MovieChat Forums > Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) Discussion > So is this a bigger flop

So is this a bigger flop

posted 5 years ago by modica (4169)
96 replies | jump to latest

than The Last Jedi?

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

We dont know yet , its still in the middle of its run , its supposed to gross more than TLJ next week , and since when did a movie that makes 1.3 billion be considered a flop?

[–] Moonglum9 (11320) 5 years ago

Obviously a movie that makes 1.3 billion is a flop when it's budget was 900 million, had a marketing campaign that cost another 700 million, and don't forget that Disney still has to make up for the 3 billion lost with Dumbo.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

The last Jedi didn’t have a budget of 900 million , neither did TROS, anyone that believes they did is rather stupid and very deluded

[–] FootOfDavros (8414) 5 years ago

Sorry but you have failed Completely Obvious Sarcasm 101.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

I believe i did , such is the stupidity on this board by some posters , it’s hard to identify sarcasm, touché

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yes, the stupidity and hypocrisy and complete lack of paying attention to objective numbers of some of the users on this board is quite amazing. in case you don't detect it, this was sarcasm as well.

[–] Longrain (37) 5 years ago

If the rumors of 75% of the movie was re-shot then the budget could easily have topped $500 million. Remember they were filming just three weeks before the release date. Marketing would be an additional $300 million.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

I highly doubt 75% was reshot, I think that’s just the haters doing there best to make the movie look bad

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

The movie IS bloody bad, it's ridiculous that it's doing so much. I'd've thought that word-of-mouth would've destroyed it before it got that far. People must be more desperate for ANY kind of "entertainment" than I thought.

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

The movie IS bloody bad

Can't disagree with that. It really should have been called.

Star Wars: Episode 9: The Rise of MacGuffin

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Can't disagree with that. It really should have been called.

Star Wars: Episode 9: The Rise of MacGuffin"

Or rather "The Rise of MacMuffin", in honour of Mauler and his excellent video.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Sokar, I believe the industry name for that plot device is 'McMuffin'.

;o)

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Maybe because other people liked it ? Is that a crime ?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes!

:o)

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Yes, if it perpetuates the production of Lowest Common Denominator schlock that anyone will eat up like pigs. And I thought the nadir of TV entertainment was "On The Buses"...

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

You are acting rather childish , there are literally millions of fans that liked these movies, you dont , thats fine , hell even i hated TLJ and thought TROS plot was weak , entertaining movie though , but i dont go round bullying and trolling forums to make my views heard. Rinse repeat with u lot

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"thought TROS plot was weak , entertaining movie though"
This is exactly my point.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

but i dont go round bullying and trolling forums to make my views heard.

Yes, you do.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

yeh , with u

[–] QueenFanUSA (3379) 5 years ago

Furiousstyles...i happen to agree with you on this and you are fighting a good fight.

This hate-filled anti-Disney crowd has just gone fucking bananas.

It's embarrassing.

[–] NorrinRad (5470) 5 years ago

Obviously a movie that makes 1.3 billion is a flop when it's budget was 900 million, had a marketing campaign that cost another 700 million, and don't forget that Disney still has to make up for the 3 billion lost with Dumbo.

QueenFanUsa isn't going to be happy with some poster from the Moon pre-emptively co-opting his Disney-Stalking points!!

You forgot to mention the $10 Billion dollar purchase of Lucas and I do mean George Lucas personally. 🤣

[–] QueenFanUSA (3379) 5 years ago

Norrinrad...please don't lump me in with these rabid anti-Disney lunatics.

I happen to really like the Disney trilogy.

[–] aavfreak (3366) 5 years ago

There's a big difference between revenue and income.

Just in general terms, if revenue minus expenses is negative, then it's a money loser.

The studio only gets a percentage of box office revenue, so $1.3B at the box office is only about half of that for the studio.

Then compare that to the cost of making the film and marketing. Depending on those costs, it could actually lose money.

Even if it doesn't lose money, if it's just over break even, that's still a flop considering expectations of a finale this big.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

If it makes over 1.3 billion then that’s a handsome profit for Disney , 200 million I’d say

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I'll share this with you again:

Initial 4 Billion dollar investment + Each film production cost and marketing cost (TFA: Production cost: $258.6 million (net) + Marketing: est. $223M + TLJ: PC: $262M + M: Est $200M + Rogue One: PC: $265M + M: 45M + Solo PC: 250M + M: Est $75 + TROS PC: $275M + M: (unofficial but comparing to TFA and TLJ) $200M + The Mandolrian: PC: $15 Million per episode x 8 Episodes + M: Est 5 Million total) = Total investment of $6.178 Billion (not counting the production cost of 1 billion for disney plus). And this also does not account for any licensing fees or royalties for OT Content to George Lucas or factoring in the cost to Run Lucasfilm or Disney Plus. Staff and costs of Lucasfilm are not tied into the films' production costs. The staff and business are a constant.

Now for total Box office . Total Gross from ticketing sales: TFA: $2.066B + R1: $1.056B + TLJ: $1.32B + Solo: $393M + TROS (as of now) $927M + Gross from Disney +Subs so far (10 Million x $6.99 per month for 2 months)Est total $139M = $7.152B. Now here is where things get tricky. The theaters get anywhere between 45% to 60% of the ticket sales, depending on country. For the sake of giving star Wars the edge let's go with the low end of the percentage. $7.152B x.45 = a total of $3.218B for Disney Star Wars Box office gross.

So $6.178 invested - $3.218B grossed (before taxes) = est -$2.96 Billion. Again this is not even counting the cost of running Lucas Film, Disney Plus, or the cost of launching disney plus.

So unless they have made over 3 billion in merchandising sales on Sequel Trilogy content (after the toy makers take their share of the profit which is usually about half). Meaning unless there has been over $6 billion dollars worth of merchandising sales (highly doubtful) Disney is still negative billions on there investment. Safe bet is right now they are about still over $2 Billion in the negative.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

In the other post the numbers break down like this for the individual movie; if it makes as much as TLJ and gets 1.3B in ticket sales on a total investment of PC: $275M + M: (unofficial but comparing to TFA and TLJ) $200M + reshoot costs that are not part of the budget and will not be disclosed yet. Conservative number puts the total somwhere between $550 or $600 Million. Plus funding for Lucasfilm which is not part of the budget either

Then take into consideration that they will only see about 50% of the profit from the ticket sales. So if it is total ticket sales amounting to 1.3B x.5 = approximately $650M to disney - Tax. This means it has to make OVER 1.3 billion to see any kind of a profit for disney. Unless it gets to at least 1.6 or 1.7B it will not even turn a $100M profit. Considering this is star wars that is a joke of a profit for them.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

These arent factual figure are they you are guessing , you dont know how much they have made , and i dont , its a waste of time second guessing but if it makes you feel better knock yourself out

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

So are you saying the prequels didnt make a profit aswell then ? Reshoot costs 200 million ? Where did you pluck that from , haha funny , desperate arent we

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

don't know how to read do you. I said: + reshoot costs that are not part of the budget and will not be disclosed yet. This means I did not factor in the number. Learn to read before you comment, makes you look like an idiot.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Of course they are , most movies plan for reshoots , these are factored in to the budgeting costs , 6 weeks of reshoots were planned in advance , obviously not for Solo as we know, unless you can prove to me that the reshoots were costed outside, be pretty stupid to not budget for them before the movie was shot.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

I have never heard of reshoots being included in budget. Project management does not account for extended costs such as that and usually some sort of additional budget needs to be approved.

I found this book that discusses reshoot budgets: https://books.google.de/books?id=0qGqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT164&lpg=PT164&dq=Film+budget+reshoot&source=bl&ots=tl8L997soY&sig=ACfU3U2mR8pBb1VZGizpeNdW7LsbCR812w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwitzrKFxPnmAhXB-aQKHcyUBEQQ6AEwDHoECCoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Film%20budget%20reshoot&f=false

it has to be negotiated after the production budget is exhausted. I think you are making things up. Provide some support for your claim here or I will write it off as 'made up bull crap'

[–] Burgershmurger (1425) 5 years ago

They take less than 50% from abroad profits, in China just 25%. Then, they still pay taxes on the profits. I'd say they have to make three times as much to make profit.

[–] TexasJack (12516) 5 years ago

It made almost nothing in China. Less than $20 million.

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

Middle of its run? The movie has only made 450 million domestic. The Last Jedi made 620 million domestic. How is it going to gross more than The Last Jedi by next week. I don't think so.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

The Last Jedi wasn't a flop. So....

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

depends on how you define flop. Considering that it barely broke even for Disney in terms of profit when Star Wars should have seen them make hundreds of millions can be viewed as a flop considering the strength the IP once had.

If you like I can break the numbers down for you to but the short is if you take production cost + Marketing +Taxes + average 50% take of ticket sales for the cinemas. it means TLJ and TROS would need to get right around 1.5B before disney sees any profit. Since TLJ only pulled in 1.3B depending on how much was actually lost on marketing and how much they paid in taxes means they might have actually lost money on it. Even if they didn't and I give them every benefit of the doubt they still for sure made less than $200M. For Star Wars that is a flop in my book.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

A flop is a film that loses money. Anything else is underperforming.

For the record, it has been calculated that TLJ made a profit of $417.5 million.

https://deadline.com/2018/03/star-wars-the-last-jedi-box-office-movie-profits-1202351603/

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

You know, that is fair. Maybe not a staight up flop but definitely under performing.

For the record; all of those box office numbers never reflect the 50% that went to the cinemas nor taxes nor does it factor any additional costs outside of production budget. So at best it profited disney less than 200M. That is not impressive for a STar Wars film.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

Actually, the article linked does break down all those things. Not sure how accurate it is. But it does account for marketing and how much money goes to the cinemas....

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Okay I see the profit margin in the article. The problem with that though it has not been minused from the production cost +Marketing cost. if it only profited disney $417.5M but they invested an estimated $275M production budget plus estimated $200 million on marketing it means they lost nearly $100M by those numbers.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

Sure it is. The revenue on the speadsheet before production + marketing is 995.8 million.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Yeah I see that now, I stand corrected. But look at what is included in the revenue as of March 2018 3 months after the film was released. These have to be estimates. they did not have 222M worth of DVD sales 2 months before it came out on DVD/Blu Ray.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

Probably true. That said, I still wouldn't consider it a flop, but I do think Disney spends way too much on these movies.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

True. I think you are right calling it a flop is not accurate. But it definitely did not perform as well as it could or should have. Because you are right I will switch to say it under performed and not "flopped".

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Actually if you look at the spreadsheet that the deadline article got its info from it shows this:

Total Cost: $578.30
Studio Net Profit: $417.50

This means (if accurate numbers) the film lost the studio $160.8M

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

No. Net means the amount they made over what they spent. If that were the gross number, you'd be correct.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Ah, I see what they did. I stand corrected. They did factor in properly the costs. It looked like they used the word "net profit" wrong because it looked like they never minused out the total cost. But they did.

But they also factored in DVD sales and rentals, TV sales in the amount of as of March 2018. Which is somewhat suspicious only 3 months after the film was release. Look at those number they included:

Global Theatrical/NON THEATRICAL RENTAL: $610.3M
Worldwide Home Entertainment: $222.00
Global TV: $163.50

Something is suspicious about this. they included at least $385.5M worth of numbers they could not possibly have had yet.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Dude give it up , you're making a fool out of yourself , accept tge fact these movies are profitable bar solo , take a shower , go get some air , just dont try and discuss star wars box office as you know nothing

[–] Goliard (1434) 5 years ago

I swear, these conversations are almost as entertaining as the movies themselves. (Cue Michael Jackson popcorn meme. . .)

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Its exhausting, i wouldnt mind im not a huge fan of TLJ and TROS was flawed plot wise but jeez , lets get some perspective

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Tell me how they listed those number in March of 2018. And every number I have broken down you have done nothing to counter it. You point here is meaningless and nothing but a fallacy. Learn to make actual arguments before you say I am making a fool of myself.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Everything is speculation , everything that is quoted is unofficial , break the numbers down but they are fake numbers to side an argument, thats all this is , a tit for tat

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

who is faking the numbers? The numbers I looked up was from an article that was saying it was profitable. I then checked the source of the article and looked at the numbers myself. If those numbers are fake why are those that are trying to paint Disney Star Wars as a success story using those numbers that if you actually look at them tell a different story.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Instead of being a dick about it you could've made an actual argument. I was wrong about something and I will win your argument for you. I was curious so I did this thing called RESEARCH to confirm or disprove my hypothesis. And the conclusion is Disney WOULD have the Home Media sales number BEFORE it was released on home media because it is NOT disney that makes the BluRay discs and Disney at that time did not have its own streaming service and did not restrict the home media service rights sales.

What this means is that in preparation for the release on home media disney sold the rights to Blu Ray, comcast, at&t, and others. This means that in March of 2018 they actually did have those numbers and the profit in the source of the article might be accurate.

Now what we don't see is if those streaming services got their money's worth but disney at least got theirs.

In spite of all of this though; the actual number of $417.50M is still not impressive for Star Wars. This means it would take 10 making at least this much for them to break even on the initial investment. So no matter how you slice this, disney Star Wars is underperforming

[–] Sandman81 (1510) 5 years ago

Do you know what "your book" isn't??? Disney's books. They are quite fine with $200M profits, and more than likely they will make more than that on this movie. As long as they break even, then they're fine because they still own this movie and all the other property forever. Which means they will always be making money on it, regardless if they put anymore money into it.

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

As long as they break even

What a ridiculous statement.

If The Rise of Skywalker breaks even then it is a flop, a huge flop.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

Lol "ridiculous" I used the same exact word you did. :)

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

It's only a flop if it loses money.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

You cannot discuss this with these people , they make up these numbers to make out as if its a flop when its not , deluded is the word that springs to mind

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Discuss away.

People have linked articles that show number breakdowns, shown profit and loss and so on but you say it is all lies and made up. You can google the budget and marketing costs.

They are having a discussion you are the deluded one because you dismiss everything as lies. YOur like a conspiracy theorist, hld your hands over your ears and go "la la la la la"

You don't want a discussion you just want everyone to agree with you.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Yes thats is completely made up and false , as you have said before , we dont have access to the disney accounts so who knows , i could be right or i could be wrong , likewise with these so called articles

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

What is made up and false. You don't believe anything that is shown no matter where it comes from, so what is made up and false.

Profit and loss from the movies can be googled, quite easy to find.

Cost of construction of Galaxies Edge can be googled, quite easy to find.

Thousands of videos from toy stores showing clearence sale toys that still don't sell even going back to Force Awakens.

But yeh it is all made up, it is all false.

Stock prices can be checked. Remember stock is money it just isn't physical in you hand money. It is still money none the less though. Using the argument that almost half was stocks to defend yourself is just false. Stocks are still someones money.

Your reply above proved my point. You will find anyway to defend Disney and show they are not failing. You are so deep in a hole you have to keep digging. Every reply is the same. All you do is say they are fake and lies over and over again.

Movies have made about 1.5 Billion in net profit
Both parks cost an estimated 2 Billion.
Minus running costs, employees, tax, interest payments, 3rd party payments and so on
Also if rumours are to be believed anyting they have to pay Lucas, i'll put that as a rumour at this point but it does make sense.

Yes there will be licensing.

And that is very simplistic breakdown. The article that shows a very detailed that someone was kind to post shows a detailed breakdown which you call lies and flase and it still comes out at Disney about 2 Billion in the red. That number may vary of course but the truth is gonna be somewhere around that.

One day they might make money and they definitely should have. Like many have said Star Wars is the golden goose, it is a license to print money or it was until Disney got there hands on it. Disney just have no clue what to do and this trilogy has proven that.

I don't know how many times it needs saying but if they had made good movies the fans (sorry haters, your words) would have thrown money at them.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

In this article it states a billion https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/01/pictures-inside-disney-parks-billion-dollar-star-wars-galaxys-edge.html

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

There are 2 parks

1 + 1=2

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

You have me dead bang, 2 billion it is.

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

So that is then a 6 billion investment before making a penny.

So minus 6 billion to start and add 1.5 billion in movie profit leaves minus 4.5 bilion.

Yes the parks will make money but is it a profit, personally i don't think so. The upkeep will be huge.

The toys don't sell, if they did you wouldn't be able to find them in clearence and the collectors would be selling them on ebay for 2 or 3 times the price which again is not happening.

That is very simplistic i will admit but it shows that all the articles stating all these billins is completely false as they always use gross figures, never net profit.

If they get there act together then yes it could be a success but right now it isn't.

Do you think Star Wars fans want it to fail, no of course they don't. They want it to be a success. Why you might ask. Because if it is a success, that means more films, more toys, more collectibles, better parks and so on, i think you get the point. This argument that fans would hate it no matter what is ludicrous.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Don’t forget to add licensing, money made from parks and merchandise, in 2015, 2016 alone they made 3 billion from merch

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

I don't know how many times it needs saying but if they had made good movies the fans (sorry haters, your words) would have thrown money at them.

Erm sorry but bar solo each movie haa made over a billion , thats throwing money to me , you didnt expect each one to make 2 billion did you ?

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Again that is gross, not net profit.

You think a Star Wars movie making a billion, not buying the toys and not going to the park is successful. Deluded comes to mind.

Well considering the first one did based off the fact all the fans turned out to see it then yes. The last should be strolling to over 2 billion. It is reember the end of th Skywalker saga (ended in 1983)

Your arguent is nonsense. Star Wars is no run of the mill blockbster. My god pirates and transformers made a billion. So are you putting Star Wars into that same bracket. Heretic.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

And you so called fans , even if lucas would of made the sequels i guarantee you would of hated those aswell considering they were supposed to be based on micro organisms that control the force , think prequels

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Very presumptious of you. Your entire argument is based on the prequels. They were poor but are still Star wars and those toys still sell to this day. The execution s what is wrong with the prequels not the overall story.

If Lucas had made the sequels. Yes i'm sure there would have been debate and people would have disliked them. But you know what we would have had a scene with the 3 main characters. Hanc ertainly wouldn't have been a dead beat dad and we wouldn't have got rehashed stories because JJ and Disney have no original thoughts in there head.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Can you share me the link that excludes the running costs from this so called budget ? Thanks

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

WHo said running costs based on the movie. I said running costs. That is everything, absolutely everything involved with anything Star Wars.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Another article discussing merch for u

https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2019/star-wars-disney-movie-merchandise-revenue/

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Everything in that article is again all circumstantial and based on numbers previous to Disney.

It even references Baby Yoda, whch there are no toys available yet. The authot of the article has not clue. It referneces 177 to 1983 and then syays the numbers will be the same which they are not, not even close.

Nothing in that article has concrete numbers.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

nothing in any article is concrete , you're catching on kid

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

Don't call me kid.

No, you are right, no article is concrete but the ones that have been listed (that you dismissed)to show Disney hasn't made a profit on it's investment at least shows figures that correspond with there investment.

The ones you post show no numbers of any kind that corroborate your story. They are taken from when Star Wars was making those figures which they are not now.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

Oh look an article on how disney has recouped its investment , you might need some tissues after u have read this one

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-years-after-buying-lucasfilm-disney-has-recouped-its-investment.html

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

"The four Star Wars feature films Disney has released since 2015 have grossed more than $4.8 billion at the box office."

Not profit, that is gross. The movies have made a net profit of about 1.5 billion.

Proves nothing.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

The Only way to know for sure if they have made a profit is to see the ROI and have all the figures input into the formula. It is true that no one outside disney has all of those numbers. But the numbers we do have available say that at the very least Disney Star Wars is under performing and they are at least over 1 billion away from breaking even. This is just a fact.

Sure in 5 more years maybe 10 they will see an actual profit; but given the strength of the IP coming in they should have broke even by now. No matter what some of the disney defenders say it is not performing as well as it should have and we all know it.

Don't get me too wrong though. I wanted them to succeed, but after TFA was an abomination of a film I lost all hope. Since then it has been like watching a train wreck and going over everything that lead to the disaster.

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

If it makes less money than expected, it under-performed.

And you said nothing about my statement. Your "ridiculous" response wasn't to me.

[–] sokar (2098) 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

That is true but even if you give them every benefit of the doubt and break down every number available they are definitely under performing. I will switch my words from "flop" to "under perform" the other user is right and that is a more appropriate term.

I would not be fine with $200M profits when it could have been more. Do you not know how money or corporations work? Businesses are not in business to break even, and if they create a scenario in which people stop buying their product then they go out of business. They are not a "non-profit" organization. What a ridiculous way to phrase this.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

If Star Wars can still rake in billions, it still has potential as long as they get smarter with their budgeting. Losing money at this point is due to financial incompetence on their end, not the viability of the franchise....

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

The point is, if the films were better and didn't alienate a large portion of its fanbase it would increase ticket sales because more people would go in for multiple viewings and the home media sales would also be higher. Toy sales and other merchandising would also sell better. The Viability of star wars should mean each film pulls in 2 billion or more and that would mean nearly a billion of profit to disney. As it is they are barely making maybe 1/4 of that.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

Hopefully, The Mandalorian's success will be a wake-up call.

I agree with you in part. If a mediocre Star Wars film can still break a billion, just imagine what a good Star Wars film would make. Whatever they put out in 2022 needs to actually be good, and they could be back in business.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

True. while I think Mandalorian is a bit over rated, i don't think it is bad. It definitely is the right direction for this franchise should go.

For me though it will take some time and good word of mouth before I consider spending any money on it in the future. I was checked out since TFA and have not paid a dime to disney era star wars.

[–] asom (6880) 5 years ago

It's not fine when they payed 4 bill$ for the rights. Plus the money they spent on SW Parks which are failing as well.

[–] arflexit (2376) 5 years ago

The entire point I was making with breaking down the numbers is to show that Disney is still billions away from actually making a profit. And they are on a downward trajectory. After the first couple of films they should have easily broke even. As it is, it might be another 10 years before they are actually seeing a return on their investment.

It seems some Disney fans just don't want to accept reality or have no idea how business investments and returns works. Money and numbers can be tricky for some

[–] darkpast (8869) 5 years ago

neither are flops, move along

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

Looks like Disney won't have enough money to use to impeach Trump. They were counting on this movie to be a hit, so they could use that money and now it won't be enough.

[–] christomacin (4687) 5 years ago

huh?

[–] modica (4169) 5 years ago

Disney hates Trump and were hoping to funnel lots of money into getting him removed from office. Now that this movie is doing less than hoped, there will be less money to get rid of the President.

[–] janelsenor (2048) 5 years ago

[laugh]

[–] christomacin (4687) 5 years ago

Disney has more than enough money in it's coffers still to "funnel" to whom ever they like for the foreseeable future.