I see from your other posts that you aren't interested in facts, and prefer conjecture based on anger and politics, so I'm probably wasting my time here, but for the sake of offering a rational response to your irrational assertions...
For starters, you're making up numbers. No one outside of a few high-level Disney execs or accountants knows what was spent to market a film, so when you say "film X had a marketing budget of Y" what you're really saying is "here's a completely made-up number that I am willing to believe.
That said, a movie like Charlies Angels needs a bigger marketing push than a Star Wars movie, because no one knows it exists unless they're told about it. Star Wars films don't need as much in terms of marketing because they have a built-in audience. They certainly need some, and Disney wants to create a buzz, but when it comes down to it, the fact that it is a Star Wars film matters more than any marketing campaign.
Also, you're acting as if it somehow costs more to market a film that cost more to make. A commercial costs the same, regardless of the movie it's advertising. An ad in a magazine costs the same, too. All ads do. So if a studio can successfully market film A for $75 million, they can market a Star Wars film equally well for the same amount.
Here's something to consider: Back in 2007, when the MPAA last released marketing costs in their annual reports, the average marketing cost of a studio movie was $36 million. Prices have no doubt risen since then, but that gives us a good barometer for the cost.
We have no idea what is being spent to market the new Star Wars film, but it's certainly in the ballpark of $100 million, and at most $150 million, though that figure is highly doubtful. Again-- we don't know, but past costs and common sense are all we have, and that's what makes the most sense.
As for "buying seats," that's pure nonsense. There has been zero evidence, zero anything other than a few Disney-haters saying “well, it could happen!”
Lastly— a damaged franchise? Based on what, exactly?
The Force Awakens— made more at the U.S. box office than any film in history, by a wide margin, and over $2 billion globally. The Last Jedi made 66% of what TFA made, which is slightly better than one expects from the 2nd film in a trilogy. To compare, Empire made 63% what Star Wars made, and Clones made 65% of what Phantom made. Part 2s tend to make about 2/3 what the original made. Not to mention that it was, at the time, the 9th highest-grossing film globally, and 6th domestically.
Based on the fact that the first two films have been massively successful at the box office, critically acclaimed, and loved by audiences, how can you possibly call the franchise damaged in any way?
reply
share
[deleted]
5 years ago
"I see from your other posts that you aren't interested in facts, and prefer conjecture based on anger and politics, so I'm probably wasting my time here, but for the sake of offering a rational response to your irrational assertions..."
Great, the local narcissist descends from Olympus with self proclaimed words of wisdom.
"No one outside of a few high-level Disney execs or accountants knows what was spent to market a film . . . "
Correct, and my guess is that it would take a Certified Forensic Auditor to find where the losses are buried.
"That said, a movie like Charlies Angels needs a bigger marketing push than a Star Wars movie."
No, CA is a known brand with a 40+ year history in its target market. The primary difference is that CA was not nearly as successful.
"A commercial costs the same, regardless of the movie it's advertising."
No, the real cost of a commercial is in what it costs to run in its target markets, and the success in its conversion rate.
"We have no idea what is being spent to market the new Star Wars film, but it's certainly in the ballpark of $100 million, and at most $150 million, though that figure is highly doubtful."
You admit that you have no idea of the costs involved, and then proceed to give a budget range to make the point that my guesstimates are wrong? That's classic bitch-think right there.
"As for "buying seats," that's pure nonsense. There has been zero evidence . . ."
The nature of unethical/illegal behavior is to conceal the activity. Again, short of a forensic accountant cracking the books, you or I are not going to know how their operation works. You do live on Earth, right? Do you understand anything concerning human nature, much less how it operates at the corporate level? Most don't need to understand the physics of thermodynamics to understand getting burned.
". . . how can you possibly call the franchise damaged in any way?"
That JarJar would mention The Fandom Menace by name is all the proof you need that there are some serious PR problems, that they are concerned with the negative PR profoundly affecting the long term health of both sales and the brand.
reply
share