“Given the size of the cast involved … and the cost required to produce a film of that scale and magnitude and length, while we expect the results from this film to be terrific, they will be hampered somewhat by the cost structure,” she said.
Neither she nor Iger offered any projections in terms of the ultimate profit margin for Endgame, and McCarthy noted that she had issued a similar caveat for those tallying up Infinity War‘s impact on the balance sheet. The previous Avengers outing, Infinity War, racked up $500 million in profit, sources have said.
In the wake of Endgame‘s ending, many film buffs and comic-book fans have been wondering what’s next for the Marvel Cinematic Universe now that the 22-installment Avengers-centric narrative has run its course after a bit more than a decade. Iger noted plans across Disney+ streaming, television and future feature development.
“When we bought Marvel, we started studying their characters and when we got to about 8,000, we stopped,” Iger said. “There are many, many different directions that we could go. We’ve obviously laid a lot of pipe in terms of character and story.”
QueenFanUSA you say that was a warning but it really was an FYI and it had little if anything to do with what other people were thinking. You on the other hand are speculating what other anonymous people are thinking and are attempting to have them calibrate their thoughts on what Disney/Marvel will net? I'm confused. No, really I'm not.
Again, the large cast and the amount that the film will net had nothing to do with the longevity of the run at the boxoffice. It is you who are saddling the film with an ROI based on some arbitrary efficiency that you have created.
Sure if A:E could have been made for $50 Million, advertised for $50 Million and netted $2.3 Billion dollars that would be marvelous. Show us all the companies that are executing to those set of financial costs. Name 5. No, Name 1. Both Avatar and Titanic cost +$200 Million to make.
Are you suggesting that Disney with Avengers:Endgame is not financially a viable profit model?
Well Duh!!
Scott Mendelson writes for Forbes. He used to also write for the Motley Fool and he and another writer would pen articles that were
Pro vs Con for investors. Scott is no different in this article and your tuning in to their articles and this type reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of those articles and their agenda. You're buying tickets and their pushing STOCK in Disney. Mendelson is shilling investment strategies for films with a loose attachment to entertainment.
Also Mendelson speaks to Disney as an entire company but you continue to try and separate Disney's profit strategy on Films alone when Mendelson seems to factor in ancillary income in his articles.
reply
share