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

[celluloid]

I am not one who thinks theatrical box office is the end all be all especially for art film of it’s caliber…but it has more than doubled it’s cost at a 35 million budget and has already out performed the directors last film which I am sure what Disney was wanting

This is a box office thread, it is going to be the main discussion.

I would look to Everything Everywhere All at Once for a gauge on what you are describing.

 

[DKampy]

A few things here.

You have you seen Lisa Frankenstein? It is different for sure, but has a raunch in it. When you see it, you will know. (chopping an appendage off with an ax and sewing it on someone else is not raunchy to you?)

Also, different audience was irrelevant to what I was responding to with the logic of seeing enough car chases.

The Fast and Furious movies and Bourne both have car chases, but are different audiences.

Lego Batman and The Marvels are both superhero movies with different audience.

My post stands in response to the humor of the oversaturation and trends.

Lisa Franeknstein: Rated PG-13 for bloody scenes, violence, sexual assult, Sexual assult and Sexual material.
Warm Bodies: Rated PG-13 for Zombie Violence and Language.

Piece of advice, don't just go by trailers.

Yes… I should of clarified it is a pg-13 raunch while Poor Things is hard R… and yes they are going after 2 different audiences… one is for teens with is influenced by some of the dark comedies of the 80’s… while the other is after the adult art house crowd

 

[Chi84]

I get not wanting oversaturation however, this is hilarious considering there are two raunchy Frankenstein themed movies playing in some theaters right now.

That wasn't my point. I meant a movie can be a hit without appealing to wider audiences. I just used those 2 types as examples.

 

[erasure fan1]

But what about a movie that is critically acclaimed and wins tons of awards; a movie that wasn't made with the expectation of reaching a wide audience that also included kids and families. If a movie like that could never be called a "hit" we would be doomed to seeing the kind of crap that resonates with the masses these days. I've seen enough superheroes and car chases to last me a lifetime.

You are correct. But the constant back and forth is because of how each side is looking at things. When the vast majority here are talking about flop, it's in financial terms in the box office run. Because we don't have sufficient data to say what a film does post theatrical. As long as ive been alive, there's always been movies that were made for the prestige of award nominations. And if they win all the awards, great, mission accomplished. That doesn't make it a financial success if it lost money. Artistic success? Absolutely.

 

[Chi84]

You are correct. But the constant back and forth is because of how each side is looking at things. When the vast majority here are talking about flop, it's in financial terms in the box office run. Because we don't have sufficient data to say what a film does post theatrical. As long as ive been alive, there's always been movies that were made for the prestige of award nominations. And if they win all the awards, great, mission accomplished. That doesn't make it a financial success if it lost money. Artistic success? Absolutely.

I understand all that. But there’s a contingent here that seems to believe movies should not be made unless they’re expected to be a financial success. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

 

[celluloid]

That wasn't my point. I meant a movie can be a hit without appealing to wider audiences. I just used those 2 types as examples.

There are still those movies with without Poor Things. Less of them now becuase there are less films theatrically in general.

 

[celluloid]

Yes… I should of clarified it is a pg-13 raunch while Poor Things is hard R… and yes they are going after 2 different audiences… one is for teens with is influenced by some of the dark comedies of the 80’s… while the other is after the adult art house crowd

Right, and the two can co-exist. Just like Lego Batman and The Avengers can.
Or a movie like Jason Bourne and Fast and The Furious have. Both have heros and car chases.

I understand all that. But there’s a contingent here that seems to believe movies should not be made unless they’re expected to be a financial success. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

Movies can always be made if they are not expected to be profitable, like anything else can be made as a hobby, passion or goal of other reason.

Hollywood is an industry theatrically, so yes, that is the case. Those thousand plus names you may see in the credits and the many more uncredited, all like to earn a living working hard for the projects, even though they love what they do.

 

[celluloid]

The budget for Joker 2 has ballooned to over $200 million and Gladiator 2 is over $310 million.

In case we’re still pretending grossly inflated budgets are a uniquely Disney problem.

Ballooned because they are epic and a drama smash hit, and post strikes have changed things, not animated features or Haunted Mansion comedies.

Just wait until you see what Disney budgets will be now.

Also, they are sequels to films that have made legendary profit money for those studios.

 

[erasure fan1]

I understand all that. But there’s a contingent here that seems to believe movies should not be made unless they’re expected to be a financial success. Maybe I’m misunderstanding.

I haven't really engaged the poor things discussion. But here's what I've gotten from reading the posts that it "flopped". It's fine to make an artsy film for award consideration. Even if you don't plan on making your money back. Like I said earlier, it's for the prestige of the studio. But where poor things got hit was because of the movies that were supposed to make all the cash for the studio, didn't. The marvels, indy, wish... All supposed to bring in big bucks. That's what's supposed to fund these smaller art house projects. So when those types of films don't make their money back, they get put under the microscope. Fair or not, it's just what seems to happen.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Ballooned because they are epic and a drama smash hit, and post strikes have changed things, not animated features or Haunted Mansion comedies.

Just wait until you see what Disney budgets will be now.

Also, they are sequels to films that have made legendary profit money for those studios.

You think Gladiator 2, a sequel to a 24-year-old film with little place in the current zeitgeist and none of the original cast, is a strong bet to have a box office of nearly a billion? It’s a good thing you’re not just reflexively anti-Disney.

 

[MrPromey]

I haven't really engaged the poor things discussion. But here's what I've gotten from reading the posts that it "flopped". It's fine to make an artsy film for award consideration. Even if you don't plan on making your money back. Like I said earlier, it's for the prestige of the studio. But where poor things got hit was because of the movies that were supposed to make all the cash for the studio, didn't. The marvels, indy, wish... All supposed to bring in big bucks. That's what's supposed to fund these smaller art house projects. So when those types of films don't make their money back, they get put under the microscope. Fair or not, it's just what seems to happen.

It's for the prestige of everyone involved.

Searchlight doesn't necessarily bring Disney much glory* despite the majority of what they produce being awards-style movies but for people involved who Disney would like to keep within their sphere of influence, it's worth a lot, just like Mirimax back in the day.

Who wouldn't want Poor Things on their resume regardless of what happens at the Oscars?

*How much of the general public even knows it's Disney owned and given the hard R and the subject-matter of Poor Things, how much does Disney even want people making that connection?

 

[Disney Irish]

That's fine. I imagine the 100 million was domestic. As that is typically the threshold where you have one deemed so by the "rule of thumb" after marketing and such. A movie typically will be seen as a financial investment and theatrical success by doubling its cost in the theatrical window.

Poor Things has a $35M budget, and was assumed to have $15M marketing. So not sure why you would assumed it required $100M just in domestic.

But no the $100M said by the poster was looking at the WW BO with highlights and everything of peer art house movies as they do when they post things from The Numbers.

 

[celluloid]

Poor Things has a $35M budget, and was assumed to have $15M marketing. So not sure why you would assumed it required $100M just in domestic.

But no the $100M said by the poster was looking at the WW BO with highlights and everything of peer art house movies as they do when they post things from The Numbers.

As pointed out earlier, why it is often futile. It is all assuming.

Even Arthouse movie genre is a business.

Investors like doubling their money. Producing to break even or lose is a hobby.

The 100 million was apparently arbitrary anyway from someone not that poster.

 

[erasure fan1]

It's for the prestige of everyone involved.

Searchlight doesn't necessarily bring Disney much glory* despite the majority of what they produce being awards-style movies but for people involved who Disney would like to keep within their sphere of influence, it's worth a lot, just like Mirimax back in the day.

Who wouldn't want Poor Things on their resume regardless of what happens at the Oscars?

*How much of the general public even knows it's Disney owned and given the hard R and the subject-matter of Poor Things, how much does Disney even want people making that connection?

I completely agree. What I was saying wasn't a knock against the film or anything. It was just more of a why it has come under the microscope here. If Disneys big tent poles had hit, no one would be talking about a small film like this not making it's budget back.

 

[celluloid]

I completely agree. What I was saying wasn't a knock against the film or anything. It was just more of a why it has come under the microscope here. If Disneys big tent poles had hit, no one would be talking about a small film like this not making it's budget back.

It is like a fandom rooting for their team. They want to savor any financial win the theatrical box office release may have happened last year for the company. And this is it.
Its the brand loyalist side of things.

An arthouse film making its budget back is nothing new or often unexpected. Not appealing to the masses is a target market in itself and often profitable. It is still a business. It is silly to say it flopped, and it is silly to say it is a hit.

 

[Disney Irish]

As pointed out earlier, why it is often futile. It is all assuming.

Even Arthouse movie genre is a business.

Investors like doubling their money. Producing to break even or lose is a hobby.

The 100 million was apparently arbitrary anyway from someone not that poster.

I agree its all assumption, as I've said numerous times on this thread, none of us actually know the real financial numbers of any of these films. But that doesn't stop anyone, including yourself, from calling winners and losers.

And while breaking even isn't the goal with most films, with art house films it is actually a good achievement (or hobby as you call it). Anything beyond that is gravy for most art house films. And now that it has likely moved past its assumed breakeven point it moves into profitability.

So if we're calling things fairly and not just "everything Disney bad", then we have to mark Poor Things in the win column for Disney. Which I think we can all agree they need right now.

 

[DKampy]

Right, and the two can co-exist. Just like Lego Batman and The Avengers can.
Or a movie like Jason Bourne and Fast and The Furious have. Both have heros and car chases.

perhaps I was misunderstanding your original point as I thought you said the 2 would cannibalize each other… I agree they can coexist… although one appears to be a hit and the other is not

Movies can always be made if they are not expected to be profitable, like anything else can be made as a hobby, passion or goal of other reason.

Hollywood is an industry theatrically, so yes, that is the case. Those thousand plus names you may see in the credits and the many more uncredited, all like to earn a living working hard for the projects, even though they love what they do.

WTH…. You quoted me on something I don’t ever remember posting

 

[Ghost93]

That's fine. I imagine the 100 million was domestic. As that is typically the threshold where you have one deemed so by the "rule of thumb" after marketing and such. A movie typically will be seen as a financial investment and theatrical success by doubling its cost in the theatrical window.

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

 

[Andrew C]

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

word of mouth after the nominations?

 

[MrPromey]

I completely agree. What I was saying wasn't a knock against the film or anything. It was just more of a why it has come under the microscope here. If Disneys big tent poles had hit, no one would be talking about a small film like this not making it's budget back.

Oh no, I gotcha'.

My only point was, the awards for Searchlight films don't mean much for Disney other than the potential for them to make a little more scratch that way - the prestige part is more about the individual players and how when they (Disney) do stuff like this, it is more about an investment in those people than it is in the film, itself.