Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Eek out? The film did another 55 million last week. It doesn’t exit theatres this week.

It also hasn’t even released in a few possible majors. UK and Japan particularly. You might want to take another stab at that prediction.

Let's say Japan and the UK go crazy for it and Americans just keep showing up in modest numbers and it makes another $150 Million at the global box office.

Elemental will still lose $60 Million.

But my hunch is that Elemental's ultimate loss column by Labor Day will be at least $100 Million. Yay? 🤔
 

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Let's say Japan and the UK go crazy for it and Americans just keep showing up in modest numbers and it makes another $150 Million at the global box office.

Elemental will still lose $60 Million.

But my hunch is that Elemental's ultimate loss column by Labor Day will be at least $100 Million. Yay? 🤔

I just needed to correct your trajectory. Not so much the actual end point. Much like Mermaid which was declared finished 100 million dollars ago.

If Elemental does get to 100 mil lost post box office, it'll be in a good break even situation post theatrically. Again never the internal goal, they want oodles of money from all ends, but at least another non-loss.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I just needed to correct your trajectory. Not so much the actual end point. Much like Mermaid which was declared finished 100 million dollars ago.

$100 Million ago for Mermaid was June 16th. I doubt anyone was declaring Mermaid "finished" only three weeks after it opened.

If anything, back in the middle of June the most realistic among us was declaring Mermaid a "money loser" for Disney, but not yet "finished" at the box office. And yet, Mermaid is now indeed going to be a money loser for Disney. It failed to make any profit at the box office.

 

flynnibus

Premium Member
That article highlights the point I've made about Disney.... TLM is reported as the #4 film of year with domestic gross... yet we are talking about how big of a financial flop it is for the company.

A Live-Action remake should not be a 'to the moon or fail' kind of project. It's a remake for crying out loud. Disney's model for profitability is BUSTED. You can't survive assuming every film will make 1billion dollars just to stay afloat.

They are cash drunk and need an intervention. My guess is end of FY2023 is it and their will be a whole new sheriff in town soon.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
That article highlights the point I've made about Disney.... TLM is reported as the #4 film of year with domestic gross... yet we are talking about how big of a financial flop it is for the company.

A Live-Action remake should not be a 'to the moon or fail' kind of project. It's a remake for crying out loud. Disney's model for profitability is BUSTED. You can't survive assuming every film will make 1billion dollars just to stay afloat.

They are cash drunk and need an intervention. My guess is end of FY2023 is it and their will be a whole new sheriff in town soon.
Disney movies NEVER make a loss. Ever. This too shall pass. Soon, all of those films will turn a profit.

Now, the people that greenlit the films won’t be around by then, but hey, those are the breaks.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Disney movies NEVER make a loss. Ever. This too shall pass. Soon, all of those films will turn a profit.

Now, the people that greenlit the films won’t be around by then, but hey, those are the breaks.
I wouldn't say Disney movies NEVER make a loss, but the company has a good way of making a profit off of movies that were initially bombs. Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all flops on original release, but made a lot of money in rereleases and merchandise.

Newsies was a box office bomb, but it developed a cult following and Disney was able to turn it into a profitable award-winning Broadway show. Hocus Pocus was once a flop and is now one of the most popular Halloween classics.
 

drizgirl

Well-Known Member
I wouldn't say Disney movies NEVER make a loss, but the company has a good way of making a profit off of movies that were initially bombs. Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all flops on original release, but made a lot of money in rereleases and merchandise.

Newsies was a box office bomb, but it developed a cult following and Disney was able to turn it into a profitable award-winning Broadway show. Hocus Pocus was once a flop and is now one of the most popular Halloween classics.
But there's the opportunity cost. Even if a film eventually makes it up later, if a film was hoped to be a blockbuster, they don't get that chance back. They can only make so many of these high budget movies.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
but the company has a good way of making a profit off of movies that were initially bombs. Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all flops on original release, but made a lot of money in rereleases and merchandise.
That's true for sure. I do wonder with the secondary release market being D+ only for the most part, If Disney can really leverage that extra cash from a film. At least in the quantity they did back then. Sure there's still some blue ray and digital purchase sales I know. But they don't nearly account for what vhs/dvd was as well as rentals and the broadcast rights. Is D+ getting as many eyes on a film as before? I'm not sure, Disney has kept most of the numbers in the dark so we're stuck guessing. I'm not sure there's another studio who could get as much out of a film as Disney did. I'm just not sure this current group at Disney has the ability to make it happen.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
That's true for sure. I do wonder with the secondary release market being D+ only for the most part, If Disney can really leverage that extra cash from a film. At least in the quantity they did back then. Sure there's still some blue ray and digital purchase sales I know. But they don't nearly account for what vhs/dvd was as well as rentals and the broadcast rights. Is D+ getting as many eyes on a film as before? I'm not sure, Disney has kept most of the numbers in the dark so we're stuck guessing. I'm not sure there's another studio who could get as much out of a film as Disney did. I'm just not sure this current group at Disney has the ability to make it happen.
Since Disney has switched this year to a PVOD window prior to D+ release it can no longer be said that D+ is its only secondary market. So they do get digital rental and sales for a period of time before going onto D+.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Barbie is rated PG-13, and the marketing/trailers are making it clear it's not for small children.

I doubt there will be many 7 year old girls in the audience for Barbie, or at least 7 year old girls whose mother's are protective and sane.

I'm baffled why Disney didn't make Barbie and instead let it go to Warner Bros. Mattel used to be the sponsor of Small World at Disneyland and they had that awful Barbie stage show at Epcot Center during the Clinton years. Why would Disney pass on Barbie?
Seriously. They could have put her in front of a map pandering to China . . .
 

TalkingHead

Well-Known Member
Pinocchio, Fantasia, Alice in Wonderland and Sleeping Beauty were all flops on original release, but made a lot of money in rereleases…
Which is part of the problem since they’ve stopped doing re-releases and killed their home video market because of D+. The theatrical release to steaming pipeline has fewer metrics to show for it so the initial release numbers become the dominant part of the conversation.

Think about how the Disney Vault concept encouraged purchases because VHS/DVD releases were events. They moved a lot of merch because of that get-it-while-you-can pressure. Streaming takes all that away, and probably diminishes the value of older titles by making them available at all times.

Would be fascinating to know what kinds of demo data is out there for various under-18 age groups and their familiarity with Disney titles pre-89 Mermaid.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Seriously. They could have put her in front of a map pandering to China . . .
Filmmakers actually did that -

F0LM4bjakAQaTPF.jpg


And its causing the film to get banned or potentially banned in some countries.

 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Since Disney has switched this year to a PVOD window prior to D+ release it can no longer be said that D+ is its only secondary market. So they do get digital rental and sales for a period of time before going onto D+.
I said for the most part, I know there's still a physical and digital window, I mentioned that already. But my point still stands, it isn't nearly what it was. I just went to Vudu and you can't rent onward, soul, luca, turning red. You can rent light-year and strange world. So sure, it's not just D+, but it might as well be. They no longer have a huge secondary income market for the films like they used to. So my question still stands, can they still leverage that extra money in the environment that they are in?
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
Think about how the Disney Vault concept encouraged purchases because VHS/DVD releases were events. They moved a lot of merch because of that get-it-while-you-can pressure. Streaming takes all that away, and probably diminishes the value of older titles by making them available at all times.

Sure, but you can't blame Disney for leaving the VHS vault model.... The market for that is dead -- replaced by those who want instant access and the street demand for recurring revenue.

You can't be a dinosaur and hold onto old concepts forever... the world changes and so you need to as well.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I said for the most part, I know there's still a physical and digital window, I mentioned that already. But my point still stands, it isn't nearly what it was. I just went to Vudu and you can't rent onward, soul, luca, turning red. You can rent light-year and strange world. So sure, it's not just D+, but it might as well be. They no longer have a huge secondary income market for the films like they used to. So my question still stands, can they still leverage that extra money in the environment that they are in?
I think they can. And if its not through that they will find other ways to make revenue from a film once its left theaters.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Filmmakers actually did that -

F0LM4bjakAQaTPF.jpg


And its causing the film to get banned or potentially banned in some countries.

They didn’t exactly “do” it in the sense of intending anything. Someone clearly just adapted an existing map without any awareness of its political implications.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
They didn’t exactly “do” it in the sense of intending anything. Someone clearly just adapted an existing map without any awareness of its political implications.
Well the 9 dashes are the representation of China's claim over the region. If not to kowtow to China it shouldn't be as its just a land mass called "Asia". So to me that indicates intention. But hey I'll give the benefit of the doubt here. Nonetheless its getting the movie banned in several countries in the region.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Well the 9 dashes are the representation of China's claim over the region. If not to kowtow to China it shouldn't be as its just a land mass called "Asia". So to me that indicates intention. But hey I'll give the benefit of the doubt here. Nonetheless its getting the movie banned in several countries in the region.
I mean, it’s a wildly inaccurate cartoon map. There are similar lines near Greenland. Whatever’s going on, it clearly isn’t designed to kowtow to China.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom