[TV] Disney+ Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi

[PACOX]

Gladly.

While TFA and even TLJ brought in quite a lot of cash in ticket-sales, they failed to sell merchandise. RoS is even worse, barely making more than a billion in tickets.
Please remember that those nice, big-sounding numbers are the gross, from which Disney only gets a percentage. From the 500+ million domestic Disney gets a whopping 60% on average, so in the ballpark of 300+ million. The foreign market is even worse, with Disney usually getting 40%, so maybe 200+ million dollars.
Now compare the net takeaway of 500+ million dollars with the 275 million dollar production cost, and then double the cost to account for marketing.
RoS is having a hard time breaking even, with the slim chance of making a loss at the ticket booths. As of last week (January 24), RoS is behind Rogue One in box office performance.
TLJ is NOT selling on the DVD/BR market, we can expect RoS to do the same. Merchandise sales, especially for the new characters where Disney does not have to pay George Lucas anything, across the globe and board are down.
So far Disney has, if you look at the net numbers and not the gross, not re-earned the 4 billion they paid GL.

Disney SW by the numbers

TFA - $936,662,225 (domestic), $1,131,561,399 (international), $2,068,223,624 (worldwide)
TLJ - $620,181,382, $712,358,507, $1,332,539,889
TROS - $503,458,989, $545,400,163, $1,048,859,152

Rogue One - $532,177,324, $523,879,949, $1,056,057,273
Solo - $213,767,512, $179,157,295, $392,924,807

TFA - #1 Domestic
TLJ - #9 Domestic
TROS - #15 Domestic
RO - #12 Domestic

Total gross TD: $5,898,604,745
Cost of acquisition: $4.05 billion
Total gross-budget: $4,497,184,891

All figures from boxofficemojo.com

Second highest-grossing film franchise. If that's not making bank then I don't know what to tell you. You can't deny that the franchise hasn't made money under Kennedy.

Merchandising is a complicated beast due to licensing and all that. They are down across the board, anyway:

[IIamaKing]

Disney SW by the numbers

TFA - $936,662,225 (domestic), $1,131,561,399 (international), $2,068,223,624 (worldwide)
TLJ - $620,181,382, $712,358,507, $1,332,539,889
TROS - $503,458,989, $545,400,163, $1,048,859,152

Rogue One - $532,177,324, $523,879,949, $1,056,057,273
Solo - $213,767,512, $179,157,295, $392,924,807

TFA - #1 Domestic
TLJ - #9 Domestic
TROS - #15 Domestic
RO - #12 Domestic

Total gross TD: $5,898,604,745
Cost of acquisition: $4.05 billion
Total gross-budget: $4,497,184,891

All figures from boxofficemojo.com

Second highest-grossing film franchise. If that's not making bank then I don't know what to tell you. You can't deny that the franchise hasn't made money under Kennedy.

Merchandising is a complicated beast due to licensing and all that. They are down across the board, anyway:

Right, GROSS!!! Its like you didnt read what the other guy said. Disney doesn't cash a billion dollar check from ticket sales from RoS, they will likely get around ~300m. Call it 400m. 400m for each movie NET (the real number) x5= 2b. They possibly could not have recouped even half their initial investment at this point.

And lets be real. 1b in ticket sales global, its the new baseline for these sorts of movies. Its not some massive achievement anymore. Its expected.

[PACOX]

Right, GROSS!!! Its like you didnt read what the other guy said. Disney doesn't cash a billion dollar check from ticket sales from RoS, they will likely get around ~300m. Call it 400m. 400m for each movie NET (the real number) x5= 2b. They possibly could not have recouped even half their initial investment at this point.

And lets be real. 1b in ticket sales global, its the new baseline for these sorts of movies. Its not some massive achievement anymore. Its expected.

So this $65 billion franchise they paid $4 billion for isn't a constant stream of revenue for them?

[IIamaKing]

So this $65 billion franchise they paid $4 billion for isn't a constant stream of revenue for them?

What does that have to do with anything? Of course its a revenue stream, but that doesn't mean their investment is profitable yet, will likely be a few more movies. The real question to ask is what were the expectations of the Disney going into this and are those expectations being met, exceeded or fallen behind? Thats the only measure of success and we dont have that info. All we can do is speculate and I am of the camp that SW is probably underperforming in terms of what Disney expected.

[PACOX]

What does that have to do with anything? Of course its a revenue stream, but that doesn't mean their investment is profitable yet, will likely be a few more movies. The real question to ask is what were the expectations of the Disney going into this and are those expectations being met, exceeded or fallen behind? Thats the only measure of success and we dont have that info. All we can do is speculate and I am of the camp that SW is probably underperforming in terms of what Disney expected.

Star Wars probably never be 'profitable', that's not you'd run such a large franchise. You can determine if you've received a return of investment, which they have. You can determine if the property has been lucrative, which is it has. You can definitely tell if its hemorrhaging or losing money, which has not. Star Wars has done nothing but bring in money while under Kennedy. In fact, they've hit record numbers and outperformed everyone but their sister franchise. So the case that Kennedy is running Lucasfilm into the ground is weak, especially when you're a board member going over the numbers.

Now you could argue, in one's opinion, that things could be even better. Buts its just ones opinion. Theres no way to tell if someone might have done better or worse in her shoes. Remember this discussion is because people have said Kennedy has been ruining projects left and right, yet Disney only had one real financial dud under while she has been in charge. Stocks are up. Star Wars is practically selling Disney+ subs on its own, money is coming in. I would saw they can keep their lights on.

Addendum to my earlier post:

Lets say we're only talking money made from the movies at the box office. Lets assume Disney gets its 65% cut of box office sales. Subtract the budgets of each movie and you're looking $2.92 billion in 5 movies for a $4.05 billion purchase of the franchise. The franchise is now worth $65 billion. Don't think they are worried about not hitting $4.05 billion any way you look at it.

[Kokolums]

Gladly.

While TFA and even TLJ brought in quite a lot of cash in ticket-sales, they failed to sell merchandise. RoS is even worse, barely making more than a billion in tickets.
Please remember that those nice, big-sounding numbers are the gross, from which Disney only gets a percentage. From the 500+ millions domestic Disney gets a whopping 60% on average, so in the ballpark of 300+ millions. The foreign market is even worse, with Disney usually getting 40%, so maybe 200+ million dollars.
Now compare the net takeaway of 500+ million dollars with the 275 million dollar productions cost, and then double the cost to account for marketing.
RoS is having a hard time breaking even, with the slim chance of making a loss at the ticket booths. As of last week (Jannuary 24), RoS is behind Rogue One in box office performance.
TLJ is NOT selling on the DVD/BR market, we can expect RoS to do the same. Merchandise sales, especially for the new characters where Disney does not have to pay George Lucas anything, accross the globe and board are down.
So far Disney has, if you look at the net numbers and not the gros, not re-earned the 4 billions they payed GL.

Where it gets murky is trying to figure out how many Disney+ subs the Mandalorian has sold. How much cash will Baby Yoda toys bring in? Is that even possible to determine?

[Dextroden]

Star Wars probably never be 'profitable', that's not you'd run such a large franchise. You can determine if you've received a return of investment, which they have. You can determine if the property has been lucrative, which is it has. You can definitely tell if its hemorrhaging or losing money, which has not. Star Wars has done nothing but bring in money while under Kennedy. In fact, they've hit record numbers and outperformed everyone but their sister franchise. So the case that Kennedy is running Lucasfilm into the ground is weak, especially when you're a board member going over the numbers.

Now you could argue, in one's opinion, that things could be even better. Buts its just ones opinion. Theres no way to tell if someone might have done better or worse in her shoes. Remember this discussion is because people have said Kennedy has been ruining projects left and right, yet Disney only had one real financial dud under while she has been in charge. Stocks are up. Star Wars is practically selling Disney+ subs on its own, money is coming in. I would saw they can keep their lights on.

Addendum to my earlier post:

Lets say we're only talking money made from the movies at the box office. Lets assume Disney gets its 65% cut of box office sales. Subtract the budgets of each movie and you're looking $2.92 billion in 5 movies for a $4.05 billion purchase of the franchise. The franchise is now worth $65 billion. Don't think they are worried about not hitting $4.05 billion any way you look at it.

Once again, we see people who think Michael Bay is a quality film maker because money yo.

And also not understanding what marketing budgets are.

[Soimu]

Well she made the money back and then some. I don't like most of what she's done from a creative standpoint and maybe if some of it were better it would have made more money, but I don't think you can say she "failed so hard."

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/...or-disney.aspx

It was almost impossible to fail with the new star wars trilogy in the box office no matter how bad it was or who was leading it. Even if it would have been directed by Uwe Boll it would have still been a success because it is freakin Star Wars and people waited 10 year for a new movie and 30 years to see the old characters back on screen (and that turned out to be a major let down and should have never brought them back in this s..t movies).

[segara82]

Disney SW by the numbers

TFA - $936,662,225 (domestic), $1,131,561,399 (international), $2,068,223,624 (worldwide)
TLJ - $620,181,382, $712,358,507, $1,332,539,889
TROS - $503,458,989, $545,400,163, $1,048,859,152

Rogue One - $532,177,324, $523,879,949, $1,056,057,273
Solo - $213,767,512, $179,157,295, $392,924,807

Total gross TD: $5,898,604,745
Cost of acquisition: $4.05 billion
Total gross-budget: $4,497,184,891

All figures from boxofficemojo.com

Great, now let's take the gross and turn it into the net, the REALLY important part.
Total domestic for all movies: 2.806.247.432 *0,6 = 1.683.748.459,20 $
Total foreign for all movies: 3.092.357.313 *0,4 = 1.236.942.925,20 $
totals to: 2.920.691.384,40 $

Congratulation, your IP, which you bought for 4 billion dollars, has after 8 years and 5 movies, not recovered the initial investment.
Oh, they managed to cover the cost of most movies (Solo officially bombed and Rise has so far maybe broken even), but as a shareholder i would start asking the important question when these 4 billions will be regained. In another 16-24 years?

The merch so far has abysmal sale rates, and the 'old' merch has the disadvantage (for Disney) that they have to give George Lucas his share.
The latest financial report considering SW Galaxy Edge shows that it is failing to meet expectations. Sure, revenue is up because ticket prices are up, but attendance numbers are stale or falling. But don't take my word, Disney said so themselves in their own report.

So, NO, SW is not the money fountain Disney hoped to acquire, and so far is still a loss for Disney (for not recouping their investment).

[PACOX]

Great, now let's take the gross and turn it into the net, the REALLY important part.
Total domestic for all movies: 2.806.247.432 *0,6 = 1.683.748.459,20 $
Total foreign for all movies: 3.092.357.313 *0,4 = 1.236.942.925,20 $
totals to: 2.920.691.384,40 $

Congratulation, your IP, which you bought for 4 billion dollars, has after 8 years and 5 movies, not recovered the initial investment.
Oh, they managed to cover the cost of most movies (Solo officially bombed and Rise has so far maybe broken even), but as a shareholder i would start asking the important question when these 4 billions will be regained. In another 16-24 years?

The merch so far has abysmal sale rates, and the 'old' merch has the disadvantage (for Disney) that they have to give George Lucas his share.
The latest financial report considering SW Galaxy Edge shows that it is failing to meet expectations. Sure, revenue is up because ticket prices are up, but attendance numbers are stale or falling. But don't take my word, Disney said so themselves in their own report.

So, NO, SW is not the money fountain Disney hoped to acquire, and so far is still a loss for Disney (for not recouping their investment).

Dude, how are you going to come at me with the same number I posted?

They are clearly making money off the IP, no? You said it yourself, revenue. Which would make the IP a continuous revenue stream for Disney. It's okay, Disney will be just fine.

[Jotaux]

So this $65 billion franchise they paid $4 billion for isn't a constant stream of revenue for them?

Not only are you not accounting for their share of the box office, not the advertising budget, you are not accounting for the time value of money. 4 billion invested in a GIC would yield a better return.

As an investor would you rather make $100 off of 10,000 investment or $50 off of $1,000, using 9k for other projects.

[segara82]

Dude, how are you going to come at me with the same number I posted?

They are clearly making money off the IP, no? You said it yourself, revenue. Which would make the IP a continuous revenue stream for Disney. It's okay, Disney will be just fine.

I used the official numbers, which you posted, to show you how little Disney has regained from their investment. So far, by looking at the numbers, Disney has made very little profit from the movies, merch and DVD/BR-sales. From the 4 billion they purely spent to acquire the IP less then 25% have been recovered, after 8 years and 5 movies. The movies (ticket sales) show a clear downward trend.
And except for The Mandalorian nothing they have presented has been praised by the majority of fans.

Compared to the Marvel purchase at 4,24 billion dollars ... 12 years, 23 movies, 18+ billions at the box office, lauded by fans and critics, selling tons of merch ...

That is the comparison Disneys Star Wars has to live up to, investment-wise. And it simply does not.


Please, do not mistake me for a Disney-hater that wants the company to collapse.
I know they have plenty of revenue streams and will carry on.

[PACOX]

Not only are you not accounting for their share of the box office, not the advertising budget, you are not accounting for the time value of money. 4 billion invested in a GIC would yield a better return.

As an investor would you rather make $100 off of 10,000 investment or $50 off of $1,000, using 9k for other projects.

A couple of post up...

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52063018

Literally calculated the same number as @Segera82

[Jotaux]

A couple of post up...

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post52063018

Literally calculated the same number as @Segera82

Sorry I should have said incorrectly calculated their take of the box office. You went with a 65% cut when they get 40% over seas. They negotiated a favourable 60% in NA. And again you failed to take the time value of money into account.

[PACOX]

Sorry I should have said incorrectly calculated their take of the box office. You went with a 65% cut when they get 40% over seas. They negotiated a favourable 60% in NA. And again you failed to take the time value of money into account.

The difference between our numbers are insignificant as we both got $2.92 billion, I didn't throw up the exact number for clarity.

[IIamaKing]

The difference between our numbers are insignificant as we both got $2.92 billion, I didn't throw up the exact number for clarity.

Like, you seem to be missing the point. Not one of us is arguing that SW is not a revenue stream. We are saying that SW, as an investment, is likely not performing at the level they were expecting when they acquired it.
Your entire argument is largely moot here. It doesn't matter if its a revenue stream. It matters how well the investment is performing compared to other investments like it(Ex Marvel)and the expectations they had.

[PACOX]

I used the official numbers, which you posted, to show you how little Disney has regained from their investment. So far, by looking at the numbers, Disney has made very little profit from the movies, merch and DVD/BR-sales. From the 4 billion they purely spent to acquire the IP less then 25% have been recovered, after 8 years and 5 movies. The movies (ticket sales) show a clear downward trend.
And except for The Mandalorian nothing they have presented has been praised by the majority of fans.

Compared to the Marvel purchase at 4,24 billion dollars ... 12 years, 23 movies, 18+ billions at the box office, lauded by fans and critics, selling tons of merch ...

That is the comparison Disneys Star Wars has to live up to, investment-wise. And it simply does not.


Please, do not mistake me for a Disney-hater that wants the company to collapse.
I know they have plenty of revenue streams and will carry on.

They wouldn't calculate SW profits based off the the initial investment. That's what Im trying to get at. I know I might not be clear all the times because I'm on my phone.

Stars Wars, the entire IP is a continuous revenue source to them. As long as Star Wars collectively brings in positive revenue then its viewed as a sound investment. Has the value of the investment gone up? Is it bringing in money? If yes then good. It's a long term investment, not something they are trying to flip.

Again, the movies alone have netted them $2.9 billion everyone else gets their cut. As in the IP is printing money for them.

One thing that we also haven't discussed is where the initial investment came from. That investment did not put them $4 billion in the hole, because that money came from other positive revenue streams - other ventures. As in they aren't stressing about that initial investment.

Say you have a lemonade stand. Your initial cost to open the stand is $20. You spend $40 out of pocket a month on supplies (lemons, cups, whatever). So your first quarter cost are ($40*4)+$20 = $180. You look at your books and you have $220 in cash. Congrats, you made a $40 profit. Next quarter you buy the stand down the street for $15. It has the same operational costs and brings in $5 after paying its bills. That's not $15

Is your company in the hole because the new stand didn't pay for itself in one quarter? Clearly no. You aren't losing money and the second stand is still a positive revenue producing asset even if it hasn't made its $15 yet. You could say that the second stand 'owes' the first one until lifetime profits hit $15 but in no way are you operating at a lost. In no way was your investment wasted. The only way you'd 'lose' is IFF (if and only if) you suddenly had to stop operating the next day.

As long as keeps bringing in positive revenue it's 'profitable'. The argument is Kathleen Kennedy has ran a profitable Lucasfilm, which she has because she has done nothing but report profits since she has been in charge. Otherwise you're asking her answer for financial statements before she was put in charge. That's not how you'd evaluate her or the franchises performance under her management.

- - - Updated - - -

Like, you seem to be missing the point. Not one of us is arguing that SW is not a revenue stream. We are saying that SW, as an investment, is likely not performing at the level they were expecting when they acquired it.
Your entire argument is largely moot here. It doesn't matter if its a revenue stream. It matters how well the investment is performing compared to other investments like it(Ex Marvel)and the expectations they had.

The original argument is if KK hurting SW. We got into numbers because I proposed SW's numbers under her management have only been positive. Am I wrong?

Do I need to say I don't agree with her picking Abrams so I don't look like I'm just shilling for her? I don't. Do I think there should a Obi project? Not really. Definitely wish the Boba project was still a thing. Can I say she is 'bad' for Star Wars? Apart from my creative opinions I'd have to say no because all she has done was bring in money since they signed her.

Hate Kennedy or love her, her track record shows she knows a thing or two. They aren't going to dump her while she is still making them money.

Making statements like this:

I just can't understand how Kathleen Kennedy can continue in the head of Star Wars considering nearly all of her projects have been management disasters (whatever the outcomes are is different matter). And on this she outright lied if this is a script issue because she said the scripts were already done. (And by that extent one would safely assume approved)

Inaccurate.

Or

get the feeling a lot of SWs problems will get better once Kennedy is gone. She just doesn't seem to understand how to run a franchise on a universe level

And

Can they finally fire Kathleen Kennedy? Yes she is a female, but when you fail so hard at your job and put a succesfull franchise in a downward trent then you should face the consequences.

[IIamaKing]

Hate Kennedy or love her, her track record shows she knows a thing or two. They aren't going to dump her while she is still making them money.

Making statements like this:



Inaccurate.

Or



And

If the brand is not living upto expectations, then she IS hurting the investment. If you think the last 3 outings (sans Mando cause TV) preformed as well as Disney would have liked them to.....I dont know what to tell you. Dont conflate what OTHERS said with what I am saying. Which is simply that I suspect that Disney SW is underperforming compared to expectations. I fully believe they thought that by this point that initial 4b would be back in the bank(or very close to it), instead it looks like they are easily another 6-8 years away from that mark if timing of releases and sales stay the same.

Id be surprised if KK isnt replaced before they really ramp up the next "phase" of their SW.

[segara82]

@PACOX
Every company compares the profits with the investment. Especially a big one like Disney.
From a purely financial point of view SW has been a bad investment. It has after 8 years and several big projects a maybe 25% ROI-rate. That's about 3% ROI per year.
For the proud sum of 4 billion dollars Disney could have instead made more money by buying other IPs, or creating their own, new IPs.
Look at Frozen, 2 movies, lots of sold merch, no problematic reports about production issues or fan protests, basically for free IP, ... raking in billions.
Marvel, bought for a comparable prize, is still going strong after 11 years and 23 movies, and aside from the Larson-hiccups beloved by fans, selling merch .. further raking in billions and already a net profit.
Even their live readaption/remakes of classic Disney movies shows better numbers.

Star Wars is, as a whole after factoring in all costs of acquisition, production, and advertisement, still a loss.
Did some movies make a profit? TFA and TLJ did at the box office. tRoS so far, not.
The whole IP is plagued with low merch sales, DVD/BRs not selling, fan backlash/protests, reports of production troubles, ...

So yes, the IP as a whole has suffered and lost worth.

[Ihavewaffles]

Star Wars: Ewan McGregor Watched Mandalorian to Prepare for Obi-Wan Series.

https://screenrant.com/star-wars-obi...ney-plus-prep/
BY DAN ZINSKI
FEB 01, 2020

Ewan McGregor watched The Mandalorian to prepare for his own Star Wars show Obi-Wan Kenobi. Alec Guinness of course originated the role of Kenobi, the wide old Jedi wizard, in 1977’s Star Wars: A New Hope. McGregor came on board as the younger version of Kenobi for George Lucas’ Star Wars prequels and many argue his performance as the Jedi Master was one of the much-maligned trilogy’s few bright spots.

Now, Lucasfilm and Disney are preparing to again revisit the character of Obi-Wan in a series set to stream on Disney+. Unfortunately, things have already gotten rocky for the new project as the show’s shooting has been delayed. Reportedly, Kathleen Kennedy herself was responsible for creating the delay when she raised objections to the show’s scripts, forcing rewrites. McGregor himself recently came out to reassure audiences that despite the delay, Obi-Wan will reach their screens on the original release date (which has not as yet been made public).

In an appearance on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon to promote his role as Black Mask in the upcoming DC movie Birds of Prey, McGregor again addressed Obi-Wan, albeit briefly. When discussing his preparation for the role, McGregor talked about another Disney+ series that he has watched in order to help him get into the Star Wars vibe.

“I’ve been watching The Mandalorian. I liked it. I really liked it. And I’m just trying to keep abreast of all the new Star Wars films that come out. And I’m excited about it. It’s been a long time. I can’t remember when the last one I did. 2003 I think was the last one I did. ”

McGregor’s mention of The Mandalorian of course immediately prompted Fallon to joke about the actor playing Baby Obi-Wan in the new show. McGregor picked up on the bit and joked about the show using Irishman-like deaging technology to turn him into an infant version of the Jedi Master.

Of course, Obi-Wan Kenobi has no known plans to reveal a baby version of Obi-Wan, despite the wild success of the Baby Yoda character from Mandalorian. Interestingly though, it has been reported that Kennedy and Lucasfilm rejected the scripts written for Obi-Wan precisely because they were too close in story to Mandalorian, even including young versions of Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia. So perhaps McGregor and Fallon’s jokes about Obi-Wan using tricks from Mandalorian weren’t so far off base after all.

Whatever Lucasfilm and company do have in store for fans with Obi-Wan Kenobi, it’s going to be awhile before audiences get a chance to see the show, as it isn’t set to go before cameras until at least January of next year. With the film franchise seemingly at a crossroads after reaction to Rise of Skywalker, shows like Mandalorian, Obi-Wan Kenobi and even the upcoming Cassian Andor series may end up playing a huge role in keeping the Star Wars torch lit, so a lot is riding on their being able to make fans happy.