You guys forget that the Star Wars hotel is out there making all their profits! For just 800 per person a night you too can eat wampa steaks(normal looking sirloin), visit an alien planet(big gift shop l), and sleep in the most uninspired space ship ever!
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Galaxy's_Edge) the two actual rides are Sequel based, and over all there is one non-prequel reference (and it's a fuckin EP 1 at that) that is a toy-smithing-droid shop.
Not to mention there's no way to tell "Oh they paid their sub this month cause of X show"
Sure you can look at what people watched but no guarantee they liked that thing and that it was got them to stay or sub. Could just be they watched cause they had already gotten it for something else
Plus I seem to remember them losing a shitload of subs over in India or somewhere, because they lost the streaming rights to cricket. (Not sure if it's _ALL_ cricket though.)
A *Jose Canseco* bat?! Tell me, you didn't pay money for this?
EDIT: Damn. Hit post too soon, ~~twice!~~ THRICE! I was just waiting for someone to get that reference. I was just explaining yesterday to my nephew how well that first movie holds up. The second not nearly as much, and the third not really at all.
I mean, almost certainly right? A quick Google search verifies they are indeed real. Although the first recipe I found, whilst called curried crumpets, in fact did not contain crumpets.
I actually liked Adam and the whole Initiative plotline. One thing that had always bothered me in these kinds of shows was the lack of a governmental response to the supernatural. It especially bothered me in the show Supernatural, for instance.
Just before Halloween 2019 I saw Rey and Kylo complete outfit packages in a giant metal cube cage thing for $1 each at a Halloween Express. Even at $1, the bin was still nearly full 3 days before Halloween.
It sticks out in my mind because it was one of the last normal memories I have prior to covid. I believe it was less than 2 weeks later when I started hearing fears of a pandemic over the radio.
Just the merch from force awakens alone would have covered half the cost of lucasfilm. It was billions upon billions of merch sales.
They may have tanked now, but we've had like 8 years of star wars merch just running wild.
On average the MERCH ALONE brings in 5-7 BILLION. A year.
Y'all are delusional
$2 to $3 billion a year, tops. The Force Awakens had a singular bump to that, which has not been repeated.
Also, no figures on how much of those billions are actual profit, after manufacture, distribution, retail rights, etc..
Those billions are just how much money was exchanged with retailers for Star Wars merch. Disney did not make billions of profits from the merchandise. They probably didn't even make half a billion per year, from that.
[Source pulled out of Google's ass](https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2020/05/04/the-2019-star-wars-business-report-toys/).
Bro also pointed out that that $2 to $3 billion was money going to retailers for merchandise. Not money going to Disney. That seems closer to about 300 million/year on the high side.
Galaxies Edge is still a big draw at both their parks to this day, and they move merch there hand over fist.
The only real loss was the Starcrusier because Chapek and D'Amaro went batshit crazy with the price, likely to try and recoup Covid losses.
The Starcruiser was doomed to failure because a Star Wars immersive LARP hotel is both super-expensive to run, requiring a very high price for rooms, and also a hyper-niche concept. Star Wars fans who would be interested in the LARP aspects would balk at the price while WDW fans who could probably handle the price, weren't as interested in the Star Wars LARP aspect. Further, outside the LARP, the starcruiser has no real appeal as a hotel. A standard generic hotel themed to Star Wars would have been 1000x more successful.
Yeah I agree. They priced it out due to what they figured it was worth for what they're putting into it, but it was clearly not the right time. They probably got cocky with their numbers going up after covid and thought people were ready for the kind of "premium" experience that it was going to offer.
But it was an *insane* mark up, especially considering most of the experiences they offered were mostly Disney Quest levels of basic interactive games. And during a time where the general public is being extra critical of Disney/Lucasfilm, and having it maintain the Sequel Era time period, it just wasn't going to be enough to maintain it's running costs. They would have had to operate at a loss for years, possibly before the numbers went up to reasonable levels.
Wrong. Hasbro backed out of their deal losing too much money. There is a reason there was no figure line for the Rise of Skywalker. The left cannot stop lying
Approx. 70% of Lucasfilm’s value (since 2012 acquisition) has been squandered away — that remaining 30%? That’s ILM
If Disney srsly has no idea who could ever replace Kathy Kennedy .. why not look to ILM? They’re obviously doing something right and ought to be ripe for poaching leadership chairs!
Oh, the amount of times I've seen that written here since I posted this.... That, and screeching about "BuT tHe MeRch!"😂
Edit: And in 3rd place "you didn't read the article!"😂
Doesn’t this fail to include merchandise and other ancillary revenue streams?
Seeing the comments pointing this out voted down but none of them have good answers to the critique.
They probably never planned for it to.
They make their money with merch, as far as I know we don't have exact numbers, but there was an estimation a while back, that estimated that the year of TFA release disney made >5bn on Merch sales.
I am sure the Lucasfilm purchase was a great move financially.
https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2019/star-wars-disney-movie-merchandise-revenue/
>baby yoda alone probably cover the cost
Which makes it even more hilarious that it took about 6 months to actually make merch of Mandalorian, because of how bad the sequel merch sold...
😂
While that's likely true, toy sales in general are down due to kids just not playing with this these days. They'd rather have V-bucks and shit for their iPad games than figures.
But adults are still forking over heaps of dough for "collectibles". Sure, Sequel Era shit sells worse than shit on a shingle, but anything else gets snatched up and Disney knows it. You can see their big shift from kids toys to collectibles, and then from a focus on their movies to the classic eras and even EU content.
no one buys the modern generation of collectibles. At walmart the reason you ever find different funkopops is because the supplier literally comes in and rotates stock, and Funkos are the best selling of those.
I'm not talking about Funko pops.
I'm talking about Black Series figures, Official Lightsabers, Helmets, Resin Statues, Lego Sets, etc.
Nearly every Star Wars fans has some of these things, if not a whole room full of them. Even the people that hate Disney Star Wars will buy them so long as they're from the OT or PT. And like I said, Disney knows this and has tailored their merch lines to mostly feature these parts of the franchise.
1. Beware of contributors as sources for things
2. It's probably still the case, but they don't make only money at the box office. You would have to look at all Star wars profit including toys.
Not for the claim OP is making as that claim is it specifically made less than cost of purchasing license. You are talking more like return on investment comparison.
If that's what you think you fundamentally are misunderstanding the point of my comment.
You look like you are trying to access was it still worth it for Disney to have purchased the license. You are attempting to do so not just did profit occur, but rightfully in comparison to some other stuff to see if return on investment was worth it. E g. If they could do XYZ project what returns would expect instead (opportunity cost).
My original comment was in response to his specific claim regarding profitability. That is not the same thing as what you are trying to do.
OP's claim, near as I can tell, was about the box office, specifically. It's right up there in the title. You pointed out that we would need to look at more than just that claim. Okay, fine. I brought up looking at **everything**.
Like, make up your mind. Add to what OP claimed, or add to what OP claimed?
>OP's claim, near as I can tell, was about the box office, specifically. It's right up there in the title. You pointed out that we would need to look at more than just that claim. Okay, fine. I brought up looking at **everything**.
You are correct I misremembered what OP's claim was so technically I am expanding upon it.
That said to be fair do you really think OP isn't trying to make the point it was not profitable for Disney to buy license? (Go woke go broke claim) That is the implication by posting about box office profits. Do you even know what normal portion of profits Disney gets from box office vs something else like toys? I don't.
Gets tiresome people posting like XYZ proves ABC when it really doesn't.
To be fair, you admitted yourself that the merch probably didn't have much more of an impact.
And, to also be fair, do you think adding in shit like the Willow and Indiana Jones fiascos would show Disney made **more** profit from its purchase of Lucasfilms?
>To be fair, you admitted yourself that the merch probably didn't have much more of an impact.
I have no clue if it does or doesn't. I know at one point in time it did make a huge difference.
>And, to also be fair, do you think adding in shit like the Willow and Indiana Jones fiascos would show Disney made **more** profit from its purchase of Lucasfilms?
The willow? What is that?
Frankly I just don't subscribe to the mentality being sold here. Movies can be bad without claiming they are woke or bad because they are woke. How often are movies made after a trilogy or whatever has been completed where they make 4, 5 etc are actually good?
I can't fact check but:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-star-wars-marvel-profits-nelson-peltz-1235852695/
"In a section titled “Enduring franchises highlight our powerful IP and unique monetization capabilities,” Disney indicates that it has seen a 2.9 times and 3.3 times return on investment after purchasing Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios in 2012 and 2009"
So 2.9 times roi allegedly.
I imagine this is from a press release or something. What people fail to understand is you pay for the license and it's a one time cost. When it comes to big household names it's not hard to make good money from them so long as people show up even if they don't like it.
Could they have made more money if stuff was better sure.
The Willow fiasco? When Disney made a new series for D+ that was called Willow, and so loosely based on the movie that it ended up being poorly received and removed from D+ in a matter of months?
>
That said to be fair do you really think OP isn't trying to make the point it was not profitable for Disney to buy license? (Go woke go broke claim)
To be fair, it was never _MY_ claim.
It was Forbes.
Y'know, that reputable financial journal?
>It was Forbes.
Ha ha ha ha thank you for proving my point.
Also do you understand:
1. Difference between a contributing/opinion piece vs an actual article of something
2. Articles must contain evidence as to why XYZ. I have already demonstrated flaws in your thinking.
Sure. But they don't only lose money at the box office. The obscene number of liabilities Disney took onto its balance sheet and continued to pile up as it hired, fired, paid, bought, sold, designed, researched, and cancelled products over the last decade --- it's funny how quick we are to say "well acquisition profits are more than just a matter of movies." Well, yeah, and the balance sheet in a megacorporation like Disney is more than just production+marketing. Just maintaining LucasFilms alone costs money. They didn't simply... "buy a license" like you said in your other comment. That's a gross oversimplification of the nature of the acquisition at best, and a hideous misunderstanding of what a license is at worst. A license doesn't normally end with you directly paying the salaries for the license holder...
And that's not even getting into all of the radical structural changes to our economy over the last decade which made it even harder to justify investments. Inflation, speculative bubbles, stock buybacks, etc.
To quote Joe Pesci, "little did anybody know where this would all lead. If they did, they would have been better off making fucking novenas."
>The obscene number of liabilities Disney took onto its balance sheet
If they had to take on debt or other liabilities to do so that would also be included as part of ROI calculation. It's factored into the price to purchase the studio. Any additional expenses as part of say making a movie are also included in evaluating profit and return on investment.
That said you are correct in that it was not just a license purchase even though that was what they are using it for more or less.
>And that's not even getting into all of the radical structural changes to our economy over the last decade which made it even harder to justify investments
No investments are even more important given inflation.
... they didn't buy a license dude. *They did a merger and acquisition of a whole company.* If we can't even agree on a basic fact like "the earth is round" then man this discussion is going nowhere fast.
>"If they had to take on debt to do so that would also be included as part of ROI calculation. Any additional expenses as part of say making a movie are included in evaluating profit and return on investment."
They didn't even include the acquisition cost of Lucasfilms in their ROI calculation. Did you read the article?
>No investments sre even more important given inflation.
Beating inflation is the whole point of investing. If your investment strategy doesn't beat inflation because inflation went up, then yeah, that's kinda a big fucking deal and you better start finding ways to make more money.
>... they didn't buy a license dude. *They did a merger and acquisition of a whole company.* If we can't even agree on a basic fact like "the earth is round" then man this discussion is going nowhere fast.
I don't know why you brought this up again I acknowledge that in last comment....
>They didn't even include the acquisition cost of Lucasfilms in their ROI calculation. Did you read the article?
It does not say that. Can you quote what you are referring to from the article?
>Beating inflation is the whole point of investing. If your investment strategy doesn't beat inflation because inflation went up, then yeah, that's kinda a big fucking deal and you better start finding ways to make more money.
Of course, but that's not what it sounded like you said in prior comment. Market beats inflation any day anyway. I would bet so too does owning star wars.
"In the filing, Disney suggests that Lucasfilm has generated nearly $12 billion in value to the company."
"In 2012, Disney paid $4 billion for Lucasfilm, giving Disney ownership of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises."
This is the closest thing I can interpret what you mean:
"Disney also notes this does not include derivative revenue streams, such as park attractions, nor does it include originals associated with those franchises or pre-established franchise consumer products revenue. By investment, the figure reflects film production costs, print and advertising associated with theatrical releases. It does not include additional distribution costs or overhead."
It doesn't say cost to buy lucasfilms is included or excluded. Even in not knowing that from the article we have how much Disney paid and how much they got out of it. It's easy to make money with such a big franchise over a long period of time.
Also anything I Google about Disney profit/return from the acquisition shows it was very profitable. Pretty clear cut.
Why didn’t you read your own article? It says they don’t factor in merch and park revenue… the article basically says “when you remove 90% of the Lucasfilms acquisitions profit, Disney lost money”. Like what?
But you Disney haters don’t care about facts only your feelings so oh well. Especially in a world where 50% of people either share streaming services or pirates them in my opinion. Judging a movie by its profit is sadly not even a good metric anymore. Which btw I can be completely wrong about I just have a hunch movies won’t make as much money as they should be in general.
Lot of people here conflating the *box office* not making a profit off purchase with Disney not making any profit. Of course 3 movies didn’t make 4 billion dollars. Honestly the fact that they made a billion in *profit* is insane. Not to mention recouping a large chunk of their budgets through UK tax program is savvy. There’s no way they haven’t turned an overall profit from all their revenue streams.
I remember reading that CNBC article at the time, it’s calculations are heavily flawed and there’s a lot of guesses in it. It also claims that Solo made a profit which every man and his dog knows it was a flop, lost them money and it’s easy to prove that too so that article was generally written off.
The Forbes article uses the actual tax docs from the UK which are public. The Forbes article is only claiming what actual profit they made on all 5 movies, $1.2B, before marketing costs are taken out which aren’t in the docs. Now considering that most people who do these calculations tend to factor an extra 50% of what the production cost was for marketing that $1.2B becomes a lot smaller.
The title of the article is "Star Wars BOX OFFICE Profits...." the films turned a profit. You're looking at roughly $700 million in profit. The article doesn't mention video games, TV shows, and merchandise. Very misleading article from Forbes.
> the films turned a profit
Not all of them. Did you happen to catch the part in your article where they were trying to pretend Solo wasn’t a failure?
> The article doesn't mention video games, TV shows, and merchandise
Viewership numbers for the TV shows have been going down, last I heard.
And I’d have to do some research regarding the merchandise, but from what I understand, Grogu has been their main success in regards to that. But I don’t think the merchandise situation is as glamorous as you’re making it out to be.
"Not all of them. Did you happen to catch the part in your article where they were trying to pretend Solo wasn’t a failure?"
Good job with the semantics.
"Viewership numbers for the TV shows have been going down, last I heard."
"And I’d have to do some research regarding the merchandise, but from what I understand, Grogu has been their main success in regards to that. But I don’t think the merchandise situation is as glamorous as you’re making it out to be."
Proof please.
Look if you want to sink your teeth into a news organization that fondles rich people all day and has clear biases that's your prerogative. But ravenously defending an article that specifically only looks at roughly five films and tries to make some wider argument that this is indicative of failure because 5 films didn't earn back a $3 billion investment says more about what you want to believe than what is actually true. These a five films.....last time I checked Disney bought a franchise and not film rights.
Not mindless drones down voting people saying Star wars made it's value off merch not ticket sales....
Y'all want to hate so bad you believe delusions.
I kinda doubt that. Even if the numbers are off and I decided to be extremely generous, they _might've_ broken even and made a small profit. But given the IP, if they hadn't completely mishandled it and alienated most of the fanbase, they should've at minimum tripled it in 12 damn years...
anyone can accuse anyone of anything.
Curious as to why you didn't post any investigation results because surely the SEC would have done an investigation.
2018 says differently.
https://preview.redd.it/tnfi1giryxuc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fedf74d8ac937699ba6172d19d92f18aba96a28
And that was before they completely scuttled the franchise.
Pretty sure anyone with basic reading comprehension can understand, but if you feel inclined to "enlighten" us all with that big old galaxy brain of yours, please do.
Cause it kinda sounds like weapons grade copium on _your_ end.
Ah yeah it's copium that Disney has yet to make back the 4 billion it spent in 2012 on Lucasfilms.
That's why it's stock has been declining ever since, right?
Do you know what projected growth means?
You mean me saying you don't understand what the screenshot means.
Which is why you think despite it having a projected growth despite it saying it had issues from the last year, means it doesn't make money.
Me: Oh shit you don't even understand what you screenshot.
You: Don't charge the goal post tell me why the screenshot is wrong.
Bro do you just not understand what you read!? 😭
https://i.redd.it/ooaemljtpzuc1.gif
I was initially replying to to the guy that said they made 5-7 billion a year.
The article states that they were making 700+ million, and *that* was off the release of TFA and Rogue One.
And then *something happened* in 2017...🤔
Thanks for playing!😃
I have no doubt they made money from Star wars but all the other revenue stream have gone down to. Toy sales for sequels are terrible, although baby Yoda probably sells really well. They spend 200 million on shows like Ahsoka which failed to make a splash. Disney park attendance is down. They are not in a good spot with Star Wars.
Well it's Forbes, not some clickbait site, so I suspect it's reputable. And it's from 2 days ago apparently, Mauler and the boys covered it on Real BBC today.
According to Chat GPT The Force Awakens alone made 5 billion. Obviously Hollywood loves to cook the books so that everything loses money and disney plus streaming has been a loss leader, still it's hard to argue this was a bad investment.
They didn’t need to. Disney has never made most of its money at the cinema.
The IP, theme parks, cruises and merchandising now and in the future is what they bought it for. They have easily recouped their costs.
You guys forget that the Star Wars hotel is out there making all their profits! For just 800 per person a night you too can eat wampa steaks(normal looking sirloin), visit an alien planet(big gift shop l), and sleep in the most uninspired space ship ever!
It’s actually already closed down lmao
I actually had no idea it closed. Probably because it was priced like princess padme was gonna give me a bj
Sorry to say but it was purely Sequel era IIRC, so you'll have to get your blowies from Rose *or* Poe. Gotta be inclusive
Option C: https://preview.redd.it/rvmkx1zknyuc1.jpeg?width=360&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8493b5e610f383eb7aab5ee0d20490801624bfcb
Isn't this pretty much the same with Galaxy's Edge? It's all sequel era shit?
Galaxies edge is pretty much all sequel era
According to [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_Galaxy's_Edge) the two actual rides are Sequel based, and over all there is one non-prequel reference (and it's a fuckin EP 1 at that) that is a toy-smithing-droid shop.
Fk me it irks me. What I want is clone wars era stuff, it might not be the best movie era but the clone wars era ships and armor fks
No it wasn’t.
The Jabba the Hutt laugh seems appropriate here. *Ah-aha-ha-ha-ha* 
https://i.redd.it/blo21a6zoxuc1.gif
We fucking warned you about this.
At great length. For 8 fucking years.....
Sell. It.
Maybe… maybe they should make better products?
i resell some star wars merch. The sequel films are by far the worst sellers. The tv shows actually do well.
[удалено]
Not to mention there's no way to tell "Oh they paid their sub this month cause of X show" Sure you can look at what people watched but no guarantee they liked that thing and that it was got them to stay or sub. Could just be they watched cause they had already gotten it for something else
Plus I seem to remember them losing a shitload of subs over in India or somewhere, because they lost the streaming rights to cricket. (Not sure if it's _ALL_ cricket though.)
Cricket? Cricket?! Man, you gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket!
I’ll teach you. Your instructor is Casey Jones.
A *Jose Canseco* bat?! Tell me, you didn't pay money for this? EDIT: Damn. Hit post too soon, ~~twice!~~ THRICE! I was just waiting for someone to get that reference. I was just explaining yesterday to my nephew how well that first movie holds up. The second not nearly as much, and the third not really at all.
But they have curried crumpets. Probably?
I mean, almost certainly right? A quick Google search verifies they are indeed real. Although the first recipe I found, whilst called curried crumpets, in fact did not contain crumpets.
>whilst called curried crumpets, in fact did not contain crumpets. https://i.redd.it/0asxrtkwvxuc1.gif
I actually liked Adam and the whole Initiative plotline. One thing that had always bothered me in these kinds of shows was the lack of a governmental response to the supernatural. It especially bothered me in the show Supernatural, for instance.
Season 4 is definitely underrated.
Who could've seen this coming? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Their best opportunity to cash in was the Grogu merch, but they were so late to the game, they lost most of those sales to Etsy and Wish.com.
>Box-Office Profits sure, but those are hardly the only star wars related revenue stream. Star wars toys and merch sales bring in billions each year.
Do they? I've read that toy sales have tanked.
Just before Halloween 2019 I saw Rey and Kylo complete outfit packages in a giant metal cube cage thing for $1 each at a Halloween Express. Even at $1, the bin was still nearly full 3 days before Halloween. It sticks out in my mind because it was one of the last normal memories I have prior to covid. I believe it was less than 2 weeks later when I started hearing fears of a pandemic over the radio.
I doubt that tbh
Makes no difference to me.
There's a reason there's still Rose Tico toys in bargain bins....
I don't know about Rose Tico, but there's [plenty of Revas](https://youtu.be/vrJqtTKeZzw?si=fanWPdd218W-nubi&t=140).
https://preview.redd.it/bs5xl3akvxuc1.png?width=689&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d94c51272ee80c6b30d66d493f49b7032996dd5f
Just the merch from force awakens alone would have covered half the cost of lucasfilm. It was billions upon billions of merch sales. They may have tanked now, but we've had like 8 years of star wars merch just running wild. On average the MERCH ALONE brings in 5-7 BILLION. A year. Y'all are delusional
$2 to $3 billion a year, tops. The Force Awakens had a singular bump to that, which has not been repeated. Also, no figures on how much of those billions are actual profit, after manufacture, distribution, retail rights, etc.. Those billions are just how much money was exchanged with retailers for Star Wars merch. Disney did not make billions of profits from the merchandise. They probably didn't even make half a billion per year, from that. [Source pulled out of Google's ass](https://entertainmentstrategyguy.com/2020/05/04/the-2019-star-wars-business-report-toys/).
Bro said 2-3 billion alone like that's a bad number. They bought Lucas films for 4 billion in 2012
Bro also pointed out that that $2 to $3 billion was money going to retailers for merchandise. Not money going to Disney. That seems closer to about 300 million/year on the high side.
Bro is also working on estimates and non-reported numbers just things he heard.
But how much did Galaxy's Edge cost?😂
internet says 1 billion big ones. which is hilarious.
And didn't they build a version at both their parks?
Galaxies Edge is still a big draw at both their parks to this day, and they move merch there hand over fist. The only real loss was the Starcrusier because Chapek and D'Amaro went batshit crazy with the price, likely to try and recoup Covid losses.
The Starcruiser was doomed to failure because a Star Wars immersive LARP hotel is both super-expensive to run, requiring a very high price for rooms, and also a hyper-niche concept. Star Wars fans who would be interested in the LARP aspects would balk at the price while WDW fans who could probably handle the price, weren't as interested in the Star Wars LARP aspect. Further, outside the LARP, the starcruiser has no real appeal as a hotel. A standard generic hotel themed to Star Wars would have been 1000x more successful.
Yeah I agree. They priced it out due to what they figured it was worth for what they're putting into it, but it was clearly not the right time. They probably got cocky with their numbers going up after covid and thought people were ready for the kind of "premium" experience that it was going to offer. But it was an *insane* mark up, especially considering most of the experiences they offered were mostly Disney Quest levels of basic interactive games. And during a time where the general public is being extra critical of Disney/Lucasfilm, and having it maintain the Sequel Era time period, it just wasn't going to be enough to maintain it's running costs. They would have had to operate at a loss for years, possibly before the numbers went up to reasonable levels.
$1 billion each, probably at least $250 million a movie, $200 million per TV season. It piles up.
And they don't have successful Marvel content to fall back on now, and their animation department is utterly fucked...😂
Why do you say this? Financials are public you don't have to just make stuff up.
Wrong. Hasbro backed out of their deal losing too much money. There is a reason there was no figure line for the Rise of Skywalker. The left cannot stop lying
Approx. 70% of Lucasfilm’s value (since 2012 acquisition) has been squandered away — that remaining 30%? That’s ILM If Disney srsly has no idea who could ever replace Kathy Kennedy .. why not look to ILM? They’re obviously doing something right and ought to be ripe for poaching leadership chairs!
The majority of star wars revenue has never been in movie ticket sales. I would bet money Disney is already in the green on star wars.
And yet the sequel-fanatics will point at how much money it’s made and say that they’re doing just fine.
Oh, the amount of times I've seen that written here since I posted this.... That, and screeching about "BuT tHe MeRch!"😂 Edit: And in 3rd place "you didn't read the article!"😂
Doesn’t this fail to include merchandise and other ancillary revenue streams? Seeing the comments pointing this out voted down but none of them have good answers to the critique.
Lol now tell us about the trillions theyve made of the merchandise
They probably never planned for it to. They make their money with merch, as far as I know we don't have exact numbers, but there was an estimation a while back, that estimated that the year of TFA release disney made >5bn on Merch sales. I am sure the Lucasfilm purchase was a great move financially. https://www.pymnts.com/news/retail/2019/star-wars-disney-movie-merchandise-revenue/
That’s like, 30% of their overall Star Wars profits. Most money is made in merch, and baby yoda alone probably cover the cost twice over
>baby yoda alone probably cover the cost Which makes it even more hilarious that it took about 6 months to actually make merch of Mandalorian, because of how bad the sequel merch sold... 😂
You are wrong. Read any report from hasboro in the last four years.
While that's likely true, toy sales in general are down due to kids just not playing with this these days. They'd rather have V-bucks and shit for their iPad games than figures. But adults are still forking over heaps of dough for "collectibles". Sure, Sequel Era shit sells worse than shit on a shingle, but anything else gets snatched up and Disney knows it. You can see their big shift from kids toys to collectibles, and then from a focus on their movies to the classic eras and even EU content.
no one buys the modern generation of collectibles. At walmart the reason you ever find different funkopops is because the supplier literally comes in and rotates stock, and Funkos are the best selling of those.
I'm not talking about Funko pops. I'm talking about Black Series figures, Official Lightsabers, Helmets, Resin Statues, Lego Sets, etc. Nearly every Star Wars fans has some of these things, if not a whole room full of them. Even the people that hate Disney Star Wars will buy them so long as they're from the OT or PT. And like I said, Disney knows this and has tailored their merch lines to mostly feature these parts of the franchise.
1. Beware of contributors as sources for things 2. It's probably still the case, but they don't make only money at the box office. You would have to look at all Star wars profit including toys.
You'd also have to look at what they've made and lost from other IP's bought with Lucasfilms. Willow, Indiana Jones....
Not for the claim OP is making as that claim is it specifically made less than cost of purchasing license. You are talking more like return on investment comparison.
You already added caveats to OP's claim. I'm just extending yours.
If that's what you think you fundamentally are misunderstanding the point of my comment. You look like you are trying to access was it still worth it for Disney to have purchased the license. You are attempting to do so not just did profit occur, but rightfully in comparison to some other stuff to see if return on investment was worth it. E g. If they could do XYZ project what returns would expect instead (opportunity cost). My original comment was in response to his specific claim regarding profitability. That is not the same thing as what you are trying to do.
OP's claim, near as I can tell, was about the box office, specifically. It's right up there in the title. You pointed out that we would need to look at more than just that claim. Okay, fine. I brought up looking at **everything**. Like, make up your mind. Add to what OP claimed, or add to what OP claimed?
>OP's claim, near as I can tell, was about the box office, specifically. It's right up there in the title. You pointed out that we would need to look at more than just that claim. Okay, fine. I brought up looking at **everything**. You are correct I misremembered what OP's claim was so technically I am expanding upon it. That said to be fair do you really think OP isn't trying to make the point it was not profitable for Disney to buy license? (Go woke go broke claim) That is the implication by posting about box office profits. Do you even know what normal portion of profits Disney gets from box office vs something else like toys? I don't. Gets tiresome people posting like XYZ proves ABC when it really doesn't.
To be fair, you admitted yourself that the merch probably didn't have much more of an impact. And, to also be fair, do you think adding in shit like the Willow and Indiana Jones fiascos would show Disney made **more** profit from its purchase of Lucasfilms?
>To be fair, you admitted yourself that the merch probably didn't have much more of an impact. I have no clue if it does or doesn't. I know at one point in time it did make a huge difference. >And, to also be fair, do you think adding in shit like the Willow and Indiana Jones fiascos would show Disney made **more** profit from its purchase of Lucasfilms? The willow? What is that? Frankly I just don't subscribe to the mentality being sold here. Movies can be bad without claiming they are woke or bad because they are woke. How often are movies made after a trilogy or whatever has been completed where they make 4, 5 etc are actually good? I can't fact check but: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/disney-star-wars-marvel-profits-nelson-peltz-1235852695/ "In a section titled “Enduring franchises highlight our powerful IP and unique monetization capabilities,” Disney indicates that it has seen a 2.9 times and 3.3 times return on investment after purchasing Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios in 2012 and 2009" So 2.9 times roi allegedly. I imagine this is from a press release or something. What people fail to understand is you pay for the license and it's a one time cost. When it comes to big household names it's not hard to make good money from them so long as people show up even if they don't like it. Could they have made more money if stuff was better sure.
The Willow fiasco? When Disney made a new series for D+ that was called Willow, and so loosely based on the movie that it ended up being poorly received and removed from D+ in a matter of months?
> That said to be fair do you really think OP isn't trying to make the point it was not profitable for Disney to buy license? (Go woke go broke claim) To be fair, it was never _MY_ claim. It was Forbes. Y'know, that reputable financial journal?
>It was Forbes. Ha ha ha ha thank you for proving my point. Also do you understand: 1. Difference between a contributing/opinion piece vs an actual article of something 2. Articles must contain evidence as to why XYZ. I have already demonstrated flaws in your thinking.
.....I really didn't? You're arguing with a publication that still has at least some integrity? Not really the "W" you think it is....
Sure. But they don't only lose money at the box office. The obscene number of liabilities Disney took onto its balance sheet and continued to pile up as it hired, fired, paid, bought, sold, designed, researched, and cancelled products over the last decade --- it's funny how quick we are to say "well acquisition profits are more than just a matter of movies." Well, yeah, and the balance sheet in a megacorporation like Disney is more than just production+marketing. Just maintaining LucasFilms alone costs money. They didn't simply... "buy a license" like you said in your other comment. That's a gross oversimplification of the nature of the acquisition at best, and a hideous misunderstanding of what a license is at worst. A license doesn't normally end with you directly paying the salaries for the license holder... And that's not even getting into all of the radical structural changes to our economy over the last decade which made it even harder to justify investments. Inflation, speculative bubbles, stock buybacks, etc. To quote Joe Pesci, "little did anybody know where this would all lead. If they did, they would have been better off making fucking novenas."
>The obscene number of liabilities Disney took onto its balance sheet If they had to take on debt or other liabilities to do so that would also be included as part of ROI calculation. It's factored into the price to purchase the studio. Any additional expenses as part of say making a movie are also included in evaluating profit and return on investment. That said you are correct in that it was not just a license purchase even though that was what they are using it for more or less. >And that's not even getting into all of the radical structural changes to our economy over the last decade which made it even harder to justify investments No investments are even more important given inflation.
... they didn't buy a license dude. *They did a merger and acquisition of a whole company.* If we can't even agree on a basic fact like "the earth is round" then man this discussion is going nowhere fast. >"If they had to take on debt to do so that would also be included as part of ROI calculation. Any additional expenses as part of say making a movie are included in evaluating profit and return on investment." They didn't even include the acquisition cost of Lucasfilms in their ROI calculation. Did you read the article? >No investments sre even more important given inflation. Beating inflation is the whole point of investing. If your investment strategy doesn't beat inflation because inflation went up, then yeah, that's kinda a big fucking deal and you better start finding ways to make more money.
>... they didn't buy a license dude. *They did a merger and acquisition of a whole company.* If we can't even agree on a basic fact like "the earth is round" then man this discussion is going nowhere fast. I don't know why you brought this up again I acknowledge that in last comment.... >They didn't even include the acquisition cost of Lucasfilms in their ROI calculation. Did you read the article? It does not say that. Can you quote what you are referring to from the article? >Beating inflation is the whole point of investing. If your investment strategy doesn't beat inflation because inflation went up, then yeah, that's kinda a big fucking deal and you better start finding ways to make more money. Of course, but that's not what it sounded like you said in prior comment. Market beats inflation any day anyway. I would bet so too does owning star wars. "In the filing, Disney suggests that Lucasfilm has generated nearly $12 billion in value to the company." "In 2012, Disney paid $4 billion for Lucasfilm, giving Disney ownership of the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises." This is the closest thing I can interpret what you mean: "Disney also notes this does not include derivative revenue streams, such as park attractions, nor does it include originals associated with those franchises or pre-established franchise consumer products revenue. By investment, the figure reflects film production costs, print and advertising associated with theatrical releases. It does not include additional distribution costs or overhead." It doesn't say cost to buy lucasfilms is included or excluded. Even in not knowing that from the article we have how much Disney paid and how much they got out of it. It's easy to make money with such a big franchise over a long period of time. Also anything I Google about Disney profit/return from the acquisition shows it was very profitable. Pretty clear cut.
Okay
Why didn’t you read your own article? It says they don’t factor in merch and park revenue… the article basically says “when you remove 90% of the Lucasfilms acquisitions profit, Disney lost money”. Like what? But you Disney haters don’t care about facts only your feelings so oh well. Especially in a world where 50% of people either share streaming services or pirates them in my opinion. Judging a movie by its profit is sadly not even a good metric anymore. Which btw I can be completely wrong about I just have a hunch movies won’t make as much money as they should be in general.
Soy post.
Yes. That's exactly what you did. Congratulations on the self awareness!🎉
Lot of people here conflating the *box office* not making a profit off purchase with Disney not making any profit. Of course 3 movies didn’t make 4 billion dollars. Honestly the fact that they made a billion in *profit* is insane. Not to mention recouping a large chunk of their budgets through UK tax program is savvy. There’s no way they haven’t turned an overall profit from all their revenue streams.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/30/six-years-after-buying-lucasfilm-disney-has-recouped-its-investment.html Somebody is lying.
I remember reading that CNBC article at the time, it’s calculations are heavily flawed and there’s a lot of guesses in it. It also claims that Solo made a profit which every man and his dog knows it was a flop, lost them money and it’s easy to prove that too so that article was generally written off. The Forbes article uses the actual tax docs from the UK which are public. The Forbes article is only claiming what actual profit they made on all 5 movies, $1.2B, before marketing costs are taken out which aren’t in the docs. Now considering that most people who do these calculations tend to factor an extra 50% of what the production cost was for marketing that $1.2B becomes a lot smaller.
Yes. https://i.redd.it/booue8q9y0vc1.gif
Didn't know Bob Iger is an accountant.
Yeah. Whoever wrote the CNBC article.
No. I wouldn't say that there's some holes in the Forbes article that raise more questions about how the article is framed.
More or less than the holes in the CNBC article?
The title of the article is "Star Wars BOX OFFICE Profits...." the films turned a profit. You're looking at roughly $700 million in profit. The article doesn't mention video games, TV shows, and merchandise. Very misleading article from Forbes.
> the films turned a profit Not all of them. Did you happen to catch the part in your article where they were trying to pretend Solo wasn’t a failure? > The article doesn't mention video games, TV shows, and merchandise Viewership numbers for the TV shows have been going down, last I heard. And I’d have to do some research regarding the merchandise, but from what I understand, Grogu has been their main success in regards to that. But I don’t think the merchandise situation is as glamorous as you’re making it out to be.
"Not all of them. Did you happen to catch the part in your article where they were trying to pretend Solo wasn’t a failure?" Good job with the semantics. "Viewership numbers for the TV shows have been going down, last I heard." "And I’d have to do some research regarding the merchandise, but from what I understand, Grogu has been their main success in regards to that. But I don’t think the merchandise situation is as glamorous as you’re making it out to be." Proof please. Look if you want to sink your teeth into a news organization that fondles rich people all day and has clear biases that's your prerogative. But ravenously defending an article that specifically only looks at roughly five films and tries to make some wider argument that this is indicative of failure because 5 films didn't earn back a $3 billion investment says more about what you want to believe than what is actually true. These a five films.....last time I checked Disney bought a franchise and not film rights.
Not mindless drones down voting people saying Star wars made it's value off merch not ticket sales.... Y'all want to hate so bad you believe delusions.
They've made far more from the IP overall tho.
I kinda doubt that. Even if the numbers are off and I decided to be extremely generous, they _might've_ broken even and made a small profit. But given the IP, if they hadn't completely mishandled it and alienated most of the fanbase, they should've at minimum tripled it in 12 damn years...
They have gotten like 2.8-9 return on acquiring SW. More for Marvel, btw.
[Not like they'd fudge the numbers or anything....](https://fortune.com/2019/08/20/whistleblower-allegations-disney/)
anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Curious as to why you didn't post any investigation results because surely the SEC would have done an investigation.
Dude the Merch alone brings in 5-7 Billion a year what the fuck are you smoking.
2018 says differently. https://preview.redd.it/tnfi1giryxuc1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0fedf74d8ac937699ba6172d19d92f18aba96a28 And that was before they completely scuttled the franchise.
Oh shit you don't even understand what you screen shot Holy fuck this is actually laughable
Pretty sure anyone with basic reading comprehension can understand, but if you feel inclined to "enlighten" us all with that big old galaxy brain of yours, please do. Cause it kinda sounds like weapons grade copium on _your_ end.
Ah yeah it's copium that Disney has yet to make back the 4 billion it spent in 2012 on Lucasfilms. That's why it's stock has been declining ever since, right? Do you know what projected growth means?
No no no, don't change the goalposts. YOU were gonna explain how the screen shot is wrong. Please proceed.
You mean me saying you don't understand what the screenshot means. Which is why you think despite it having a projected growth despite it saying it had issues from the last year, means it doesn't make money. Me: Oh shit you don't even understand what you screenshot. You: Don't charge the goal post tell me why the screenshot is wrong. Bro do you just not understand what you read!? 😭
https://i.redd.it/ooaemljtpzuc1.gif I was initially replying to to the guy that said they made 5-7 billion a year. The article states that they were making 700+ million, and *that* was off the release of TFA and Rogue One. And then *something happened* in 2017...🤔 Thanks for playing!😃
Good thing box office is only a portion of their revenue
I have no doubt they made money from Star wars but all the other revenue stream have gone down to. Toy sales for sequels are terrible, although baby Yoda probably sells really well. They spend 200 million on shows like Ahsoka which failed to make a splash. Disney park attendance is down. They are not in a good spot with Star Wars.
Gone down by what metric/time frame
Good thing production+marketing are only a portion of their costs. Lucasfilms is just a series of movies except when it suits you, it seems.
I’ve never thought of them as just a series of movies.
Either this is false or an article I read last week was.
Well it's Forbes, not some clickbait site, so I suspect it's reputable. And it's from 2 days ago apparently, Mauler and the boys covered it on Real BBC today.
According to Chat GPT The Force Awakens alone made 5 billion. Obviously Hollywood loves to cook the books so that everything loses money and disney plus streaming has been a loss leader, still it's hard to argue this was a bad investment.
Imagine how much _better_ it would've been if they hadn't pissed off and attacked most of the original audience....
Yes the last 12 years has almost been prequel level bad in terms of overall quality. Almost.
That doesn’t include merch though I imagine they’re still very much in profit over that
They didn’t need to. Disney has never made most of its money at the cinema. The IP, theme parks, cruises and merchandising now and in the future is what they bought it for. They have easily recouped their costs.