• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

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

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
I don't think the story or characters will matter much. The first one just used the common trope of a divorced couple who still have feelings for each other thrown into a disaster situation as a way to create some tension. People remember the cow flying through the air. Can anyone even name the characters?

It was fine, but I don't have any connection to those characters. The ones I remember from these types of movies are the original Jurassic Park cast. They felt genuine to me. The backstories didn't feel forced. Some will say pairing Alan, who doesn't like kids, with kids, is contrived as well. To me, it didn't feel like it was, and it's admittedly a hard line to walk.

I think JP did a good job developing the characters before any action started, rather than just dropping them in and letting a cliché backstory do the heavy lifting.

Who knows though. Audiences are unpredictable and perhaps more discerning nowadays. It takes something special to get me to the theater.
What I meant by story and characters is they need to be what people expect from this kind of film. Like I said it doesn't need to be Shawshank. The characters need to be likeable the story needs to be fun. You are correct with Jurassic park, but that's is an all time classic. Twister was a fun natural disaster flick with a lot good actors. So If they stick to the formula, there's a good chance it's successful.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I saw Dune Part 2 yesterday. It was incredible! Unlike Wish, you can totally see the $190m they spent on it.
I know its not a popular opinion, but I preferred the 1984 Lynch version. As that is what I watched growing up. Not to say that this version isn't good, but just not "my" Dune. That said it was a feast for the eyes, the visuals were excellent.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
On the question (in the thread title) of "What happens next?," I think we're going to see continued blurring of lines between "series" and "feature length film."

Movies keep getting longer (apparently because younger audiences want this?), and series are getting shorter (remember 24 to 26-episode seasons? The current average seems to be a little over 10). Streaming has really made binge watching common (which may harmful), but also attention spans seem to be getting shorter.

Anyway, I think we're going to see streaming platforms continue to play with episode length, "limited" series episode counts, "seasons," and release schedules.
 

Miss Rori

Well-Known Member
I know its not a popular opinion, but I preferred the 1984 Lynch version. As that is what I watched growing up. Not to say that this version isn't good, but just not "my" Dune. That said it was a feast for the eyes, the visuals were excellent.
The cool thing is that the new version's boosted interest in the old one to the point that Fathom Events did revival screenings of it (it is that version's 40th anniversary) about two weeks ago! Fathom Events has really been digging in on revival screenings of late, since the multiplexes need movies and this is shaping up to be a really slow year for blockbusters. (It's also factoring into why the episode drops of The Chosen are doing so well at the box office.)
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
I am just not into Dune. Based on comparisons to Star Wars (what?!) I chose the very long and tedious book for a book report in junior high. It was the only time I ever bought the cliff’s notes to complete a book report. Spice schmice.

Saw the movie with Sting. (“I will kill him”) and again, meh.

Therefore didn’t bother with the new movies.

Putting Star Wars in the same genre is an insult to Star Wars.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
I saw Dune Part 2 yesterday. It was incredible! Unlike Wish, you can totally see the $190m they spent on it.
It just shows how much better a film can look when you have the script perfected before hand and give filmmakers enough time in production and post production to make the film look great. Dune Part 2 cost less than Ant-man and the Wasp Quantumania and the Marvels, yet it looked waaaaaay better.

I think the use of actual sets and on-location shooting also helps. Disney does way too much green screen, blue screen and The Volume nowadays. Dune obviously used those as well, but not to the same extent.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
I am just not into Dune. Based on comparisons to Star Wars (what?!) I chose the very long and tedious book for a book report in junior high. It was the only time I ever bought the cliff’s notes to complete a book report. Spice schmice.

Saw the movie with Sting. (“I will kill him”) and again, meh.

Therefore didn’t bother with the new movies.

Putting Star Wars in the same genre is an insult to Star Wars.
You shouldn't let the terrible David Lynch movie deter you from seeing the excellent new movies. Also, Star Wars borrowed a lot from Dune.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
First pass at Box Office estimate is out for this weekend. Seriously, what the heck is the ongoing deal with Migration?!?

Big 10.jpg


Then comes Poor Things at #14...

Fourteen.jpg


And Wish and All Of Us Strangers in the mid 20's. Look at data for Wish, then look at data for Migration. Huh?!?

Twentyish.jpg


 

Miss Rori

Well-Known Member
B.O. Boys puts the Migration situation as "The rats need their cheese" - there hasn't been a new family picture since that movie, after all; there is always a market for at least one or two such films. This is how Puss in Boots: The Last Wish lasted so long theatrically last year, and how Elemental kept plugging away in the summer. Heck, look at those Wonka numbers, coming in days after it was released on Blu-Ray! (The streaming release is this Wednesday.) I'm sure a lot of these screens are only running them as matinee titles, but that's enough. As for Wish, it is a whole month older than Migration so it's not surprising its theater count shrank as much as it did. The multiplexes don't need three family titles right now, two will do. I'm pretty sure Migration and Wonka will lose a bunch of screens this coming weekend with Kung Fu Panda 4 arriving to pick up the baton.
 
Last edited:

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Turning Red seems to have left theaters after its USA re-release. Assuming a 60% box office take from it's $1.4 Million in ticket sales, it brought in $840,000 in revenue for Disney/Pixar.

I have no idea how much they had to spend to get this movie in theaters for this odd 1,560 theater nationwide re-release run. I hope they didn't spend more than $840,000 on it. 🤔

Next up later this month, Luca!

In The Red.jpg
 

Miss Rori

Well-Known Member
Turning Red seems to have left theaters after its USA re-release. Assuming a 60% box office take from it's $1.4 Million in ticket sales, it brought in $840,000 in revenue for Disney/Pixar.
Is Disney even advertising these theatrical releases? I haven't seen a single ad for them anywhere (cable, YouTube, etc.). It seems like such a weird and pointless exercise (especially if it were, as I've supposed, a sop to theater chains after it became clear Wish wasn't going to chug along through spring like Frozen did but they needed something to offer theaters until Inside Out 2).
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Is Disney even advertising these theatrical releases? I haven't seen a single ad for them anywhere (cable, YouTube, etc.). It seems like such a weird and pointless exercise (especially if it were, as I've supposed, a sop to theater chains after it became clear Wish wasn't going to chug along through spring like Frozen did but they needed something to offer theaters until Inside Out 2).

Agreed! I haven't seen a single ad or mention of it anywhere, and yet they seem to be plopping them into 1,560 theaters nationwide where they just sit there quietly for 3 or 4 weeks. For Turning Red a few weeks ago, my local theaters had matinee and evening showings to offer, all of which appeared to be empty in the seating charts.

It's very, very weird. It almost makes me think there's some tax scheme going on here to claim losses or something. At the very least, it was an expensive morale boost for the Pixar employees who apparently felt it was very important that their work be shown on movie theater screens to empty auditoriums instead of just on Disney+.

The whole thing is a head scratcher. Next up, Luca!
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Agreed! I haven't seen a single ad or mention of it anywhere, and yet they seem to be plopping them into 1,560 theaters nationwide where they just sit there quietly for 3 or 4 weeks. For Turning Red a few weeks ago, my local theaters had matinee and evening showings to offer, all of which appeared to be empty in the seating charts.

It's very, very weird. It almost makes me think there's some tax scheme going on here to claim losses or something. At the very least, it was an expensive morale boost for the Pixar employees who apparently felt it was very important that their work be shown on movie theater screens to empty auditoriums instead of just on Disney+.

The whole thing is a head scratcher. Next up, Luca!
For your information, these films are only playing a few times a day. Rereleases are nothing new. NY theatres had a rerelease of Amelie recently. There are tons of others.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom