DVDizzy.com

Cinderella made more than half a million worldwide so in no world is that meh. Especially since this was before the blockbuster Disney remakes like The Jungle Book, BATB, Aladdin, etc. Disney was pretty pleased with Cinderella at the time too and they still seem to regard it well enough since that one promo for the live-action Dumbo promoted it alongside The Jungle Book and BATB (although we know the fiasco that started here) and the new live-action book featuring costumes heavily includes Cinderella as well.

Aladdin is following in the footsteps of the aforementioned remakes and has already made more than $700 million worldwide. I'm guessing next we're going to hear that Aladdin's total yield so far is a disappointment and should be regarded as a failure by the logic that's already been unduly applied. I'm glad talks of a potential sequel (and possible prequel if Disney ever resurrects that project) can nip such nonsense in the bud.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

I agree with Jean Grey, re: Cinderella. $543 million on a $95 million budget is an excellent number and I'm sure Disney made quite a bit of profit on that, even when marketing costs are taken into account.

Aladdin really has been having some impressive staying power, both in the US and the rest of the world. Audiences are responding to it and keeps playing well, even with the blockbusters that keep piling up. Not bad for a movie that most people pegged as dead on arrival before it even reached screens.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland

They also made a profit on MPR and Dumbo. That doesn't mean those weren't middling successes.

Who???

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
CeCe Peniston ~ "Finally"
Charlene ~ "I've Never Been to Me"
Patti Page ~ "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine"

By my calculations, Dumbo definitely lost money. It did manage to slightly double its production cost at the box-office, but factoring in marketing costs, Disney hasn't broken even yet.

I saw a number of box-office predictions that Aladdin would bomb, because of how poorly received the first peek of the Genie was. If you look at the box-office subreddit, for example, most predictions for Aladdin are that it would flop or underperform.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland

And what were Dumbo’s marketing costs? It made $350 million on a $170 million budget. Even with $100 million in unseen costs, they still would've made around $80 million in profit.

But that isn't anything more than random Internet reactions and hardly representative of most people, just like this forum, too, seldom represents real life. Disney, despite seeming to have less confidence in Aladdin as a property than B&tB and TLK the past few years, likely never expected any less than, say, Maleficent-level numbers for this.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
CeCe Peniston ~ "Finally"
Charlene ~ "I've Never Been to Me"
Patti Page ~ "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine"

I'm not sure what the exact figure is (because the numbers are never released) but the rough calculation is that studios only receive half of what a film makes (give or take). So apply that to Dumbo's $370m and it made $175m for Disney on a $170m budget before taking marketing into account. So when marketing is counted it didn't break even. I'm sure it will eventually make money when you start counting in DVD sales, merchandise, etc. But at the box office it made a loss.

As for Aladdin, it wasn't just random people on a message board, it was reported by sites like Deadline that, as late as opening week, it was predicted to do under $70m for the Memorial day weekend. I believe run predictions everywhere were saying possibly sub $200m domestic and sub $500m worldwide. Now maybe they were listening too much to online backlash where Aladdin never seemed to catch a break, but people were definitely expecting it to under perform. And, like you say, Disney themselves seem to under estimate/under value Aladdin (hence the proverbial death slot in the release calendar where all odds were stacked against it) so that didn't really help. Aladdin has basically succeeded against all odds. And whilst it will never make TLK money (a film which, by comparison, Disney has given every possible advantage in terms of release slot) I think TLK will need to make Endgame levels of money to be considered the same type of over performance/success.

This isn't what estefan was referring to, but even if it were... So you're saying that Aladdin being conjectured to make only $500 million worldwide would be the same as "DOA" by estefan, who just described Cinderella's $500 million intake in entirely different terms.

Well, hopefully now that the hit animated film has generated a hit Broadway show and a hit re-make, Disney will start to treat Aladdin the way it deserves again.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
CeCe Peniston ~ "Finally"
Charlene ~ "I've Never Been to Me"
Patti Page ~ "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine"

Disney did Aladdin dirty. Not only did they release it on Memorial Day weekend which is statistically the worst time to release a tentpole but they sandwiched it between Avengers: Endgame and Toy Story 4. Had they given it a better release date, away from other highly anticipated blockbusters, it could have reached the $1 billion milestone. Now, there's no chance of that happening.

_________________

Are you sure? It's made $727 million in 24 days according to BoxOfficeMojo.com. Shouldn't business keep going for another month or so? If it remains as strong as it has been, I think it's definitely possible.

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
CeCe Peniston ~ "Finally"
Charlene ~ "I've Never Been to Me"
Patti Page ~ "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine"

I’m sure Disney knew what they were doing releasing it when they did. They’ve always underestimated Aladdin’s popularity and place in pop culture. I’m sure it could have reached a billion, but I also think the film was just divisive enough that most likely releasing it when they did made sense financially. You’ve gotta remember, they screen these movies so many times before release. They know what the big issues are. But the sequel talk is most likely because they know they gave it the toughest release date and it still outdid expectations. So I wouldn’t worry about them doing it too dirty. If they’re making a sequel, it means they’re happy with it and know audiences responded favorably to it for the most part.

I can definitely vouch for this because all the box office analysts were reporting that Aladdin was going to underperform and we've seen that this was anything but the case. The fact that it's done as well as it did with a lackluster release date and all the controversy over the teaser and later sneak peek at Prince Ali is pretty astounding imo. Consider Mary Poppins Returns which was given a prime theatrical date, to the point that Solo was moved from its annual Star Wars holiday release date to accommodate MPR which ended up underperforming, despite all the marketing and promotion that was thrust into it. A bad move on Disney's part since it ended up tanking two movies when Solo would likely have done better in December.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

Sorry for the confusion. But in terms of describing the box office in different terms, that's perfectly valid as we're not comparing like for like. Cinderella made $543.5m against a budget of $100m. Aladdin's budget was $183m so straight away it needs to make more to be profitable and considered a success.

Add to that, Aladdin is one of the big 4 renaissance movies. Even if Disney do under value it, there's still greater expectations there. To give a more extreme example, Ant-Man making $500m is a success, Avengers making that amount would be considered, if not a flop, then a massive under performance.



Agreed



I guess. Given the massive slate they had for 2019, no doubt building up content ahead of the Disney+ launch in November, this year was always a balancing act where their own movies risked competing with each other. I still think they would have given it better slot (where it wouldn't lose IMAX after just 1 week) if they thought it would perform this well.

You are right, any sequel talk is Disney recognizing they gave it the toughest possible odds and it still did better than expected and realizing the true potential of the property.

I know. But I don't believe that a relatively modest difference in budget like that amounts to one being considered DOA and the other being considered excellent with the same intake, especially considering the years between the two films and the fact that ticket sales are ever-decreasing. Sorry, that was mostly a comment spotlighting estefan for deciding to speak out of both sides of his mouth, not a disagreement with you or what you've said.



I suppose you're right about the sequel talk showing Disney's acknowledgment of the film's enormous success. I'm very happy if Disney realizes how wrong they were about this property!

_________________

Listening to most often lately:
CeCe Peniston ~ "Finally"
Charlene ~ "I've Never Been to Me"
Patti Page ~ "I Don't Care If the Sun Don't Shine"

I enjoyed Aladdin very much, it upsets me to know that now Toy Story is going to steal its thunder after only a month. I wanted it to reach at least $350 domestically. And even Toy Story is going to fend off Lion King in a month! What the heck Disney?!

Exactly. Aladdin got the worst slot. It was stupid of them to schedule so many of their anticipated tentpoles in the same year. They're bound to cannibalize each other. Especially since next year is slim pickings. Aladdin would have faired much better if it was saved for next year. I suspect they did so in order for Iger to finish his tenure as CEO with an unprecedented box office record. He was originally supposed to retire at the end of 2019. It's no accident his book reflecting on the 15 years he's been Disney's CEO is getting released this September. Of course, he later decided to stay until 2021 to see through the Fox integration but by then it was too late to radically change this year's slate.

_________________

I think a big part is also Disney+, a full slate in 2019 gives them a load of content for the launch in November and for the first few months after.

Aladdin has now crossed $800 million worldwide! Also had the smallest drop in the domestic top 10 this weekend and is still sitting at third place on its 5th weekend. That's remarkable staying power and suggests Aladdin will have a good leggy run this summer. I think word-of-mouth from general audiences is really helping Aladdin and Disney's decision to market it as a date movie was an especially smart move. If Aladdin was able to hold on even with Toy Story 4 opening this weekend, it should be fine going up against Spider-Man and The Lion King over the next number of weeks.

_________________
"There are two wolves and they are always fighting. One is darkness and despair. The other is light and hope. Which wolf wins? Whichever one you feed." - Casey Newton, Tomorrowland

To be honest, I've always found it remarkable that Aladdin was heading for a release the same year as The Lion King, that both of Disney's biggest Renaissance behemoths were being released within two months. It's understandable why, yet still somewhat wasted to do so. Why not having them being released a year each?

I don't know if it's possible for Aladdin to make $1 billion now but I hope it can at least reach $900 million.


Yeah, frankly I didn't understand this either because the previous pattern was to release one of their remakes each year. 2014 - Maleficent, 2015 - Cinderella, 2016 - The Jungle Book, 2017 - Beauty and the Beast, etc. Some of the smaller remakes like Pete's Dragon, Alice Through the Looking Glass, and Christopher Robin were fine to pepper in every so often, but the big ones like The Lion King and Aladdin should have been given their own years since they're event movies.

_________________

We’re a dyad in the Force. Two that are one.
"I offered you my hand once. You wanted to take it." - Kylo Ren
"I did want to take your hand. Ben's hand." - Rey

At this point I think a billion really depends on how well it holds against The Lion King in a few weeks. If it can hold as well as it looks to be doing against Toy Story then it may have a shot.

TBH I'm just amazed and delighted at how well it's doing. Considering before released most were predicting it could struggle to hit $500m, the fact that we're even considering $1b is incredible. I was crossing my fingers for $300m US/$800m worldwide, and even after it initially broke out that looked like it would be a stretch. Now it's already hit $800m, $850m looks very likely, and $900m+ looks possible. Considering the odds stacked against it in terms of release schedule, competition, and early social media meltdowns, Aladdin's absolutely smashed all expectations and just keeps on going. Since Aladdin was my favourite growing up and I love the remake, I'm just really happy.