralph did make Disney money? Yes, Ralph isn't a money loser so you'll have to adjust your Loser Tracking metric.

Are you sure that you're really good at making these predictions, assessments and analysis of Box office performance for Disney versus every other studio?

reply

Nope...it was definitely a money loser like I originally stated.

I don't know why you would think it wasn't. Promotional campaigns for a film this size are always at least 100 million.

reply

It just keeps getting worse. Although the Grinch has been out 2 weeks longer than Ralph...it is poised to overtake it in the daily grosses starting next week(maybe even this weekend).

Budget:

Grinch-75 million

Ralph-175 million

reply

Too bad Ralph is the second part of the pentalogy so its performance should be worrying. Oh wait...

reply

Why are you dragging the FB franchise into this? Are you retarded?

reply

Yikes that poor FB won't even reach 160M domestically :/

reply

"Domestically". The american market is dying anyway and therefore becoming less and less important, with it´s shrinking middle class the US BO won´t be in the Top 5 BO in 10 years. Mark my words, you can quote me.

reply

It's trailing over 200M behind FB1. That's a huge difference considering FB1 didn't even cross 1B mark.

reply

OK let me spell it. AMERICA ISN´T TARGET-AUDIENCE.

reply

Okay thanks, but worldwide it's also trailing by almost 150M compared to FB1. What's its target audience then?

reply

Still in the Plus, and now that Johnny Depp as incredible Villain is established the next entries will be much more sucessfull.

reply

But the problem of FB2 wasn't the villain or who plays it, if anything most of the critics gave Depp credit for his role. The problem was bad script that was all over the place yet didn't went anywhere. Also in the light of the HP franchise this changed quite a bit stuff from its history, I don't watch HP movies but a decent portion of HP fans weren't so happy with FB2 because of that. Kinda like what happened with the last SW movie.

reply

I hope JK gets help from an actual screenwriter, that would help indeed.

Anyway i am looking forward to FB movies more than your 100th generic Blockbuster a la Marvel, any the Rock movie, Transformers or Fast and Furious

reply

FB is a cash cow, there isn't that much of a difference between it and stuff like Marvel, Transformers or F&F. Otherwise they wouldn't turn it into a five parter.

reply

Uhm yes, there is a difference. I like the world more and the characters and story have been, while not being good, not as stupid as all the mentioned. I see you only see movies as investments and numbers, but ya know, some of us actually watch them.

reply

If the audience liked it better or the same as you then I'm sure it wouldn't perform so poorly both domestically and worldwide. Don't get me wrong these are nice numbers for say Creed2 or even some minor property of Marvel like AntMan, but for a franchise with that big fanbase it should've been better. They'll probably make another FB movie but if it makes the same numbers the chances are good that will be the end of FB.

It's studios that make movies and they're in it for the profit, not to please the audience. If it was only up to the viewers and not the money the Transformers franchise wouldn't have so many titles as it does.

reply

At the end of the year, the biggest Studio Money earner will be Disney, so , yeh, this obession of yours with box office makes you look rather stupid.

reply

The trajectory is not good for Disney, Regardless. Two big Marvel titles and one animated sequel to a long loved classic carried all the water. Remeber that they paid billions for Marvel and Pixar.

They also paid 4.2 billion for Lucasfilm and aren't even close to breaking even on that investment with merchandise DOA in clearance bins and a Star Wars film that lost over 100 million. There ROI is actually going in reverse!

Now...just like I had originally questioned...would Disney spend 175 million on a sequel to Wreck It Ralph when that film couldn't even crack 500 million worldwide?

Lol...it's going to struggle to match the first ones gross.

Universal/Illumination is cleaning their clock with budgets 2/5 of Disney's.

This is not a healthy studio.

reply

Not healthy studio, are you fucking nuts? the have had multiple movies that have grossed over a billion in the last year , one made over 2 billion, SW franchise after 4 movies has grossed 5 billion just on movies, when did WB last have a 1 billion grossing movie?

reply

You read nothing in my post, obviously.

Outside of Marvel and The Incredibles 2 ...almost EVERYTHING has been an expensive flop

And...I can not believe you are bringing up Star Wars! They are not even close to recouping the cost of buying Lucasfilm and they have slid down to already LOSING 100 MILLION DOLLARS on a Star Wars film.

Take away Marvel and Disney is seriously on the ropes. After next year, Marvel has a chance of falling quite a bit as well.

There are real structural problems here with Disney going forward.

reply

Can you send me the accounts for Lucas film please? Can you ensure it includes merchandise figures aswell? Please include profit and loss

Marvel bring out avengers end game and captain marvel and a new phase, tell me again how there falling behind or will do? Do you watch movies or just sit there waiting for box office figures to be revealed ? What a your malfunction numb nuts ?

reply

You really are a dummy.

reply

Really? Care to retract that statement after you review the previous post you made ?

reply

Disney has become too greedy, they've lost artistic integrety and popular respect.

reply

They are no more greedy than any other studio. In fact, they spend more on their films than any other studio.

On average, the production budget is 100 million dollars more PER FILM than that crap-factory Universal Illumination's.

reply

OMG...this is going to be yet ANOTHER money loser for Disney!
posted 4 months ago by QueenFanUSA (1518)
38 replies | jump to latest

That's 5 for the year!

Aquaman looks to put some major damage on Mary Poppins Returns just like the Grinch did to Ralph.

Yikes
So let's recap. RBTI did more than $200 Million domestic. You said it wouldn't. Correct?
RBTI grossed more than $500 Million WW. (Actually it did $528 Million). You said it wouldn't, correct?
RBTI made a profit. You said it was a loser and wouldn't make a profit. Correct?

The LEGO Movie 2:The Second Part made less than $200 Million world wide on a $100 Million dollar production budget but you've never counted that as a loser for WB, correct?

Grinch made less than RBTI WW and RBTI out grossed Grinch internationally, correct?

My other question to you is this, "Do you lack integrity when discussing Box Office performance"?

Why do you refuse to be balanced and truthful in your statements regarding Disney/Marvel box office performance?

Finally why would you be charting Aquaman against Mary Poppins? They have different audiences for pete's sake!

reply

Ralph had a budget of 175 million add in the standard 100 million for P&A and the break-even point would be 550 million(at least)...probably closer to 600 million so it is still in the red.

The Grinch, meanwhile, cost 100 million less than Ralph to produce.

The Lego Movie was indeed a money-loser, but it was WBs first film to not break even in a year and a half. They did not release ONE money-loser in all of 2018. Disney, releases less than half the number of films than WB and releases an expensive bomb about every 2-3 months.. In 2018 alone they released three films that lost over 100 million dollars and we're just 3 months into thus year and it looks like yet ANOTHER 100 million dollar loser in Dumbo.

reply

We will just agree to disagree on the profit formula for Disney animation films of 2 x Budget plus and additional 2 x Marketing and Advertising.

So let's recap. RBTI did more than $200 Million domestic. You said it wouldn't. Correct?
*** You were wrong about RBTI not exceeding $200 domestic.

RBTI grossed more than $500 Million WW. (Actually it did $528 Million). You said it wouldn't, correct?
*** You were wrong about RBTI not exceeding $500 Million.

RBTI made a profit. You said it was a loser and wouldn't make a profit. Correct?
***In your opinion RBTI made a profit based on your data.
In my opinion based on published data RBTI made a profit.

The LEGO Movie 2:The Second Part made less than $200 Million world wide on a $100 Million dollar production budget but you've never counted that as a loser for WB, correct?
*** the Lego Movie 2: Was a loss for WB and you've never said so until now.

Grinch made less than RBTI WW and RBTI out grossed Grinch internationally, correct?
*** RBTI made more than the Grinch internationally. You were wrong about that.

My other question to you is this, "Do you lack integrity when discussing Box Office performance"?
*** You are not an honest broker in assessing Disney performance and don't follow the data or facts were it leads you.

Why do you refuse to be balanced and truthful in your statements regarding Disney/Marvel box office performance?
*** You are neither fair or objective in stating your opinion of Disney performance. You are biased against Disney.

Finally why would you be charting Aquaman against Mary Poppins?
*** Aquaman and Mary Poppins do not compete for the same audience. In your opinion they do. I disagree with you whether we agree to disagree or not.

By default because they both came out at the same time they both vied for the same box office attention. Mary Poppins had no holiday legs and did not fare as well as Aquaman.

reply

Ok...we'll agree to disagree. At least we're being civil about it.

P S. If anything, I'm probably biased in Disney's favor as they are my favorite studio and entertainment company. I'm a bit dismayed by this "go big or go home" approach to production budgets with every single film they release. Take Marvel away and you would have one of the biggest disasters in Hollywood history.

reply

Ok...we'll agree to disagree. At least we're being civil about it.
That's up to you and always has been up to you.

I'm not buying the Pro-Disney-Bias given your posting history on media products from Disney vs WB vs Universal. You've yet to post, to my understanding and I don't read all of your missives, a single message or POV that has ever been positive of Disney/Marvel. From what I have read every other studio is HOT! HOT! HOT! and Disney or Marvel is doomed and or circling the drain and or something to that effect.

It is so consistent that you have had to reflexively post that you were wrong about any number of Disney and Marvel films and their performance.

You've yet to objectively provide any data for your Biggest Disaster in Hollywood history. Why not take the time to do that, because numbers are out there to either support, refute or fine-tune your narrative?

If you did that I firmly believe you'd be less inclined to WISH something would happen. So far your narrative just isn't going to be your fate accompli that you are actively predicting.

reply

Mary Poppins was expected to be THE movie of the holiday season. Heck, box office.com infamously predicted it would gross 360 million domestically.

It didn't even make that much worldwide.

Aquaman was also a film with actually a lot of overlap for the same audience during the holidays...FAMILIES. They were both released within DAYS of each other. In the end, Aquaman nearly doubled Poppins domestic gross and grossed nearly four times it's worldwide gross.

Long story short:they were the two big releases for a general family audience over the Christmas holidays.

reply

Mary Poppins was expected to be THE movie of the holiday season. Heck, box office.com infamously predicted it would gross 360 million domestically.
*** If Boxoffice.com predicted $360 Million domestically they predicted wrongly. Even Forbes' analysis had MP doing better but MP failed to deliver.

It didn't even make that much worldwide.
***MP made $348 Million WW on a $130 Million budget. Not exactly the huge money loser that you are stating. Ahem, overstating.

Aquaman was also a film with actually a lot of overlap for the same audience during the holidays...FAMILIES. They were both released within DAYS of each other. In the end, Aquaman nearly doubled Poppins domestic gross and grossed nearly four times it's worldwide gross.
*** Aquaman did boffo because of China. MP just could not and would not compete for that type of audience.

Between Dec 12th and Dec 25th the following:
----------------------------------------------------
Mary Poppins Returns
Bumblebee
Aquaman
Once Upon a Deadpool
Spider-Man Into the Spiderverse
Mortal Engines

Long story short:they were the two big releases for a general family audience over the Christmas holidays.
***There were 11 releases in 14 days. Mary Poppins never stood a chance. Mary Poppins lost screens and did not release in China. Aquaman did $298 million in China alone.

reply

I'm actually glad you highlighted my post as rereading it I have to say it's a bullseye.

It reminds me that the Grinch was released three weeks before Ralph but less than two weeks into Ralph's run, The Grinch overtook it in daily grosses.

As I noted in my previous post, Aquaman and Poppins were both competing for family, holiday dollars at the same time. Box office.com predicted Poppins with a final 360 million domestic gross and Aquaman with a 200 million final gross.

In the end it was

Aquaman: 332 million

Poppins: 172 million

You don't think Aquaman's outsized success put a crimp on Poppins?

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (1523) 4 hours ago
I'm actually glad you highlighted my post as rereading it I have to say it's a bullseye.

It reminds me that the Grinch was released three weeks before Ralph but less than two weeks into Ralph's run, The Grinch overtook it in daily grosses.

As I noted in my previous post, Aquaman and Poppins were both competing for family, holiday dollars at the same time. Box office.com predicted Poppins with a final 360 million domestic gross and Aquaman with a 200 million final gross.

In the end it was

Aquaman: 332 million

Poppins: 172 million

You don't think Aquaman's outsized success put a crimp on Poppins?
No, I don't. The very crowded release schedule hurt Mary Poppins more than Aquaman did individually.

The Grinch over taking RBTI means exactly what as to the final box office results?

reply