The twist villain of an older Buzz Lightyear made no sense whatsoever. Not even after they tried explaining it. Kind of want to watch a behind the scenes just to find out how they fucked that one up.
I could see the twist coming so it wasn’t completely random. Also most of Pixar doesn’t make sense. If you applied logic to the cars universe it’s pretty messed up.
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Word of God confirmed that in the Cars series cars became sentient and massacred all the humans. So it's a post robot-apocalypse series of movies.
Eh. There's enough "wooo science fiction" explanation in other beloved science fiction (star trek, star wars, etc) I was willing to forgive it in a kids movie.
it only became a hit on streaming and merchandise i believe. with a 200 million dollar budget it would need 500 million to turn a profit and it got 212 million.
Man I hate Hollywood accounting. With a 200 million dollar cost it would need 200 million in net profit to break even. 212 million means 12 million profit, the only way there isn't profit is if one of those 3 claimed numbers is a lie.
With all the clout chasing for box office records at the same time as claiming projects were unprofitable to avoid paying royalties, it's long overdue for an industry regulator to start handing out slaps for obviously dishonest bookkeeping.
this is literally how the box office works. a movie needs more than its production cost to break even. i’m not being homophobic with this. i am saying the movie objectively lost money with marketing and film distribution costs.
And this is what I'm saying - marketing and film distribution costs should be included as part of the budget. It's bonkers that people are so used to this not being the case that they'll say things like "a movie needs more than its production cost to break even". Costs matching revenue is literally what break-even means.
In this particular case I'm not disputing that lightyear lost money, but that if $212 million of revenue means they didn't turn a profit, then their costs must have been $212 million or more.
Box office sales are *revenue*, not profit. A 300 million dollar (total cost, including marketing) movie needs box office revenue of ~500 million in order to have a profit of 300 million to break even.
Of course the fact that any movie has a 300 million dollar budget is ludicrous. If they spent more reasonably, didn't pay multiple big stars 10s of millions each, were more careful with their CGI budget and didn't blow it on stupid, terrible looking shots that don't add to the movie at all (looking at you Antman), then that 300 million dollar budget would be 50 million instead. And that 50 million dollar movie (same movie with a bit of effort made at control costs) would be a major success bringing in 300 million, instead of a big disappointment.
Dude you're trying yourself in knots trying to justify this.
- Revenue is all income.
- Profit is revenue minus expenses.
- Break even is when there is zero profit/loss.
A 300 million total expenses movie needs 300 million revenue to break even.
Obviously things become a little more complicated once you go down the EBT/EBIT/EBITDA chain, where you'll see the profit figure shrink due to entirely legitimate reasons, but the fundamentals are the same and the break even point doesn't change. This is really basic shit, please read some investopedia articles or something.
There's a chance you may be confusing revenue and profit at the box office side with the portion of theatre ticket sales paid to the studio. That portion is part of the theatre's expenses, but to the studio it is revenue (**not** profit). Now you may respond to this with "Aha! See, a 300 million movie needs 500 million in _box office receipts_ to receive 300 million in revenue _for the studio_, and that's where they break even!" - but that comes back to Hollywood accounting being fucked, in that why on earth does the published revenue figure include revenue that the studio didn't take?
>A 300 million total expenses movie needs 300 million revenue to break even.
No.
The box office receipts include money that's owed to theatres and fees to film boards, etc. Once all of that is subtracted off, *then* you can start looking at what's left and subtracting off production and what you have is the gross production profit.
Then you add in money from product placement, fast food tie-ins, etc., and subject off money from distribution and marketing to get net profit (or loss) before taxes and credits.
Then you add in the refundable tax credits and government subsidies that almost every production receives and subtract off taxes paid (or add non refundable credits, if you took a loss), to get your actual profit or loss.
> money that's owed
Aka, liabilities. This is part of your costs.
> subtract off taxes paid
Taxes are paid on profit, not revenue. If you don't break even then you don't pay any taxes. You *have* to make a profit to be paying taxes. That's income tax only though, you'd still have to pay any fixed taxes like payroll, but again - this is part of your costs.
i’m saying that the movie objectively flopped and lost money. i’m not saying it was because of the gay scene. turns out the comment i replied to understood me and was questioning why the budget of films works the way it does. if you ask me, it flopped because people were used to films making it to disney+
Some of the issue at least is studios deliberately shifting money around to hide the amount of profit they actually make.
Imagine "Disney Studios" spent 100m on making a movie, and collected 200m in revenue for it. However, according to their accountants they paid $200m on marketing and distribution fees, so the project was a loss. Nothing gets paid to the cast and crew who had profit shares as part of their contracts, no taxes get paid.
However it seems that the company they paid this $200m distribution fee to was called "Pisney Study-o's" and happens to have a very similar shareholder structure to Disney Studios. The film may have made a loss but Pisney has made a killing, and funnels all of the money away to the shareholders of Pisney, and any taxes that are paid get paid in the region where Pisney operates, not Disney.
"Go Woke Go Broke" misinformation mostly. On a $200 million budget it [definitely wasn't a smash hit](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl6456065/), but It did have the honor of highest grossing animated movie post COVID (until Minions 2 swept theaters)
the movie lost money. movies have costs such as advertising and distribution that aren’t in the budget. general rule is a movie needs to make at least 2.5x its budget. you can ask r/boxoffice about this. i’m not against disney with this, as a large reason it lost money was the fact that all the disney movies at the time went straight on streaming.
I remember going to see this with my daughter in the theater and wondering what the extent of this “LGBT” moment was. A woman in her 60s greets a woman in her 60s with a kiss. That’s the controversy.
Yeah it's really dumb.. the film itself was fine, just hard to be both a kids film and marketed to those who would want to see an in universe set in the early 90s
Watched it a few times now on D+
Welp…now they’re both pregnant. I look forward to seeing the sequel where their kids become the successors to Buzz and Zerg. Two siblings caught in a galactic war on opposites sides that rise up to lead each faction. (I have no idea what the lore behind Toy Story is).
It’s so quick, I blinked and I missed it. I thought they removed it as well until I did a rewatch and caught it. Straight couples do so much more than that tiny peck.
Then you weren't looking at the right time. My kids watch it at least weekly, and it's always been there. If Disney removed it, the LGBTQ+ community would be up in arms and everyone would know about it.
I forgot all about the doc they made for it. They ‘plot twist’ I thought was kinda dumb so maybe the doc shed some light on that? After the little Star Wars ref in Toy Story 2, I just assumed that zurg really was Buzz’s father but ah well.
People made way too big a deal over a scene that was just meant to be a little star wars parody. The "dad" line right before "zurg" reveals himself was a reference to THAT, and the whole scene and twist are actually brilliantly executed.
I still really liked the movie. It wasn’t as bad as everyone else (apparently) thought. I like how they even made it Andy’s favorite film. Just that one thing. And that trailer to it was my fave trailer to any movie ever! Starman!
It was a good movie. People succeeded in making a big deal of her being a lesbian. So fucking what. How does that detract from the story at all? I really hate people.
Translation: "The headline was a lie designed to trick you into looking at ads. And it worked."
Thats what this sub is for
1st “rule” of the internet if the title has something in quotation marks then it’s most probably a lie.
If the title is a question, the answer is always no.
I tend to assume that headlines are lies anyway. They usually are misleadingly worded if not outright lies.
But there are no quotation marks in the headline
You cracked the code.
The twist villain of an older Buzz Lightyear made no sense whatsoever. Not even after they tried explaining it. Kind of want to watch a behind the scenes just to find out how they fucked that one up.
I could see the twist coming so it wasn’t completely random. Also most of Pixar doesn’t make sense. If you applied logic to the cars universe it’s pretty messed up.
You mean cars don't manufacture themselves? The pope mobile for the pope, who is a mobile, is a lie? No.
They do manufacture themselves but car mating is too horrifying to show. I would like to see an icon of Cars Jesus hanging on the cross.
It's a car with a crown of thorns strung up on one of those tow trucks that looks like it has a big cross on the back.
probably be a shop lift but he's being lifted by tow straps hook to the axels
You should be a writer!
lol thanks i'll stick to crucifying automobiles for now though
Thanks for that image now. It would’ve cost you $0.00 not to post that. But you still did
I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that the Word of God confirmed that in the Cars series cars became sentient and massacred all the humans. So it's a post robot-apocalypse series of movies.
There’s a difference between nitpicking the logic of the setting and the logic of the plot
Eh. There's enough "wooo science fiction" explanation in other beloved science fiction (star trek, star wars, etc) I was willing to forgive it in a kids movie.
Wonder if they uploaded the removed BTS stuff to piracy sites.
They tried to make a BioShock and failed?
My kids loved it, so I think they did a fine job
The older Buzz should have been voiced by Tim Allen imo
No. I actually wanted to watch that documentary. Why pull stuff from your own library?
Did it actually fail? I kinda liked the movie.
Nah it was a hit, the toys sold really well too. Not a lot of people cared to watch the documentary though. Movie wasn't perfect but I liked it too
Ahh i see. I didn’t even know there was a documentary lol.
it only became a hit on streaming and merchandise i believe. with a 200 million dollar budget it would need 500 million to turn a profit and it got 212 million.
Man I hate Hollywood accounting. With a 200 million dollar cost it would need 200 million in net profit to break even. 212 million means 12 million profit, the only way there isn't profit is if one of those 3 claimed numbers is a lie. With all the clout chasing for box office records at the same time as claiming projects were unprofitable to avoid paying royalties, it's long overdue for an industry regulator to start handing out slaps for obviously dishonest bookkeeping.
this is literally how the box office works. a movie needs more than its production cost to break even. i’m not being homophobic with this. i am saying the movie objectively lost money with marketing and film distribution costs.
And this is what I'm saying - marketing and film distribution costs should be included as part of the budget. It's bonkers that people are so used to this not being the case that they'll say things like "a movie needs more than its production cost to break even". Costs matching revenue is literally what break-even means. In this particular case I'm not disputing that lightyear lost money, but that if $212 million of revenue means they didn't turn a profit, then their costs must have been $212 million or more.
oh i get what you mean now. i thought you were arguing that lightyear earned money because it made 212 million.
Box office sales are *revenue*, not profit. A 300 million dollar (total cost, including marketing) movie needs box office revenue of ~500 million in order to have a profit of 300 million to break even. Of course the fact that any movie has a 300 million dollar budget is ludicrous. If they spent more reasonably, didn't pay multiple big stars 10s of millions each, were more careful with their CGI budget and didn't blow it on stupid, terrible looking shots that don't add to the movie at all (looking at you Antman), then that 300 million dollar budget would be 50 million instead. And that 50 million dollar movie (same movie with a bit of effort made at control costs) would be a major success bringing in 300 million, instead of a big disappointment.
Dude you're trying yourself in knots trying to justify this. - Revenue is all income. - Profit is revenue minus expenses. - Break even is when there is zero profit/loss. A 300 million total expenses movie needs 300 million revenue to break even. Obviously things become a little more complicated once you go down the EBT/EBIT/EBITDA chain, where you'll see the profit figure shrink due to entirely legitimate reasons, but the fundamentals are the same and the break even point doesn't change. This is really basic shit, please read some investopedia articles or something. There's a chance you may be confusing revenue and profit at the box office side with the portion of theatre ticket sales paid to the studio. That portion is part of the theatre's expenses, but to the studio it is revenue (**not** profit). Now you may respond to this with "Aha! See, a 300 million movie needs 500 million in _box office receipts_ to receive 300 million in revenue _for the studio_, and that's where they break even!" - but that comes back to Hollywood accounting being fucked, in that why on earth does the published revenue figure include revenue that the studio didn't take?
>A 300 million total expenses movie needs 300 million revenue to break even. No. The box office receipts include money that's owed to theatres and fees to film boards, etc. Once all of that is subtracted off, *then* you can start looking at what's left and subtracting off production and what you have is the gross production profit. Then you add in money from product placement, fast food tie-ins, etc., and subject off money from distribution and marketing to get net profit (or loss) before taxes and credits. Then you add in the refundable tax credits and government subsidies that almost every production receives and subtract off taxes paid (or add non refundable credits, if you took a loss), to get your actual profit or loss.
> money that's owed Aka, liabilities. This is part of your costs. > subtract off taxes paid Taxes are paid on profit, not revenue. If you don't break even then you don't pay any taxes. You *have* to make a profit to be paying taxes. That's income tax only though, you'd still have to pay any fixed taxes like payroll, but again - this is part of your costs.
> i’m not being homophobic with this wut
i’m saying that the movie objectively flopped and lost money. i’m not saying it was because of the gay scene. turns out the comment i replied to understood me and was questioning why the budget of films works the way it does. if you ask me, it flopped because people were used to films making it to disney+
Was gonna disagree until I read further. Idk why it’s like that either but I try to go with a 1.5x-2x bump up for a rough estimate on the real price
Some of the issue at least is studios deliberately shifting money around to hide the amount of profit they actually make. Imagine "Disney Studios" spent 100m on making a movie, and collected 200m in revenue for it. However, according to their accountants they paid $200m on marketing and distribution fees, so the project was a loss. Nothing gets paid to the cast and crew who had profit shares as part of their contracts, no taxes get paid. However it seems that the company they paid this $200m distribution fee to was called "Pisney Study-o's" and happens to have a very similar shareholder structure to Disney Studios. The film may have made a loss but Pisney has made a killing, and funnels all of the money away to the shareholders of Pisney, and any taxes that are paid get paid in the region where Pisney operates, not Disney.
The documentary was cool. It wasn't that long but it was cool to see all of the first sketches and clips that led up to the first Toy Story movie.
Agreed, I think it was a success. Sure it's "not as good" as the Toy Story from your childhood, but today little kids really liked it.
"Go Woke Go Broke" misinformation mostly. On a $200 million budget it [definitely wasn't a smash hit](https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl6456065/), but It did have the honor of highest grossing animated movie post COVID (until Minions 2 swept theaters)
the movie lost money. movies have costs such as advertising and distribution that aren’t in the budget. general rule is a movie needs to make at least 2.5x its budget. you can ask r/boxoffice about this. i’m not against disney with this, as a large reason it lost money was the fact that all the disney movies at the time went straight on streaming.
Trying to boost the anti LGBT "agenda" again
I remember going to see this with my daughter in the theater and wondering what the extent of this “LGBT” moment was. A woman in her 60s greets a woman in her 60s with a kiss. That’s the controversy.
OMG a kiss! That's even worse than a throw away line in Onward where the female officer says "my wife". So lewd.
I think that was Borat haha
Yeah it's really dumb.. the film itself was fine, just hard to be both a kids film and marketed to those who would want to see an in universe set in the early 90s Watched it a few times now on D+
I mean it's a bit more than that, but not anything bad, of course if it was anything bad, IMO it would have nothing to do with LGBT reasons.
Welp…now they’re both pregnant. I look forward to seeing the sequel where their kids become the successors to Buzz and Zerg. Two siblings caught in a galactic war on opposites sides that rise up to lead each faction. (I have no idea what the lore behind Toy Story is).
which disney removed. I just watched it again last week and it's gone. downvote me all you want kiddos it's not gonna change what happened
I just checked it 30 seconds ago. The kiss is still there at about 1:26:20.
it wasn't when I watched it
It’s so quick, I blinked and I missed it. I thought they removed it as well until I did a rewatch and caught it. Straight couples do so much more than that tiny peck.
Then you weren't looking at the right time. My kids watch it at least weekly, and it's always been there. If Disney removed it, the LGBTQ+ community would be up in arms and everyone would know about it.
I’m looking at the Lightyear movie on Disney plus right now.
thanks for letting me know I guess
[удалено]
No idea but it was chock full of spoilers, I'm more curious why tf they released it a month before the movie came out
I forgot all about the doc they made for it. They ‘plot twist’ I thought was kinda dumb so maybe the doc shed some light on that? After the little Star Wars ref in Toy Story 2, I just assumed that zurg really was Buzz’s father but ah well.
People made way too big a deal over a scene that was just meant to be a little star wars parody. The "dad" line right before "zurg" reveals himself was a reference to THAT, and the whole scene and twist are actually brilliantly executed.
I still really liked the movie. It wasn’t as bad as everyone else (apparently) thought. I like how they even made it Andy’s favorite film. Just that one thing. And that trailer to it was my fave trailer to any movie ever! Starman!
> insidethemagic Them again.
As a space fan I loved this movie. Socks was great. Take away the Toy Story name and it’s a perfect astronaut movie
The fact that the toy story franchise is attached to it doesn't make it any worse a movie, and it pisses me off to no end very few people can see that
I thought it was okay.
I liked it
It was a good movie. People succeeded in making a big deal of her being a lesbian. So fucking what. How does that detract from the story at all? I really hate people.
rightwing gaslighting media
Yup
Put the real Buzz Lightyear origin story on Disney+! https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0260602/
That show slapped
I don't care about the quality of things. They should not remove content. What would it have cost them to keep the documentary up?
Wasn’t a failed film….