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

[BrianLo]

Cap is continuing to track like Quantumania internationally. Pulled from Nancy’s articles from both second weekends.

Looks to me increasingly like this is going to be a total struggle bus to reach 400 now. It’s indeed going to be a small loss.

Edit - just noted Nancy says 450, but it’s tracking like 70 behind Quantumania. So I disagree on her read.


“The sophomore overseas frame was $46.4M in 52 markets with a slighter drop than in North America, coming in 57% behind last weekend’s bow — which itself was nevertheless lower than projections owing in part to softness in Asia Pacific. It’s not the worst drop for Marvel, but it’s not great either.”

“Turning back to Cap, the Anthony Mackie/Harrison Ford-starrer dropped 60% in its second international tour (-55% excluding China), and added $35.3M from 52 markets. The overseas running cume is $148.2Mfor $289.4M worldwide. It’s currently pacing slightly behind Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania and The Winter Soldier internationally, and it’s looking like the movie will top out at about $450M worldwide. In Imax, the global cume is $23.3M, of which $10.2M is from overseas.”

 

[BrianLo]

At 2.5x of production, it's going to need $600 Million at the box office to break even.

Honestly - I’ll happily accept 600. I believe Variety a lot more than what I’ve now realized was another stupid puff piece from Caroline Reid. The bane of my internet existence. Variety is even higher, just so we’re clear that I’m not just after the lowest benchmark, more the most credible figure and source.

 

[Disney Irish]

Cap is continuing to track like Quantumania internationally. Pulled from Nancy’s articles from both second weekends.

Looks to me increasingly like this is going to be a total struggle bus to reach 400 now. It’s indeed going to be a small loss.

Edit - just noted Nancy says 450, but it’s tracking like 70 behind Quantumania. So I disagree on her read.


“The sophomore overseas frame was $46.4M in 52 markets with a slighter drop than in North America, coming in 57% behind last weekend’s bow — which itself was nevertheless lower than projections owing in part to softness in Asia Pacific. It’s not the worst drop for Marvel, but it’s not great either.”

“Turning back to Cap, the Anthony Mackie/Harrison Ford-starrer dropped 60% in its second international tour (-55% excluding China), and added $35.3M from 52 markets. The overseas running cume is $148.2Mfor $289.4M worldwide. It’s currently pacing slightly behind Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania and The Winter Soldier internationally, and it’s looking like the movie will top out at about $450M worldwide. In Imax, the global cume is $23.3M, of which $10.2M is from overseas.”

Given where we stand now I don’t think $425M is out of reach, maybe not much more than that but $425M is certainly doable in my opinion. And that would be a disappointment but more of a “we wanted more but we’ll accept this” type of disappointment.

 

[Disney Irish]

Me either! I'm tempted, because Theme Park 2000 seems kind of Late Clinton Era.

I was thinking of changing it to TP3000, to stay hip.

Change it to something that reflects your avatar, Martini Shaking Dog.

 

[BrianLo]

Essay incoming. TLDR - there is meaningful differences between films that "barely break even" and "flops".


I completed a quick home work assignment. Which I think might be helpful for those newer to the hobby, from a decade when Disney is retroactively seen as nearly the uncontested Box Office Ruler.

A couple of points I want to make;

1) Look how consistently inconsistent the company is - 2024 may have been on an unusually consistent end and 2023 on the very poor end. But in the broader sense they are not really abnormal. No studios are really at risk of anything befalling them. Maybe if the 2023 pattern held fast and hard, but it also didn't.

2) I wanted to create the second list to make a point that there IS a meaningful difference between vernacular.

-Just start by glancing through the first list. Things that are clear bombs. Things that lost the company well over 100m dollars.
-Look at the second list. Things that missed, maybe lost some change, maybe barely broke even, maybe made small change.
-Consider how, with time, Disney sits and interacts on these various films from the two categories. The second list is NOT a list of highly successful films; but there is a meaningful interplay here. Many films today that people want to write off as failures in our context today aren't really how the company interacts with these franchises. There's a difference between Big Failure and Big Success; but there exists (Multiple!) categories in between. A band that perhaps isn't as bad as it is made out to be. Perhaps not an amazing place to live. Next time someone trots out the company doesn't make films to barely break even, that's certainly true. But that doesn't make the film totally DOA either. It takes a huge miss for a film or franchise to really be a major failure.

3) Let's just quickly recap a few more recent films
-Mufasa has fallen actually onto a third list I haven't produced. There's the next step up category with things that are actually moderately successful. Bringing in 3X-4X their budgets. It's almost exactly 3.5X right now. The company will interact positively with this film moving forward.
-Precluding the fourth categories, smash hits (4X+, 5X+ and beyond). No one debates this, we had three last year.
-Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes belongs in this second grouping; I anticipate the series will continue in some form like others on this list have.
-Cap 4 also looks like it's falling into the second grouping; I anticipate we'll not get a stand alone follow up, but Anthony Mackie also won't exactly disappear.


Presented as (Box Office / Production Budget)

Bomb/Flop (Around or <1.5X)
2010 - Prince of Persia (336/200), The Sorcerers Apprentice (215/150)
2011 - Mars Needs Moms (39/150),
2012 - John Carter (284/200)
2013 - The Lone Ranger (260/215)
2014 - Million Dollar Arm (38/25)*Not really a tentpole
2015-Tomorrowland (209/190), Good Dinosaur (332/200)
2016-Alice Through the Looking Glass (299/170), The BFG (195/140)
2017-
2018-A Wrinkle in Time (132/103), Solo (392/275)
2019-Dark Phoenix (252/200), The Nutcracker and the Four Realms (173/120)

"Disappointing" (Mostly 1.75-2.75X films)
2010 - Tangled (591/260), Tron: Legacy (400/170)
2011 - Cars 2 (559/200), Winnie the Pooh (49/30)*, Captain America: First Avenger (370/140), Thor (449/150)
2012 - Brave (538/185), Frankenweenie (81/39)*
2013 - Oz: the Great and Powerful (493/215)
2014 - Muppets: Most Wanted (80/50)*Kind of a bubble, bubble
2015 -
2016 - Pete's Dragon (143/65)
2017 - Cars 3 (383/175)
2018 - Christopher Robin (197/75)
2019 - Mary Poppins: Returns (349/130), Dumbo (353/170), Malificient: Mistress of Evil (491/185)


Thank you for attending my TED talk.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It really depends if you’re buying that $180 number…you probably shouldn’t

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Me either! I'm tempted, because Theme Park 2000 seems kind of Late Clinton Era.

I was thinking of changing it to TP3000, to stay hip.



Really? Disney themselves bragged pre-opening that they were spending $140 Million on marketing for The Little Mermaid last year. Are they really already announcing their marketing spend for Snow White, or is that number coming from non-Disney sources?

I will say, this past weekend my YouTube channels exploded with Snow White commercials that were often 90 seconds long. I clicked off as soon as it let me, but I chuckled at how they tried to frame it as being a sacred Walt Disney treasure from 1937. Don't tell Miss Zegler that, she'll be mad!

EDIT: Okay, before I hit reply I went to the Google myself, which is a bad source of AI generated misinformation and I should have done at least 10 minutes of my own research at the library in the morning and then presented a bibliography and my findings. But anyway....

Variety is saying Snow White had a production budget of $240 Million! Sadly, that's not shocking given recent Disney bloat and the panicky rewrites and rework they had to give this film after the Seven Portland Hipsters fiasco, and whatever damage Miss Zegler did to the movie with her own charming commentary.

So a $140 Million marketing budget suddenly seems believable. The standard 50% of production for marketing would be $120 Million, so $140 Million isn't a stretch. Hopefully it's because they really salvaged this movie from its first incarnation circa late 2023, and the know they'll have a Billion dollar hit on their hands.

At 2.5x of production, it's going to need $600 Million at the box office to break even. At a 60/40 domestic/foreign box office split which may be favorable to it if it's big domestically, it's going to need at least $720 Million to break even.

Hi Ho, kids! And good luck!

Around 700 million looks like the average.

The production budget for Disney’s Snow White is at $269.4 million as of December 2023, from Disney’s financial filings reported by Forbes.

Another Forbes article from December 6, 2024, detailed a $55.5 million tax rebate from the UK’s Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit, reducing the net production cost to $213.9 million

The $140 million marketing cost is an assumption based on trends for similar Disney live-action remakes like TLM where marketing was $140 million for a $250 million production, a 56% ratio.

A simple 50% split yields roughly $708 million.

My assumption is the 140 million marketing/advertising cost and I could be wrong on that but it seems in line with industry norms.

How Disney Saved $55.5 Million On ‘Snow White’ Remake

For a film based on one of the most famous stories of all time, the production of Disney's upcoming live action remake of Snow White has been anything but a fairytale.

www.forbes.com

Disney Reveals ‘Snow White’ Remake Is Set To Blow Its Budget

Disney has revealed that the cost of making its live action Snow White ballooned to $269.4 million by the end of 2023 putting it on course to blow its budget more than a year before release.

www.forbes.com

 

[Baloo124]

I don’t think you’ve understood what film I’m talking about. I’m discussing The Monkey.

LOVED it! A real classic. The parts on Skull Island were exciting enough, but what really won me over was the climactic climb up the Empire State Building and standoff against the dive-bomber airplanes.

Wait... which monkey movie are we talking about?

 

[Disstevefan1]

As long as Disney can keep Cap in the theaters money will continue to trickle in.

 

[DKampy]

…I’m not sure there’s a difference? Because “silly” was a takeaway

Even if you’re talking about the ridiculousness or super heroes

The ones that seem less absurd are the ones that last.

What do my personal favorites have in common?

X2
The Nolans
Superman
Winter soldier

…I’d say you can “suspend disbelief” because it’s the least absurd takes?

Just me

What does comic book movies have to do with comedic horror movies

Evil Dead has stood the test of time

 

[Agent H]

Yeah…I caught up to that one

It I have to ask: why in the hell would you bother to see that?

Basically I’m weirdly fascinated by it. I was terrified of the monkey toy from Toy Story 3 and now I feel somewhat obligated to see this I don’t know it’s a strange feeling.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Evil Dead has stood the test of time

Shop smart. Shop S-Mart!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What does comic book movies have to do with comedic horror movies

Evil Dead has stood the test of time

We’ve already been over this…I got confused

My bad

 

[BrianLo]

How Disney Saved $55.5 Million On ‘Snow White’ Remake

For a film based on one of the most famous stories of all time, the production of Disney's upcoming live action remake of Snow White has been anything but a fairytale.

www.forbes.com

Disney Reveals ‘Snow White’ Remake Is Set To Blow Its Budget

Disney has revealed that the cost of making its live action Snow White ballooned to $269.4 million by the end of 2023 putting it on course to blow its budget more than a year before release.

www.forbes.com

Please, please, any other author. This particular author has been shown to misconstrue data over and over again. She is not a journalist, she’s a glorified blogger.

In a year we’ll have a breathless meandering (but self-plagerized) update that the production now costs 380M. But that will just bury the lead that it’s the 240 variety reported and the 140 (or 100, or 180) Disney spent on marketing the production.

Any other source. Literally any other source, I beg everyone. I’ll take the rage youtubers, because at least it’s more apparent to random onlookers the source validity. Forbes makes it seem more legitimate than it is.



So rhetorical question for everyone. Why is the presumption that when Disney overruns costs on productions that leads to the immediate assumption they’ll overspend on marketing? They’ll cost cut away at the parks, but movies have no leash? And yet the mantra that marketing is fixed and predetermined remains.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They’ll cost cut away at the parks, but movies have no leash?

Yes of course.

This is Disney's Standard Operating Procedure.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Please, please, any other author. This particular author has been shown to misconstrue data over and over again. She is not a journalist, she’s a glorified blogger.

In a year we’ll have a breathless meandering (but self-plagerized) update that the production now costs 380M. But that will just bury the lead that it’s the 240 variety reported and the 140 (or 100, or 180) Disney spent on marketing the production.

Any other source. Literally any other source, I beg everyone. I’ll take the rage youtubers, because at least it’s more apparent to random onlookers the source validity. Forbes makes it seem more legitimate than it is.



So rhetorical question for everyone. Why is the presumption that when Disney overruns costs on productions that leads to the immediate assumption they’ll overspend on marketing? They’ll cost cut away at the parks, but movies have no leash? And yet the mantra that marketing is fixed and predetermined remains.

There’s a shell game going on with these budgets

Cap 4 went through extensive reshoots…so what did it really cost?

 

[BrianLo]

There’s a shell game going on with these budgets

Cap 4 went through extensive reshoots…so what did it really cost?

As I’ve been told. But when I try and find it in the quarterlies, nothing all our quarterback profiteers project ever materializes.

Mark my words, they will spend 400-500 million EACH on Cap 4 and Snow White when all is said and done. Yea, you heard me right. But not in the breakdown that everyone keeps trying to massage it into.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

My turn for an essay, as things converged before me in the last few days.

1. I heard parts of a long interview with Kevin Costner, probably rerun from several months ago. He kind of brought me back to Earth talking about filmmaking as I suspected/had always heard it was done vs. the often cynical accusations made here.

One thing that struck me was in post-production for The Bodyguard: test audiences were not reacting great, and Costner was in a room with the studio people watching it, and the studio said basically oh well, guess that’s as good as that’s going to get - but Costner knew it was missing about 15 minutes of story. The studio argued it was already too long. So, he personally worked through the night, cutting 10 seconds here and 15 seconds there, to decrease the run time while adding needed story back in. That was the version that was successful.

It came down to one person.

2. I finally saw Joker 2, having heard all kinds of criticisms. I don’t think that film was bad at all. I don’t consider it “a musical” a la Grease, but I understand it wasn’t what bro-nation expected.

I think Joker 2 could have used a touch like Kevin Costner’s to trim the bloat - the slower or unnecessary moments. That could have made the difference in its pacing and reception. Side note: I thought Gaga was excellent.

The larger point is there are so many things that can go wrong in making a hit movie. It can come down to the will of one person, and the power of any one director or actor at that moment in their career. It’s somebody’s pet project, but they won’t get their way on every point, or an unlimited budget.

It’s very easy to see how a project can get jumbled, and then run out of money to make it perfect, and you just have to release it to get something back.

Business is not idealistic. There will always be push and pull between the creatives and the bean counters. You need both, like Walt & Roy.

If not for the studio reeling Costner in, The Bodyguard may have been 15 minutes longer and not as good. If not for Costner, it may have been released with a confusing storyline and been an embarrassment for him and Whitney.

 

[TP2000]

Around 700 million looks like the average.

The production budget for Disney’s Snow White is at $269.4 million as of December 2023, from Disney’s financial filings reported by Forbes.

Another Forbes article from December 6, 2024, detailed a $55.5 million tax rebate from the UK’s Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit, reducing the net production cost to $213.9 million

The $140 million marketing cost is an assumption based on trends for similar Disney live-action remakes like TLM where marketing was $140 million for a $250 million production, a 56% ratio.

A simple 50% split yields roughly $708 million.

My assumption is the 140 million marketing/advertising cost and I could be wrong on that but it seems in line with industry norms.

How Disney Saved $55.5 Million On ‘Snow White’ Remake

For a film based on one of the most famous stories of all time, the production of Disney's upcoming live action remake of Snow White has been anything but a fairytale.

www.forbes.com

Disney Reveals ‘Snow White’ Remake Is Set To Blow Its Budget

Disney has revealed that the cost of making its live action Snow White ballooned to $269.4 million by the end of 2023 putting it on course to blow its budget more than a year before release.

www.forbes.com

Very interesting, thank you! This will be helpful to use next month as we track Snow White.

And as Captain America 4 is already fading fast, it appears Miss White will have Disney's box office all to herself.

Please, please, any other author. This particular author has been shown to misconstrue data over and over again. She is not a journalist, she’s a glorified blogger.

In a year we’ll have a breathless meandering (but self-plagerized) update that the production now costs 380M. But that will just bury the lead that it’s the 240 variety reported and the 140 (or 100, or 180) Disney spent on marketing the production.

Any other source. Literally any other source, I beg everyone. I’ll take the rage youtubers, because at least it’s more apparent to random onlookers the source validity. Forbes makes it seem more legitimate than it is.



So rhetorical question for everyone. Why is the presumption that when Disney overruns costs on productions that leads to the immediate assumption they’ll overspend on marketing? They’ll cost cut away at the parks, but movies have no leash? And yet the mantra that marketing is fixed and predetermined remains.

I'll trust you that this particular author is not someone you'd invite to a dinner party.

That said, this did appear in Forbes. While it's not 1995 any more, and journalism and news magazines are not the force they once were, it's Forbes. There has to still be a couple of editors and a skeleton crew of a legal department on the payroll there.

I'd trust an article in Forbes a heckuva lot more than I'd trust a raging YouTuber broadcasting from their bedroom.

Forbes

Forbes is a global media company, focusing on business, investing, technology, entrepreneurship, leadership, and lifestyle.

www.forbes.com

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Please, please, any other author. This particular author has been shown to misconstrue data over and over again. She is not a journalist, she’s a glorified blogger.

In a year we’ll have a breathless meandering (but self-plagerized) update that the production now costs 380M. But that will just bury the lead that it’s the 240 variety reported and the 140 (or 100, or 180) Disney spent on marketing the production.

Any other source. Literally any other source, I beg everyone. I’ll take the rage youtubers, because at least it’s more apparent to random onlookers the source validity. Forbes makes it seem more legitimate than it is.



So rhetorical question for everyone. Why is the presumption that when Disney overruns costs on productions that leads to the immediate assumption they’ll overspend on marketing? They’ll cost cut away at the parks, but movies have no leash? And yet the mantra that marketing is fixed and predetermined remains.

I'm not going to play that game and debate whether Forbes and Caroline Reid are credible—I believe their reporting.

They've cited Disney’s financial filings showing Snow White’s production cost at $269.4 million by the end of 2023, and that’s solid enough for me.

If you have a problem with it, please don’t point the finger at me as the reader; be proactive and contact Forbes directly to prove she’s wrong.

You can reach out to them via their official contact page at Forbes Contact Us, or email their editorial team at feedback@forbes.com—that’s where you can submit complaints or evidence to challenge her work.

Why should I trust you, BrianLo? Why should you trust me? All we are are glorified WDWForum Users, tossing around opinions on a message board. Forbes has the resources and access to Disney’s filings; we’re just fans speculating. Let’s see what Forbes says if you take it up with them.