Budget: 150 millions

>Budget: 150 millions
>Box-office gross: 339 millions
Why is everybody calling this a flop when it broke even and generated some small profit?

Attached: fw_character_1-sht_cropped_dumbo_v2_lg.jpg (1800x2666, 878K)

People actually watched this? Probably doesnt even have Jim Crow or pink elephants

>small profit
>Disney

Honk

Not a flop, but it was below Disney's expectations.

>Budget 150millions
>double that for marketing,so it's a 300million investment
>Profit 330millions

So, that means they spent a 300 millions and years of effort to earn 10% of the investment.

Why do you care? Are you some kind of Disneyshill?

Mummy made 400m on even smaller budget yet killed announced monster universe.

Mummy didn't do good enough to launch a new shared universe, it's how Sony had to kill Spider-man shared universe after second Garfield movie made only 700 millions

It had pink elephants, but Disney is never going back to Jim Crow. I hear that the crows will be edited out when Dumbo is put on Disney+. Figure out how that works for the plot.

Domestic gross: $110 million
~60% actually goes to studios = $66 million
International: $229 million
~30% actually goes to studios = $68.7 million
(Both percentages are actually on the higher side, studios get anything from 45-60% of domestic, anything from 15-40% of international)

Total return = $134.7 million
This is less than just the production budget, not including the marketing

It was a flop

Attached: 1543339042779.png (497x494, 134K)

Which is funny because Batman Begins managed to kick Nolanverse off even without passing 400M. Hell, even Captain America The First Avenger made 370M and that was enough to continue and cover marketing but Justic League was a flop, despite making 600M.
Hollywood accounting is a mess.

So it didn't lose money? In fact it earned millions of dollars?

I think they only get half of that profit.

Wait, it came out?

A small price to pay to shit all over a Hollywood classic, goy

So it made millions of dollars in gross profit, yes or no?

>theatre's are charities

poor eva, she can only star in flops

Attached: f_93510.jpg (3265x2207, 1.3M)

No, probably lost money on production alone. Not even talking about marketing but studios do not cover marketing costs all the time.
Lets see, 150m budget. 330m profit. Lets take half of that 330 and you get 165m. Seems like it could be profitable but I think it's probably even less than half take.

>flop
*money laundering scheme
>Nolanverse

Lying faggot.

FUCK ELEPHANTS

Attached: GnwvlZQN.jpg (512x512, 49K)

they could have used that time and resources to make something that made tens or hundreds of millions.

>muh time
Nice goal posts bitch.

>le movie spends the same amount of money on marketing meme
Only shit like BvS, TFA, and Avengers gets $150 million for marketing

NO IT'S ALWAYS THE SAME AS THE PROD. BUDGET AREN'T YOU EDUCATED?

>Why is everybody calling this a flop when it broke even and generated some small profit?
Because it's budget was 175mil

The Mummy had a domestic take of about 80mil and it was also a critical flop. The studio had nothing to expand on
Sony killed Spider-Man because ASM 2 cost 250mil to produce and made much less domestically than the first and it was another critical failure
Batman Begins was able to kick off the Nolanverse because it was a big critical win and domestically it made 206mil, 56mil more than it's production
The domestic market is still the one that matters the most

> cutting “When I See an Elephant Fly”
That’s the best song desu, fuck Disney

>but Justic League was a flop, despite making 600M.
It probably has something to do with the fact that Justice League was much more expensive than either of those films. If you go by inflation Batman Begins made 287mil in the US (The market that actually matters) while JL made 229mil

Why doesn't the board about television and film know how television and film works?

>critical flop
>critical failure
>relevant

i literally had no clue this movie even existed until i saw this post

As far as I can tell that was the only reason they rebooted spider-man after 3

>what is advertising

Obviously money is king but if people hated your last movie it's risky to make a sequel

>people
>critics

It was surprisingly good.

Are the crows actually racist?

Why does an elephant have blue eyes?

Attached: thinker.jpg (979x832, 232K)

Symbols purity and innocence

>alita and shazam are flops despite making more with nonexistent marketing and smaller budgets
>every single disney movie is a success even if it bombs
Oh disney shills, please never change...

Apparently its budget is 170 million.
And since domestic theaters take half of the revenue, and its more overseas they might be about to break even.
Though that kind of accounting is deliberately convoluted so who knows.
Bottom line it might be a failure in the sense the return for on the investment is close to zero, its cannot be a flop when they are still capable of recouping the cost of the movie.

as an undocumented branch of the goverment, Disney needsn't pay taxes, therefore their figures can't be apple-to-apple compared with those of others

>makes lots of money
>HOW CAN THIS BE A FLOP DURRRR

The standard of success is set against the studios expectations as a product or service. If they expect it to make $2 billion and it makes $1 billion, it's a massive flop. It made 50% of what the goal was,

Because everyone stopped caring about it after its first week.

>That’s the best song desu, fuck Disney
Disney+ is also never going to have Song of the South available. That's even more of a tragedy, because its most famous song, Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, won an Oscar.

It actually needed $400M to break even. It's officially a flop. It doesn't help taht people have gone blue-pilled with regards to performing animals these days, making the audiences seeing this totally different from 1940 audiences, when circuses were still popular.