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

[MagicHappens1971]

This was actually gone over in this thread before.

Sorry if I missed it, this thread has become nauseating. I just popped in for the first time in a while.

TSG Entertainment is one of the producers on the film. TSG is the financing partner for 20th Century Studios including Searchlight. So while we don't know the exact breakdown, Disney does have some skin in the game on this film more than just marketing.

Unfortunately when talking about budgets and box office too many just put that on the distributor, even if they aren't the one footing the bill.

Gotcha. Not discrediting the fact that Disney has some financial issues in the Studios department, but discussing a very well nominated and what most likely will be an Academy Award winning film with a small budget split amongst other companies seems a little silly.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

I wish they had a "confused" emoji for this thread. I understand about half what I read, I think?

 

[Phroobar]

I wish they had a "confused" emoji for this thread. I understand about half what I read, I think?

Think how hard it is to follow when one has half of them on ignore for being trolls.

 

[Eric Graham]

Has Disney had a hit since John Lasseter? The gem that he was...

 

[doctornick]

I do think there is a conversation to be had about how the failed Sony Marvel movies might have an unintended negative impact on the Disney Marvel movies if there are many consumers who can't tell the difference.

It's a question to be had perhaps, but the MCU was thriving at at its peak in the past when both FOX and Sony were putting out (inferior) competing Marvel films so it seems that movie goers are likely at least a bit more discerning. It's not like Fant4stic bombing (for example) impacted the MCU and theatergoers certainly seemed to know the difference by and large between the products.

That said, with all the Marvel products out these days due to D+, there is probably more opportunity for confusion.

 

[TP2000]

Has Disney had a hit since John Lasseter? The gem that he was...

He left in 2018. As far as Disney movies since Covid ended, the only Disney movies that made a profit at the box office were Marvel movies in 2022 and 2023; Spiderman No Way Home, Dr Strange Multiverse, Wakanda Forever, and Guardians 3...

 

[Eric Graham]

He left in 2018. As far as Disney movies since Covid ended, the only Disney movies that made a profit at the box office were Marvel movies in 2022 and 2023; Spiderman No Way Home, Dr Strange Multiverse, Wakanda Forever, and Guardians 3...

Sorry, it was just a question. Didn't mean any offense... Kind of neat, when I was at a botanical garden here I met the stand in for Chadwick Boseman while they were filming the Black Panther. Same build and everything....

 

[TP2000]

Sorry, it was just a question. Didn't mean any offense... Kind of neat, when I was at a botanical garden here I met the stand in for Chadwick Boseman while they were filming the Black Panther. Same build and everything....

No offense taken. It's a valid question, and the results show how weak and underperforming almost all of Disney's flagship studios have become suddenly.

The only box office bright spot for Disney post-Covid was Marvel in 2022, but Marvel had a much weaker 2023.

And now it's 2024...

 

[Ghost93]

It's a question to be had perhaps, but the MCU was thriving at at its peak in the past when both FOX and Sony were putting out (inferior) competing Marvel films so it seems that movie goers are likely at least a bit more discerning. It's not like Fant4stic bombing (for example) impacted the MCU and theatergoers certainly seemed to know the difference by and large between the products.

That said, with all the Marvel products out these days due to D+, there is probably more opportunity for confusion.

I admittedly enjoyed Madame Web more than I did Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Thor: Love and Thunder or the Marvels. Madame Web was probably the worst-made, but it had some "it's so bad it's good" entertainment value, whereas the other three were just kind of "meh."

Marvel Studios needs like four AMAZING movies in a row to turn its reputation around.

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

 

[doctornick]

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

I wasn't trying to characterize all their films as inferior just that when poorer films from FOX or Sony came out (e.g. Fant4stic, Apocalypse, Amazing Spider-Man 2, etc.) that it didn't affect MCU movies released in the same timeframe. So the audience at least seemed to have some idea as to the different studios existing and different franchises despite all being "Marvel".

 

[BuddyThomas]

To be fair, All of Us Strangers probably didn't cost a lot of money to make. It's also a phenomenal movie, so I'm glad it exists from an artistic standpoint.

Exactly. It has a total of four speaking roles in the entire movie.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I admittedly enjoyed Madame Web more than I did Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Thor: Love and Thunder or the Marvels. Madame Web was probably the worst-made, but it had some "it's so bad it's good" entertainment value, whereas the other three were just kind of "meh."

Marvel Studios needs like four AMAZING movies in a row to turn its reputation around.

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

I also keep reading that Madame Web is so bad it’s good. That type of thing is right up my alley. Was going to go tonight but was lucky to score a cheap ticket to Spamalot on Broadway, so Madame Web will have to wait.

 

[DKampy]

AI also keep reading that Madame Web is so bad it’s good. That type of thing is right up my alley. Was going to go tonight but was lucky to score a cheap ticket to Spamalot on Broadway, so Madame Web will have to wait.

I am jealous…I have seen some clips of Spamalot on YouTube…it looks like a hoot

 

[Disney Analyst]

FYI (related and unrelated to box office, but I dunno).

 

[doctornick]

Actually, Spider-Man:NWH was a huge Sony movie, not a Disney success.

Actually it’s both of them. The Spider-Man movies are co- productions between the two studios and Disney gets 25% of the profits (so obviously Sony benefits more from the box office). Disney also owns all the merchandising rights for the movies.

 

[Disney Irish]

Fully understood, but to trumpet NWH as a Disney theatrical success is incorrect as the film is produced, marketed, and distributed by SPE.

It might have been distributed by Sony Pictures, but it was co-produced by Columbia (Sony) and Marvel Studios. This is the only reason why Dr Strange was in the movie, if it was only produced by Columbia/Sony they would have no access to Strange.

 

[TP2000]

Actually, Spider-Man:NWH was a huge Sony movie, not a Disney success.

Always important to note that film grossed nearly $2 Billion ($1.912M) in December 2021 just three weeks after Encanto bombed with only $256M globally because of (Pick one of the following): Covid, families scared to go to theaters, streaming, dog ate my homework.

Oh, thank you for the clarification. The Spiderman Belongs To Sony thing is still confusing, especially for those who have been to Avenger's Campus at DCA and are familiar with the Spiderman ride there.

And yikes, that box office difference between Encanto and Spiderman is quite telling. I can only imagine the excuses that some folks used to blame Covid! for Encanto's tepid box office response. At least for three weeks until Spiderman came out.

Encanto: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $58, Foreign B.O. Take $54 = $113 Million Loss
Spiderman: $200 Production, $100 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $488, Foreign B.O. Take $438 = $626 Million Profit

 

[doctornick]

Fully understood, but to trumpet NWH as a Disney theatrical success is incorrect as the film is produced, marketed, and distributed by SPE.

It's actually produced by Marvel Studios (Disney). Columbia Pictures has nominal final creative control, but essentially defers to Marvel Studios. Sony provides (most of the) financing and marketing and handles distribution. Disney provides 25% of financing and has full merchandising rights.

Sony certainly benefited the most financially from NWH, but if we are discussing it as a creative success, that would be due to Feige and Marvel Studios.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh, thank you for the clarification. The Spiderman Belongs To Sony thing is still confusing, especially for those who have been to Avenger's Campus at DCA and are familiar with the Spiderman ride there.

And yikes, that box office difference between Encanto and Spiderman is quite telling. I can only imagine the excuses that some folks used to blame Covid! for Encanto's tepid box office response. At least for three weeks until Spiderman came out.

View attachment 769572

Encanto: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $58, Foreign B.O. Take $54 = $113 Million Loss
Spiderman: $200 Production, $100 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $488, Foreign B.O. Take $438 = $626 Million Profit

All you have to know is that any Spider-Man movie starring Tom Holland is co-financed and co-produced by Marvel Studios and Sony Pictures. This allows the Tom Holland version of Spider-Man to be in Avengers Campus.

Beyond that any Spider-Man related movie not using Tom Holland is solely financed and produced by Sony Pictures with only minor involvement from Marvel Entertainment (parent Marvel division at Disney) just to ensure that Sony is using the characters properly. These characters will not be in Avengers Campus.

 

[Disney Irish]

It's actually produced by Marvel Studios (Disney). Columbia Pictures has nominal final creative control, but essentially defers to Marvel Studios. Sony provides (most of the) financing and marketing and handles distribution. Disney provides 25% of financing and has full merchandising rights.

Sony certainly benefited the most financially from NWH, but if we are discussing it as a creative success, that would be due to Feige and Marvel Studios.

Yep, Disney ponies up 25% financing and gets 25% of the box office and 100% merch. All for the ability of Sony getting access to Feige and Marvel Studios for creative "help" (read almost entire creative control) and access to the MCU for those films.

Spider-Man Back In Action As Sony Agrees To Disney Co-Fi For New Movie, Return To MCU: How Spidey’s Web Got Untangled

UPDATED with more details: Sony has agreed to the terms that Disney originally proposed for its participation in a third Spider-Man movie, whereby Disney/Marvel would co-finance 25% of a third Homecoming movie for a 25% equity stake. The deal also calls for Spider-Man appearing in one more...

deadline.com