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

[celluloid]

They certainly make more profit of late but people (in general) tend to mistake profit with audience preference.



2026 and beyond who knows as that is to far out to trust any dates yet.

People tend to not spend money on something they would not prefer. There is a huge gap between releases.

I don't see Wish, Strange World and Raya aging too well to ever be preferred. It is not just profitability to budget; it is attendance that Dreamworks and Illumination have been winning in theaters since 2021 as well.

If elemental a Pixar specialty of abstract, or Kung Fu Panda 4 or Wish could not top Migration...

It is funny to even write as there is such a gap.


Inside Out 2 I have my doubts will surpass Despicable me 4 much. I keep thinking Minions reach their fatigue, but Despicable Me also keeps bringing families in every time, even after the spin offs. It may not surpass its attendance at all.
The Wild Robot for Dreamworks, tough to say, but at least it is an original instalment for a movie from Dreamworks. At least they are still producing originals for as much as they get teased about being a sequel house, in a year that Moana 2 and Inside Out 2 are what we have to look forward to. The former being rushed from the Disney Plus special series it was going to be.

 

[Dranth]

I don't see Wish, Strange World and Raya aging too well to ever be preferred.

I agree overall. Personally I didn't find Wish to be nearly as bad as people wanted to make it out to be. Strange World was just boring while Raya was fine.

It is not just profitability to budget; it is attendance that Dreamworks and Illumination have been winning in theaters since 2021 as well.

Yes, though 2021 was a weird year so I tend to ignore it. Uni absolutely killed it in 2022 but 2023 felt down to me (outside of Mario of course). This year I can see going either way while Next year looks like Disney to me. Beyond that, who knows.

If elemental a Pixar specialty of abstract, or Kung Fu Panda 4 or Wish could not top Migration...

I think I am misreading or misunderstanding this line because it looks like you are saying Migration had more viewers than those other three movies and I doubt that is what you meant.

Anyway, whole point being I know from a studio profitability standpoint Uni is doing much better than Disney but that just means Uni budgets better, not that they make vastly better movies. Except 2022 when they were actually much better.

 

[celluloid]

Yes, though 2021 was a weird year so I tend to ignore it. Uni absolutely killed it in 2022 but 2023 felt down to me (outside of Mario of course). This year I can see going either way while Next year looks like Disney to me. Beyond that, who knows.

Why ignore it when we had releases from both rival studios within the same amount of time that outperformed the other?

Don't forget Sony had a hit animated feature last year too.

I think if the Live Action gets people in, Uni will have the family films down pat next year as well.

 

[Dranth]

Why ignore it when we had releases from both rival studios within the same amount of time that outperformed the other?

Two reasons.

One, movies that released in 2021 still had to deal with social distancing, closures due to staffing issues at theaters and a large part of the general public not wanting to leave the house much. All that got better as the year went on but that also means that it is hard to gauge how well something would have done vs. something else unless they released in the same time frame.

With that in mind, a movie making 100 million at the box office in January of 2021 is more impressive than one making 250 million 11 months later in December just because of how much more headwind that early movie would have faced.

Two, Disney was still in the Chapek strategy of tripping all over themselves trying to release things on D+ as fast as possible while Uni stopped that during the year. For example, Encanto was only in theaters one month until its D+ release while Sing 2 had the full six month wait for streaming.

For me, 2022 felt like the first full year that was back to normal so that is why I leave 2020 and 2021 in their own weird sub category.

 

[celluloid]

Two reasons.

One, movies that released in 2021 still had to deal with social distancing, closures due to staffing issues at theaters and a large part of the general public not wanting to leave the house much. All that got better as the year went on but that also means that it is hard to gauge how well something would have done vs. something else unless they released in the same time frame.

Sing 2 and Encanto were both Thanksgiving to Christmas time releases. It is not like one was Jan and one was December. Plenty of films that came out from earlier that year and premiered also on streaming same day, such as WB, Broke 100 million or more in theaters.
The pandemic was hurting international numbers far more than domestic by Christmas time of 2021. And it is evident that Sing 2 still performed better overseas than while releasing in tougher times. Much better than Encanto.

Sing 2 was available on home video in multiple platforms by January.

So Illumination by your criteria, wins here too.


Streaming fast is really not that a concern as recent evidence shows. People just want better movies.

Shrek 2...which has streamed on Peacock for a long time, and has been on home video for decades just outperofmred any Pixar theater releases of products that can stream. People like the Universal brand.

Sony just did well with Spiderman with Toby McGuire back in theaters. That so far has performed well even though anyone can watch that on streaming.

 

[Dranth]

Sing 2 was available on home video in multiple platforms by January.

Maybe to rent but the home release (DVD) came out in March of 2022 and best I can tell the streaming debut (not rental) was in June of 2022, six months after release.

You really don't think Encanto would have done MUCH better had it not gone almost direct to streaming, for free? It had just as many views in its first week of streaming on D+ as the entire theatrical release. If just some of those views switch to the theater because streaming wasn't an option then it continues to build word of mouth and likely has a much better theatrical run.

It ended up being streamed in 2022 more than Turning Red (second most streamed movie of the year) and Sing 2 (third highest) combined.

Streaming fast is really not that a concern as recent evidence shows. People just want better movies.

Yes, people want better movies but I don't agree that streaming fast isn't an issue most of the time. How much of an impact it has is directly proportional to the number of people who have the streaming platform. If I release a movie on streaming the same day, I release it in theaters but nearly everyone who wants to see it has my streaming platform that is going to significantly impact my box office. How can it not? On the other hand, if only a few people have my streaming service, it will have little impact.

I would add that event movies or cultural touchstones would be a big exception to this. For example, if Disney gets their mess together and makes a great looking Star Wars movie, I think a LOT of people would choose to go to the theaters over the streaming release.

Sony just did well with Spiderman with Toby McGuire back in theaters. That so far has performed well even though anyone can watch that on streaming.

Okay, a movie that hasn't been in the theaters for 22 years, rounding up, made 700k according to Box Office Mojo for its first three days. I would say that is okay given the type of movie. Just for comparison, Jurassic Park (a much better movie from a audience perspective) did 1.7 million over the same amount of time last year.

Anyway, I don't think we are that far off overall I just think you discount some factors quicker than I would.

 

[erasure fan1]

I would add that event movies or cultural touchstones would be a big exception to this. For example, if Disney gets their mess together and makes a great looking Star Wars movie, I think a LOT of people would choose to go to the theaters over the streaming release.

I think this is a big part of it. Certain types of films lend themselves to a theater experience. So films like no way home, Maverick, mario, all still do extremely well I believe, even if it streaming 3 weeks later. Because they are movies people wanted to see. That's why I harp on the marketing and that opening week so much. If a film is getting a tepid response, and the marketing stunk, people will wait for streaming. Plain and simple.

You brought up star wars. I've seen every star wars movie in the theater, starting with a new hope. If the next release doesn't look great, and the response is not good, I'll wait. If it looks fantastic, I don't care if it's streaming the same day, I'm seeing it in a theater because that's where star wars is the best.

 

[celluloid]

Maybe to rent but the home release (DVD) came out in March of 2022 and best I can tell the streaming debut (not rental) was in June of 2022, six months after release.

You really don't think Encanto would have done MUCH better had it not gone almost direct to streaming, for free? It had just as many views in its first week of streaming on D+ as the entire theatrical release. If just some of those views switch to the theater because streaming wasn't an option then it continues to build word of mouth and likely has a much better theatrical run.

It ended up being streamed in 2022 more than Turning Red (second most streamed movie of the year) and Sing 2 (third highest) combined.


Yes, people want better movies but I don't agree that streaming fast isn't an issue most of the time. How much of an impact it has is directly proportional to the number of people who have the streaming platform. If I release a movie on streaming the same day, I release it in theaters but nearly everyone who wants to see it has my streaming platform that is going to significantly impact my box office. How can it not? On the other hand, if only a few people have my streaming service, it will have little impact.


Okay, a movie that hasn't been in the theaters for 22 years, rounding up, made 700k according to Box Office Mojo for its first three days. I would say that is okay given the type of movie. Just for comparison, Jurassic Park (a much better movie from a audience perspective) did 1.7 million over the same amount of time last year.

Yes. Jurassic Park for its 30th Anniversary with marketing to that did much better than re-relasing Shrek 2 randomly playing this spring. Both hits for Universal to re-release. I would expect JP to outperofrm a re-release of Shrek 2.

What is your point?

Both of these did better than anything Disney Plus put into theaters from Pixar(THREE TIMES they did that to three movies)

Sony also made a half million so far re-relasing Sam Rami's Spiderman for a limited run that has been able to be viewed from home in multiple ways. Something that has been on Disney Plus, widely available and all that proportional streaming service nonsense.


Why on earth could Five Nights at Freddy's do so well when it released on Peacock the same day? It is not the only example of success in both. Not exactly a big screen must and people could just join Peacock trial and watch it for free vs paying for them or their teens and them to see it in theaters?

People are willing to pay for theatrical viewings what they are willing to pay.

Disney just can't reach that category as strongly as others until they try harder for an amount of time to be trusted to do so again.

Wish and Haunted Mansion, just two examples where nothing streamed closed to the release date theatrically, and they still were gone out of theaters so fast.

 

[Dranth]

Yes. Jurassic Park for its 30th Anniversary with marketing to that did much better than re-relasing Shrek 2 randomly playing this spring. Both hits for Universal to re-release. I would expect JP to outperofrm a re-release of Shrek 2.

What is your point?

Both of these did better than anything Disney Plus put into theaters from Pixar(THREE TIMES they did that to three movies)

Sony also made a half million so far re-relasing Sam Rami's Spiderman for a limited run that has been able to be viewed from home in multiple ways. Something that has been on Disney Plus, widely available and all that proportional streaming service nonsense.

You don't think there is a difference between live action nostalgia classics that were released 20-30 years ago vs. animated movies that came out in the last couple?

I also think there is a much larger market for non-animated rereleases.

Why on earth could Five Nights at Freddy's do so well when it released on Peacock the same day? It is not the only example of success in both. Not exactly a big screen must and people could just join Peacock trial and watch it for free vs paying for them or their teens and them to see it in theaters?

I would argue it is a cultural touchstone for many millennials and under which helped drive the box office. Being on Peacock is less of a hit than a more popular service but still, the box office would have been better had streaming not been an option.

Disney just can't reach that category as strongly as others until they try harder for an amount of time to be trusted to do so again.

Wish and Haunted Mansion, just two examples where nothing streamed closed to the release date theatrically, and they still were gone out of theaters so fast.

Haunted Mansion was indeed bad so let's set that aside. Let's also say that you are right and streaming has minimal impact for a moment. If that is true, why is FNAF a success (with the audience which is what we have been talking about) while Wish is not? Wish did similar numbers to FNAF. One movie did 297.2 million with reviews of 32% critics and 87% audience while the other did 254.8 million with reviews of 48% critics and 81% audience.

Looking at those numbers I would say one movie is a little better than the other, not that one is a success and the other is a failure. Sure, to the studios it is certainly true that one stunk and the other didn't but again, this whole discussion started based on the audience, not how much the studio makes.

 

[Disney Irish]

You don't think there is a difference between live action nostalgia classics that were released 20-30 years ago vs. animated movies that came out in the last couple?

I also think there is a much larger market for non-animated rereleases.


I would argue it is a cultural touchstone for many millennials and under which helped drive the box office. Being on Peacock is less of a hit than a more popular service but still, the box office would have been better had streaming not been an option.


Haunted Mansion was indeed bad so let's set that aside. Let's also say that your right and streaming has minimal impact for a moment. If that is true, why is FNAF a success (with the audience which is what we have been talking about) while Wish is not? Wish did similar numbers to FNAF. One movie did 297.2 million with reviews of 32% critics and 87% audience while the other did 254.8 million with reviews of 48% critics and 81% audience.

Looking at those numbers I would say one movie is a little better than the other, not that one is a success and the other is a failure. Sure, to the studios it is certainly true that one stunk and the other didn't but again, this whole discussion started based on the audience, not how much the studio makes.

Its worth noting, that Peacock at the time only had about 25M subs (only 33M today Freddy didn't have that huge an impact on new subs growth) compared to D+ which had over 150M. So with D+ having 6x as many subs, you would think that would impact their theatrical a lot more than the streamer that is almost in last place based on subs.

Quality plays a part. But many have complained about Disney films having lack of quality for well over a decade now, so clearly that wasn't impacting their theatrical prior to D+. So yeah being able to stream it for free at ones leisure has had a larger impact on Disney's theatrical than on Uni.

 

[celluloid]

f that is true, why is FNAF a success (with the audience which is what we have been talking about) while Wish is not? Wish did similar numbers to FNAF.

Looking at those numbers I would say one movie is a little better than the other, not that one is a success and the other is a failure. Sure, to the studios it is certainly true that one stunk and the other didn't but again, this whole discussion started based on the audience, not how much the studio makes.

Because one movie did it said out to do and was a smash hit with respect to its budget.

While the other did not deliver and was a flop. Wish Cost three times as much and marketing cost more. It is relative and important. If Avatar only made 250 million domestic and 250 million internationally for 500 million...it would not be considered a theatrical success, even though we could say it had more people possibly arrive than who saw Kong x Godzilla

We are now bragging that Wish of Disney's bread and butter category (a movie that did not premier same say streaming) is equal to a Blumhouse film, a collaboration studio currently under Universal known for smaller to mid budget horror that premiered same day streaming.

I think you are further losing your point.

 

[celluloid]

Quality plays a part. But many have complained about Disney films having lack of quality for well over a decade now, so clearly that wasn't impacting their theatrical prior to D+. So yeah being able to stream it for free at ones leisure has had a larger impact on Disney's theatrical than on Uni.

That's how branding and audience loyalty works with trust. You can get away with it for a bit, but sucks in the long run.
Almost as if Dreamworks and Illumination in the last fifteen years have come in and ready to fill the void.

No coincidence.

 

[LittleBuford]

I saw The Exorcist in a theater, and remember thinking poor Linda Blair doing that pea soup routine in her bed was tragic. I can't even imagine staying seated in the theater through what was described as happening in The First Omen.

If you managed to watch the entirety of The Exorcist, which includes far more disturbing scenes than the one you describe (notably the infamous “crucifix stabbing” scene), I’m confused as to why The First Omen sounds so shocking to you.

 

[Dranth]

Because one movie did it said out to do and was a smash hit with respect to its budget.

While the other did not deliver and was a flop. Wish Cost three times as much and marketing cost more. It is relative and important. If Avatar only made 240 million domestic and 250 million internationally for 500 million...it would not be considered a theatricalsuccess, even though we could say it had more people possibly arrive than who saw Kong x Godzilla

We were talking about what the public likes, not how much the movie made for the studio.

This is an extreme example to clarify the point but if I spent 4 billion (including marketing) to make a movie that released today, and it does 3 billion in revenue during its theatrical run, was it a success with audiences? How about on that same day another movie gets released that was 250 million to make, including marketing, and it brings in 500 million over its theatrical run?

Which is the more popular with the general public?

The first movie lost a billion for the studio but was the most watched film in the history of cinema at the box office by a LARGE amount. The second movie made money for the studio but had 1/6 the number of people go see it.

I would argue the first is the more liked/popular movie.

We are now bragging that Wish of Disney's bread and butter category (a movie that did not premier same say streaming) is equal to a Blumhouse film, a collaboration studio currently under Universal.

I don't think anyone is bragging about anything Wish related. The point was that in terms of how popular they ended up being with the general public, they were very similar. They had similar number of people seeing them in the theater and similar reviews. If you are talking about how well they met expectations or how well they did for their respective studios, not at all, one clearly did much better than the other.

I think you are further losing your point.

You're welcome to think that but bottom line, you made the audience claim, not me and further, I didn't even disagree with your original statement. I was mainly pointing out that you can't measure it with studio profit and when you don't, it is much closer than people generally think. After that was just discussing various factors that helped play into those results. You think those don't matter much; I think they do. That's fine.

 

[LittleBuford]

We were talking about what the public likes, not how much the movie made for the studio.

This is an extreme example to clarify the point but if I spent 4 billion (including marketing) to make a movie that released today, and it does 3 billion in revenue during its theatrical run, was it a success with audiences?

A real-life example was Cleopatra, which lost huge amounts of money for Fox despite being the highest-grossing film of 1963 and winning multiple Oscars.

 

[celluloid]

We were talking about what the public likes, not how much the movie made for the studio.



Which is the more popular with the general public?

It is relative to show business and the discussion.
An audience is relative to the budget and scope of the movie. Studio's always want more. but realistically. A budget determines the expected scope of audience turn out. Otherwise filmakers would be awarded any budget they want from producers.

To the bold. I don't think you like the truth of a recent example that Kung Fu Panda 4 is more popular to the general public than Indiana Jones: Dial of Destiny, Wish, The Marvels or Elemental.

 

[celluloid]

A real-life example was Cleopatra, which lost huge amounts of money for Fox despite being the highest-grossing film of 1963 and winning multiple Oscars.

Don't leave out the part where that nearly ended Fox as a studio right then and there.

So we are now pretending that 2021-2023 was Disney mostly putting out films like the Cleopatra nearly bankrupting situation? Not good for box office or the company.

Disney can't survive on 90 percent of their films just become a home cult classic.

And if they want to, they need to do better than Wish, Haunted Mansion, Dial of Destiny and even Encanto. Elemental was a nice start, but boy do they need to do better and reign it in to earn audience trust to more of that.

Someone better get Sleeping Beauty out of her nap again.

 

[LittleBuford]

To the bold. I don't think you like the truth of a recent example that Kung Fu Panda 4 is more popular to the general public than Indiana Jones: Dial of Destiny, Wish, The Marvels or Elemental.

Elemental has actually sold many more tickets than Kung Fu Panda 4: globally $496,444,308 versus $454,964,521. Perhaps Kung Fu Panda 4 will ultimately outsell Elemental, but as things stand, it’s incorrect to say the former is more popular than the latter.

 

[Disney Irish]

That's how branding and audience loyalty works with trust. You can get away with it for a bit, but sucks in the long run.
Almost as if Dreamworks and Illumination in the last fifteen years have come in and ready to fill the void.

No coincidence.

Except you avoided the part where D+ has more than 6x as many subs as Peacock. Which would explain why more audiences would be willing to wait for something on D+ than on Peacock just by the fact that D+ has more subs.

And if brand and audience loyalty was really as dire for Disney as you claim why do they continue to have more subs with D+ than Peacock? Wouldn't they be taking huge hits in quarter after quarter especially with its core domestic subs if that was the case? Or on the flip side wouldn't Peacock be gaining huge subs quarter after quarter with all the fans of Dreamworks and Illumination content?

Neither of which are happening, so one has to assume that Disney brand and audience loyalty isn't as dire as you and some others make it seem. And that Dreamworks and Illumination aren't driving sub growth to Peacock like it has for Disney with D+, and that is for sure something that Roberts is questioning the Uni team about all the time. Now that isn't to say that there isn't some Disney brand and audience loyalty issues that could affect things longer term if it doesn't get corrected. But by all accounts they appear to be addressing some of that, and we'll see how it turns out.

 

[LittleBuford]

Don't leave out the part where that nearly ended Fox as a studio right then and there.

That reinforces the point I was trying to make anyway!

So we are now pretending that 2021-2023 was Disney mostly putting out films like the Cleopatra nearly bankrupting situation?

Nope. I was merely providing a real-life example of how something can be both popular and unprofitable.