• 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

Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile, it doesn’t seem like there’s been a big Oscar bounce for Poor Things. The universally reviled Madame Web, which has been bashed endlessly by its stars, made four times Poor Things’s box office this Tuesday.
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
It is wild how well Kung Fu Panda 4 and Dune have done. Both quality for different reasons. Refreshing. Almost as if the theatrical box office is very viable and crucial to movie making show business for major studios.

Nice to see Oppenheimer (and already very successful film in every sense of the word) and Hold Overs back in theaters with a nice bump.
 
Last edited:
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
I want saying that at all.
Click to expand...
Freudian slip there?
Then why did you make a point that families would be deciding when it was pointed out that madame web, a blah film reception was outperforming Poor Things weeks later with all the Oscar acclaim buzz vs bad word of mouth and time?
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
celluloid said:
Freudian slip there?
Then why did you make a point that families would be deciding when it was pointed out that madame web, a blah film reception was outperforming Poor Things weeks later with all the Oscar acclaim buzz vs bad word of mouth and time?
Click to expand...
I’m just saying that Poor Things is more of a niche-type movie that was never envisioned to appeal to audiences as wide as the ones interested in Madame Web or Oppenheimer. In fact, the poster I was referring to mentioned Madame Web, not Oppenheimer. I have no idea what kind of point you’re trying to make.

On another point, what do you mean when you use the phrase “Freudian slip?”
 
Last edited:
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
I’m just saying that Poor Things is more of a niche-type movie that was never envisioned to appeal to audiences as wide as the ones interested in Madame Webb or Oppenheimer. In fact, the poster I was referring to mentioned Madame Webb, not Oppenheimer. I have no idea what kind of point you’re trying to make.

On another point, what do you mean when you use the phrase “Freudian slip?”
Click to expand...

Read your post I quoted again. You had a funny typo there.

I brought up Oppenheimer because it is an example of a drama that has shot up to have interest in adult drama going audiences. Oppenheimer was an example. Yes, it has larger appeal but also larger budget. It still made three times it's budget domestically, so Poor Things could not get that even with the bump.

Even without my example of Oppenheimer, there are many examples that have done the thing better and won interest over other large audience spectrum pleasing choices.
Everything Everywhere All at Once would be a great example of niche audience that won Oscars and got much great play before and after that win in theaters over other madame web level choices.

So what what was your point?
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
celluloid said:
Read your post I quoted again. You had a funny typo there.

I brought up Oppenheimer because it is an example of a drama that has shot up to have interest in adult drama going audiences. Oppenheimer was an example. Yes, it has larger appeal but also larger budget. It still made three times it's budget domestically, so Poor Things could not get that even with the bump.

Even without my example of Oppenheimer, there are many examples that have done the thing better and won interest over other large audience spectrum pleasing choices.
Everything Everywhere All at Once would be a great example of niche audience that won Oscars and got much great play before and after that win in theaters over other madame web level choices.

So what what was your point?
Click to expand...
Just that Poor Things is a very different type of film than Madame Web. It’s not a family type movie, nor is it something that needs a big screen for special effects. It’s more the type of film you stream while the kids are in bed. And it’s available for that purpose.

You seem to be intent on finding some hidden meaning there.
 
D

DKampy

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
Just that Poor Things is a very different type of film than Madame Web. It’s not a family type movie, nor is it something that needs a big screen for special effects. It’s more the type of film you stream while the kids are in bed. And it’s available for that purpose.

You seem to be intent on finding some hidden meaning there.
Click to expand...
Exactly Poor things is the type of movie that the general population might not be willing to take a chance on a art house film of that nature at theaters, but will be willing to check it out via streaming… which I am sure why it was made available on streaming the weekend of the Oscars… I believe once the streaming charts are available I believe it will be near or at the top of the charts
 
D

DKampy

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
Read your post I quoted again. You had a funny typo there.

I brought up Oppenheimer because it is an example of a drama that has shot up to have interest in adult drama going audiences. Oppenheimer was an example. Yes, it has larger appeal but also larger budget. It still made three times it's budget domestically, so Poor Things could not get that even with the bump.

Even without my example of Oppenheimer, there are many examples that have done the thing better and won interest over other large audience spectrum pleasing choices.
Everything Everywhere All at Once would be a great example of niche audience that won Oscars and got much great play before and after that win in theaters over other madame web level choices.

So what what was your point?
Click to expand...
I would expect Oppenheimer to have the biggest pop of the award movies… It got the biggest award of the night… If I was an Academy award voter… I would of even voted for Oppenheimer… It was my number 1 movie for 2023… but that does not say that Poor Things was any less great…it was firmly in my top 10 for the year at #4

For the type of movie Poor Things was it was very successful… It made a profit in the theatrical window and will continue to add to it’s profits for years to come thanks to it’s awards recognition…Madame Web was a failure anyway you look at it

The only point I see is twisting things to say Disney bad… all other studios good
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
Chi84 said:
Okay that explains things a bit. But don’t you think it’s kind of weird for all these people to spend time on a Disney fan site looking to hammer it for every movie it makes? Give the poor nail a break once in awhile.
Click to expand...

You can certainly find me posting many things that point out the bad and odd choices of other studios.

There is not always an agenda. Sometimes, when the CEO is promising the shareholders a plan to get better, it really has been a sucky time.

I never said Poor Things was not profitable, but the theatrical Oscar boost did not happen.

And you listed Madame Webb as if it was a movie families would choose. When not really the situation as Wonka, Migration and Kung Fu Panda 4 are where 99 percent those families are certainly going.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
You can certainly find me posting many things that point out the bad and odd choices of other studios.

There is not always an agenda. Sometimes, when the CEO is promising the shareholders a plan to get better, it really has been a sucky time.

I never said Poor Things was not profitable, but the theatrical Oscar boost did not happen.

And you listed Madame Webb as if it was a movie families would choose. When not really the situation as Wonka, Migration and Kung Fu Panda 4 are where 99 percent those families are certainly going.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you see what happened yesterday? The “Oscar bump” at the box office suddenly became a streaming boost.
 
Chi84

Chi84

Premium Member
celluloid said:
You can certainly find me posting many things that point out the bad and odd choices of other studios.

There is not always an agenda. Sometimes, when the CEO is promising the shareholders a plan to get better, it really has been a sucky time.

I never said Poor Things was not profitable, but the theatrical Oscar boost did not happen.

And you listed Madame Webb as if it was a movie families would choose. When not really the situation as Wonka, Migration and Kung Fu Panda 4 are where 99 percent those families are certainly going.
Click to expand...
I didn't "list" anything. I was responding to a specific post that mentioned only Madame Web. There are ways of broadening the conversation without putting words in someone else's mouth.
 
D

DKampy

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
The fake shock?

She’s great…but the “I’m so surprised” at the Oscars needs to be reserved to actual shockers…which rarely happen

Poor E Blunt is down the Kate winslet road now
Click to expand...
Wow… so you know Emma Stone personally… she told you what she was thinking…

If it was Robert Downy Jr or Da’vine Joy Randolph sure… but Emma Stone was less of a sure thing… it was the most up in the air acting category between her and Lily Gladstone… who seemed to have the momentum…and I was leaning towards it being Lily after her SAG win

Not sure what Emily Blunt has to do with anything… although I am really looking forward to The Fall Guy after the early stellar reviews that is getting
 

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

Back
Top Bottom