New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

“Whenever Disney determines how they want to outlay their capital for a given year, their choices are these. They can spend $200 million producing another Prince of Persia: Sands of Time or $160 million for The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and hope that their attempt will create a new franchise. Or they can play it safe by giving that money to Johnny Depp, guaranteeing a reward for their investment. The two summer action pictures they produced last year came with a price tag of $360 million to create, not including negative cost expenses. Those two titles attained global revenue of $550 million, only 28% of which came from domestic box office. The worst performing Pirates film to date had a global take of $653 million. If you are sitting in a room watching a Power Point presentation and you see these numbers, the Pirates side of the argument looks like the clear victor.”

This is a different scenario from Shrek in that DreamWorks was out of fresh ideas by the middle of the second film. The third one was a cinematic abomination and the mere existence of the fourth one says everything about which side of the eternal Hollywood art/commerce battle is winning there. Also, now is as good a time as any to mention that Puss in Boots is getting his own movie this November. I’m sure that one will have all of the originality of a mediocre LOLCats post, but that’s not the point. DreamWorks has kept pushing the money-grubbing envelope even though consumers have clearly stated they are tired of the Shrek universe. We have yet to see that sort of slippage from Disney’s hottest live action property.

Everyone wants exciting new products that engage them artistically. Unfortunately, the dirty little secret in the industry is that those same new ideas are much harder to market and much more likely to fail. Consider one of the BOP staff’s favorite book/film projects of the 2000s, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. It has everything a new action feature could want in terms of action, humor and special effects yet it cost about $85 million to produce while returning global box office of less than $50 million. Yes, Relativity Media and distributor Universal Studios cleverly used various tax incentives to lessen the capital outlay, but that’s not the point. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is an instant classic, yet another masterpiece from BOP fave Edgar Wright. It’s almost impossible to launch a better franchise debut than this one, yet its box office is a disaster. Consider that, factor in Prince of Persia and the reboot of Sorcerer’s Apprentice and then try to make the argument that it is in Disney’s best interest to avoid cash grab sequels in favor of new properties.

Yes, Disney did pull a heist here, stealing what will wind up being another $900+ million from too faithful movie goers. If you were in their shoes, however, would you have done something different? Aren’t these record breaking results so emphatic that they are hard to dispute as anything other than the latest masterstroke from the best movie studio in the history of the industry?

Continued:       1       2       3