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

[DKampy]

I think there will be some cross over. People will defy expectations if the films are good. Good films bring people out, more than the averages we expect.

If they are picking one over the other, families will be going to Moana, and you’ll see a similar audience to Barbie hitting up Wicked.

I think good movies can lift all movies….if you had a great time at the theater a person is more likely to go again

 

[Tony the Tigger]

That’s shocking, the music is amazing and Jackman, Efron, and Zendaya are wonderful. The whole cast was great.

Musicals are a tough sell for me. (I know, I know. )

Music is my life. The flip side of that is: being forced to sit through a song I don’t know or like is tormenting me.

Songs for the sake of songs in a musical drive me bonkers. If someone is walking down the street and singing about walking down the street - rather than advancing the plot - I’m bored.

Now if we’re talking movies, and I’ve come to love songs on the radio first (Grease, nothing recent, etc.) then I’m more interested because I’ll enjoy the songs regardless of the circumstances.

Even when I finally got into Judy Garland movies beyond the Wizard of Oz (on TCM) I’d often forward through many of the songs just to understand the plot of the movie. I just wanted to know what happened more than I wanted all action to stop while someone sang a song. (Now, if I liked the movie, I rewatch it with the songs lol.)

With Wicked - I don’t think the well-known songs are that great. I first heard “Popular” and “Defying Gravity” at karaoke and it was so boring, even when done well. (This is gay bar karaoke, there’s a fair shot it’s getting done well lol.) I enjoyed them better the one time I saw the live show, in context. The songs are not what will get me to see the film version. My love for the original Wizard of Oz will.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Songs for the sake of songs in a musical drive me bonkers. If someone is walking down the street and singing about walking down the street - rather than advancing the plot - I’m bored.

You want songs to be utilitarian? Great!! Got one for you....

 

[Tony the Tigger]

You want songs to be utilitarian? Great!! Got one for you....

except for the guy.

 

[Ghost93]

On thing is for certain, it should be better than Cats.

In defense of Cats, which is an awful movie, I will give the movie credit for trying something unique with its aesthetic and approach. It didn't work out at all, but I at least felt somewhat of an effort was made. For that reason alone, I think it's superior to the other 2019-cat related abomination — the creatively bankrupt remake of The Lion King.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

In theory the 2.5 hour runtime might seem like a deterrent yet almost all of the highest grossing movies of all time — both Avatars, Titanic, Avengers Endgame — are more than 3 hours long. This isn't just a recent trend. If you adjust for inflation and look at the 10 highest grossing movies of all time, movies like Gone with the Wind, the Sound of Music, the Ten Commandments and Dr. Zhivago are all 3-4 hours.

If Wicked is a good movie, the runtime won't be a problem. When people are having a great time, they don't want a movie to end. It's only when the movie is mediocre that audiences really begin to feel the length.

Two hours for me is a good maximum, and anything longer I feel a movie really needs to earn it.

Avengers works because there's a lot of characters to serve and we're invested in them. Titanic as well. Avatar(s) could have used a little trimming but were acceptable.

On other other hand, there's things like the live action Transformers movies that push 2.5 hours. Why? They're padded with a lot of inane scenes. They're expensive to make so we aren't getting more action. They're dumb movies and I should walk out with at least the feeling that it was a fun ride, instead they cross over into tedium.

They did well though so who knows. Box office wise, there's probably some downside to long run times. It's more of a personal preference I guess.

 

[DKampy]

Two hours for me is a good maximum, and anything longer I feel a movie really needs to earn it.

Avengers works because there's a lot of characters to serve and we're invested in them. Titanic as well. Avatar(s) could have used a little trimming but were acceptable.

On other other hand, there's things like the live action Transformers movies that push 2.5 hours. Why? They're padded with a lot of inane scenes. They're expensive to make so we aren't getting more action. They're dumb movies and I should walk out with at least the feeling that it was a fun ride, instead they cross over into tedium.

They did well though so who knows. Box office wise, there's probably some downside to long run times. It's more of a personal preference I guess.

IMO the length a movie deserves depends on the film…. I have seen 2 hour movies that felt rushed and 90 minute movies that felt like for ever watching it..for example Oppenheimer held my attention the entire time even though it was a 3 hour movie… I did not even take a bathroom break for fear of missing something…. that it was able to do that despite the subject matter… it deserved it's Oscar wins

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I thought the longer movies were giving more bang for the buck. At least theoretically.

 

[Disney Irish]

I thought the longer movies were giving more bang for the buck. At least theoretically.

Depends on your point of view I guess.

If you're having to leave to use the restroom because the movie is too long or risk having an accident, well then you didn't get your monies worth.

 

[Ghost93]

Depends on your point of view I guess.

If you're having to leave to use the restroom because the movie is too long or risk having an accident, well then you didn't get your monies worth.

I mean, I generally don't have a problem with quickly leaving to pee if needed.

I generally feel I'm getting more bang for my buck if the movie is longer. I also feel a long runtime is only a problem if the pacing is bad.

 

[Disney Irish]

I mean, I generally don't have a problem with quickly leaving to pee if needed.

I generally feel I'm getting more bang for my buck if the movie is longer. I also feel a long runtime is only a problem if the pacing is bad.

Which is why I said it depends on your point of view.

If you have to leave and potentially miss something critical because its too long, well you may not feel you've gotten the best bang for your buck. On the other hand if like you you don't care about missing something, well then you may still feel like you've gotten the best bang for your buck. I don't think is a general sentiment that can be said either way on this.

 

[Ghost93]

Which is why I said it depends on your point of view.

If you have to leave and potentially miss something critical because its too long, well you may not feel you've gotten the best bang for your buck. On the other hand if like you you don't care about missing something, well then you may still feel like you've gotten the best bang for your buck. I don't think is a general sentiment that can be said either way on this.

THe only time I ever missed something crucial was back when my family saw the Chronicles of Narnia in 2005. I had to use the restroom and ended up missing Aslan's ressurection scene. Fortunately I had read the book beforehand, but still, it was kind of a pivotal moment. Still I don't think that movie should have been any shorter, as it was the perfect length to tell the story it needed to tell.

 

[MisterPenguin]

THe only time I ever missed something crucial was back when my family saw the Chronicles of Narnia in 2005. I had to use the restroom and ended up missing Aslan's ressurection scene. Fortunately I had read the book beforehand, but still, it was kind of a pivotal moment. Still I don't think that movie should have been any shorter, as it was the perfect length to tell the story it needed to tell.

SPOILERS!!!!!

 

[Disney Irish]

THe only time I ever missed something crucial was back when my family saw the Chronicles of Narnia in 2005. I had to use the restroom and ended up missing Aslan's ressurection scene. Fortunately I had read the book beforehand, but still, it was kind of a pivotal moment. Still I don't think that movie should have been any shorter, as it was the perfect length to tell the story it needed to tell.

I'm happy that works for you, for others it doesn't appear to work for them, everyone is different

 

[Disney Analyst]

It was everything and more. Run to see Wicked. Run!

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I think good movies can lift all movies….if you had a great time at the theater a person is more likely to go again

This is a great point, there was a time I’d go to Tuesday matinees 2-3 times a month, it was cheap and quiet and a great way to relax on my day off, during covid I (obviously) got out of that habit and now just watch everything at home (via streaming services and a huge 4K tv), I haven’t been back to a movie theater since 2020 because I don’t see the value in it anymore.

I’m guessing that probably applies to a ton of former movie goers, if one movie can convince people to give the theater another chance, and they enjoy it, it could have long term benefits for other movies.

 

[Farerb]

Next week:

 

[Prince-1]

SPOILERS!!!!!

The Titantic sank at the end of the movie and Rose killed Jack.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Depends on your point of view I guess.

If you're having to leave to use the restroom because the movie is too long or risk having an accident, well then you didn't get your monies worth.

I guess that’s an issue for some people. I have never in 53 years left a theater to pee. (I also don’t guzzle soda.)

My husband goes once every time to refill the popcorn and soda. (I don’t know if he also uses the restroom.) He never seems to care what he misses.

I agree the old intermissions were not a bad idea.

there was a time I’d go to Tuesday matinees 2-3 times a month, it was cheap and quiet and a great way to relax on my day off

Same.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Anecdotal stuff:

We are both just getting home, it’s a little late, but we are debating whether to go to the movies. My first choice would be wicked, my second choice would be gladiator, and it’s going to depend on what’s available at what time.

I happened to notice, looking at two local AMC Theatres, the wicked showings are all almost full except for the 3-D ones. The gladiator ones are mostly less than half full.

It’s looking like either 8:30 Wicked at the farther theater with heated seats (currently 2/3 full) or Gladiator at 9 at the closer theater without heated seats (currently 1/3 full.)

Or stay at home! It’s our first chilly night in Florida this year - going down to 65.

I will leave all that up to Brian and let you know!