Quantcast
Disney's Star Wars $4 Billion Investment Has Already Paid For Itself

Forums - Movies Discussion - Disney's Star Wars $4 Billion Investment Has Already Paid For Itself

Obviously that's not all profit but lucas arts definitely under sold themselves.



Around the Network

To consider the deal's profitability, you need to consider opportunity costs. For example:

It's possible that if Disney never purchased Lucasfilm, Disney would have released an original IP or Pixar/Disney/Marvel film in its slot, which could have been wildly successful and not come a 4 billion price tag. So to consider the profit, it is not just against the 4 billions cost, but also against what Disney would have done with 3 alternate releases (which for Disney is probably in the 500 million/film range.)

On the other hand, it's possible that if Disney never purchased Lucas Film that they would have put out another money loser like John Carter or The Lone Ranger, which badly damaged Disney's reputation at the time.

Its also possible if Disney didn't buy Lucas Film, Fox or someone else would have, and the Star Wars films would be competing with Disney's release windows.

Finally, it's possible that the DOJ will reject the Disney acquisition of Fox's Film studios, and that had Disney never purchased LucasFilm, the deal could have passed.



Lifetime Sales Prediction - 6/29/2013
Wii U - 38 million
XBOX One - 88 million
Playstation 4 - 145 million

Soundwave said:
Bristow9091 said:
Honestly, Lucas could have asked for double and they'd still have paid it, simply because Star Wars is so big that there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that it'll make money... the franchise literally prints money for whoever owns it, in this case it's Disney.

Lucas really sold for a low bar. Star Wars is worth way more than $4 billion dollars. 

I agree. Google paid 2 billion for Youtube a decade ago when it was a much smaller entity than it is today.



While i do think it hasn't yet because you are taking into account production costs, it has been undoubtibly a good deal for them.

This money could've been Lucas' but he never wanted to go for it. With 1 good movie (rogue one) and an awful new trilogy they already recouped. Pretty crazy really.



Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:
Unless you have the ROI all you are saying is your speculation.

We know $2.5-$2.75 billion in box office is pretty much a fact. 

We have sales numbers that put The Force Awakens Blu-Ray sales alone at 5.7 million in the US only. 

https://www.the-numbers.com/alltime-bluray-sales-chart

Honestly they broke $4 billion probably with Rogue One + The Force Awakens alone, but this article is just using movie ticket revenue as their barometer. 

It's possible Disney takes all the revenue from Star Wars merchandise and donates it to charity, I mean there's no way to know for sure, but lets use some common sense here. 

seems like you have no idea about what me and others are saying



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

Buying Star Wars for 4B was the deal of the century. Even if Disney hadn't bothered to make any movies, the merchandising alone was a gold mine.



Soundwave said:
KLAMarine said:
Half of that goes to theaters though, doesn't it?

It's closer to 35% actually. Theaters make their money from popcorn and soda. 

Still that figure doesn't count toys, t-shirts, home video, etc. sales. Obviously they make several times more there. 

Of course Disney is able to twist the wrists of struggling theaters.

Disney is becoming the empire.

arcaneguyver said:
They'll make back the investment just in time for franchise fatigue to set in.

I've felt it setting in with TFA.

numberwang said:
KLAMarine said:
Half of that goes to theaters though, doesn't it?

And taxes, and budget for marketing and distribution... OP does not know business.

Disney's free to make as much money as they please but if they want my money, they gotta make a quality product. TFA sucked.



The most profitable industries in the US, nobody had more than 20% profit margins

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2016/08/06/the-most-profitable-industries-in-2016/#5386f6f32557



If it only it worked like this, Id be making movies day and night :D



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

numberwang said:

The most profitable industries in the US, nobody had more than 20% profit margins

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sageworks/2016/08/06/the-most-profitable-industries-in-2016/#5386f6f32557

Curiously movie making isn't on it, nor are toys.

Funny enough I was watching the documentary on Netflix about toys that made history and SW had a 5% royalties to Lucas Films and 5% to the studio. On the second trilogy it rose to 18% to LucasFilms (nothing for other parties), and doesn't seem like it was changed for the new trilogy (as the deal wasn't time bounded, and the royalties only increased because the original licensed company after being bought by Hasbro made a blunder and needed to do a new deal.

So Again of course Disney doesn't make 100% profit from all merchandise sold.

But VGC isn't the place were we will find people that are sharp on economy questions.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994